On Discretion and Enforcement

Scenario: you are sitting at a red light next to a police officer in a marked cruiser. As your light turns green, a car on the cross street drives in front of you, clearly running the red light. You look at the police officer, expecting him to pull over the offending motorist, but instead, he drives on and appears to ignore the violation.

Most of us have seen this or something similar, and the natural impression is that the officer is not doing his job. While that may be the case once in a while, I would like to assure you that in the vast majority of such incidents, there is a valid reason.

Consider a day in the life of your typical police officer on patrol. He starts the twelve-hour shift with one or two unwritten reports from the day before. As he logs onto his computer, he receives a half dozen messages with requests for extra patrol, BOLO (be on the lookout) notices for wanted persons, and a list of recently-stolen vehicles. On top of that, he knows he is responsible for the resolution of at least one problem-oriented-patrol case as well as follow up investigation on any number of criminal offense reports. This sets the tone for a long work day.

Throughout the day, the officer will be dispatched eight to ten times in response to calls for service, and he will be flagged down two to three times by people requesting assistance or information. About four times per day, the officer will be required to start a new police report, each of which can take up to an hour to complete. Amongst all of this, the officer will find time to initiate his own activity either as a preventive measure (foot patrols and citizen contacts) or in an effort to enforce an observed violation (traffic stops, etc). These officer-initiated actions will occur ten to twelve times in a typical shift.

As the officer is going about his work, he is likely to observe dozens, if not hundreds, of technical violations of the law. Examples include moving traffic violations, vehicle equipment violations, parking violations, littering, animal violations, bicycle violations, as well as city code violations. Unfortunately, there simply is not enough time for the officer to intervene every time he sees something amiss. To help decide, the officer will follow an unofficial prioritization list that goes something like this:

1. In progress felonies involving personal injury or likely death
2. Accidents involving serious injuries
3. In progress crimes against persons
4. In progress crimes against property
5. Violations related to an ongoing problem-oriented patrol
6. Non-violent, vice and drug related crimes
7. Moving traffic violations
8. Non-moving traffic violations
9. Incident specific code violations, such as fires or dogs on the beach, parking, etc.
10. Nuisance code violations, such as noise or false alarms
11. Other code violations, such as unkempt properties

So you can see that the higher the risk, the more likely it is that the officer will intervene. Of course, this does not apply to an officer who is responding to a specific call for service. If you call police to report a person walking a dog without a leash, for example, the responding officer should intervene if he witnesses the violation.

Now, what the officer does when he makes contact with the violator is another subject entirely. Every police officer is given the authority to use his best judgment in making decisions on how to resolve incidents. Sometimes this means an arrest or citation. Sometimes it means a warning. There are even times when the appropriate response is to take no action at all. What the officer decides to do is dependent upon a vast multitude of factors, some of which I will attempt to describe:

1. Is this violation part of a larger problem that is contributing to crime or fear of crime? Is there empirical evidence of that problem, or is it just an issue that has garnered the attention of a vocal minority of the population?
2. What is the history of the individual and/or location involved? Have there been prior warnings or enforcement action for similar violations? Is he or she somebody who is relied upon to provide information or assistance in other, higher-priority investigations, and could enforcement action jeopardize that resource?
3. What is the attitude of the violator? Does he or she appear to be willing to voluntarily correct the behavior? Was he or she aware of the law prohibiting the conduct?
4. Are there circumstances that lawfully justify the conduct?
5. What is the motivation of the complaint? Is it an independent and concerned citizen or a jealous ex-spouse?
6. Are the law and department policies clear on this subject? Any vagaries or doubts could be costly down the road.
7. Is the enforcement action worth the required commitment of time (both now and perhaps in court later), or does the officer have the proverbial "more important things to do"?

In the end, I believe our officers mostly make the right decisions when they deal with these situations every day. We hire educated, well-rounded, moral people to serve Gulfport as police officers, and I trust their judgment in almost every case. Of course, there are occasions when even good people make bad choices, and it's my job to step in when that happens. I will always be open to hear concerns from anybody who feels an officer acted improperly, and I will always respond.

Barney Doesn't Work Here

Despite perceptions to the contrary, Gulfport is not Mayberry. And while I could do worse than to be compared to Andy Griffith, I’m not exactly Sheriff Taylor material either. While we in Gulfport like to celebrate characteristics like being unique and quaint, our similarities to the fictional small town police department end there.

