· the dakota communications center (dcc) organization was established in late 2005 through a...

A G E N D A

Dakota County Board of Commissioners General Government and Policy Committee of the Whole

June 2, 2020

9:30 AM (or following County Board meeting)

View Live Broadcast

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Government/BoardMeetings/GGPCommittee/Pages/default.aspx

1. Call To Order And Roll Call

Note: Any action taken by this Committee of the Whole constitutes a recommendation to the County Board.

2. Audience

Anyone wishing to address the Committee on an item not on the agenda or an item on the consent agenda may send comments to [email protected]

3. Approval Of Agenda (Additions/Corrections/Deletions)

CONSENT AGENDA 4. County Administration - Approval Of Minutes Of Meeting Held May 19, 2020 5. Operations, Management And Budget

5.1 Office of Performance and Analysis - Approval To Continue Participation In State Standard Measures Program

5.2 Information Technology - Authorization To Amend Contracts With Frontier

Communications For Local And Long-Distance Telephony And Faxing Services

REGULAR AGENDA 6. County Board/County Administration

6.1 County Administration – INFORMATION - Legislative Update

6.2 County Administration – INFORMATION - Update On Dakota Communications Center Report

7. County Manager's Report 8. Adjournment

For more information, call 651-438-4417. Dakota County Board meeting agendas are available online at

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Government/BoardMeetings/Pages/default.aspx Public Comment can be sent to [email protected]

-1-

DAKOTA COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Meeting Minutes

May 19, 2020

1. Call To Order And Roll Call

Commissioner Mike Slavik Commissioner Kathleen A. Gaylord Commissioner Thomas A. Egan Commissioner Joe Atkins Commissioner Liz Workman Commissioner Mary Liz Holberg Commissioner Chris Gerlach Also in attendance: Matt Smith, County Manager; Tom Donely, First Assistant County Attorney; and Jeni Reynolds, Sr. Administrative Coordinator to the Board.

Due to the local state of emergency and social distancing, Commissioners participated in this meeting via telephone and the Committee meeting was conducted under Minn. Stat. § 13D.021.

The video and audio recording from this meeting are available on the Dakota County website.

The meeting was called to order by Chair Gaylord at 10:30 a.m.

2. Audience

Chair Gaylord noted that all public comments can be sent to [email protected] No public comment was received for this meeting agenda.

3. Approval Of Agenda (Additions/Corrections/Deletions)

On a motion by Commissioner Chris Gerlach, seconded by Commissioner Mary Liz Holberg, the agenda was unanimously approved.

CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commissioner Thomas A. Egan, seconded by Commissioner Mike Slavik, the consent agenda was unanimously approved as follows:

4. Approval Of Minutes Of Meeting Held May 5, 2020 And May 12, 2020

5. County Board/County Administration

5.1 Authorization To Approve Revisions To Policies 3042 And 3044

WHEREAS, the Employee Relations Department periodically reviews and recommends revisions to policies to maintain and enhance the effective and responsive provision of human resource services in the County.

-3-

4. - Minutes.doc

May 19, 2020 Page 2

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the General Government and Policy Committee of the Whole hereby recommends approval of Policies 3042 and 3044 as presented on May 19, 2020 and authorizes the Employee Relations Director to modify said policies accordingly following County Board approval.

REGULAR AGENDA

6. County Board/County Administration

6.1 Legislative Update

Congresswoman Angie Craig and Stinson LLP Government Relations Director Paul Cassidy gave a brief update on the legislative session and responded to questions. Tom Downs and Mike Erlandson with Downs Government Affairs LLC gave a brief federal update. This item was on the agenda for informational purposes only. No direction was given by the Committee to staff.

7. Operations, Management And Budget

7.1 Update On Year-To-Date COVID-19 Expenses And Revenues And Year-End Projections For

Operations

Budget Director Paul Sikorski briefed this item and responded to questions. This item was on the agenda for informational purposes only. No direction was given by the Committee to staff.

8. County Manager's Report

County Manager Matt Smith briefly gave an overview on the following:

• 2021 Budget

• Hiring freeze/vacancies

• Meeting demands of the community 9. Adjournment

On a motion by Commissioner Mike Slavik, seconded by Commissioner Mary Liz Holberg, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Respectfully submitted, Jeni Reynolds Sr. Administrative Coordinator to the Board

-4-

4. - Minutes.doc

DAKOTA COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND POLICY COMMITTEE

Approval To Continue Participation In State Standard Measures Program

Meeting Date: 6/2/2020 Fiscal/FTE Impact: Item Type: Consent-Action None Other Division: Operations, Management and Budget Current budget Amendment requested Department: Office of Performance and Analysis New FTE(s) requested Contact: Hill, Josh Board Goal: Excellence in public service Contact Phone: (651) 438-8391 Public Engagement Level: N/A Prepared by: Hill, Josh PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED Approve Dakota County’s continued participation in the State of Minnesota’s voluntary State Standard Measures Program and report results of ten specific performance measures to the State Auditor by July 1, 2020, and on the County’s public website. SUMMARY By Resolution No. 11-318 (June 21, 2011), Dakota County opted to participate in the State’s voluntary measurement program by adopting ten performance measures. From 2012 to 2019 performance on the ten measures was reported to the State Auditor and to the public via the County website. As a result of this participation and reporting, Dakota County has received $25,000 each year from 2012 to 2019. A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2020 is eligible for a reimbursement payable in 2021 of $0.14 per capita in State aid, not to exceed $25,000. Revenue received will be budgeted under the Office of Performance and Analysis to support ongoing Countywide capacity building and training related to measurement and process improvement. In order to continue to receive the per capita reimbursement, the County must file a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2020, to include a resolution declaring that:

• The County has adopted and implemented the minimum ten performance measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation.

• The County has implemented or is in the process of implementing a local performance measurement system as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation.

• The County has or will report the results of the ten adopted measures to its residents through publication, direct mailing, posting on the entity's website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed. Dakota County each year posts the information on the website.

Many of the ten State program measures (Attachments A and B) are already being tracked or reported on by Dakota County departments or divisions, and so there is minimal additional burden to meet the reporting requirements. In addition to the continued fiscal benefit included in the legislation, participating in this State program is beneficial because it will allow some comparison to other counties across the State on these measures and because publication of program and service outcomes reinforces the strong system of performance measurement already in effect in Dakota County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached State Standard Measures. EXPLANATION OF FISCAL/FTE IMPACTS The funds for participating in the 2020 State Standard Measures Program will be included in the 2021 County Manager’s Recommended Budget.

-5-

5.1 - RBA.docx

5/28/2020 11:55 AM Page 2

Supporting Documents: Previous Board Action(s):

Attachment A - State Standard Measures Program 2020 Report 11-318; 6/21/11 Attachment B - Supplemental Trend Data (Informational) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation in 2010, and the Council released a standard set of performance measures for cities and counties in 2011; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 11-318 (June 21, 2011), to participate in the voluntary performance measurement program and began assembling the necessary data; and WHEREAS, Dakota County values the use of performance measurement to continually improve program and services for the residents of Dakota County; and WHEREAS, participation in the standard measures program by a city or county is voluntary, but those who choose to participate in the program must officially adopt the corresponding performance measures developed by the Council, and file a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2020, as part of annual reporting requirements; and WHEREAS, cities and counties who participate in the program must implement a local performance measurement system as defined by the Council on Local Results and Innovation, to include: outcome goals; outcome and output performance measures; and reporting on results of the performance measures to their residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts the following standard performance measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation and authorized by the Minnesota Legislature:

• Part I and II Crime • Average County Pavement Condition Rating • Workforce Participation Rate Among Minnesota Family Investment Program and Diversionary Work

Program Participants • Percentage of Children Where There Is a Recurrence of Maltreatment Within 12 Months Following an

Intervention • Level of Assessment Ratio • Accuracy of Post-Election Audit • Dollars Brought into the County for Veterans’ Benefits • Bond Rating • Citizens’ Rating of the Quality of County Park, Recreational Programs, and/or Facilities • Amount of Hazardous Household Waste and Electronics Collected

; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby directs the County Manager to cause the collection, maintenance, and publication of the set of performance measures, as defined by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. County Manager’s Comments: Reviewed by (if required):

☒

☒☒

☒ Recommend Action ☒

☒☒

☒ County Attorney’s Office

☐

☐☐

☐

Do Not Recommend Action ☒

☒☒

☒

Financial Services

☐

☐☐

☐

Reviewed---No Recommendation ☒

☒☒

☒

Risk Management

☐

☐☐

☐

Reviewed---Information Only ☐

☐☐

☐

Employee Relations

☐

☐☐

☐

Submitted at Commissioner Request ☐

☐☐

☐

Information Technology

☐

☐☐

☐

Facilities Management

County Manager

-6-

5.1 - RBA.docx

Performance Measure Results

State Standard Measures Program 2020

1

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the state Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation to develop standard

performance measures for Minnesota cities and counties. In February 2011, the Council released a

standard set of performance measures to help residents, taxpayers, and elected officials determine

whether counties provide services efficiently and effectively, and to measure residents’ opinions of

those services. In 2011, Dakota County voluntarily agreed to participate in the program. To meet 2020

program requirements, the following results are reported for the 10 adopted measures using the most

recent data available.

PUBLIC SAFETY

PART I AND II CRIME

Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, and human trafficking. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, D.U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses. The figures are rates per 1,000 residents (2019).

Part I: 20.14 Part II: 26.68

PUBLIC WORKS

AVERAGE COUNTY PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING

The Minnesota Department of Transportation rates Dakota County roads every two years on a scale from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent) based on the types of pavement distresses and the smoothness of the surface (2019).

67

PUBLIC HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION RATE AMONG MFIP AND DWP RECIPIENTS

This measure shows the percent of Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and Diversionary Work Program (DWP) adults working 30 hours or more per week or who have left cash assistance three years after baseline (April 2018-March 2019) in Dakota County.

66.80%

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHERE THERE IS A RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENT WITHIN

12 MONTHS FOLLOWING AN INTERVENTION

This measure is calculated on a rolling 12-month period (January-December 2018). It looks at all maltreatment (abuse or neglect) findings in the reporting period, and then counts the number of cases that had a subsequent maltreatment finding within 12 months of the first.

15.2%

-7-

5.1 - Attachment A.pdf



2

PROPERTY RECORDS, VALUATION, ASSESSMENT

LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT RATIO (MEDIAN BETWEEN 90% AND 105% IS ACCEPTABLE)

The level of assessment ratio measures the accuracy of County assessments by comparing the actual market value of homes (as measured by the sales/purchase price) with the County-assigned assessed value (2019).

95.0%

ELECTIONS

ACCURACY OF POST-ELECTION AUDIT

The percentage of ballots counted correctly in the last election (2018). 100%

VETERANS SERVICES

DOLLARS BROUGHT INTO COUNTY FOR VETERANS ’ BENEFITS

The state Department of Veteran Affairs tracks and publishes yearly program and service expenditures for veterans. The dollars spent on veterans includes health care, insurance and indemnity, educational benefits, and compensation and pension (2018).

$198,439,000

BUDGET, FINANCIAL

BOND RATING

Moody’s and S&P Investor Services annually assess the quality of the County’s financial management, current financial condition, and financial outlook. (Moody’s 2019; S&P 2019).

Aaa (Moody’s) AAA (S&P)

PARKS, LIBRARIES

CITIZENS’ RATING OF THE QUALITY OF COUNTY PARKS, RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS,

AND/OR FACILITIES

Every three years, via a statistically valid mailed survey, residents rate the quality of County parks and recreation from poor to excellent (2019). Sample size (N)=867.

Parks and Recreation Rating

Percent of Respondents

Excellent 58%

Good 39%

Fair 3%

Poor 0%

-8-




3

ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTE AND ELECTRONICS COLLECTED

Properly disposing of leftover chemicals, household products, and electronic devices helps protect the environment and people’s health. In 2019, Dakota County collected electronics and household hazardous waste (paints, pesticides, acids/bases, solvents, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, and other miscellaneous chemicals) at The Recycling Zone and during four, one-day collection events.

Hazardous Waste: 1,837,813 lbs. Electronics: 1,497,500 lbs.

