Summary Notes - Neighborhoods Committee - July 2008

Summary Notes
Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board
Neighborhoods Committee
July 21, 2008 7:00 pm – Silver Spring Regional Services Center

Visit the Neighborhoods Committee Blog at www.SilverSpringNeighborhoods.blogspot.com

Attending: Alan Bowser, Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board; Megan Moriarty, Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board; Chris Richardson, Park Hills Civic Association; Luther Hinsley, Avery Park Apartments Community Association; Maura Lynch, Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office; Mary Kendall, CSAFE; Lt. Robert McCullagh, Montgomery County Police Department; George French, Silver Spring Historical Society; Jennifer Nettles, Downtown Silver Spring; Jim Zepp, North Four Corners Civic Association; Karen Roper, East Silver Spring Citizens Association; Lisa Dubay, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health; Mike Meno, The Gazette; Assistant Chief Scott Graham, Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service; Seth Grimes, Old Takoma Resident’s Association, and Mel Tull, Silver Spring Regional Center.

Report on July Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board Meeting and June Neighborhoods Committee Meeting. Alan Bowser reviewed the Neighborhoods Committee’s June meeting and the full Board’s July meeting. At the full Board meeting, proposed County Council testimony regarding additional funding for the Silver Spring Transit Center, and Silver Civic Building and Veterans Plaza; and the Board’s retreat follow up were discussed. A Fenton Village community planning meeting is planned for October 2008, organized by the Board’s CED Committee. The text of the Board's remarks to the County Council on the Civic Building, Veterans Plaza and Transit Center are included as an annex to these minutes.

At the June Neighborhoods Committee meeting, Kathlin Smith, Becky Reeve and Linda Siegenthaler briefed the Committee on the plans and the discussions that had taken place with regard to a new Silver Spring Library to be located at the corner of Wayne Avenue and Fenton Street. Montgomery County will organize a “charrette” for community input into the design of the library site in early Fall 2008. The County Library Department will convene three public meetings, possibly in July, August, and September, to solicit community input for a revised Program of Requirements for the new library

July Public Safety Update. Lt. Bob McCullagh, 3rd District, MCPD, briefed the Committee on recent public safety developments in Silver Spring. He made the following observations:

--Unidentified body found in Sligo Creek Park; investigation continuing.
--Increased attention to public safety issues in Downtown Silver Spring.
--Robberies continued to be significant in Silver Spring.
--3rd District MCPD had made several important arrests recently.

The Committee asked questions about pubic safety issues in Downtown Silver Spring, East Silver Spring, South Silver Spring and in the Northwest Oakview Weed & Seed area.

Alan Bowser reported that the National Night Out observance will be held on August 5, 2008. Next year, after twenty five years, the National Night Out will be held in the month of September.

A statement from MCPD 3rd District Commander Donald Johnson regarding public safety in Silver Spring is attached to these minutes.

Report on the Weed & Seed Program. Alan Bowser, on behalf of Martha Waddy, presented a report on recent developments related to the Northwest Park Oakview Weed & Seed program. Her summary of Weed & Seed area developments is attached to these minutes.

Montgomery County Emergency Vehicle Transport Fee. Asst. Chief Scott Graham, Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service provided information on the proposed Emergency Vehicle Transport Fee. This information is included as an annex to these minutes.

Committee members asked questions about the fee, particularly with respect to possible impact on calls for service, increased insurance fees, effect on volunteer fundraising, alternatives, and procurement of new equipment.

Community Prosecution in Silver Spring. Maura Lynch, Assistant State’s Attorney, Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office discussed community prosecution issues in Silver Spring. For years, experts in law enforcement have recognized the benefits of "community policing" in reducing the incidence of crime and improving the quality of life for residents. Community Prosecution, as an approach to law enforcement, has several similar objectives: to implement a proactive, problem-solving approach to crime; to create new and lasting partnerships with the community in order to improve quality of life; to improve the Office's relationship and partnership with law enforcement and public and private agencies; and, as a result of these new partnerships, to enhance the Office prosecutorial function. Prosecutors have recognized the important position their Office can have in complementing police partnerships with the community in order to better address the needs of the community.