The Gulfport Police Department in 2011 is, quite honestly, among the most professional law enforcement organizations in the world. How can I make such a claim? Consider these facts:

·         Accredited by the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation in 2000, the agency has been reaccredited three times. Of the over 350 law enforcement agencies in Florida, only 68 have achieved this level of recognition for consistently providing exemplary law enforcement service. The accreditation process mandates frequent review and updating of policies and procedures to ensure that they are always in line with the industry’s best practices.

·         Minimum education standards for police officers specify a high school diploma or GED. Gulfport requires college education of at least 60 credit hours from an accredited institution. In fact, over one-third of our officers have at least a bachelor’s degree, and twenty percent have a master’s degree.

·         The Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission requires that officers complete forty hours of advanced training every four years. In Gulfport, the average officer receives four to five times that amount. We go above and beyond to ensure that officers receive frequent refresher training in all high-liability areas (firearms, intermediate weapons, vehicle operations) as well as timely updates on changes in statutes or case law. In addition, those officers assigned to special investigations or operations are provided advanced training commensurate with their positions. Sex crimes investigators, for example, receive forty hours of instruction exclusive to that subject alone.

·         Six of the thirty sworn officers working in Gulfport are certified as professional instructors in various subjects. This means they are recognized and authorized to train recruits and in-service law enforcement personnel throughout the state on topics ranging from use of force to emergency vehicle operations.

·         The officers working this community are provided with the latest and most effective technology and equipment in order to facilitate their mission. Some examples:

o   Mobile dispatch system allowing officers to access call and records information, as well as limitless web-based resources from their patrol cars.

o   Radio system allowing interagency communication at all levels.

o   Audio/video recording devices for each patrol car or patrol officer.

o   Each officer is issued or has access to a .40 caliber primary handgun (they get more than one bullet—sorry Barney), .38 or .40 caliber backup handgun, .223 caliber rifle, 12 gauge shotgun with less-lethal ammunition, Taser electronic control device, expandable steel baton, and OC chemical weapon.

o   Laser and Radar speed measuring and range-finding equipment.

o   Automatic license plate recognition cameras on a patrol vehicle.

o   Biometric security devices for all mobile computers.

o   Low-light enhanced vision monoculars.

o   Covert video surveillance cameras and monitoring equipment.

These professional, highly-trained, and well-equipped officers stay very busy in Gulfport. In a typical year, they respond to 12,000 calls for service, document 3,000 incidents, investigate 600 serious criminal offenses, and work 160 traffic crash scenes. This workload is among the highest, per officer, among agencies in the Tampa Bay area.

Many of the investigations and operations conducted by Gulfport officers are done in conjunction with their colleagues in surrounding communities. The level of cooperation enjoyed among the Pinellas law enforcement agencies is envied by those in other regions. As we go about the business of finding and arresting criminals, we are constantly reminded that Gulfport is but a neighborhood in a large and densely-populated metropolitan area. The transient nature that is so characteristic of the criminal element does not recognize the unique and quaint nature that many of our residents have come to love.

Dealing with these transient criminals while recognizing and prioritizing the Gulfport way of life is a constant challenge for our police officers. I do my best to pick good ones, then I give them the right tools to do the job. Personally, I think they’re doing pretty well, even without Sheriff Taylor in charge.

What do you think?

Disclaimer:  No offense is intended to the Mt. Airy, North Carolina Police Department, which is in fact a modern and professional police organization (Mt. Airy being the town that served as the inspiration for the Andy Griffith show).

Community Policing vs. Problem Oriented Policing

Yes, there is a difference; and no, it's not just semantics. Let me explain. The citizens of Gulfport provide the funding that we use to hire and train police officers, purchase equipment, and conduct the day to day operations of a modern police department. My job as chief is to ensure that money is being well spent, so my goal is to keep people feeling as safe as possible, using as little of our resources as possible. Community policing and problem oriented policing are how we get it done.

