📋
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.
⚠️ 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
F6
The Public Works Department does not adequately inform residents of the City of Napa of its sidewalk repair schedule.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Recommendations 10
-
R1The 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
-
R2The 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
-
R3The 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
-
R4The 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
-
R5The 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
-
R6The 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
-
R7The 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
-
R8The 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
-
R9Beginning in the 2020-2021 City of St. The City’s response does not comply Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2020, Helena with Penal Code §933.05.6 and continuing thereafter, the City 6 See Summary on for response requirements 111 should allocate a designated percentage of the General Fund each year for additional payments toward its unfunded liabilities to CalPERS as well as deferred maintenance costs for City real property assets.
-
R10Beginning with the fiscal year City of St. The City’s response does not comply commencing on July 1, 2020, as the Helena with Penal Code §933.05.7 City hires additional full-time personnel, such as new full-time firefighters, the City should recalculate the effect of such hires on unfunded pension liabilities to CalPERS and include those new liabilities in the allocated budget.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1From the registration process to the posting of election results on election day, the Napa County Election Department exercises electoral transparency on voter registration and in providing a clear chain of custody for paper ballots. According to County Election Officials, in the last 20 years, there has only been one case of voter fraud involving duplicate ballots. Napa voters should be confident that their votes are being counted fairly and accurately while maintaining secret ballot confidentiality. 47
Commendations 1
-
CM1C1. The Jury commends the City of Napa’s Utilities Department staff and the City’s Community Relationships Officer for their efforts in exceeding the minimum Proposition 218 guidelines that require notification to ratepayers of any proposed rate increase.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Napa
City