The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 BUS SHELTER PROG 01-03-95 NO. 14 E N DA Inter-Corn DATE: JANUARY 3, 1995 ¥0: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS PROGRAM (P.W. FILE NO. 1092) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Patrick-Target Media for an exclusive advertising bus shelter franchise agreement. FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated that the Patrick-Target proposal, as modified to reflect approved locations, will result in annual revenue of approximately $68,880 to the City or $344,400 over the life of the minimum term of the franchise agreement. In addition, Patrick- Target would also provide approximately $45,898 in potential additional benefit to the City in the way of non-advertising shelters, concrete benches, maintenance and City Public Service Announcement Panels. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City Council approved the Request for Proposals for Advertising Bus Shelters at their July '5, 1994 meeting. The City advertised and solicited proposals and received three responses from the following firms: Patrick-Target, Gannett Transit and Metro Display. To evaluate the proposals received, the Proposal Evaluation Committee was selected and comprised of the following individuals: Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Kathy Weil, Planning Commissioner Ron Nault,-Finance Director Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer Katie Pitcher, Administrative Assistant II The Committee scheduled and met on five occasions. Each meeting had a specific agenda. They were as follows: RFP Minimum Requirements Review Business/City Reference Checks and Financial Review Proposed Locations Review Proposed Locations Review/Final Selections Proposal Evaluations/Ranking Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus Shelters Program January 3, 1995 Page 2 RFP Minimum Requirements Review Attachment "A" gives a breakdown of all minimum requirements contained in the RFP. Each proposal met the minimum requirements. Business/City Reference Checks and Financial Review The Committee members shared the responsibility for conducting the reference checks for each of the respondents. Attachment "B" is a list of the questions asked. The following are the results of the reference checks: Patrick-Target Media - Excellent references. The cities contacted rated the contractor as responsive, professional and cooperative. Gannett Transit - Excellent references. The cities contacted gave strong recommendations and rated their responsiveness as very good. Metro Display - The cities contacted indicated that there had been a previous problem with the collection of franchise fees when the company went through bankruptcy proceedings. One city also reported a problem with shelter maintenance during that time, although it was indicated that the contractor did respond immediately when called by the city. All delinquent franchise fees were ultimately paid. Financial Reviews of the Pro Forma's contained in each proposal were completed by the Finance Director and Community Development Department staff. Two proposals (Patrick-Target Media and Gannett Transit) initially lacked adequate information to conduct a complete analysis, however, when additional information was requested to facilitate the review it was provided in a timely manner. Metro Display and Patrick-Target's Pro Forma's were subsequently deemed acceptable, although there remained some concerns regarding Gannett's Pro Forma. Proposed Location Review Each company proposed a different number of advertising shelters as shown below. The Proposal Evaluation Committee also reviewed each o the proposed locations in detail, taking into consideration existing right-of-way constraints and the surrounding area (Attachment "C"). The following is the number of locations that were proposed, the actual number that were found acceptable by the Proposal Evaluation Committee, and the number of non-advertising shelters proposed (not a requirement in the