📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Alameda County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

City of Oakland’s Costly Pursuit of Zero Waste Franchise Contracts Executive Summary The Grand Jury received numerous

Published: June 10, 2016 12 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F16-6 Page 40
Financial analysis of numerous contract provisions providing for economic benefits to the city was insufficient. Little or no analysis of the ultimate financial impact to ratepayers was performed.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-7 Page 40
The city of Oakland’s contracting process failed to achieve a competitive bidding environment.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-8 Page 40
The city drafted RFP provisions that favored the incumbents and suppressed competition.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-9 Page 40
The city’s official contracting process was abandoned and replaced by the contractors’ closed-door negotiations.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-10 Page 40
Public transparency was undermined by the contractors’ closed-door negotiations.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-11 Page 40
There was little to no public debate before the city council concerning disproportionately high franchise fees.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-12 Page 40
Collection rates paid by Oakland businesses and multi-family residences were markedly higher than those in surrounding communities.
No recommendations for this finding
F16-13 Page 40
Franchise fees paid by the city’s garbage collection contractor, passed on to Oakland ratepayers, are disproportionately higher than franchise fees paid to other Bay Area municipalities and special districts. 40 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
No recommendations for this finding