How important are volunteers in The Woodlands?

Volunteers have historically been the key to a successful community here in The Woodlands Texas. All governing functions have originated from these residents, some of whom have been elected and others as ad hoc volunteers. With the advent of a taxing authority, we will now be governed by a single volunteer board of elected directors to The Woodlands Township. This only replaces the governing constituents of the associations. There remains the necessity to operate our covenant standards enforcement with resident elected volunteers. There is also the continued need to have village associations with elected residents.

This month, the associations put together a "final" annual celebration for volunteers. Each year, the progress of the community is celebrated in a Christmas party as a "thank you" from the community for the work of volunteers. This is an event always appreciated by the volunteers and has in itself created an atmosphere of willingness to serve in our community. This year we had a live band but normally we have a DJ to play music. Those who I have talked to prefer the DJ over the live band due to of the variety of music and lack of dead time when the live entertainment takes a break. Many people decided to leave when the band took its break this year. Also the the service company staff always comes to this meeting and dance, and they enjoy the evening alongside the volunteers. Since we all work together throughout the year, this is a perfect event to cap off the year.

So I ask, is this the last of this type of celebration? Have we matured into something less hometown? I hope not. The community derives a great deal of benefit by the teamwork demonstrated in every meeting and event through the year. Maybe the Township can find this type of event useful to keep costs down and encourage continued resident participation in hometown activities beyond the village events. This tradition will be sorely missed by those who have grown to appreciate the contributions of fellow volunteers. We have tradition. I hope this was not the last of these year-end celebrations.

Montgomery Population Changes - Redistribution of Districts in 2010

---

Every ten years, the U.S. census is taken, and from that census, county districts are redrawn based on population. New numbers have arrived prior to the 2010 census;these are predictions of the census results based on data collected by the U.S Census Bureau and the state. As many people here know, Montgomery County is a hot spot for growth, ranking high  in job and population growth. The county has been exploding this decade  (2000-2008). CNN Money Magazine stated in 2007 that the jobs have grown 38.3% from 2000 to 2007, ranking Montgomery County at 16th in the nation. The county is predicted to grow in population by a whopping 82% in this decade! This is significant and is a driving factor for planning action in this county. The country is taking notice of this.


Our County Judge, Alan Sadler, has assessed the distribution of this growth and believes there will be only one precinct that will be expanded to balance population growth in 2010. That will be a  minor change. Precinct 3 should not be affected! Based on predictions released today, precinct 3 should remain status quo in area coverage in 2010. The reason for minimal change is that the population increases have been uniform throughout most of the county in this decade. The judge is getting a jump start on planning for next year when any redistribution must occur. He pointed out that our county growth in the 70's and 80's had significant impact on district boundaries but in 2000, there was not much change and in 2010, we can expect even less change. This is a booming county overall. No longer is it just a booming south county.

Newly available data is also exposing demographic change in our  county. Of special note, our Hispanic population has been far below that of Harris County. Now the Montgomery County population boom is notably drawing on an increased influx of Hispanics, probably in all economic sectors. The Anglo population percentage is noted to have grown about 51%, where the Hispanic community will have grown by 128% over the past decade!  As a comparison, the Harris County growth of Hispanics from 2000 to 2008 was  about a 19% increase.  Demographic statistics will show Anglos at 77% of the population and the Hispanics at 18% of the population in Montgomery County. Other ethnic/racial groups are a much lower percentage of the overall population. By comparison, Harris County will have roughly about 36% Anglo and 39% Hispanic (based on 2008 population estimates). Statewide, Hispanics make up some 36% of  the population, putting us below the average. All of these statistics are based on the assumption that the 2000 Census is fully correct and that the data from births and immigration in subsequent years represent the population changes.

So what does all of this mean? Let's just take it in its simplicity. First, Montgomery County is growing at a tremendous rate. That translates to schools, roads, home development, commercial development, jobs, and other infrastructure expansions required to sustain the growth if current residents are not to be crowded out. Fortunately we are seeing a rise in employment even in this downturn of the economy. The numbers also show us that Spanish as a first language is on the rise in our county. That has significant implications in study programs in our schools, labeling of products and signage in commercial areas. It is an important factor in considering the future of our county.