RFP): Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus Shelters Program January 3, 1995 Page 3 PROPOSER Patrick-Target 75 Gannett Transit 25 Metro Display NUMBER OF ADV. SHELTERS 20 NUMBER OF ACCEPTABLE LOCATIONS NUMBER OF NON-ADV. SHELTERS 44 50 15 8 11 Franchise Fees and Revenue Generation The following is a breakdown of the franchise fees and other items originally proposed by each respondent to the RFP: Patrick-Target: $125 per month per shelter 1% of gross advertising revenue Gannett Transit $100 per month per shelter 2% of gross advertising revenue Metro Display $100 per month per shelter 25% of gross advertising revenue above revenue of $104,950. Patrick-Target received the highest rating by the Evaluation Committee at 91.6 points. The significant difference between Patrick-Target, s proposal and the other two was its overall financial value. The Committee evaluated and financially analyzed each proposal based upon the original proposed number of shelters by each company as well as the number of approved shelters. As shown in Attachment "D", Patrick-Target,s approved locations will result in $68,880.00 annual revenue to the City and $344,400.00 over the life of the minimum term of the franchise agreement (five years). This compares to Gannett with annual revenue of $19,377.00 for approved locations (15 out of 25 proposed), or $96,885.00 over the minimum term and Metro Display with annual revenue of $13,200.00 for approved locations (11 out of 20 proposed) or $66,000.00 over the minimum term. These numbers excluded the additional items proposed by each company which are detailed in both Attachment "A" and Attachment "D". It is important to note that preliminary financial assessment of each proposal is intended to be an illustration of the value based upon the proposal as submitted and review and may be modified due to the outcome of the negotiations. The following is a summation for each proposal of the total points received utilizing the criteria in the evaluation form: Authorization to Enter into Negotiations for Advertising Bus Shelters Program January 3, 1995 Page 4 Patrick-Target 91.6 Points Gannett Transit 78.2 Points Metro Display 59.8 Points CONCLUSION Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of each response, staff is requesting authorization to enter into negotiations with Patrick- Target Media for an exclusive advertising bus shelter franshise. Christine Shingleton Assistant City ~anager }~a~ie Pitcher Administrative Assistant II cs: KP: ccg: negbussh Attachment · ... ATTACHMENT A w Z 0 0 II 0 o '"-- n n o II ATTACHMENT B CITY OF TUSTIN BUS SHELTER RFP REFERENCE CHECK .Ci~_ References Suggested Inquiries le What is the length of the relationship between contractor and city? 2. How many shelters? 3. How would you rate the performance of the contractor overall? . How is the contractor's maintenance of the shelters (graffiti removal, trash enclosures, damage)? . 6. Are the franchise fee and other payments made on time? Have you ever had any problems regarding advertisement content? e Would you recommend using this contractor for future contracts with your city? . Any additional comments you would like to provide? ATTACHMENT C CITY OF TUS33~ PROPOSEr) ADVERTISING BUS SHEL~ RIGHT- P - PATRICK NOT OF LOCATION G - GANNET iACCEPT ACCEPT WAY M - METRO COMMENTS X 9 1. EB 17th St. FS Enderle Center (P,G,M) X 9 2. EB 17th St. NS Prospect (S Leg) (P,M) - X 15 3. WB 17th St. FS Prospect (bi Leg) (P,G) X 15 4. WB 17th St. FS Treehaven (P,G) X 15 5. EB 17th St. FS Yorba (S Leg) (P,M) X $ 6. WB 17th St. FS Yorba (P,M,G) ~$~:;~:.::~::~::.:~:~:~.....:~.:~:~ ................................................................................. X 8 17. EB Ist St. FS "B" St. (P) Old Town Area X 8 lg. Wig 1st St. FS "B" St. (P) X $ 19. EB Ist St. FS Centennial (Zone 1) (P,M) Existing Shelter X $ I0. EB Ist St. FS Centennial (Zone 3) (P) Existing Shelter X 8 11. WB 1st St. FS Fashion (P) X $ 12. WB.lst St. FS Newport (P) - · X 8 13. EB 1st St. FS Pacific (P) X 8 14. EB 1st St. FS Prospect (P,M) Existing Shelter X $ 15. WB 1st St. FS Prospect (P) X 7 16. EB 1st St. OPP Tustin (P) X $ 17. WB 1st St, FS Yorba (P) ,v.