Calls for Service

Let's start with calls for service (CFS). For many years, police departments (including Gulfport) focused on CFS as the primary workload of police officers. Generally speaking, somebody called the police, and we would send an officer. The officer would gather and report the information, investigate if need be, maybe make an arrest, and then move on to the next call. The theory used to be that by calculating the number of CFS, a chief could determine the number of officers he needed on patrol. The problem is, that is a very wasteful way to do business. If you look closely at those calls, you begin to notice that the vast majority of them were repeats. We were going to the same places and dealing with the same people over and over again. If each time we just dealt with the immediate situation, chances were we would be back again very soon. To make better use of police officers' time, it makes more sense to address the root of the problem so that we don't have to come back again.

Problem Oriented Policing

Problem oriented policing is the answer to the repeat CFS dilemma. New officers are being trained (and older ones re-trained) to recognize the signs of problems rather than individual incidents. They employ a dedicated, multi-phased approach to identifying and resolving problems. This approach is known as the SARA method.

Scanning--relying on personal observations, input from citizens and business owners, or even news reports, officers note trends that could indicate potential problems. They focus on problems that tend to result in criminal activity or the perception/fear of criminal activity.

Analysis--following up on their initial observations, officers conduct detailed review of all available facts about the problem. Often times, they employ our full-time analyst to assist as they take note of prior calls and reports, individual criminal histories, intelligence documents, and any other records that may exist. The review of this information will either confirm or invalidate the problem.

Response--if the analysis proves that a genuine problem exists, the officer next devises and implements a plan to resolve that problem. This is where the efficiency comes into play. Take, for example, a problem where high school kids are stealing cell phones and GPS devices out of unlocked cars that are parked on the roadways along the kids' walking commute after school. One response could involve the deployment of several undercover officers for several days in a row, hoping to catch and apprehend the burglars in the act. There is, however, a much more effective (and less expensive) way to handle the problem. The one officer could contact resources at the high school to amend the walking routes, work with juvenile probation officers to identify known burglars and enforce compliance with court ordered-sanctions, ask existing crime watch groups to help spread the word to neighbors how to better secure their vehicles, and employ the city's public relations department to air a televised PSA on auto burglary prevention. In the end, this approach is much more likely to resolve the problem, and it uses considerably less police resources.

Assessment--once the resolution is completed, the officer will want to know if it had an effect. Again, this requires extensive analysis of factors that relate to the problem. Have crimes or calls of this nature decreased? Do citizens report feeling less threatened by these circumstances? If the assessment does not indicate improvement, the officer will go back and try again, this time using a different resolution with different resources.

Community Policing

If problem oriented policing is the vehicle we use to get the job done, community policing is the fuel. In all phases of the SARA model, officers are called upon to make use of various resources. In scanning, they have to know the community stakeholders in order to get a feel for what these people are experiencing. In the analysis, officers must know who to ask for information. Whether it's utility billing information, code enforcement history, or conditions of criminal probation, officers must make and maintain contacts in all sorts of places in order to get the intelligence they need. When it comes time to implement the resolution, other contacts become valuable. How valuable is it, for example, to be on good terms with the manager of the fish market when you want to plant a hidden camera inside the store to record activity across the street? Finally, in order to assess the effectiveness of the resolution, the officers must know who and how to ask. After all, even the best efforts are worth little or nothing if you don't help the right people in the right way.

The ongoing conduct by police officers that identifies, develops, and maintains these valuable contacts is known as community policing. It is through this important process that we gain the resources to use in identifying and solving problems, and it is the use of those resources that allows us to do the most good for the least expense of taxpayers' money.

For more information on community and problem oriented policing, visit the the US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at : http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/

Outsource Dispatch? Some Things to Consider

In the Fall of last year, I received a proposal from Pinellas County Sheriff, Jim Coats to provide police communications and records management services for the Gulfport Police Department. I requested this proposal at the city manager's direction to look for more efficient means of providing police services to Gulfport residents.