From everything I have seen, I doubt if we will know how many of the Hispanics are eligible to vote. Assuming everyone is legal, the number of Hispanic voters may be different  since Resident Visas do not give a person the right to vote. Voting influence of the community may not be as high as the commercial influence the Hispanics will have on  our economy.

Although the current economy has slowed home and commercial sales,  it has not stopped our growth. That growth also affects inflation by normal laws of supply and demand. The county remains a desirable place to live, work and play, and the commercial community is playing that up by attracting more and more businesses to the area. With all of that factored into the vision of the future, we can't help but feel there is no stopping this momentum. Our county judges are being challenged with this day after day. We will have more to say about this in coming days in the Commentary.

Woodlands Election Dates Announced

The Woodlands election ballots will be composed of the village Resident Design Review Committee (RDRC) positions and village associations' positions. Each village has a separate ballot; only the positions open in that village appears on the ballot.  Generally, about half of the positions come up for election each year in each village to encourage smooth transitions from year to year. These elections will be held annually according to the by-laws of those organizations.

Section 9.06 of the "WCA Covenants, Restrictions, Easements, Charges and Liens of  The Woodlands" designates that 'Each RDRC shall hold regular meetings at least monthly and be "open" to all "Members".' This makes these meetings open to residents of the community. These elected residents act on behalf of the village to review violations and requests by residents. Requests first go through a quick process and if there are planned violations, the RDRC must get  involved. Residents are afforded a second review on appeal if they think the Design Review Committee (DSC) will or should grant their requested plan, where the RDRC has denied it. Most issues are resolved by the RDRC, but the DSC has the last word. One RDRC will consist of about 5 residents. Often it is difficult to get sufficient residents to apply for these positions, so please try to participate if you can.    

Village associations typically have a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer as officers. Additionally, there are generally representative positions to create neighborhood diversity on the elected board. So one village association will consist of 9 or 10 elected residents.

  

The Township has consolidated the Woodlands Election into one week, where we had two weeks in the past to vote.  The election schedule this year will be:

• Application for candidates - Dec 31, 2009 - Jan 21, 2010. One person may apply for more than one position. A resident can serve on both the village association and the RDRC concurrently. Application details will be found on the association's website which will be changing in the near future as final transitions are completed for the Township.  
• Early voting - there is no distinction this year between early voting and "election day". It is all at the same location, and the process is exactly the same - Feb 15-20 at the Community Associations building (across from the Methodist Church) at 2201 Lake Woodlands Drive. Just come vote one of those days. The hours will be announced later. 

It is important for residents to understand the difference between the "Woodlands Election" and the "Township election".

The Woodlands election requires only proof of residency. If a voter is over 18 and lives in the village, that person is eligible to vote in that village election. Home ownership lays no role and neither does citizenship status or voter registration.

The Township election requires full voter registration and residence. It is conducted on official government election dates at county voting locations. In May, 2010, we will be going to the polls again to elect Township directors for the remaining open positions.

Community Elections coming up soon

---

It wont be long before we need to show up at the polls again.

This time it will be for village associations and the village RDRCs. Both are important. Those elected to serve in the village associations will be engaged in more than social activities. They are often acting as an organization for resident concerns and maintaining a vigilant watch for improving the community. This coming year, they will take on a new role - one of a liaison to represent the concerns and issues of its residents to the Township board. The reverse will be true as well. They will be receiving information and guidance from the Township on village activities and issues on behalf of the residents.

Those elected to serve on RDRCs will be tasked with resident conformation to property  standards. They enforce the covenants, hopefully in a way the community approves. This is the neighbor link to enforcement of standards. All meetings of the RDRC are "open", meaning that the members cannot conduct business except by prior notification of an agenda to the public and conduct their meetings strictly according to the agenda. Residents are invited to attend each and every RDRC meeting.

Please consider participating in one of these organizations and volunteer to be elected to one of the positions available in your village. More information will be made available when January rolls around. Look for how to participate and then go to the polls when the elections are held. 

