 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
This week, I received a call from a Mrs. K. who resides in the eastern half of Hugo. She called to say that she didn't find our recent police report on a burglary at her pole barn to be very funny.
Considering that the loss amount listed in the law enforcement incident report was considerably understated, I didn't, either. To be fair, though, I'd say "Left Reeling" was an accurate summary of how Mrs. K. and her husband felt following the incident.
This is the second call I've fielded in the last few weeks on the subject of police protection in the city of Hugo.
This issue's Police Report column, especially, appears to illustrate that thieves are making multiple hauls within a few hours. This indicates to me that these crooks have an expectation of success - and an attitude of impunity.
So, I wondered, has the city of Hugo seen an increase in crime over the past five years? When I requested some information, instead of five annual reports with nice tables of statistical trends, I was provided a 2-pound stack of incident lists sorted by offense code, one lengthy list for each year.
Enter the multi-colored highlighters and (rusty) calculator.
My cursory analysis surprised me.
Since 2002, the population of Hugo has increased from around 8,300 to about 12,000. However, the actual number of assaults, burglaries and robberies in the city has not increased over that period.
The incidence of theft - which includes fraud, swindle, auto and ID theft - actually decreased over 30% last year from its peak in 2005, which was a year of tremendous building activity in Hugo, and is comparable to what it was in 2002. (It should be noted that information on the value of property losses was not available.)
Narcotics-related incidents, however, appear to have more than doubled since 2002. And Hugo has had two major methamphetamine busts, in 2004 and 2007.
Over that same time five-year period, while the number of Washington County Sheriff deputies under contract to the city has remained at four, the number of calls has increased by 15%.
Hugo Finance Director Ron Otkin says that the city's 2008 preliminary - and, as yet, unapproved - budget includes an additional patrol officer, for a total of five.
It takes 4.5 full-time officers on staff to provide 100% coverage - that is, one officer on duty within the city limits at all times, due to shift and scheduling requirements. For Hugo, that's one contract officer for 36 square miles - or, put another way, one contract officer per 2,400 people - far below one study's estimated average of 2.6 officers per 1,000 inhabitants for Midwest cities under 10,000 population.
Hugo's proposed 2008 budget figures were not available before press time (the 2006 budget, as adopted, was $3,636,575); however, Otkin estimated that with the additional officer, $448,256 of the city's budget would go toward police protection in 2008.
(In comparison, Lino Lakes' preliminary 2008 budget is $10,086,236 for a city of 20,000 persons, $3,102,808 of which will go to police protection.)
At first glance, then, it appears that Hugo is getting a good value for its money.
But is it? How do we know? According to my phone callers, their recent high-end burglaries remain unsolved.
Hugo is adding 1,000 residents each year. At that rate, in five years the population will number about 17,000. Decisions will need to be made on how many deputies to add, and whether - or when - economies of scale will require that Hugo have its own police force.
How can you make decisions without data?
As a proactive step toward monitoring crime rates and measuring law enforcement successes (or lack thereof), the city council should require that an annual written report from the Washington County Sheriff's Office be prepared for public consumption. This report should summarize crime statistics and apprehension/incident clearance rates within the city.
As it stands now, Hugo citizens who want to track local law enforcement trends have to get out the highlighters and calculator.
And that's almost criminal.