PROJECT CONTACT

Josh Hill

Office of Performance and Analysis

(651) 438-8391

[email protected]

-9-


Performance Measure Historical Results

Trend Data for Dakota County’s 2020 State Standard Measures

1

BACKGROUND

This document was generated at the request of the Dakota County Manager and Deputy County

Manager to serve as an informational supplement to the 2020 State Standard Measures report. The

report is intended to provide the Dakota County Board of Commissioners the opportunity to review

historical trends in the Dakota County data and to compare results to data from other Metro county

State Standard Measures reports, where available. Participation in the SSM program is voluntary and

counties may choose from a list of possible measures. Therefore, the comparison data available varies

from measure to measure.

PUBLIC SAFETY

PART I AND II CRIME

Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, and human trafficking. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, D.U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.

County Comparison Data – Crime Rate

2017 2018

Part I Part II Part I Part II

Dakota 21.11 28.96 19.18 27.68

Hennepin 34.04 38.53

Scott 15.39 - - -

Washington 3.9 13.8 3.8 13.7

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Part I 22.34 21.29 21.11 19.18 20.14

Part II 29.13 27.82 28.96 27.68 26.68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Rat

e p

er

1,0

00

Re

sid

en

ts

Dakota County Crime Rates

-10-

5.1 - Attachment B.pdf



2

PUBLIC WORKS

AVERAGE COUNTY PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING

The Minnesota Department of Transportation rates Dakota County roads every two years on a scale from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent) based on the types of pavement distresses and the smoothness of the surface.

Dakota County Pavement Rating

2012 2014 2017 2019

72 72 73 67

County Comparison Data - Pavement

2017 2018

Dakota 73 73

Anoka 68 69

Carver 75 78

Washington 76 73

PUBLIC HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION RATE AMONG MFIP AND DWP RECIPIENTS

This measure shows the percent of Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and Diversionary Work Program (DWP) adults working 30 hours or more per week or who have left cash assistance three years after baseline in Dakota County.

4/2014-3/2015

4/2015-3/2016

4/2016-3/2017

4/2017-3/2018

4/2018-3/2019

Part. rate 71.30% 72.80% 69.80% 66.37% 66.80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dakota County MFIP & DWP Workforce Participation Rate

-11-




3

County Comparison Data – MFIP & DWP Participation Rate

2017-2018

Dakota 66.37%

Carver 40.30%

Hennepin 59.20%

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHERE THERE IS A RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING AN INTERVENTION

This measure is calculated on a rolling 12-month period (January-December 2018). It looks at all maltreatment (abuse or neglect) findings in the reporting period, and then counts the number of cases that had a subsequent maltreatment finding within 12 months of the first.

*NOTE: The data source for reporting this measure was changed for this year’s report to match reporting done by DHS.

County Comparison Data – Child Maltreatment Recurrence Rate

2018

Dakota 15.2%

Hennepin 13.3%

Scott 20.0%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

% with Recurrence 13.1% 15.5% 15.2% 16.3% 15.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%Dakota County Child Maltreatment Recurrence Rate

-12-




4

PROPERTY RECORDS, VALUATION, ASSESSMENT

LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT RATIO (MEDIAN BETWEEN 90% AND 105% IS ACCEPTABLE)

The level of assessment ratio measures the accuracy of County assessments by comparing the actual market value of homes (as measured by the sales/purchase price) with the County-assigned assessed value. As counties are required to be within the 90-105% range, there is little difference in the comparison with other counties.

ELECTIONS

ACCURACY OF POST-ELECTION AUDIT

The percentage of ballots counted correctly in the last election. The counties with comparison data available are all very close to or at 100%. Note: 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 all were 100%.

BUDGET, FINANCIAL

BOND RATING

Moody’s and S&P Investor Services annually assess the quality of the County’s financial management, current financial condition, and financial outlook. Note: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 Moody’s ratings all were Aaa for Dakota County. In 2019 and 2020, Dakota County had an AAA S&P rating. In 2019, all Metro counties with comparison data have the highest Moody’s rating (Aaa) and S&P rating (AAA).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Assessment ratio 94% 94% 95% 95% 95%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

Dakota County Level of Assessment Ratio

-13-




5

VETERANS SERVICES

DOLLARS BROUGHT INTO COUNTY FOR VETERANS ’ BENEFITS

The state Department of Veteran Affairs tracks and publishes yearly program and service expenditures for veterans. The dollars spent on veterans includes health care, insurance and indemnity, educational benefits, and compensation and pension. No county comparison data is available from State Standard Measures reports.

PARKS, LIBRARIES

CITIZENS’ RATING OF THE QUALITY OF COUNTY PARKS, RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS,

AND/OR FACILITIES

Every three years, via a statistically valid mailed survey, residents rate the quality of County parks and recreation from poor to excellent. No county comparison data is available from State Standard Measures reports.

2015 2016 2017 2018

$ $183,497,000 $190,506,000 $194,186,000 $198,439,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

Dollars Brought into Dakota County for Veterans' Benefits

2013 2016 2019

Excellent 49% 56% 58%

Good 46% 40% 39%

Fair 5% 4% 3%

Poor 0% 0% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Dakota County Parks & Recreation Rating

-14-




6

ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTE AND ELECTRONICS COLLECTED

Properly disposing of leftover chemicals, household products, and electronic devices helps protect the environment and people’s health. Dakota County has collected electronics and household hazardous waste (paints, pesticides, acids/bases, solvents, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, and other miscellaneous chemicals) at The Recycling Zone and during four, one-day collection events annually.

County Comparison Data – Waste

2018 Haz. HH Waste E-waste

Dakota 1,983,636 1,600,720

Carver 262 tons 254 tons

Washington 1,718,994 1,829,577

2016 2017 2018 2019

Haz. HH Waste 2,080,780 1,984,350 1,983,636 1,837,813

Elect. Waste 2,214,839 1,816,586 1,600,720 1,497,500

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

lbs.

of

was

te c

olle

cte

d

Dakota County Hazardous HH & Electronic Waste Collection (lbs.)

-15-



Authorization To Amend Contracts With Frontier Communications For Local And Long-Distance Telephony

And Faxing Services Meeting Date: 6/2/2020 Fiscal/FTE Impact: Item Type: Consent-Action None Other Division: Operations, Management and Budget Current budget Amendment requested Department: Information Technology New FTE(s) requested Contact: Agen, Mike Board Goal: Excellence in public service Contact Phone: (651) 438-4292 Public Engagement Level: N/A Prepared by: Agen, Mike PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to amend two contracts with Frontier Communications (Frontier) to continue telephony service for the following Dakota County contracts:

• Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Contract: SIP trunks, Ethernet Circuits, Managed Routers, Direct Inward Dial’s (DID’s), and Long-Distance service.

• Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Contract: PRI#1 Hard fax machines and Long-Distance service for both PRI’s. PRI#2 Desktop faxing and Point to Point T-1 between Western Service Center (WSC) and Hastings campus.

SUMMARY Dakota County’s leased SIP trunks provide the county’s phone system local and long distance call capabilities and PRI trunks provide county faxing capabilities necessary for meeting business needs. Frontier provides the SIP trunk and PRI trunk service to Dakota County’s Western Service Center and backup SIP trunk service to the Northern Service Center. The current contract expires June 30, 2020. To provide for the County’s current telephony needs we would need to amend the current five-year SIP Contract an additional one-year extending Frontier’s service through June 30, 2021. To provide for the county’s current faxing needs we would need to amend the current three-year PRI Contract an additional one-year extending Frontier’s service through June 30, 2021. In 2011, Dakota County upgraded the telephone system to voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) system and entered into a three-year contract (Resolution No. 11-362) with Frontier to replace analog T1 trunks with SIP trunks for access to the VoIP system which reduced access charges for trunks, 800 service, and long-distance call capabilities. In 2014, Dakota County extended (Resolution No. 14-618) the contract with Frontier for SIP and PRI trunks on a month-to-month basis for up to 12 months. This extension granted staff additional time to assess and evaluate the current and future local and long distance needs of Dakota County before negotiating or soliciting for proposals for a longer term contract to provide these services. In 2015, Dakota County entered into two contracts (Resolution No. 15-228) with Frontier. The first contract was a three-year SIP contract to lease SIP trunks, Ethernet circuits, managed routers, DID circuits, and long-distance handling services. The second contract was a two-year PRI contract to continue services which supported the County’s physical fax machines faxing capabilities (analog service), including PRI trunks and a Long Distance block of time shared between both PRI circuits and a point-to-point T-1 network connection between WSC and Hastings campus. The Information Technology (IT) Director amended the PRI Contract an additional one-year extending service to co-terminate with the SIP contract on June 30, 2018. In 2018, Dakota County extended (Resolution No. 18-161) the contract with Frontier for SIP and PRI trunks was extended an additional 12 months. In 2019, Dakota County extended (Resolution No. 19-481) the contract with Frontier for SIP and PRI trunks was extended an additional 12 months. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board authorize the CIO to amend two contracts with Frontier for one additional year to provide local and long-distance telephony and faxing services for Dakota County. EXPLANATION OF FISCAL/FTE IMPACTS Funds in the amount of $108,304.80 are contained in the 2020 IT Annual Budget for the telephone local and long distance services and faxing service contract amendment.

-17-

5.2 - RBA.docx

5/28/2020 11:54 AM Page 2


11-362; 8/2/11 14-618; 12/16/14 15-228; 5/5/15 18-161; 3/27/18 19-481; 4/23/19 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dakota County entered into two agreements with Frontier Communications in 2015 for local and long distance telephone and faxing service; and WHEREAS, the current Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Contract and Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Contract expire June 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, there are no immediate plans to replace the need for local and long-distance telephone and faxing service; and WHEREAS, there is a need to continue to provide County business units with the local and long-distance telephone and faxing services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to execute a contract for telephone local and long-distance and faxing service contract amendment from Frontier Communications, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney’s office, at a total cost not to exceed $108,304.80, plus any applicable taxes.

Expense 2020 IT Annual Budget ($108,304.80) 2020 Frontier Communications SIP Contract $ 76,228.80 2020 Frontier Communications PRI Contract $ 32,706.00 Total Expense $0

County Manager’s Comments: Reviewed by (if required):

☒

☒☒

☒ Recommend Action ☒

☒☒


☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Financial Services

☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Risk Management

☐

☐☐

☐


☐☐

☐

Employee Relations

☐

☐☐

☐

Submitted at Commissioner Request ☒

☒☒

☒


☐

☐☐

☐


County Manager

-18-

5.2 - RBA.docx


Legislative Update

Meeting Date: 6/2/2020 Fiscal/FTE Impact: Item Type: Regular-Information None Other Division: County Administration/County Board Current budget Amendment requested Department: County Administration New FTE(s) requested Contact: Smith, Matt Board Goal: Excellence in public service Contact Phone: (651) 438-4590 Public Engagement Level: N/A Prepared by: Reynolds, Jennifer PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED Receive an update on federal legislative activities, the 2020 Minnesota legislative session, and the status of County priorities. SUMMARY This item will offer an opportunity for the Legislative Advisory Workgroup (LAW) and staff to provide updates on federal legislative activities, the 2020 state legislative session, Minnesota Inter-County Association (MICA), Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), and National Association of Counties (NACo) activities, related County activities and other legislative topics of interest to Dakota County. RECOMMENDATION Information only; no action requested. EXPLANATION OF FISCAL/FTE IMPACTS None.

-19-

6.1 - RBA.docx

5/28/2020 11:49 AM Page 2


RESOLUTION Information only; no action requested.