Election 2009 November 3rd

An election is coming up on November 4th or earlier if you wish to participate in early voting.  At this link, you can review the ballot²

Woodlands Propositions
 There are three proposition for The Woodlands. All three are bond proposals. As stated elsewhere on this website, I endorse all three "FOR". These are very important for our community, enabling the township to issue bonds to borrow for payment of the specific constructed assets over the lifetime of the assets being constructed.  Please refer to the articles under "References and Resources" for additional information and/or access to the township website. Page 2, second column.^{3 4 5}

Texas Constitutional Amendments
Woodlands residents will also vote on state constitutional amendments below. These are my tentative conclusions that I am sharing with all readers. However, I encourage everyone to read the resources provided and whatever else they can find that is "legitimate"  and "trusted"  to reach their own conclusions. 

Proposition 1 :"FOR".  Enabling a municipality or county to acquire land adjacent to military property, using bonds. Of course an election for each bond proposal would be required. The legislature would have to draw up the appropriate language.
Proposition 2: "FOR". Valuation of homestead residence solely on residence value, not potential commercial value. This is the fair way of property valuation. It has been a weakness in our valuation system for years. Although it will affect some  government coiffures, I believe it is about time we protect homeowners against commercial valuations, which ultimately can drive them out of their homes.
Proposition 3: "AGAINST". Uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes statewide. I do not think this is needed.  Leave valuation up the counties. There are processes for contesting valuations in our county and it should be the same for all counties. .
Proposition 4:  "FOR".  Establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund. This would enable additional universities in Texas to participate in major research and become on even par with the traditional large universities - A and M, and UT. Our state has grown well beyond being a two major university state and we should move to the 21st century with the funding of other major institutions. There will be no additional taxation. In our area alone, we expect the University of Houston to graduate to a tier one school if this amendment passes.
Proposition 5:  "FOR". Authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations. This applies to The Woodlands. We have two appraisal entities - Harris County and Montgomery County. We may want to consolidate the two for The Woodlands for consistency of valuations. It makes sense when two adjoining entities fall under the same taxation umbrella.
Proposition 6:  "FOR". Authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized. I see no reason not to do this. 
Proposition 7:  "FOR".  Allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.This is just an oversight when Texas started the guard. There is no reason to exclude any member of the guard from other civil positions.
Proposition 8: "FOR". Authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state. Many veterans have to travel many miles to get hospital care because of the size of our state and the distribution of veteran hospitals. This enable the state to assist the federal government by contributing resources to the Veterans agency.
Proposition 9: "FOR". to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The shore should be open and public. This enables that to happen. Encroachment of water from erosion and has recently caused the loss of public beach access. Beachfront homeowners wish to protect their privacy and keep the public off of what used to be "their" land. This proposition is contested based on "squatter's rights". The open beach act should prevail.
Proposition 10: "AGAINST". Elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years. Due to the nature of the services, I cannot endorse pushing someone out of control on the basis of number of years. Let that be determined by the election or appointment processes.
Proposition 11: "FOR". prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State ... Please refer to the reference on this proposition for the full text of the proposition.¹ See the opposition arguments in the reference.

Voting Information

In Texas, early voting can take place for any county-registered voter at any voting location in that county. For example, if you live in Montgomery County and are registered in Montgomery County, you can vote at any of the Montgomery County designated locations in early voting. On the day of election, each registered voter may vote only at their designated precinct location.

Early voting will take place from Monday, October 19, 2009 through Friday, October 30, 2009. Early voting will not take place on the weekends unless specified otherwise. From October 19, 2009 through October 24, 2009, early voting locations will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; from October 26, 2009 through October 28, 2009, polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and October 29, 2009 through October 30, 2009, polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Montgomery County early voting locations are:

Montgomery County Administration Annex

(Building with County Attorney & District Attorney Offices)

207 West Phillips – Conroe, Texas 77301

Malcolm Purvis Library

510 Melton Street – Magnolia, Texas 77354

South County Community Building

2235 Lake Robbins Drive – The Woodlands, Texas 77380

North Montgomery County Community Center

600 Gerald Street – Willis, Texas 77378

East County Courthouse Annex

21130 U.S. Highway 59 South – New Caney, Texas 77357

West Montgomery County Annex

19380 Hwy 105 West – Montgomery, Texas 77356

The Harris County early voting polling location will be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Harris County early voting location is:

134 W. Crystal Canyon Circle – The Woodlands, Texas 77389

On Election Day, there will be nine consolidated Montgomery County polling locations in The Woodlands Township and one location in Harris County for the Village of Creekside Park. The polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The polling places are:

