Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sfmta Advertising Window Wraps topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee pauses SFMTA plan to allow full window wraps amid revenue guarantee concerns

Budget and Finance Subcommittee · July 14, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SFMTA asked the subcommittee to approve an amendment allowing full window wraps on a small share of vehicles to raise about $500,000 annually; the budget analyst recommended continuing the item so SFMTA could negotiate a higher minimum guarantee with Titan Outdoor, and the committee continued the item to the call of the chair.

The subcommittee considered Item 5, a proposed amendment to the SFMTA advertising contract with Titan Outdoor LLC to allow advertising that covers vehicle windows on up to 5% of buses and 10% of light‑rail vehicles.

Gail Stein of the SFMTA said the change would allow Titan to offer full window wraps on a limited number of vehicles (the agency estimated 42 buses and 15 light‑rail vehicles, or 57 vehicles of 993 total), and that Titan projected roughly $500,000 in additional annual revenue from wrap sales. SFMTA incorporated that estimate into its FY2011–12 budget. Stein noted the amendment would not permit wraps on historic vehicles or cable cars.

The budget analyst’s report projected Titan would pay a minimum annual guarantee of approximately $4.148 million in the current contract year and recommended that the committee continue the item to allow SFMTA to secure an increase in the contractor’s minimum annual guarantee by $500,000 to reflect estimated wrap revenues. The analyst wrote that Titan Outdoor and SFMTA disagreed with the recommendation, with Titan arguing that increasing the minimum guarantee would be a risk in the current ad market.

Supervisors on the panel expressed concern about adopting the amendment absent stronger assurances the city would receive the additional revenue. The committee voted to continue the item to the call of the chair to permit further negotiation.

No public comment on the item was recorded at the subcommittee.