STUDY SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY-MAYIT,2016  ITEMS DISCUSSED  1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: REVIEW THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT FOR CITY EMPLOYMENT 3. ACCEPTANCE OR MODIFICATION OF AGENDA/CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE A. ISLANDWOOD PROPERTY NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL, AB 16-064-COUNCIL B. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM POWERS, AB 16-072-COUNCIL  (RCW 42.30.110(1)) 2. CALLTO ORDER/ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION C. SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE- COUNCIL 6. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 7. ADJOURNMENT  1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: REVIEWTHE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT: FOR CITY EMPLOYMENT At6:461 PM, Deputy Mayor Blossom adjourned the meeting to an executive session with City Attorney Marshall to review the qualifications of an applicant for City Employment with Councilmembers Peltier, Roth, Scott, Tollefson, Townsend and Medina Deputy Mayor Blossom resumed the Study Session to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Peltier, Roth, Scott, Tollefson, Townsend and Medina present. No action was taken in executive session. Records Management Coordinator Jahraus monitored the  (RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) 6:461 PM  present.  2. CALL TOORDER/ROLL CALL7:00PM recording of the meeting and prepared the minutes. The agenda was accepted as presented.  3. ACCEPTANCE ORI MODIFICATION OF AGENDA/CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE  Tor recognize National Law Enforcement Week, a video was played featuring officers of the Bainbridge Island Poliçe Department.  4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 7:041 PM partnership with the City and thel Parks Department. Make a determination as soon as possible.  Daniel Reisfeld, spoke in favor oft the City adopting an initiative and referendum right.  Lisa Macchio, provided comment on the proposed trail thru IslandWood. She would like tos see a different alignment for the trail and a Marc. JI Devan Der Schueren, lives in thel last home next to the easement traili is about 15 yards from the trail, zone 1 unite per 2 acres. They are stewards of the land. Iti is the highest spot. Most oft the property is wetland. Do not construct trail on easement, do not transfer. Barnali Reardon, supported the trail and has donated easements on her property to: connect thet two trails together. Worked with the parks department and they, were very easy to work with and: supportive. Her daughter said she wants at trail sO she can walk and ride her  bike to school at Blakely. Asha  wants the trail so she can walk to school with her friends.  Ted Knight, Briar Rose Lane, supports thet trail because it's as safety issue because Old Milll Roadi is dangerous with blind curves. A trail Melinda Barnes, 4th generation islander. Created Bainbridge Island Nature Group and founder of Safety Now group; a safe community isa connected community. They support the parks creating smart trails. Her daughter Cora would like at trail tol IslandWood sO she can Jay Gandee, Old Mill Road, is grateful Council is having the conversation and wishes parks should be required tol have these conversations. Apply those requirements. Consideration of the environment, respect privacy of owners, goodt that city required the trail. Barb Trafton, process is very important, a meaningful conversation about where the trail goes cannot take place until there is as survey.  would be a great resource on thei island for everyone.  walk and bike with her friends and see a lot of green and nature stuff.  Hold parks accountable.  Need tol know where the existing easement is.    STUDY SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY- MAY 17,2016  Brian Thompson, wanted to add that this is a safety issue. Should be al larger conversation about bike and walking trails along Old Mill. Heather Cericola, Blakely Avenue, land owner on corner of trail; the Nisqually fault is between her home and] Mr. Devan Der Schueren's. She does not want to see any trees cut down and is very unhappy with the Califomifomization" oft the island. Bill Beckwith, said the stumbling point has been timing. We need to establish a process to carefully consider alternative alignments  Inf favor oftrails thati is respectful toj property owners.  with the trail.  5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION7:28 PM  A. ISLANDWOOD PROPERTY NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL, AB 16-064  In fall 2015, the Parks Foundation proposed construction ofar non-motorized trail to be located on property owned by IslandWood, within an easement that was previously granted to the City of Bainbridge Island. The trail proposal has been under consideration by the City's Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee (NMTAC), which discussed this topic at several meetings in early 2016, received public comment, and participated in opportunities to walk the proposed trail site with representatives oft thel Parks Foundation, Att the NMTAC meeting on April 18, 2016, the committee recommended the City transfer its IslandWood trail easement to thel Park NMTAC Motion: That the Bainbridge Island Non-Motorized Transportation: Advisory Committee recommends that the City of Bainbridge Island transfer the IslandWood Northern Boundary" easement to the Bainbridge Island Metro. Park & Recl District for the development ofa publicly accessible trail. The Committee requests that thel Bainbridge Island City Council and Staffa and! Bainbridge Island Metrol Park & Rec District Commissioners and Staff consider the extensive public input that has been provided to date,  IslandWood, and neighboring property owners.  