☐

☐☐

☐ Recommend Action ☒

☒☒


☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Financial Services

☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Risk Management

☒

☒☒

☒


☐☐

☐

Employee Relations

☐

☐☐

☐


☐☐

☐


☐

☐☐

☐


County Manager

-20-

6.1 - RBA.docx


Update On Dakota Communications Center Report

Meeting Date: 6/2/2020 Fiscal/FTE Impact: Item Type: Regular-Information None Other Division: County Administration/County Board Current budget Amendment requested Department: County Administration New FTE(s) requested Contact: Smith, Matt Board Goal: Excellence in public service Contact Phone: (651) 438-4590 Public Engagement Level: N/A Prepared by: Jermeland, Alex PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED Receive an update on the Dakota Communications Center (DCC) Phase II Report. SUMMARY In 2004 the High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) project, conducted by Dakota County cities and the County, identified the need for the development of a centralized public safety answering point (PSAP) and dispatch center. As a follow-up to that project, the DCC was established in late 2005 through a joint powers agreement (JPA) between Dakota County and 11 cities located within the County. Two reports were completed in August 2018 relating to the DCC. Dakota County Office of Performance and Analysis (OPA) staff completed the Dakota Communications Center: Governance Model Research Report (Phase I) and Winbourne Consulting completed the Operational and Technical Assessment Report for the Dakota County Communications Center. After the completion of these two reports, the DCC Executive Committee formed a work group to re-examine potential governance changes. Briefings of the two reports and the DCC Research Phase II (Phase II) Report are attached in Attachment A. While work group efforts began with re-examining potential governance and financing changes they evolved into discussion of Dakota County assuming ownership and management of the DCC. The work group developed a resolution that was recommended to and adopted by the DCC Board of Directors on May 16, 2019. The County received a letter and DCC Resolution from the DCC Board of Directors asking the County Board of Commissioners to “consider assuming ownership and management duties of the DCC” and “that this matter be publicly discussed by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.” At the August 6, 2019, General Government and Policy meeting, the Board of Commissioners discussed the resolution from the DCC Board of Directors and requested that the DCC Board of Directors continue to work on re-examining the governance model. The Board of Commissioners also directed Dakota County staff to research measurable benefits, in areas of potential cost savings and improved services, of other PSAPs to assist stakeholders in determining if service would be improved under a county managed PSAP model. The Phase II study followed the direction of the County Board. In compiling the information for the Phase II Report (Attachment B), OPA staff interviewed five area dispatch centers: DCC, Anoka, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. Each dispatch center was interviewed and asked to provide data pertaining to the following topic areas: county statistics, organizational structure, finance structures, operational structure, operational functions, customization of services, and customer satisfaction. Due to varying availability of information and staff, certain data points were either unavailable or were limited to only a few dispatch centers. OPA staff presented the Phase II Report to the DCC Executive Committee on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 and the DCC Board of Directors on Thursday, May 21, 2020. After discussion of this item, the DCC Board of Directors made a motion to create a work group with 11 members. The 11 members include two Dakota County Commissioners; three DCC Board of Directors members; three DCC Executive Committee members; one Fire Operations member; one Law Operations member; and the Dakota County Sheriff or their designee. The DCC Executive Director shall act as the ex officio. RECOMMENDATION Information only; no action requested. EXPLANATION OF FISCAL/FTE IMPACTS None.

-21-

6.2 - RBA.docx

5/28/2020 12:02 PM Page 2


Attachment A: DCC Reports Briefing Attachment B: DCC Research Phase II Report

RESOLUTION Information only; no action requested.


☐

☐☐

☐ Recommend Action ☒

☒☒


☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Financial Services

☐

☐☐

☐


☒☒

☒

Risk Management

☒

☒☒

☒


☐☐

☐

Employee Relations

☐

☐☐

☐


☐☐

☐


☐

☐☐

☐


County Manager

-22-

6.2 - RBA.docx

1

Winbourne Report: Operational and Technical Assessment Report for Dakota Communications Center August 2018 Report Briefing1 During the spring and summer of 2018, Winbourne Consulting of Arlington, Virginia, conducted an operational and technical assessment of the Dakota Communications Center (DCC). Their work culminated in the August 2018 report entitled, “Operational and Technical Assessment Report for Dakota Communications Center.” The report identified findings in three areas: Operational Efficiencies, Stage Dispatching, and Technology.

Operational Efficiencies – Evaluating policies, processes, procedures, workload, and quality assurance relative to industry standards. Findings included the following needs:

• Setting of targets and monitoring performance.

• Defining and consistently practicing core work responsibilities and performance.

• Ensuring that the organizational structure accounts for capabilities to deliver on mission and address “overloaded” roles.

• Measuring workload to inform resource needs and operational planning.

• Address organizational culture to effectively facilitate operations and working relationships.

Stage Dispatching – Evaluation of single-stage versus two-stage dispatching to assess advantages and disadvantages of both forms of operations. The report recommended retaining two-stage dispatching.

Technology Assessment – Evaluation of technology capabilities in the context of industry standards and DCC goals and objectives. The report indicated that there are few areas in both technology or operational changes that will improve the DCC’s current and future technology structure.

In September 2019, the DCC Executive Committee discussed the Winbourne report findings and recommendations. The discussion resulted in a detailed listing of responses, which noted areas where there was agreement and disagreement with the report. Several items were discussed, including the following:

• Statistical reporting;

• Tracking of core responsibilities;

• Staffing position (existing and proposed) responsibilities;

• Staffing models and workload;

• Two-stage dispatching; and

• Technology approach.

1 Summary prepared by OPA in May 2020 utilizing the Winbourne report Executive Summary and DCC response.

-23-

6.2 - Attachment A.docx

2

DCC: Governance Model Research Report (Phase I) August 2018 Report Briefing In 2018, the Office of Performance and Analysis (OPA) researched comparable multi-jurisdictional public safety answering points (PSAP). The early discussion for this study began in late 2017 when the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that it would begin enforcing its policy that prohibits non-criminal justice agencies from having access to the FBI/Criminal Justice Information Services systems. This access is necessary for PSAP operations. A non-criminal justice agency could maintain access if they had in place a management control agreement with a law enforcement agency. The Dakota County Sheriff’s Office has agreed to assume this responsibility. Complying with this FBI requirement has led to discussions on whether the County should assume ownership and management of the DCC. The cases selected for this study were identified as best practices by DCC staff, Dakota County staff, and Winbourne Consulting, LCC. The report identified differences in governance models and cost allocation arrangements. Governance models were categorized into three separate categories:

• Operating under a joint powers agreement (JPA);

• Operating under county level governance; and

• Governed and funded at the county level. Within each governance model, the governing board structure was identified and defined along with its associated powers. Supporting committees were also identified for comparative purposes. Cost allocation models varied, but a Calls for Services (CFS) with a multi-year rolling average model was most commonly utilized. Other cost allocation models incorporated items such as staffing levels, jail size, population, tax base or a mix of these factors, including CFS.

-24-


3

DCC Research Phase II April 2020 Report Briefing In August 2018, OPA completed the DCC: Governance Model Research Report, which assisted a DCC work group in the examination of potential governance changes. The DCC work group subsequently drafted a resolution recommending that Dakota County assume ownership of the DCC. The resolution was presented to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners during an August 2019 meeting. The Board of Commissioners requested that the DCC Board of Directors continue examining their governance model and that Dakota County staff research measurable benefits associated with potential Dakota County management of the DCC. In compiling information for the DCC Research Phase II report, OPA staff interviewed five area dispatch centers: DCC, Anoka, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. Each dispatch center was interviewed and provided with requests for data pertaining to the following topic areas: county statistics, organizational structure, finance structures, operational structure, operational functions, customization of services, and customer satisfaction. Due to varying availability of information and staff, certain data points were either unavailable or were limited to only a few dispatch centers. Throughout the report, OPA staff attempted to reconcile various sets of information to provide an overview of the most recent and relevant sets of information available at the time of data collection. DCC’s call volume and performance were comparable with peer dispatch centers. Differences between dispatch centers were frequently present in operations, which were tailored to meet the needs of their organization.

Governance – With the exception of the DCC, all peer dispatch centers are housed within their county structure. The location of dispatch centers within those organizations varied from being located within County Administration (Anoka and Ramsey) or the Sheriff’s Office (Scott and Washington). Revenue – Although all peers were financed through county property taxes, variation still existed with DCC utilizing a Calls for Services (CFS) formula utilizing city and county property tax levy funding and Ramsey County receiving revenues through a combination of county property taxes (60%) and city property taxes (40%), each city’s share is established through a CFS formula. Staffing – Depending upon the individual needs of dispatch centers and their approach toward call processing, staff positions had different specialties and responsibilities. Counties that incorporated dispatch centers into their organizational structure were able to provide a variety of internal support services, such as employee relations, finance, and information technology (IT). Customization – To varying degrees, peer dispatch centers customized services for their municipalities.

OPA staff was also asked to compile feedback regarding DCC services. As follow-up to this request, a sampling of area managers familiar with DCC operations were interviewed. Overall, feedback indicated that the DCC provided quality service, but requests were made to revisit the organization’s funding and committee structures.

-25-


DCC Research Phase II

April 2020 OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS

-26-



Page 1

Dakota County Board of Commissioners: Mike Slavik, District 1 Kathleen A. Gaylord, District 2 Thomas A. Egan, District 3 Joe Atkins, District 4 Liz Workman, District 5 Mary Liz Holberg, District 6 Chris Gerlach, District 7 Dakota County Manager: Matt Smith This report was prepared for: Matt Smith, County Manager Jean Erickson, Deputy County Manager This report was prepared by: Alex Jermeland, Management Analyst Dave Paulsen, Management Analyst Dakota County Office of Performance and Analysis Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, Minnesota 55033-2372 “Bridging today and tomorrow with planning and analysis to improve residents’ lives and their government.” This report was prepared with input and assistance from the following individuals: Joe Dillenburg, Ramsey County Tom Folie, Dakota Communications Center Dee Guthman, Anoka County Scott Haas, Scott County Darlene Pankonie, Washington County Nancie Pass, Ramsey County Cheryl Pritzlaff, Dakota Communications Center Valerie Sprynczynatyk, Anoka County Scott Williams, Ramsey County

-27-



Page 2

DCC Research Phase II O F F I C E O F P E R F O R M A N C E A N D A N A L Y S I S

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 3

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................. 4

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 6

DATA REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 7

County Statistics ........................................................................................................................................7

Organizational Structure .........................................................................................................................8

Finance Structures .................................................................................................................................. 13

Operational Structure ........................................................................................................................... 19

Operational Functions ........................................................................................................................... 24

Customization of Services..................................................................................................................... 28

Customer Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................ 29

APPENDIX A: PROJECT SCOPE ......................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX B: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARIES ............................................ 37

APPENDIX C: ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES..................................................................... 40

Dakota Communications Center .......................................................................................................... 40

Anoka County ......................................................................................................................................... 41

Anoka County – continued ................................................................................................................... 42

Ramsey County ....................................................................................................................................... 43

Ramsey County – continued ................................................................................................................. 44

Scott County ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Washington County ............................................................................................................................... 46

Hennepin.................................................................................................................................................. 46

APPENDIX D: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS ...................................................................... 47

Dakota Communications Center .......................................................................................................... 47

Anoka County ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Ramsey County ....................................................................................................................................... 50

-28-



Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In August 2018, Dakota County’s Office of Performance and Analysis (OPA) completed the Dakota Communications

Center: Governance Model Research Report, which assisted a Dakota Communications Center (DCC) work group in the

examination of potential governance changes. The DCC work group subsequently drafted a resolution recommending

that Dakota County assume ownership of the DCC. The resolution was presented to the Dakota County Board of

Commissioners during an August 2019 meeting. The Board of Commissioners requested that the DCC Board of

Directors continue examining their governance model and that Dakota County staff research measurable benefits

associated with potential Dakota County management of the DCC. This report is the resulting research from that

request of Dakota County staff.

In compiling the information for this report, OPA staff interviewed five area dispatch centers: DCC, Anoka, Ramsey,

Scott, and Washington Counties. Each dispatch center was interviewed and provided with requests for data

pertaining to the following topic areas: county statistics, organizational structure, finance structures, operational

structure, operational functions, customization of services, and customer satisfaction. Due to varying availability of

information and staff, certain data points were either unavailable or were limited to only a few dispatch centers.

Throughout this report, OPA staff attempted to reconcile various sets of information to provide an overview of the

most recent and relevant sets of information available at the time of data collection.

DCC’s call volume and performance were comparable with peer dispatch centers. Differences between dispatch

centers were frequently present in operations, which were tailored to meet the needs of their organization.

Governance – With the exception of the DCC, all peer dispatch centers are housed within their county

structure. The location of dispatch centers within those organizations varied from being located within County

Administration (Anoka and Ramsey) or the Sheriff’s Office (Scott and Washington).

Revenue – Although all peers were financed through county property taxes, variation still existed with DCC

utilizing a Calls for Services (CFS) formula utilizing city and county property tax levy funding and Ramsey

County receiving revenues through a combination of county property taxes (60%) and city property taxes

(40%), each city’s share is established through a CFS formula.

Staffing – Depending upon the individual needs of dispatch centers and their approach toward call

processing, staff positions had different specialties and responsibilities. Counties that incorporated dispatch

centers into their organizational structure were able to provide a variety of internal support services, such as

employee relations, finance, and information technology (IT).

