HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire EMS 2022-04-19 Agenda Packet
V 4.4.22
Tukwila Future Fire/EMS Service Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 9
Tuesday, April 19, 2022 | 4:00 PM –6:00 PM
The meeting will be conducted on Zoom.
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7558840726?pwd=d3NDRjhIQ0hYckpUUGNzRndpK2hqUT09 Phone in
information: (253) 215-8782 | Meeting ID: 755 884 0726 | Passcode: 482717
Agenda
1.Welcome (2 min.) Chair Verna Seal
2.Review of Agenda (1 min.) Karen Reed, facilitator
3.Review and approval of April 5 meeting summary (3 min.) Karen
4.Response to questions asked at previous meeting (5 min.) Staff Team
5.Review of Draft Annotated Outline of Committee Report (5 min.) Karen
6.Review & discussion of Survey Results (20 min.)
7.Committee Discussion (75 min.) (with break included)
Goal: develop consensus recommendation on preferred option – and why it is the
preferred option
Minority opinions? (subject/rationale to be shared with Committee in discussion)
Other input for Committee Report
8.IAFF Union Comment (3 min.) IAFF President James Booth
Next Agenda (1 min.) Karen
9.
Adjourn (2 min.) Verna
10.
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
April 5, 2022
Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
4:00 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Present
Committee members: Verna Seal, Chair; Katrina Dohn, Peggy McCarthy, Dennis Robertson, Sally Blake, Hien
Kieu, Ramona Grove, Andy Reiswig, Jovita McConnell, Jim Davis (Absent: Ben Oliver, Abdullahi Shakul)
City staff & consultants: Allan Ekberg, David Cline, Laurel Humphrey, Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Vicky
Carlsen, James Booth, Jake Berry, Karen Reed, Bill Cushman
Welcome
1.
Chair Seal called the meeting to order.
Review of Agenda
2.
Ms. Reed reviewed the agenda.
3.Review and approval of March 22, 2022 Committee meeting minutes
Ms. Blake moved approval of the minutes and Mr. Reiswig seconded. The motion carried and the
minutes were approved as submitted.
4.Responses to questions asked at previous meeting.
Ms. Reed reviewed the updated list of responses.
Q: How is the footnote “includes acquisition and financing costs for all projected engines and
ladders needed through 2030” affected with a different service model? A: Plans can change and be
addressed through the budget process.
Review of Public Engagement Strategy responses
5.
Ms. Reed reviewed the homework responses submitted by committee members.
6.Preview of 2023-2024 Budget
Ms. Carlsen provided a preview of the city’s upcoming budget, showing actuals and projections 2014-
2024.
Q: What is the current reserve? A: Around $12M for the 18% reserve and $7M for the contingency
fund.
Q: What is the difference between those two figures? A: The city’s reserve policy is 18% of prior
year’s ongoing revenue. The contingency fund is 10% prior year’s ongoing revenue.
1
Q: What happens if the city runs in a deficit? A: It is not legal for a city to have a budget that does
not balance. Other than that, the city would have no way to respond to emergencies and lose its
bond rating, making future debt issuance significantly more expensive.
Q: What could a B&O generate? A: Depends on how you structure it, perhaps $2-4M a year.
Q: Have the reserves stayed the same or do they fluctuate? A: The Council adopted the reserve
policy in 2013, initially at a lower rate but then increased it. The City does not dip below minimum
reserve without Council authority – doing so was considered during the pandemic but decided
against.
Q: What is a reasonable assumption of revenue with a levy lid lift? A: Depends on how much you
ask voters for. Our levy rate could go up to $3.10/$1,000 AV, increasing by almost a dollar. A $1.00 levy
lid lift would bring in just over $8M a year.
7.Recap of Options 6 & 7 – Contracting with Renton RFA or Puget Sound RFA
Ms. Reed provided a recap of Options 6 & 7.
Q: Would future retirements be the responsibility of the fire authority? A: Yes.
Presentation & Discussion of Options 8 and 9.
8.
Ms. Reed provided an overview of options 8 and 9, annexation into Renton RFA or Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority. Committee members also reviewed Attachment A, a financial comparison of
all options to date.
Q: It appears that no matter what decision is made the city faces a budget crisis. Is the city
looking at substantial cuts? A: This will be a difficult budget cycle, especially because of the CPI
forecast. There will be hard decisions.
Q: Would Renton RFA be interested in a new Tukwila/SeaTac area station? A: Both RFAs
expressed interest in a new station to serve the area around Station 54 and into SeaTac.
Q: Does accreditation lower costs for businesses? A: The Center for Public Safety Excellence is
the accreditation agency but does not have a direct affect on your insurance. It assures that agencies
can meet the needs of emerging conditions.
Q: Does PSRFA have different fire benefit charge for different areas? A: It is the same formula
applied to all areas.
I was told the number of stations per resident in Tukwila is significantly higher than other
agencies, and that what necessitated this was the commercial sector. If that’s true the FBC should
show the cost moving to commercial, but it didn’t.
Q: With PSRFA the amount for the lesser value apartments increases much more than Renton. A:
Renton’s formula does charge more for apartments.
It looks like residential pays less with PSRFA, and apartment increases will pass through to rents.
City Council will ask about affordable housing, apartments, etc.
Q: Are the requirements for determining the FBC the same for both RFAs? A: The 6 components
are all the same, but 4 of those are adjustable and different for each agency. It does end up about the
same, though.
Q: Does option 9 reduce the number of stations? A: No.
Committee Discussion of Options
9.
Ms. Reed asked committee members if they are interested enough in annexation that they would
support City Administration approaching the RFAs about being able to move to annexation first,
rather than needing to contract first.
I’m interested in pursuing annexation.
2
Q: I am too, but we are not getting on a 2022 ballot and need to figure out an interim solution
which could be a contract. A: The earliest ballot measure annexation could appear on would be April
2023, resulting in the new funding beginning in January 2024. The City would have to fund the
department for all of 2023.
Q: With annexation is there a possibility of cost savings down the line? A: Fire service will not
become less expensive but joining a larger agency could capture efficiencies and economies of scale.
I am not interested in a contract because it is expensive and seems risky if the contract runs out
and annexation didn’t work out.
I am surprised at Attachment A. Annexation is closer to status quo than I expected. Options 4
and 5 are not options. I’m not clear on the flow of getting this information to the voters.
It is important to understand the impacts to businesses. I understand burden sharing but the
business community does not have a vote. This needs to be equitable. I note a $1M difference when
you exclude options 3-5. How much of the decision-making is around cost only? I struggle to figure
out how much cost will drive the decision when the delta is fairly small.
Q: Is cost the number one priority? A: Service levels also rated highly for committee members.
I like exploring annexation, it is worth having the initial discussion.
I do not support annexation. PSRFA stated an intent to reduce stations. Service levels will
decline.
I am interested in looking at annexation.
Costs are all close but the biggest difference is getting the enhanced services with RFAs. We need
those.
I am interested in annexation.
If annexation is the option we need to do it quickly due to the significant upcoming budget crisis.
Ms. Reed shared a survey that will be sent to committee members to provide input to deliberations at
the next Committee meeting.
10.Union Comment
Captain Booth cautioned the group that the message from PSRFA does not skip over the need to
contract, and more discussion is needed to clarify intent. Contracting is still a viable option. The
costs for contracting with enhanced services included is close to the status quo. Annexation can take
two years and should not be rushed.
11.Next Agenda
Ms. Reed previewed the next agenda.
12.Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 P.M. by unanimous consent.
Minutes by LH
3
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee (v. 4.12.22)
Question Question Response / Status
Received
1 Meeting 1 Provide number of calls by type (EMS vs Fire) per day, Calls by station district
provided on 12/14.
per station
Note that 2 stations were recently relocated which
impacts relevance of per-station call data from
before the present locations were active.
2 “ Provide data/outcomes from other cities that joined Pending (will be presented
later)
a regional effort
3 Meeting 2 Provide information on how much of their general Provided in meeting 6
packet.
fund budget/property tax the cities of Renton and
SeaTac were expending on Fire before they formed
an RFA (Renton) or contracted with an RFA (SeaTac)
4 Provided in Meeting 3
Would additional fire investigation and
packet
permitting/fire inspector staff pay for themselves
through fees? Generally, what can we expect in terms
of Fire Marshal office generated revenue?