The proposal calls for transferring the following functions from the Gulfport Police Department to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office:

1. Emergency (911) and non-emergency telephone calls for police service
2. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) service (tracking, logging, and archiving Call for Service data)
3. Dispatching emergency and non-emergency calls and other police activity
4. Data entry and maintenance of police offense, incident, and crash reports (RMS database) 

Although it would have a great impact, this proposal would not completely eliminate our responsibilities in these areas. For example, Gulfport Police personnel would continue to bear the burden for handling the following:

1. Providing a means to process the volume of alternative business currently handled by communications dispatchers (after-hours calls for other city business; data entry and filing for citations, trespass warnings, bicycle registrations, and domestic violence injunctions)
2. Maintaining support (information technology, funding, operations, training) for related hardware and software
3. Responding to public records requests for documents created by and for GPD personnel
4. Uploading supplemental documents to the records management system database
5. Crime analysis of data entered by and for GPD personnel

Service changes

Some important changes will occur if this proposal is implemented. Many of these will be directly apparent to the citizens; some will be indirect:

1. There would no longer be an employee in the police building during non-business hours. This means that we could lose the ability to immediately let people into the building as a safe area of refuge in emergencies.
2. Without some very expensive modification, we could lose the ability to safely use our holding facility. Because there would be nobody on hand to monitor the video or alarm systems after hours, use of the facility would violate accreditation and acceptable safety standards.
3. There is a steep learning curve associated with changing the CAD and RMS systems. Police officers, supervisors, detectives, analysts, and IT personnel will see reduced efficiency during the time it takes to learn the intricacies of the new software.
4. Sheriff’s personnel are not as geographically familiar with the City of Gulfport. Many times, callers do not have an address to provide to the call-taker, and locations are identified based on knowledge of local landmarks and street names. Lack of familiarity could result in a delayed response in some cases.
5. The sheriff’s telephone system is automated. Non-emergency calls are answered by a computer with menu selections. Gulfport residents are not used to this.
6. Gulfport management would lose direct authority and quality control over several important functions, including call-taking, dispatching, and certain IT support. We would also lose direct control over decisions related to communications operations, software applications, and others.

Cost savings

Implementation of this proposal would allow the city to reduce or eliminate the following expenses:

1. Dispatch Personnel—four full-time dispatchers could be eliminated at a savings of approximately $264,000 annually (including salary, overtime, benefits, training, etc). It is recommended that we retain our records specialist to process records requests, answer administrative telephone calls, and serve as a public receptionist. It is also recommended that we retain the police services supervisor to serve as a police IT and equipment technician.
2. Information Technology Personnel--approximately 70% of the network administrator's time is spent managing the police department's CAD and RMS systems. Elimination of that position could save approximately $75,000 in salary and benefits.
3. Equipment operations—elimination of some communications and computer equipment would result in a savings of approximately $17,000 in associated maintenance costs annually.

Those savings aside, there may be some extra costs associated with making this change. We will need, for example, to configure a way for after-hours, walk-up complainants to communicate with PCSO staff. We will also have to modify some wiring and video surveillance equipment to allow the records technician/receptionist to have access to these functions during business hours. Approximately $10,000 is estimated for these expenses. Additionally, we estimate that it will cost approximately $30,000 to convert the existing data in the GPD database so that it will be accessible via the sheriff's database.

Considering an initial estimate of $115,000 and an ongoing annual estimate of $85,000 from the sheriff, savings projections would be as follows:

            $201,000 approximate initial savings

            $271,000 approximate annual savings

Other Factors to Consider

A number of other factors should be on the table when considering the feasibility of outsourcing police records and communications:

1. Sheriff Coats has agreed to give consideration to those Gulfport employees who may lose their jobs in the transition, but he cannot guarantee they will be hired. If they are hired, it will be at the starting rate with no accrued benefits, and it will not necessarily be in the same or similar capacity.
2. Acceptance of this proposal could obligate future budgets and operations to comply with unforeseen changes over which Gulfport management would have little or no input.
3. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office is not accredited by the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation. Although they are accredited by other similar organizations, slight differences in the standards could result in non-compliance issues for which we are accountable but over which we have no control.
4. This decision should be considered permanent. Once this service is transferred to the sheriff’s office, bringing it back under the control of the police department would be nearly impossible given the associated startup costs.

Police and Code Enforcement

Lots of folks are talking code enforcement lately. It seems some would like to see a greater effort on the part of the city to address violations that make the place appear unsightly. There is some validity to that argument. Studies have shown that residents in blighted areas are much more likely to fear crime, even when actual crime is no higher than in other areas. That begs the question: how much should police be involved in the code enforcement process?

It may seem logical for police to handle the city's code enforcement function (we already have officers patrolling the streets, and they already have authority to enforce the laws), but there are many reasons I believe it is a bad idea.

1. Code enforcement is a process. Every step follows an established procedure and is documented to ensure consistency and to make sure that follow-ups are completed in a timely manner. It must be done this way so there can be no validity to a claim that one property owner is treated differently from another and to ensure that problems are not neglected once identified. This degree of consistency and documentation requires a great deal of clerical support. For every enforcement action initiated, a significant percentage of the effort involves administrative tasks handled in the office rather than in the field. The city does not have sufficient support staff to take on this work, which means police officers themselves would have to take time off the streets to perform the required clerical duties. I think most would agree that is a bad idea.
2. Code enforcement officials rarely have to deal with Constitutional issues. Because enforcement does not typically result in any kind of seizure, the provisions of the 4th Amendment usually do not apply. With police officers, however, the Constitution is always a concern. Imagine, for example, a complaint about rotting vegetation in a back yard. If a code officer peers over a fence to confirm the violation, no rights will have been violated because the code officer cannot seize persons or property. If a police officer (with authority to make arrests and seize property) does the same thing, he could find himself faced with a claim for a breach of civil rights. This inherent conflict of interest makes it a bad idea for police to be involved in routine code enforcement.
3. Police officers are charged with investigating criminal activity, which often requires that they develop and maintain open channels of communication with residents who can provide tips and other information. The people who provide this information are themselves often guilty of code violations on their properties. If police are asked to enforce these violations, it could have a detrimental effect on their ability to get voluntary cooperation from these residents in more serious, criminal investigations.

These are just a few examples that illustrate why I believe police should not be the primary tool for code enforcement. That does not mean, however, that we cannot help the cause. Our officers can and do report observed violations to the code enforcement officials, particularly when the code violations are contributing to an overall public safety problem.

So what is the solution? Not sure really. With one code officer and a fraction of a staff assistant, the city's resources are limited. Increasing the enforcement effort will require more people to do the work, and we're not exactly in a position to afford that right now. We'll just have to see what the future holds.

How Do We Choose Police Cars?

I am often asked how we decide which cars to purchase for our patrol fleet. Some think we just pick the one that looks the most intimidating, but if that were the case, we would be driving Abrams Tanks. In reality, the decision involves a great deal of research and thought.

There are six different considerations that go into our decision on police vehicle purchases.  Each of them is discussed below.

1.      The design of the vehicle must be such that it meets the needs of police operations.  The car must have means to secure lots of equipment, and it must be capable of transporting a front-seat passenger and secured prisoners in the back seat.  This means that it must have four doors and sufficient interior room to allow for installation of a prisoner partition.  Essentially, the only vehicles that will meet this requirement are full-size sedans or sport-utility vehicles.

                    

2.      The performance capabilities of the vehicle must be able to meet the needs of police operations.  Emergency responses, pursuits, and traffic enforcement all require 100% of a vehicle’s performance capability.  Officers are trained to use full acceleration and threshold braking for the entire duration of a response.  Seconds could mean the difference between life and death, or between the apprehension and escape of a violator.  In traffic enforcement, successful prosecution requires that the officer be able to maintain sight of a violator until initiating a traffic stop within the city limits.  This requires powerful acceleration.

3.      The vehicle must be designed and built in such a way that it will withstand the stresses encountered under typical operations.  Emergency response driving puts extreme stresses on the engine, brakes, cooling system, and chassis.  All of these things must be strong enough to handle the abuse.  In addition, police cars spend a great deal of time idling (traffic stops, perimeter posts, crashes, etc), which means that the cooling systems must be built to keep the cars from overheating in such conditions.  Finally, the computer, video system, radio, and emergency equipment can put a tremendous draw on the electric system.  The vehicle must have an alternator of sufficient capacity to handle the load.

4.      The maintenance requirements should not be so costly that they outweigh any initial savings recognized by the purchase of a less-expensive vehicle.  The only real alternative that offers an initial cost savings is the Chevrolet Impala.  While the car costs approximately 20% less than others, its front-wheel-drive design is likely to require additional maintenance costing much more over the life of the car.  Constant velocity (CV) joints must be maintained, and the front weight bias puts more wear on the brakes and tires, requiring that they be replaced more frequently.  Additionally, front-wheel-drive cars have a transverse-mounted engine, and the last time Gulfport Police used this layout, the engine mounts could not handle the stress and had to be replaced regularly.

5.      The vehicle should be designed and built in such a way that the city will be exposed to the least liability in the event of a claim resulting from its operation.  This is the primary reason we select vehicles that are marketed for pursuit driving.  Because the manufacturer represents that the vehicle is intended for such a purpose, it reduces the liability to the city if an officer were to cause or be involved in a crash while responding to an emergency or while involved in a pursuit.  If we were to purchase any other vehicle, the city would have to defend the use of the vehicle under such conditions.  Doing so would require evaluations in the manner conducted annually by the Michigan State Police, and we simply do not have the resources to do this.

6.      The vehicle should be replaced when its maintenance costs become excessive or when it is no longer reliable for emergency operations.  Gulfport patrol cars average about 20,000 miles per year each.  If we purchase new cars once per year, the schedule would result in replacement at 60K, 80K, or 100K miles.  While the 80,000 mile mark does not typically extend into the realm of unreliability, 100,000 does.  This is the point at which major maintenance must occur, and it also historically been the point when important components fail under pressure, including the engine, transmission, and brakes.  Due to the critical nature of these vehicles, it is in the best interest of the city to replace them before they are subject to those conditions.

Conclusion:

For patrol use, the Gulfport Police Department should replace its fleet every 80,000 miles with rear-wheel-drive sedans marketed by their manufacturer for pursuit operation.  Only two such vehicles currently exist in the United States.  They are the Chevrolet Caprice and the Dodge Charger.  Both have similar performance and fuel economy ratings, but the Caprice costs approximately 10% more. The Charger is available with two engine options: a 292 bhp V-6 and a 370 bhp V-8. Using cylinder deactivation technology, the V-8 achieves EPA mileage ratings similar to the V-6, and under the Florida Sheriff’s Association purchasing agreement, the V-8 costs just $400 more.

All things considered, the Charger with V-8 engine is the best option currently available, which is why our fleet consists primarily of these cars.

Take-Home Police Cars?

The City Council will soon be asked to approve an agreement between the City and the Police Benevolent Association, which is the police officers' union. This agreement has been negotiated for the past few months by the attorneys for both parties, and the result is essentially a carryover of the previous agreement, with one big change: take home police cars.

Subject to final approval, the conditions are expected to be as follows:

1. We will use the existing fleet; no new cars will be purchased to accomodate this program.
2. Sixteen vehicles will be assigned to senior officers. The other officers will share the five remaining fleet cars.
3. Cars will only be assigned to sworn officers who live in Pinellas County (with the addition of on-call command staff and detectives).
4. Except for those who are on-call, officers may only use the cars for city business or commuting to and from city business.
5. Officers will be required to clean the vehicles on their own time and using their own supplies.

As the police chief, I support the take-home car program because I feel it benefits both the officers as well as the City. The advantages for the officers are fairly obvious, but not so apparent are the perks for the taxpayers. Consider these:

1. In the case of the officers who live in Gulfport, the presence of the patrol cars will have a positive effect on crime prevention and community policing efforts.
2. Take-home vehicles last longer. Studies in other agencies have shown that officers take much better care of assigned cars, which leads to longer life and lower maintenance costs. Also, with one officer driving the car, it will take more time to reach the replacement mileage threshold. We expect to keep these vehicles 20% longer than the fleet rotation counterparts, which can add up to a great deal of long-term capital savings.
3. While all officers are subject to call at any time, those with take-home cars are more available to respond in case of emergency. During the commute, they are connected by radio and computer to all calls for service and can instantly respond if needed. At all other times, they have an emergency vehicle at their disposal to hasten the commute when necessary.
4. This is a much more efficient use of officers' time. With fleet cars, officers must spend about a half hour every day loading and uloading required equipment, as well as performing inspections for damage and contraband. Those tasks are not required with assigned vehicles, which means on average, each officer will save approximately 90 hours per year that can be dedicated to actual police work.
5. Recruitment of new officers will require less effort and expense. Take-home cars for law enforcement officers is quickly becoming the standard for this market. Without such a benefit, our staff must go to extra lengths to find, recruit, and retain qualified officers. Having this program in place, we will be able to compete for the best on a level playing field.

I truly believe this is a win-win situation for all parties, but if you have a different perspective, I'd love to hear from you. I will update this post with details on the date, time, etc. of the scheduled council vote.