St. Helena City Council
May 19, 2026

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
63  Work Order and Resource Management: Automate ticketing (e.g., from Grapevine reports), assign crews via RASCI matrices, and track labor/materials to optimize seasonal staffing.  Integration and Reporting: Link to executive dashboards for real-time KPIs (e.g., preventive maintenance rate >90%, asset uptime, budget variance) and CIP tracking (e.g., progress on $3.3 million water and $2.1 million wastewater projects).
 FWA Alignment: Incorporate anticipated FWA control recommendations—e.g., audit trails for asset-related expenditures, approval workflows for repairs >$5,000, and anomaly detection for unusual maintenance patterns— to prevent waste in procurement or labor allocation.

Deployment Strategy: Pilot (6–9 months) in water/wastewater (high-risk due to discolored water complaints and regulatory fines), then expand to streets/sidewalks. Train staff via the Training Program (A.14), with change management support (A.20) to address resistance. Budget $10–20K initially (software licensing, GIS enhancements, training), potentially offset by grants. Monitor via dashboards, targeting metrics like reduced emergency repairs (20–40% drop) and extended asset life (10–20 years for pipes).

Benefits:
• Operational: Shift to 80–90% preventive maintenance, minimizing disruptions and extending lifecycles. • Financial: Achieve $50,000–$100,000 annual savings through optimized scheduling and reduced emergency costs. • Resident-Focused: Improve water quality reliability and road conditions, addressing Godbe survey concerns. • Maturity: Advance CMMI Level 3 by standardizing asset processes citywide.

This system transforms Public Works from reactive to strategic, supporting long-term infrastructure sustainability and aligning with the City’s capital improvement goals.

7.9. Strategic Communications Plan (B.9)
The Strategic Communications Plan (B.9) is a Phase 2 high-priority lever point, essential for tying internal change efforts to external public relations and resident trust-building. Currently, the City Clerk’s office handles communications— managing agendas, public notices, and basic outreach—but lacks a strategic approach, resulting in reactive messaging, inconsistent channels, and missed opportunities for engagement. This plan will unify internal (staff-focused) and external (public relations) communications, ensuring transparency, alignment, and measurable impact. Critically, it must be guided by the City Strategic Plan (A.1), using its themes—such as rebuilding community trust through FWA mitigation, operational excellence, and resident-centered services—as the core narrative to shape all messaging.

Development should begin in Phase 2 (Months 6–12 post-transformation start), led by the City Clerk in collaboration with the Human Resources Manager (for internal comms), IT Manager (for digital tools), and a cross-departmental team including Public Works and Administrative Services representatives. Start with a communications audit: Assess current channels (e.g., website, newsletters, social media, staff emails) via surveys and analytics to identify gaps, such as low resident awareness of CIP projects or internal resistance to BPR changes. Reference the City Strategic Plan’s goals—e.g., enhancing trust via FWA transparency—to define objectives: Increase resident satisfaction (target 70% positive feedback per Godbe-style surveys), boost staff engagement (80% training participation), and ensure 90% of communications align with strategic priorities.

Key development elements:
 Internal Communications Strategy: Focus on change management support (A.20), delivering timely updates on BPR progress, policy changes, and training via intranet portals, all-hands meetings, and newsletters. Embed FWA awareness to foster a culture of accountability.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
64  External Public Relations Strategy: Prioritize resident engagement through multichannel outreach—website revamps, social media campaigns, community forums, and press releases—highlighting strategic plan milestones like infrastructure improvements or efficiency gains.
 Integrated Tools and Channels: Develop a unified platform (e.g., cloud-based CMS integrated with CRM System, B.10) for consistent branding and tracking. Use AI for sentiment analysis on public feedback.  Messaging Guidelines: Create templates aligned with the strategic plan’s vision, ensuring inclusive, transparent language that addresses resident concerns (e.g., water quality updates tied to Public Works strategies).  Stakeholder Mapping: Identify audiences (residents, staff, partners) and tailor content, incorporating customercentered design for accessible, user-friendly formats.

We emphasize that with Strategic Communications, the City should develop audience segmentation. At the highest level, this could include communications: 1) necessary for policy or legal compliance; 2) internal City personnel; 3) City residents; 4) City businesses; and 5) City guests (tourists). Some of these areas can be split further into subsegments based on age, interests, behavior, etc. The City should not confuse good communications for policy or legal compliance, which are often highly detailed and technical, with good communications for City residents.

Deployment rolls out in Phase 2, with a soft launch: Pilot internal comms during a BPR rollout (e.g., accounting automation) and external via a town hall on strategic plan progress. Full deployment includes quarterly reviews via dashboards (A.19), measuring metrics like open rates, engagement scores, and alignment audits. Train staff through the Training Program (A.14), with the City Clerk as central coordinator.

Challenges like message overload can be mitigated via the Change Management System (A.20), prioritizing concise, targeted updates. Benefits include accelerated transformation adoption, reduced misinformation, and stronger resident trust—evidenced by improved survey ratings and higher participation in City initiatives. By anchoring communications in the City Strategic Plan, this plan ensures cohesive storytelling that amplifies efficiency gains, FWA safeguards, and community-focused outcomes, positioning St. Helena as a transparent, responsive government.

7.10. Customer Relationship Management System (B.10)
Customer Relationship Management System (B.10) is a Phase 2 effort to centralize and enhance interactions with residents and businesses. Currently, the City relies on fragmented tools—such as the Grapevine app for service requests, email/phone for inquiries, and departmental silos for permitting or licensing—leading to inconsistent experiences, delayed responses, and limited insight into community needs. A dedicated CRM will create a unified platform for tracking, personalizing, and improving service delivery, directly supporting the City Strategic Plan’s goals of resident-centered governance, enhanced community engagement, and operational excellence.

Development should begin in Phase 2, led by the IT Manager in collaboration with the City Clerk (who currently handles basic communications), Administrative Services Director, and a resident/business advisory group. Start with a needs assessment: Map existing interactions (e.g., Grapevine tickets, business license renewals, water billing inquiries) and survey residents/businesses on pain points, targeting 70%+ satisfaction improvement as a benchmark. Align requirements with the Strategic Plan’s emphasis on trust-building through transparency and responsiveness—e.g., real-time updates on infrastructure projects or permitting status.

Select a scalable, municipal-focused CRM platform (e.g., CivicPlus, Granicus, or Salesforce Government Cloud) with 311- style request management, contact history, and analytics. Key features include:
 Resident/Business Portal: Self-service access for submitting requests, tracking status, paying fees, renewing licenses, and receiving notifications—integrated with Grapevine for seamless handoffs.  Case Management: Centralized ticketing with automated routing (e.g., water quality complaints to Public Works), SLAs for response times (target <48 hours), and escalation protocols.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
65  360-Degree View: Unified profiles capturing interaction history across channels (phone, email, portal, social media), enabling personalized responses and trend analysis (e.g., recurring business permitting issues).  Analytics & Reporting: Dashboards tracking KPIs like resolution rates, satisfaction scores (via post-interaction surveys), and engagement metrics—feeding the City Council Executive Dashboard for oversight.  FWA & Compliance Integration: Secure data handling with audit trails, role-based access, and automated alerts for anomalies (e.g., duplicate requests indicating potential abuse).

Deployment rolls out in Phase 3: Pilot with high-volume services (e.g., utility billing, business licensing) for 3 months, gathering feedback via focus groups. Full rollout includes staff training through the Training Program), with the City Clerk as CRM administrator. Integrate with existing tools (e.g., Springbrook for payments, GIS for location-based requests) and the Knowledge Management System for quick-reference FAQs. The system should include metrics for integration into the City’s dashboards.

Budget $20–30K initially (licensing, customization, training), offset by efficiency gains (e.g., 20–30% reduction in manual processing per municipal benchmarks). Challenges like adoption resistance can be addressed via the Change Management System (A.20), emphasizing benefits like faster service and reduced staff workload.

Benefits:
 Enhanced resident satisfaction through consistent, tracked interactions.  Improved business support (e.g., streamlined licensing renewals).  Data-driven insights for strategic planning (e.g., prioritizing road repairs based on request trends).  Strengthened trust via transparent updates on Strategic Plan progress.

This CRM transforms the City from reactive to strategic, creating a resident- and business-centered ecosystem that amplifies the City’s commitment to excellence and community partnership.

7.11. Quality Management System (B.11)
A Quality Management System (QMS) (B.11) is a Phase 2 component, building on Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) foundations from earlier phases and aligning with the push toward CMMI Level 3 maturity. In St. Helena’s current state, quality practices are ad hoc—reactive audits in finance, inconsistent maintenance in Public Works, and limited performance tracking across departments—leading to inefficiencies, resident dissatisfaction (e.g., Godbe survey ratings below 0.5 for key services), and vulnerabilities like FWA risks or infrastructure failures. A formalized QMS will institutionalize proactive quality assurance, ensuring processes meet standards, deliver value, and continuously improve, directly supporting the City Strategic Plan’s emphasis on operational excellence and community trust.

Development should commence in late Phase 2 (Months 9–12), transitioning to full deployment in Phase 3 (Months 12– 24). Lead with a cross-functional QMS team: the Human Resources Manager (for training and culture), IT Manager (for digital tools), City Accountant (for financial quality controls), and Public Works Director (for operational focus). Begin with a gap analysis: Review Level 2 and 3 BPR outputs (e.g., As-Is/To-Be diagrams) and FWA findings to identify quality gaps, such as variable permitting times or unmonitored vendor performance. Adopt a framework like ISO 9001:2015 or Baldrige Criteria, tailored for small governments—focusing on leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, and improvement.

Key development elements include:
 Quality Policy and Objectives: Draft a citywide quality policy aligned with the Strategic Plan, setting measurable objectives (e.g., 95% on-time service delivery, <5% rework in accounting). Integrate FWA controls, such as mandatory audits for high-risk processes.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
66  Process Standardization: Build a quality manual in the Knowledge Management System, documenting standard operating procedures (SOPs) for core processes (e.g., water testing protocols in Public Works, invoice processing in Finance). Use RASCI matrices to assign quality roles.  Measurement and Tools: Define KPIs (e.g., defect rates, customer satisfaction scores) and integrate AI-driven analytics (e.g., Azure tools) for real-time monitoring. Link to dashboards for visualization, including FWA metrics like exception rates.
 Audit and Review Mechanisms: Establish internal audit schedules (quarterly for high-risk areas) and management reviews (biannual) to evaluate system effectiveness.
 Customer Focus Integration: Embed resident/business feedback loops from the CRM System (B.10), ensuring quality aligns with customer-centered design principles.

Deployment rolls out progressively: Pilot in one department (e.g., Public Works, given its high transformation potential) for 3–6 months, testing SOPs, audits, and tools. Expand citywide, with mandatory training via the Training Program (A.14)— covering quality principles, root-cause analysis (e.g., 5 Whys), and tools like PDCA cycles. Use the Change Management System (A.20) for adoption: Communicate benefits (e.g., reduced errors saving $100,000+ annually) and address resistance through workshops. Deploy digital elements via cloud platforms, ensuring integration with the Asset Management System (B.8) for maintenance quality and the Risk Management System (B.7) for risk-linked audits.

Governance ties in through the Policy Framework (A.22), mandating QMS compliance, with oversight via the City Council Executive Dashboard (A.8)—tracking metrics like audit findings resolution (target 90% within 30 days). Budget $10–20K initially (software, training, audits), offset by efficiencies (e.g., 15–25% reduction in rework per industry benchmarks).

Challenges include cultural shift from reactive to preventive; mitigate with leadership sponsorship and incentives tied to the Talent Management System (A.12). Potential overload in small staff can be addressed via strategic partnerships (A.3) for shared quality expertise.

Benefits:
 Operational: Standardized processes reduce variability, improving service reliability (e.g., consistent water quality, faster permitting).
 Financial: Prevent FWA losses and optimize resources, contributing to $625,000+ savings (Deliverable 3C).  Resident Trust: Transparent quality reporting via the Strategic Communications Plan (B.9) demonstrates accountability.
 Maturity: Paves the way for CMMI Level 3 certification, with integrated CQI fostering innovation.

This QMS deployment creates a culture of excellence, ensuring transformation initiatives deliver lasting value and positioning St. Helena as a model of efficient, quality-driven local governance.

7.12. Public Works Long-Term Strategy (B.12)
The City of St. Helena’s Efficiency and Business Transformation Study identifies Public Works as the department with the highest potential for transformational change, given its high work volume, ranging from routine tasks like street sweeping to complex operations like water and wastewater management. With a population of around 5,300, the City faces unique challenges: seasonal surges in demand (e.g., tourism-driven infrastructure strain), aging assets (e.g., frequent pipe leaks and discolored water incidents), and limited internal capacity for specialized expertise. The study’s Phase 2 recommendations (Deliverable 3C) outline three strategic options for a long-term approach: total outsourcing of Public Works, partial outsourcing focused on water and wastewater, or maintaining the as-is structure with targeted performance improvements.

Each option must account for the City’s small size, which poses a significant feasibility concern—commercial providers

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
67 may be reluctant to take on low-volume contracts due to economies of scale issues, as seen in similar California municipalities where providers prefer larger urban clients.

A big hurdle is attracting vendors: For a city of this scale, total outsourcing might not appeal to private firms like Veolia or American Water, which typically target populations over 20,000 for profitability. Instead, regional water districts or county partnerships (e.g., with Napa County) could be more viable, drawing from historical models like the ”Lakewood Plan” pioneered in Lakewood, CA, in 1954, where small cities contract with counties for services to achieve cost efficiencies without full privatization.