Throughout Montgomery County, Community Prosecution brings together geographically organized teams of Assistant State's Attorneys (ASA's), Community Outreach Specialists and other support personnel who share responsibility for the prosecution of crimes committed within each of Montgomery County's police districts.

Senior ASA's are assigned to each of the Montgomery County police districts and share responsibility for screening cases of community impact in that district. Senior ASA's are present at the police district stations on a regular basis and assist police with investigations, warrant preparation, and roll call training. They also attend community meetings and handle quality of life issues that arise within their particular police districts.

The familiarity of each ASA with his or her police district make State’s Attorneys Office better able to gather intelligence and determine the persons responsible for crimes in that area. ASA's also connect with the community within their assigned area in order to stay abreast of the problems occurring there and to better address concerns of the citizens. Our Community Prosecution Unit works closely with schools, businesses, religious institutions, and other community groups to address and impact crime before it occurs.

The prosecutors that are chosen to be on the community prosecution team are hand picked by State's attorney John McCarthy because of their abilities not only as trial attorneys but also their skills in working closely with citizens, schools, business, community groups, religious institutions, and neighborhood watch groups.

One of the goals is to identify problem areas and issues and allocate the necessary resources to them. Prior to the creation of community prosecution the normal daily routine of the prosecutor was to receive cases and react to them. With the creation of Community Prosecution the prosecutor is to "think outside of the box" and will be proactive rather than reactive.

In Silver Spring, Assistant State’s Attorney Maura Lynch can be contacted at Maura.Lynch@montgomerycountymd.gov or 240-777-7380.

Takoma Park – Silver Spring Issues. Seth Grimes, President, Old Takoma Residents Association and Chair, Safe Takoma, discussed a range of Takoma Park – Silver Spring issues.

Historic Preservation Update. Alan Bowser reported that the Montgomery County Planning Board considered historic designation of the Falklands Apartment at its July 10th meeting. A final decision is expected in Fall 2008. A developer has proposed the demolition of the portion of the Falklands apartments located north of East-West Highway and the construction of new high-rise residential buildings with ground floor retail. The 8.99 acre property is zoned CBD-R1. The new project would include approximately 1,010 new apartments and 60,000 square feet of retail uses, including a new grocery store. The Falklands are listed on the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites (Resource #36-12). A decision must be made about whether or not to designate this site on the Master Plan for Historic Preservation prior to any redevelopment. The Silver Spring Historical Society website is located at http://silverspringhistory.homestead.com/

Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm.

Next Meeting. There will be no August meeting of the Neighborhoods Committee.

The next meeting will be held on Monday, September 15, 2008.

Visit the Neighborhoods Committee Blog at www.SilverSpringNeighborhoods.blogspot.com

Subscribe to the blog at http://silverspringneighborhoods.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

_____________________________________________________

The Northwest Park Oakview Weed and Seed (NPOWS)
Activities Update to the Silver Spring Citizen’s Advisory Board
Neighborhood Committee
July 21, 2008
Submitted by: Martha Waddy, Steering Committee Member

A. WEEDING ACTIVITES

I. Law Enforcement

1. Montgomery County Police: There have been a total of 324 incidents of crime reported on the Montgomery County side of the Weed & Seed Area from January 5, 2008 through June 30, 2008 Summarized by crimereports.com as follows:

10 Alarms 57 Quality of Life/Disorderly 1 Sex Offense – Other 1 Weapon
4 Assault w/Deadly Weapons 4 Quality of Life/Liquor 2 Sex Offense - Rape
39 Assaults 8 Quality of Life/Narcotics/Drugs 10 Thefts
4 Breaking & Entering 1 Quality of Life/Traffic 76 Traffic
24 Burglaries 11 Robberies 47 Vehicle Burglaries
2 Deaths 1 Sex Offense – Assault 22 Vehicle Thefts

2. During the month of June there were a total of 66 incidents of crime reported in the Weed & Seed area. The Oakview Community led all communities in crime followed by Avery Park and Northwest Park Communities.

3. During the month of June, Vehicle Burglaries were the most reported crime with Northwest Park and Avery Park reporting 4 incidents each.

4. Weed & Seed Police Details have been scheduled. Residents at Avery Park have reported their presence in their community.

5. Montgomery County Police have initiated warrant sweeps in the area.

II. Community Policing

1. Weed & Seed, State’s Attorney’s Office, Montgomery County Police, supported the following community meetings:

1. The Northwest Park Community Meeting on July 11, 2008.

2. Weed & Seed has been working with the Hampton’s Homeowners Association addressing recent burglaries that have occurred in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.

B. SEEDING ACTIVIES
III. Prevention/Intervention/Treatment
1. The Truancy Prevention Initiative led by CSAFE is currently developing our strategy to continue to serve Middle School Youth during the 2008-2009 school year.

2. The YMCA Community Center at Northwest Park Apartments currently serves as the Weed & Seed Safe Haven. Field trips and other summer activities have been scheduled with youth in the area. Additionally, Case Management services are being provided to local residents by the center partially funded by Weed & Seed.

3. Weed & Seed is assisting Impact Silver Spring in the recruitment of area residents to participate in its next Neighborhood Impact class.

IV. Neighborhood Restoration

1. The Broad Acres Park Renovation continues to make progress. Parks & Planning in collaboration with Broad Acres Elementary School has completed tile art work that will be installed in the plaza section of the park. The State’s Attorneys Office and Montgomery County Police are reviewing the artwork to insure no gang symbols have inserted into the artwork.

2. Parks & Planning has announced that the Broad Acres Park Renovation construction timeline has again been delayed due to the awarded contract going through the legal department.

3. The Nuisance Abatement Task Force continues to receive complaints. A red Papusa truck has been operating in the open. Residents have been complaining about customers sitting on lawns loitering and eating food. Montgomery County Police has been ticketing the truck on a regular basis for failure to operate with appropriate licensure.



_____________________________________________________
WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TRANSPORT (EMST) FEE?

The EMST Fee will be charged electronically to heath insurance companies of County and non-County residents who are transported to County hospitals by the Montgomery County Fire & Rescue Service (MCFRS). The net proceeds of the EMST Fee will go entirely to strengthening and improving fire and emergency services in Montgomery County. The imposition of the fee will not affect access to the excellent services now provided by MCFRS – except insofar as it strengthens those services by directing more resources to those needs.

Will I see any difference in Montgomery County EMS service?

No. MCFRS will continue to provide the very best service to any individual in need regardless of ability to pay – just the way it’s always worked.

Who pays the fee?

The health insurance companies of County residents and non-County residents. County residents with health insurance will not be responsible for co-pays or deductibles. County residents without health insurance will not be charged. Non-County residents with health insurance may be responsible for co-pays and deductibles, depending on their policies. Non-County residents without health insurance will receive a bill, along with a request to waive the fees under hardship guidelines.

Why is the fee necessary?

The demand for EMS response has been growing significantly for the past several years as the County has grown, especially in the Upcounty area. To respond to these service demands, improve response time, and enhance firefighter/rescuer officer safety, several enhancements have been initiated within MCFRS and will require additional resources in the future including:
• Implementing four-person staffing.
• Opening four new stations in the Upcounty area.
• Implementing an Apparatus Management Plan that will replace, upgrade and modernize apparatus, and provide additional maintenance staff, supplies, and maintenance facilities.
• Implementing the State required Electronic Patient Care Reporting (e-PCR) System. On December 31, 2008, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems will discontinue paper reporting. Currently MCFRS utilizes this method. MCFRS must quickly implement on a fast track, an e-PCR program in order to meet State of Maryland requirements as well as be fully capable of complete revenue recovery.
• Expanding the number of officers consistent with supervisory and work hour requirements which will result in a reduction to overtime.
• Supporting Local Fire and Rescue Departments (LFRDs) by funding on-going station maintenance and other needs.
• Maintaining high levels of service to all parts of the County.

Also a factor is the pressure on County government budgets caused by economic uncertainty, declining housing markets, the state of Maryland’s budget crisis, and other factors. This has caused program reductions and increased property taxes. Clearly, a new revenue source dedicated to MCFRS would help ensure that fire and rescue services are adequately funded in the future.

Where will the money raised by the EMST Fee go?

100 percent of the net proceeds of the EMST Fee will go to strengthen and enhance the MCFRS. By law, they will be dedicated to that purpose and cannot be used for anything else.

Will there be co-pays and deductibles?

No, not for County residents. Non-County residents may be responsible for co-pays and deductibles, depending on their policies.

Do other area governments have an EMST Fee?

Nearly all of our neighboring jurisdictions either have an EMST Fee or are moving to implement one. These jurisdictions include Fairfax County, Frederick County, Prince George’s County, the District of Columbia, Arlington County, and the city of Alexandria. Anne Arundel County is in the process of initializing fee.

How about local governments in other parts of the United States?

The 200 City Survey in the 2006 Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS) reported that, across the U.S., an average of 61% of EMS system funding comes from user fees.

Will this fee deter people from calling 911 for ambulance service?

There is no evidence from jurisdictions that have successfully implemented this fee that it deters anyone from calling for needed emergency medical transport assistance.

Will this fee cause health insurance rates to increase?

There is no documented evidence that ambulance bills affect underwriting of risks for insurance premiums. Ambulance bills are in the “hundreds” of dollars, compared to hospital, physician, surgeon, rehab, device, and drug bills, which are typically in the “thousands and tens of thousands.” Ambulance expenditures account for less than 1% of insurance expenditures. Since most insurance companies determine rates on a regional basis – and most jurisdictions in the region bill insurance companies for this charge -- in most cases County residents may already be paying for ambulance service as a part of their premiums.

What charges will be billed to insurance companies?

Insurance carriers would be billed at the following rates, depending on the level of services necessary:

Basic Life Support – Non-emergency* $300.00
Basic Life Support – Emergency* $400.00
Advanced Life Support – Level 1 – Non-Emergency* $350.00
Advanced Life Support – Level 1 – Emergency* $500.00
Advance Life Support – Level 2* $700.00
Specialty Care Transport* $800.00

* The terms in the schedule are as defined in 42 CFR Parts 410 and 414.
In addition, insurance companies would be billed $7.50 per mile on emergency transports, a standard charge for most implementing jurisdictions.

If the EMS call does not result in transport to a hospital, the health insurance carrier or the non-County resident without insurance would not be billed for anything.

According to the 2006 JEMS “200 City Survey,” here are average charges in the 200 largest cities in the U.S.

Average Charges for Transport Providers
Average Governmental Non-Governmental
BLS Non-Emergency $396.26 $375.91 $411.52
BLS Emergency $473.02 $457.92 $492.94
ALS Non-Emergency $548.04 $514.50 $574.87
ALS 1 Emergency $625.68 $573.09 $700.52
ALS 2 Emergency $711.42 $639.58 $802.85

What if my health insurance plan only pays a certain amount for ambulance services or refuses to pay? Will I have to pay the balance?

The County will accept whatever payment the insurance company has established as “payment in full.” County residents will not be responsible for any co-pays or deductibles. Non-County residents will be responsible for any applicable co-pays or deductibles.

The single biggest payor for these services is Medicare. If coverage requirements are met Medicare has no discretion to deny claims. Heath insurance companies are required by law to pay covered services, of which ambulance services is one. Any question about any Medicare or insurance company payment would be handled by the third-party vendor and would not involve the covered individual.

How will this fee affect Local Fire & Rescue Departments (“Volunteer Companies”)?

Local Fire & Rescue Departments would deliver services just as they do now, the only difference being the entry of a code into the electronic tracking system to enable the contracted billing agent to process insurance company payments or, in the case of non-County residents without insurance, to bill for the service, with accompanying information about hardship waivers.

The County has discussed with Local Fire & Rescue Departments possible revenue sharing, as well as potential opportunities to offset any unexpected reductions in their local fundraising that might conceivably result from the implementation of an EMST fee – although there is no evidence in other jurisdictions of a drop-off in donations owing to the implementation of an EMST Fee.

How will the billing to insurance companies work?

Data will be entered by EMS personnel in the Electronic Patient Reporting System, which will be required by the State – independent of any EMST Fee – starting December 31, 2008. Paper reporting, currently used by MCFRS, will no longer be accepted. That information will be examined by the third-party vendor responsible for billing health insurance companies and non-County residents without insurance.

What will be the start-up costs for this program? What will be the ongoing expenses?

The County is projecting about $700,000 in start-up costs for the first half year, half of which is the 5 percent of proceeds payment to the third-party billing vendor. Once the program is up and running, the overhead costs are estimated at 13-14 percent of total revenue – again, including the five percent going to the third-party billing vendor.

Will there be efforts to educate County residents about how the system works – and how no County residents will pay out-of-pocket?

While there is no evidence from any of these jurisdictions that adoption of an EMST fee has resulted in any diminution of calls for 911 emergency transport or any reluctance of residents to call for needed services due to a misunderstanding that they might incur a fee, a solid campaign of public outreach and education just makes good sense. Such a campaign would begin several months before the program actually began and extend several months afterward.

_____________________________________________________
MESSAGE FROM 3RD DISTRICT COMMANDER DONALD JOHNSON RE PUBLIC SAFETY IN SILVER SPRING

From: Johnson, Donald
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:59 PM
To: 'Alan Bowser'; Stith, Gary; Macias, Amparo
Cc: Burnett, Eric
Subject: FW: cbd

All,

Recently I have received numerous correspondences relating to the condition of the Silver Spring Central Business District (CBD) and specifically the area on and near Ellsworth Dr. I would like to take an opportunity to discuss these concerns, review some statistics, and explain the actions that the police department has taken and will take in the future. Lt. Eric Burnett is one of the Deputy Commanders at the Third District and has responsibility for the CBD and surrounding area. Lt. Burnett and I meet and discuss issues related to the CBD on a daily basis.

The substance of the complaints is the “rowdy” behavior, large crowds, and associated criminal activity. Much of the rowdy behavior described involves the indiscriminate use of profanity which certainly takes away from the family atmosphere that everyone would like to see exist. While I am certainly opposed to the use of profanity, it is rarely illegal. We can instruct individuals not to use such language, but in general, we cannot take any enforcement action. I have instructed my officers that when they witness this behavior to engage the individuals and instruct them that their behavior is not appropriate. The same holds true for the large crowds that will often gather; that in and of itself is not a crime. Also, most of the area of Ellsworth Drive is private property owned by the Peterson Group. Lt. Burnett communicates and meets with the Peterson Group on a regular basis to discuss issues that arise.

Here is a breakdown of the crime statistics year to date when compared the same time frame in 2007.

2007 2008
Robberies 35 44
Aggravated Assaults 12 9
Residential Burglaries 35 28
Commercial Burglaries 45 26
Vehicle related theft 108 156
Auto theft 106 45
Drug arrests 102 117

In reviewing these numbers you can see that there are some increases and decreases as well. While I am not suggesting that we should tolerate any level of crime, overall there has not been a drastic increase. Of these trends, the most disturbing trend that we have seen in the increase in robberies. This is a crime where a victim is accosted and their property is removed by force or threat of force. The other significant increase is the vehicle related thefts. This is part of a station, county and regional trend. There have been significant decreases in residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and auto thefts.

I know there is a high level of concern that police patrols in the area have decreased. Let me assure you that they have not. When the budget cuts were announced we did have to cancel the “Ellsworth detail”. This detail was designed to put two extra officers in the Ellsworth area on Friday and Saturday nights. When the detail was cancelled we developed a plan to use officers from other sectors to provide extra patrol and use officers that were assigned to other duties at that time. In addition, we have been able to utilize the Police Community Action Team. This is a group of approximately six to eight officers who will go into an area and make an impact. These officers have been given specific instruction to be visible in the Ellsworth area and while they are not exclusively assigned there, they have made an impact. Last week members of this team made an arrest of two suspects in a stolen car who were armed with a handgun. In addition, the Third District Special Assignment Team has dedicated the majority of their time to the CBD. This team is a group of officers that patrol in undercover cars and plain clothes. You will not notice them as police officers, but they are out there. This team specifically looks for street crimes and robbery is on the top of their list. On Monday of this week the team arrested six subjects for robbery. The subjects were observed by the team in the CBD. Since the arrests, the suspects have admitted to numerous other robberies in the CBD and it is believed that they were a significant part of the robbery increase. We will continue to have both teams focus in the CBD, and in addition we will be restarting the Ellsworth overtime detail next week.

The other major increase in crimes is vehicle related thefts. As I stated earlier, this increase has been seen throughout the district and is prevalent both county and region wide. District wide we have experienced a 36% increase year to date compared to 2007. In the CBD, there are literally thousands of cars parked at any given time. Suspects have a wide variety to choose from and for the most part they will target unlocked cars and where valuables are left in plain view. This is why we strongly encourage everyone to make it difficult on these criminals by securing valuables and locking cars. I am by no means indicating that these criminals are not responsible for their own actions; I am simply stating that when there is an abundance of easy targets-criminal activity will remain active. Here again, we have made significant arrests. The midnight shifts will routinely patrol target rich areas to capture these offenders. In addition, we really need your help to report all crimes and suspicious activities. I have attached an informational brochure which I would like you to review and circulate.

In closing I would like to convey to you that I am committed to making the entire Third District as safe as possible. While we will never be rid of crime, I will also never be willing to accept any level of criminal activity. I am most definitely aware of the efforts that have been made in the CBD and completely support all that has been done to revitalize the area. I know what the condition of the CBD has been in the past and will not allow all the efforts that have been put forth to go to waste. I have to constantly juggle my resources throughout the district and priorities where to devote personnel. I can tell you that the CBD has the highest concentration patrol officers in the district and probably in the county. Lieutenant Eric Burnett shares my same concerns as well. Recently, he has been devoting a tremendous amount of effort into investigating a commercial establishment that has been problematic. Again, his efforts are being done to keep you safe and improve the image of the CBD.

It is my pleasure to serve as the district commander for Silver Spring and I take this responsibility very seriously. I know we share the same concerns and have to continue to work together. Please contact myself or Lt. Burnett at any time on this or any related matter. We can both be reached at 301-565-7740.

Thank you for your commitment to the community.

Captain Donald Johnson
Commander, 3rd District
Montgomery County Police
301-565-7740


_____________________________________________________
SILVER SPRING CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
Testimony of the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board
Presented by Kathy Stevens, Vice Chair
July 15, 2008

Hello, my name is Kathy Stevens, and I represent the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board. Our board supports full funding for both the Silver Spring Civic Building and Veterans Plaza and the Silver Spring Transit Center. Our community has been waiting for many years for both projects, and we look forward to their completion at a level of excellence that will reflect well on the county and serve the people well after many years of planning and community input.

We urge Council to provide the necessary $2.5 million that is needed for the construction of the Civic Building and Veteran's Plaza as we understand from the County Executive that the project is $2.5 million over what was allocated in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget. Community members have been and continue to be deeply interested and involved in planning the Civic Building and Veterans Plaza, and the final design was reached through a painstaking process of compromise, cuts, "value engineering" (more cuts), and more compromise. The Civic Building and Veterans Plaza will be the heart of Silver Spring. Please remember that Silver Spring lost its community meeting space when the Armory was tom down in order to build the private retail space that now spans Ellsworth Drive in downtown Silver Spring. It was long understood that the county would replace the Armory with a Civic Building and Veteran's Memorial Plaza in order to provide community space including activities and open areas on the plaza and meeting rooms and programmable spaces in the building. The project is overdue and we urge you to approve this additional $2.5 million in funding.

The Paul Sarbanes/Silver Spring Transportation Center is also a key to our county's success. We need to facilitate public transportation in our region. A safe, inviting, and successful Transportation Center is necessary. The current Silver Spring metro station and bus complex is the 2nd largest transportation hub in Maryland (only Baltimore's Penn Station is bigger) and the number of commuters will only grow.

This project, too, was "value engineered" well beyond our preferences. We were again surprised and disappointed with the news from the County Executive that the construction bids were over $18 million higher than what was budgeted. We urge full funding for this project as well- which means that we ask for funding beyond what was requested by the County Executive. Over the last two years, the Planning Board and our Board agreed on several design elements that we considered absolutely essential for the Transportation Center to be successful. These elements include key escalators, transparent walkway and escalator roofs to keep commuters dry, and several other design features to make the transportation center more walkable, light, and inviting. Nobody wants this to look like a New York City Port Authority complex. That would dissuade people from using public transport... the exact opposite of this project's stated goal.

The County Executive has requested only an additional $16.72 million for this project. We support this, but we also know that it isn't enough to build what was ordered and what will work best for county residents and visitors. We agree with the Planning Board that more is necessary for this project to succeed.