Council minutes, Sep. 2008

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

Date: September 9, 2008

Time: 7:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Margy Abbott; Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins; Chris Richardson; Ira Rosenbaum, Andrew Smith; 3 Section 5 residents

Peter moved that the minutes from the June 10, 2008, Council meeting be approved as amended. Chris seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Margy said the block party was a success; however, only 138 people made reservations while 225 people attended. There were some suggestions about getting people to be more attentive to making reservations. Margy suggested that the party flyer next year state that dinner will be served from 4:00pm until 5:30pm. This time frame should alert people to the time during which dinner will be served.

Peter presented a lengthy report about the police presence and incidence of crime in Section 5, Martin’s Additions and Section 3. Peter contacted the County police to get information on crimes in these 3 municipalities during a 6 month period. Martin’s Additions experienced 4 crimes, Section 3 experienced 4 crimes and Section 5 experienced 11 crimes. At the end of Peter’s report he recommended that Section 5 employ additional police for a 6 month trial period beginning January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009. At the end of this trial period the Council would look at the crimes committed in Section 5 and then decide if it should recommend that Section 5 continue to employ additional police. Peter agreed to contact the Village and the County to determine if they are interested in providing police officers for a 6 month trial period. The manager will contact its insurance company to determine if Section 5’s insurance coverage will increase because it employs police. There was some discussion.

A resident said that he was primarily interested in the drug report and also crime in general in Section 5.

Margy said that there was a portion of the RFP to be sent to town planning companies which was not complete at the June Council meeting. Peter said that Andrew had sent him a copy of this additional document and he had edited it for Andrew. Margy said that the manager put together a document which contained zoning ordinances from the Village, the Town and the County concerning zoning issues about which Section 5 has some interest.

A resident said that a year ago he had suggested that Section 5’s Council look at the neighboring municipalities’ ordinances and pick and choose from these ordinances but the Council was not interested. Instead he said that the Council stated that it wanted to employ a town planning company to propose ordinances.

Chris said that he thinks the Council should study the ordinances from the Village, the Town and the County and then discuss them at the next meeting. It was suggested that the Council meet at 5:30pm on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, before the regular Council meeting to discuss zoning ordinances. The manager will order sandwiches for dinner for this meeting.

The manager will compose a fence ordinance that addresses fences on corner lots. This ordinance will state the height of fences and the set back from the public sidewalk which is allowed on corner lots in the front yard. This ordinance will also include the fence ordinance section which states that if more than 50% of a fence which is out of code is replaced, it must conform to the present regulations. The Council will discuss this at the next meeting.

The Village and Martin’s Additions have expressed some interest in sharing the cost of renting a shredder which will be placed in either the Village, Martin’s Additions or Section 5. There was some discussion. About 7 Section 5 residents have expressed an interest in renting a shredder which would be placed in Section 5 on the same date as the fall bulk trash collection. Peter expressed some concern about paying to rent a shredder when only 7 residents have expressed an interest in a shredder. Margy suggested that the manager contact the Village and ask it to pay 50% of the cost and Martin’s Additions and Section 5 pay 25% of the cost. The manager will report to the Council about the Village and Martin’s Additions’ responses.

Margy said that Section 5 has not received any State income tax money to date; however, the town had received only $400 last year at this time. She said that the town has $100,000 CD’s in 9 different banks and additional funds in MLGIP.

The manager recommended that the Council increase its liability insurance coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. This increase in coverage will cost an additional $78.00 per year. There was some discussion. Margy moved that this additional coverage be purchased, the motion was seconded and it passed unanimously. The manager will contact LGIT for this coverage.

Peter said that there are cracks in the road surface on east Thornapple St. which were not repaired when the company sealed cracks on Section 5’s streets. The Council will have a civil engineer examine the town’s streets to determine if they need a slurry seal applied next year. They will do this so this expenditure may be included in next year’s budget.

