View Audit & Audit Report

New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. today issued an audit finding that the Department of Transportation failed to inspect one out of every five sampled sidewalk defect complaints and in many cases did not meet its own goals to inspect sampled properties at least one-third of the time.

“The Department of Transportation’s Sidewalk Management Unit needs to improve its efforts to address defective sidewalk complaints,” Thompson said. “Failing to repair sidewalks in a timely manner not only puts pedestrians in danger, but also has the potential of costing the City millions of dollars each year. Over the last several years, the City has paid an average of $63.5 million annually to settle claims relating to defective sidewalks.”

The Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Sidewalk and Inspection Management Division is responsible for promoting pedestrian safety through its various organizational units, including the Sidewalk Management Unit (SMU). The SMU is responsible for responding to complaints about sidewalk defects, inspecting properties, and issuing and serving violations to property owners when sidewalk defects are observed. It also is responsible for identifying and selecting areas to which the city contractors may be assigned to make repairs to defective sidewalks abutting properties deemed eligible for repair.

The audit, which can be viewed at www.comptroller.nyc.gov, covered July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, and evaluated DOT’s effectiveness in addressing sidewalk defect complaints.  

Auditors found that DOT’s efforts to address non-emergency, sidewalk defect complaints should be improved to increase the SMU’s operational effectiveness and efficiency in assuring that defective sidewalk conditions are identified and appropriately addressed.

Thompson’s auditors found that the SMU did not inspect 20 percent of the sampled complaints for which DOT procedures required an inspection. Of the remaining 80 percent, the SMU responded with an inspection in a timely manner only 63 percent of the time. DOT officials indicated that inspections were required within 30 days of a 311 complaint and six weeks (42 days) for non-311 complaints. Based on DOT’s goals, SMU performed inspections in a timely manner 63 percent of the time.

Further, auditors’ evaluation of complaint data showed that the SMU did not have procedures in place to ensure that the 311 Service Center is promptly and accurately updated with complaint status and resolutions. Of 71 sampled 311-complaints, 52 were not updated.

Violations also were not consistently processed in a timely manner. While the SMU aims to issue violations (when warranted) no later than 14 days after an inspection is performed, for 50 sampled violations issued in September 2007, the SMU issued violations in a timely manner only half the time.

Weaknesses were also found in the SMU’s follow up of outstanding violations. DOT does not have a standard for violations to be addressed and subsequently dismissed (satisfactory repair by city contractor or property owner). Auditors’ review of sampled violations closed out for FY 2007 revealed that the violations remained outstanding for an average of four years. DOT asserted that four years was a reasonable time for violations to remain outstanding since it may take that long for a particular Community District to come up again in the SMU budgeted cycle and subsequently be assigned to city contractors for repair.

Further, the SMU lacks coordination with the Department of Design and Construction about the closing out of violations for repairs performed by City contractors. DOT does not have a formal agreement with DDC specifying the roles and responsibilities of each agency regarding the sidewalk contractors hired by DDC to repair sidewalk defects identified, designated and ultimately paid for by DOT.

As the City’s primary capital construction project manager, DDC oversees the City sidewalk contractors. Once a contractor has completed the sidewalk repairs, a SMU inspector and DDC consultant engineer examine the work completed. SMU will not dismiss a violation until it receives notification from DDC attesting to the work having been completed. While it is possible that a significant part of the time it takes to close out violations is due to delays on DDC’s part in certifying repairs, since DOT does not track when repairs are completed it cannot take steps to resolve the issue.

Other weaknesses include the SMU’s lack of clearly defined performance and productivity measures to gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations, and a comprehensive procedures manual to address all aspects of its operations. Further, the databases used by the SMU to process and track the status of violations lack adequate entry controls to ensure the completeness and accuracy of manually entered data. Even though these weaknesses did not significantly or adversely affect the reliability of either database for audit testing, they could pose problems if left uncorrected.

Thompson made 19 recommendations, including that the SMU:

• Inspect those properties not inspected;

• Reassess its procedures and staffing levels to identify and implement needed improvements to ensure that inspections, when required, are carried out and performed in a timely manner;

• Ensure that violations are processed and issued promptly;

• Require that violations be reviewed and compared to corresponding inspection reports by an independent reviewer or supervisor to ensure the accuracy of defective conditions appearing on the violations;

• Develop a program to follow up with and encourage property owner compliance with City regulations and make the necessary sidewalk repairs; and,

• Develop a comprehensive policies and procedures manual that addresses all internal processes and functions carried out by the SMU and distribute the manual to appropriate personnel. The manual should be updated periodically to address newly implemented or revised procedures.

Of the 19 recommendations made, DOT generally agreed with 14, partially agreed with one and disagreed with four.

###