Problems with Police Response Time Reporting in Prince George’s County and its Impact on Adequate Public Facility Findings
Since 2005, in Prince George's County, Maryland, police response times have been included in the County's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). The ordinance mandates that for residential development projects, emergency calls for service do not exceed 10 minutes. If this benchmark is not met, residential developers are either required to pay a mitigation fee, which is in addition to an already required Public Safety and Behavioral Health Surcharge, or even be placed into a moratorium status.
For years, the actual data used for the response time test has been scrutinized, questioned, and challenged. Recent data indicates that in many Police Divisions, the average response times exceed the 10-minute threshold. However, there are various factors involved in calculating a truly accurate test for police response times that make it extremely difficult to standardize police emergency response times and how, if at all, new residential development impacts response times. Indeed, of the seventy-eight other jurisdictions throughout the United States that are larger than Prince George’s County, none utilize police response time testing in the same manner as Prince George’s County.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, adds a new dimension to this discussion. In that case, the Court held that legislatively enacted impact fees are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as administrative exactions. This means that fees imposed on developers must have an "essential nexus" and be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the development.
For Prince George's County, this landmark case has significant implications. If the County continues to impose additional fees or restrictions on residential developers due to perceived inadequate police response times, the County must ensure that these measures are directly related and proportionate to the specific impacts of the development. Failure to do so could result in legal challenges under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is especially true given the already required Public Safety and Behavioral Health Surcharge.