Customization – To varying degrees, peer dispatch centers customized services for their municipalities.

OPA staff was also asked to compile feedback regarding DCC services. As follow-up to this request, a sampling of

area managers familiar with DCC operations were interviewed. Overall, feedback indicated that the DCC provided

quality service, but requests were made to revisit the organization’s funding and committee structures.

-29-



Page 4

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS After conducting interviews of DCC, Anoka, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington County dispatch center management,

OPA staff made the following general observations. While these observations are not intended to serve as

recommendations, they provide an overall impression of dispatch center activities and results in the DCC and peer

counties. Additional information regarding each observation can be found later within this report.

Organizational Structure

1) STRUCTURE PLACEMENT – Area dispatch centers are frequently housed within county structures. This is the

case for Anoka, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. Anoka and Ramsey1 County dispatch centers

are housed within county administration, while Scott and Washington Counties are located within the

Sheriff’s Office. See pages 8-9 for additional details.

Finance Structures 2) REVENUE – All dispatch centers considered within this report are funded in large part through property

taxes.2 3 See pages 9 and 13-14 for additional details. 3) SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH OTHER COUNTY OPERATIONS – Due to the scale of operations,

dispatch centers housed within counties are able to benefit from organizational efficiencies. To varying degrees, area county housed dispatch centers receive services from Attorney, Employee Relations, Facilities, Finance, and IT departments. These internal departments provide services to the dispatch center in the same manner as other county departments. This differs from the DCC, which receives a combination of external services coupled with functions performed by its own staff. See pages 14-18 for additional details.

Operational Structure

4) SHIFT STRUCTURE (8s, 10s and 12s) – Shift structures are driven by the needs of individual counties. There

is currently no industry standard for shift structures. See Table 11 on page 22 for additional details.

5) WORKING SUPERVISORS – In both Scott and Washington Counties, the use of working supervisors helped

to maintain lower dispatcher staffing levels, but it was noted that this practice limits their availability to

perform supervisory functions. See Table 12 on page 22, as well as pages 20 and 22, for additional

details.

Operational Functions

6) CALL VOLUME – DCC and Ramsey’s volume is partially inflated due to emergency medical service (EMS)

calls.4 See pages 24-25 for additional details.

7) QUALITY OF SERVICE – The quality of service provided by area dispatch centers is not impacted by

governance structure. 911 call answering times are comparable between organizations regardless of

where the dispatch center is housed. See Graph 9 on page 26 for additional details.

Customization of Services

8) CUSTOMIZATION / WARRANTS – Although customization is common, the services provided are unique to

the individual counties. External warrant confirmation is limited to Washington County and the DCC. See

page 28 for additional details.

1 Although it is housed within County Administration, Ramsey County’s communications center is governed by a JPA. 2 Ramsey County’s funding is calculated through a formula where 60% is funded through county property taxes and the remaining 40% is funded through cities, based upon a three-year rolling average of a member municipality’s share of calls for service. 3 DCC property tax funding is provided through city and county property taxes, which contribute toward Calls for Service (CFS) Formula payments. 4 Scott County does not handle EMS calls, with the exception of the Mdewakanton Sioux residential area.

-30-



Page 5

Customer Satisfaction

9) DCC FUNDING AND COMMITTEE STRUCTURES – Dakota County municipal managers provided feedback

which expressed an interest in a more equitable funding structure and revisiting the usefulness of the

current DCC committee structure. See pages 29-30 for additional details.

10) CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEYS – Customer service surveys are not utilized in the DCC or peer counties. It

was noted that the usefulness of customer satisfaction surveys is limited, public feedback often confuses the

emergency services received with the services provided by dispatch center staff. See page 30 for

additional details.

-31-



Page 6

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In 2004 the High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) project, conducted by Dakota County cities and the County,

identified the need for the development of a centralized public safety answering point (PSAP) and dispatch center. As

a follow-up to that project, the DCC was established in late 2005 through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between

Dakota County and 11 cities located within the county.

The DCC is guided by a complex governance structure with three distinct committees including the Board of Directors

(elected officials), the Executive Committee (city/county chief administrators), and the Operations Committee (law

enforcement, fire, and EMS personnel). In addition, multiple task forces, comprised of members from the three

Committees and stakeholders (law enforcement, fire, EMS, dispatch personnel), were formed to address start up

issues.5

In late 2017, the FBI indicated that it would begin enforcing its policy that prohibits non-criminal justice agencies from

having access to the FBI/CJIS systems necessary for PSAP operations unless it had in place a management control

agreement with a law enforcement agency. The Dakota County Sheriff’s Office agreed to assume this responsibility.

Complying with this FBI requirement has led to discussions as to on whether the County should assume ownership and

management of the DCC. Arguments in favor of this move have noted the potential for cost savings, better ability to

implement best practices, and increased efficiency in administration and governance. Potential concerns with

consolidation include cost controls, unclear mechanisms for local operational feedback, and challenges related to

budgetary transition including the tax levy.

Two reports were completed in August 2018 relating to the DCC. Dakota County OPA staff completed the Dakota

Communications Center: Governance Model Research Report and Winbourne Consulting completed the Operational and

Technical Assessment Report for the Dakota County Communications Center. After the completion of these two reports,

the DCC Executive Committee formed a work group to re-examine potential governance changes.

While work group efforts began with re-examining potential governance changes, they were redirected towards

Dakota County assuming ownership of the DCC. The work group developed a resolution that was recommended and

adopted by the DCC Board of Directors on May 16, 2019. The County received a letter and DCC Resolution from the

DCC Board of Directors asking the County Board of Commissioners to “consider assuming ownership and management

duties of the DCC” and “that this matter be publicly discussed by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.”

At their August 6, 2019, meeting, the Board of Commissioners discussed the resolution from the DCC Board of

Directors and requested that the DCC Board of Directors continue to work on re-examining the governance model. The

Board of Commissioners also directed Dakota County staff to research measurable benefits, in areas of potential cost

savings and improved services, of other PSAPs to assist stakeholders in determining if service would be improved

under a county managed PSAP model.

The purpose of this report is to compare organizational details for area dispatch centers6 to assist in determining the

impact of PSAP models on service delivery. While not providing recommendations, the report will contain observations

based upon information gathered during the report’s creation.

5 http://www.mn-dcc.org/about-the-dcc/ 6 In late 2019, OPA staff interviewed communications center staff serving Dakota (DCC), Anoka, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties.

-32-



Page 7

DATA REVIEW

Dakota County staff worked with staff from peer counties to collect data in areas such as finance structures,

operational structure, operational functions, customization of services, organizational structure, customer satisfaction,

and staff time for meetings. The breadth of this data was a large task to collect for peer counties, DCC staff and

Dakota County staff. Dakota County staff are grateful for the assistance and knowledge shared by the DCC and our

peer counties. Without their assistance and expertise, the information contained within this report would not be

possible. Dispatch centers track different data sets to measure their performance or track similar data in a different

manner that makes it difficult to provide a comparison. There are few standardized measurements that allow for

comparison across dispatch centers. Given this, not all counties were able to provide each data point that was

requested. Dakota County staff focused this report on the collected data that could provide comparison points

between dispatch centers.

County Statistics

Dakota County’s population growth (1.8%) from 2016-18 closely mirrors that of Ramsey and Anoka counties (1.5% to

2.1%), while Dakota County’s growth in Net Tax Capacity7 (16.5%) from 2016-18 is close to Anoka County (16.9%).

Table 1: Population

2016

Population8

2018

Population9

% of Dakota County (2018)

Population Increase 2016-18

Dakota 417,732 425,423 -- 1.8%

Anoka 346,665 353,813 83% 2.1%

Ramsey 541,944 550,210 129% 1.5%

Scott 143,340 147,381 35% 2.8%

Washington 252,494 259,201 61% 2.7%

Table 2: Tax capacity

2016 Net Tax

Capacity10

2018 Net Tax

Capacity11

% of Dakota County (2018)

Net Tax Capacity Increase 2016-18

Dakota $476,193,013 $554,686,922 -- 16.5%

Anoka $338,335,629 $395,512,563 71% 16.9%

Ramsey $547,901,815 $632,367,747 114% 15.4%

Scott $177,230,896 $201,485,956 36% 13.7%

Washington $318,852,538 $366,693,430 66% 15.0%

7 This report references Net Tax Capacity, which includes the entire tax base, prior to reductions. Net Tax Capacity differs from Adjusted Net Tax Capacity, which includes taxable portions of properties adjusted for items such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF). 8 U.S Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. https://www.census.gov/. 2019. 9 Ibid. 10 Minnesota Department of Revenue. County Adjusted Net Tax Capacity. https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/. 2019. 11 Ibid.

-33-



Page 8


Governing Authority / Operational Characteristics of Metro Area County Dispatch Centers

All peer counties housed their dispatch centers within the county structure. DCC is unique, among peer counties, in that

it functions outside of the county structure. DCC and Ramsey County operate under a JPA structure.

The DCC is a JPA that provides a governing board and other committees. Ramsey County’s JPA gives authority to

Ramsey County’s Board of Commissioners for governance, while their Policy Committee serves as a review and

advisory committee with representatives from member jurisdictions.

Anoka and Ramsey Counties are similar in organizational structure within County Administration and governed by the

Board of Commissioners with the exception that Ramsey County is operated within a JPA and Anoka is not. Anoka

County’s dispatch center also reports to the Fire Protection Council (FPC), Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC), and

the Public Safety Communications Committee with the County Board of Commissioners as the final authority.

Scott and Washington Counties are the most similar out of all peer counties as both are housed within their respective

Sheriff’s Offices command structures. Scott and Washington Counties have a committee(s) that meet regularly to

review dispatch operations. Committee members include internal representatives from each respective department.

Hennepin County was not included within this study due to size of population and multiple 911 dispatch centers within

the county. Hennepin County’s dispatch center serves approximately two-thirds of the county with seven other dispatch

centers located within the county. Other dispatch centers include: Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minneapolis,

Minneapolis St. Paul (MSP) International Airport, Saint Louis Park, and University of Minnesota.12

12 Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Emergency Communication Networks. https://dps.mn.gov/. 2020.

-34-



Page 9

Table 3: Governing Authority / Operational Characteristics of Metro Area County Dispatch Centers

Governance Level of

Consolidation Funding Other

Dakota JPA All cities and townships

CFS Formula (utilizing city and county property tax levy funding); 911 Revenue Funds

Anoka County - Administration

All cities and townships

County Levy; 911 Revenue Funds Minn. Stat. § 383E.2113

Hennepin County - Sheriff's Office

Approximately 2/3 of the County14

County Levy; 911 Revenue Funds

Ramsey County - Administration (JPA)


60% County (levy); 40% Cities (city property tax levy through CFS Formula); 911 Revenue Funds

Scott County - Sheriff's Office



Washington County - Sheriff's Office



13 Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota State Statutes 2019, Chapter 383, Section 383E.21 Countywide Public Safety Improvements and Equipment; Bonding and Tax Levies. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/. 2019. 14 Does not include Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Fort Snelling Minneapolis, MSP Airport, Richfield, Saint Louis Park, and University of Minnesota.

-35-



Page 10

Committees and Frequency – Scheduled/Usually Held

Although each county has a unique committee structure, Board of Directors, Executive, Law Enforcement, and Fire

committees were most frequently present. Ramsey County’s Dispatch Policy Committee consists of elected officials

throughout Ramsey County and advises the County Board regarding the dispatch center’s budget, policies, and

service levels. The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners maintains final authority on all decisions relating to Ramsey

County’s dispatch center. Scott County and Washington County lack additional governance provided by a Board of

Directors or Executive Committee.

Table 4: Committee Listing

DCC

Board of Directors Executive Committee Joint Operations Committee Law Enforcement Committee Fire Committee

Anoka

Joint Law Enforcement Committee (JLEC) Fire Protection Council (FPC) Public Safety Committee Communications Committee

Ramsey Dispatch Policy Committee Law Enforcement Committee Fire Committee

Scott Public Safety Information Systems Advisory Group

Washington

Law Enforcement Improvement Team Fire Improvement Team

-36-



Page 11

The JPA, which governs the DCC, contains provisions for the following three committees.

1) Board of Directors shall meet at least twice per year. The Board of Directors is comprised of an elected

official from each DCC member. The Board serves as the DCC’s governing body.

