2009.01.13 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
January 13, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are
open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated
below.
1. Community/Development Services Committee
Council Chambers
A. AM-2007
(15 Minutes)
Review Planning Board recommendation regarding accessory building regulations dealing
with the definition of accessory buildings clarifying when they are attached; the definition of
building height for accessory buildings; and site development standards.
B. AM-1995
(15 Minutes)
Review Planning Board recommendation regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 17.70
regulating temporary uses and buildings.
2.Finance Committee
Jury Meeting Room
A. AM-2015
(5 Minutes)
Authorization to award Braun Northwest the bid for the purchase of two (2) 2009 North Star
167-3 Aid Cars in the total amount of $288,258.30, including Washington State sales tax.
B. AM-2020
(5 Minutes)
Court security surcharge.
C. AM-2019
(5 Minutes)
Interlocal Agreement for court security.
3.Public Safety Committee
Police Training Room
A. AM-2023
(5 Minutes)
Interlocal Agreement for court security.
Packet Page 1 of 33
AM-2007 1.A.
Accessory Building Regulations
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:15 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Review Planning Board recommendation regarding accessory building regulations dealing with
the definition of accessory buildings clarifying when they are attached; the definition of building
height for accessory buildings; and site development standards.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Refer the matter to the full City Council with recommendation of approval.
Previous Council Action
The CS/DS Committee reviewed the topic of changes to the accessory building regulations at their
September 9, 2008 meeting and referred the matter to the Planning Board.
Narrative
This matter was originally raised due to a building permit that was issued for an attached two story
garage that a number of neighboring property owners objected to. The garage is connected to the
existing attached carport and house. Because it is "attached", the property owner was able to take
advantage of the 25 foot height limit instead of the 15 foot height limit for detached accessory
buildings.
The Planning Board reviewed draft language on September 24, 2008 and then held a public
hearing on December 10, 2008. Attached copies of the minutes from the Planning Board meetings
and their recommendation for code language.
There are three code amendments necessary to implement the proposed code amendments. They
include two definition amendments which involve amending the definition for accessory buildings
and modifying the definition of height. Lastly, the site development standards for the accessory
buildings in single family zones would be amended.
The code amendments essentially allow accessory buildings that are connected by a structure with
a roof and constructed of similar materials to the main building so that it appears to be a unified
and consistently designed building combination and is not greater than 10 feet in length to be
included in the height calculation for the house.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - planning Board Recommendation
Packet Page 2 of 33
Link: Exhibit 1 - planning Board Recommendation
Link: Exhibit 2 - Planning Board minute Extracts
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/06/2009 11:06 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/06/2009 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 01:48 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 12/30/2008 04:26
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2009
Packet Page 3 of 33
Planning Board Recommendation 12/10/08
21.05.010 Accessory buildings.
Accessory building means one which is subordinate to the main building, and is
incidental to the use of the main building on the same lot. Any building attached by a
breezeway or other similar connection and separated by more than 10 feet from the
main building shall be considered to be an accessory building.
21.40.030 Height.
A. Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level of the
undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure.
(See subsection (C) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
B. “Average level” shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward
projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the
building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its
elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the
two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (C)(1) of this section
for exceptions to this rule.)
C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway or other
similar connection so that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less shall be
considered to be part of the main building for purposes of determining the “average
level.” For the purposes of this section, for an accessory building to be considered to be
attached and part of the main building it must be connected by a structure with a roof
and constructed of similar materials to the main building so that it appears to be a unified
and consistently designed building combination.
D. Height Exceptions.
1. (Reserved);
2. Church steeples;
3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or
three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit;
4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than
three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall
be clustered. No multiple-flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section.
The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other
chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section;
5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; and
6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit. [Ord.
3654 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005].
16.20.050 Site development standards – Accessory buildings.
B. Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting
antennas and their supporting structures. Garages or other accessory buildings
attached by a breezeway or other similar connection to the primary house which results
in a separation exceeding ten feet in length may not exceed the 15 foot height limit.
