We are very disappointed to read (Doug Hissom's) blog dated Feb. 29, 2008 due to a number of factual errors and misstatements. We feel that the City of Milwaukee has always been responsive to your requests for information, however, we are extremely disappointed that we were not given the opportunity to respond to this article prior to its
publication.

We would like to respond to some statements made in your article.

1. The multi-space meters did not fail. The batteries were fully operational. The receipt window, coin receptor and keypads on some multi-space meters did ice up after the storm on January 29, but after some use and with the help of the sun, usage of the meters increased as the day progressed. There are 103 LUKE meters installed covering nearly 1,100 parking spaces. There are approximately 5,200 single-spaced meters. Due to the extreme cold weather many, if not most, of the single-spaced meters failed. The initial calls we received on January 29 were complaints that the single-spaced meters were malfunctioning. Consequently it made sense for DPW to not enforce any meters that day. However, we could see transactions occurring on the multi-space meters throughout the day.

2. The LUKE meters have performed well in Alaska and Canada.

3. The City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purchase and installation of multi-space meters on September 19, 2006. The actual specifications (4.1.2 of the RFP) require "Primary power for the unit shall be a commercially available heavy-duty (high performance) battery and/or an integrated solar panel." All four finalists submitted proposals that had meters powered by batteries. The LUKE is powered by two 12 volt batteries. Three of the four finalists offered solar power to keep the batteries charged, including the winning vendor. At no point were these specifications "changed at the last minute" as you allege.

Based on research conducted by staff, we were not convinced that the batteries of any proposed meter would keep a continuous charge by utilizing solar power, particularly in extremely cold weather.

Given the weather conditions experienced in Milwaukee we wanted a consistent and reliable energy source to ensure the batteries would be charged at all times. Instead the City decided to utilize electrical power from the street lights to recharge the batteries at night. The City saved $1,058 per unit by removing the solar panel ($111,090 in total). The cost to install the power connection to the street lights totaled $55,000. The annual electrical cost is estimated to total $1,000/year. As a result, the City saved approximately $55,000 in the first year.

In addition, the RFP states "Unit shall be able to operate in a temperature range from -20 degrees F to +140 degrees F and 100% non-condensing humidity. Unit shall remain fully functional under harsh weather conditions that may include: snow and salt, fine grain sand, grime, wind driven rain, high levels of prolonged humidity, normal vibrations and minor levels of vandalism." Two finalists indicated they were "compliant" with this specification (although no proof was provided other than the meters are installed in cold climates). One finalist indicated that "At temperatures below +5 degrees F and above +131 degrees F, performance can deteriorate but the meters continue to function.
Under those conditions, the display panel and printer speeds begin to slow down. The meters operate in non-condensing humidity up to 98 percent.

When humidity increases to 100 percent, some erratic behavior can occur but essential memory and messaging functions are not affected." These meters are installed throughout Europe. Digital responded that the LUKE meters have been laboratory tested between -13 degrees F to +104 degrees F with 95 percent relative humidity. In addition, Digital has purchased a climate chamber to replicate the variable weather conditions experienced in Milwaukee.

4. In your article you alleged that "one vendor filed a formal complaint to the City about its process, especially since at the time it was the only bidder on the project." The City received six proposals of which four were selected as finalists. Further, we are
not aware of any formal complaint filed. We received some e-mails and letters from vendors after the winning vendor was announced and we responded to their questions accordingly.

5. You also allege that the "vendor complained that the bidding guidelines were so specific as to favor one company, accusing the DPW of slanting the bid with proprietary specifications." DPW hired Walter P. Moore Consultants to prepare the RFP. We never
received any such complaint regarding this RFP after reviewing all the correspondence received. In fact DPW in consultation with our consultant made many of the functional requirements optional so as not to preclude any vendor from making a proposal. You also allege that the "bid required no performance bond to protect the city in case the things didn't work." Performance bonds are required for "service contracts" not for commodity purchases. The contract negotiated with the winning vendor required a payment schedule based on installation and performance requirements.

6. In your article you state "after some modifications to the proposal, the city chose Digital Payment Technologies." Typically in an RFP process addendums are issued to clarify provisions or to correct errors or omissions. Five addendums were issued for this RFP. You are free to review these addendums, however, none of the addendums were related to the issues above.

7. You also state in your article that the screens are hard to see and directions difficult to follow. We have received some complaints regarding the difficulties in reading the screens. The LUKE has an LCD screen and in direct sunlight can be difficult to read. We are exploring options to correct this problem.

8. We would disagree with your other statement that the directions are difficult to follow. The directions are prominently displayed at the top of the meter in four easy steps. One of the best features of the LUKE meter is its ease of use compared to all other multi-space meters on the market. We do understand, however, that some people find the meters difficult to use at first, but this would be true of any new technology. We are
very pleased that many people find the LUKE meters easy to use based on the number of transactions processed daily. According to data, a high of 21,300 transactions were processed through the meters on a weekly basis (Monday through Friday) with over 40 percent of revenue being generated by credit cards.

It is important to understand that any new technology introduced to and used by the public can be a challenge. However, it should not preclude the City from making investments in technology. There isn't a city in this country that has installed multi-space parking meters that hasn't had to contend with a learning curve from the public. We are committed to making LUKE meters a success in Milwaukee.