Council Minutes, Jun. 2009

SECTION 5 OF THE VILLAGE OF CHEVY CHASE

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

Date: June 9, 2009

Time: 7:30 PM

Place: 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase Village Hall

Present: Karin Flynn; Alec French; Peter Gray; Frances L. Higgins, Chris Richardson; Andrew Smith; Police Commander Hamil; Officer Denise Gill; Emil Wolanin, Montgomery County Traffic Engineer; 11 Section 5 residents.

1. Minutes

   Andrew moved that the May 12, 2009, #6 work session minutes and the Council minutes be approved as revised; Chris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

2. County Police Report – Commander Russ Hamil

   Andrew asked the Commander to give an update about crime statistics in Section 5. Alec stated that Section 5’s Council has contracted with the Village police to provide twenty hours of police patrols per month in Section 5. Alec asked the Commander how much time does the County police spend patrolling Section 5’s streets; additionally he asked what has been the protocol for assigning police patrols to Section 5.

   Commander Hamil provided a detailed description of the structure of the Bethesda police station. The Bethesda station is referred to as the second district and it is divided into two sectors. He explained that when a County resident calls a municipality for police protection, the municipality may say that its officers are busy; however the County may never respond in this manner to a resident. County police must always respond to a call from a County resident. The Commander stated that he has requested additional officers because of the increase in the burglary rate and has received extra officers. This addition to the force has allowed the Bethesda station to see a 35% decrease in commercial burglary and a 26% decrease in residential burglary.

   Commander Hamil explained that the removal of even one individual involved in crime can cause the crime rate to plummet. He stated that the crime du jour is auto burglary locally, nationally and internationally. In the last 17 months there have been only four thefts from automobiles in Section 5. He said that one of the best ways to deter crime is to have officers in the area both on foot and in patrol cars. He assured the Council that on a daily basis he encourages his officers to patrol their beats and get to know the terrain and the people.

   Karin said that after the home invasion officers purposely chose Section 5 as a place to sit in their cars and complete their paper work on many occasions. She further said that the police department was very responsive after the home invasion; however, she said that she wished the police would have been in the neighborhood and had been seen by the criminals and thus prevented the home invasion. Alex asked the Commander if he would encourage his officers to select Section 5 as a place to sit in their patrol cars and complete paper work. The Commander said that he would.

   The Commander had been asked prior to his visit to provide Section 5 with police reports which state how often his officers patrol Section 5 streets. The Commander said that he did not have the staff to produce such reports. He also said that if he asked his officers to produce such reports, he would be concerned that officers would be focused more on writing these reports rather than being focused on crime activity on the street. The Commander admitted that recently there has been a backlog using DNA to solve crimes but now employing detectives to help solve auto thefts, the backlog using DNA has been considerably reduced.

   Peter said that the Council should decide on the time of day when the additional police presence should patrol Section 5 streets. It was agreed to discuss this matter at the September meeting.

   Andrew and the other members of Council expressed their appreciation for both Commander Hamil and Officer Gill for attending the meeting.

3. Traffic Engineer’s Report

   Andrew introduced Mr. Wolanin, a County Traffic Engineer. Andrew explained that the Council has received several complaints from residents concerning excessive speed and a large number of cut-through motorists on Glendale Road, Woodbine and Underwood Streets. It has been suggested that the installation of speed humps and limited access to Section 5’s streets could help in solving these twin problems.

   Mr. Wolanin explained that he is the chief engineer in the County transportation department which oversees County traffic problems. He further explained that the County has no jurisdiction over municipality streets but that he was happy to share his County experiences in dealing with excessive speed and cut-through motorists.

   Mr. Wolanin said that Section 5 should look at Section 5 as whole to identify its traffic problems rather than focus on problems evident on one or two streets. He recommended that Section 5 employ a professional traffic engineer who would determine Section 5’s traffic problems and then suggest solutions.

   Mr. Wolanin said that solutions to local traffic problems basically can be divided into two categories: 1) Traffic Calming, and 2) Cut-through Reduction. He said that speed humps are the single most effective means of slowing motorists; however, that depending on the neighborhood they can also be controversial.

   Mr. Wolanin said that prior to the 1990’s the County installed many speed bumps and humps, basically anyone who requested one could get one. These installations engendered so much rancor and ill-feeling in communities that the County Council instituted a moratorium. After the moratorium was lifted, the County again allowed humps but only after the traffic problems in a certain community were thoroughly studied. The County implements criteria for speed-hump installation, but independent municipalities have discretion to implement their own. Among the county criteria are speed level and traffic volume which must be at a certain level for the road to warrant installation of a speed hump. Once the criteria have been met, then it must be determined that 80% of the residents on a certain street are in favor of the hump. Mr. Wolanin said that by allowing the degree of resident approval to determine if a road will receive a speed hump, sharp divisions in communities are often avoided.

   Mr. Wolanin addressed the issue of decreasing the posted speed limit as a means of calming traffic, but said that this technique is completely ineffective. He said for the most part motorists do not pay attention to the posted speed limit signs; instead, motorists drive at the speed which they deem reasonable rather than at the posted speed. He also said that stop signs do not control motorists’ speed. He did say that narrowing a road’s lane by moving traffic lines further into the road bed does have some success in lowering motorists’ speed.

