2005_0124_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As a company who provides trash receptacles at every stop we serve, I understand why Transtop did not want to be responsible for this level of service. The trash receptacle requires additional concrete pad area at each stop and both the concrete and receptacle add about $800 to the initial investment. The cost for weekly service goes up significantly because it requires two visits per week with longer time spent at each stop. This means more service crews are needed to make the rounds. We estimate that there is $60 of expense per shelter added each month associated with the trash service. When multiplied by the 20 shelters proposed, we will spend $1200 more each month to provide trash service. When compared to the value of trash service of $60 per shelter per month, along with the improved appearance from reducing trash along the streets, there is less value to the city in taking a higher revenue share with no trash service. While OPI would benefit from eliminating the trash service and could switch to a higher revenue share, we have found that the value of our program with trash service is much improved for the cities we serve. As the date drew near for the December meeting with the Public Works Commission to review the proposals, Transtop finally realized that their proposal of no trash receptacles would not find favor and they made a last minute change two days before the meeting to comply with the city's ordinance and agreed to provide trash receptacles. Their revenue proposal was changed to only match what OPI had proposed. Outdoor Promotions' agreement was tabled last year to investigate the opportunity to see if Transtop would provide a better program. I certainly respect staffs pursuit of the best possible program for the citizens of Roseville. But in addition to revenue, it is important to partner with a vender who has demonstrated a high level of cooperation and commitment beyond just protecting territory from potential competition. OPI did not approach the opportunity with Roseville by complaining or objecting to the level of service that staff was seeking. We shared agreements from other cities to help staff consider all the important elements even though they would prove to add expense to our program. OPI has proactively pursued the opportunity to serve the city of Roseville for three years. We have diligently worked with staff through multiple meetings to provide information, sample programs, shelter examples, etc. to bring the program to the point of implementation. We proposed a program which has now proven to exceed what the local vender was willing to provide which they only agreed to match ours after they realized their desired level of service was unacceptable. The City's ordinance provides for a vender to enter into a nonexclusive agreement with the city to provide shelters. I presume this would allow multiple venders, providing the city is satisfied with the vender's qualifications. However, OPI submitted our location list and application for a franchise to serve the city of Roseville many months ago and therefore it would seem appropriate to approve our request since we were first to apply. If the City decides that having two venders is in its best interest and accepts a second