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.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding CITY-F2
Cost recovery and nonbillable public service
What should residents consider about Finding CITY-F2: Cost recovery and nonbillable public service, and the County’s response?
City of Napa City CouncilResponse dated 2026-07-28Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
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.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 1/2
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.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...