City of Napa response to Planning Division investigation

Response says

Partially disagrees: accepts the manual project spreadsheet and possible efficiency gains but questions its asserted connection to billing practices.

Audit analysis

Explicit accepted/disputed scope and specific explanation distinguish project tracking from billing. No supporting billing record is identified.

Response says

Partially disagrees: accepts unreimbursed time and General Fund subsidy, says recovery varies and identifies counter inquiries and zoning-ordinance work as reasonable nonbillable activity.

Audit analysis

Accepted subsidy and disputed implication of fully recoverable staff time are clear, with concrete task examples. Does not substantiate or replace the approximate 60% figure with a dated analysis.

Response says

Disagrees that structured coordination is absent, while accepting that the entitlement review process can improve.

Audit analysis

Disputed scope is explicit, but the response names no actual coordination mechanism or reason demonstrating its adequacy; reasons materially incomplete. Relevant conclusion is not concrete support.

Response says

Disagrees: says tracking methods and interdepartmental review timelines exist, though relatively manual and improvable.

Audit analysis

Explicit disagreement engages both propositions through existing-but-manual systems. Explanation is relevant but general; no system record or documented timeline is identified.

Response says

Agrees and cites Director/Planning Manager turnover and Senior Planner retirements within the past 24 months.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement needs no disagreement reasons. Staffing examples engage turnover but add no discussion of succession or cross-training; relative 24-month period and named positions provide a checkable staffing basis.

Response says

Partially disagrees only that all projects can receive three extensions totaling six years; agrees progress has not consistently been a measure for extensions.

Audit analysis

Identifies exact disputed scope and accepted inconsistency. Relevant explanation remains general and supplies no entitlement code provision or project record.

Response says

The City agrees with this finding.

Audit analysis

Bare agreement establishes position and requires no disagreement reasons; no added substantive coverage, reasoning or support.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2027, one year later than requested; EPL implementation is targeted for December 31, 2026, followed by assessment of remaining gaps.

Audit analysis

Future improvement date is 2027, not the jury’s 2026 deadline. EPL rollout is an intermediate dependency, not proof of completed billing reform.

Response says

Claims implemented through an IT Systems Support Analyst acting as lead for implementation, testing and release with CRD and other departments.

Audit analysis

Named-role implementation claim does not establish successful rollout or satisfaction of every user requirement.

Response says

Requires further analysis of whether EPL needs additional tracking systems or improvements, to be completed by December 31, 2027.

Audit analysis

Records the stated 2027 analysis date without silently changing it or certifying statutory timeliness. No biweekly/monthly operating cadence is demonstrated.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026, building formal review timelines into EPL.

Audit analysis

Concrete system/timeline undertaking; no completed configuration is supplied.

Response says

Requires further analysis after EPL implementation, evaluating streamlining mechanisms and shared responsibilities by December 31, 2027.

Audit analysis

Preserves future analysis and its 2027 date; not a completed shared-ownership process or verified legal compliance.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026 through formal review timelines in EPL.

Audit analysis

Specific mechanism addresses technology/cooperation; no measured turnaround improvement is supplied.

Response says

Will implement the HR-led citywide growth/development program by December 31, 2026. Claims a new Manager hire, a July 20 Associate Planner start scheduled and expected full staffing by year end.

Audit analysis

July 20 is described as scheduled despite the July 28 letter. Neither that start nor future full staffing is independently established.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026 through the HR-led citywide growth/development and succession program.

Audit analysis

Future program commitment, not evidence positions and pathways have already been documented.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026; says Division policies and procedures should be documented for consistent practice.

Audit analysis

Explicit dated undertaking; no completed process manual attached.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026; beneficial areas have been identified and opportunities will be identified as staff are onboarded.

Audit analysis

Future cross-training is qualified by onboarding; identified opportunities are not completed training.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026 by scheduling a regular Council discussion and direction to assist drafting extension policies.

Audit analysis

Concrete undertaking is Council discussion/direction, not completed policy adoption or accelerated construction.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026 by scheduling Council discussion and direction at a regular meeting.

Audit analysis

Does not establish a completed periodic-review program; commitment is limited to the stated Council step.

Response says

Will implement by December 31, 2026 by scheduling Council discussion and direction at a regular meeting.

Audit analysis

Council deliberation is distinct from adopted incentives or completed keystone development.