2) Executive Committee shall hold meetings at least quarterly. The Executive Committee is comprised of chief

administrators from DCC members. The Executive Committee provides direct oversight for DCC activities and

makes recommendations to the Board of Directors.

3) Operations Committee shall meet at least six times per year. The Operations Committee is comprised of one

member from each member law enforcement and fire agency, as well as the Joint EMS Council. The

Operations Committee assists in the coordination of a variety of activities, such as radio procedures, training,

records management, and providing recommendations to the DCC Executive Director and member public

safety departments.

Table 5 provides an approximation of the time dedicated by various DCC committee members toward organizational

boards.

Table 5: Estimate of Annual Time Spent on DCC Committee Meetings15

Committee Members16

Estimated Number

of Annual

Meetings

Estimate of Total Annual

Materials Review

Time (Hours)17

Estimate of Total Annual Travel Time

(Hours)18

Estimate of Total Annual Meeting

Time (Hours)19

Estimate of Total Annual Time

(Hours)

Estimate of Total Annual Time per

Member

Board of Directors

12 4 24 38 48 110 9

Executive Committee

12 8 48 75 96 219 18

Operations20 23 2 23 35 46 104 5

Law Enforcement

24 6 72 118 144 334 14

Fire 27 6 81 131 162 374 14

Overall21 75 26 248 396 496 1,140 15

15 Values are rounded to the nearest hour. 16 For this analysis, membership includes Primary Representatives only for the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and Operations Committee. The Law Enforcement and Fire committees include Primary Representatives, Alternatives, and non-primary representatives. 17 Time for meeting materials review is estimated at 30 minutes per member per meeting. 18 Travel time is based on driving an average of 30 miles per hour. 19 Estimates are based on one-hour meetings. 20 The Operations Committee is comprised of Law Enforcement and Fire committee members. 21 For the overall totals, Law Enforcement and Fire Primary Representatives are only counted once, even though they also serve on the joint Operations Committee.

-37-



Page 12

For Table 5, please note the following items:

• The Operations Committee is frequently cancelled. OPA staff estimated the annual time spent on the meeting,

two meetings per year were included within the calculation.

• Time commitment estimates are intended to represent minimum amounts associated with minimal attendees and

meeting times.

• Although not part of the time estimates, it is assumed that any simplification of the DCC committee structure or

reduction in number of meetings will reduce DCC time commitments related to meeting preparation,

attendance, and follow-up. A reduction in the number of meetings would also resolve any concerns related to

travel time and attendance associated with brief meetings.

-38-



Page 13

Finance Structures

Revenues

All peers rely on a county property tax levy, although Ramsey uses their portion for a cost sharing split.

Table 6: Main Revenue Source

DCC

County Property Tax and City Property Tax; each members’ user fee is calculated through a 3-year average of CAD calls not counting self-initiated premise checks, details, and follow-up

Anoka Property Tax

Ramsey

County Property Tax and City Property Tax; each city’s share is calculated through a 911 Calls for Service formula (3-year rolling average of member's share of CFS)

Scott Property Tax

Washington Property Tax

The main revenue source, among the majority of peer counties, is the property tax levy as seen in Table 6. All peer

counties have supplemental revenue from 911 revenue funds from the State of Minnesota and other minor revenue

generators such as fees for services. Minnesota Statute §403.11 establishes the emergency telecommunications service

fee. The fee is assessed to all wireless, wireline, or packet-based telecommunications service providers connected to

the public switch network that is capable of originating a 911 emergency telephone call. Dispatch centers within

Minnesota receive funds through the 911Special Revenue Fund. An example of fees for service may be providing

copies of 911 calls to interested parties for a fee to cover the cost of producing that service.

Anoka, Scott and Washington Counties mainly fund their dispatch centers through the county property tax levy. Scott

and Washington County dispatch centers are located within their Sheriff’s Office’s organizational structure. Anoka

County’s dispatch center is located within County Administration and assigns the Deputy County Administrator

oversight.

One unique authority given to Anoka County is State Statute § 383E.21.22 This statute gives Anoka County the

authority to levy and incur debt for public safety improvements and equipment that benefit both Anoka County and

its municipalities. This levy option has been utilized to fund 800 MHz infrastructure improvements, but not 911 dispatch

center operations or improvements.

Ramsey County has two main revenue sources, the county property tax levy and city property tax levy calculated by

a CFS formula that the cities pay to the County through a JPA. The county property tax levy makes up 60% of

revenue and the cities’ property tax levy (CFS formula) makes up the other 40%. The percentages are calculated

after 911 revenue funds have been attributed to projected expenditures. The City of St. Paul attributes about 70%

22 Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota State Statutes 2019, Chapter 383, Section 383E.21 Countywide Public Safety Improvements and Equipment; Bonding and Tax Levies. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/. 2019.

-39-



Page 14

of the overall city CFS funding. The CFS formula assigns each member’s share on a three-year rolling average of calls

for service.

The DCC is funded mainly through county and city property tax levies. Each members’ user fee is calculated through a

CFS formula.

Due to their size, Hennepin County was not thoroughly studied as a peer county, as part of this report. It is however

worth noting that Hennepin County’s dispatch center is funded by the county property tax levy. Overall, Hennepin

County includes seven dispatch centers that operate independently of Hennepin County’s dispatch center. Other

dispatch centers include: Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minneapolis, Minneapolis St. Paul (MSP) International

Airport, Saint Louis Park, and the University of Minnesota.23 It is our understanding that Hennepin County’s dispatch

center receives the majority of their funding through the county property tax levy, while all other dispatch centers,

located within the county, are funded by their respective cities or organizations.

Expenditures

Expenditures across peer counties differ as some counties (Anoka and Washington) separate their dispatch center

expenditures from their 800 MHz expenses into separate budgets, while other counties do not (Ramsey and Scott).

This makes it difficult to directly compare costs across dispatch centers. Another difficult item to fully account for when

comparing budgets with peer counties are the services provided by the county that are not charged back to

departments. When a service is not charged back to a department, it is built into another part of each respective

county’s budget. Some peer counties charge back for certain services and not for others, there is limited consistency on

what receives a charge back and what does not.

The breakdown for Personnel, Supplies, Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services (Other), and Capital Outlay

were subjective to the author’s understanding of each dispatch center’s budget. Some budget line items were

relocated to a different section to promote consistency of the four assigned categories. An example of a budget line

relocation was that some dispatch centers listed the budget line item of “Training” as part of their Supplies section, this

was moved to Other. Another example is that some dispatch centers had additional categories, these categories were

broken down by budget line item and reassigned to one of the assigned categories. Graph 1 and 2 provide an

overview of expenditures across each respective dispatch center. Consistent among all dispatch centers, personnel

costs were the primary source of expenditures. Capital Outlay and Supplies made up the smallest percentage of

each dispatch center’s budget. The greatest variation between the DCC and other dispatch centers is within the

category of Other which tended to also reflect the variation in Personnel. This will be discussed in greater depth

below.

23 Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Emergency Communication Networks. https://dps.mn.gov/. 2020.

-40-



Page 15

Graph 1: Expenditures (2018)

Graph 2: Three-Year Average Expenditures (2016-18)

Graph 1 provides an overview of 2018 expenditures by percentage and Graph 2 expands upon Graph 1 by

adding 2016 and 2017 to provide a three-year average of 2016 to 2018 expenditures. Causes for variations

between Graph 1 and Graph 2, within the Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services are software and

software maintenance (Anoka and Washington counties) and equipment repair and maintenance (Scott County).

Anoka, Scott and Washington Counties have smaller budgets and may be subject to greater variance with large

expenditures such as new software.

63.9%75.2%

83.6% 80.9% 79.4%

0.2%

2.8%

0.4% 2.0% 1.5%29.2%

20.2%13.4% 17.0% 17.9%

6.8%

1.8% 2.6% 0.0% 1.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DCC Anoka Ramsey Scott Washington

Personnel Supplies Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services Capital Outlay

$9,596,644 $3,596,306$2,305,515$16,166,104$5,444,342

67.3% 72.3%83.4% 83.4% 81.9%

0.2%2.6%

0.4% 1.2% 2.9%29.8%23.8%

13.6% 15.2% 13.1%

2.8% 1.4% 2.5% 0.2% 2.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DCC Anoka Ramsey Scott Washington

Personnel Supplies Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services Capital Outlay

$9,015,787 $3,242,761$2,194,507$15,598,010$5,350,388

-41-



Page 16

Both Graph 1 and Graph 2 show that the DCC’s Other section has a noticeably larger portion of expenditures when

compared to peer counties. The top five budget line items for the DCC’s Other category include: Contract Data

Processing, Building Lease, Contract Building Maintenance, Contract Equipment Maintenance, and Fiscal Agent. The

five listed expenditures account for almost 80% of expenditures within the DCC’s Other section.

The Contract Data Processing budget line item is the DCC’s contract with Local Government Information Systems

(LOGIS) to provide for most IT needs including: computer aided dispatching (CAD), HR/Payroll, internet, exchange,

State network connections, and Microsoft licensing. The LOGIS contract does not include radio and phones. Software

maintenance and data processing maintenance were also large line items for Ramsey County’s Other category.

Similar support of these systems may be located in a county’s IT department budget.

The Building Lease budget line item was placed in the Other category to compare with peer county space allocation

budget line items. DCC’s building will be fully paid off in 2022 with extension of rent to be negotiated.24 Anoka

County and Ramsey County’s space allocation costs were also among their top five Other expenditures. Scott County’s

space allocation costs would also make their top five if utility costs are included within that number. The DCC had its

own building for operations, in all other counties dispatch operations shared space with other county operations.

The Contract Building Maintenance budget line item covers ground operations such as snow removal and irrigation. A

similar line item did appear in Anoka County’s top five expenditures for the Other category. This line item may be

rolled into other line items such as Repair & Maintenance or Buildings & Office Space Allocations with peer counties.

As with the Building Lease budget line item, the DCC is housed within its own building and all costs for building

maintenance are expenditures of the DCC while peer counties may spread these costs across multiple departments

that share space.

The Contract Equipment Maintenance budget line item includes contracts that support the maintenance of equipment.

This includes a contract to maintain radio consoles and other items; maintenance of the audio logger to record radio

and phone communication; maintenance of the 911 phone system; and other equipment maintenance costs. Most peer

counties had a similar line item within their top five expenditures in the Other category. Some of these functions may

also be supported within a county’s IT department but charged back to departments as a service. Ramsey County has

IT staff within their department to support IT technical needs. Anoka County pays IT related charge backs including

salary back to County IT to support a CAD administrator role. In Washington County, IT services the desktops and

provides partial CAD support, while they bring in vendors to support their radio/phone, recording system and media

wall.

The Fiscal Agent budget line item is the City of Lakeville’s contract with the DCC to perform fiscal assistance. Similar to

the DCC, Anoka and Ramsey County had administrative staff to assist with fiscal related items. Each peer county’s

budget/finance department prepares the budget document for their respective county. This document is prepared by

DCC staff with the assistance from the fiscal agent.

For summaries on revenues and expenditures, see Appendix B.

One noticeable comparison, for expenditures, is Anoka County and the DCC’s personnel costs. Anoka County has 55

personnel and the DCC had 65 personnel in 2018. From 2016 to 2018, each year, there is a $2 million difference.

For example, in 2018, Anoka County’s personnel costs were $4.1 million and the DCC’s were $6.1 million. Anoka

County’s population is 83% the size of Dakota County’s and yet, Anoka County’s personnel costs were 67% of the

DCC’s. A difference in 10 staff members covers about half of the $2 million. Some of the cost differences are found in

organizational structure. As seen in Appendix C, Anoka County does not have a position within its budget similar to

24 Currently, DCC’s building payments account for a $715,500 annual expenditure, which is included in the Other category.

-42-



Page 17

the DCC’s Executive Director. Anoka County has a Deputy County Administrator that dedicates 25% of their time to

overseeing dispatch center functions, however, this position’s salary is not located within the dispatch center’s budget.

The DCC also utilizes the supervisor position (7 total), whereas, Anoka County implements lead positions (8 total). The

position of supervisor usually demands greater supervision and administrative responsibilities compared to lead

positions, justifying a higher salary. In 2018, Anoka County had 40 dispatchers, the DCC had 53. The DCC’s

dispatchers provide pre-arrival medical instructions to 911 callers, which requires additional certification. The DCC

also implements a two-stage dispatching system and Anoka County maintains a single stage dispatching system.