5 How many inspections does one inspector complete Provided in Meeting 3
packet
in a year on average?
6 Does the Fire Department and/or City have a Provided in Meeting 3
packet
preference/priority in terms of these enhanced
services?
7 Where would the money come from to fund enhanced This will be discussed in
Meeting 4 (Feb 4)
services?
8 What is the staffing model for a CARES unit? Provided in Meeting 3
packet
9 After We can provide a 6-year
A summary of projected future City revenue streams
meeting 2 forecast. (Vicky Carlsen)
(particularly sales tax) for the next ten years or so.
10“ Definition of fiscal sustainability?This is a discussion item for
the Committee
11“ Can you provide comparables for total salary, total We will provide this data
compensation cost (TCC), retirement benefits and for Renton RFA and Puget
medial plan benefits in other fire service providers in Sound RFA when we
South King County explore those service
alternatives.
12Meeting 3 Can you provide information on what the City has Provided in Meeting 5
done with respect to the efficiency and cost Packet
reduction recommendations in the CPSM report?
Additional info on this requested at Mtg. 4
1
13“ Can we charge other fire agencies for responding to Provided in Meeting 4
calls in their territory? Could this offset our costs? Packet
14Meeting 4 Could we contract out inspection services and would Provided in Meeting 5
that cost less than doing it ourselves? packet
15Meeting 5 numbers of Provided in Meeting 6
Please provide comparative data on
packet
firefighters per capita and square mileage per
station for Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority,
Renton Regional Fire Authority, and Tukwila
16 In creating a Tukwila Fire District, how soon is the A new taxing district needs
to notify the assessor of
property tax revenue available after the levy?
intent to impose taxes by
August 1 for the taxes to
start the following calendar
year.
17After Inspectors: Provided in Meeting 6
meeting 5 a.packet
Which personnel typically conduct the routine
inspections, the FMO inspectors or the on-duty
firefighters?
Would routine inspections be conducted for
apartment complexes as well as commercial
buildings?
Page 18 of 12.14.2021 agenda packet, "With
additional staff, from 1.0 to 3.0 FTE’s, Tukwila could
provide regular inspections, every one to three
years, for the estimated 2,500 businesses within
Tukwila. Annual inspections could be provided for
the estimated 400-600 commercial occupancies that
have higher hazards. Additional staff, from 1.0 to
the full 3.0 FTE would increase the number of
inspections that could be completed each year."
b. How was the number of additional inspectors
determined? The Enhanced Services scenario has
been reduced to 2 FTE's from 3. The overtime
budget, according to the published 2021-2022
budget, is $60,000 per year. If the cost of one
inspector, 1 FTE is $150,000, then the overtime cost
of $60,000, would suggest only 1/2 of an FTE is
needed not 2 FTE's... so how was the need
determined? Also, contracting for these services
could match demand with capacity and keep costs
lower.
c. How much a dditional revenue could be earned if
the inspection and planning fees were increased?
2
It appears the average cost for both is $100... $100
per inspection and $100 per plan review. This was
calculated as follows. Financial Planning Model,
page 15, shows inspection fee revenue at $80,000
and plan review revenue at $100,000. On page 5 of
the 1.4.22 agenda packet, the number of annual
inspections and plan reviews is listed as 800 and
1000 respectively.
18“Cares Unit. The $250,000 of overhead seems Provided in Meeting 6
packet
very high compared to the $58,000 projected
cost for .33 FTE. What kind of costs make up
this $250,000?
19“ Provided in Meeting 6
Public Educator. Could public education be
packet
accomplished by existing City resources? Some
possibilities -messaging could be placed on the
City's website or in the Hazelnut, in-person
training could be conducted by the Emergency
Manager or Fire Chief/Deputy Chief, middle
school and high school students could visit FS
54 on a field trip as it's within walking distance
of Showalter and Foster, the City's
communication division and the Community
Connectors (if still being used) could meet with
their residential groups to share information.