Precincts 69, 76, 81 - Mitchell Intermediate, 6800 Alden Bridge Drive

Precincts 58, 59, 70 - Bear Branch Recreation Center, 5310 Research Forest Drive

Precincts 56, 75  - Windsor Hills Clubhouse, One Windsor Hills Circle

Precincts 71, 78 - Buckalew Elementary, 4904 W. Alden Bridge Drive

Precincts 3, 61 - The Woodlands High School Ninth Grade Campus, 10010 Branch Crossing Drive

Precincts 31, 62 - Collins Intermediate, 6020 Shadowbend Place

Precincts 4, 48, 49 - Copperwood Apartments, 4407 S. Panther Creek Drive

Precincts 33, 67, 84 - Lamar Elementary, 1300 Many Pines Road

Precincts 32, 45, 79 - Wilkerson Intermediate, 12312 Sawmill Road

Harris County - Creekside Forest Elementary School, 5949 Creekside Forest

References and Resources

¹ Analysis of Proposed Constitutional Amendments by the Texas Legislative Council
² Example Ballot
³Township Bond Election Brochure
⁴ Woodlands Commentary Bond Update
⁵ Woodlands Commentary Bond Endorsement 
⁶Texas Online Voting Central - Texas Registration database 
⁷Tommy Willams Guide to Constitutional Amendments

---

Woodlands Township 2010 Budget Public Hearings

---

As we take each step towards the first budget for the township, more residents are waking up to the opportunity to influence the outcome. Last night, the public hearing at The Woodlands Emergency Center proved to be a more informed, more aware, less emotional group than the previous town hall meeting on the same subject. Assimilation of the budget by more residents is producing more interest by people without political agendas, such as incorporation. To some people incorporation is the solution to all issues, but ask those who live in cities and see what they say. When the time is appropriate, we will consider incorporation, bringing to the table the pros and cons of following that path. One person at the meeting last night even volunteered to go to the City of Houston and renegotiate the agreement with that city to incorporate The Woodlands before 2014. This is supposed to fix our "policing problem".

In all reality, we do not have such a problem. The Woodlands is a safe place, but it is now an urban community that will have crime regardless if it is a city or not.

So putting the political aspect aside and just looking at the issues of the budget, many of the residents and board members are taking a fresh look at it. Don Norrell presented a fresh view of the same budget but this time had an alternative financial proposal that was discussed with the Sheriff's office. It is doable and in my opinion, the preferred alternative. I believe The Woodlands as a whole welcomes the redistricting proposal and wishes to act independently from the county which has significant budget issues this year and probably next year as well, limiting what we can do. That is, I believe we want to get on with it and fund what is required so that we have our own district with supplemental contracted deputies in 2010, not wait until 2011 and not have a phased approach to reach that vision. One of the suggestions in Mr. Norrell's alternative is to discontinue the patrol contracts with Shenandoah and Oak Ridge. Instead, use those ($0.5mm) funds for the extra $1.5mm dollars required to implement the project at the beginning of 2010. It was suggested that the remaining funds come from other undetermined projects that would be deferred by one year.

The trend of thought seems to cap the budget as it has been proposed, at 32.8 cents per $100 evaluation. It appears that the board asked to keep it there. That is a reasonable approach to me but we should be conscious of the public view of the budget and make adjustments to mitigate their (our) concerns.

The other project which needs adjustment is the Indian Springs fire station. Indian Springs is a mature village, now completed for quite some time. Many of the homes in the village were built in the 1990's. For five years, the plan has been to build a fire station for the village in 2010. That seemed like eternity as residents watched the service continuously decay as the traffic increased on Gosling and The Woodlands Parkway. The eastern side is served by station #2 at Research Forest and Gosling, so the trucks must deal with the congestion to reach the village. The response averages about 8 minutes. The maximum average of most fire fighting units is 5 minutes, that recommended by the insurance standards board (ISO). The current ISV level is not acceptable. In the proposed budget, the station is scheduled to be built in 2011. That means the village station remains in the long range plan. Another way to look at it is: the station has been delayed in favor of one in a developing village. Since the budget item has been scheduled by the WCA for years, the transition agreement has faulted on a critical service level. Therefore, we see this as a problem related to the 2010 transition to a new government. We would likely have a fire station in 2010 since the WCA and TWA acted independently on their projects. Last night, I was there to represent the concerns of Rush Haven residents. There were also residents from Trace Creek subdivision who have a similar service response. They also are concerned along with the entire ISV village board.