Table 7: Expenditures (2016-18)

2016 2017 2018 % of DCC

(2018)

DCC $8,687,266 $8,763,451 $9,596,644 -

Anoka $5,132,596 $5,474,227 $5,444,342 57%

Ramsey $14,726,388 $15,901,540 $16,166,104 168%

Scott $2,171,446 $2,102,705 $2,309,371 24%

Washington $2,845,948 $3,286,028 $3,596,306 37%

Table 8: Cost and Call Comparisons (2018)

2018 Cost per Capita

2018 Cost per CAD

Event

2018 Cost per Call

2018 Call per Capita

DCC $22.56 $28.35 $18.91 1.19

Anoka $15.44 $21.32 $13.21 1.17

Ramsey $29.38 $30.65 $16.10 1.82

Scott $15.64 - - -

Washington $13.87 - - -

A data point that the authors were asked to produce was cost per capita, see Table 8. It is acknowledged that this data point can be problematic in that it is dependent upon a variety of factors, including the nature of calls and community characteristics. As a result, information provided in Table 8 should be utilized only to compliment other information, rather than serving as a primary data point.

Fund Balance

The DCC maintains two fund balances, the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund. The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the organization. The Capital Projects Fund is assigned for future capital acquisition. Capital

-43-



Page 18

Projects funds cannot include expenditures for operational costs. At the end of 2018, the DCC’s fund balances for the General Fund was $2.2 million and its Capital Projects Fund was $1.5 million.25 Ramsey County has similar dedicated funds for its dispatch center operations and capital outlay that are specifically dedicated for these expenditures. Ramsey County Board of Commissioners Resolution #2012-313 set up a committed fund to finance the Computer Aided Dispatch/Mobiles System Project in 2012. This fund is an internally imposed constraint that limits expenditures to updates and other capital outlay costs relating to the computer aided dispatching system. In addition to a committed fund, Ramsey County has an assigned fund. The assigned fund is dedicated for the operations and other expenditures of the dispatch center as established within the JPA. Revenue for these funds, as discussed previously, include payments from Ramsey County and member cities and other sources of revenue such as 911 revenue funds. At the end of 2018, the committed fund balance for the Ramsey County Emergency Communications Department was $4.9 million and its assigned fund balance was $8.1 million.26 Both funds are located within the Ramsey County budget, however, neither fund can be utilized by Ramsey County to support other county functions.

Additional Expenditure Observations

The following items were also observed, while reviewing dispatch center expenditures.

Employee Relations – Employee relations activities are handled through county employee relations departments (i.e.

human resources departments), with the exception of the DCC, which receives only limited assistance from Dakota

County. It is also worth noting that while county employee relations departments handle personnel functions, dispatch

centers are active throughout all employee relations activities.

Training – It is common for mandatory trainings to be conducted through county employee relations departments,

while specialized training is coordinated and conducted through the dispatch center.

Attorney – In each instance, the county attorney addresses legal needs.

Facilities Ownership – All dispatch facilities are county owned.

Equipment – DCC, Ramsey County, and Washington County own their radio systems. Dakota County owns the 800

MHz infrastructure, as opposed to DCC ownership.

Equipment Payments – In all instances, counties have paid off borrowing for their CAD systems.

25 Management Communication Dakota Communication Center for the Year Ended December 31, 2018. April 9, 2019. https://mn-dcc.org/. 26 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ramsey County, Minnesota Year Ended December 31, 2018. June 13, 2019. https://RamseyCounty.us/.

-44-



Page 19

Operational Structure27

Dispatch centers build their operational structure based on the needs of the communities they serve. There are overall guidelines on how a dispatch center functions and operates but to carry out the duties, dispatch centers have flexibility in how the organization is structured. Some of these differences can be seen in the positions that dispatch centers employ and how positions carry out their duties. Among all dispatch centers, the only position provided by all dispatch centers were dispatchers. Most had a dispatch center manager or similar. Some were overseen by a command structure within the Sheriff’s Office, while others were overseen by a Deputy County Manager/Administrator. One had telecommunicators to assist dispatchers by redirecting non-emergency calls before calls went to dispatchers. Others had working supervisors to assist with calls. The August 2018 Winbourne Report Operational and Technical Assessment Report for the Dakota County Communications Center provided operational and technical recommendations for the DCC. Included within the recommendations, the DDC was advised to add six positions. Three would close operational capability gaps, while the other three would close mission support capability gaps as defined within Winbourne’s report.

Table 9: Winbourne Recommended Operational Positions

Lead Communications Officer

Service Performance & Data Quality Officer

Learning & Development Officer28 For the operational positions, few similar stand-alone positions were found among peer counties. Most of these roles were assumed by positions that carried other responsibilities or were performed in conjunction with other departments, such as Communications or Human Resources. In response to the Winbourne Report, the DCC added the role of quality assurance to a new supervisor position in 2020. The start of this position has been delayed. Table 10: Winbourne Recommended Mission Support Positions

Management Analyst

Strategic Technologies Director29

Outreach & Workforce Services Director (Human Resources Director)30

No peer dispatch centers had a position similar to the recommended Management Analyst position, these duties were performed by multiple roles. The role for strategic technologies was usually held by the dispatch center manager or within the county’s IT department. For human resources, most dispatch centers received assistance from a human resources department housed within the county. The recommendation to add six positions was part of a larger recommendation to establish a new organizational structure. Within the new organizational structure ancillary operational responsibilities would be strategically allocated. Part of this recommendation arose from the feedback that operational supervisor responsibilities were diluted by administrative responsibilities such as committee and user group participation, requests for audio tapes, and inquiries. Involvement in administrative responsibilities limit time to effectively supervise shifts in real-time. Scott

27 Note: the title of this section was changed from “Employment Status” to “Operational Structure” as it was originally identified in the Project Scope. See Appendix A. 28 Ramsey County does have designated Training Supervisors and a Training Team to help train dispatchers and telecommunicators for their specific roles. Other training that is more general, such as sexual harassment, is provided by the County Human Resources Department. 29 The Strategic Technologies Director may be similar to Ramsey County’s Technology Manager, but it is not a director level position. This position oversees projects, CAD, radio infrastructure support and technical support technicians within the department. 30 Ramsey County has an Administrative Manager that oversees hiring, promotions, payroll, and FMLA but also oversees procurement, budget, and request for board action (RBA) items for the department with the assistance of three positions.

-45-



Page 20

and Washington counties noted that limited time is available for supervision, when however, this concern arose from supervisors, or shift leads, who also act as dispatchers. The DCC seems to be unique in the approach of utilizing direct dispatch supervisors to fulfill certain administrative tasks. In response to this recommendation, the DCC reviewed workloads and supervisors have been urged to take constructive action with employees, when needed. The Winbourne Report recommended moving away from a universal staffing model. Currently, DCC dispatchers fill

both roles of call taker and dispatcher. DCC staff’s response to this recommendation was that the universal staffing

model provides the DCC with staffing flexibility. Ramsey County is the only peer county to implement a two-stage

dispatching model where dispatchers did not act as call takers, telecommunicators answer all calls. For police calls,

Ramsey County dispatchers receive information via their computer and dispatch police services from the information

received. Police dispatchers do not speak directly with callers requesting police services. Telecommunicators transfer

medical emergency calls to fire dispatchers who dispatch medical services and provide pre-arrival instructions. Similar

to police dispatchers, fire dispatchers do not speak with 911 callers when dispatching services, this information is

received via computer from information entered by the telecommunicator.

Graph 3: Population per Dispatcher (2018)

In reviewing Graph 3, it is worth noting that since average call loads and the nature of calls can vary between communities, no standard exists for an appropriate ratio of population per dispatcher. Ramsey’s ratio of population per dispatcher is difficult to truly reflect due to their use of telecommunicators, which reduces their number of dispatchers compared with other counties. The use of working supervisors in Scott and Washington counties results in a lower ratio of population per dispatcher.

8,027

8,845 9,020 9,600

8,669

7,855

7,018

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

DCC Anoka Ramsey Washington Scott

Per Dispatcher Per Dispatcher with Working Supervisors

-46-



Page 21

Graph 4: CAD Event per Dispatcher (2018)31

Graph 5: Calls per Dispatcher (2018)32

The DCC’s calls per dispatcher is comparable to Anoka County’s number. Anoka County added four dispatcher

positions in 2020, meaning that at the time of this report, Anoka County’s calls per dispatcher number may be less

than that represented in 2018 if there was not a large increase in 911 calls.

Similar to Graphs 3 and 4, Graph 5 is affected by Ramsey’s use of telecommunicators within a two-stage dispatching

system. Telecommunicators receive the calls and send information via computer to dispatchers to dispatch emergency

services and, if necessary, provide pre-arrival medical instructions to callers. The DCC also implements a two-stage

dispatching system. However, the DCC does not have a position similar to telecommunicators. DCC staffing structure

31 For Graph 4, Ramsey County’s CAD Event per Dispatcher was calculated by comparing CAD events to dispatchers as they dispatch services. Telecommunicators were not included in this calculation. 32 For Graph 5, Ramsey County’s Call per Dispatcher was calculated to reflect calls per telecommunicator as they are the first to receive the call.

6,387 6,408

8,648

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

DCC Anoka Ramsey

9,574 10,343

16,732

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Dakota Anoka Ramsey

-47-



Page 22

allows dispatchers to act as either call taker or dispatcher. One dispatcher receives the calls and sends information

via computer to another dispatcher to dispatch emergency services. The call taker, if necessary, provides pre-arrival

medical instructions to callers.

Table 11: Shift Structures (8-hour shifts, 10s, 12s)

DCC 10-hour shifts

Anoka Combination of 8 and 12-hour shifts

Ramsey 12-hour shifts

Scott 10-hour shifts

Washington Combination of 8 and 12-hour shifts

There is no consistency between peer counties in the use of 8, 10, or 12-hour shift structures.

Table 12: Minimum Staffing (Dispatchers)

DCC 8-10 dispatchers

Anoka 7-8 dispatchers

Ramsey 9-11 dispatchers33 6-9 telecommunicators

Scott 3-6 dispatchers, not including working supervisors

Washington 3-6 dispatchers, not including working supervisors

Minimum staffing levels within peer counties vary depending upon time of day, day of the week, and time of year.

Overall, the minimum staffing levels for dispatchers in Scott and Washington counties is reduced by their use of

working supervisors. Also, the use of telecommunicators in Ramsey County likely reduces minimum staffing levels for

dispatchers.

Administrative Time

The following anecdotal responses provided by peer counties summarize the time spent by Administrative resources in

the supervision of the county dispatch centers (i.e. Assistant County Manager time, Sheriff Lieutenant, etc.). Peer

counties also emphasized that the amount of time spent on dispatch center activities vary throughout the year (e.g.

additional administrative assistance may be required during the creation of the department’s budget).

Ramsey – Deputy County Manager – less than 25% of time.

Anoka – Deputy County Administrator – approximately 25% of time.

Washington – Sheriff Commander – “small amount of time providing assistance.”

33 Ramsey County’s dispatcher minimums are split between Fire/EMS dispatchers (a minimum of 5-6 dispatchers) and Law Enforcement dispatchers (4-5).

-48-



Page 23

The presence of this additional layer of administrative assistance and other internal support services most likely reduce the amount of time that dispatch centers would otherwise spend on administrative functions, including general administration, employee relations, and IT. Salaries and benefits associated with administrative positions located within county organizational structures are not included in dispatch center expenses.

Additional Staffing Observations

The following items were also observed, while reviewing dispatch center staffing.

Manager – In Scott County, the dispatch center manager shared time with emergency management functions (75%

dispatch management and 25% emergency management). In Ramsey County, two of the managers also had

specialties, IT and GIS.

IT – Two organizations had designated IT staff, Ramsey (5 staff) and DCC (2). Washington County utilizes an IT staff

member that has been designated for the Sheriff’s Office for desktop and partial CAD support. Anoka County has a

CAD Administrator.

Clerical – Two organizations have Administrative/Clerical staff, Ramsey (3 staff) and DCC (1). In Anoka County, the

Office Manager performs any administrative support functions. In Scott County, many of the clerical functions are

performed by supervisors. In 14-15 cases per year, Scott County’s dispatch center is provided clerical support from

the Sheriff’s Office to prepare a transcript from a 911 call. These transcripts are usually prepared in connection with

a civil case.