-.v.-.-...-.........~...'-:;-5:.5:.:.:.:.:..'.5:.:.:.5 :.:.:.".:.~.5:.:.:.%::::::::::::::~:~:~:-:-:.-:::;::: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~:~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: X 8 18. WB Bryan NS Cindy (P) X 8 19. EB Bryan OPP White Sand (P) X 8 20. EB Edinger NS Del Arno (P,G) Last Phase (Coast. after turnout) X 8 21. WB Edinger FS Red Hill (P,G) :.~.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-::.,. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: X 8 22. WB El Camino Real FS Entr. THS (P) X 12 23. WB El Camino Real FS Newport (P,G) Existing Old Town shelter X 8 24. SB Franklin FS Chambers (P) X 8 25. EB Irvine FS "B" Street (P) X 8 26. EB Irvine OPP Charloma (P) X ,-. 8 !27. EB Irvine FS Newport (P) X 8 !28. EB Irvine NS Prospect (P) X 8 29. WB Irvine FS Prospect (P) X 8 30. EB Irvine FS Yorba (P) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::?-.":?:!:::!:!:!-'.-':?:!:i:!:?.'.::!:?:!:i:!-'.::i: ?'..:::' ~-?:.":'!!.'.'-:!:i:?-[::::::.-'.:::.:!:.:::'-i-'::::::: ....:::::::::..:::::::::::..:::::::..::::..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: X 8 31. WB Main FS Centennial (P) Old Town Area X 8 32. EB Main FB Newport (P) X 8 33. WB Main NS Newport (P) X 12 34. WB Main NS Prospect (P) Old Town Area '" ~iSiSi!i~SiS}.:.'"':i~i~'-".'''-'~'~i : ~'-'".'-.":'.?.~ ~-'.::5~[?-5:!: 5.'.: ~'-'.":5:~ .'."[.~!:5:?-~'.'.:-'.:-'>.': ~-'.-':.::.-':..':5:5:5:5i..'.5:5~3.'.-'.5!5 !555!.:5555i 5~i 5.:5i55555i555:5:~:5:5:5:5:5:~:5:5:;'.-'-::' :5 :.-': 5i.-'-: ~5755i ~:..-'.:.-'5~5~555~5-'.-'..::.~i 5~--'-'. ?..::~:...:5:~:5:i~.:..%..5i:~:~:i:~:~:~:~...::5:~:i:~...:~:...:.::~:~:~:~:~:i:~:~:~:?~..;..:.. -';'~.'~Si:~:i-'.::.:' -' .' ;'i~: '-5: -"~?Sx 3%'~-' :.-':.:.'-~:;~.';';'5:? · - -,,..,. - - ~ ........ ~-~-~.?.-a.?..-.-.-.-.-.-...-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~-.-.-.-...*.~.-.;.;.? ?-.;.?;.;.;.,;.....;.7.;.;...:v... v.-.-.-.-.-.-.v .v.-.-.-. X 8 35,. WB McFadden FS Newport (P,G) X 8 36. WB McFadden FS Tustin Village (P) X 8 37. EB McFadden NS Walnut (P) X 8 38. WB McFadden FS Williams (P) * = NON-ADVERTISING BENCH OKAY CITY OF TUSTIN PROPOSED ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS RIGHT- P - PATRICK NOT OF LOCATION G - GANNET ACCEPT ACCEPT WAY M - METRO COMMENTS i:i:i:!:~:~:!:~:~:ii:i:!:!:i:i:i.~:!:~...::i:!:!:i:!:!:!:i:i:i:!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:i:i:...:~:i:i:...:i::i~:i:i:i:i:i:i:~:~:i:~:i:~:::::::::::::::::::::i:~...::i:!:i:i:i.....::.: ' X 7 39. SB Newport FS Ist Street (P,M) ...................... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ............. :::::::..::5:5*5*~:5*5..~:5:~:5:5:~:5*5:5:5:5:~.....5~5~5555.:...~5!~5~55.:5~5~5555~55555~5!~!5!~!5!~5?~3..!5!~. X 8 40. NB Newport NS Bryan (P,M) ' X 7 41. SB Newport OPP Bryan_ (P,M) · X 7 42. SB Newport OPP Bryan (300') (P) X $ i43. SB Newport FB El C. amino Real (P,G,M) Old Town Area X $ i44. NB Newport OPP Holt (P,M) · X 7 45. SB Newport NS Holt (P,M) ' X 8 46. NB NewportFS Irvine (P) ' X $ 47. SB Newport NS Irvine (P,M,G) X 8 48. SB Newport FS Mitchell (P,M,G) X 8 48A. NB Newport FS Mitchell (G) X $ 49. NB Newport FS Walnut (P,G) X $ 50. NB Newport NS Wass (P) X $. 51. SB Newport OPP Wass (P) X 8 52. NB Red Hill FS Batranca (P,G) X 9 53. SB Red Hill FS Bell (P,G) X 8 54. SB Red Hill OPP Copperfield (P,M) X 9 55. NB Red Hill FS Edingcr (P,G,M) X 8 56. SB Red Hill FS Edinger (P,G) X 8 57. NB Red Hill FS El Camino Real (P,G) X 8 58. SB Red Hill NS El Camino Real (P,G,M) X 8 59. SB Red Hill S Mitchell (P) X $ 60. SB Red Hill FS Nisson (300') (P) X 9 61. NB Red Hill FS Parkway Loop (P) X $ !62. NB Red Hill NS San Juan (P) X $ 63. SB Red Hill FS San Juan (P) X 8 64. SB Red Hill FS Santa Fe (P) X $ 65. NB Red Hill @ MCAS (P) Existing Wood Shelter X 9 66. SB Red Hill NS Valencia (P,M). X 8 67. SB Red Hill FS Walnut (P) X 8 68. NB Red Hill OPP Warner (P) _ X 8 69. WB Walnut OPP Del Arno (P) X 8 170. EB Walnut FS Newport (P,G) X 8 71. EB Walnut FS Red Hill (P) Pad in Ivy X $ 72. WB Walnut FS Red Hill (P) X 8 73. WB Walnut FS Silverbrook (P) _ X 8 73A. WB Walnut NS Tustin Ran_ch Road (G) _ X 8 74. EB Walnut FS Tustin Ronch (P,G) _ X B 75. SB Yorba FS Irvine (P) AY ATTACHMENT D CITY OF TUSTIN REVENUES- STREET FURNITURE- SERVICES PATRICK TARGET MEDIA 75 ADVERTISING BUS SItELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS) $125.