   With respect to cut-through traffic, Mr. Wolanin said that limiting access to certain neighborhoods does produce some success in reducing the number of motorists who cut through neighborhoods; however, these limitations are bothersome to some of the residents of the neighborhood and can cause as much controversy as speed-humps. Again, the County implements criteria for such sign installation. In the County, limited access may be used if 50% of the traffic can be determined to be non resident traffic. Limited access signage must be specific about the limitation or they are not enforceable. For example, if the signage reads, “Local traffic only”, it is not enforceable; however, if the signage reads, “No entry 7:00 to 9:00” it is enforceable.

   Mr. Wolanin said that it is very important for any community to use the E’s when trying to solve traffic problems: 1) engineering, 2) enforcement, and 3) education. Mr.Wolanin cautioned Section 5 that the roads have been built with public money and people should be allowed to use them.

   Mr. Wolanin also indicated that Section 5 will have to work with the State for sign installations, as Connecticut Avenue, Brookville Road, and East-West Highway are State Highways.

   A Woodbine Street resident addressed the issue of the installation of speed humps. She said that in the last fifteen years Section 5 has conducted three different traffic studies which measured the traffic volume and speed on Section 5’s streets. In the first study conducted in the late 1980’s it was recommended that Woodbine Street not have speed humps installed. She also mentioned the results from the 2001 and 2007 studies. Andrew asked the resident to wait until Mr. Wolanin had completed his talk before addressing specific issues. The resident agreed.

   Another Woodbine Street resident asked Mr. Wolanin if there is a minimum length for a road to warrant a speed hump. Mr. Wolanin said that he thought for the County the minimum is 1,000 feet. Mr. Wolanin also said that the traffic volume and speed must meet a certain minimum requirement. These numbers are averages of the total volume and speed on a certain street. Karin said that she disagreed with the practice of using average speeds to determine the advisability of installing speed humps because one or two motorists driving at excessive speeds can present a real and present danger whereas these two excessive speeds could be incorporated into the average speed and not indicate the need for a speed hump.

   Mr. Wolanin agreed to help Section 5 locate the State representative who is responsible for allowing a municipality to post limited access signs along a State highway such as Connecticut Avenue and Brookville Road. Andrew and the Council expressed their appreciation to Mr. Wolanin for coming to the Council meeting.

   Alec said that in summary Section 5 should: 1) employ a traffic engineer, 2) determine traffic problems, and 3) design solutions. The Council agreed with this summary. The manager will locate the names of prospective traffic engineers.

   It has been suggested that speed bumps or humps are a hazard for emergency vehicles. Craig Pernick, a Williams Lane resident and a volunteer at the B-CC Rescue Squad, was invited to speak concerning emergency vehicles. He is a volunteer driver and knowledgeable about emergency vehicles navigating speed bumps or humps. He said that it takes very few additional seconds to navigate a speed bump or hump. This extra time is minimal and has negligible impact on emergency vehicle response times.

4. Citizens’ Concerns and Suggestions

   Paul Kaplan, a Woodbine Street resident, provided a report on the 2008 Ellen’s Run, a fund-raiser in honor of a former Section 5 resident, Ellen Schneider. Ellen’s Run is a 5K run and walk. Last year 700 people participated and this year even more people are expected to participate. The proceeds from this fund raiser are divided equally between the Montgomery County Health Association and the B-CC High School scholarship fund. Paul and other supporters solicit the parents at B-CC, its sport teams, commercial establishments in the area and foundations. Each year, Paul said, since the fund raiser’s beginning Section 5 has contributed $5,000 and he asked the Council to contribute $5,000 this year. In response to a question regarding what other local municipalities support Ellen’s Run, Mr. Kaplan responded that a few have supported them in the past, but that currently Section 5 is the only local municipality that donates to Ellen’s Run.

   An Underwood resident raised two issues: 1) a question about the legality of Section 5 donating public funds to charities, and 2) the fact that individual charitable donations are tax deductible, whereas charitable donations by Section 5 are not. In addition, Karin said that some of her neighbors have expressed dissatisfaction with Section 5 donating citizen’s tax dollars to charities that they might not support. Instead of making flat out donations, she suggested that Section 5 needs to at least consider citizen support, for example that residents be encouraged to donate to Ellen’s Run and the Council could match those funds at some level. Karin said that the Council should develop a policy regarding Council donations to charities and the Council agreed that it would draft a policy concerning charitable contributions for consideration at the September meeting. Chris said that our community encompasses more than just residents of Section 5 and he believes that Section 5 should donate $5,000 to Ellen’s Run. Chris moved that Section 5 donate $5,000 to Ellen’s Run for the fiscal year 2009-10; Alec seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

   Craig Pernick asked the Council to give $5,000 to B-CC Rescue Squad in the next fiscal year. The Council felt ill-equipped to make the decision right away, which Karin suggested reinforced the need for a policy regarding charitable contributions. It was suggested that the Council devise a policy concerning donations to charitable organizations before a request by the Rescue Squad is entertained. Alec said that the Council should have a deadline for requests for donations because the first persons to present their requests could have a distinct advantage over subsequent petitioners. Alec volunteered to draft a charitable donations policy for Section 5 by the end of the Summer. A deadline for requests will be considered when the policy is being drafted. The Council will consider a donation to the B-CC Rescue Squad after it has developed a donation policy.