-49-



Page 24


In compiling this report, information was collected, which details operational functions within dispatch centers. Several

sets of data were collected, including CAD (computer-aided dispatch) event volume; call totals; call volumes for fire

and EMS (emergency medical services); and 911 call answering times. Variation was most significant in the provision

of EMS dispatch services, as well as whether fire departments or health care providers responded to EMS calls.

Regardless of the type of dispatch services provided or the structure of the dispatch center, the level of service as

measured through 911 call answering times was comparable with over 93% of the calls being answered within 10

seconds for DCC, Ramsey County, and Anoka County. For those dispatch centers, percentages increased to between

98% and 100%, when measured by calls answered within 20 seconds. See Graph 9 on page 26.

CAD Events

Ramsey County and the DCC handle EMS calls, while Anoka County does not. As a result, EMS call volumes help

explain DCC and Ramsey County’s larger CAD event totals.

Graph 6: Total CAD Events (2017-18)

The increase in total CAD events for Ramsey County from 2017 to 2018 is associated in part with their consolidation

of White Bear Lake’s Police and Fire into Ramsey County’s dispatch center in May 2018.

During major events, a rollover agreement exists, where calls being received by a dispatch center experiencing high

volumes are “rolled over” to neighboring dispatch centers for assistance.

338,537

256,312

527,503

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

DCC Anoka Ramsey

2017 2018

-50-



Page 25

Graph 7: Total Calls (2018)

Figures for totals calls reflect a dispatch center’s entire call volume, whereas total CAD events (Graph 6) represent

single events, where multiple calls are counted once.

Operational Functions – EMS

The approach toward addressing EMS calls varies by organization. Table 13 illustrates how some dispatch centers

take EMS calls (DCC and Ramsey), while others forward the calls directly to health care networks that provide

ambulance services (Anoka and Washington). This service can have a measurable impact on the number of CAD

events handled by dispatch centers.

Fire department responses to EMS vary depending on the organization in question. Within Dakota County, fire

department responses to EMS calls depend upon the nature of the emergency. For serious medical calls, fire

departments respond with staff, in addition to ambulance services may also be contacted for response. Both Allina

and Health East/MHealth provide EMS services in Dakota County.

Table 13: Organizational Responses to EMS Calls

DCC Yes

Anoka No

Ramsey Yes

Scott No, except for the Mdewakanton Sioux residential area

Washington No

507,408

413,728

1,003,949

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

DCC Anoka Ramsey

-51-



Page 26

Operational Functions – Fire

Graph 8 illustrates how fire events comprise a smaller percentage of DCC’s total CAD events than in either Anoka or

Ramsey counties. Washington County does not record this data point and Scott County only recently began compiling

this information.

Graph 8: Percentage of CAD Events for Fire Events (2018)

Call Answering Times

As seen in Graph 9, DCC’s call answering times have closely mirrored their peers in Anoka and Ramsey counties.

Graph 9: 911 Call Answering Times (2018)

8%

12%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

DCC Anoka Ramsey

94.0%

96.3%

93.8%

100.0% 99.7%

98.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DCC Anoka Ramsey

Under 10 seconds Under 20 seconds

-52-



Page 27

The Winbourne report discusses retaining the two-stage dispatching system, while reviewing additional options to

alleviate 911 system burdens, such as a 311 alternative. In their response to the Winbourne report, DCC indicates

that considering options for the 911 system has not been necessary, since the DCC has been providing effective

service, as indicated through call answering times.

Additional Operational Narratives

For the data included within this section, attempts were made to collect the most recent and complete sets of

information. In the case of Total CAD Events, DCC, Anoka County, and Ramsey County were all able to provide

information for 2017 and 2018. For 911 Call Answering Times and Percentage of CAD Events for Fire Events, the

most recent set of data from 2018 was utilized.

The original project scope for this report proposed the collection of several data points which were either unavailable

or were collected by only one or two dispatch centers. These items included call processing times for Fire, standards

for Law Enforcement call processing times, and guidelines for Emergency Medical (EMS) dispatching. Due to their lack

of information, these items are not included within this report.

-53-



Page 28


All of the peer counties reviewed in this report feature some degree of customized services. Only Washington County

had the majority of their customization programmed for an automated response, whereas the remaining peer counties

required manual dispatcher review to determine the appropriate response.

Table 14: Customization of Services by County

DCC

Customized services include animal calls, lock-outs, after hours utility call outs, after hours lobby calls for agencies, mail/bank runs, order tows for accidents, calls for investigators, and detox calls. Services are listed in a OneNote file, which provides details regarding what services are covered and how to appropriately respond.

Anoka The only customized services are animal calls and vehicle lock-outs, which are unique by municipality. Cheat sheets listing how to respond within each municipality are provided to dispatchers.

Ramsey Address a variety of customized services. The list of customized services is available to staff within their SharePoint site, “ECC Net,” which includes resource information and contact names.

Scott

Law Enforcement does not have much specialization, although Shakopee responds to lock-outs. Variation frequently occurs with Fire service, especially medical calls. Dispatchers track customization items through cheat sheets.

Washington

Address a variety of customized services. The system (PowerPhone) is programmed with an automated response for customized services, which eliminates the need to look up information in another file. There are some exceptions, such as vehicle lock-outs, which are not programmed into the system.

Another customized service is warrant confirmation. Warrant confirmation is performed during non-business hours by

two dispatch centers, DCC and Washington County. Scott County performs warrant confirmation for other Scott

County agencies.

Table 15: Warrants

DCC Performs warrant confirmation during off hours on evenings and weekends. One individual confirms that there is a warrant in the system.

Anoka They do not handle warrants.

Ramsey They do not handle warrants.

Scott Performs warrant confirmation for Scott County agencies. All external warrant confirmation requests are handled by the Scott County Jail.

Washington Performs warrant confirmation during off hours. Four individuals split time performing this task.

While it is assumed that additional customization of services will increase the average time spent per call and

resulting cost per call (Table 8), duration of call data was unavailable to assist with a formal determination.

-54-



Page 29



In order to provide an overview of customer satisfaction in municipalities served by dispatch centers, OPA staff

requested the names of either city administrators or public safety representatives who could provide feedback. Both

DCC and Ramsey County recommended a listing of individuals who could provide informed feedback regarding

dispatch center services. The overall themes represented within their answers have been provided. In order to receive

candid feedback, respondents were informed that their answers would be summarized, and no individual names

would be linked to specific responses.

DCC Feedback (Four responses)

Overall municipal administrators were pleased with the quality of service that they receive from the DCC. Examples

of feedback include “Good service and healthy communications” and “Happy with DCC service.”

Negative feedback was received for the governance structure. Examples of governance structure feedback included

the following.

“Exploring a new governance model will help the DCC improve communication and achieve operational

objectives more quickly.”

“The governance is ‘clunky’ and it is also difficult to get information and a clear understanding of what is

‘discretionary’ in the provision of services.”

“The operational structure could be streamlined and become a county service.”

“Several committees however could be streamlined or eliminated. [For example] the Joint Operations

Committee could assume the role of the Law Enforcement Committee.”

“Other counties have taken over Comm Centers, along with user group input, to improve efficiency.”

“Streamline governance model to reduce administrative needs associated with meetings and committees.”

“Top-heavy governance model is no longer needed.”

Additional feedback was received for the DCC’s funding approach.

“Funding formula is the greatest criticism. Increasing costs are unsustainable and prohibit users from utilizing

the system to its fullest. Other options include a public safety levy or an equalization of costs based on a

community's tax base.”

“A per capita formula (population or calls for service) would be more equitable. Any change in the funding

model could be phased.”

“DCC funding and costs continue to be worrisome.”

“Would like to see a study of cost per call rather than the calls for service in comparable counties.”

“(Dakota) County could take a larger financial role incrementally.”

-55-



Page 30

Ramsey County Feedback (Three responses)

Ramsey County customers provided positive feedback regarding the dispatch center level of service.

“High satisfaction and good relationship.”

“Agencies are involved in decision making.”

“(There are) open lines of communications.”

“Very satisfied with contract structure, leadership, and ongoing management.”

Only two negative comments were received.

“High turnover and related training needs can sometimes lead to challenges in resolving problems.”

“(Fire Company) response time could be shortened, but it would require conversion to an all calls format.”

Citizen Customer Satisfaction Surveys

It is also worth noting that none of the peer dispatch centers have recently conducted citizen customer satisfaction

surveys. The DCC most recently conducted a survey over four years ago, but the responses illustrated a confusion

between 911 dispatch services and the public safety response.

-56-



Page 31

APPENDIX A: PROJECT SCOPE

October 11, 2019 – Final DCC Research Phase II Project Scope Statement Prepared by: OPA Project Background (WHY) History The Dakota Communications Center (DCC) organization was established in late 2005 through a Joint Powers Agreement between Dakota County and eleven cities located within the county. In 2004 the High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) project, conducted by Dakota County cities and the County, identified the need for the development of a centralized public safety answering point (PSAP) and dispatch center. The DCC organization is guided by a complex governance structure with three distinct committees including the Board of Directors (elected officials), the Executive Committee (city/county chief administrators), and the Operations Committee (law enforcement, fire, and EMS personnel). In addition, multiple task forces, comprised of members from the three Committees and stakeholders (law enforcement, fire, EMS, dispatch personnel), were formed to address start up issues.34 In late 2017, the FBI indicated that it would begin enforcing its policy that prohibits non-criminal justice agencies from having access to the FBI/CJIS systems necessary for PSAP operations unless it had in place a management control agreement with a law enforcement agency. The Dakota County Sheriff’s Office has agreed to assume this responsibility. Complying with this FBI requirement has led to discussions on whether the County should assume ownership and management of the DCC as a whole. The arguments in favor of this move have noted the potential for cost savings, better ability to implement best practices, and increased efficiency in administration and governance. Potential concerns with consolidation include cost controls, unclear mechanisms for local operational feedback, and the challenges of budgetary transition including the tax levy. Two reports were completed in August 2018 relating to the DCC. Staff within Dakota County’s Office of Performance and Analysis (OPA) completed the Dakota Communications Center: Governance Model Research Report and Winbourne Consulting, LLC completed the Operational and Technical Assessment Report for the Dakota County Communications Center. After the completion of these two reports, the DCC Executive Committee formed a work group to re-examine potential governance changes. While work group efforts began with re-examining potential governance changes, they were redirected towards Dakota County assuming ownership of the DCC. The work group developed a resolution that was recommended and adopted by the DCC Board of Directors on May 16, 2019. The County received a letter and DCC Resolution from the DCC Board of Directors asking the County Board of Commissioners to “consider

34 http://www.mn-dcc.org/about-the-dcc/

-57-



Page 32

assuming ownership and management duties of the DCC” and “that this matter be publicly discussed by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.” The Board of Commissioners discussed the resolution and letter from the DCC Board of Directors on August 6, 2019 at the General Governance and Policy Committee Meeting. The Board of Commissioners requested the DCC Board of Directors continue to work on re-examining the governance model. The Board of Commissioners directed Dakota County staff to research measurable benefits, in areas of potential cost savings and improved services, of other PSAPs to assist stakeholders in determining if service would be improved under a county managed PSAP model. Relation to a past project OPA staff completed the report Dakota Communications Center: Governance Model Research in August 2018. Phase or stage of an ongoing project Staff are pursuing this project as a Phase II initiative that arose from discussions with the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, DCC Board of Directors, and DCC Executive Committee after the completion of the Dakota Communications Center: Governance Model Research Report and Winbourne Consulting, LLC’s Operational and Technical Assessment Report for the Dakota County Communications Center. Need for project The Dakota County Board of Commissioners directed staff to research comparison data of other PSAPs to review efficiency and cost effectiveness with current operations. Data will assist stakeholders in determining if service would be improved under a county managed PSAP model.