Option 1: Total Outsourcing of Public Works
This involves contracting all Public Works functions—streets, parks, stormwater, water, wastewater, and facilities—to a single external provider. Pros include access to specialized expertise, reduced administrative burden, and potential cost savings of 20–40% through economies of scale, as noted in studies of similar California cities like Camarillo and Santa Clarita, which contract with Ventura County for services like fire and public works elements. Providers could bring advanced tools (e.g., predictive analytics for maintenance) and handle seasonal staffing surges without the City’s HR overhead.

However, cons are substantial: Loss of local control could lead to slower response times for community-specific needs, like rapid repairs. Job impacts on current staff (e.g., potential layoffs or transfers) might erode morale. Feasibility is low for a 5,000-person city—private firms may decline due to slim margins, as evidenced by limited examples in small California towns/cities; instead, models like Palm Desert’s county contracts for fire services suggest partial reliance on regional entities. Long-term risks include contract disputes, as seen in some outsourced transit systems transitioning back in-house (e.g., San Diego MTS). If pursued, a 10–15-year contract with performance clauses (e.g., 95% on-time maintenance) and exit options is advisable, but only after RFP exploration reveals viable bidders. Overall, Blackberg does not believe that this option is viable because commercial entities will likely be uninterested in the City because of its small size.

Option 2: Outsourcing Water and Wastewater
A more targeted approach: Outsource only the most complex, regulated services—water treatment, distribution, and wastewater management—while retaining in-house control over streets, parks, and stormwater. This leverages external expertise for high-risk areas (e.g., compliance with California Water Board standards, addressing discolored water complaints), where the City struggles with specialized skills and capital costs. Pros include cost predictability (fixed-rate contracts), improved reliability (providers like Veolia specialize in water tech), and reduced liability for environmental fines.

Examples from small California cities, such as those in Riverside County contracting for specific utilities, show 15–25% savings and better maintenance. For St. Helena’s size, regional providers (e.g., Napa Sanitation District partnerships) are more feasible than national firms, avoiding the scale issue.

Cons: Partial outsourcing could fragment operations, requiring strong coordination to prevent silos. Transition costs (e.g., asset transfers) might offset initial savings, and dependency on vendors could expose the City to rate hikes. Long-term strategy: 5–10-year contracts with SLAs (e.g., <2% water loss rate), integrated with the Asset Management System (A.5) for monitoring. Blackberg believes that this is the best long-term strategy to explore; however, due to the City’s small size, it will likely not include commercial solutions. Solutions should focus on strategic partnerships with local and county municipalities (e.g. regional water district).

Option 3: Stay As-Is with Performance Improvements
Retain full in-house operations but invest in internal enhancements through BPR, asset management, and technology. Pros include maintaining local control, preserving jobs (key for community morale), and building long-term capacity. The study (Deliverable 3A) suggests staffing reallocations (e.g., $625,000 savings via efficiencies) without outsourcing, using tools like preventive maintenance (91% target rate) and AI analytics to optimize resources. Examples from small California cities like Palm Desert show success through county collaborations for specific tasks while keeping core operations internal, achieving economies without privatization.

Cons: Slower gains, as internal reforms require upfront investment ($200–400K for systems/training) and may not fully address expertise gaps in complex areas like wastewater. Feasibility is high, avoiding vendor search challenges. Short-term:

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
68 Implement over 1–2 years, focusing on CMMI Level 3 maturity—standardized processes, integrated dashboards, and partnerships for shared services (e.g., Napa County for specialized training).

Acknowledging the Larger Context of Water and Wastewater Water challenges for St. Helena go beyond the efficiency and effectiveness goals of this study. However, they must be acknowledged to better understand how efficiency and effectiveness recommendations fit into the larger context of water.  The region experiences pronounced inter-annual variability in precipitation and snowpack. Even with a wetter-thanaverage start to the 2025–2026 water year, late-season drying has renewed concerns about drought recurrence. This comes after recent, historically severe droughts. St. Helena relies on a blended portfolio of local groundwater, surface water from Bell Canyon Reservoir, and purchased supplies from the City of Napa.  Declining water deliveries caused by a shrinking population and heightened conservation have tightened revenues while increasing the relative cost of imported water. Non-revenue water loss remains elevated at approximately 15% due to leaks in aging mains.
 Wildfires are a constant threat to St. Helena and the surrounding region. The 2020 “Glass Fire” threatened St. Helena and destroyed many nearby structures. Deferred maintenance has left transmission lines, treatment plants, and Bell Canyon Reservoir infrastructure vulnerable to stress during high-demand events. Wildfire-induced power outages can disable pumps and treatment processes, while smoke/ash ingress compromises source water quality in real time.

Wildfires create cascading water quality threats that persist for months to years, directly compounding St. Helena’s existing iron/manganese and infrastructure issues.
 Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code §10720 et seq.), the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NCGSA) adopted the Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in 2023. Napa County’s Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is implementing new pumping fees starting in 2026 to fund the required $2.5 million annual management program. o Agriculture (primarily vineyards) accounts for ~74% of pumping; public water systems like St. Helena are charged per acre-foot extracted.
o This adds direct costs to St. Helena’s municipal supply while the county works to maintain local control and prevent overdraft.
 St. Helena’s raw water sources—Bell Canyon Reservoir and local groundwater wells—exhibit naturally elevated concentrations of iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn). These metals oxidize and precipitate in the distribution system, leading to recurring episodes of discolored water and metallic odors. They necessitate frequent system flushing (tens of thousands of gallons per event), increasing non-revenue water loss and operational expense.  Decades of deferred investment have left the City’s water transmission, treatment, and distribution assets in suboptimal condition. The City is advancing a multi-year CIP exceeding $55 million to address critical needs, including Bell Canyon intake tower replacement, water treatment plant upgrades, transmission line replacements, and tank rehabilitation. These projects are essential for regulatory compliance and system reliability but impose significant rate pressure on a limited customer base.
 At ~5,300 residents, St. Helena operates well below the technical and economic threshold for efficient standalone water and wastewater treatment (generally 20,000+ population equivalents). Fixed costs for regulatory compliance, skilled staffing, major equipment, and capital upgrades are spread across a small number of connections, resulting in higher per-unit costs than larger regional systems. Napa LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (2020, with ongoing updates) explicitly recommends regionalization—via county water agency, county water district, or Joint Powers Authority—to consolidate services, share resources, and achieve economies of scale.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
69 Recommendations – A Hybrid Approach
Blackberg recommends a combination of Option 2 and Option 3. In the short term (1-2 years), the City should pursue Option 3, aggressive performance improvements, in Public Works. These improvements should include all Public Works – including Water and Wastewater Treatment. The improvements span all the management system and business process reengineering recommendations we make throughout this deliverable. To provide a simple example, we are aware that Public Works should be conducting routine “flushes” of the City’s pipes. However, we observed that Public Works was unable to provide any data on how many flushes it had conducted and when/where. This is an example of an issue that Public Works could easily correct in under 24 hours by creating a simple data tracker in Microsoft SharePoint via a “list.” Theoretically, assuming access to the system, a manager in Public Works could create such a SharePoint list in under 10 minutes. With a bit more work (~30 minutes), that list could feed a Microsoft Power BI dashboard to visualize the data.

While implementing Option 3, short-term process improvements, Blackberg recommends that the City pursue Option 2:

Outsourcing Water and Wastewater. This is a long-term strategy for the next 5-10 years. Because commercial outsourcing is likely unviable due to the City’s small size, the City should pursue strategic partnering opportunities through Regional Water District concepts. A Regional Water District would provide the economies of scale needed and could engage commercial solutions as well.

7.13. Preventative Maintenance and Predictive Analytics (B.13) Assuming the City of St. Helena’s Public Works department adopts the hybrid strategy—outsourcing water and wastewater services (e.g., via a regional partnership with Napa County or NapaSan) while retaining and optimizing in-house operations for streets, parks, stormwater, and facilities—the focus shifts to internal enhancements. This approach aligns with the Efficiency and Business Transformation Study’s emphasis on leveraging technology and process maturity (Deliverables 3A and 3C), where Public Works’ non-utility areas represent high-volume, seasonal workloads with opportunities for 20–40% cost savings through improved efficiency. Implementing preventative maintenance (scheduled, proactive upkeep) and predictive analytics (data-driven failure forecasting) will transition these areas from reactive repairs to optimized, resilient management, reducing emergency costs, extending asset lifespans, and improving resident satisfaction (e.g., smoother streets, well-maintained parks).

The implementation should unfold over 18–24 months, led by the Public Works Director with support from the IT Manager and City Accountant. Budget $50–100K initially (software, sensors, training). Tie to the City Strategic Plan for residentcentered outcomes, integrating with the Asset Management System (B.8), Risk Management System (B.7), and dashboards (A.19) for monitoring. Use the Change Management System (A.20) to address staff resistance and the Training Program (A.14) for skill-building.

Step 1: Asset Inventory and Baseline Assessment
Begin with a comprehensive inventory of non-water/wastewater assets: streets (pavement, sidewalks, signage), parks (playgrounds, irrigation, benches), stormwater (drains, culverts, retention basins), and facilities (buildings, HVAC, lighting).

Use GIS tools like ArcGIS (already in use per study) to map locations, conditions, and historical data. Conduct condition assessments: For streets, employ pavement condition index (PCI) surveys (target PCI >70); for parks, inspect equipment per ASTM standards; for stormwater, evaluate inlet/grate functionality to prevent flooding; for facilities, assess energy efficiency via audits.

Incorporate FWA controls: Document asset values and maintenance costs to flag anomalies (e.g., unusual repair spending).

Baseline metrics: Current reactive repair rate (e.g., 60% of work orders, per illustrative data), asset downtime, and costs.

This step builds on Records Digitization (A.18) for digital access and the Knowledge Management System (A.17) for storage.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
70 Step 2: Select and Deploy Technology Platforms
Choose a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) with built-in predictive capabilities, such as Cityworks, Cartegraph, or IBM Maximo—scalable for small cities and integrable with ArcGIS. These platforms support preventative scheduling (e.g., automated work orders) and predictive analytics via AI/ML (e.g., forecasting pavement cracks based on traffic, weather, and age data).

For predictive analytics, deploy IoT sensors: Install vibration/strain sensors on bridges/culverts (stormwater/facilities), soil moisture sensors in parks, and pavement-embedded sensors for streets (e.g., via partnerships with Caltrans for tech pilots).

Use cloud-based AI (e.g., Azure or AWS) to analyze data patterns—predicting failures like stormwater blockages before floods or park equipment wear before breakdowns. Reference EPA’s stormwater BMPs (Best Management Practices) for maintenance plans, ensuring sensors monitor sediment buildup in basins.

Integrate with the CRM System (A.5) for resident-reported issues (e.g., potholes via Grapevine app) and dashboards for real-time KPIs (e.g., preventive completion rate >90%). Address small-size challenges by opting for subscription-based SaaS models rather than custom builds.

Step 3: Develop Maintenance Schedules and Protocols
For preventative maintenance: Create standardized schedules based on asset type and manufacturer guidelines—e.g., quarterly street inspections, monthly park playground checks (per CPSC standards), biannual stormwater drain cleanings, and annual facility HVAC tune-ups. Use CMMS to automate reminders and assign tasks via RASCI matrices, ensuring accountability.

For predictive analytics: Train models with historical data (e.g., past repair logs, weather from NOAA) to forecast issues— e.g., predicting street potholes after heavy rains or park irrigation failures during droughts. Set thresholds for alerts (e.g., vibration >threshold triggers inspection). Incorporate FWA by auditing maintenance expenditures in the system to prevent inflated costs or ghost work.

Align with the Quality Management System (B.11) for PDCA cycles: Plan schedules, do implementations, check via audits, act on insights. Reference municipal guides like Oxmaint’s 2025 recommendations for data-driven strategies, emphasizing GIS for real-time operations.

Step 4: Staff Training and Cultural Shift
Train 100% of Public Works staff (via Training Program) on CMMS usage, sensor data interpretation, and predictive tools— e.g., 20-hour courses with hands-on simulations. Foster a proactive culture through incentives (tied to Talent Management System, A.12), recognizing teams for high preventive rates. Use the Strategic Communications Plan (B.9) for internal updates and external PR on improvements (e.g., “Safer Streets Ahead” campaigns).

Step 5: Full Deployment and Continuous Improvement
Roll out system-wide, starting with streets/parks (high visibility) then stormwater/facilities. Monitor via dashboards: KPIs like preventive vs. reactive ratio (target 80/20), asset lifespan extension (10–20%), and cost savings (15–25% reduction in emergencies). Conduct quarterly reviews under the Risk Management System, adjusting models with new data. Integrate with BPR (B.5) for Level 3 maturity, ensuring processes are standardized and measurable.

Challenges: Initial sensor costs and data privacy; mitigate with grants (e.g., Caltrans for roads) and compliance audits.

Benefits: Reduced downtime, lower costs, and improved resident satisfaction (target Godbe rating >0.6 for infrastructure).

This implementation empowers Public Works to thrive in the hybrid model, focusing in-house strengths on visible, community-valued services while outsourcing complexities of water and wastewater over the long term.

7.14. Strategy Implementation (B.14)
The hybrid strategy for St. Helena’s Public Works—outsourcing water and wastewater (e.g., via regional partnership with a Regional Water District) while optimizing in-house operations for streets, parks, stormwater, and facilities—requires a

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
71 phased, integrated approach. This aligns with the Efficiency and Business Transformation Study’s goals, leveraging BPR (B.5) for process maturity, asset management (B.8) for efficiency, and governance tools for accountability, while addressing the City’s small size and seasonal demands. Public Works can conduct the strategy implementation with Option 3 and Option 2 efforts being conducted in parallel. The Option 2 efforts will have a timeline that far exceeds phase 2 of the Transformation Roadmap. Blackberg envisions a 5-10 year timeline for Option 2.

Option 3 Improvements Option 2 Regional Water District
Phase 1
This begins in Phase 1 of the Transformation
Roadmap. Efforts included Customer-Centered
Design Framework, Governance and Policy,
Business Process Re-Engineering, Talent
Management, Knowledge Management, and
Dashboard Development. All the initiatives exist
across City government, but they also have specific
impacts for Public Works. The impacts include water
and wastewater management.

These efforts begin in Phase 1 with A.3 Strategic
Partnerships. St. Helena should begin/continue exploring the concept of a Regional Water District with strategic partner municipalities. This stage is focused on building relationships, establishing committees / coalitions, and ideation. A serious risk of this phase is that the concept never advances because it is so long term. Therefore, the City should formulate short term goals for it.

Phase 2
In Phase 2, Public Works continues efforts to mature
business processes and implement management
systems (i.e. Risk Management, Asset Management,
Change Management, Customer Relationship
Management, and Quality Management).

Preventative maintenance and predictive analytics
become important initiatives. There should be
focused coordination with Administrative Services
on automating and optimizing accounting-related
processes.

Efforts should begin to shift towards developing a written concept for St. Helena’s participation in a Regional Water District and for the Regional Water District itself. This will require coordination and strategic partnerships (e.g. St.

Helena, Calistoga, Yountville, American Canyon, and the City of Napa and smaller special districts).

Regionalization remains at the ideation and
recommendation stage, as outlined in the Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County (LAFCO)
Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service
Review (adopted 2020, updated 2021). LAFCO has
formally recommended governance options such as a new
county water agency, county water district, or Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve economies of scale, but no implementing legislation, voter approval, or operational entity has been established as of April 2026.

Current Institutional Landscape
 Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District This district coordinates county-wide water planning, administers the County’s SWP Table A allocation (~29,000 acre-feet), and subcontracts portions to cities (e.g., St. Helena receives 2,000 acre-feet). It also manages the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project and related watershed initiatives. Its role is planning and resource coordination, not operational utility service delivery.
 Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) Provides wastewater treatment primarily for the City of Napa and limited surrounding areas. It operates at a larger scale but is geographically and functionally separate from potable water systems.
 Independent Systems St. Helena, Calistoga, and other smaller providers operate standalone groundwater/surface water treatment and distribution systems. No inter-agency treatment or transmission sharing agreement currently exists at a regional scale.
 Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Implements SGMA requirements and new pumping fees (effective FY 2026–27 at $129.87 per acre-foot for public systems), but this is a regulatory and planning body, not a service provider.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
72 8.0 Recommendations – Phase 3

8.1. Management Systems (C.1)
In Phase 1 and Phase 2, Blackberg focused on the design, development, and deployment of management systems within St.

Helena’s government organization. These management systems are critical for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the City. We emphasize that a management system is not simply an IT system. A management system typically includes an IT system, but it also must engage elements of people, processes, infrastructure, strategy, etc. Further, expensive IT systems are not required to build management systems. Most of the recommended management systems (not all) can be fully implemented with Microsoft 365 solutions addressing the IT needs. This will significantly reduce cost impacts.

Critical Considerations. We emphasize that these management systems should not exist in isolation of each other. They must be integrated in various ways. This may mean direct integration in the IT system; however, it could also mean integration through strategic objectives. For example, there may not be direct IT integration between the Talent Management System and the Knowledge Management System; however, the Talent Management System should develop and monitor training of employees on proper use of the Knowledge Management System. Likewise, if there are changes to the Knowledge Management System, the Talent Management System’s training should be updated to reflect the changes.

We provide a quick summary of those Management Systems:
 Change Management System — Supports organizational transitions, tied to strategic communications, continuous improvement, and handling shifts from process reengineering and modernization efforts.  Customer Relationship Management System (CRM) — Focuses on improving resident and stakeholder interactions, aligning with customer-centered design frameworks and building community trust (e.g., through FWA mitigation and service delivery enhancements).
 Quality Management System — Drives ongoing process refinement, linked to continuous quality improvement (CQI) practices and potential CMMI Level 3 maturity targets.  Asset Management System — Critical for infrastructure-heavy areas like Public Works (including water/wastewater, preventative maintenance, and predictive analytics), addressing high-volume operational challenges.
 Talent Management System — Covers hiring, policies, training programs, and overall workforce development (e.g., new positions like HR Manager, strategic hiring, and talent policies).  Knowledge Management System — Handles centralized storage and access to policies, processes, documentation, and institutional knowledge (e.g., policy registers, as-is/to-be designs, and dashboards).  ITIL 4 — Provides a framework for IT service management, integrated with broader IT modernization (e.g., cloud migrations, TOGAF, CMMI, and AI/automation solutions).

As the City implements these management systems, it will not be the case that the job is done. The continuous quality improvement concept will apply to the management systems. The City should continue to seek ways to improve each management system and improve their integration. This is part of process maturation.

Management Systems
Change Management System
Customer Relationship
Management System
Quality Management System
Asset Management System
Talent Management System
Knowledge Management System
ITIL 4

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
73 8.2. System of Systems with TOGAF (C.2)
We recommend that the City adopt a simplified implementation of TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) as the guiding framework to enable a cohesive “system of systems” approach. This method treats the City’s various management systems—such as Change Management, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Quality Management, Asset Management, Talent Management, Knowledge Management, and ITIL 4—as interconnected components within a larger enterprise ecosystem.

By leveraging TOGAF’s Architecture Development Method (ADM) in a tailored, lightweight form, the City can systematically plan, develop, operate, integrate, and continuously update these systems. Key benefits include enhanced alignment between business objectives (e.g., resident trust, fraud/waste/abuse mitigation, and seasonal operational efficiency) and technology investments; reduced silos through better interoperability and data flows; improved governance and risk management; and scalable modernization without overwhelming a small municipality’s resources.

This approach draws from proven public-sector and SME adaptations of TOGAF, focusing on prioritized phases like Preliminary (tailoring the framework), Business Architecture (defining processes and strategies), Information Systems (integrating applications and data), and Technology Architecture (supporting cloud, AI, and automation). It promotes agility, avoids proprietary lock-in, and supports long-term digital transformation—ultimately cascading improvements across Public Works, accounting, and City Council oversight for greater effectiveness, cost savings, and community value.

Critical Considerations. TOGAF can be a highly complex and large-scale framework that requires extensive resources to develop and maintain. However, small organizations, like the City’s government, can use it effectively if they focus on a lightweight and limited adoption of the framework. This tailored approach—often called “mini-TOGAF,” “simplified ADM,” or “lightweight TOGAF”—involves selectively applying core elements, such as the Preliminary Phase for customization, essential ADM cycles (e.g., focused on Business and Technology Architecture), and basic artifacts like capability maps, principles, and high-level blueprints, while skipping overly detailed deliverables.

Research and real-world examples from SMEs, startups, and local governments show that this reduces complexity, minimizes the learning curve, and avoids resource drain. For instance, organizations start small by addressing specific pain points (e.g., integrating management systems or modernizing Public Works assets), emphasize business value over theoretical rigor, and integrate with agile practices for iterative progress. Benefits include better alignment of IT with resident-focused goals, reduced silos, cost-effective modernization, and scalability as maturity grows—without the full overhead that suits larger enterprises. The Open Group itself supports such adaptations, noting TOGAF’s flexibility for small-to-medium entities and governments through modular configuration.

To succeed in St. Helena, begin with IT Manager/HR collaboration to tailor the framework during Phase 3, prioritize quick wins (e.g., cloud migrations and dashboards), and build internal capability gradually—ensuring the ”system of systems” delivers tangible efficiency gains and community trust without overwhelming limited staff or budgets.

8.3. Comprehensive KPIs for Systems (C.3)
We recommend developing and implementing a comprehensive set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tailored to each management system (Change Management, Customer Relationship Management, Quality Management, Asset Management, Talent Management, Knowledge Management, and ITIL 4). These KPIs should be integrated into the City Council Executive Dashboard and the overarching system of systems framework (using simplified TOGAF) to enable real-time monitoring, evidence-based decision-making, continuous quality improvement, and alignment with strategic goals such as resident trust, fraud/waste/abuse mitigation, operational efficiency, and seasonal service demands in a small municipality like St. Helena.

Best practices for small local governments emphasize SMART KPIs (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound) while limiting to 7-12 per system to avoid data overload and focus on high-impact metrics. Balance leading

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
74 indicators (predictive, e.g., training completion rates) with lagging ones (outcomes, e.g., resident satisfaction scores), and incorporate efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and citizen experience dimensions.

Examples of targeted KPIs include:
 Asset Management System (critical for Public Works infrastructure): PM Compliance (% of scheduled preventive maintenance completed on time, target >95%), Facility Condition Index (deferred maintenance/replacement value, target <0.10), Reactive Maintenance Ratio (reactive/total maintenance, target <20%), and Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) for key assets like water systems.
 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System: Resident Satisfaction Score (via surveys, target >85%), Average Response Time to Inquiries (target <48 hours), Service Request Resolution Rate (% resolved on first contact), and Citizen Engagement Metrics (e.g., portal usage growth).  Quality Management System: Continuous Improvement Initiatives Completed (annual target), Process Defect Rate Reduction, Audit Compliance Score, and Non-Conformance Resolution Time.  Talent Management System: Employee Training Completion Rate, Turnover Rate (target <10%), Time-to-Hire for Key Positions, and Staff Satisfaction Survey Results.  Knowledge Management & Change Management Systems: Policy Adherence Rate (tracked via dashboard), Knowledge Access/Usage Metrics, Change Adoption Rate (% of staff trained and implementing changes), and Incident Reduction Post-Change.
 ITIL 4/IT Service Management: Incident Resolution Time, Service Availability (% uptime, target >99%), Change Success Rate, and IT Cost per User.

Implementation should start in Phase 3 with IT Manager coordination, prioritizing quick-win metrics tied to high-leverage areas (e.g., Public Works and accounting integration). Use existing tools for data collection to minimize burden, review annually for refinement, and ensure KPIs cascade to City Council oversight for transparency and accountability. This approach drives measurable progress, fosters a culture of data-informed governance, and maximizes value from limited resources—ultimately enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, and community outcomes.

8.4. Comprehensive Executive Dashboard (C.4)
We recommend developing and implementing a Comprehensive Executive Dashboard as a centralized, real-time/neartime visualization tool to monitor organizational performance, policy adherence, strategic progress, and key operational metrics across all management systems (Change Management, CRM, Quality Management, Asset Management, Talent Management, Knowledge Management, and ITIL 4). Integrated within the simplified TOGAF-guided “system of systems” framework, this dashboard will empower City Council, leadership, and stakeholders with at-a-glance insights for informed decision-making, enhanced oversight, fraud/waste/abuse mitigation, and alignment with resident-focused goals like building community trust and addressing seasonal demands in St. Helena’s small-municipality context.

Drawing from best practices in local government (e.g., examples from cities like Minnetonka, Irving, Sugar Land, and Germantown), the dashboard should prioritize simplicity, accessibility, and transparency: Use clean, intuitive design with high-contrast visuals, limited KPIs (7–10 core per view), drill-down capabilities for details, narrative context/explanations for metrics, and regular updates to maintain credibility. Balance quantitative data (e.g., trends, targets) with qualitative elements (e.g., resident feedback) to tell a complete story without overwhelming users.

Key features and implementation considerations include:
• High-level overview on the homepage: Status indicators (green/yellow/red) for strategic pillars, budget utilization, and overall performance; include a brief intro/video explaining purpose and how to interpret data. • Customizable views: Role-based access (e.g., Council-focused summaries vs. departmental details) with filters for departments (e.g., Public Works, Accounting) or time periods.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
75 • Core metrics tied to priorities: Integrate KPIs from related systems, such as policy adherence rates, resident satisfaction scores, PM compliance in assets, response times in CRM, training completion in Talent Management, incident resolution in ITIL 4, and continuous improvement initiatives in Quality Management. • Real-time/near-real-time data: Leverage existing tools and integrations (e.g., cloud-based solutions from Phase 2/3) for automated feeds, minimizing manual effort.
• Transparency elements: Highlight trends, variances, explanations for misses, and links to underlying reports/projects; include citizen-facing elements if appropriate to build trust. • Governance and maintenance: Led by the IT Manager in coordination with HR and department heads; start with quick wins in Phase 3 (e.g., policy tracking, FWA controls, Public Works strategy), pilot with high-priority areas like accounting integration, and review/refine annually.

This dashboard will drive accountability, enable proactive issue resolution, support City Council oversight (as enhanced in Phase 1), and cascade improvements across the organization—ultimately delivering greater efficiency, cost savings, measurable progress toward maturity Level 3, and stronger community outcomes with minimal resource strain on a small city.

