Council holds resolution on police response‑time test; administration and chief seek data review

The County Council held a resolution on July 8, 2025 that would suspend current police response‑time calculations used to determine adequacy for new residential development. The council agreed to a one‑week hold and directed the executive branch, the police chief and Planning Department staff to meet with council members to produce additional information and recommendations.

CR-80, introduced by Vice Chair Oriotta, would direct the Planning Board to use temporary response‑time data provided by the police chief prior to January 2025 while the county reviews the adequacy test. The administration asked that the record reflect alternative data sets and timeframe choices—the deputy chief of staff, David Martin, said the administration preferred language that would accept response‑time reports beginning in October 2023 or use February 2025 data as a reference point.

Police Chief George Nader (newly appointed) told the committee he needed time to standardize how response times are recorded. “I would ask for a little bit of grace as day 10 in the job,” Nader said, and described uncertainty about whether timing should start at call receipt, dispatch, or some other point in the dispatch/response workflow. “We have provided the numbers, monthly as required by the law,” he added, but said the department must reconcile entry methodology to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Lakeisha Hall, director of Planning, told the committee that Planning receives response‑time information through statements from the police chief and that the department relies on that submission when reviewing mitigation for residential projects. She said Planning will work with the chief to align methodologies going forward.

Why it matters: The adequacy test affects whether proposed residential developments must suspend or mitigate projects if police response times in the relevant patrol area fail the statutory test. Council members expressed concern that inconsistent data entry or changes in methodology could be inflating failures across the county and that staffing shortages—council members repeatedly cited being down roughly 300 officers—may be the underlying cause of slower response times.

Council debate split on emphasis: Councilmember DeNogle urged the group to preserve the statutory adequacy test rather than remove it, saying the test’s role is to identify deficiencies so the county and police can redirect resources. Other council members, including Vice Chair Oriotta, supported a temporary hold while technical and policy questions are resolved. Several members asked staff for an inventory of how many projects would be affected under different reference years (for example, 2023 vs. 2025) and for plotted locations of projects that currently require mitigation.

Action taken: The committee voted to hold CR‑80 for one week to allow follow-up work and data review. The motion to hold was approved by voice and roll call; the clerk announced the motion carried 8‑0 in committee.

Followup: The council appointed a small work group, including council liaisons and administration staff, to meet with the police chief and Planning staff during recess. The administration committed to produce written answers to council questions promptly; David Martin told the committee the executive office would provide responses by the next day. Councilmembers asked staff to analyze whether failures are clustered geographically and to quantify which pending projects would be jeopardized by different adequacy reference periods.

Quotes: “We have provided the numbers, monthly as required by the law,” Chief Nader said, adding that the department needs to verify whether the timing should begin at call, at dispatch, or at officer arrival. Councilmember DeNogle said the adequacy test “tells us as council…do we have a response time problem in the county?”

Ending: The council will revisit CR‑80 after the work group meets and staff supply the requested data and methodological clarifications. The committee directed the administration to convene meetings during the recess and report back to the council in a week.