Purpose/Deliverables/Outcomes (WHAT) Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to present comparative research of local PSAPs’ operational functions, employment status, finance structures, customization of services, and organizational structure to assist stakeholders in determining if service would be improved under a county managed PSAP model. Deliverables and format OPA will gather data found in Attachment A to provide data for comparison. Staff will also gather information on dispatch center structure and draft narratives. Report on common themes from customer satisfaction interviews. Parameters (inclusion/exclusion) Inclusion: gather data relating to PSAP financial structure, employment status, operational functions, customization of services, county statistics, and organizational structure. Exclusion: OPA will not provide or make recommendations. PSAP research outside of Minnesota will not be included. Work re-examining the DCC committee structure and governance model will not be included. Constraints Certain data requested may be controversial or require considerable PSAP staff time to complete the request. Willingness of PSAPs to share requested data. Most area PSAPs are county-operated, this will not allow for a direct comparison of budget expenditures and funding since costs may be spread throughout the county’s budget (ex. human resources, attorney fees, facilities maintenance, etc.). There was interest in incorporating recommendations of the Winbourne report within the final product of this Scope. If a recommendation provided within the Winbourne report is confirmed with data found from other

-58-



Page 33

PSAPs, OPA staff will work to note the similarities of findings within the final product of this Scope. Until staff reviews the data collected, it is unknown if there will be similarities found between the data collected of this project and the Winbourne report. Ultimate Project Goal Research will assist in framing and informing discussions by providing analysis of area PSAPs.

Process/Methodology/Resources (HOW) Guiding questions

1. What data would provide beneficial information to help inform discussion relating to PSAP data on financial structure, employment status, operational functions, customization of services, county statistics, and organizational structure?

2. What are the overall costs to operate a dispatch center? 3. What are the differences in employment levels? 4. What are the differences in operations? 5. How are different functions put together for other dispatch centers? 6. To what degree does additional customization add costs?

a. Can we quantify this? 7. How have other organizations limited customization more so than the DCC? 8. Are there different services embedded in each dispatch center?

Methodology Staff will interview identified PSAPs for information relating to financial structures, employment status, operational functions, customization of services, organizational structure, satisfaction of current dispatching service agreement(s) and advice for Dakota County. Staff will also interview a limited number of PSAP customers for customer satisfaction data (if a PSAP does not have a customer service survey to provide data). Publicly available data will also be gathered. Requested resources (IT or OPA) OPA staff time is requested.

Project Team and Audience (WHO)

Project Sponsor Matt Smith, County Manager Team Members Alex Jermeland, OPA Management Analyst Dave Paulsen, OPA Management Analyst B.J. Battig, Risk and Homeland Security Manager Sheriff Tim Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff’s Office Tom Folie, DCC Executive Director Audience (beyond Project Sponsor and Team Members) Dakota County Board of Commissioners DCC Board of Directors DCC Executive Committee

-59-



Page 34

Individuals who provided project scope review Matt Smith, County Manager DCC Executive Committee Tom Folie, DCC Executive

Timeline (WHEN) Task Staff Hours Timeline

Draft scope OPA 10

Present DRAFT Scope to DCC Executive Committee

County Manager 5 September 18 DCC Executive Committee Meeting

Finalize Scope OPA 5 September - October

Contacts identified PSAPs for research

OPA 4 October

Interview PSAP contacts OPA 60 October-November

Progress Report County Manager 5 November DCC Executive Committee Meeting

Progress Report County Manager 5 November DCC Board of Directors Meeting

Complete data gathering and prepare report

OPA 40 December

Progress Report County Manager 5 January DCC Executive Committee Meeting

Progress Report

County Manager 5 March DCC Executive Committee Meeting

Present DRAFT data to DCC Executive Committee

County Manager OPA

20 1st Quarter 2020 DCC Executive Committee Meeting

Final Report Revisions OPA 20 1st Quarter 2020

Total 184

(Signed) Matt Smith, County Manager Date: 10/14/19

-60-



Page 35

Attachment A: Data Inventory

Finance Structures

Breakdown of Budget

Funding source (Revenue)

Expenditures

ER/HR Services (source)

Training Resources (source)

Attorney Services (source)

Finance Services (source)

Information Technology Services (source)

Facilities Maintenance (source)

Facilities (Owned or Leased; Owner?)

Equipment (CAD, other)

Current status of payments

Employment Status

Total FTE (include open positions)

Managers

Supervisors

Dispatchers

Administrative/Clerical Staff

Information Technology Staff

Other (define other)


Dispatch functions

Radio functions (800 mghz, other)

Other functions

Total calls for service (5 yr)

Total Event calls (5 yr) - eliminate multiple calls for one event

Call duration for Dispatch Center

Call answering time (5 yr)

Calls answered within 7 seconds



Fire call processing time (5 yr) (NFPA standard 1221)

Fire calls processed within 64 seconds

Fire calls processed within 106 seconds

Exception calls processed within 90 seconds

Exception calls processed within 120 seconds

Law call processing time – Standard

Law calls processed by standard (5 yr)

-61-



Page 36

Emergency Medical Dispatching (5 yr) – Standard

Pro-QA guidelines

95% Case Entry Compliance

90% Total Compliance


Standard operating process established

Comparison of DCC current operating process/customization

County Statistics

Population

Tax capacity


Org Charts

Governance structure

Supporting committees


Customer Service Survey by PSAPs or interviews completed by Dakota County staff

Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with service

PSAP satisfaction with current service arrangement

Advice to Dakota County

Staff time for meetings (DCC Only)

Time for Managers, Fire/Police Chiefs & Sheriff, and Staff

Travel time

Context

The “Why” behind the current governance model

-62-



Page 37

APPENDIX B: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARIES

DCC

Revenues 2016 2017 2018

Member fees $ 8,353,201 $ 8,539,290 $ 8,763,263

Property Tax Levy $ - $ - $ -

E911/Grants $ 597,802 $ 599,888 $ 604,014

Other $ 111,623 $ 54,009 $ 64,041

Total Revenue $ 9,062,626 $ 9,193,187 $ 9,431,318

Expenditures 2016 2017 2018

Personnel $ 6,037,021 $ 6,026,331 $ 6,131,717

Supplies $ 14,091 $ 15,334 $ 15,326

Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services

$ 2,573,677 $ 2,683,626 $ 2,800,138

Capital Outlay $ 62,477 $ 38,160 $ 649,463

Total Expenditures $ 8,687,266 $ 8,763,451 $ 9,596,644

Anoka County

Revenues 2016 2017 2018

Member fees $ - $ - $ -

Property Tax Levy $ 4,606,174 $ 4,912,892 $ 4,932,435

E911/Grants $ 494,481 $ 494,481 $ 453,274

Other $ 58,466 $ 84,896 $ 77,976

Total $ 5,159,121 $ 5,492,269 $ 5,463,685


Personnel $ 3,553,955 $ 3,981,916 $ 4,110,539

Supplies $ 104,873 $ 160,909 $ 150,877

Other Charges & Services/ Professional Services

$ 1,418,736 $ 1,305,852 $ 1,104,531

Capital Outlay $ 81,557 $ 43,592 $ 97,738

Total $ 5,159,121 $ 5,492,269 $ 5,463,685

-63-



Page 38

Ramsey County

Revenues 2016 2017 2018



E911/Grants $ 689,651 $ 689,651 $ 689,651

Other $ 6,461,986 $ 6,362,352 $ 7,169,819

Total $ 14,726,388 $ 15,901,540 $ 16,166,104


Personnel Services $ 12,590,618 $ 12,937,214 $ 13,515,193

Supplies $ 67,972 $ 60,606 $ 69,237

Other Services & Charges/ Professional Services

$ 1,750,819 $ 2,460,218 $ 2,161,996

Capital Outlay35 $ 316,979 $ 443,503 $ 419,678

Total $ 14,726,388 $ 15,901,540 $ 16,166,104

Scott County

Revenue 2016 2017 2018



E911/Grants $ 241,636 $ 239,671 $ 241,896

Other $ 96,009 $ 93,112 $ 77,574

Total Revenue $ 2,250,611 $ 2,186,882 $ 2,547,235


Personnel Services $ 1,883,157 $ 1,738,041 $ 1,866,003

Supplies $ 70,486 $ 72,247 $ 46,603

Other Services & Charges/ Professional Services

$ 204,540 $ 292,419 $ 392,910

Capital Outlay $ 13,266 $ - $ -

Total Expenditures $ 2,171,446 $ 2,102,705 $ 2,305,515

35 Ramsey County’s Capital Outlay was restructured in 2017. Their Fund Balance and a portion of local contributions are utilized for Capital Outlay, which creates a prefunded account. On an annual basis, approximately 2.5% of the Ramsey County dispatch center budget is spent on Capital Outlay.

-64-



Page 39

Washington County

Revenue 2016 2017 2018

Member Fees $ - $ - $ -


E911/Grants $ 375,063 $ 375,064 $ 375,064

Other $ 27,042 $ 27,360 $ 26,308

Total $ 3,196,306 $ 3,229,023 $ 3,412,572


Personnel $ 2,487,983 $ 2,627,894 $ 2,854,877

Supplies $ 111,134 $ 114,222 $ 53,449

Other Services & Charges/ Professional Services $ 164,373 $ 466,226 $ 644,118

Capital Outlay $ 82,458 $ 77,687 $ 43,861

Total $ 2,845,948 $ 3,286,028 $ 3,596,306

-65-



Page 40

APPENDIX C: ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES

The following organizational profiles are based upon information provided by the individual organizations.

Dakota Communications Center

GOVERNANCE

Governance Joint Powers Agreement

County Assistance

Attorney – County Assistance Employee Relations – Limited County Assistance Facilities – County Owned Finance – City of Lakeville Assistance Radio – County Owned 800 MHz

Governing Body Board of Directors

Supporting Committees

Executive Committee Joint Operations Committee Law Enforcement Committee Fire Committee

Level of Consolidation All cities and townships

Funding CFS Formula (utilizing city and county property tax funding) 911 Revenue Funds

COUNTY STATISTICS (2018)

Population 425,423

Adjusted Net Tax Capacity $554,686,922

Total Calls 507,408

Total CAD Events 338,537

OPERATIONS

Dispatching Two-stage

Total Employees (2019): 65

Executive Director 1

Operations Director 1

Shift Supervisors 7

Dispatchers 53

Administration & Technical 3

-66-



Page 41

Anoka County

GOVERNANCE

Governance County Administration

County Assistance Full Range of Internal County Services

Governing Body County Commissioners

Supporting Committees

Joint Law Enforcement Committee (JLEC) Fire Protection Council (FPC) Public Safety Committee Communications Committee


Funding County Levy 911 Revenue Funds


Population 346,665


Total Calls 413,728


-67-



Page 42

Anoka County – continued

Dispatching One-stage


Communications Manager 1

Communications Coordinator 1

Office Manager 1

Radio System Coordinator 1

Senior Radio Technician 1

Radio Technician 2

Lead Dispatcher - QA 2

Lead Dispatcher - Training 2

Lead Dispatcher - CAD 1

Lead Dispatcher - Fire 1

Lead Dispatcher - Records/Tech 1

Lead Dispatcher - Court Data/Emer Prep 1

Dispatcher I 16

Dispatcher II 24

-68-



Page 43

Ramsey County

GOVERNANCE

Governance County Administration (JPA)



Supporting Committees Dispatch Policy Committee Law Enforcement Committee Fire Committee


Funding 60% County (levy) 40% Cities (CFS Formula36 utilizing city property taxes) 911 Revenue Funds


Population 550,210


Total Calls 1,003,949


OPERATIONS

Dispatching Two-stage

36 Three-year rolling average of member’s share of 911 Calls for Service formula.

-69-



Page 44

Ramsey County – continued

OPERATIONS - continued


Director 1

Deputy Director 1

Planner 1

Administrative Manager 1

Emergency Communications Managers

3

Technology Manager 1

Administrative Secretary 1

Account Clerk 1

Clerk Typist 1

Training Supervisor 37 1

Training Team 3

Fire Department Liaison 38 1

ECC Supervisors 39 14

Law Dispatchers 31

Fire Dispatchers 30

911 Telecommunicators 60

Emer Comm Tech Support Supervisor

1

ECC Support Technicians 4

Emer Comm GIS Specialist 1

37 Training Supervisor is on special assignment. 38 Fire Department Liaison is on special assignment. 39 Two ECC Supervisors are on special assignment.

-70-



Page 45

Scott County

GOVERNANCE

Governance County – Sheriff’s Office



Supporting Committees Public Safety Information Systems Advisory Group




Population 147,381


OPERATIONS


-71-



Page 46

Washington County

GOVERNANCE




Supporting Committees Law Enforcement Improvement Team Fire Improvement Team




Population 259,201


OPERATIONS


Hennepin

GOVERNANCE




-72-



Page 47

APPENDIX D: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

Dakota Communications Center

-73-



Page 48

-74-



Page 49

Anoka County

-75-



Page 50

Ramsey County

-76-