8.5. Business Process Reengineering (Targeted Level 3) (C.5) We recommend continuing and advancing Business Process Reengineering (BPR) efforts to achieve targeted Maturity Level 3 (Defined) under the CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) framework, building directly on Phases 1 and 2 foundations. This progression shifts the City from reactive, project-level process management (Maturity Level 2) to proactive, organization-wide standardization—where processes are well-characterized, documented in standards/procedures/tools/methods, tailored to specific needs, and consistently applied across departments to achieve predictable outcomes, reduced variability, and alignment with strategic objectives like resident trust, fraud/waste/abuse mitigation, efficiency in seasonal operations (e.g., Public Works surges), and overall governance.

At CMMI Level 3 (Defined), the organization establishes organizational standard processes that guide all work, incorporate tailoring guidelines, contribute to and draw from shared assets (e.g., process repositories, templates), and focus on both project-specific and enterprise performance goals. This level emphasizes proactive risk management, integrated planning, and continuous refinement—critical for a small municipality like St. Helena facing resource constraints, interconnected services (e.g., accounting ties to multiple departments), and high-impact areas like water/wastewater and asset management. The prior efforts of System of Systems, KPIs for systems, and executive’s dashboard position the City to make the advancement to Level 3 maturity. Please note that in Phase 2, we recommended Level 3 targeted at accounting, but in this phase, we recommend the expansion of those efforts citywide.

Key implementation steps and focus areas include:
 Leverage prior phases: Build on As-Is/To-Be designs (Phases 1–2), integrating reengineered processes from accounting, Public Works long-term strategy (e.g., outsourcing options, preventative maintenance/predictive analytics), and IT/AI automation solutions.
 Adopt CMMI-aligned practices: Establish organizational process assets (e.g., via Knowledge Management System), define tailoring criteria for department-specific adaptations, implement integrated work management, and incorporate organizational training/process focus to institutionalize improvements.  Target high-leverage domains: Prioritize Public Works (highest transformational potential due to volume/complexity/seasonality), accounting integration/automation, FWA controls, and cross-departmental flows to maximize cascading benefits.
 Support with tools and governance: Coordinate with IT Manager for cloud-based tools, TOGAF “system of systems” integration, and the Executive Dashboard for KPI tracking (e.g., process compliance, defect reduction, cycle time improvements).

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
76  Path to appraisal/certification: Start with internal gap analysis and pilot implementations in Phase 3, gradually building evidence for a formal SCAMPI appraisal, while emphasizing practical, lightweight adoption suitable for small governments—focusing on value over bureaucracy.

This targeted Level 3 achievement will institutionalize reengineered processes organization-wide, drive measurable efficiency gains (e.g., reduced rework, faster service delivery), enhance accountability via dashboards and oversight, foster a culture of continuous quality improvement, and position St. Helena for sustainable, resident-centered operations with minimal added resource burden—ultimately delivering higher effectiveness, cost control, and community value in a resource-limited environment.

8.5.1. Seek Level 3 CMMI Certification (C.6)
We recommend pursuing formal Level 3 CMMI Certification (Defined maturity level) as a strategic milestone in Phase 3 to validate and institutionalize the City’s business process reengineering efforts. Achieving this certification—through a SCAMPI Class A appraisal—demonstrates that processes are standardized, documented, consistently applied organizationwide, and supported by shared assets, training, and governance. For a small municipality like St. Helena, this provides external credibility, enhances grant/funding competitiveness, strengthens resident and stakeholder confidence in efficient, accountable operations, and creates a sustainable framework for ongoing improvement.

8.6. Consider Levels 4 & 5 CMMI Maturity for Select Areas (C.7) In the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, achieving Maturity Level 3 (Defined) establishes organization-wide process standards, providing consistency and proactive management across projects and functions. This level often serves as a practical target for broad adoption, balancing structure with manageable overhead.

For Levels 4 (Quantitatively Managed) and 5 (Optimizing)—collectively known as high maturity—full organizationwide implementation can be resource-intensive and unnecessary. These levels emphasize data-driven control (statistical techniques, predictive models) and continuous innovation (causal analysis, defect prevention), which deliver the greatest value when applied selectively to critical, high-impact areas.

Many organizations pursue high maturity only in targeted domains where variability reduction, predictability, and ongoing optimization yield measurable benefits. Therefore, we recommend that the City consider where these core and critical domains exist to target Quantitatively Management and Optimizing maturity levels. There are some clear candidates: water treatment, critical infrastructure, wildfire prevention, parts of accounting, capital assets, project over certain value thresholds, etc.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
77 9.0 Conclusion
The City stands at a defining crossroads. This Efficiency and Business Transformation Study has provided a clear diagnosis of current operational realities and a comprehensive, actionable roadmap to achieve lasting excellence in municipal governance. Commissioned by city leadership, the study integrates findings from current-state assessments, organizational and staffing reviews, process improvement analysis, financial efficiency modeling, and technology modernization recommendations into a unified strategy that positions St. Helena for sustainable success.

The study reveals a municipality operating with predominantly reactive processes at CMMI maturity Levels 1–2, fragmented governance structures, compensation variances above market averages in several executive and midmanagement positions, and underutilized technology assets. These challenges constrain capacity, limit visibility, and inflate costs. Yet they also represent a powerful platform for transformation. Through rigorous benchmarking, stakeholder workshops, and data-driven analysis, Blackberg has identified realistic opportunities to achieve annual cost savings, reallocations, and avoidance while improving efficiency and effectiveness. These gains arise from strategic salary alignment through natural attrition, staffing optimizations, business process reengineering, full cloud migration (including RIMS replacement), targeted partnerships, and automation—while simultaneously elevating service quality and resident experience.

The transformation is deliberately phased to build momentum while managing risk. Preparatory actions—launching a City Strategic Plan, strategic hiring of HR and IT Managers, RASCI rollout, Fraud/Waste/Abuse mitigation, and initial governance enhancements—establish the essential foundation of clarity, accountability, and leadership capacity. Phase 1 focuses on institutionalizing this foundation through customer-centered design, initial business process reengineering (targeting Level 2 maturity), talent management systems, records digitization, knowledge management, and cloud-first technology standards. Phase 2 drives deeper operational transformation, with continued reengineering to Level 3, a dedicated City Accountant role, integrated IT and AI automation, a comprehensive Public Works long-term strategy, preventative maintenance programs, and staffing efficiency gains. Phase 3 cements optimization through a fully integrated “system of systems” architecture (TOGAF), comprehensive KPIs, advanced dashboards, pursuit of CMMI Level 3 certification, and consideration of higher maturity levels in select areas.

Residents will experience faster, more consistent, transparent, and responsive services through standardized processes and digital self-service options. Staff will benefit from clearer roles and responsibilities, professional development pathways, reduced administrative burden, and a culture of continuous improvement—enhancing morale and retention. City Council and leadership will gain unprecedented real-time visibility and accountability tools through executive dashboards, enabling proactive governance. Technology modernization will strengthen data security, scalability, and interoperability while lowering long-term costs. Strategic partnerships will allow the City to leverage external expertise for specialized functions without compromising local control. Collectively, these changes will rebuild community trust, strengthen fiscal resilience, and position St. Helena as a model of efficient, effective, and citizen-centered local government in California.

Success depends on sustained leadership commitment, effective change management, and organization-wide engagement.

The newly hired HR and IT Managers will serve as critical catalysts, while a Transformation Oversight Committee and quarterly City Council progress reviews will maintain momentum and accountability. Initial investments in talent, training, and technology (estimated $80,000–$120,000 annually) are more than offset by identified savings within the first two years.

Annual updates to the City Strategic Plan and Transformation Roadmap will ensure the initiative remains responsive to emerging realities.

The City of St. Helena has already demonstrated vision and courage by commissioning this independent study. Now is the time to act decisively on its recommendations. By embracing this phased roadmap—with its emphasis on strategic alignment, modern management systems, talent development, and data-driven decision-making—St. Helena can convert current challenges into enduring strengths. The result will be a more efficient, effective, transparent, and resilient municipal government—one that honors its proud Napa Valley heritage while confidently building a brighter future for generations to come.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
78 Appendix A: Business Process Management, Re-engineering, Continuous Improvement, and Dashboards
Note of Clarification: In the Appendix you will see section numbering of the format “A.#”. These do not reference the Transformation Roadmap’s alpha-numeric labels of similar format.

A.1. Purpose and Intended Outcomes
St. Helena’s next stage of transformation demands more than isolated “quick fixes” for individual problems. It calls for a comprehensive, repeatable framework capable of defining, measuring, sustaining, and continuously improving work across the entire organization—especially the complex workflows that cross departmental boundaries between Community Development, Finance, Public Works, the City Clerk’s office, and Administrative Services. Without such a system, even well-intentioned technology upgrades or staffing adjustments risk delivering only temporary relief while underlying inefficiencies persist.

Establishing a citywide Business Process Management (BPM) and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) program delivers exactly this capability. It serves as the essential prerequisite for successful technology modernization. Automating a broken or poorly defined process does not solve problems—it simply accelerates failure, multiplies rework, heightens staff frustration, and wastes limited public resources. By contrast, a thoughtfully designed BPM/BPR program first stabilizes and standardizes core workflows, creating the disciplined foundation needed before layering on cloud systems, integration tools, predictive analytics, or responsible AI.

This section consolidates and significantly refines the recommendations originally introduced in prior deliverables—most notably Deliverable 3B (Process Improvement and Efficiency Potential)—and fully aligns them with the phased transformation roadmap outlined in Deliverable 4. It draws directly on insights from Deliverable 2 (Information & Insight Analysis), which highlighted the City’s predominantly reactive management culture, and from Deliverable 3B, which quantified the operational drag caused by inconsistent processes.

As documented across those earlier analyses, the City currently operates with a management approach shaped by inconsistent processes, informal communication pathways, limited routine performance measurement, and a high dependency on individual knowledge and “heroics.” This reality creates significant variability in service delivery, constrains operational capacity during peak periods or staff absences, and elevates organizational risk whenever turnover occurs or workloads surge unexpectedly. A right-sized BPM/BPR program combined with a practical continuous improvement capability changes this dynamic permanently. It provides the missing management system that makes process performance visible on a daily basis, systematically reduces rework and avoidable variation, and ensures hard-won gains are sustained over time rather than fading after the next budget cycle or staff transition.

The program is deliberately scaled to St. Helena’s size and resources. It does not introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or layers of oversight. Instead, it focuses on making expectations explicit, assigning clear accountability, installing lightweight controls that leaders can use, and giving every department the tools to manage by facts instead of by exception or crisis.

When fully implemented across the three-phase roadmap, the results will be both immediate and enduring.

Key Outcomes – The City will realize four interconnected benefits that directly support its broader goals of fiscal sustainability, service excellence, and long-term resilience:
• Enhanced Experience: Residents and businesses will benefit from faster cycle times, clearer communication at every step, and consistent service levels across all departments. Permitting, service requests, public records responses, and financial transactions will move from unpredictable to reliable, building greater trust and satisfaction in the community.
• Increased Capacity: The City will be able to scale operations effectively without requiring proportional headcount growth. By systematically eliminating rework and avoidable variation, departments will unlock substantial hidden

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
79 capacity—projected to generate approximately $625,000 in annual efficiency gains once foundational improvements are in place—freeing staff time for higher-value work and better resident support. • Reduced Risk: Clearer controls, standardized documentation, and explicit accountability will strengthen compliance, lower liability exposure, and reduce the risk of errors or oversights during periods of staff transition or workload spikes. This creates a more resilient organization that can withstand turnover and external pressures with confidence.
• Future Readiness: The program establishes a stable, mature process environment that serves as the essential foundation for successful automation, cloud migration, system integration, predictive analytics, and responsible AI adoption. Technology investments will no longer risk amplifying existing problems; instead, they will multiply the City’s effectiveness and position St. Helena as a model for small-city excellence in California.

Together, these outcomes represent a fundamental shift from reactive, person-dependent operations to a proactive, visible, and continuously improving management system. The pages that follow translate this vision into a complete, practical playbook—complete with governance structures, maturity targets, prioritization tools, a repeatable seven-step improvement method, templates, training plans, and tight integration with the City’s technology, talent, and Public Works strategies. When embraced across the organization, this framework will not only solve today’s challenges but will also equip St. Helena to thrive for decades to come.

A.2. Establish a Citywide BPM/BPR program (Maturity Level 2 to Level 3) Current assessments, grounded in a CMMI-inspired maturity framework, confirm that the vast majority of City processes currently operate between Maturity Level 1 (Initial) and Level 2 (Managed). Service delivery continues to rely heavily on individual “heroics,” deep institutional knowledge held by long-tenured staff, and informal workarounds rather than clearly defined, repeatable, and standardized systems. While this approach has allowed the City to function effectively during periods of stability, it creates significant vulnerability: performance becomes inconsistent, cycle times fluctuate unpredictably, rework is hidden but pervasive, capacity is artificially constrained, and institutional risk rises sharply whenever key personnel depart, workloads surge, or external pressures intensify.

The central recommendation is therefore straightforward yet foundational: the City should establish a right-sized, sustainable BPM and BPR program explicitly designed to move priority workflows from their current largely informal, person-dependent state toward repeatable, measurable, continuously monitored, and systematically improved execution.

The target is to achieve broad Level 2 capability across the organization within the first 12–18 months (Phase 1 and early Phase 2) and then institutionalize Level 3 (Defined) maturity for core processes by the end of Phase 3.

In practical terms, this recommendation forms the process-management backbone of the entire Deliverable 4 transformation roadmap. Every other initiative—cloud migration, system integration, predictive analytics, responsible AI adoption, Public Works long-term strategy, talent management system, fraud-waste-abuse mitigation, and enhanced Council oversight—depends on the existence of stable, well-documented, and measured processes. Without this foundation, technology simply accelerates existing problems rather than solving them.

Maturity Assessment Snapshot
The City’s current process maturity was evaluated using a CMMI-based framework across six core dimensions:

1. Process ownership

2. Documentation and standardization

3. Process controls

4. Measurement and performance management

5. Cross-department integration

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
80 6. Continuous improvement and innovation
The assessment revealed the following department-specific patterns:
• Public Works (Service Delivery, Development Services, Capital Projects Delivery): Ownership and documentation generally sit at Level 2, reflecting named leads and some existing procedures. However, controls, measurement, crossfunctional integration, and continuous improvement remain predominantly at Level 1, meaning day-to-day execution still depends heavily on individual judgment and tribal knowledge. • Community Development: Performs closest to Level 2 across all six dimensions. Regulatory and customer-facing requirements have naturally driven stronger structure, clearer documentation, and more consistent handoffs— although measurement and formal continuous improvement mechanisms are still underdeveloped. • Administrative Services – Finance: Generally Level 2 for ownership, documentation, cross-functional integration, and elements of continuous improvement. Process controls and routine performance measurement, however, often remain closer to Level 1 in day-to-day execution, particularly in areas involving manual reconciliations, exception handling, and inter-departmental approvals.

Overall, the City sits firmly in the Level 1–2 range organization-wide. Service delivery continues to rely more on the performance and availability of talented individuals than on standardized systems, governance, or repeatable routines.

The Goal: From Level 1–2 to Level 2–3 Is Not Bureaucracy—It Is Clarity and Control Advancing to Level 2–3 maturity does not mean introducing layers of unnecessary red tape, excessive approvals, or rigid command-and-control structures. Quite the opposite: the intent is to replace ambiguity and variability with explicit expectations, lightweight but effective controls, and visible performance information so that leaders at every level can manage proactively by facts rather than reactively by exception or crisis.

Key elements of this advancement include:
• Implement a lightweight Daily Management System (DMS) — consisting of tiered daily/weekly huddles, simple visual management boards (MESS-style readiness indicators), standardized issue tracking, and clear escalation routines. This shifts the organization from reactive firefighting to proactive management of normal work and exceptions alike.
• Establish a focused portfolio of priority, end-to-end processes at Level 2 maturity — mapped using SIPOC diagrams and detailed swimlane process maps — then decompose high-complexity processes into departmental subprocesses at Level 3 depth where required for compliance, risk management, or training consistency. • Define and operationalize performance measures and dashboards at three distinct tiers:
o Tier 1 (Executive / Council): high-level outcome measures (resident satisfaction, overall cycle-time trends, backlog health, aggregate efficiency gains)
o Tier 2 (Departmental): operational control metrics (workload balance, response-time SLAs, exception rates) o Tier 3 (Process Owner): detailed process health indicators (step-level cycle time, rework percentage, first-timeright rate) with a disciplined monthly review cadence tied to the BPM Steering Committee. • Integrate structured change management and internal capability building — including standardized templates (charter, SIPOC, swimlane, RASCI, issue log), targeted training modules (BPM 101, mapping workshops, root-cause analysis), and ongoing coaching — so the approach becomes repeatable, transferable, and independent of any single champion or consultant.

Phased Rollout Strategy
The program is deliberately staged to deliver quick credibility while building lasting institutional capability:

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
81 • Phase 1 (Months 0–12): Launch governance (Steering Committee, Process Owners, BPM/CI Lead role), establish standards and templates, stand up foundational DMS elements, and execute 1–2 high-visibility pilot processes (recommended: permitting end-to-end and citizen service requests). Goal: prove the method works, generate visible wins, and build internal advocates.
• Phase 2 (Months 12–24): Scale to a prioritized portfolio of 4–6 additional processes (accounts payable/purchasing, work-order management, public records, preventive maintenance planning), deepen Level 3 elements in high-risk areas, integrate tightly with IT/cloud/AI initiatives, and embed routine performance reviews and continuous improvement cadences.
• Phase 3 (Month 24+): Institutionalize Level 3 maturity across core workflows through a searchable citywide process library (SharePoint or equivalent), formal sustainment reviews every six months, annual maturity reassessment, and pursuit of external CMMI Level 3 validation in selected domains (permitting, finance controls, public works operations) to demonstrate long-term commitment to excellence.

This structured progression ensures momentum builds steadily: early pilots create belief, mid-term scaling delivers scale, and late-phase institutionalization locks in the gains for the long run.

By treating process management as a core operating discipline rather than a temporary project, St. Helena will move from a reactive, person-dependent organization to one that is deliberate, visible, resilient, and continuously improving—precisely the foundation needed to realize the full value of the broader transformation agenda.

A.3. BPM Maturity Model and Target State
To guide implementation, maintain realistic expectations, and provide a clear roadmap for progress, the City of St. Helena should adopt a simple, three-level BPM maturity progression tailored specifically to its size, resources, and operational context. The objective is deliberate and achievable: move the organization from its current state of ad-hoc knowledge, variable execution, and heavy reliance on individual expertise to a future state of defined, owned, measured, and continuously improved processes that deliver consistent, visible, and sustainable results.

This maturity model is not theoretical—it is a practical navigation tool. It allows leadership to track advancement, celebrate incremental wins, identify remaining gaps, and make informed decisions about resource allocation and technology investments. By anchoring every BPM/BPR wave, training session, and dashboard to these levels, the City ensures that improvement efforts remain focused, measurable, and aligned with the broader Deliverable 4 transformation roadmap.

The model is built on the same six assessment dimensions used in the original maturity evaluation: process ownership; documentation and standardization; process controls; measurement and performance management; cross-department integration; and continuous improvement and innovation. Each level represents a meaningful step forward in organizational capability.

Table 1 – BPM Maturity Model (St. Helena)
Dimension Level 1 – Initial
(Current Baseline)
Level 2 – Managed
(Phases 1 & 2 Target)
Level 3 – Defined
(Phase 3 Target)
Process Ownership
Tribal; heavily dependent on
individuals and institutional
memory
Named end-to-end process
owners established for priority
workflows
Citywide process library with single
source of truth and clear accountability
Documentation &
Standardization
Limited, outdated, or exists
only in individual heads
Standard SIPOC diagrams,
swimlane maps, and basic SOPs
in place
Fully standardized policies, swimlanes,
SOPs, forms, and templates used
consistently citywide
Process Controls
Controls vary by person or
team; enforcement
inconsistent
Defined control points, handoffs,
and basic checks documented
Consistent decision rules, automated
alerts, and standardized escalation paths

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
82 Measurement &
Performance
Management
Sparse or activity-only
metrics; little trending or
review
Baseline cycle-time, quality, and
volume metrics established and
reviewed regularly
Comprehensive, tiered dashboards used
for daily/weekly management and
decision-making
Cross-Department
Integration
Informal pathways and adhoc coordinationDocumented handoffs and RASCI matrices for crossfunctional workflows
Fully aligned end-to-end processes with
clear escalation and governance
Continuous
Improvement
Reactive fixes only; no
structured approach
Basic issue tracking, root-cause
analysis, and simple
improvement routines
Routine CI cadence embedded in
management systems with documented
lessons learned and sustainment
Practical Targets by Phase
The maturity progression is intentionally staged to build momentum while managing risk and resource demands. Each phase has clear, measurable targets that align with the overall transformation timeline.

Table 2 – Practical Maturity Targets by Phase
Phase Timeframe Primary Focus Maturity Target Key Deliverables & Success Indicators Phase
1 Months 0–12
Foundation building and
proof of concept
Establish Level 2 capability for
a small portfolio of priority
processes
Governance in place; 1–2 pilots completed;
DMS launched; initial dashboards live; visible
quick wins achieved
Phase
2 Months 12–24
Scaling and deepening Expand Level 2 across the
organization and introduce
core Level 3 elements
Process library populated; standards and
RASCI matrices citywide; cross-department
alignment achieved; routine reviews
established
Phase
3 Month 24
onward
Institutionalization and
continuous improvement
Institutionalize Level 3 across
all core workflows and embed
CI into normal operations
Full process library in daily use; Level 3
maturity sustained; CMMI Level 3
certification pursued in high-impact areas;
culture of improvement embedded
Phase 1 focuses on proof and repeatability. The City will stand up governance, create foundational templates, launch a lightweight Daily Management System, and complete 1–2 high-visibility pilot processes (such as permitting and service requests). Success is measured by the ability to move these workflows to Level 2 maturity and demonstrate tangible improvements in cycle time, rework reduction, and staff confidence.

Phase 2 shifts to scaling. The City will expand Level 2 capability across a broader portfolio while introducing Level 3 elements—including a centralized process library, citywide standards, and stronger cross-department alignment.

Technology integration (eTRAKiT enhancements, Springbrook automation, predictive maintenance tools) will be tightly linked to process redesign so that systems support standardized work rather than work around it.

Phase 3 cements the new operating model. Level 3 maturity will be fully institutionalized across core workflows, continuous improvement will become part of the normal management rhythm, and the City will pursue external validation (CMMI Level 3 certification in selected domains) to demonstrate long-term commitment. At this stage, process performance will be visible, predictable, and continuously improving—creating the stable platform required for advanced AI applications and sustained fiscal resilience.

This maturity progression and phased targeting provide the City with a clear, shared language for progress. Every department head, process owner, and staff member will understand exactly where the organization stands today and what success looks like tomorrow. The model is simple enough to communicate in a single meeting yet robust enough to guide multi-year transformation. When combined with the governance structure, scoring rubric, and seven-step improvement method outlined in the following sections, it becomes the compass that keeps the entire BPM/BPR program on course.

By committing to this structured journey from ad-hoc execution to defined, owned, measured, and continuously improved processes, St. Helena will move from a reactive organization that manages by exception to a proactive, resilient, and highPage 354 of 369

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
83 performing municipality that manages by facts—and delivers consistently excellent service to its residents for decades to come.

A.4. BPM governance and operating model
Successful Business Process Management does not happen by accident or through isolated projects. It thrives only when it is treated as a permanent operating discipline woven into the daily fabric of how the City runs its business. For the City of St. Helena, this requires implementing lightweight governance with clear accountability, decision rights, and practical operational enablers that are deliberately scaled to the City’s size and resources. The structure must be formal enough to survive staff turnover and changing priorities, yet flexible enough to avoid creating bureaucracy or slowing down service delivery.

The recommended governance model has been designed specifically for St. Helena. It provides the discipline needed to keep improvement work aligned with City Council priorities and the broader Deliverable 4 transformation roadmap, while remaining practical and sustainable for a small municipality. The model rests on four interconnected components that function together as a cohesive system.

The BPM Steering Committee serves as the executive governing body. Chaired by the City Manager (or designee), its membership includes all Department Heads and the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead. This committee sets the annual portfolio of priority processes, removes cross-departmental barriers, approves significant investments or policy changes, resolves conflicts, and regularly reviews the benefits and return on investment achieved through BPM activities. During the critical launch period in Phase 1, the committee meets monthly to maintain strong momentum. As the program matures in Phases 2 and 3, the cadence shifts to bimonthly or quarterly while still ensuring high-level visibility and accountability.

Process Owners form the operational heart of the governance model. For each priority workflow, a named individual— typically a department director or senior manager—is assigned end-to-end accountability. This role includes maintaining current documentation, monitoring performance against established metrics, managing handoffs with other departments, leading corrective action when variation occurs, and coordinating any technology enhancements or automation opportunities. Process Owners act as the primary champions and day-to-day stewards of their workflows, bridging the gap between strategic direction and frontline execution.

The BPM / Continuous Improvement Lead acts as the central facilitator and program manager. This position, recommended as a part-time role that can be effectively combined with the program management office outlined in Deliverable 4, is responsible for maintaining standards and templates, organizing and facilitating mapping workshops, delivering training, managing the central process repository, tracking program-wide benefits, and providing coaching to Process Owners and improvement teams. The Lead ensures methodological consistency across all waves and serves as the institutional memory for process improvement practices.

Cross-Functional Improvement Teams are the delivery engine of the program. These time-bound, cross-functional groups are assembled for each specific improvement wave. Typical membership includes frontline staff who perform the work daily, supervisors, upstream and downstream stakeholders, and representatives from enabling functions such as IT, Finance, or Records when needed. Their mandate is focused and practical: analyze the current state, design an improved future state, develop implementation and training plans, pilot the new processes, and support stabilization until the Process Owner assumes full ownership.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
84 Table 3 – BPM Governance and Operating Model
Component Primary Purpose Key Responsibilities Decision Rights Typical Cadence BPM Steering
Committee
Executive oversight
and strategic
alignment
Set priorities, remove barriers,
approve investments, review
benefits
Approve new waves, resource
allocation, policy changes
Monthly (Phase 1),
then bimonthly
Process Owners
End-to-end workflow
performance
Maintain documentation, monitor
metrics, manage handoffs, lead
corrective action
Approve changes within their
process; escalate major
issues
Weekly with
teams, monthly
reporting
BPM / CI Lead
Program coordination
and capability building
Maintain templates, facilitate
workshops, manage repository,
deliver training
Establish standards and
methodologies
Daily operational,
weekly coaching
Improvement
Teams
Design and implement
specific improvements
Map processes, analyze root
causes, design future state,
support pilot rollout
Develop recommendations
for process redesign
Weekly during
active wave
This governance structure is intentionally lightweight but formal enough to maintain continuity through staffing changes and to ensure that all process improvement work remains aligned with Council and executive priorities. By clearly defining roles and decision rights from the outset, the City eliminates much of the ambiguity and stalled momentum that frequently undermine improvement efforts in small organizations.