The storm drain outlet on east Thornapple St. was repaired. Margy asked the manager to investigate having a sign made which states “No Commercial Deliveries Before 7:00am” and place it at house constructions sites in Section 5.

Margy moved that the meeting be adjourned; Peter seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 7:30pm at the Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Ave. There will be Council work session at the same location at 5:30pm for the Council to consider zoning ordinances.

Report to Section 5 on Crime and Police Presence

INTRODUCTION

While Section 5 is a relatively safe community, some residents have expressed concerns about recent incidents of serious crimes, such as home invasions, in the greater Chevy Chase/Bethesda area, as reported by the media and police. Also, fewer crime incidents were reported in Section 3 and Martins Additions than in Section 5. Consequently, some residents have requested that supplemental police patrols be provided in Section 5, similar to those provided to Section 3 and Martins Additions by the Chevy Chase Village Police (CCVP), or that of the Montgomery County Police (MCP) for the Town of Chevy Chase. This report analyzes local crime incidences, examines the effect of supplemental police presence in communities contiguous to Section 5, considers alternate security methods and systems, and recommends a 6-month test of police/security patrols.

CRIME INCIDENT REPORTS

On February 1, 2008, the MCP implemented a new, online crime data service. CrimeReports.com provides the MCP with the ability to share neighborhood crime incident information with the public. Wider access to crime data is designed to raise public awareness and vigilance, which may result in fewer opportunities for criminals. However, crimes reported by this service, by the media, or via the Internet may alarm some people and reduce their sense of personal security.

Police responding to crimes report the incidents which are coded into 15 general categories and 21 subcategories of the database. The general crime categories are: homicide; assault; burglary (e.g. breaking and entering a home or vehicle); theft/larceny; robbery (theft involving force or violence); traffic; proactive policing (e.g. vehicle stops); property crime; quality of life (e.g. disorder, liquor, narcotics); registered sex offender; sex offense; vehicle burglary; vehicle theft; vehicle recovery; and other (e.g. arson, weapons offense, family offense, missing/kidnapped person).

To protect the privacy of individuals, the MCP removes victims’ identification from the crime reports by converting the exact street address into block level. For example, a burglary at 3704 Underwood Street would be located and mapped as “3700 block of Underwood Street”, and a vehicle theft at 3708 Williams Lane would be shown as “3700 block of Williams Lane”.

For the six month period between January 1 and June 30, 2008, CrimeReports.com recorded a total of 11 crime incidents in Section 5 (226 homes) versus four each in the larger communities of Section 3 (281 homes) and Martins Additions (320 homes). Three of the incidents which occurred in Section 5 involved vehicle burglary or theft, three were home burglaries or thefts, four were narcotics-related, and one was a weapons offense. By comparison, during the same period, one vehicle burglary or theft, and three home burglaries or thefts occurred in Section 3, and one assault, one theft from a vehicle, and two home burglaries or thefts occurred in Martins Additions.

Clearly, fewer crime incidences were reported in the two larger communities with supplemental police presence than in Section 5, which does not employ supplemental police. This appears to support the police assertion that supplemental police patrols have a deterrent effect on crime (see page 5).

The major difference in types and frequency of crimes between Section 5, Section 3 and Martins Additions shows up in the reports of narcotics offenses. During the six-month period between January 1 and June 30, 2008, there were no reported incidents of narcotics crimes in Section 3 or Martins Additions, versus four in Section 5. However, one narcotics incident attributed to Section 5 may have originated in Section 3, when police responded to a call for shots fired in the area of Cummings Lane. A vehicle seen leaving this area was stopped in the 7600 block of Connecticut Avenue in Section 5 for speeding, and a consent search yielded marijuana pipes and drug residue. One adult from Chevy Chase and one from Silver Spring were arrested. Another narcotics incident attributed to Section 5 originated in Kensington, but took place in the 7200 block of Connecticut Avenue. A vehicle was stopped for speeding, and a search yielded the presence of marijuana in the vehicle, resulting in the arrest of an adult male from Silver Spring. The third narcotics incident also originated in Kensington. A vehicle was stopped and searched in the 7500 block of Connecticut Avenue, and two adult males, one from Wheaton and one from D.C. were arrested for possession of marijuana. The fourth incident occurred in the 3500 block of Windsor Place in Section 5 when a suspicious

vehicle was reported. Officers arrested two adult males from Chevy Chase for possession of marijuana. It can be argued that three of the four narcotics incidents did not originate in Section 5, but even without these incidents, Section 5 had twice the number of reported crimes as Section 3 and Martins Additions during the same 6-month period. Some have questioned the accuracy or validity of the crime reporting system. Police will report an incident whenever they respond to a call, even if they find no evidence of a crime. A reported crime may not lead to an arrest, and an arrest may not result in criminal penalties. Still, if some reports are unverified in one community, they may be unverified in other communities also. In other words, “false positives” may occur in Section 3 and Martins Additions, as well as in Section 5.

POLICE VIEWS ON SUPPLEMENTAL PATROLS

While Section 5 has had more reported crime incidents than Section 3 and Martins Additions, the police believe Section 5 is a relatively safe community compared to many others in Montgomery County. For example, during a single week in June, 2008, there were 15 thefts/break-ins reported in Bethesda, and 16 in Silver Spring, compared to none in Section 5.

Nevertheless, even a single serious crime committed in or near a small community like Section 5 creates residents’ concerns about neighborhood safety and security. The notorious home invasion on Underwood Street on March 27, 2006 prompted questions of

adequate police patrols in the Section. Unfortunately, there is no assurance that additional police presence could have prevented or deterred this or similar crimes. For example, on May 7, 2008, there was a home invasion and robbery in Kenwood, despite the availability of supplemental police security patrols.

While all crimes cannot be prevented, both CCVP Chief Roy Gordon, and MCP Commander Russ Hamill believe supplemental police presence in a local community deters crime. Police officers are often stretched to capacity, and law enforcement budgets are tight, so police focus their efforts on higher crime areas, such as certain congested areas of Bethesda, rather than routine community patrols in low crime areas like Section 5. Therefore, they support hiring off duty police to supplement their resources, and to enhance neighborhood safety and security.

That police presence in any neighborhood acts as a deterrent to crime is not in question, but other questions remain. Will one off-duty policeman employed for X hours a month result in a Y reduction in crime? What would be the impact on crime if additional police personnel were added for longer or shorter periods of time? What is the optimum number of police hours needed to be effective during the day and at night? The police are generally aware of periods when crimes are most likely to occur, so that they can deploy officers accordingly. For example, CCVP Chief Gordon maintains burglaries occur primarily during daylight hours, larcenies tend to occur after dark, and assaults (usually with a robbery) may occur at any time. But, the CCVP does not have sufficient resources available to deter crimes 24/7.

EXPERIENCE OF CONTIGUOUS COMMUNITIES

Both Section 3 and Martins Additions contract with the CCVP for supplemental or augmented police presence in their communities. Interviews with Andy Harney, Section 3 Manager, and Jean Sperling, Manager of Martins Additions provided the following advantages and disadvantages of supplemented police services:

1. Local police are familiar with their communities, and respond rapidly.
2. Police provide free services (e.g. check on homes and pick up newspapers and mail when residents are on vacation).
3. Improved traffic enforcement.
4. An added perception of public safety and comfort for residents.

1. More expensive than County police ($44 to $55/hour). Section 3 is cutting back its contract with CCVP from 20 to 16 hours a month. Martins Additions currently contracts with CCVP for 85 hours a month, and has no plans to reduce this.
2. Other police priorities or emergencies may preempt contracted presence.
3. Shortage of available manpower.
4. Requires purchase of additional liability insurance coverage.

It is interesting to note that Martins Additions, which is slightly larger than Section 3, contracted with the CCVP for four times the hours of supplemental police presence, yet it recorded the same number of crimes between January 1 and June 30, 2008. Therefore, the

number of police hours employed appears to be less important a factor in deterring crime than the random or varied presence of police patrols in a community.

The Town of Chevy Chase (1000+ homes) has contracted for additional police services with the MCP plus a private security service. Mayor Linna Barnes provided the following information:

Advantages

1. Increased traffic enforcement by the MCP during the day, and enhanced security by the private service at night.
2. Lower cost than CCVP, plus rebates of traffic fines.
3. More manpower availability than CCVP.
4. County provides liability insurance.
5. Provides an added level of public safety and comfort for residents.

Disadvantages

1. Cost ($38/hour for 100+ hours/month by the MCP, and $20-30/hour for 160-180 hours/month for a private security service).
2. Less personalized service than CCVP provides.

NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAMS VS. OFF-DUTY POLICE PRESENCE

While Neighborhood Watch programs have been around for many years, Section 3, Martins Additions, and the Town of Chevy Chase have not found them to be effective in

deterring crime. Section 5 attempted to establish such a program, but residents’ interest quickly waned. We cannot assume that this lack of interest means residents feel safe and secure in their neighborhoods. Typically, such programs become dormant and inactive, because residents do not devote enough time and energy to them. Residents tend to be too busy working, traveling or otherwise occupied. Furthermore, residents say they pay taxes for security services, so they should not be held responsible for policing their own neighborhoods. Because of the ineffectiveness of such programs, neighboring communities have hired off- duty police, and private security services to supplement and enhance regular police services.

SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS

Surveillance systems using strategically-located cameras are being increasingly employed as a deterrent to crime, especially in high-crime areas, where there are frequent violations of traffic laws, and in high-population density areas. For example, Metrorail has over 1000 surveillance cameras installed inside its stations and on its buses, and plans to install external surveillance cameras, at an average cost of $12,000 at high-crime Metro stations in DC, Maryland and Virginia. The District of Columbia currently employs more than 5000 security cameras in government offices, public housing complexes, schools and other public facilities. The new National Harbor community of residences and businesses has installed an expensive surveillance system designed to deter crime and

provide rapid response capability in emergencies. Private security personnel in a command center monitor over 100 cameras 24/7, and report problems to local police. In general, surveillance systems are designed to supplement security rather than substitute for the presence of police and private security patrols.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Supplemental police presence provides an added level of comfort to residents, because they perceive their community to be safer.
2. Supplemental police presence in a community may deter criminals, and force them to seek other opportunities in communities with less police presence.
3. Neighborhood Watch programs and camera surveillance systems are not a substitute for police presence in a neighborhood.

RECOMMENDATION

A 6-month test of supplemental police patrols in Section 5 would help determine the impact, if any, on crime in the community. The results of the test would provide the Council and residents with information on which to base a decision on whether or not to emulate other communities employing supplemental police. Section 5 should consider the following options:

1. Employ MCP personnel for an estimated cost of $4560 ($38/hour x 20 hours/month x 6 months), or
2. Negotiate with the CCVP to extend its current police patrols in Section 3 and Martins Additions to include Section 5. (The CCVP already cruises through parts of Section 5 to service Martins Additions.) Estimated cost, including liability insurance, for the same level of coverage currently provided to Section 3 is $6600 ($55/hour x 20 hours/month x 6 months.), or
3. Negotiate with Section 3 and/or Martins Additions to include Section 5 in supplemental police patrols by the CCVP on a cost-sharing basis, or
4. Contract with a private security service, like the one employed by the Town of Chevy Chase, to patrol the community, at an estimated cost of $ 3000 ($ 25/hour x 20 hours/month x 6 months.)

Submitted to the Section 5 Council

September 9, 2008