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $5.45 (1% of Gross Advertising Revenue) $112,500.00 $4~905.00 $130.45 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter) $117,405.00 20 Non Advertising Bus Shelters 50 Concrete Bus Benches Maintenance: 20 Non Advertising Shelters 7 City Owned Bus Shelters 50 Concrete Bus Benches City Public Service Panels 50 Posters (Poster Printing) TOTAL $70,000.00 $20,000.00 $9,600.00 $3,600.00 $9,600.00 $6,250.00 $236,455.00 44 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS) $125.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $5.45 (1% of Gross Advertising Revenue) $66,000.00 $2,880.00 $130.45 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter) $68,880.00 4 Non Advertising Bus Shelters 34 Concrete Bus Benches Maintenance: 4 Non Advertising Shelters 7 City Owned Bus Shelters 34 Concrete Bus Benches City Public Service Panels 50 Posters (Poster Printing) TOTAL $14,000.00 $13,600.00 $1,920.00 $3,60O.0O $6,528.00 $6,250.00 $114,778.00 CITY OF TUSTIN REVENUES - STREET FURNITURE- SERVICES GANNETI' TRANSIT 25 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS) $100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $30,000.00 $7.65 ]~2% of Gross Advertising Revenue)_ $2,295.00 $107.65 Total Revenue ~Per Month Per Shelter) $32295.00 8 ~Tree-Style' Park Benches Valued Added Program (Tree or Donation to Community Foundation) TOTAL $8,800.00 $2,500.00 $43,595.00 15 ADVERTISING BUS SItELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS) $100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $18,000.00 $7.65 (2% of Gross Advertisi~ $1.377.00 $107.65 Total Revenue ~'Per Month Per ShelteQ $19.377.00 8 "Tree-Style" Park Benches Value Added Program (Trees or Donation to Community Foundation) TOTAL $8,800.00 $2,500.00 $30~677.00 CITY OF TUSTIN REVENUES - STREET FURNITURE - SERVICES METRO DISPLAY 20 ADVERTISING BUS SItELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS) $100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $0.00 (25% of Gross Advertising; Revenue after $104,950.00 *) $24,000.00 $0.00 $100.00 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for f'u-st 2 years) $24,000.00 TOTAL $24,000.00 11 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (APPROVED LOCATIONS) $100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $0.00 (25% of Gross Advertising Revenue after $104,950.00 *) $13,200.00 $0.00 $100.00 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for first 2 years) $13,200.00 TOTAL $13~200.00 BUS SHELTER REVENUE - YEAR 3 20 ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS (PROPOSED LOCATIONS) $100.00 Guaranteed Minimum Fee - Per Month Per Shelter $87.42 (25% of Gross Advertising Revenue after $104,950.00 *) $24,000.00 $20,998.28 $187.42 Total Revenue (Per Month Per Shelter for first 2 years) $44,980.80 * Metro Display proposes 25% of gross advertising revenue to be paid for revenue generated above $104.950. This is not anticipated to be until the third year of the contract. .. ATTACHMENT E CITY OF TUSTIN PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM ~,OPOSAL: Evaluator's Name: 'oposing Firm: Date: RATING * WEIGHT SCORE CRITERIA (1-5) FACTOR (COLUMN I x COMMENTS I II COLUMN II) aalifications of Firm ~lated experience levanee of recently ,mpleted work) 2 asiness/City References 3 aaneial Review 2 'anchise Fee/Revenue ~neration 3 amber of Proposed Shelter Locations 2 amber of Acceptable Shelter Locations 2 ahntenanee Program 3 ~asonableness of Capital ~grovement COnstruction Schedule ' 1 elter Design Options 2 'se Scale of I - 5, ,,ith 5 as best rating TOTAL (100 points possible)