   A resident said that Section 5 should have a provision in the election ordinance that describes the process for applying for an absentee ballot. Alec referred to the election ordinance and said that there is such a provision in the ordinance.

5. Update on Status of Zoning Project

   Andrew stated that he and Peter have compiled a document in which zoning provisions are outlined. Council members have reviewed this document and have provided additions and corrections. Andrew and Peter will review these additions and corrections and incorporate them into the initial document and then send this newly revised document to the Council members for additional review.

   Kevin Bromberg, chairman of the zoning committee urged the Council to invite a representative from Jakubiak Consultants, a town planning firm, to show a slide show on town planning to Section 5 residents. Peter said that he would like to provide Section 5 residents with the Council document on zoning and the survey form before having the slide show. He said that the Council needs to determine the degree of interest among Section 5 residents before going any further into the process of adopting separate zoning ordinances different from the County’s. Karin and Alec said that they agreed with Peter’s suggestion. Andrew said that he too would like to send the Council document and survey form first before engaging someone from Jakubiak Consultants.

   Kevin insisted that neither his committee nor the Council is adequately knowledgeable on town planning and that an expert in town planning should be engaged at this point in time. The Council agreed to review the Council document on zoning and then send it with the survey form to Section 5 residents to determine the degree of interest in the town. Karin suggested that this material be sent in September rather than during the summer because many residents are away. It was agreed to wait until September.

6. Treasurer’s Report

   Karin stated that the Section 5 revenues for this fiscal year are only $15,000 less than last year’s. To-date Section 5 has received $317,616 more in revenues than it has spent during this fiscal year. There was discussion if the Council should provide a real estate tax rebate to the residents this fiscal year with the excess revenue or use these funds to repair the roads and sidewalks. Because Section 5 has not developed a Capital Expenditure Plan to-date, only $50 thousand of the required funds for the $275 thousand FY09-10 expenditure to overhaul streets and sidewalks approved in May have been set aside. Moreover, in June the Council was made aware of the need to replace all street light fixtures with new more energy efficient ones in the coming fiscal year, which will require an additional capital expense. Karin proposed that the Council must develop a Capital Expenditure Plan for Section 5 to avoid the need to use net income from one fiscal year for capital expenses in the future. The Council is also concerned about the prediction of a sizable reduction in the amount of State income tax revenue for this next fiscal year. Andrew moved that Section 5 not provide the residents with a real estate tax rebate this fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009 ending June 30, 2010. Alec seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

7. Building Inspector’s Report

   Permits granted: 7303 Connecticut Ave. – replace side and back yard fence

8. Manager’s Report

   A Woodbine St. resident has asked the Council to provide additional periwinkle plants for the public strip in front of his house. There was some discussion of this matter. The Council decided not to provide these additional plants because periwinkle has not grown well in his public strip.

   The manager will inspect the town’s trees Wednesday, June 10th to determine which ones need to be pruned and which ones need to be removed. She will then engage the State forester to issue a permit for those needing to be removed. The Village police chief suggested that the manager ask the fire chief to drive the station’s largest equipment through the town’s streets to determine the navigability of the town’s streets. The manager will also drive the town’s streets and determine which houses do not display the correct size house numbers. There is a County ordinance which dictates a minimum size for house numbers so that they may be seen by emergency vehicles. The fire chief will notify those residents that need to display larger house numbers.

   Section 5 has been notified by LGIT, Section 5’s insurance carrier, that the town must create an anti-harassment employment policy. The manager will write such a policy, have John review it and then send it to the Council for their approval. The Council agreed to have a fall block party during the second week of September.

   Section 5 has loaned its historical documents to the Chevy Chase Historical Society for preservation in a protected environment. Evelyn Gerson, Society Director, expressed her thanks and that of the Society to Section 5 for this loan. The Society will write a letter to Section 5 noting this loan and stating that Section 5 may at any time in the future reclaim these documents.

   The manager said that several residents have complained to the Council concerning the hedges that grow on private property at 7410 Brookville Road and extend over the public sidewalk. Alec said that he has difficulty navigating that particular portion of the public sidewalk as a pedestrian. Other Council members mentioned other areas where private hedges have been allowed to extend over the public sidewalk: 1) 7403 Connecticut Ave.; 2) 7310 Brookville Rd.; and 3) 3715 Thornapple St. The Council asked the manager to notify the owners of these hedges to remove the growth from the public sidewalk.

   Pete Johnson, Section 5’s web master, has installed 2 additional memory cards on the town’s computer. The computer now has 2.5 GB of memory; previously it had 0.5 GB of memory. This allows the computer to operate at a faster pace.

   Andrew moved that the meeting adjourn; it was seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The next meeting will be September 8, 2009, at 7:30 PM at Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue.