pages: OaklandRedevelopmentSuccessorAgencyandtheCityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | text | page | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OaklandRedevelopmentSuccessorAgencyandtheCityCouncil | 2016-10-18 | Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland Meeting Minutes - FINAL October 18, 2016 Redevelopment Successor Agency and the City Council 13 Subject: 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Reports/City of Oakland From: Office Of The City Administrator Recommendation: Receive The Draft Informational Response Prepared By The City Administration And Authorize The City Council President To Co-Sign With The Mayor A Response To The 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Titled "City Of Oakland's Costly Pursuit Of Zero Waste Franchise Contracts." 16-0241 Sponsors: Office Of The City Administrator Attachments: View Report Supplemental Report View Supplemental Report There were 4 speakers on this item. The amendments were as follows: 1. Number 16-6 of Findings change in the Status of Implementation second sentence to read: " An area where this was not the case was for commercial organics collection services. " 2. Number 16-7 of Findings change in the Administration Response to "Partially" Disagree, noting this amendment by Councilmember Kaplan. 3. Number 16-9 of Findings change the second sentence in the Status of Implementation as follows: "The official contracting process was interrupted and superseded by the WMAC lawsuit and the resulting negotiations and settlement, which resulted in the "subsequent negotiation with City Staff and" conclusion of the new contracts very close in time to the termination of the prior contracts." 4. Number 16-12 of Findings change in the Administration Response to "Partially" Agree and add in the Status of Implementation as last sentence stating: "For those ratepayers in Oakland paying for ancillary services such as push/pull, the total costs may be higher as these push/pull services were previously provided free of charge." 5. Number 16-5 of Recommendations change in the Administration Response to "Agree." 6. Number 16-8 of Recommendations add in the Status of Implementation last sentence as: "The City Council also may choose to retain an expert financial analyst to review contractor proposals.' 7. Number 16-9 of Recommendations strike first sentence in the Status of Implementation column, which reads: "The City does not agree that the Grand Jury report identifies shortcomings needing correction in any of the three franchises that the City executed at the end of this RFP process." Additionally add: "For the next contracting process: Additionally in the Status of Implementation item c) remove "may" and replace with "will." A motion was made by Dan Kalb, seconded by Rebecca Kaplan, that this matter be Received and Filed. The motion carried by the following vote: Excused: 1 - - Gibson McElhaney Abstained: 2 - Campbell Washington, and Guillén Aye: 5 - Brooks, Gallo, Kalb, Kaplan, and Reid City of Oakland Page 19 Printed on 11/29/2016 | 19 | OaklandRedevelopmentSuccessorAgencyandtheCityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf |