Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Recreation
DATE: March 26, 2024
FROM: Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Council Discussion and Direction on the Formation of a Committee to Prepare for the City's Sesquicentennial in 2026
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Authorize staff to initiate a planning committee to prepare for the City’s sesquicentennial.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
Begin planning process for a community-wide
Sesquicentennial celebration in 2026.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. If the committee is authorized, any potential financial impacts will be brought forward at a future date as part of the proposed celebration framework.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Helena is located on the ancestral lands of the earliest inhabitants, the Wappo people. For more than 10,000 years the Napa Valley region, previously known as Talahalusi (Beautiful Land) has been the Wappo’s native home. Believed to have first settled in St. Helena as early as 2000 B.C. , the traditional name for the immediately area currently known as St. Helena is Anakotanoma (Bull Snake Village).
Though impacted greatly by the arrival of various settlers over many years, descendants of the first Wappo retain a strong connection to their homeland, traditions, and cultural heritage.
Beginning in the late 1700’s, the region was part of Spain’s Alta California, and then, later Mexican California. The area was further settled in 1834 as part of General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo's land grant. Founded in 1854, St. Helena became the commercial center of central Napa Valley. The City of St. Helena was officially incorporated as a City on March 24, 1876.
From its inception, St. Helena served as a rural agricultural center. Over the years, with the growth and development of the wine industry, the City became an important business and banking center. Locals worked hard, but also knew how to have a good time. Saloons and restaurants were an abundant part of Main Street, and St. Helena was host to numerous parades, dances, and other social gatherings.
Nearly 150 years after being incorporated, St. Helena continues to be a city filled with rich historical ties and a place many families have called home for generations. Over the last 150 years, our community has also seen an abundance of visitors, as a result of the Agenda Item #13.3.
flourishing wine industry, deep agricultural roots, and the area's scenic qualities. St.
Helena continues to reflect its history as a small town that is also one of the great winegrowing capitals of the world. *Historical background support provided by information received from the St. Helena Historical Society’s Heritage Center*
DISCUSSION:
The City of St. Helena was incorporated on March 24, 1876, and will reach the 150-year mark as a City in March of 2026. It would be fitting to host a community-wide sesquicentennial celebration honoring our cultural heritage and official incorporation in that same year.
With that in mind, staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to initiate the formation of a committee comprising of community members and representatives from various local organizations and businesses. This committee would be tasked with developing a program(s) to suitably celebrate St. Helena’s sesquicentennial. Staff intends to coordinate the first meeting of such a group in June 2024.
If authorized, the committee would bring back a proposed framework of the sesquicentennial celebration at a future council meeting for further discussion and direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:
Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Agenda Item #13.3.
Sesquicentennial Preparations
Agenda Item #13.3.
Background
• St. Helena is located on the ancestral lands of the Wappo People • Napa Valley inhabited for over 10,000 years by indigenous people. Napa Valley region known as Talahalusi (Beautiful Land)
• In 1700’s region was part of Spain’s Alta California
• Further settled in 1834 as part of General Vallejo’s land grant. • St. Helena founded in 1854; Officially incorporated as a City on March 24, 1876 • Rural agricultural center of the region
*Historical background support provided by information received from the St. Helena Historical Society’s Heritage Center*
Agenda Item #13.3.
Sesquicentennial
Planning
• Will reach 150-Year mark as an incorporated City in
March 2026
• Would be fitting to host a community-wide celebration in recognition of the sesquicentennial and our historic roots • Staff recommends the formation of a planning committee consisting of community members, local organizations,
and business representatives
• Tasked with developing a framework to suitable
commemorate this historic date
Agenda Item #13.3.
Next Steps
• Staff will begin community outreach for committee
members
• Goal is to host an initial meeting by June 2024
• Committee would bring back a proposed framework at
future Council and appropriate commission meetings
for further discussion and direction
Agenda Item #13.3.
• Recommended Action: Authorize staff
to initiate a planning committee to
prepare for the City’s sesquicentennial
• Discussion & Questions
Agenda Item #13.3.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 26, 2024
FROM: Anil Comelo, City Manager
SUBJECT: Formation of a new department with oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Parks & Recreation, Grants, and
Community Engagement.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Provide direction to staff on the formation of a new
department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To received feedback and direction from City Council on the formation of a new department with oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Parks & Recreation, Grants, and
Community Engagement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated annual increase of $17,398.
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with City CouncilGoal 5: Enhance Quality of Life: Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, and Morale, and Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness staff has actively been working on a number of objectives to meet these goals.
Over the last year, staff has explored shared services models for several departments, including Police, Fire, Public Works, and Administrative Services, (Human Resources and Finance). The city’s goal in doing so is to improve delivery of services, create efficiencies and potentially even reduce of the cost of services to the community.
Likewise, staff continually seeks ways to break down departmental silos to increase collaboration, innovation and staff morale. When the opportunity presented itself, staff also began exploring new models for the delivery of Library services. This was prompted by the pending retirement of former Library Director Chris Kreiden who officially retired in January 2023 leaving a vacancy in the Library Department.
In exploring various options, staff has identified the potential formation of a new umbrella department with oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Grants, Parks & Recreation, and Community Engagement. In its exploration of this service model, staff sought advice and guidance from leaders across several disciplines as well as community and department stakeholders: Chris Kreiden, our former Library Director; Melinda Cervantes, an experienced library executive who has been overseeing the daily library operations following Chris' retirement; Dave Jahns, the current Parks & Agenda Item #13.4.
Recreation Director; department staff; and several community members. Additionally, over the past few months many outreach meetings have taken place to discuss and seek input on the potential for a new “community services” department. Discussions include, but are not limited to:
Library staff - Two meetings
Parks & Recreation staff - Two meetings
Parks & Recreation Commission - One meeting
Library Board of Trustees - Three meetings
Friends & Foundation Board of Directors - Two meetings In each meeting, management staff presented the proposed structure, received feedback, and endeavored to address concerns or misconceptions.
DISCUSSION:
The overarching goal of the exploration is to enhance the quality and scope of services to the St. Helena community. Several communities have consolidated Library, Parks and Recreation and other functions and so our current endeavor is not only not new but is considered to be “best practice”. Drilling down into the two largest functional areas Library and Parks and Recreation the following is the summary of the two distinct functions.
The purpose and goals of the Library include:
Being a resource for people in their daily lives as they grow, learn, and challenge themselves at every life stage and level of personal development. Providing resources, space, and opportunities for civic engagement, as well as gateways to education, learning experiences, and enrichment. Promoting wellness by serving as a calm, trusted, welcoming, and safe space. Preparing for the future and being responsive to challenging needs of the community.
Increasing engagement and outreach to the community, especially to the retiree and Spanish-speaking community.
The purpose and goals of Parks and Recreation is to:
Providing leisure and community services to the residents of the city and enrichment programs for all ages.
Harvesting Community Experiences that Celebrate St. Helena (mission). Serving as a destination for leisure and community experiences that preserves St. Helena's small-town lifestyle (vision).
Offering programs for all ages.
Facilitating arts and culture programming.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Promoting Health & Wellness
Offering programming that includes adult and youth sports such as bocce, softball, basketball & soccer, arts, crafts, drama, and music, as well as vocational skills, educational classes, and summer camps & childcare. Increasing programming and gathering opportunities for teens and young adults.
While there are distinct nuances to how each department functions, there are also many similarities:
Both are treasured institutions in our community.
Both serve many of the same residents.
Both promote health and wellness.
Both are organizational and information hubs for the community. Both have the potential to be powerful symbols and agents for neighborhood identity.
The purpose of both is to create community and enhance the quality of life in St.
Helena through people, places, programs, and partnerships. Both promote civic participation.
Both have volunteer programs.
Both offer recreational, educational, and social engagement opportunities.
In addition to Library and Parks & Recreation functions, and as a part of Council Goal 4 - Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement and Goal 5 - Enhance Quality of Life, the City has embarked on a robust information and engagement program which was initiated in the Parks and Recreation department and has more recently been housed in the Office of the City Manager. Over the last year, the Director of Parks & Recreation and has started the process to develop a formal Arts and Culture program in the City.
Because of the similarities in the reach of both the Library and Parks & Recreation as well as the City's desire to broaden its arts and culture opportunities and increase community engagement, staff is recommending the formation of a new department with oversight over Arts, Culture, Library, Grants, Parks & Recreation, and Community Engagement. While this will be a new way to operate within the City, the intent is to modernize our operating model and enhance civic services in several areas. This structure is similar to several other cities, including San Rafael, Beverly Hills, Pleasanton, and Richmond which still have independent libraries.
It cannot be reiterated enough that both the Library and Parks & Recreation function very well and are both beloved in the community under the current model; however, opportunities for collaboration between the two function areas is relatively unsystematic and unstructured, and traditional institutional identities (Library and Parks & Recreation) tend to isolate staff and stifle collaboration, creativity, innovation. This is an opportunity Agenda Item #13.4.
to rethink these traditional identities and become more innovative in our approach to services.
DESIRED OUTCOMES FROM THIS CHANGE:
While each division will continue to function independently, there are many desired outcomes including, but not limited to:
Enhance the scope and quality of our services.
Become a broad and inclusive department to generate better programming across functions.
Offer enhanced, refreshed, and expanded programming.
Be places where community service projects can be organized collaboratively. Increase coordination and communication between functional areas and the community.
Reduce isolation of outward facing service functions. Achieve cross promotion of programs and activities.
Be innovative in programs offered and demographics served. Be a place where arts and culture can be highlighted. Create more community engagement.
Provide an opportunity for employee growth, succession, and retention. Partner together in areas such as:
o Physical Space (Library, Head Start Building, Carnegie Building, Parks, Opens Space and Trails, etc.)
o Joint programming collaborations
o Information and resource collaborations in areas such as:
Arts & Culture
Communications
Modernize operating model.
Enhance civic services.
WHAT WILL NOT CHANGE:
Under the proposed new department, each division will continue to function independently with its own budget and own staff, but will report to one single department director. In particular, donations received through the charitable giving of the community directly to the City, through theLibrary Friends & Foundation, or through the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Foundation, will continue to be placed in separate fund accounts, as directed by the donor, and used only for the charitable purposes designated by the donor.
RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE:
Staff recommends the formation of a new department of oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Grants, Parks & Recreation, and Community Engagement with the following structure:
Agenda Item #13.4.
1. Managed by the incumbent Parks & Recreation Director the new department will temporarily be called Community Services (common term in most cities).
2. Library Director position reclassified as a properly credentialed Deputy Director of Community Services - Library
3. The Deputy Library Director and Parks & Recreation Manager* positions report directly to the Director of newly formed department (current Parks & Recreation Director).
* The Parks & Recreation Manager was a previous and separate reorganization decision unrelated to the creation of the new department.
Chart 1 provides a summary of the current positions compared to the proposed positions and associated costs.
Chart 1 - Summary Annual Cost Estimates
Community Services Current Proposed
Director of Library 227,354
Director of Parks & Recreation 247,232
Deputy Library Director 234,506
Director of Arts, Culture, Library, Grants,Parks &
Recreation, and Community Engagement* 257,506
TOTALS 474,586 491,984
Difference 17,398
*5% increase for Director of Community Services
NEXT STEPS
If the formation of a new department with oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Parks & Recreation, Grants, and Community Engagement is supported by Council, staff will bring a report to City Council on April 9, 2024, establishing the department, positions, job descriptions, and salary schedules.
Staff will also consult with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Library Board of Trustees and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Parks & Recreation Commission on the name for the new department and will return to City Council with a recommendation.
Please click this link to view an article BY DIANTHA D. SCHULL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE From Great Parks/Great Cities: Seattle, 1998, a publication on an Urban Parks Institute regional workshop (also Attachment 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Parks and Libraries in Partnership Article Agenda Item #13.4.
Parks and Libraries in
Partnership
DEC 31, 2008
BY DIANTHA D. SCHULL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE
From Great Parks/Great Cities: Seattle, 1998, a publication on an Urban Parks Institute regional workshop.
Diantha Schull is Executive Director of Libraries for the Future, a national organization that represents the users of America's public libraries by promoting information and technology policy in the public interest. Previously, Ms. Schull was Executive Director of the French-American Foundation. She also founded the New York Library Programs Consortium, a network of libraries engaged in public affairs programming. As a consultant to libraries, foundations, and museums, she has advised such organizations as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the New York State Department of Education, National Public Radio, the American Association of Museums, the French Ministry of Culture, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Modern Language Association, and the American Library Association.
I would like to explore how parks and libraries are working together in urban neighborhoods, and how they might, by working together, become far more instrumental in revitalizing communities and cities. In the future, this alliance of parks, libraries and other institutions could provide the basis for a new urban agenda. "[An] alliance of parks, libraries and other institutions could provide the basis for a new urban agenda"
Public spaces such as parks, markets, gardens, walking trails, sidewalks, and plazas are all essential components of healthy communities and livable cities. However, we do not know how libraries and these other spaces, especially parks, relate to one another, and how they might relate to one another in the future.
Agenda Item #13.4.
At Libraries for the Future, we believe one of the primary values of a public library is its role as a trusted, accessible, neutral public space. This is true whether it is in the midst of a neighborhood undergoing great decay and decline, in which it acts as an oasis, or whether it's an anchor for a new neighborhood undergoing revitalization.
A library is one of the few places that belongs to all of us equally. And although we don't have a national system of libraries, we do have an infrastructure in place that, if it were more visible, could make libraries an extremely important place in a community. There are 16,000 communities around the country where the library is, or is becoming, a communications center, a gathering place, a catalyst for civic development, and a resource where people of all ages, races, classes and cultures can congregate.
Similarities and Affinities
What characteristics do libraries and parks share? First of all, they're both organizational and information hubs for community improvement projects. In cities where new parks and libraries are being planned, there are opportunities to bring in as broad and inclusive a coalition as possible. In terms of economic development, parks and libraries are both anchors, or catalysts. Parks and libraries have the potential to be powerful symbols and agents for neighborhood identity. They are places around which community service projects could be organized.
"Parks and libraries have the potential to be powerful
symbols and agents for neighborhood identity"
Parks and libraries are natural partners. Both represent "the commons." They are our public space and we hold them together, and they're our collective responsibility.
They're part of the underlying urban infrastructure- as important as the bridges and the roads and the housing. They promote civic participation; they foster local identity, and they both offer recreational, educational and social engagement opportunities.
Libraries and Urban Revitalization
Great cities have always had great libraries. And, as cities are being revitalized for the millennium, many of them are building new libraries- a real movement is afoot. There are new national libraries in Paris and London- each of which has provoked enormous Agenda Item #13.4.
public controversy, but which are quite successful. In Phoenix, San Francisco, San Antonio, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles, new libraries have become very important players in the new urban agenda.
We are also seeing large-scale library revitalization projects in many cities: for example, the Enoch Pratt free library system in Baltimore, or Little Rock, Arkansas, which has just renovated nine of its 12 branches. Even Newark, New Jersey, despite its economic situation, has renovated five of its ten branches.
Some characteristics about these library revitalization projects are very important as models for partnerships with other public spaces. One characteristic is that libraries are being conceived of almost as much as a function as they are being conceived of as a place. With the advent of the new technology, the library function can occur anywhere and everywhere. That does not mean they cannot also be a place. Libraries can undergo a fascinating evolution from place to technology to place.
As a result libraries today are less about the real estate necessary for storing books, and much more about being a public forum. In San Francisco, as in many of the new central libraries, there's far more space for meetings and performances and gatherings.
These new libraries see themselves as interactive communication centers. Some of them have satellites, some of them are working with cable television, and, of course, the Internet. Locally, libraries are more and more positioning themselves as centers for community information.
"The natural affinity between libraries and parks is going to be reinforced through a much more external orientation by both groups"
On top of all those other characteristics, libraries are planning their futures in the same ways one could think about parks- that is, in partnership with other institutions. The current crop of librarians, like most parks and recreation planners and officials, has not been trained to think about collaboration and public awareness and focus group meetings and all that we need to do to make our institutions important community places.
Agenda Item #13.4.
But many librarians do see libraries as networked institutions - networked, not only electronically, but with community-based organizations, non-profits, and businesses.
This is a moment when the natural affinity between libraries and parks is going to be reinforced through a much more external orientation by both groups.
Shared Challenges
But while parks and libraries share much in common, one of these elements is an incredible set of challenges. In the past, we have tended to look to new, exciting solutions and global planning to solve problems. We have forgotten that we may have, right underfoot, some of the very best tools that we need for community building and urban development.
So, libraries and parks share this aspect of already existing and being taken for granted.
They both lack uniform funding and government structures, and both are complicated, messy systems to understand. They both also reach across many constituencies. That can be a liability as well as an asset, because they are part of the urban services sector, which in recent years has suffered from a reduction of funding. For us to dare to think about a new politics for the public realm seems to be going against the tide. "For us to dare to think about a new politics for the public realm seems to be going against the tide"
That is the real challenge. There are no national policies for either public libraries or public parks, and there is no national leadership. However, there are many kinds of partnerships already linking libraries and parks, and these can suggest the potential for a new urban alliance.
Partnership Opportunities
I see three different types of libraries-parks partnerships. First there are physical space and use collaborations, second are joint programming collaborations, and third are information and resource collaborations to support development of parks and open spaces.
Agenda Item #13.4.
In terms of physical space partnerships, many libraries are adjacent to parks, on parks land, share or open space, are located next to exercise trails, or gateways to forests. In San Jose, where there is a development plan for 17 libraries, 7 of them are in parks.
The challenge there is to think about how to use that systematically. I suspect that in every one of your communities there is at least one library that is part of a park but hasn't recognized the value of that location.
"I suspect that in every one of your communities there is at least one library that is part of a park but hasn't recognized the value of that location"
What could they do together? They could jointly cultivate gardens or sponsor recreational activities. They could add children's playgrounds and reading areas outside the libraries. The Horticultural Society of New York has a program called GreenBranches that creates gardens at branch libraries throughout New York City. It installed its first garden in front of the Saratoga Branch of Brooklyn Public Library in 1997 and will complete 10 more sites by 1999. The designers work closely with borough botanical gardens and community groups, and they train the groups to maintain the gardens. Several gardens are being planted in partnership with the Citizens' Committee Neighborhood Leadership Library Program, which establishes volunteer resource centers at branch libraries. As part of Libraries for the Future's Community Library Access Project, GreenBranches will help other groups strengthen library advocacy around the country through promoting gardens at libraries.
Programming partnerships also have great potential, where the library has a reading program in a park, or collaborates to run a interpretive center. In Athens, Georgia, one branch library, located on a popular nature trail, joined with several organizations, including the school district and the University of Georgia, to develop a resource site at the Sandy Creek Nature Center's Environmental Natural Science and Technology Center. The site contains four computers and Internet access via dial-in to the library.
Users can even request books, which are delivered the next day via courier. Library staff train Nature Center staff about computers.
Agenda Item #13.4.
"Too often, parks and libraries compete with each other for funds instead of looking at collaborative ways to solve city issues and encourage development"
Chicago calls itself the "City in a Garden," and the (CPL) has been making that motto a reality at many of its branches. Through the Blue Skies for Children Initiative it has established gardens in three branch libraries, including the Douglass Branch, where a collaboration with the Chicago Botanical Garden and residents transformed vacant lots into a Wizard of Oz garden for children. Other branches have created gardens through the Blooming Branches Garden Program that operates as a collaboration between the CPL and the Chicago Botanical Garden. The partnership offers gardening classes at branch libraries and encourages local groups to create their own gardens, such as the one at the Mount Greenwood Branch. Librarians report great local enthusiasm for the gardens, not only as popular places for children's story hours and readings, but as volunteer-maintained spaces that provide an opportunity for social interaction.
Then there are informational partnerships. Libraries are setting up information and support centers for environmental and gardening groups. These centers lead to joint programming and a lot more community involvement. The library functions as a neutral space, a repository for documents. For example, in Houston, Texas, several branches of the Harris County Public Library that are located in or next to parks collaborate with parks administrators and staff in various ways. The Baldwin Boettcher Branch lies inside the grounds of the county's Mercer Arboretum, which built an education building that offers programs coordinated with the library. The library provides books and other materials about plants and animals, and the arboretum's staff advise the library on purchase of materials.
Within these three types of partnerships are some principles for effective collaboration:
the involvement of key local stakeholders; timing in relation to other community development initiatives; and the recognition by all partners that success may mean giving up a little autonomy in order to resolve problems.
Beyond Partnerships
Agenda Item #13.4.
Current parks-libraries partnerships are relatively tenuous and unsystematic. Traditional institutional self-identities and definitions compound the effect of other barriers, such as professional protocols, that isolate staff and keep people within their boxes and individual funding streams. Too often parks and libraries compete with each other for funds instead of looking at collaborative ways to solve citywide issues and encourage development.
We need to conceive of the city as a network of interlocking systems, and then look at how a park or library can be most effectively linked into that environment. If we take a more systems-oriented approach, beginning with collaborative asset-mapping, and look at libraries and parks as core institutions, we can use the relationship between libraries and parks to advance a new urban alliance. Such a coalition could create an urban agenda that would enhance both the natural and physical environment, educate residents about sustainable communities and a sustainable natural environment, promote civic participation, focus attention on the value of public services and public places, and develop private and public resources. Only our imaginations limit the possibilities.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Formation of New Department
City of St. Helena
Anil Comelo, City Manager
March 26, 2024, City Council Report
Agenda Item #13.4.
Agenda
• Background
• Proposed Structure
• Outreach
• Why Make the Change?
• Desired Outcomes
• Timeline
Agenda Item #13.4.
Background
COUNCIL'S DESIRED LEGACY
• Made progress on water supply and conservation
• Enhanced fiscal sustainability
• Improved Main Street
• Got back to a culture of kindness – and modeled positive behavior • Recovered the economic health of our community
• Faced hard decisions and made choices
• Made things better for St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.4.
Background
• City Council directed staff find ways to exploring Shared Services. • Process included evaluation operations - Public Works, Finance, Police, and Fire.
• Recent retirement created an opportunity to explore the formation of a new department
• Intended to modernize our operating model and enhance services. • Intended to create a career ladder and a retention structure for current and future employees.
• Input has been sought from stakeholders and the Interim Library Executive.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Proposed Structure
Proposed
City Manager
Library Director
Parks &
Recreation
Director
Director of Community Services
Deputy Director of
Community Services
- Library
Parks & Recreation
Manager
Current
Agenda Item #13.4.
Why Make the Change?
Broaden The scope and quality of services
Become A broad and inclusive department
Generate Robust and creative programming
Offer Enhanced, refreshed, and expanded programming
Collaboration Cross functional collaboration
Innovative In programs offered and demographics served
Agenda Item #13.4.
Desired Outcomes
Be A place where Arts & Culture can be highlighted
Create More community engagement
An opportunity for employee growth, succession planning, and retention Provide
Together in areas such as physical space, joint programming, information and resource collaboration Partner
Modernize Operating model
Enhance Civic services
Agenda Item #13.4.
Information Sharing & Gathering
• Library staff – 2 meetings
• Parks & Recreation staff – 2 meetings
• Parks & Recreation Commission – 1 meeting
• Library Board of Trustees – 3 meetings
• Friends & Foundation Board of Directors – 2 meetings
• Numerous meetings with Parks & Recreation Director, Interim Library Executive, Assistant City Manager, and City Manager
Agenda Item #13.4.
What will not change
• Parks & Recreation and Library will continue to function as individual divisions under a new department
• Each division will continue to have its own operating budget • Charitable gifts will continue to be placed in separate fund accounts and used only for the designated purposes
Agenda Item #13.4.
Best Practices
• City-operated libraries tend to be combined with other functions • Successful consolidations include the cities of: Beverly Hills, Monterey, Pleasanton, Richmond, and San Rafael
• The National Recreation and Park Association states that parks and recreation, libraries, and other community-based institutions are vital, upstream solutions that directly improve the conditions where people live, learn, work, and play
Agenda Item #13.4.
Collaboration & Outreach
Parks and recreation agencies and libraries have frequently teamed up to:
• Support virtual health, wellness and enrichment programming for youth and older adults;
• Provide safe and creative opportunities to engage in physical activity and exercise programs;
• Develop creative StoryWalks® that combine literacy and spending time in nature, which has been proven to reduce stress and anxiety and promote positive mental health benefits;
• Provide needed services like childcare, healthy meals, referrals to other social services and community resources; and
• Promote social and community connection during a time of isolation, grief, and uncertainty.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Focus on the Future
We need to conceive of the city as a network of interlocking systems, and then look at how a park or library can be most effectively linked into that environment. Such a coalition could create an agenda that would enhance both the natural and physical environment, educate residents about sustainable communities and a sustainable natural environment, promote civic participation, focus attention on the value of public services and public places, and develop private and public resources.
Only our imaginations limit the possibilities.
* BY DIANTHA D. SCHULL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE. From Great Parks/Great Cities: Seattle, 1998, a publication on an Urban Parks Institute regional workshop.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Implementation
Initial Steps
• Day-to-day operations remain the same. Explore opportunities for creativity and collaboration
• Keep Current Service Delivery Model Intact
Discovery Phase
• Meet with Staff
• Meet with Boards, Commissions, Foundations
• Meet with Users
Personnel and Development
• Launch recruitment process for a highly skilled Deputy Director – Library • Professional Development and Department Visioning
• Included in Review, Requests, and Implementation Process of Budgeting Collaboration on all Levels
• Joint Board Meeting(s) with Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board • Cross-Training amongst staff
Agenda Item #13.4.
Evaluation Process
Data • Number of visitors, registrations, programs, etc. • Needs/satisfaction surveys, stakeholder discussions, customer testimonials, Board and Commission feedback
Community
Response
• Collaborations, new endeavors, outreach impacts, community support
Creative
Metrics
• Friends & Foundation; Parks and Recreation Foundation Fundraising Tracking
• Include both staff workgroups
• Joint meeting with Parks/Rec & Library Board
Joint Workplan
and Evaluation
Methodology
Agenda Item #13.4.
Next Steps
•Consult with Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Library Board of Trustees and the Parks & Recreation Commission on
the name of the new department and return to the City
Council with a recommendation.
• Present a report to City Council at a future meeting, establishing the department, positions, job descriptions, and salary schedules.
Agenda Item #13.4.
Questions
Agenda Item #13.4.
Possible Challenges/Impacts
Possible Challenges City Responses
Fundraising Challenges Assuming the Friends & Foundation do not change marketing methodology, we would not anticipate an
impact to fundraising.
Lower title will be less attractive to candidates Title is important, so this may have a detrimental effect.
Library/Recreation Services will be affected There will be no changes to library or recreation services, only enhancement by cross-collaboration
and promotion.
Library is being taken over by Parks & Recreation This is not the case. In this reorganization, the Department Head could come from any discipline.
Library and Parks & Recreation will lose their
identity
There will be no changes in identity – they will still
function independently for service delivery. Similar
to merger of Administrative Services in 2021.
The Director of Community Services may not know
anything about libraries or parks & recreation
This is the case now with the Library and Parks &
Recreation Director reporting to the City Manager
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Deborah Claymon
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] Reorganization with the library Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:34:43 AM
Hello!
I cannot attend the meeting on 3/26. Please accept these written comments for consideration.
In making the organizational change to create a new department, and to nest the management of the library under this new umbrella, I would request the City Manager consider the following ideas to support and sustain the long-term excellence of the St. Helena library. -- Insure the top library leadership position has a salary commensurate with library directors in order to attract and retain excellence in this role.
-- Provide professional development to the leadership of the new department regarding library services.
-- Implement a way to measure the synergy expected to result from this combined community services effort. (If synergy is the strategic goal for the city, how and when will it be measured?)
As an appointed member of the Library Board, I would also add a statement of support for the interview process to replace our library director. Our next library leader needs to be a forward-looking, community-focused librarian with a current understanding of the role the library plays as an information resource and community connection center far beyond the materials on its shelves.
Thank you,
Deborah Claymon Boeschen
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Peter McClory
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Combining P/R with the Library IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A "BEST PRACTICE" Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:50:30 PM
A statement was made in the recent newsletter that the combination of the 2 entities was an example of "best practices."
It only becomes a "best practices" when multiple jurisdictions have already effected the same reorganization and that it is considered a desirable change--that there is a consensus that it is a good idea.
Look up "best practices" definition in Wikipedia.
I still haven't read why this proposal is a compelling idea.
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Mark Smithers
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: [External] City Council agenda March 26, 2024 item 13.4 formation of new department Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 1:17:55 PM
Forwarding as I received a message that cindy was out of town.
Mark Smithers | Senior Vice President, Finance
Trinchero Family Estates
Office: 1-707-302-3027 | Ext. 2612 | Mobile: 1-707-290-4508 [email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, is the property of Trinchero Family Estates or its affiliates. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading or saving them to disk or other storage medium. Thank you.
From: Mark Smithers <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Eric Hall <[email protected]>; Anna Chouteau <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: City Council agenda March 26, 2024 item 13.4 formation of new department To our Mayor and City Council members,
The first thing that comes to mind when I read the agenda item to form a new department with “oversight of Arts, Culture, Library, Parks & Recreation, Grants, and Community Engagement” is: IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT!
I hear a continuous drumbeat that our city is under-staffed and under-funded, why would we want to take on more time, energy, and financial resources related to Arts and Culture? Currently this is handled very well by many non-profits such as Nimbus Arts, Historical Society, High School Drama club, Fiesta Italia, Saint Helena Forum, Chamber of Commerce, and many other organizations and individuals. If the City takes on and wants to control Arts and Culture, they will shut out community involvement or compete with it. Isn’t community involvement the one thing we all agree on and makes St Helena what it is? Why double up?
Further to the point of under-staffed and under-funded, affected City staff will spend a tremendous amount of time completing the merger of these departments, cross training, and learning. I thought the team was stretched thin and covering open positions. And if we are concerned with staff morale, does the staff even want this new organization / department or is this just the desire of one individual? There is much the city, and its overwhelmed employees could have done with the time already spent on this reorganization. If City employees have time “available” as suggested by working on this proposal, here is a quick list of some areas where they can spend that time and fix things that need fixing:
Agenda Item #13.4.
1. Resolve the Carpenter water contract that terminated over ten years ago and could be costing the water enterprise $250,000 or more of annual revenue.
2. Work diligently to fast track the hotel proposed on the Charles Krug Winery property which will bring in millions of dollars in revenue.
3. Expedite water infrastructure projects.
4. Expedite road improvement projects and fill potholes.
5. Fix the skatepark landscape and irrigation.
6. Maintain and rebuild the downtown sidewalks.
7. Expedite replacing our dilapidated storm drains.
8. Agendize and approve the Walking Trails and Open Space Plan that has been blocked from getting on the city council agenda for a couple years.
The above items take staff time to review, resolve, implement, and manage. If we’ve had so much time to work on the “Arts, Culture, Library, Parks & Recreation, Grants, and Community Engagement” proposal and expect to have more time to implement the reorganization and additional duties, lets spend that time and money on greater needs. The staff report noted all the consultation and outreach but doesn’t suggest there was any enthusiasm or even support for the idea. The staff report mentioned receiving feedback and the presenters endeavored to address concerns, but didn’t say affected staff and groups were happy with the proposal? Do we risk the satisfaction of key personnel in well running departments? This proposal will cost the city a lot of money. If we are short on money as the transfer tax proposal implies, let’s not spend what little extra there is on a reorganization. I ask that you reject the proposal.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Mark Smithers
St Helena
Mark Smithers | Senior Vice President, Finance
Trinchero Family Estates
Office: 1-707-302-3027 | Ext. 2612 | Mobile: 1-707-290-4508 [email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, is the property of Trinchero Family Estates or its affiliates. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading or saving them to disk or other storage medium. Thank you.
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Pat Friday
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Library + Parks and Recreation
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:48:00 PM
I am writing to oppose the thought to combine these two City departments.
1. Parks is already not performing at a satisfactory level. Just check the state of our small neighborhood parks that need attention: basic grounds maintenance (weeds, overgrown grasses, sloppy tree trimming, mulch needed, rotted picnic tables, and more).
2. Rec department does not have programs for our large Spanish-speaking community. How dare that not be important. Compared with other communities in the Bay Area, we are sorely underserving our town.
3. If these departments were to be combined with the Library, the Library would not have a seat at the decision-making table. That is unacceptable. Our Library is a gem and this would make it less important than our community sees it.
This plan diminishes Parks, Recreation and the Library. I know we need to focus on our outdated water/sewer problems, roads and sidewalks, but don’t do it at the expense of the reasons residents like living here.
Put yourselves into the shoes of us residents; empathy is full of wisdom.
Pat Friday
Pat Friday
1430 Wallis Court
St. Helena CA 94574
707.484.4579
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: sharon dellamonica
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] New Business - Item 13.4
Date: Saturday, March 23, 2024 1:24:53 PM
Please note the date of the supporting material provided by the City Manager is sixteen years old. This concept may have been interesting to consider then for a much larger city, but now in 2024 and St. Helena - it is unnecessary. This is a small town. Our Library has won excellence awards and does not require "enhancing the quality and scope of services to the St. Helena community." It already does a great job.
However, we do need a City Manager who will listen to the patrons of our Library, concerns of the Library staff and be open-minded about what he hears.
Also needed is correct information about the former library director retiring (she quit) and being consulted on the proposed merger (she hasn't been).
Considering all of this, I recommend questioning the City Manager on his real goal in proposing this merger.
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Susan Boeschen
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Ill Conceived Library and Parks and Rec Proposal - March 26 City Council Meeting Date: Saturday, March 23, 2024 12:56:03 PM
Our St. Helena Library is one of the crown jewels of our small town. It has functioned well, relatively problem free, as a major hub of our community for many years. Putting the library under city management makes absolutely no sense for the following reasons:
--[if !supportLists]-->1.<!--[endif]-->This is a solution without a defined problem. --[if !supportLists]-->2.<!--[endif]-->The data provided in support of the proposal pertains to large urban cities, is outdated and is not relevant to St. Helena. --[if !supportLists]-->3.<!--[endif]-->Increasing vertical bureaucracy creates more inefficiency rather than improving it.
--[if !supportLists]-->4.<!--[endif]-->There are simpler ways for Mr. Comelo to accomplish his stated goals.
--[if !supportLists]-->5.<!--[endif]-->It will likely negatively impact funding for the library.
This proposal does not define a problem that needs to be solved. Our small city is facing many complex problems. We would be better advised to spend the limited time and resources available to make progress on those known problems instead of creating controversy over a proposal to solve a non-defined problem.
This proposal, which may have some merit in some larger cities, is completely inappropriate for St. Helena. In his proposal, Mr. Comelo lifts phrases verbatim from a twenty five-year old article first published in 1998 written by Diantha Schull describing the advantages of combining the many libraries and parks departments in large urban cities that are facing urban infrastructure problems, funding competition between libraries and parks, “unsystematic and unstructured” communication problems and isolated staff. This does not accurately describe St. Helena, is outdated and not relevant data.
He also describes the success of this approach in several California cities, all of which have populations magnitudes larger than St. Helena --Beverly Hills at 6 times larger, San Rafael 12 times larger, Pleasanton 15 times larger and Richmond 23 times larger. This is not relevant data for St. Helena.
Mr. Comelo also describes the need to “modernize operating models.” Modern organization models suggest minimizing levels of authority improves efficiency, communication, time critical decision making and change opportunities. This proposal creates a new “umbrella department” which adds another vertical layer of bureaucracy to solve a non-defined problem.
We applaud Mr. Comelo for seeking to develop methods for increasing communication, opportunities and efficiency among city staff and other organizations within the city.
However, a bureaucratic structural change is not merited to accomplish these goals between the small staff of the Parks and Rec Department and our ONE town library. It should be as simple as a phone call or even a meeting if either the Library or Parks and Rec has an issue or opportunity to discuss.
Agenda Item #13.4.
The proposal correctly states that the new structure does not save money. It is very likely that this proposal will in fact have a substantial negative impact on funding. For over twenty years, we have gratefully supported our unique St. Helena Library with both participation and major funding level donations as sponsors of Bookmark for example. It is hard to imagine any scenario where we will continue with this level of support if our library no longer functions independently but becomes a branch of city government. We have heard this sentiment expressed by many other library supporters. The recent resignation of two Library Foundation board members is solid evidence of coming effects.
We strongly urge you to applaud Mr. Comelo for his continuing efforts to improve our city but deny support for this absurd proposal.
Respectfully,
Susan and Dann Boeschen
Agenda Item #13.4.
This submission is made in response to Item 13.4 of the Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for its meeting on March 26, 2024.
What we know about the City Manager’s (not the staff’s which he tries to hide behind) misguided structural change to the supervision of our Library, the Parks and Recreation Department and whatever are “Arts, Culture . . . Grants and Community Engagement”, is best described, to the extent it is at all, in the City Manager’s most recent newsletter. That newsletter is replete with nothing but “academic gibberish”, and a glaring lack of specifics. Politicians and other public officials often use this gobbledygook when the speaker or author has little or no knowledge of what he speaks or hopes his audience will it believe it since it sounds important it must be.
The City Manager’s newsletter refers to “stakeholders” without identifying them. However, that may be irrelevant because, contrary to the City Manager’s bald duplicitous assertion, there was no one listening to any contrary position and even less there was no attempt to assuage their “concerns and misconceptions.”
The City Manager further claims with no attribution that his proposed new structure is “best practice.” Further, his sentence that begins “This structure” is totally non-sensical and of no benefit in explaining his plan. No one can fathom what “similarity in reach” means, because, being as sympathetic as possible, it is a classic example of the above-referenced “political and or academic gibberish”.
This is not, as the City Manager boldly and baldly asserts, an “opportunity to rethink” how our Library is managed. It is, however, an opportunity to rethink whether a City with departments that are very capably managed needs a City Manager at all. The City Manager has admitted he knows nothing about the day-to-day workings of the Library. That is reason enough to simply ignore his potentially Agenda Item #13.4.
dangerous restructuring. All the Library needs is what the City Manager has ignored in favor of his fanciful plan - - a highly qualified permanent preplacement for its prior brilliant director.,
Quite simply, “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”. City Council – DO THE RIGHT THING and reject what is not needed and is potentially a risk to our City’s most valuable asset.
Respectfully submitted,
David W. Slaby
P.S. The City Manager’s crazy plan requires the City to hire one more highly compensated employee with money the City does not have.
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: sue
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Formation of New Department
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 12:12:42 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members –
I want to throw in my support for this new department as I applaud efforts to find greater synergies between organizations, reduce duplicative activities (I believe there were several events hosted separately by both the city as well as well as the library like Gingerbread House making), and to open opportunities for new developments in art and culture like public art (which has so wonderfully enhanced nearby cities like Yountville and Napa).
To those who say it could create a library management position with “less clout”, I ask how that would affect our library services? Or is that just a desire to hold on to power? Because as a community member, I’m not interested in people holding on to power or staying siloed.
Especially when so much of our city budget is spent on the library. I rather see more collaboration.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sue Furdek
707-738-9330
[email protected]
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Leslie Stanton
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] City Council 3.26.2024
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:36:28 PM
Please include my comment in the 3/26/2024 City Council Agenda concerning 13.4. Thank you.
To City Council -
The corporate mentality and vocabulary of “staff” in Saint Helena is hard to puncture.
Staff (upper echelon City employees), led by the City Manager, have presented a report to the City Council about the new “umbrella department to bring together the functions of Library and Parks and Recreation”. Some of us know that there are many flaws in this report, even untruths. For example, the former Library Director was never consulted on this matter. In fact, she, like the rest of us, was told of the merger. Those of us (stakeholders) that were concerned, and had been able to voice our concerns about such a merger, feel that we have been just shouting into the wind. The opinions of actual stakeholders living in Saint Helena, are nullified.
I believe that if the Library still had the support of our strong past leaders like Major Del Brittion, Doctors Wood and Darter, Library Director Clayla Davis, and the scores of others that built the fabulous Saint Helena Library into the wonderful institution it is now, this scheme would never have been launched. They believed in Saint Helena, a small town of charm and community, Unfortunately leaders of today, including you, our elected City Councilors, are favoring the opinions of one man that chooses not to live in Saint Helena and will most likely not be around at all in a couple of years. All the power has shifted to this City Manager who is allowed to make all the decisions and determine the fate of this town. He often touts the benefits of “best practices” of cities like Beverly Hills, San Rafael, Pleasanton and Richmond. Saint Helena is not these cities. Please preserve what we have and reject the notion that our town needs to follow these cities' example.
I hope City Council members have read and considered the well written remarks by stakeholders in our town. The City Manager didn’t listen but I still have hope that you will.
Have pride in our town. Remember why you choose to live in Saint Helena.
Sincerely, Leslie Stanton
35 year City of Saint Helena Employee,
SHPL Children’s Librarian, retired
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: FF Director Deanna M. Griffin
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Friends & Foundation, St. Helena Public Library. Regarding City Council 3/26/24 Regular Meeting, Report accompanying Agenda Item 13.4
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 4:34:58 PM
To: St. Helena City Council
From: Board of Directors and Staff of Friends & Foundation, St. Helena Public Library Regarding: Report that proposes a "Community Services Department" There are many models for how municipalities might organize themselves. Friends & Foundation takes no position on the City of St. Helena’s choice of model.
That said, the Library would be affected by the adoption of the proposed “Community Services Department” (CSD, to encompass the current departments Parks & Recreation and Library, as well as Arts, Culture, Grants, and Community Engagement). Therefore—in the interest of maintaining and increasing the success of our Library, its staff, and service to its patrons—we seek reassurance from the City and its Council regarding two things we did not find addressed by the Report.
We trust that the Council will refrain from burdening the Library and its current staff with unsupported new workload.
The Report stresses that each current department (Library and Parks & Recreation) would “continue to function independently with its own budget and own staff.” The way we read the Report, if a CSD were to be formed, the current employees of the Library, Parks & Recreation, and one new Director-level person collectively would be expected to accomplish current commitments and to accomplish a yet-undefined additional scope of work in the areas of arts, culture, grants, and community engagement.
A new CSD Director, after the whole department is fully staffed and its people are trained, might well offer economies of directorship time for the future head of Library as long as the Director is not tasked with service-level activity. And, from a City perspective, systematizing practices across departments might remedy a few interdepartmental duplications of effort. But these outcomes could not close the capacity gap between current workload achieved by current Library (and Parks & Recreation) staff and an additional set of new duties (in Arts, Culture, Grants, and Community Engagement) to be carried out by the very same staff.
With an already low current FTE headcount (relative to past staffing), the Library continues to serve its public well. But could full patron services continue if Library staff are asked to take on tasks well beyond the scope of current work? Agenda Item #13.4.
We are grateful that the City is committed to important minimum job requirements for the next head of the Library and anticipate with hope that these will be in place regardless of that role’s reporting structure.
Specifically: we’ve been told by City staff that “Deputy Director of Community Services —Library” job requirements would minimally include a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science earned from an ALA-accredited school, 5-7 years of experience working as a librarian, and successful experience managing staff that includes other professional librarians.
Thank you for receiving and considering these comments that pertain to a well-loved and wellfunctioning department as you evaluate the overall needs of the City.
With focused attention on our cherished Library, we look forward to continuing in partnership with you, the City, the Library Board of Trustees, and Library leadership and staff.
Deanna M. Griffin, Executive Director
FRIENDS & FOUNDATION, ST. HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY
PO Box 171; St. Helena, CA 94574www.shplFoundation.org
501(c)3 Tax ID Number 26-3043296
[email protected]
Friends & Foundation, St. Helena Public Library is an independent charitable nonprofit that fundraises and advocates for the benefit of the St. Helena Public Library. A Board of Directors and two part-time staff maintain focus on the Library, its staff, and its high-quality services to current and future patrons. In 2013, the St. Helena Public Library Foundation and Friends of the St. Helena Public Library joined to become the current organization. Gifts of all sizes are received with gratitude by Friends & Foundation. Donors are eligible for tax benefits to the extent allowable by law.
Resources are passed from the Foundation to a dedicated income fund within municipal restricted funds; the fund balance is used to pay for St. Helena Public Library expenses only.
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: [email protected]
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [External] Comment regarding proposed new umbrella Dept.
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:06:27 AM
Hi Cindy – please forward this to the City Council and City Manager – thank you.Ann ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing in support of the new umbrella department being proposed.
A large part of our Government’s job is to find ways to increase services to the community while ensuring an optimal and achievable budget. I do believe that especially in a small city, crossdepartmental communication, knowledge, and idea sharing as well as a holistic look at budgets across functions is the most effective way to accomplish this task. It also provides better understanding between teams, and provides opportunities for back-up support if a department is in need of assistance.
The best part about decisions of this nature, is that they can be tried, and reversed or adjusted as needed to make sure they are functioning in the best possible way. Unlike concrete on the ground, or the sale of public property, these types of reversible decisions are the ones that allow for creativity with minimal risk and/or consequences.
Thank you for your service to the City of St Helena and for seeking new and creative ways to govern smartly and effectively.
Respectfully,
Ann Nevero
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Wendy Watson
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Library Proposal
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 6:06:18 PM
I am adding my voice to those in our community who are concerned about making the St Helena Library part of the Department of Parks and Recreation, or whatever name you choose to call it.
A Library is a unique city department. Much like the work of Parks and Recreation it provides services to our local community. However a library does much more. A Public Library has the responsibility to select materials for public use and provide access to unbiased information for our community. This public access includes internet access that many cannot afford. The unique role of the library is recognized by the State of California in the State Education Code.
There are statutes/codes that apply to all public libraries. This inclusion in our State Education Code reflects the importance of an independent library.
It has been said over and over again that this is not an attempt to save money. In fact it means increased costs for the city, including department staffing. The Librarian, under the current structure, has the responsibility of running the library. In a new system this person would also be responsible for attending city staff meetings and reporting directly to a department head.
So the City Librarian would now devote much more to city administration. In addition there will be increased costs in the Department of Parks and Recreation, or whatever you call the department, to supervise the library. There is no efficiency of scale in a town as small as St Helena. Reading the staff report and the City Manager’s proposal I found no specific reason to make this change. What I read are only generalized wishful projections. The city has major issues to deal with. Why are you devoting staff and council time to this? This brings me the most disturbing effect of this proposal. St Helena Library is a well functioning and useful institution in this community. Its ability to be faithful to a singular work, see the Library mission statement, is essential to public support. We know what the library does and why. If you make the library part of city government you will no longer have access to independently raised donations and support for the library. The Friends and Foundation of St Helena Public Library raise money through donations, and contribute countless hours of volunteer work, and pay for much of the library's work. My family has given the Foundation money precisely because it is an independent organization and we know exactly what it will be used for: the benefit of the Library and its patrons. I believe in the work of public libraries. People do not volunteer time and money to government; our taxes provide for that. We give ourselves and our money to charities and institutions that do something we believe is important and make a difference.
I would hope the citizens representatives could make clear what benefit this proposal is to the people of St Helena. I cannot see any.
Wendy Watson
A resident of Calistoga, however I work in St Helena
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Stephanie Smithers
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Comment for 13.4
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 8:32:30 AM
Hi Cindy! I hope you had a nice day celebrating Greek Independence Day! Would you please share with the City Manager and Council, and add to the public comment for agendia item 13.4? Thank you!
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I have some questions regarding the City Manager’s recommendation to form a new department. I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, it’s not new and has been brought up by previous city managers. In fact, it was not long ago that I worked for the Recreation Department and was asked how I felt about the idea.
What I find misleading about the staff report is the lack of information regarding how this would actually work and the financial impact to the city.
Here are my additional questions I hope can be addressed at the meeting:
1.I’ve asked staff how they feel about it and are told, “They are not allowed to talk about it? Why?
2.Who are the community and department stakeholders mentioned in the staff report? I think it’d helpful to have included some of the feedback and concerns addressed from those conversations and the city’s “endeavors to address the concerns or misconceptions.”
3.Explain how the formation of a new department would “modernize our operating model and enhance civic services in several areas.” a.Both departments have made great improvements over the last few years to modernize through improved software. How else do you expect to modernize these departments through the formation of a new department? b.Can we be more specific how this will enhance civic services? This statement is broad and meaningless by itself.
4.Will parks and recreation move to the library? I don’t see how you solve the city manager’s comment, “isolate staff and stifle collaboration, creativity, innovation” without moving the departments to the same facility.
a.If there are plans to do so, the cost for facility improvements should be included in the staff report. It cost the city a great deal of money to move to the college, and even redesign Railroad Avenue temporarily for offices, these costs are important in giving a clear image to the community.
5.If staff continue to report to their own director, how does this solve question #3?
6.If Recreation staff are moved to the library, will they be cross-trained to do library services as well? Will this not result in a new job title and enhanced pay? Agenda Item #13.4.
7. Not a question, but a comment: The Recreation Manager position was only considered AFTER the City Manager proposed this formation of a new department months ago. It’s more than obvious that there is a connection between this new position and your now proposed department structure. “* The Parks & Recreation Manager was a previous and separate reorganization decision unrelated to the creation of the new department.” – this is incredibly misleading.
There should be a chart for the “Realistic annual costs” for the department to be fully functional. The chart included is again misleading for how this department should run in order to meet the goals listed in the staff report. Here are some numbers found in other City Staff reports that should be included:
a.$17,398 – difference at the executive level
b.$35,048 – increase for a Recreation Manager who will take over some of the current director’s duties and replace the Recreation Supervisor position c.$106,148 – Adding a Recreation Coordinator to replace the Recreation Supervisor (Previously it was noted that this would reduce PT salaries, so it’s possible this number is only $62,198. In addition, the Recreation Department is waiting to fill this role after the Rec Manager was created) d.$62,232 x 2 – The library currently has two unfilled positions; we should expect to fill those.
e.Moving costs? Costs for implementing a arts/culture program? I believe that the Recreation Department needed a full-time coordinator prior to its new Recreation Manager title, and I also believe the unfilled library positions should be filled, with or without the formation of a new department. So, I see how those could be unrelated to the merger, BUT, the Recreation manager position is related, and any costs to relocating the Recreation department for greater collaboration/effectiveness should be included. Lastly, additional dollars needed for website development, consultants, etc. regarding adding Arts/Culture should also be included.
The desired outcomes listed in the staff report sound nice, except hold no weight without specific objectives. I would argue that you’d expect the same goals for a department each year, striving to improve and continue to “enhance civic services.” Again, I am not necessarily opposed to the concept but feel like this idea is being rushed for no need. This does not seem like a priority compared to the many projects that face the city. If the council decides to move forward, I’d like to ask you to challenge City staff to better define the objectives which could ultimately help gain community buy-in.
Thank you for your consideration,
Stephanie Iacobacci-Smithers
Agenda Item #13.4.
Agenda Item #13.4.
E L L E N K I E V A L
1 2 3 O E D W A R D S S T R E E T
S A I N T H E L E N A , C A 9 4 5 7 4
26 March 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
The St. Helena Public Library is, in my opinion, our most important asset and community resource. I have been a patron and supporter since moving here in 2000, and frequently avail myself of its wonderful and varied offerings, be they print or audiobooks, art installations, lectures, musical or dramatic presentations, holiday celebrations, etc. It manages to do this with just a few valiant staff members and volunteers, and punches way above its weight.
We should be doing everything in our power to support and strengthen this august institution, not weaken or dilute it. Please keep the library autonomous and work to ensure its essential place in our community in perpetuity.
Sincerely,
Ellen Kieval
Agenda Item #13.4.
From: Stephanie Smithers
To: CityCouncil; Anil Comelo; Dave Jahns
Subject: [External] Item 13.4 Feedback
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:12:32 AM
Good morning Council,
I wanted to follow up from my public comment, I just finished watching last night's council meeting and appreciate the time and discussion that was had around the formation of a new department. Most of my questions were answered in the presentation last night - Dave, I thought you did an excellent job laying the framework.
I'd like to add, while I don't think it's absolutely necessary, I am excited to see what Dave can do and I believe he has proven himself as a Director over his last two years with the City. (Many residents have appreciated Dave's openness and eagerness to receive feedback)
Few additional comments:
1. I think it continues to be a valid question if staff feel comfortable being transparent. As mentioned, I have talked to multiple staff members across a variety departments who have said the same thing, "we're not allowed to speak about it" and when asked if they've talked to council, they say they're not allowed to speak to council directly.
IDEA: Could the city use its public survey tools to survey staff anonymously and share that feedback with the council?
2. I appreciated Billy's comments about collaboration. Since these were the only services that the City felt were realistic to combine for shared service, I hope we continue to encourage collaboration across departments. It would be GREAT to see our departments working together, and not operating on separate islands. With or without making them "shared services". I recall during my time at the City Public Works not understanding why they needed to support Recreation events, this may not be the case today. But shared vision across all departments is critical.
3. When evaluating the new department, I do not think one year is enough time. I believe it'll take up to two years to really be able to see if service to the community is enhanced. Dave will be spending the next year working with staff, and also building up each team (if provided additional funds to fill unfilled positions). Also, there will be hiccups along the way and staff need time to work through those.. so i'd like to suggest that you increase the evaluation window to longer than a year to give it a real chance. (Per Paul's comments)
4. The creation of the Recreation Manager position is great, but it does not feel honest to say it has nothing to do with the new department. Staff continue to mention that it's critical in the structure of the Recreation division, as it'll lead the Rec division. I get that already having the position approved, makes it appear as if there is less of a cost impact to the city for the creation of this new department - but it's more than obvious that the creation of the position was also in preparation for plans to combine departments.
Thank you again for your time and consideration on this big change for the city. I think there is huge potential if done with transparency and collaboration.
Be Well,
Stephanie Iacobacci-Smithers
Agenda Item #13.4.