20“ Is it feasible and does the Administration plan No, the City does not
to pursue enacting a utility tax on all water and currently have a plan to
sewer utilities in Tukwila City instead of just pursue a utility tax on all
those operated by the City?How much water and sewer utilities
additional revenue could be generated by this?in Tukwila notoperated
by the city.The city did
look at this a few years
back during budget
deliberations and the
council at that time
chose not to pursue it.
21“ Provide and update on what the Council is Provided in Meeting 6
packet
considering in regards to Fire Marshal Office
services?
22Meeting 6 Provide dollars associated with the data in Provided in Meeting 7
packet
response to question 3.
23Meeting 7 Clarify how capital needs for the Fire Provided in Meeting 8
packet
Department are met now
3
24“ How much are SeaTac and Renton paying now SeaTac information
provided previously; see
for fire service?
below for additional
information on Renton
25Meeting 8 If the City annexes to PSRFA, will the RFA close See below
station 52 and if so, how will that impact
response times?
Question 24:
Provide information on how much of their general fund budget/property tax the cities of Renton
and SeaTac were expending on Fire before they formed an RFA (Renton) or contracted with an RFA
(SeaTac)
Staff previously provided the information below:
Based on data posted online:
SeaTac began receiving service from Puget Sound RFA by contract in 2014.
In 2013, 25.5% of SeaTac’s General Fund expenditures went to Fire, the equivalent of 60.7% of their
property tax revenue went to Fire for that same year.
SeaTac 2013:
Fire Dept General Fund Budget: $7,969,058
Total Budgeted General Fund: $31,297,970
Total Property Taxes: $12,055,098
SeaTac Fire Costs
Total GF Retained
Cost PSRFA Cost GF Costs
2011 $7,164,221 N/A N/A
2012 $7,326,215 N/A N/A
2013 $7,969,058 N/A N/A
2014 $9,963,200 $8,718,347 $1,244,853
2015 $8,985,785 $8,897,405 $88,380
2016 $10,091,396 $10,001,462 $89,934
2017 $10,046,285 $9,982,609 $63,676
4
2018 $10,135,167 $10,084,973 $50,194
2019 $10,752,876 $10,675,977 $76,899
2020 $10,785,478 $10,714,358 $71,120
2021 budget$10,895,064 $10,807,645 $87,419
2022 budget$11,115,283 $11,023,799 $91,484
Renton’s RFA was started providing service in 2017.
Online data shows that in 2016, the City of Renton spent 23.9% of General Fund and the equivalent of
76.9% of their general property tax on Fire.
Renton 2016:
Fire Dept General Fund Budget: $27,970,913
Total Budgeted General Fund: $116,801,589
Total Property Taxes: $36,353,314
New data follows:
The City Fire department budget number above does not include a portion of central overhead charges.
Data for the first few years of the RRFA are below:
Prop Tax
LevyAV Total Levy FBC Levy + FBC
Renton Fire Authority
2021 $0.8120
2020 $0.8188 $23,375,566,713 $17,543,264 $17,152,390 $34,695,654
2019 $0.8306 $20,530,236,409 $17,146,098 $17,108,508 $34,254,606
2018 $0.9175 $18,095,049,891 $16,601,604 $14,357,859 $30,959,463
2017 $1.0000 $16,250,000,000 $16,250,000 $13,955,838 $30,205,838
This data suggests that the cost for the Renton RFA (and service to Fire District 25) rose from $27.9M in
2016, the last year the City ran the fire department, to $34.3M in 2019, a 23% increase.
We know from considering the creation of a Tukwila fire department or RFA that there are four
significant cost items that need to be added when moving from a City Department to an independent
taxing jurisdiction: (1) cash flow, (2) reserves, (3) administrative staffing, and (4) one-time start up costs
(computers, phones, printers, etc.)
5
Question 25: If we annex with an RFA will Station 52 be closed?
There is no ongoing discussion about closing Station 52. The station is brand new and well positioned.
If the City annexed, we expect that there would be some inquiry into whether it is possible to relocate
and expand Station 54 and deploy resources differently in the City and areas adjacent to Station 54
while maintaining the expected level of service to all our residents.
Nothing has been decided, but we expect that cost pressures will continue, and this will eventually
result in some consolidation of existing stations in the Station 54 area and in Sea Tac into a single, larger
station that can better serve the area. Building a new station with multiple resources (more than are
deployed from 54 or any nearby station today) would be the most likely scenario.
The goal of consolidating station locations would be to improve service levels and deploy the proper
resources quicker than would otherwise be possible. It is extremely unlikely that a consolidation of
stations would be approved if there was a demonstrable degradation of response time.
6
Outline of Future of Fire/EMS Committee Report
Draft v. 2.13.22
Annotated to summarize Committee input to date
Executive Summary (1 page)
Report
Mission, Members, Process
Summary of current situation
What is going well? Where are the challenges? Why is it important to consider changes?
o
Is the Fire Department Financially Sustainable?
o
preliminary finding: no.
7-Year Financial Plan Information
Enhanced Services Proposed & Committee view on importance
o
preliminary finding: fund CAREs, Public Education, FMO additional staffing—but not by
cutting other City departments
Summary Introduction of the 9 Options Reviewed
Summary comparison table
o
Committee’s Criteria for evaluation the Options
Committee’s criteria:
o
Ability to meet needs of diverse community
Ability to meet needs of large business community
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
Impact on labor force, retention, recruitment
Control over operational and financial decisions
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes
Sustainability of funding
Committee’s Recommendations and Rationale
Engaging the Tukwila Community on This issue
Summary of homework input:
The community will be interested in learning about the future for the fire
department, especially if the recommendation is to make a significant change
from the current operating model.
While the Committee offers its thoughts here, we do so at a fairly general level.
The Community should be educated about the several items, including but not
limited to:
The cost/financial impact
o
If it will cost more (overall, or to a segment of the community),
what are the associated benefits?
Details of the changes proposed and how it will affect residents and
o
businesses
Impacts on service levels, response times
o
Why is a change being proposed?
o
Some background on how the fire department operates today and the
o
services it provides.
Use a wide array of strategies to engage the community, potentially including
some or all of the following:
Town Hall meetings
o
Social media
o
Flyers/direct mail/letters to residents and businesses
o
Tukwila blog posts
o
Tukwila news outlets articles
o
Providing information flyers at community gathering places, such as
o
mosques and churches.
Communication through councilmembers
o
Other Comments
Conclusion
Appendices
Option 1-9 Write-ups (?) or summary tables.
Attachment A or some summary version
Summary of Committee Survey on Options (?)
Summary of 7 Year Financial Plan
+ ?
RFA
9:
to
4.64.63.64.92.94.43.24.3 4.1
Option
Annex
Sound
Puget
RFA
8:
to
3.94.23.43.93.04.02.83.8 3.6
Renton
Option
Annex
with Puget
RFA
Option 7:
Contract
4.54.62.94.03.14.63.22.8 2.8
Sound
RFA
6:
Contract
3.34.02.53.02.64.02.62.3
2.4
Renton
Option
with
other
5:
-
Fire RFA
Option
Tukwila
3.74.02.12.33.73.73.72.6 2.4
agency
with
Cells are shaded to denote the two highest (green) and two lowest (peach) ratings in each row.
4:
Fire District
Option
Tukwila
Benefit
3.74.01.92.33.93.73.82.3 2.6
Charge
+ Fire
point
3:
Fire District
Property
Option
Tukwila
3.13.71.72.23.63.33.61.9 2.0
Taxes
City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
1
=
-
1
Option 2:
points,
Enhanced
Services
Quo +
3.84.12.22.24.14.13.71.6
2.3
Status
5
Quo
Option 1:
=
5
3.63.82.92.24.34.13.81.8 2.4
-
Status
ponse
outcomes
s
community
more)
Re
business
and
retention
decisions
by
residents
and
measure
Average
large
times
option
diverse
financial
and
funding
to
of
recruitment
(response
to
costs this
of
needs
ability
community
needs
businesses
and
of
of
eighted
both
meet
rating
operational
Summary Sustainability
outcomes/
services
meet
force,
considering
overall
to
provider
to
10
labor
of
W
provider
Numbers reflect
overfor
Reponses:
quality
Survey Results
My
costs,
on
Accountability
ofControl
Questions
Impact
of
Ability
Overall
Total
Ability
Total
345678
1 2
#
City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS
Discussion Guide for Meeting 9
Survey Results:
1.Did you find completing the survey to be challenging? Why or why not?