Personally, I was pleased to at least see the township board receiving and considering resident concerns. More than that, I was pleased to see the president of the Township working the residents' issues. That gives us all some hope and tells us that it is worthwhile to attend and provide our opinions and input to the board. I thank the chair person, Mrs Nelda Blair for being very patient with everyone. A great deal of passion was expressed, whether just perception or real, about the service levels of policing and the priorities in the budget.

Hopefully the board will realign budget priorities to meet the expressed needs of the community.

Budget Police Proposal 2010

---

The new policing plan proposal of the Township will provide consolidated service for the entire community. It appears to be a cost effective program and accomplishes the goal to merge all resources into one package. Let me start by saying I endorse the proposal, because while reading this article, one might think otherwise. I do question if the proposed operating unit is sized properly. My focus is on the metrics and doing the right thing for the right goal. This proposal adds 0.9 cents to the budget. What is a $200,000 homeowner asked to pay for this service? I choose to use a $200,000 assessment because it is easily scalable - only $18 per year or $1.50 per month. I can see some political or psychological value of the proposal and logical value to the community, but am not convinced that we actually need the number of deputies in the proposal. People respond, “Can’t you see all the crime here?” I do not take a position because of the media, nor out of reaction to a short-term problem. Managing a business has been a long-term task for me. I’ve been here many years and talked to many people about the police manpower in this community. Personally, I do not like to invest in intangibles unless there is measurable value to them. Why would anyone do so when they can invest in tangibles, which have cumulative and long lasting value? So I will outline the plan, as I understand it, and outline what little portion of it that bothers me. Basically, I am concerned about the derivation of the proposal.

The proposed plan is to reorganize the Montgomery County law enforcement districts such that The Woodlands becomes its own district. Currently it is part of the large district 2. Having our own district, limits the trips outside of our area, except in dire situations. It makes the reporting easier and customization of services easier. What is more important is that it provides a captain over the Township, commanding the force – a single point contact accountable for costs, services and processes used for enforcement, directly reporting to the Sheriff and the Township, managing the personnel issues, and performing the reporting and administrative functions. District 2 is funded by the county and provides proportional police service to us because of our percentage of population in the county. In this plan, the workforce assigned to us from District 2 would be merged into the current Woodlands deputy force funded by the Township, forming one operational entity. We have known for some time that the merger has an opportunity to consolidate the resident patrols with the Town Center patrols. So we put all of this into one pot and call it The Woodlands District. This will enable an organization that essentially performs like a police force for a municipality. It conforms to the processes of the county, but it is flexible enough to tend to the needs of the community. Additionally, we pay for the cooperative policing in the I45 corridor with Shenandoah and Oak Ridge. That is an additional and debatable cost being phased out in the plan over the next two years. In the new plan, we would grow our contracted deputy staff by 27%. I have not yet seen all the details of the proposed Woodlands District plan, but the million-dollar price tag is staggering, and therefore my concern for metrics behind the proposal. I am certainly not alone in this, as I have had a few people express their similar concerns. It is still early in the budget process. I hope to hear from more of you on this and other issues.

Since we cannot execute the full plan in 2010 due to the county being under economic constraints, funds to hire the additional deputies to execute this plan are not available. In the first part of the two-year plan, 2010 would be a transition year, adding a patrol for the village centers. So you see, this will be part of the long term solution as well. Part of our taxes will go to commercial use, guarding businesses (and shoppers) in the village centers and their immediate surrounding area, perhaps snagging a bank robber or two near or in the centers. I see recent robberies playing a role here, even though the banks have elected to have insurance policies instead of guards. Currently, normal resident deputies serve the centers. So theoretically they would be more available to respond to resident calls or traffic issues, and the new deputies would provide a specialized service to all the commercial centers outside of Town Center. The cost for this part of the plan is $360,000, or 1/3 of the total. Commercial patrols would be divided into two zones. The north would serve Alden Bridge, Cochran's Crossing, Windvale and College Park. The south zone would serve Grogan's Mill, Panther Creek, Indian Springs, Walmart/2978, and Sterling Ridge. Coverage would be 80 hours per week by one officer in each zone.¹

Emotions are running high with some people in The Woodlands as a result of the number of bank robberies and other crimes, but we need just plain common sense to prevail. What alternatives were rejected in this proposal? It seems no one yet is presenting how we got here. This budget project proposal sounds good on the surface, but the details and history will tell the full story. I have not seen any metrics yet that drive the proposal nor have I seen metrics that tell us how many deputies we should have for the size of community we have and based on the workload of this force. For example, we need quick response when we call 911 and fairly quick response sometimes even when we call the non-emergency number. One stated goal of the project is to improve response. What is the current response? What do we need it to be? What can we expect different with the service level in the new plan? Those numbers are not (yet) published. What is the number of officers we have out on the streets on an average? I would think we should know the equivalent people on the streets for each given hour. (FTE patrolling). Accountability to operational metrics might also include a diversity of street presence. Instead, I see the metrics of the criminals. How many robberies, how many thefts, etc etc. Maybe one can staff based on the number of reported crimes, but that is not really a good way to staff, is it? The criminals, not the police force, determine that metric. That makes the criminals the drivers of our taxes. One can argue that the number of cars present will deter crime. I am betting that it would make little difference. One can call the number of crime incidents “the workload”, and it is just that to some extent, but it is certainly not clear that we have a handle on the number of officers needed for our community. Maybe the plan has too few, maybe too many. Metrics should be able to guide us through decisions that can be measured for effectiveness.

I know this could be considered a controversial article. It is intended to bring some resident issues to the table to stimulate thought. I know there are other residents here who have the same value system as I do, although they may have bigger pocket books than I. All good big capital project managers have value-driven metrics. Operational managers too will tell you they need meaningful metrics to make meaningful decisions. So when someone wants to spend our money on additional police, I have to ask, what will that money do for us and how was that number derived? Someone might say it buys you protection. I don’t think so. Read everything you can about policing and find out where the police have actually protected someone in neighborhoods. They are not guards, as we employ them. They are responders to help people when called. Then and only then do they normally provide something of measurable value.

We asked for additional law enforcement a few years back because we had serious issues on our streets. Several residents were killed in car accidents. Who is responsible for improving accidental death statistics on the roads? Injuries still occur. Maybe the additional staffing has had no effect, and we have just been lucky. We remain with many drivers doing crazy things on our roads. If we are going to throw dollars at the problem, let's do it cautiously with measurable results. Perhaps the biggest impact is to go door to door and get people to seek change in the community - to lock their doors. The Sheriff's office has told us over and again the same story - residents are contributing heavily to the crime problem.

We don’t have local ordinances to enforce. Local ordinances generate additional work. Our police work is standard for the laws of the county and state. Having higher police visibility is also a goal of this project program. I am not sure how to measure that and am wondering if it should even be a goal. Police presence in a neighborhood is negative to some people. In my opinion, the best deterrent in not presence but reputation. If our police force has a reputation of being johnny-on-the-spot and likely to apprehend anyone committing a crime here, that will deter criminals. If residents have a front line of defense and are known to not be easy picking, then that will deter criminals as well. I see those as two focus points for effectiveness. Newspapers advertise our crime. Maybe we should counter advertise with our successes.

I am sort of questioning the necessity of this project based on what not has been presented. The goals and metrics are not well defined publicly. I have been questioning it for the past year. It seems to me that we need to look at efficiency. This may only be a communication issue, but no metrics have been presented. How many deputies are in the office vs. on the street? How spread out are the deputies in the community? Do they have sufficient backup? What is their response time to emergency calls or those that that need immediate attention? How many false alarms are they servicing or missing? How long are they at a crime site? Metrics have not been used to present the case for the project. How many deputies are enough? What can we do to free the deputies up? Doing an efficiency and work process study could save us millions over the next five years. I don't think we have done that over the past 3 years, since we switched to the Sheriff's services. We continue to use the original study. Since then, our experience with policing this community has grown in size and complexity. If we take my neighborhood as an example, my neighbors can testify to their current level of service. But how about system-wide? My neighborhood has generally received acceptable police response to emergencies and non-emergencies. In contrast, our fire response has not been acceptable, yet our service level will probably remain the same until 2012 in this budget plan. That is measured and published. True, we are not having major fires here (yet) to raise our level of concern like the crime incidents that we read about in the newspaper.

What can we do to help reduce the number of police required and make our force more cost effective? There are several views to this. The statistics that people use now to show the crime rate has a mixture of what I call “forced crime” where the criminal breaks the law no matter the obstructions or difficulties and “accommodated crime” where the criminal breaks the law with no obstructions, or basically where the community or homeowner allows the crime to easily occur. We are told that the bulk of our crime is the latter case, committed by young people, who live here or in nearby communities, seeking easy fast targets so they are not detected. Their goal is to move quickly and get what they can as fast as they can and perhaps even use a stolen car (probably not locked) so that their identity is unknown. So the way I see it, if we are indeed driven by the number of incidents for staffing our police force, we who take precautions are paying for someone else’s negligence. Residents and businesses and the community have an obligation to protect their assets with alarms and locks. I do. Why can’t others? Some people say we need more presence on the streets. I say that would help just a little. Apprehension is the key to success, but if you look at when residents typically report an incident, it is too late to apprehend the criminal. A swarm of police at the time of the incident helps the apprehension process significantly. Otherwise, the incident becomes a report, not an engagement and an unlikely apprehension. The first line of defense is not the police but the resident, the storekeeper and store owner, and the community. They are the first responders; they are the eyes of the community. That will be the case no matter how many officers we have on contract (or employed for that matter, if that was an option). If they are not reporting the incident while it is happening, it is often too late to do much about it.

Why don’t we advocate conservative approaches in our governing body as it transitions to a consolidated entity? Maybe the first year we could have another look at the concepts behind our policing strategies. We need to lower our taxes if we can, but more importantly, we need to be right sized in police force and we need service levels based on the right measurements. If we have to, and it can be rightly justified, then we have to reorganize and deploy more officers on the streets. I just do not see yet that we have to fund this size of a police force. Is it too large or too small or just right? If we don't know that, we don't know the budget. Given the appropriate numbers to drive staffing levels, we could be convinced we need this exact number of deputies and administrative staff, but establishing a tax levy for this is simply does not seem right, given the current information available and economic climate. Maybe all of this has already been considered. I asked if efficiencies were considered and board member took notes, but maybe a better question would have been “what were the rejected alternatives to this proposal?”

Asking a few residents in our neighborhood how they feel about this, the response has been positive but conditional. One person responded: "There has been a lot of money wasted in the associations and it just continues. This would be more important than some of those expenses." Another said, "I would not mind paying the additional cost as long as it produces notable results." Asked if police response to recent calls has been satisfactory, the reply has been overwhelmingly "yes" from those who have needed and used the service with one exception. A resident noted that the response was good, the apprehension occurred, but the law breaker was released. "If the law is not enforced, why should I pay for law enforcement?"

In general, I am for right-sizing tax assessments to fit the needs of the community. Expectations are different among residents. Some have a 30-cent mentality, others a 32-cent expectation and still others a 34-cent expectation. Many people would like to drive down the cost of living here. Almost everyone I talk to wants to be taxed on need, not want or false perception. The desire for responsible and transparent spending is the trend of thought from about everyone I speak to. Personally, I want to see excellence here and live in a safe place. I do not believe it is possible to keep crooks out. It is possible to protect ourselves and get excellent response from law enforcement officials when we need it. Maybe we already have sufficient response. Perhaps an education program and resident participation program should be part of the budget. Yes, we have the awareness program, but it needs a tune-up. I believe it is a weak program needing a complete overhaul.

As you are probably aware, this program is one of four that raises the tax rate from an operational base of 25.3 to 32.8 cents per $100. The policing project costs $2mm over two years or 0.9 cents per $100. The table below from the presentation in the town hall meeting demonstrates the major add-on costs in the budget best. I have added tax payer dollars to it.

Program	Tax  in cents/$100 assessment	Tax for $200,000 home
Base Operations and debt - current service level	23.5	$470
New Police program	0.9	$18
Existing major capital projects on books (ISV fire station , Creekside station) plus replace Central Station	3.1	$62
Other capital projects - New parks and pathways - Village of Creekside Park and new developments	3.5	$70
Total	32.8	$756

Resources
¹ Public Security Plan by Vice President of Operations & Public Safety - Steve Sumner
²Township Budget Initiatives, page 2