City Council Announcements
August 20, 2013
For Your Information 6:07:39 PM
KK. New Project Management Implementation
Council staff is working with IMS to implement a new project management program. With the guidance of the Chair and Vice Chair, staff has been exploring options for formal project management software in order to help focus staff resources and support staff’s efforts to accomplish Council priorities and projects. The software program and methodology will help staff to better track the list of pending projects, assign staff time, identify all work group contributors to projects, and to report on the progress in a shared or online program. Over the coming weeks, IMS staff will help to guide us through options and pursue next steps, with the timeline of having a new system implemented by the end of the year. Other pieces of information:
•We are pursuing “agile” method to project management, which is an option to the “waterfall” method. Waterfall has been more common. The Microsoft Project program uses a ‘waterfall’ method.
•There are a number of different software programs available for agile PM, as well as variations in the methodology or how the tools are implemented.
•IMS hired a new staff person to serve as a Projects and Business Team Manager, who will be helping us with exploring those options and proposing software options.
•Depending on the progress and assistance needed, there may be a time when the staff hires a project manager consultant to help train the staff.
•IMS or Council staff are available to meet with Council Members to discuss the process, and/or receive feedback on how project management is handled within the office. Cindy. Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said staff had been working on a project management approach within the office which would require some software. She said this had been raised previously with the Council and she just wanted to keep bringing it to the Council’s attention so they knew what was being worked on. She said staff thought it would help identify “blocks of time” (discussed at Council Retreat) where staff could really focus on Council priorities so the Council could be a more pro-active body rather then re-active. She said staff would come back to the Council probably in November with some pretty significant progress. She said staff would keep the Council informed along the way in case the Council wanted to slow down or go in a different direction.
LL. Feedback Needed on the Homeless Employment program
The Administration has provided the following information and is requesting the Council’s feedback -
As part of FY 2012-13’s budget amendment #4 in June, the Council appropriated $80,000 for a Homeless Employment program. Subsequently, the Administration has had conversations with the Downtown Alliance about possible uses for this funding. As this funding request was Council initiated, we want to ensure we are meeting the Council’s intent prior to committing the funds.
The Downtown Alliance, working with Valley Services and many downtown businesses, proposes to employ the homeless to pick up trash in a 10 block area ranging from 200 S. to 500 S, from Rio Grande to the Intermodal Hub. The Downtown Alliance is currently working to secure donations from local businesses to provide funds for this service and according to the Alliance, this endeavor has been very successful. Our discussions with the Downtown Alliance have produced a number of options.
Option 1: 10 Block Area Program. This option would cover the area originally discussed by the Downtown Alliance and Valley Services. This option would provide funding for trash containers but not for recycling containers. These cans would be provided by the City, and trash would be picked up by Valley Services. This option would provide some City funds to supplement the fundraising for this program that is already being done by The Downtown Alliance and Valley Services.
$26,000 Trash can purchase by the City
$54,000 One time funding for Homeless Employment Program, funding provided directly to Valley Services.
Option 2: Expanded Block Area Program. This option would extend the coverage area from the initial 10 block area to cover an additional 7 blocks 1st S. to 5th S. and 6th West to rail lines/ 7th W. This option would provide funding for trash containers but not for recycling containers. These cans would be provided by the City, and trash would be picked up by Valley Services. This option would provide some one-time City funds to supplement the fundraising for this program that is already being done by the Downtown Alliance and Valley Services.
$44,200 Trash can purchase by the City
$35,200 One time funding for Homeless Employment Program, funding provided directly to Valley Services.
Option 3: Expanding Block Area Program + Recycling. This option would extend the coverage area from the initial 10 block area to cover an additional 7 blocks, and would provide funding for trash containers and recycling containers. The cans would be provide by the City, and trash and recycling would be picked up by Valley Services. This option would provide funding only for trash and recycling containers.
$80,000 Trash and recycling can purchase by the City.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was a bit of a twist to this and staff needed feedback from the Council to ensure this was going in the direction Council Members wanted. She asked the Council to read the information and get comments back to staff. She said one core question was whether Council Members were ok with having some trash cans purchased by the City. She said there was also the issue for expanding the block area program. Councilmember Simonsen said he understood Option 3 was for both trash and recycling cans. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to keep the labor portion in place and if there was an absence of trash containers he thought that was a place where the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) could have a positive effect. Councilmember Penfold said the Council could look at Option 1 and then approach the RDA about supplying trash cans for the additional space. Councilmember Simonsen suggested staying with what was originally approved and then look at what we could come up with maybe from RDA sources to expand the area and add recycling containers.
Additional
City Council Announcements
August 20, 2013
Information Needed by Staff
MM. Blade Signs (Attached) View Attachments
Council Member Søren Simonsen would like to initiate changes to the City’s zoning regulations for the following types of signs.
1. In the Commercial Sugar House Business District CSHBD 1 & 2 zones, allow one blade or projecting building sign per business at street level rather than one per street frontage.
2. In all commercial zones where A-frame signs are allowed, the dimension of 2 ft. x 3 ft. should be clarified as the dimension of the sign face itself, and allow for a larger frame surrounding the sign. At times, City Enforcement has been ticketing some businesses that have these standard sized signs, where the frame extends a few inches beyond the edge of the sign. For example, the following A-frame sign structures are produced by the same company. The frame size is slightly larger than what is currently allowed. The sign face size varies just slightly and would comply with the current zoning standards.
Business sign face sign frame
•Washington Square Café 35 in. length x 24.5” wide 46 in. length x 27 in. wide
•Ken Garff Auto Sales 36 in. length x 24 in. wide 46 in. length x 27 in. wide
•City Council A-frame signs 36 in. length x 24 in. wide 46 in. length x 27 in. wide
3. Legalize "vintage" moving and lighted signs in the Sugar House Business District and address allowing new signs that are similar in form and function.
Constituents have pointed out that the City's regulations for A-frame signs and blade or projecting signs in the Sugar House Business District or other commercial areas do not currently allow for maximum flexibility. In addition, vintage signs, such as the Granite Furniture sign, the old Dee Burger Clown sign or the rotating Harmon’s Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket are not addressed in the zoning regulations.
Proposed changes to address these types of signs could be simple fixes. Council staff prepared the attached ordinances for the first two items. This would ease processing the proposed changes by the Administration. The 3rd component, vintage signs, will take more time and outreach before language can be drafted.
•Would other Council Members support Council Member Sorensen’s desire to initiate the proposed zoning regulations relating to A-frame signs, blade or projecting signs and vintage signs? Council Members Love and Luke said they would support the proposal. Ms. Gust-Jenson said these issues were previously discussed by the Council and Councilmember Simonsen had requested that legal prepare ordinances. Councilmember Simonsen said Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director, had already drafted ordinances for the first two items. He said he wanted to work with Mr. Lindberg to draft the “vintage sign” ordinance and then present that to the Administration along with pursuing some community outreach.
NN. SixtyNineSeventy Project (Attached)
•Is the Council interested in having staff work on nominating the SixtyNineSeventy Project for the Utah American Planning Association Awards? Yes. Councilmember LaMalfa said he encouraged staff to reach out to SixtyNineSeventy to have them write their own application and then we would submit it. He said it would probably be better if this came from the RDA and DJ Baxter, RDA Director said he would get back to him.
ADDITIONAL ITEM REGARDING THE HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE INCIDENT:
Councilmember Luke said he wanted to formally request that staff continue to work with the horse carriage business operator/veterinarian to get more information and also to have staff look at best practices around the country to see what other municipalities had done in terms of regulating the horse carriage industry in an urban environment. He said he wanted to gather all the facts/information possible and then determine a course of action. Council Members Garrott and Simonsen said they would support the proposal. Councilmember Simonsen suggested having appropriate City boards participate such as the Business and Transportation Advisory Boards and also County Animal Control.