2.What reactions do you have to the results? Are there any surprises here for you? Anything
important to you that you are glad to see other people feeling the same way?
The Committee’s 5-part mission & A reminder on the Process
The Advisory Committee is asked to provide findings and recommendations to the
1.
Mayor and City Council on the following items:
A.Sustainability of the Fire Department service levels within existing City revenues.
B.Any additional Fire Department programs and staffing services that should be
priorities to fund in the near-term (0-6 years).
C.Criteria for evaluating the City’s options for future fire/EMS service delivery.
D.Recommendation as to the preferred option or options for ensuring future
provision of high-quality fire/EMS service in the City at a sustainable cost.
E.Public engagement strategies for the City to consider as part of deliberations
following delivery of the Advisory Committee’s report
Section 5.M of the Committee’s Charter:
FINDINGS, REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Facilitator shall draft the Advisory Committee
report, and the Advisory Committee shall review and comment on the draft report, and shall
approve the final Report by a vote of not less than 60% of those present and voting. Minority reports
shall not be allowed; provided that the Advisory Committeefinal report shall, upon request of
Members dissenting from a recommendation, include a summary statement as to position, and
rationale therefor, of dissenters.
60% of those present must approve the final report.
Minority summary statements are short –a paragraphor soin length. Each such statement
must identify the dissenting Committee member, their position and rationale for dissent. The
rationale should include information/concerns that were specifically mentioned at
Committee meetings.
Goal of discussion today and at the next meeting is to provide guidance so that the report can
be drafted.
Also from the Committee’s Charter:
Each Committee member has 1 vote; no voting by proxy.
1.A matter will be deemed a “consensus recommendation” if approved by no fewer than 80% of the
Advisory Committee Members present and voting.
2.A matter will be deemed a “recommendation” of the Advisory Committee if approved by no fewer
than 60% of the Advisory Committee Members present and voting.
You will see a draft at the next (and last) committee meeting. (we can have one more meeting if
the Committee determines it is needed).
At the final meeting, you will provide final guidance on drafting the report. A redline reflecting
this input will then be sent to you for a last review and sign off before the report is transmitted
to Council.
A. Is Fire Financially Sustainable?
Preliminary consensus based on discussion to date is NO, with 1 minority statement
likely. The definition of financial sustainability previously discussed is below:
A fire agency is considered fiscally sustainable if it can maintain service levels
within available revenues – in the City’s case (as a government providing many
services), this means maintaining fire/EMS service levels without negatively
impacting services in other City departments competing for the same funding.
Does this still look like the right definition?
Comments about WHY or WHY NOT you believe the Fire Dept is not fiscally
sustainable?
B.Committee’s view on enhanced services: Preliminary consensus is that yes, these
should be added, but not if it required cutting other City services.
In Fire Dept. order of priority:
CAREs unit--- sharing a unit with other agencies
•
Adding a Public Education program/staff
•
Increasing Fire Marshal Office Staffing by up to 4 FTE
•
Is the preliminary consensus still the consensus?
Comments about why these are important to add?
C.Criteria for evaluating the options:
1.Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community
2.Ability of provider to meet needs of large business community
3.Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
4.Impact on labor force, recruitment and retention
5.Control over operational and financial decisions
6.Overall quality of services (response times and more)-
7.Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes
8.Sustainability of funding
Top three criteria per Committee Discussion at Meeting 6:
#3: Total costs to residents and businesses
#6: Quality of services
#8: Sustainability of funding
Does the committee want to highlight that some criteria are more important than
others? Why or why not?
If so, are these still the criteria that are key? Why or why not?
D.The Committee’s preferred option or options for ensuring future provision
of high-quality fire/EMS service in the City at a sustainable cost.
Based on the survey, are there some options that we should set aside? Why do you
think these options fall short?
In terms of potential recommended options, let’s go through the remaining options
and consider the greatest advantages and disadvantages of each –quick round of
input from everyone.
Based on discussion, does anyone on the Committee want to propose a
recommended option?(process: motion/second/discussion)
WHAT Caveats are important to note in offering this recommendation?
Other things you would like to say to the Council?