Operational Enablers
To make the governance model function effectively daily, the City should establish three essential operational enablers:

First, a centralized, searchable process repository. Microsoft SharePoint (or an equivalent secure and user-friendly platform the City already uses) will serve as the single source of truth. This repository will house all SIPOCs, detailed swimlane maps, standard operating procedures (SOPs), forms, templates, RASCI matrices, and performance dashboards.

Making the repository intuitive and searchable ensures staff can quickly access the latest version of any process rather than relying on email attachments or personal knowledge.

Second, a living citywide process inventory. The BPM Lead will maintain a master list of all key processes, their current maturity level, assigned Process Owner, last review date, and scheduled next improvement wave. This inventory provides leadership with clear visibility and prevents important processes from falling through the cracks during periods of change or resource constraints.

Third, the systematic use of the RASCI framework (Responsible, Accountable, Support, Consult, Inform) for every crossdepartmental workflow. This simple yet powerful tool brings clarity to roles and dramatically reduces confusion, delays, and finger-pointing. For example, in the service request process, the RASCI matrix clearly identifies who is Responsible for initial triage, who is Accountable for final resolution, and who must be Consulted from Public Works or Finance.

When fully operational, this governance and operating model will transform BPM from an abstract recommendation into a sustainable, living discipline that is deeply integrated into how St. Helena manages its services. It provides the structure, accountability, and support mechanisms needed to move from reactive, person-dependent operations to a proactive, visible, and continuously improving organization—creating the strong foundation required for all other elements of the transformation to succeed.

A.5. Roles and responsibilities
Clear, well-defined roles are the foundation of any successful BPM/BPR program. Without them, even the best-designed governance model and maturity framework will falter under the pressures of day-to-day municipal operations. For the City of St. Helena, the roles outlined below have been intentionally designed to be practical, scalable, and sustainable for a

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
85 community of approximately 5,300 residents. They distribute accountability appropriately while avoiding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Each role is tied directly to the governance structure in A.4, the maturity progression in A.3, and the seven-step improvement method in A.7, ensuring the entire program operates as a cohesive system rather than a collection of disconnected activities.

The four core roles work together in a clear hierarchy: the BPM Steering Committee provides strategic direction and removes barriers at the executive level; Process Owners serve as the operational stewards of individual workflows; the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead acts as the central coordinator and capability builder; and Cross-Functional Improvement Teams deliver the actual redesign and implementation work in focused waves. This structure creates continuity through staff changes, aligns all efforts with City Council and executive priorities, and ensures that process improvement becomes an embedded operating discipline rather than a temporary project.

BPM Steering Committee (Executive Governance) The Steering Committee is the strategic oversight body that ensures the BPM program remains aligned with the City’s overall vision, fiscal realities, and resident priorities. Its purpose is to set the annual portfolio of priority processes, remove cross-departmental barriers, approve significant investments or policy changes, monitor program-wide outcomes, and celebrate successes. Membership is intentionally compact and senior: the City Manager (or designee) serves as chair, joined by all Department Heads and the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead.

This composition guarantees that decisions reflect both operational realities and executive accountability.

During the critical launch period in Phase 1, the Committee meets monthly to maintain momentum and address any early obstacles. As the program matures in Phases 2 and 3, the cadence shifts to bimonthly or quarterly while still including a standing agenda item on BPM health (maturity progress, benefits realized, and risks). The Committee also serves as the escalation point for major issues that cross departmental lines and is responsible for ensuring that BPM efforts directly support the City Strategic Plan and the broader Deliverable 4 transformation roadmap.

Process Owners (Operational Accountability) Process Owners are the backbone of day-to-day execution. Each priority workflow receives one named owner—typically a department director or senior manager—who holds end-to-end accountability for performance, including cross-department handoffs. This role is not ceremonial; it carries real responsibility. Process Owners maintain current and future-state documentation, monitor performance against defined metrics, ensure role clarity through RASCI matrices, own corrective actions when variation occurs, coordinate implementation of improvements, and lead sustainment efforts after each wave is complete. They also serve as the primary liaison with the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead and represent their process during Steering Committee reviews and technology integration discussions.

Because Process Owners are drawn from existing leadership ranks, the role builds internal ownership and reduces dependency on external consultants. In practice, a Process Owner for the permitting workflow, for example, would review weekly cycle-time dashboards, facilitate monthly huddles with the improvement team, update the RASCI matrix when eTRAKiT enhancements are introduced, and escalate unresolved inter-departmental bottlenecks to the Steering Committee.

This hands-on accountability is what transforms processes from “someone else’s problem” into owned, measurable, and continuously improving assets.

BPM / Continuous Improvement Lead (Program Management and Capability Building) The BPM/CI Lead is the central facilitator and keeper of the program’s standards. Recommended as a part-time effort that can be effectively combined with the new program management office outlined in Deliverable 4, this individual coordinates the entire BPM portfolio, maintains citywide standards and templates, manages the central process repository (SharePoint), tracks programwide benefits, and provides coaching to Process Owners and improvement teams. The Lead also facilitates mapping and redesign workshops, delivers training in improvement methods, supports dashboard development, and ensures methodological consistency across all waves.

This role is deliberately positioned as a capability builder rather than a doer. The Lead does not own individual processes— that responsibility rests with Process Owners—but instead equips the organization with the tools, knowledge, and support needed to succeed independently. In a small-city context like St. Helena, the Lead also serves as the institutional memory

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
86 for process improvement practices, ensuring that lessons learned in one wave are applied to the next and that the program remains sustainable even during periods of staff turnover.

Cross-Functional Improvement Teams (Delivery Mechanism) Improvement Teams are the engine that turns strategy into reality. These are time-bound, cross-functional groups assembled specifically for each improvement wave. Membership is drawn from the people who actually perform the work daily (process participants), plus supervisors, upstream and downstream stakeholders, and enabling functions such as IT, Finance, or Records as needed. Their mandate is focused and time-limited: analyze the current state, design an improved future state, develop implementation and training plans, support the pilot rollout, and deliver stabilized standard work that the Process Owner can sustain.

Teams typically operate for 6–10 weeks per wave, meeting weekly during active phases. Because they include frontline staff, the solutions they develop are practical and grounded in real operational knowledge. Once the new process is stabilized and handed over to the Process Owner, team members return to their regular duties—keeping the model lightweight and respectful of existing workloads.

Table 4 – Summary of Roles and Responsibilities
Role Primary Focus Key Responsibilities Reporting /
Escalation Path
Time Commitment
(Typical)
BPM Steering
Committee
Strategic oversight &
alignment
Set priorities, remove barriers, approve
investments, review benefits
Reports to City
Council (summary
level)
Monthly meetings +
ad-hoc
Process Owners
End-to-end
workflow
performance
Maintain documentation, monitor
metrics, manage handoffs, lead
corrective action
Reports to Steering
Committee
4–8 hours/month per
process
BPM / CI Lead
Program
coordination &
capability
Maintain templates, facilitate
workshops, manage repository, deliver
training
Reports to City
Manager
Part-time (20–30
hours/month)
Cross-Functional
Improvement Teams
Design & implement
specific waves
Map processes, analyze root causes,
design future state, support pilot rollout
Reports to Process
Owner & BPM Lead
4–6 hours/week
during active wave
This clear division of roles creates a balanced system in which strategic direction flows downward, operational accountability flows upward, and practical delivery happens at the team level. The structure is formal enough to survive staffing changes yet flexible enough to adapt as the City grows or new priorities emerge. When these roles are filled with committed individuals and supported by the templates, training, and repository described elsewhere in this appendix, the BPM program will shift from a collection of good intentions to a reliable, repeatable operating discipline that delivers measurable results year after year.

A.6. Selecting and Sequencing Processes
A BPM program is only effective if it concentrates its limited resources on the small number of workflows that drive the greatest impact for residents, businesses, and the organization as a whole. Attempting to improve every process at once would spread staff time and attention too thinly, risk shallow progress, and potentially lead to change fatigue across departments. For the City of St. Helena, success therefore depends on maintaining a living process inventory and applying a simple, transparent scoring model to determine which processes enter the improvement pipeline and in what sequence.

This disciplined approach ensures that early efforts generate visible, meaningful wins that build credibility, create momentum, and demonstrate the value of the entire transformation program.

The process inventory serves as the central strategic tool for the BPM program. It is a dynamic catalog of all significant workflows across every department, regularly updated by the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead and formally reviewed by the Steering Committee at the beginning of each phase. The inventory includes basic information such as process name, primary owner, current maturity level, last review date, and current performance metrics. Far from being a static list, it

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
87 becomes a living decision-making instrument that gives leadership clear visibility into where the greatest opportunities and risks lie.

To prioritize effectively, the City will apply a straightforward seven-dimension scoring model. Each dimension is scored from 0 to 10 by the BPM Lead and the relevant Process Owner. The total score, combined with qualitative strategic judgment by the Steering Committee, determines which processes move forward and when.

Table 5 – BPM Process Scoring Model (0–10 Scale)
Dimension Description High Score Indicators (7–10) St. Helena Example Resident/Business
Impact
Degree to which the process directly
affects residents and businesses
Core “moment that matters” that
shapes daily public experience Permitting
Cycle Time and Backlog Current speed of completion and size of existing backlog
Chronic delays or growing backlog
that frustrate customers Service Requests
Rework/Error Rate Frequency of errors, rework, exceptions, or complaints
High error rates that waste time and
erode confidence Accounts Payable
Cross-Department
Complexity
Number of departments and handoffs
involved
Multiple departments with frequent
coordination challenges Capital Project Delivery
Cost/Capacity Leverage Potential for significant efficiency gains or capacity release
High-volume or high-cost processes
with large upside potential
Preventive
Maintenance
Risk/Compliance
Exposure
Potential legal, financial, safety, or
regulatory risk
High exposure to liability, audits, or
safety issues
Water and Wastewater
Operations
Technology Readiness Ease of integration with current or planned systems and AI tools
Existing systems in place that can be
leveraged for automation Work Orders
In addition to quantitative scoring, the process inventory should categorize workflows into three strategic groups. This categorization ensures balanced coverage and prevents the program from becoming skewed toward any single type of work:
(a) Resident-facing “moments that matter” — processes that residents and businesses interact with frequently and directly (examples: permitting, service requests, inspections, public records responses). Improvements here have the greatest immediate effect on public perception and satisfaction. (b) High-volume internal services — back-office processes that occur repeatedly and consume substantial staff time (examples: accounts payable, purchasing, payroll processing, hiring, budget adjustments). These workflows typically deliver the largest capacity and cost-saving opportunities. (c) High-risk operational processes — mission-critical functions where failure carries heavy financial, safety, compliance, or reputational consequences (examples: water and wastewater preventive maintenance, asset management, capital project delivery). These processes protect the City’s long-term infrastructure and fiscal health.

As highlighted in Deliverable 3B, several enterprise-wide themes recur across nearly all of these workflows: insufficient process documentation, limited performance visibility, fragmented interdepartmental coordination, and limited continuous improvement capability. Because these issues are systemic rather than isolated, the sequencing strategy must be deliberate.

Phase 1 should deliberately include at least one cross-department workflow and one operations-focused workflow. This balanced mix proves that the governance model, templates, measurement systems, and change management practices work effectively in both customer-facing and internal contexts, while generating early wins that build staff confidence and leadership support.

Table 6 – Illustrative Process Portfolio and Wave Plan (final selection and exact sequencing to be confirmed by the BPM Steering Committee using current scoring data and strategic priorities) Process Category Est.

Score
CrossDepartmentRecommended
Wave
Primary
Owner
Expected Major
Benefit
Technology / AI
Opportunity
Permitting
(intake to
issuance)
Residentfacing 68 High Phase 1 Pilot Community
Development
Faster approvals,
higher satisfaction
eTRAKiT
enhancements +
AI routing

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
88 Service
Requests
Residentfacing 62 Medium Phase 1 Pilot Public Works /
City Clerk
Reduced backlog,
quicker response
times
Automated workorder dispatch
AP +
Purchasing
Highvolume
internal
55 High Phase 2 Administrative
Services
Cost savings, fewer
manual errors
Springbrook AI
invoice coding
Work Orders +
Dispatch
High-risk
operational 61 Medium Phase 2 Public Works Better asset life, less reactive work Predictive
maintenance
Public Records
Requests
Residentfacing 52 Medium Phase 2 City Clerk /
Legal
Improved
compliance, faster
turnaround
Next Request +
Laserfiche
integration
Preventive
Maintenance
Planning
High-risk
operational 58 Medium Phase 3 Public Works
Reduced
breakdowns,
extended asset life
Predictive
analytics
Budget
Adjustments
Highvolume
internal
47 Medium Phase 3 Administrative
Services
Stronger financial
controls and
oversight
Integrated
financial
dashboard
A.7. Right-Sized BPM/BPR Method
Each improvement “wave” in the City’s BPM program must follow a repeatable, disciplined method that is rigorous enough to produce measurable, sustainable results while remaining practical and respectful of the daily workloads of City staff. The method is deliberately streamlined for St. Helena’s size and resources, yet robust enough to avoid the common pitfalls that have caused many municipal improvement efforts to stall or fade away after the initial enthusiasm. By following a consistent approach, the City ensures that every process redesign delivers real value, builds internal capability, and contributes directly to the overall maturity progression from Level 1–2 to Level 3.

The method explicitly addresses three failure modes that are particularly common in public-sector process improvement initiatives. First, redesigning processes without establishing reliable baseline data — making it impossible to objectively confirm whether changes actually delivered improvement or simply shifted problems elsewhere. Second, documenting steps without clarifying decision rules, controls, and handoffs — which leaves too much room for individual interpretation and preserves the very variation the City is trying to eliminate. Third, implementing new technology or automation before stabilizing the underlying process — which risks automating confusion, embedding errors deeper into the system, and creating new frustrations for both staff and residents.

To prevent these pitfalls, every wave begins with a clear baseline of current performance (cycle time, backlog size, rework rate, first-time-right percentage, and customer touchpoints) wherever data can be collected or reasonably estimated. Teams also define “normal versus abnormal” operating conditions early and identify the minimum set of preventive controls needed to reduce avoidable defects and delays. This disciplined foundation ensures that improvements are data-driven, sustainable, and fully aligned with the City’s broader transformation goals.

The Five-Step Repeatable BPM/BPR Method
The City will use the following five-step method for every improvement wave. It is intentionally practical and time-boxed (typically 6–10 weeks) so that small cross-functional teams can complete the work while continuing their regular duties.

The steps are:

1. Define and Baseline

2. Diagnose

3. Design

4. Implement

5. Sustain

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
89 Step 1: Define and Baseline The team begins by clearly defining the process scope using a SIPOC diagram and establishing firm start and end triggers. Critical baseline metrics are collected or estimated so that improvement can later be proven objectively. This step creates the “before” picture that makes success measurable and prevents redesigns based on assumptions rather than facts.

Step 2: Diagnose Using the current-state swimlane map, the team identifies pain points, variation sources, waste, and root causes. Simple but powerful tools such as the 5 Whys and waste analysis are applied. Special attention is given to clarifying decision rules, control points, and cross-department handoffs that currently allow inconsistency to persist.

Step 3: Design The future-state process is designed with clear roles (via RASCI), standardized decision rules, built-in preventive controls, and streamlined flow. Automation opportunities are identified but only after the process logic has been stabilized. The design prioritizes simplicity, resident experience, and staff usability so that the new process is both effective and sustainable.

Step 4: Implement A detailed implementation plan is executed, including training, policy updates, system configuration, communication, and a controlled pilot. Daily Management System elements (tiered huddles and visual boards) are introduced to support the transition and help staff quickly distinguish normal from abnormal conditions.

Step 5: Sustain Performance is monitored at 30, 60, and 90 days post-go-live. Corrective actions are taken as needed. The updated process documentation, SOPs, and dashboards are finalized and added to the central repository. A six-month sustainability review is scheduled with the Process Owner to confirm that gains are holding and to capture lessons learned for future waves.

Table 7 – Standard Outputs for Each Priority Process
Output Description Purpose / How It Prevents Failure Modes SIPOC and Boundary
Definition
High-level map showing Suppliers, Inputs, Process,
Outputs, Customers
Clearly defines scope and prevents scope creep
or vague boundaries
Current-State Swimlane
Map
Detailed visual map of the existing process Reveals hidden handoffs and variation that baseline data alone misses
Future-State Design Improved process map with clarified rules and controls
Ensures decision rules and controls are explicit,
not assumed
Mini-SOP / Standard
Work
Concise written instructions including forms and
service levels
Provides repeatable guidance so the process
does not depend on individuals
RASCI Matrix Role clarity for each key step (Responsible, Accountable, Support, Consult, Inform)
Eliminates confusion in cross-department
handoffs
Implementation Plan Training, communication, system changes, and rollout schedule
Ensures controlled rollout and prevents
premature technology changes
Dashboard Definitions Baseline and target metrics with review cadence Makes impact measurable and visible so success can be proven
Benefits Summary Quantified resident, operational, and financial outcomes
Documents value and supports leadership
reporting and sustainment
These standard outputs are required for every priority process. They are stored in the central SharePoint repository so that any staff member can quickly access the latest version. Templates and examples for each output are provided by the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead and refined after the first two pilot waves.

This repeatable method, supported by the standard outputs above, ensures that every improvement wave is consistent in quality and approach. It directly supports the City’s journey from Maturity Level 1–2 to Level 3 while systematically avoiding the three most common failure modes that have undermined past efforts in similar municipalities.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
90 A.8. Continuous Improvement System
Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) delivers the step changes that move the City from its current informal, variable state to a new level of performance. Continuous Improvement (CI) is what prevents those gains from eroding and enables the organization to learn, adapt, and keep getting better over time. For St. Helena, a lightweight, practical CI system is therefore not an optional add-on — it is the mechanism that turns one-time redesigns into lasting cultural change and sustained operational excellence.

The City’s CI system is deliberately designed to be simple, visible, and embedded in daily work rather than layered on top of it. It blends top-down strategic direction with bottom-up operational learning, creating a balanced approach that respects the realities of a small municipality while delivering measurable, ongoing results. At the strategic level, improvement efforts are explicitly tied to City priorities through simple driver diagrams that connect high-level outcomes (faster permit turnaround, improved asset reliability, reduced resident complaints) to the specific process changes required to achieve them. At the operational level, a Daily Management System (DMS) gives frontline teams and supervisors a routine way to surface problems early, solve them at the lowest possible level, and prevent recurrence.

This combination — strategic alignment plus daily operational discipline — makes improvement work visible, creates real accountability for follow-through, and gradually builds a culture where every employee feels empowered to identify and fix issues rather than work around them.

The Practical Management Cadence
To keep the CI system alive without adding burden, the City will follow a tiered review cadence that escalates naturally from daily operations to executive oversight.

Table 8 – Practical Cadence for Sustaining Improvements Cadence Frequency Participants Focus Areas Key Outputs / Decisions Operational
Review
Weekly or biweeklyProcess Owners, frontline
teams, supervisors
Daily performance, issues surfaced
in huddles, small countermeasures
Updated issue log, immediate
fixes, visual board updates
CrossFunctional
Review
Monthly
Process Owners, BPM/CI
Lead, relevant
departments
Progress on active waves, crossdepartment barriers, metric trends Action plans for barriers,
resource requests to Steering
Committee
Benefits Review Quarterly BPM Steering Committee,
City Manager
Overall program impact, benefits
realization, maturity progress
Program adjustments,
recognition, updated portfolio
priorities
This cadence is intentionally lightweight. Most of the work happens in short, focused huddles and existing staff meetings.

The monthly and quarterly reviews simply bring visibility and accountability at the right level without creating extra meetings.

Daily Management System (DMS) – The Operational Heart of CI The DMS is the daily engine that makes continuous improvement routine rather than episodic. It gives teams a structured yet simple way to manage their work proactively instead of reactively. Core elements include:
• Short tiered huddles (5–15 minutes) that escalate from team level to department and executive level as needed. • Visual readiness boards (MESS format: Methods, Equipment, Supplies, Staffing) that show at a glance whether the process is in a “normal” or “abnormal” state.
• A shared issue log that captures problems as they occur and drives root-cause follow-up rather than repeated firefighting.
• Clear visual indicators (green/yellow/red) so anyone walking through an area can immediately see the health of the process.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
91 The DMS does not require fancy software — simple whiteboards, SharePoint dashboards, or even laminated charts work well in the beginning. Over time, these can be digitized as part of the broader technology modernization effort.

Core CI Components
The CI system rests on four practical, interconnected components that reinforce one another and directly support the maturity progression described earlier.

Table 9 – Core Continuous Improvement Components
Component Description How It Works in Practice for
St. Helena
Link to Maturity &
Sustainment
Standard Work &
Visual Management
Documented processes and clear visual
expectations for priority workflows
Updated swimlanes, miniSOPs, and visual boards posted
and used daily
Prevents regression by
making the “new normal”
obvious
Structured Problem
Solving
Lightweight A3 or DMAIC-lite approach for
exceptions and recurring issues
Simple one-page A3 forms used
in huddles and monthly reviews
Builds capability and turns
problems into permanent
fixes
Capability Building
Develop a small cohort of “process
champions” trained in mapping, facilitation,
and basic tools
8–10 staff trained as internal
coaches over 12–18 months
Reduces reliance on the BPM
Lead and spreads ownership
Benefits Realization
Track outcomes across resident,
operational, and capacity/financial
measures
Quarterly summary dashboard
showing cycle time, rework, and
savings
Provides evidence of value
and justifies continued
investment
These components are introduced gradually. The first two pilots in Phase 1 will test and refine them, so that by Phase 2 the entire organization is using a consistent, familiar approach to continuous improvement.

Integration with the Broader Transformation
The CI system is not separate from the rest of the program — it is the glue that holds everything together. It ensures that BPR step changes are sustained, that the Daily Management System feeds data into the three-tier dashboards, that process champions support the new talent management framework, and that benefits realized are visible to the City Council and residents. When fully mature, continuous improvement will no longer feel like an extra initiative; it will simply be “how we work” at the City of St. Helena.

By investing in this lightweight yet disciplined CI system, the City moves beyond one-time redesigns to create an organization that learns, adapts, and continuously delivers better service with the resources it already has. This is the final piece that turns the BPM/BPR program from a project into a permanent operating advantage.

A.9. Dashboarding and performance management
Dashboards are most powerful when they actively support decisions rather than simply report on the past. For the City of St. Helena, the dashboard system must answer three practical questions every leader needs to know at any given moment:

Are we meeting service expectations for our residents and businesses? Where are the current bottlenecks or emerging risks? And most importantly — what specific action is required right now to keep performance on track? Prior deliverables made this gap clear. Deliverable 3B (Process Improvement and Efficiency Potential) documented that performance measures already exist in pockets across departments, yet they are rarely consolidated, trended over time, reviewed on a routine cadence, or used to drive actual improvement. Many metrics sit in isolated spreadsheets or monthly reports that arrive too late to influence decisions. The result is reactive management: problems are discovered only after they have grown into backlogs, complaints, or budget pressures.

The City’s new dashboard approach corrects this by design. It is built around a clear, tiered review cadence that matches the natural rhythm of municipal work and directly supports the DMS, process ownership model, and continuous improvement

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
92 practices described earlier in this appendix. When paired with explicit action triggers — such as backlog-age thresholds, rework-rate alerts, or compliance exceptions — dashboards shift from passive reporting tools into active management instruments that leaders at every level can use to intervene early and effectively.

The Three-Tier Dashboard Hierarchy
The system is organized into three connected tiers, each serving a different level of decision-making while feeding upward to create a single source of truth. All dashboards share consistent metric definitions, trend lines (not just snapshots), clear ownership, and visual indicators that make “normal versus abnormal” immediately obvious.

Table 10 – Dashboard Hierarchy and Purpose
Tier Audience Primary Purpose Review
Cadence Example Metrics & Action Triggers
Executive
Dashboard
City Manager,
Council, Steering
Committee
Strategic oversight
and roadmap
progress
Quarterly +
monthly
summary
Overall permitting cycle time trend; service
request closure rate; total backlog aging; key
milestone status. Triggers: red if >20% off target
Department
Dashboards
Directors and
Managers
Operational
throughput and
resource balancing
Monthly +
weekly
highlights
Volume by category; backlog by type; SLA
adherence; workload distribution. Triggers:
escalate if backlog exceeds 15 days
Process
Dashboards
Process Owners and
frontline teams
Step-level control and
daily correction
Weekly/biweekly in
huddles
Queue times per step; handoff delays; rework
loops; control compliance. Triggers: immediate
action if rework >8% or handoff delay >3 days
This hierarchy ensures information flows upward naturally while still giving every level the right level of detail for its decisions. Executive dashboards remain concise (no more than 8–10 key indicators) so Council and senior leaders can grasp the big picture in minutes. Department and process dashboards provide the deeper drill-down needed for daily management.

Review Cadence That Drives Action
The dashboards are embedded in a practical management cadence that aligns with the Daily Management System and the governance structure:
• Weekly / Bi-weekly Operational Huddles (frontline and Process Owner level): Focus on process dashboards for immediate correction. Teams review visual boards, discuss exceptions surfaced in the issue log, and assign quick countermeasures.
• Monthly Cross-Functional Reviews (department and Process Owner level): Department dashboards are reviewed with a focus on workflow handoffs, resource balancing, and cross-department barriers. The BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead participates to identify systemic patterns.
• Quarterly Benefits Reviews (Steering Committee and executive level): Executive dashboards are presented alongside a formal benefits realization report. This meeting confirms value delivered, adjusts priorities for the next wave, and celebrates wins.

When thresholds are exceeded, clear action triggers automatically escalate the issue — no one has to guess whether something needs attention. For example, a permitting backlog aging beyond 20 days automatically flags for the Community Development Director and appears on the next Steering Committee agenda.

Guiding Principles for Effective Dashboards
To ensure the system remains useful rather than burdensome, the City will follow five guiding principles:

1. Consistent metric definitions across all tiers so everyone speaks the same language.

2. Trend visibility (12-month rolling views) rather than static snapshots.

3. Clear ownership — every metric has a named Process Owner responsible for monitoring and action.

4. Explicit action triggers (red/yellow/green thresholds) that prompt specific responses.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
93 5. Integration with the process repository — clicking any metric on a dashboard links directly to the latest swimlane map, SOP, and RASCI for that process.

Implementation Approach
Dashboards will be built in phases to match the BPM rollout. Phase 1 pilots (permitting and service requests) will include basic process and department dashboards using simple tools such as SharePoint lists or Microsoft Power BI (leveraging existing licenses). By the end of Phase 2, the full three-tier hierarchy will be live across all priority processes. Phase 3 will add predictive elements (such as backlog forecasting) as data maturity improves.

All dashboards will be accessible through the central process repository so staff can view them on computers, tablets, or even printed visual boards in work areas. Training for Process Owners and managers on how to read, interpret, and act on dashboard information will be included in the capability-building program.

Integration with the Broader Transformation
The dashboard system is the visible nervous system of the entire BPM/BPR program. It directly supports the maturity progression (A.3), the seven-step improvement method (A.7), the Daily Management System, and the continuous improvement culture (A.8). It provides the data that proves benefits realization, informs the Steering Committee’s decisions, and gives the City Manager and Council the confidence that the transformation is delivering real results.

When fully operational, these dashboards will transform how St. Helena manages its services — moving the City from reactive, anecdotal decision-making to proactive, fact-based leadership. Residents will experience faster, more consistent service; staff will have clearer priorities and fewer surprises; and leadership will have the visibility needed to steer the organization confidently into the future. This is the final link that turns individual process improvements into sustained organizational excellence.

A.10. Implementation Plan Aligned to the Transformation Roadmap A.10. Implementation Plan Aligned to the Transformation Roadmap The BPM/BPR program will succeed only if it is implemented in a deliberate, phased manner that builds capability step by step while delivering visible results early enough to create momentum and confidence across the organization. For the City of St. Helena, this means aligning every phase of the BPM/BPR rollout directly with the three-phase transformation roadmap in Deliverable 4. The approach is intentionally practical: start small with governance and pilots to prove the model works, scale methodically while integrating with technology modernization, and finally institutionalize the new way of working so that continuous improvement becomes part of the City’s normal operating rhythm rather than a separate initiative.

This implementation plan provides the complete roadmap — including specific outputs, timelines, responsibilities, and integration points — so leadership, Process Owners, and staff have absolute clarity on what success looks like at each stage.

It also incorporates explicit change management activities at every phase to ensure new processes and practices become the “new normal” rather than temporary experiments.

Table 11 – Summary of BPM/BPR Implementation by Phase
Phase Timeframe Primary Focus Key Deliverables Success Indicators Phase
1 Months
0–12
Establish capability
and execute pilots
Governance structure, process inventory,
templates, 1–2 pilots completed, initial
dashboards and DMS
Level 2 maturity in pilot processes;
measurable quick wins; staff
confidence and buy-in
Phase
2 Months
12–24
Scale and integrate
with modernization
Expanded portfolio, full process library,
alignment with IT/cloud/AI initiatives, broader
DMS rollout
Level 3 elements in place; integration
with systems complete; capacity gains
realized
Phase
3 Month 24+ Institutionalize and
sustain
Citywide process library, annual refresh
process, embedded CI in management
systems, higher-maturity analytics
Level 3 sustained across core
workflows; CI culture embedded;
CMMI Level 3 certification pursued

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
94 A.10.1. Phase 1: Establish Capability and Execute Pilots Phase 1 is about building the minimum viable management system and proving that the BPM/BPR approach works in St.

Helena’s real-world environment. The focus is on speed and visibility — delivering tangible results within the first 60–90 days to build credibility and momentum before scaling.

Key activities and outputs in Phase 1 include:
• Stand up the full governance structure (BPM Steering Committee, named Process Owners, and the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead role).
• Finalize the citywide process inventory and apply the scoring model to confirm the first two pilot processes (recommended: permitting and service requests).
• Develop and distribute standardized templates (SIPOC, swimlane maps, mini-SOPs, RASCI, issue log, and charter). • Complete baseline measurement and full redesign of the two pilot processes using the seven-step method. • Launch the initial Daily Management System (tiered huddles and visual boards) and the first version of the three-tier dashboards.
• Establish a simple benefits tracking mechanism and communications plan — including “You said, we did” updates to staff and residents — to celebrate early wins and maintain transparency.

Change management is explicit in this phase. Stakeholder mapping, targeted communications, hands-on training, and reinforcement activities ensure that the pilot teams and affected departments see the new processes as improvements rather than extra work. By the end of Phase 1, the City will have proven governance, two redesigned processes with measurable improvements, and the foundational tools needed to scale confidently.

A.10.2. Phase 2: Scale and Integration with Modernization Phase 2 is where BPM/BPR and technology modernization converge most powerfully. With proven governance and templates in place, the City expands the program to additional high-leverage workflows while ensuring that every redesign directly informs system configuration, digitization priorities, records management, and workflow automation. This prevents the common mistake of automating unstable processes.

Key activities and outputs in Phase 2 include:
• Expand the process portfolio to 4–6 additional workflows (including the finance and accounting backbone, work-order management, and public records).
• Formalize the central process library (SharePoint) as the authoritative source for how work is performed, with links to data definitions, reporting, and role clarity.
• Align all system configuration, cloud migration steps, and automation decisions to the newly redesigned To-Be processes.
• Deepen the Daily Management System and tiered performance reviews so leadership can actively manage workload balancing and cross-department handoffs.
• Integrate change management more broadly, including expanded training for process champions and updated performance expectations in staff evaluations.

By the end of Phase 2, the City will have Level 3 elements in place across a critical mass of processes, full integration between redesigned workflows and technology systems, and the operational discipline needed to sustain gains without constant external support.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
95 A.10.3. Phase 3: Institutionalize and Sustain
Phase 3 shifts the focus from project-based improvement to permanent capability. The goal is to embed BPM and continuous improvement so deeply into the City’s culture and management systems that they become “how we do business” rather than a separate program.

Key activities and outputs in Phase 3 include:
• Embed BPM/CI practices into all core management systems (budget cycles, performance reviews, strategic planning, and governance routines).
• Maintain and annually refresh the citywide process library, conduct periodic process health audits, and update the process portfolio based on changing priorities.
• Expand dashboarding into a stable, Citywide performance management discipline with predictive elements where data maturity allows.
• Train and develop additional internal process champions so the capability no longer depends on any single individual or external consultant.
• Selectively pursue higher-maturity elements (advanced analytics, targeted automation, and responsible AI use cases) anchored to stable, well-documented processes and clear governance.

At this stage, the City can confidently pursue external validation — such as CMMI Level 3 certification in high-impact areas — to demonstrate long-term commitment to excellence and to qualify for additional grants or insurance advantages.

Sustaining Momentum for the Long Term
Throughout all three phases, the City will maintain a strong focus on benefits realization, change management, and communications. Quarterly benefits reviews will quantify resident outcomes, operational improvements, and capacity/financial gains, while annual maturity reassessments will keep the program aligned with evolving needs.

Recognition programs and success stories will reinforce the cultural shift so that process improvement becomes a source of pride rather than an extra task.

By following this aligned, three-phase implementation plan, the City of St. Helena will move methodically from a reactive, person-dependent organization to one that is deliberate, visible, resilient, and continuously improving. The BPM/BPR program will not end when the initial waves are complete — it will become the enduring management system that supports excellent public service for decades to come. This is the final, integrating element that turns every recommendation in this appendix into lasting organizational excellence.

A.11. Key Risks and Mitigations
Every major transformation carries risks, and the City of St. Helena’s BPM/BPR program is no exception. The difference between success and failure will lie in how proactively the City anticipates and manages those risks. Because this program touches every department and changes how people do their daily work, the Steering Committee, Process Owners, and BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead must treat risk management as an ongoing discipline rather than a one-time checklist.

The seven risks below are the ones most likely to undermine progress in a small-city environment. Each is paired with a practical, proven mitigation that is already built into the governance model, seven-step method, dashboard system, and phased rollout described throughout this appendix. By addressing these risks systematically from Day 1, the City can protect its investment and keep the program on track to deliver the intended outcomes.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
96 Table 12 – Key Risks and Mitigations
Risk Description Mitigation Strategy How It Is Embedded in the Program
BPM becomes
“documentation only”
Processes are mapped
and filed away but never
actually change day-today behavior
Tie every mapped process to measurable
outcomes, implementation actions, and
benefits tracking
Every wave requires baseline
metrics, a formal implementation
plan, and quarterly benefits reviews
with the Steering Committee
Cross-department
processes lack
accountability
No one feels truly
responsible when
handoffs fail or delays
occur
Assign true end-to-end Process Owners
and use Steering Committee governance to
resolve barriers and enforce decision rights
Clear Process Owner role + RASCI
matrices + monthly Steering
Committee barrier-removal
sessions
Improvement work
competes with day-today workload
Staff feel overwhelmed
and deprioritize BPM
activities
Right-size the portfolio, time-box every
wave (6–10 weeks), and focus first on
bottlenecks that quickly yield capacity
back
Limited number of active waves at
any time + deliberate selection of
high-leverage processes that free up
staff time
Technology changes
precede process
stabilization
New systems automate
broken or undefined
processes
Apply a strict “process first” rule: define
and validate the To-Be workflow, controls,
and data requirements before any
automation or major configuration changes
All technology projects in
Deliverable 3D and Phase 2 must
reference the approved To-Be
process design before configuration
begins
Reliance on key
individuals and
turnover disrupts
continuity
Knowledge walks out the
door when someone
leaves
Build a shared repository, standard
templates, cross-training requirements,
and explicit process ownership so
knowledge is institutionalized
Centralized SharePoint process
library + mandatory RASCI updates
+ cross-training built into every
implementation plan
Measures are not
trusted or not used
Dashboards are created
but ignored because data
seems unreliable or
irrelevant
Start with a small set of high-value metrics,
define clear definitions and data sources,
and pair every metric with routine review
and explicit action triggers
Three-tier dashboard hierarchy with
defined owners, consistent
definitions, and automatic
escalation triggers
Change fatigue and low
adoption
Staff become skeptical or
disengaged after multiple
initiatives
Prioritize a small number of visible early
wins, communicate progress transparently
(“You said, we did”), and reinforce new
standard work through supervisor routines
and coaching
Phase 1 pilots chosen for quick,
visible impact + regular
communications plan + supervisor
coaching included in capability
building
These mitigations are not theoretical — they are already designed into the program’s DNA. The governance structure provides oversight, the seven-step method enforces discipline, the dashboard system creates visibility, and the phased rollout builds momentum gradually. Regular quarterly benefits reviews by the Steering Committee serve as an early-warning system: if any risk begins to materialize, it is surfaced and addressed before it can derail progress.

By treating these risks openly and embedding the mitigations from the very first pilot, the City of St. Helena will protect its investment in the BPM/BPR program and dramatically increase the likelihood that the transformation delivers lasting, measurable improvements in service, capacity, and fiscal sustainability. This proactive risk management approach is one of the reasons the program is right-sized and realistic for a community of St. Helena’s scale.

A.12. BPM/BPR Recommendation Card
To ensure that the BPM/BPR program remains visible, understood, and consistently applied at every level of the organization, the City of St. Helena has created a single-page BPM/BPR Recommendation Card. This quick-reference tool distills the entire appendix into its most essential elements, making it easy for City leadership, Process Owners, managers, supervisors, and frontline staff to stay aligned with the program’s purpose, structure, and expected outcomes.

The card is designed to be practical and durable. It will be printed, laminated, and distributed widely — posted in department offices and break rooms, included in new-employee onboarding packets, used as a handout during training sessions and improvement-team kickoffs, and reviewed at the start of every Steering Committee meeting and process wave. It serves as both a daily reminder and a cultural symbol that process excellence is now “how we work” in St. Helena.

BLACKBERG
GROUP
Efficiency and Business Transformation Study
Deliverable 4: Final Report and Recommendations
97 Recommendations Card
Section Content
Our Vision Move from informal, person-dependent processes (Maturity Level 1–2) to repeatable, measurable, and continuously improved processes (Level 3).

Why It Matters
• Faster, more consistent service for residents and businesses • Increased capacity without proportional headcount growth • Reduced risk and stronger compliance
• Strong foundation for cloud systems, automation, and responsible AI Core Maturity Goal
Advance across six dimensions:

1. Ownership

2. Documentation

3. Controls

4. Measurement

5. Integration

6. Continuous Improvement
Governance
Structure
• Steering Committee: Sets priorities and removes barriers • Process Owners: End-to-end accountability for performance and handoffs • BPM/CI Lead: Coordinates program, templates, training, and repository • Improvement Teams: Time-bound redesign waves
The 5-Step Method

1. Define & Baseline

2. Diagnose

3. Design

4. Implement

5. Sustain
Phased Rollout
• Phase 1 (0–12 mo): Governance + 1–2 pilots (Permitting & Service Requests) • Phase 2 (12–22 mo): Scale + technology integration
• Phase 3 (24+ mo): Institutionalize and sustain
Daily Tools
• Central Process Library (SharePoint)
• Daily Management System (DMS) with tiered huddles
• Three-Tier Dashboards with action triggers
• RASCI matrices for role clarity
Our Commitment Process improvement is not a project — it is how we work every day.

Process First. People Empowered. Results Sustained.

Approved by the BPM Steering Committee
Review & Update Annually
For questions or support, contact the BPM/Continuous Improvement Lead This one-page card captures the essence of the entire BPM/BPR program in a format that is easy to read at a glance yet powerful enough to reinforce the key principles every time it is seen. It will be refreshed annually or whenever significant program changes occur, ensuring it remains a living reference tool.

By keeping this simple card visible and in regular use throughout the City, leadership and staff will stay focused on the same goals, speak the same language, and work toward the same outcomes. It serves as the final, unifying element that turns the detailed guidance in this appendix into a shared, practical reality for the City of St. Helena.