District.  specifically:  Alterations to the trail should: minimize ecological impacts The design oft the trail should consider all ages, abilities, and user's safety The trail should have minimal impact on IslandWood operations The trail, where possible, should consider thej proximity of neighbors  The formal transfer process requires City Council approval ofa surplus resolution, survey work, SEPA review and other documentation. The Park District has indicated that they may be able begin construction" ofa trail before winter. IfCity Council supports the transfer oft this easement to the Park District, City staff will work to identify options that could allow the Park District to At the. April 26, 2016 Business Meeting, City Council discussed aj proposal from the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Parks District (BIMPRD)t to allow BIMPRD to construct a trail segment on property owned by IslandWood, using a public access easement held by Council had continued discussion; Mayor Tollefson will contact thel Parks Commissioners to let them know that whether the City does Ofthe 281 cities in Washington, 62 have initiative andi referendum powers.. All ten first class cities havel I/R powers and the only and 69 towns in Washington. The majority of cities are Code Cities (192), which is the classification under which Bainbridge Island In addition, Counties operating under the Charter form also have I/R powers. There are 7 Charter Counties that have adopted I/R Int the simplest terms, initiative and referendum powers can be described as granting power to the people to directly exercise authority: to: enact and repeal laws. However, initiative and referendum powers are not that simple because there are many restrictions inj place, which) limit the topics that are eligible for initiative or referendum. Only ordinances may be enacted byi initiative or repealed by referendum. Thej powers ofi initiative and referendum are not applicable to any other type ofl legislative enactment bya city or county: council, such as a motion, order, or resolution. Thel list of ordinances that are exempt from referendum contained in RCW3 35A.11.090  begin trail construction before the transfer of the easement is formally completed.  the City.  as survey or BIMPRD does, the City willj pay for it.  B. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM POWERS, AB 16-072 7:48 PM falls. Ofthe 192 Code Cities, 61 have adopted Initiative and Referendum powers. powers. Commission form Counties, such as Kitsap, do not have I/R authority.  Commission  form City, Shelton, has I/R powers. Second class cities and towns do not have I/R powers. There are 9 Second class cities  isa as follows:  2    STUDY SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY-MAY 17,2016 Ordinances initiated by petition; Ordinances providing for local improvement districts; Ordinances appropriating money; Ordinances providing for or approving collective bargaining; Ordinances authorizing or repealing the levy oftaxes.  Ordinances providing for the compensation of or working conditions of city employees;  In addition to the above statutory limitations, the courts in Washington have recognized other limitations on the use of the powers of initiative and referendum. The courts have recognized two tests to determine if an ordinance is beyond the scope of direct legislation by The first testi is whether the underlying action is legislative or administrative in nature. Ifthe action is administrative, then iti is not subject to the power ofi initiative or referendum. Ifiti is legislative, then it may be subject to initiative and referendum, depending upon The second testi is whether thej power is one that has been granted by the legislature to the legislative authority ofa city or county or whether iti is a power that has been granted to the corporate entity as a whole. Ifiti is ap power that has been granted to the legislative authority (city or county council), then iti is not subject to the powers ofi initiative and referendum. Ifiti is aj power that has been granted The courts in Washington have noted that thej power of direct legislation by citizens is not an inherent power of the people. The right did not exist until granted by the state constitution in 1912. There is an inherent limitation on this right in thati it only extends to matters This, of course, raises the question of what is an administrative action and what isa legislative action. The courts have applied two tests int making this determination. First, actions relating to subjects ofap permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative matters, and actions taken on subjects ofa temporary and special character are usually regarded as administrative matters. Second, the power tol be exercised is legislative ini nature ifit prescribes ai new policy or plan, whereas iti is administrative in its nature ifit merely Even with these tests as guides, it may not always be clear whether ai matter is legislative, ands subject toi initiative and referendum, or administrative. One way to help understand this testi is to review some court cases in which the courts have characterized various  the people either through the exercise of the initiative power or the referendum power.  