Packet Page 4 of 33
Planning board 9/24/08 Minutes Extract
DISCUSSION ON ATTACHED GARAGE REGULATIONS
Mr. Bowman advised that this issue is the result of complaints filed against a building permit that was
issued for an attached two-story garage that a number of neighboring property owners objected to. The
garage in question would be connected to the existing attached carport and house, which would enable the
property owner to take advantage of the 25-foot height limit instead of the 15-foot height limit for detached
accessory buildings. He reported that the City Council’s Community Services/Development Services
Committee reviewed this item and recommended that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for
review and recommendation. The committee also requested the Planning Board look at the maximum
height of attached garages.
Mr. Bowman explained that this situation raises a valid policy issue. Should the City allow structures like
garages to get maximum building height when they are connected by things like breezeways? He noted
that this would not only allow for taller garages, but it could also alter the height calculation for the main
house by changing the four corners of the smallest rectangle to fit around the house. He advised that the
City Council’s intent is to make it clear that garages should only be considered attached if they are located
within close proximity of the house. Perhaps any garage within 10 feet of the house that is connected to the
house with a roof would be acceptable to allow the maximum building height. Any garage that is located at
a greater distance from the house could be limited to a height of 15 feet. He shared pictures of “attached”
garages that are currently located in Edmonds.
Mr. Chave recommended the Board talk about when a garage should be considered part of the main
structure and calculated in combination with the house and when it should be considered as a separate
structure with a height limit of 15 feet. He noted that some property owners have challenging situations
that are difficult to address, but many configure their garages in such a way that would allow them to obtain
the additional height. He summarized that it is important for the City to have clear code language for
making this determination. He recommended the Board consider code language that would establish a
distance requirement, as well as a requirement that the garage be connected to the main structure by a
covered roof or breezeway. In addition, the code should require common construction materials for both
structures.
Board Member Lovell felt it would be fairly simple to develop criteria to regulate attached and detached
garages. Mr. Bowman agreed. He said that if the Board is in support of this direction, staff could prepare
draft language to move the amendment forward. The Board directed staff to move forward with draft code
language for their consideration.
Planning Board 12/10/08 Minutes Extract
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ATTACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Bowman explained that the current proposal includes three code amendments: changing the definition
for accessory buildings, modifying the definition of height, and changing the developments standards to
clearly regulate attached accessory buildings in single-family zones. He briefly reviewed each of the
proposed amendments in Sections 21, 05.010, 21.40.030.C and 16.20.050B. He summarized that the
amendments would allow accessory buildings that are connected by a structure with a roof and constructed
of similar materials to the main building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed
building combination and is not greater that 10 feet in length to be included in the height calculation for the
house.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that no language was provided in Section 21.40.030.D.1. Mr. Bowman
agreed to correct this error. Chair Guenther pointed out that all of the proposed new language is identified
in the draft document in underline format.
Packet Page 5 of 33
No one in the audience expressed a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed.
Board Member Dewhirst asked if the proposed amendments would only apply to properties in single-
family zones. Mr. Bowman answered affirmatively. Board Member Dewhirst asked if there would be a
maximum size limit for attached garages. Mr. Bowman answered that there are no specific standards to
regulate the size of an attached garage, but they would have to meet all of the lot coverage and setback
requirements.
BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT
ACCESSORY BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS (FILE NUMBER AI-1863) TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED. BOARD MEMBER
YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Young asked how much of an issue the current accessory building code has been over the
past few years. Mr. Bowman answered that staff recently dealt with a fairly contentious case when a
neighbor opposed a building permit application for an accessory structure because it was being attached to
the house by a breezeway. Over the last two years, staff has also dealt with other problematic applications,
particularly when an applicant wants to attach a garage in order to obtain a greater height limit for the
accessory structure.
Packet Page 6 of 33
AM-1995 1.B.
Temporary Use Building regulations
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:15 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Review Planning Board recommendation regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 17.70
regulating temporary uses and buildings.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Refer the matter to the full City Council with recommendation of approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
As part of the on-going update to the Edmonds Community Development Code, the Planning
Board has completed review of the temporary uses and building regulations found in Chapter
17.70.
The recommended changes include:
• Allowing security units in RS zones to be good for one year,
The time limit on security units in RS zones is currently set at six months. In staff’s opinion this is
too restrictive. A more reasonable time limit is one year, with no extension. (See ECDC
17.70.000).
• Allow other temporary buildings to be reviewed administratively by the Development Services
Director, along with extension requests. Appeals would be to the Hearing Examiner, and
Section 17.70.010 currently requires a conditional use permit for temporary buildings in all zones,
with an exception for temporary municipal offices. The cost of a conditional use permit heard by
the Hearing Examiner in most cases exceeds the cost of the temporary building. A more equity
process would be to have these buildings reviewed administratively by staff. Appeals of the staff
decision would be heard by the Hearing Examiner.
• Create a new section regulating with temporary storage units establishing definitions, addressing
cargo & shipping containers, placement of temporary portable storage containers in residential
zones, and regulations governing tents, tarps and canopy structures.
Packet Page 7 of 33
The City has traditionally interpreted temporary buildings as having to comply with normal
setbacks and limiting their size to no more than 120 square feet. Anything larger would require a
building permit which could not be obtained due to snow and wind loads. Rather than just have
an “interpretation” it make sense to clearly codify the City’s position on these temporary
structures.
Another issue with temporary buildings is cargo or shipping containers. Are these really
temporary structures that we want to have located in the City? Temporary use of portable storage
containers should be allowed for limited periods of time in association with loading or unloading
during a move should be allowed. It seemed prudent to address this issue now that they are
beginning to appear.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Planning Board Recommendation
Link: Exhibit 2 - Planning Board Minute Extracts
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/06/2009 11:05 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/06/2009 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 01:48 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 12/16/2008 02:09
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2009
Packet Page 8 of 33
Temporary Uses
10/2/08 10/9/08
Page 1
Chapter 17.70
TEMPORARY USES
Sections:
17.70.000 Security units.
17.70.005 Project sales offices/sales models.
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
17.70.020 Temporary parking lots.
17.70.030 Temporary municipal office uses.
17.70.035 Temporary storage units.
17.70.040 Bistro and outdoor dining.
17.70.000 Security units.
A. Definition. A security unit is a building, mobile home, trailer, or vehicle used temporarily in connection
with providing security during construction of a structure or building for which a valid building permit has
been issued.
B. Conditions. A security unit is permitted in all zones under the following conditions:
1. All sanitation facilities and safety measures shall be approved in advance by the building official, health
official and other appropriate city officials.
2. Unless earlier directed by the building official pursuant to subsection (B)(3) of this section, security units
in the following zones shall be removed after the following time periods:
a. In an RS zone, one year;
b. All other zones, one year, with a one-year extension if the community development director finds that
the project is large enough to require the longer period, disregarding any self-imposed delay.
3. The building official may order the removal of a security unit if any of the following situations occur:
a. The building permit expires or is cancelled.
b. The building official issues an occupancy permit.
c. The building official determines that the security structure is no longer needed to provide protection
against theft or vandalism.
17.70.005 Project sales offices/sales models.
A. Definition. A project sales office or sales model is space within an otherwise permitted building used
temporarily to support the sale of multifamily or condominium units.
B. Conditions. A project sales office or sales model is only permitted to occur on the property containing
the project or unit(s) being offered for sale. The sales office or sales model shall be discontinued and
removed prior to occupancy of the last unit available for sale on the property.
C. The granting of a permit for a sales office or sales model shall be reviewed and processed in accordance
with the requirements of ECDC 20.95.040, Staff decision – No notice required. [Ord. 3347 § 1, 2001].
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: six months
Packet Page 9 of 33
Temporary Uses
10/2/08 10/9/08
Page 2
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
Except as provided below in ECDC 17.70.030, a conditional use permit shall be required to construct a
temporary building in any zone. The permit shall be administratively reviewed by staff and shall be valid
for a period of one year; provided however, that said permit may be extended by the development services
director for a single one-year extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the expiration of the
original permit. All the requirements of the zoning district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision
granting or denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner in accordance
with the requirements for any other conditional use permit under ECDC 20.100.010, with the decision
being appealable to the city council under the procedures applicable to any other conditional use permit.
[Ord. 2833 § 1, 1991; Ord. 2541, 1985].
17.70.020 Temporary parking lots.
See ECDC 17.50.090, which by this reference is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
17.70.030 Temporary municipal office uses.
The city council may, at its sole discretion, approve the installation of a temporary building or mobile
office structure to house municipal office and related storage in conjunction with or in anticipation of the
construction or remodeling of a municipal facility. Such structure shall be exempt from any other
requirements of the zoning code and the decision of the city council shall be final. The city staff is hereby
directed to provide for reasonable landscaping and screening of such structure and sufficient drawings and
site plans to adequately inform the council of the nature and proposed use of the structure, its design and
the anticipated length of time which the structure will be in use. In no event shall the use of such a
temporary structure exceed three years without the specific authorization of the city council. [Ord. 2833 §
2, 1991].
17.70.035 Temporary storage units
1. Defined:
A “Canopy” means a structure, enclosure or shelter constructed of fabric or pliable
materials supported by any manner, except by air or the contents it protects, and is open
without sidewalls or drops on 75 percent or more of the perimeter.
B. “Cargo or shipping Container” means a standardized, container designed without an
axle or wheels, which was originally, specifically, or formerly designed for or used in the
packing, shipping, movement or transportation of freight, articles, goods or commodities.
Cv. “Tent” means a structure, enclosure or shelter constructed of fabric or other pliable
material supported by any manner except by air or the contents that it protects.
2. Cargo or shipping containers. No person shall place or cause to be placed any cargo or
shipping container, regardless of structural modifications, on any area or any property in a
residentially zoned district that is not subject to the design review process. Property or
projects subject to the design review process may apply for this use per ECDC 20.10.010.
Administrative waivers shall not apply.
3. The temporary placement of a portable storage container on a residentially zoned lot for the
purpose of loading and unloading household contents shall be permitted for a period of time
not exceeding thirty (30) days in a calendar year.
4. Tents, tarps and canopy structures which use plastic sheeting, canvas, or other similar pliable
materials to cover storage areas, and/or to be used as garages or carports are regulated in
residential zones:
A. Tents or canopies with a floor area measured to the exterior wall or post
exceeding120 square feet are prohibited.
B. Tents and canopies shall comply with setback and height requirements for
accessory structures for the zone. Lot coverage requirements also apply.
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: community
Deleted: Said application for a
conditional use permit or an
Deleted: the extension of
Deleted: fifteen
Deleted: 15
Packet Page 10 of 33
Temporary Uses
10/2/08 10/9/08
Page 3
C. If a tent or canopy is located within 6 feet of another tent(s) or canopy(s) or
attached in any way, they shall be considered as one (1) tent or canopy and
shall be subject to the provisions of J.3.a and J.3.b for combined floor area and
location.
D. Temporary storage units do not require a conditional use permit.
17.70.040 Bistro and outdoor dining.
A properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment may temporarily utilize public
sidewalks in right-of-way areas immediately adjacent to its establishment. The area authorized for use shall
be that area of the immediately adjacent public right-of-way and/or outdoor areas under the lease or
ownership of the applicant lying between the applicant's property and the public right-of-way. The area
authorized for such use shall not extend beyond the street frontage of the business lessee or property owner.
Any building or structure as such terms are defined pursuant to the building code adopted by Chapter 19.00
ECDC shall fully comply with all provisions of the community development code, including, but not
limited to, review and approval by the architectural design board. [Ord. 3293 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3265 § 1,
1999].
Packet Page 11 of 33
Packet Page 12 of 33
Packet Page 13 of 33
Packet Page 14 of 33
Packet Page 15 of 33
AM-2015 2.A.
Authorization to Award Bid for Two Fire Aid Cars
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:5 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to award Braun Northwest the bid for the purchase of two (2) 2009 North Star 167-3
Aid Cars in the total amount of $288,258.30, including Washington State sales tax.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend that the City Council award the bid to Braun Northwest for the purchase of two (2)
2009 North Star 167-3 Aid Cars for use by the Fire Department following the below terms and
amount.
Sub-Total for Two (2) 2009 Aid Cars $264,700. 00 *
Sales Tax Rate %8. 9 and amount $23,558.3 0
Total Base Price for Two (2) 2009 Aid Cars $288,258.30*
* Contingent on the use of the customer's Government Ford Fleet Identification Number (FIN).
Payment Terms: The above vehicle price shall be based upon a 90% payment being made upon
receipt of the two (2) vehicles with the balance due upon final inspection and acceptance.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Fleet Division is recommending Braun Northwest for the following reason. Braun NW was
low bidder in 2007 providing a superior built Medic Aid Car. This apparatus was designed very
specific for the Edmonds Medic personnel. It was the Fire Department’s wishes that the 2 new aid
units be designed in the exact same configuration due to the fact that ALL fire personnel will be
assigned to one of these three aid units at sometime. It is imperative that all the life support
equipment be placed in the same location on all three units so that personnel will not have to hunt
for equipment if they are assigned to a different vehicle for that shift. It appears that it was not cost
effective for other manufactures to try to duplicate our current design as there were no other bids
submitted.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2009
Packet Page 16 of 33
Revenue:
Expenditure:288,258.30
Fiscal Impact:
The Fire Division has budgeted $292,000.00 as well as utilizing the Fire & Apparatus 511
Replacement Fund to finance this purchase.
Attachments
Link: Bid Proposal
Link: Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 01:57 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/08/2009 02:19 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/09/2009 08:08 AM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 01/07/2009 08:03
AM
Final Approval Date: 01/09/2009
Packet Page 17 of 33
Packet Page 18 of 33
Packet Page 19 of 33
Packet Page 20 of 33
Packet Page 21 of 33
Packet Page 22 of 33
Packet Page 23 of 33
Packet Page 24 of 33
Packet Page 25 of 33
Packet Page 26 of 33
Packet Page 27 of 33
AM-2020 2.B.
Court security surcharge
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:5 Minutes
Department:Municipal Court Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Court security surcharge.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
We currently order reimbursement to the City for DUI cases and impose an emergency response
fee on all DUI cases with a maximum of $1,000 pursuant to EMC 5.55.010. The City Attorney has
indicated that he believes that the Court can charge a similar surcharge to reimburse the City for
court security services. This would require the Council to direct the City Attorney to draft the
appropriate ordinance.
The Court respectfully requests that the Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance
directing that that $25 be authorized to be taxed as costs in each criminal case that results in a
conviction or entry of a deferred prosecution. That amount should be sufficient to offset
anticipated court security expenses.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2009 Revenue: 30,000 Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
This is assuming that we collect the full amount on each case during the calendar year. That is
very unlikely to happen. An optimistic collection rate in criminal cases is 25%.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 12:29 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/08/2009 12:51 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 01:48 PM APRV
Form Started By: Doug
Fair
Started On: 01/07/2009 04:38
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2009
Packet Page 28 of 33
Packet Page 29 of 33
AM-2019 2.C.
Interlocal Agreement for Court Security
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:5 Minutes
Department:Municipal Court Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for court security.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
We currently contract with Puget Sound Executive Services (PSES) for court security. The current
rate is $40 per hour with a four hour minimum. PSES essentially sub-contracts with the City of
Mountlake Terrace to provide these services.
We can contract directly with the City of Mountlake Terrace for the same services through an
Interlocal Agreement. The most recent rate the City of Mountlake Terrace cited was $33 per hour
with a three hour minimum.
We have been unable to contract with the City of Mountlake Terrace because of contractual issues
with the Edmonds Police Officers Association. Those issues were resolved when the most recent
contract was negotiated and signed.
The Court respectfully requests the Council to authorize the City Attorney to negotiate and draft
an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for court security services. The Court
should realize a savings both on the minimum appearance and the hourly rate.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 12:29 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/08/2009 12:51 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/08/2009 01:48 PM APRV
Form Started By: Doug
Fair
Started On: 01/07/2009 03:54
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2009
Packet Page 30 of 33
Packet Page 31 of 33
AM-2023 3.A.
Interlocal Agreement for Court Security
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:01/13/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for court security.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
We currently contract with Puget Sound Executive Services (PSES) for court security. The current
rate is $40 per hour with a four hour minimum. PSES essentially sub-contracts with the City of
Mountlake Terrace to provide these services.
We can contract directly with the City of Mountlake Terrace for the same services through an
Interlocal Agreement. The most recent rate the City of Mountlake Terrace cited was $33 per hour
with a three hour minimum.
We have been unable to contract with the City of Mountlake Terrace because of contractual issues
with the Edmonds Police Officers Association. Those issues were resolved when the most recent
contract was negotiated and signed.
The Court respectfully requests the Council to authorize the City Attorney to negotiate and draft
an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for court security services. The Court
should realize a savings both on the minimum appearance and the hourly rate.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/09/2009 08:09 AM APRV
2 Mayor Sandy Chase 01/09/2009 10:16 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/09/2009 10:16 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 01/08/2009 02:04
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/09/2009
Packet Page 32 of 33
Final Approval Date: 01/09/2009
Packet Page 33 of 33