⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
Nearly all of the Public Works Department’s annual neighborhood sidewalk repair budget is spent on projects associated with the Local Streets Paving Program rather than those individual segments of vertically displaced sidewalks that present the most serious tripping risks. City of Napa website, general discussion of PWD sidewalk programs, https://www.cityofnapa.org/365/Sidewalks-Curbs-Gutters. See, e.g., the link offered by the Parks and Recreation Department on their website page, https://www.cityofnapa.org/377/Trees-Urban-Forestry. The city provides a form for all claims reporting an incident in which the claimant believes “the City of Napa has caused a loss or damage to [the claimant’s] person or property,” https://www.cityofnapa.org/151/Claims. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Jury recommends that Public Works Department publish definitions of the terms “priority,” “location,” and “one-off” whenever those terms are used in documents or information made available to the public, to be completed
F2
Because the Public Works Department lacks a written plan for determining which “one- off” or “priority” projects will be undertaken, repair decisions appear to be made subjectively.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adhere to their published definitions of terms such as “priority,” “location,” and “one-off” in their recordkeeping efforts so that PWD’s reporting on the number of sidewalk repairs is consistent and clear, to be completed
F3
Because the Public Works Department lacks a written plan for determining when “one-off” or “priority” projects will be performed, scheduling of these repairs appears random.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adopt a written policy governing the selection of individual “one-off” or “priority” repair projects, to be completed by December 31, 2020. 12
F4
Because the Public Works Department lacks written definitions of key terms such as “location” and “priority” that are used in published documents or webpages, the use of these terms is confusing to readers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adopt a written policy governing the timing of work on “one-off” or “priority” projects, to be completed
F5
The Public Works Department does not publish a list of “priority” projects completed each year, making it difficult for residents of the City of Napa to assess the City’s progress in repairing dangerous sidewalks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department develop a 5-year plan for repairing all sidewalks with a vertical displacement of four inches or more, to be completed
F6
The Public Works Department does not adequately inform residents of the City of Napa of its sidewalk repair schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Jury recommends that Public Works Department annually publish on the City of Napa’s website a street address list of priority projects completed each year, to be completed
F7
The Public Works Department’s webpage does not include a service request button or email link to the City of Napa’s service request page. The webpage therefore does not offer an easy way to report sidewalk problems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department update its portion of the City of Napa’s website to better inform citizens. At a minimum, the update should include the most current schedule or map for sidewalk repairs as well as a link to facilitate citizen reporting of sidewalk issues, to be completed
F8
The Public Works Department’s recordkeeping and public reporting are unclear because in both their internal and external communications as well as their internal records, the Public Works Department uses undefined terms such as “one-off,” “location,” and “priority.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department develop a schedule and methodology for assessing the success of the conversion to the Workorder Asset Management system and their ability to use it effectively, to be completed
F9
The Cost-Share program has not kept pace with the actual cost of sidewalk replacement. The 50% reimbursement level being offered is rarely available to homeowners.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Public Works Department has not adopted a method for assessing the success of the Workorder Asset Management system conversion and its implementation in helping staff address sidewalk displacement issues.
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Napa
City