the outcome of the second test.  to the city as a corporate entity, then it may be subject to initiative and referendum.  legislative in character, as compared to administrative matters.  pursues aj plan already adopted by the legislative body or some power superior toi it.  actions as being either legislative or administrative in nature. Examples ofa administrative actions are: As site-specific rezone amendment since it implements the zoning code or comprehensive plan.  Fluoridation oft the city water supply; Comprehensive street name ordinance;  The other test used byt the courts to determine if an issue is subject toi initiative or referendum is the distinction between a grant of authority by the state legislature to the city or county as a corporate entity or to its legislative authority (the city or county council). If the statutory grant of authority is to the city or county as a corporate entity, direct legislation byt the people is permissible in thei form of initiative or referendum. On the other hand, iftheg grant of power ist tot thel legislative authority oft the city or county, then initiative and As an example ofl how this determination is made, consider thei issue of whether citizens may pass ani initiative rezoning an area ofa city. Iti is first necessary to determine ifthere is a specific statutory grant of power to rezone property to either the legislative body or to the city as a whole. There is such a grant ofa authority for code cities in RCW: 35A.63.100 and for other classes of cities in RCW 35.63.080. These statutes provide the legislative body with the authority to divide the city into zones. Therefore, this power is not Another example of this determination is the question of whether the initiative process applies to a decision of whether a city should acquire and operate a water utility. Again, the firsts stepi is to determine ifthere is a specific statute that contains a grant ofa authority to the city as a whole or to the city council to operate a water utility. Ini this case, there is such a statutory grant in RCW3 35.92.010. That statute indicates that a city or town may acquire and operate a water utility system. Therefore, the grant of authority is not limited to the city council but is a grant tot the city as an entity. Thisi issue then, because iti is also not an administrative matter, would be subject to the Citys staff contacted the Cities in Washington withi initiative and referendum powers to gather information about the number of! petitions they have received, topics and status. The feedback received suggests that in these communities with initiative andi referendum powers, the use ofthis form of direct legislation is rare. In addition, oft the 12 petitions submitted over the past 10 years in this group of18 cities, only 6 oft the initiatives made it to the ballot. The six that did not make it to the ballot either failed to contain the required number  referendum are prohibited.  subject tot the power ofinitiative. This is also the holding oft the Washington State Supreme Court.  initiative power.  ofs signatures or were determined tol be at topic that was not eligible.  3    STUDY SESSIONI MINUTES TUESDAY-MAY 17,2016  City  Petitions Submitted 0 0 1 1 I 2 O(see note 1) 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 12  Not placed on ballot- = insufficient signatures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1  Not placed on ballot- unauthorized topic 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 5  Voters passed 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1(see note 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3  Voters Rejected 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3  Battle Ground * Bonney Lake *+ Des Moines*+ Issaquah** Lakewood e Longview * Mercer Island* Mill Creek* Mountlake Terrace*4 Mukilteo ** Port Angeles* Rainier * Shelton * Shoreline * Tumwater * Walla Walla ** Wenatchee * Woodinville . TOTALS  Mayor Tollefson recommended. MRSC's Initiative and Referendum Guide which will answer most questions posed by Council. Mayor Tollefson requested that the Councilmembers communicate their summer vacation plans to the city clerk; the meeting schedule Mayor Tollefson will work with Deputy City Manager Smith to craft al letter to thel EPA regarding Wyckoff. The deadline for comment Councilmember Peltier mentioned priority based budgeting which he is unfamiliar with; Mayor Tollefson suggested that he spend time  C. SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE 8:30PM 6. FORTHE GOOD OF THE ORDER 8:361 PM  will remain at four meetings a month given the work to be done on the Comprehensive Plan and budget.  isN May 31.  with Finance Director Schroer for further explanation and that perhaps the entire Council could use a briefing.  7. ADJOURNMENT 8:41 PM The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m.  son,  KellyJ Jahraus, Records  luslec  4