Emergency Call Center originally uploaded by Kecko
According to this StarTribune article, the City of West St. Paul is not pleased with the return on investment provided by the Dakota Communications Center and they want to know why they’re paying nearly double what they were when they operated a similar facility themselves.
From the article:
Four years ago, the Dakota Communications Center (DCC) debuted as a joint effort among Dakota County and its larger cities to consolidate 911 dispatching. It was heralded as a way for cities to save money and handle emergencies more efficiently.
[...]
The city of West St. Paul paid more than $564,000 this year in membership fees, which is nearly double what it paid when it had its own dispatch center. Next year, its fees will increase by about $50,000.
However, West St. Paul isn’t the only city paying high fees which appear to only be increasing. West St. Paul is going to be paying about 8% more in 2012 than 2011. That’s the same as Mendota Heights and just under the 10% increase seen by Hastings. Other cities such as Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan are seeing a reduction in costs between four and eight percent.
| City | 2011 | 2012 | Difference |
| Apple Valley | 1,012,317 | 971,036 | -4% |
| Burnsville | 1,311,193 | 1,259,790 | -4% |
| Dakota County | 745,065 | 758,218 | 2% |
| Eagan | 1,286,058 | 1,187,113 | -8% |
| Farmington | 342,258 | 313,510 | -9% |
| Hastings | 422,897 | 468,546 | 10% |
| Inver Grove Heights | 548,797 | 561,066 | 2% |
| Lakeville | 971,380 | 957,810 | -1% |
| Mendota Heights | 188,212 | 204,751 | 8% |
| Miesville | 1,270 | 1,191 | -7% |
| Randolph Hampton | 1,859 | 2,396 | 22% |
| Rosemount | 395,745 | 376,617 | -5% |
| South Saint Paul | 493,171 | 509,558 | 3% |
| West Saint Paul | 564,245 | 613,335 | 8% |
Source: DCC Financials: 2011 and 2012 Approved Budgets
With the DCCs budget expanding another 4.6% overall in 2012 and outpacing the costs of similar centers in Anoka and Washington Counties, the article notes that West St. Paul’s city officials are wondering why the center costs as much as it does to operate. According to the article, a budget surplus of over $800,000 was fed into the center’s capital expenditures and not back to the member cities, as West St. Paul believed should have occurred.
While a multitude of DCC operational statistics show that the center is operating well above industry standards, do you think that it costs to much to operate and that cities should go back to doing it themselves? Do you think that the operating fund balance should have been returned to those municipalities paying into the center rather than it being kept for capital expenditures? Are you concerned by the fluctuations in cost year to year (view all the financial data available first) and do you believe that perhaps something should be done to more evenly calculate current and future costs per city? Whatever you have to say about West St. Paul’s issues with the Dakota Communications Center go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
September 1st, 2011 at 8:35 am
We have had a police scanner operating 24/7 for over 25 years. We hear all sorts of calls and dispatches from the people and the county, the State Patrol, the larger cities of Dakota County’s Polce, Fire and Ambulance, plus the Sheriff’s Department. I can’t say enough about how efficient and well trained they all are. If you divide the cost by the population, you will find that it is less than 10ยข per day for a very high quailty and sometimes life-saving service. Certainly they respond to many unnecessary calls, but it is better to check than ignore what may seem frivolous. Any Government operation is going to have some waste. I hear a high percentage of 911 calls coming from West St. Paul. Maybe they need more Police on the street. Drugs, drinking and fights, plus thefts and medical help are all you hear from that city. Our people in that center and the responders, whatever department, are all heroes, as far as I am concerned.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:37 am
Marty,
The main point of the article was that WSP used to operate their own center for less money. Do you think that consolidation of the services was a better choice when the cost, at least in one city, has gone up–and continues to do so?
September 1st, 2011 at 8:50 am
It is irrelevant how much WSP pays now vs. how much they used to pay.
There is no way that the current system is somehow less efficient than what existed prior when cities did it for themselves. That WSP was probably skimping on costs and probably was not doing a very good job responding to citizens needs to be taken into account.
Hell, WSP could hire me to be their one man 911 unit. I would do it from my cell phone for $1.99 per call. They could save a shitload of money that way. I wouldn’t even bill them extra for my call waiting feature.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:00 am
I’m certainly no expert here, but it seems like WSP is taking a very short-sighted view.
When you consider the LONG-TERM implications of maintenance, technology lifecycle, larger size of non-consolidated staff, and probably most significantly, periodic contract negotiations across multiple bargaining units/sites, I’m fairly certain in the end, WSP will be better off than going it alone. That’s not even addressing the inherent safety and service delivery advantages of the consolidated center.
Sure, we’d all have a much better net income for 2011 if we didn’t replace the aging roof on our house, throw some new tires on the car, etc. But two, three, ten years from now, we’d probably be looking at the decision differently (and from a much more financially sound position).
Bottom line…in my opinion, the DCC is an outstanding model for effective consolidation of municipal services.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:28 am
From reading the Strib article, it sounds like the issue could be taken care of by tweaking the payment formula so that it’s fairer. And keeping the extra money for capital expenditures is good financial planning.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Whoa. And I think MY phone bill’s high.
I have this recurring nightmare, where something bad is happening and I dial 911, and I can’t get anybody on the other end. Sure, there might be abandonment or control issues there, or maybe the cigar is just the cigar, and it’s because I grew up in Terre Haute, IN, where the police could possibly not show up for three days.
So, whatever it takes for them to answer the phone.
September 1st, 2011 at 6:17 pm
+1 to Tim. Sure sounds like whatever they are doing to calculate things is screwed up. Seems pretty typical though, government accounting b.s. They are looking at operating expenses as variable costs. The entire facility exists for actual and more importantly, potential needs. As such most of the costs are fixed and unrelated to call volume. Thus most if not all costs should be parsed out fair manner that looks works against potential users. Something that looks at population and corporations (i.e. some towns can have an extra few hundred thousand people in it from 8am to 5pm).
I think excess money should be kicked back to the cities. The operating fees they charge currently should be building a fund for repair and replacement, they shouldn’t be taking budget errors and funding that fund. Are they going to pull from that fund if a budget error results in a loss?
September 1st, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Statistics can be misleading… but it looks to me like West St Paul is getting the short end here. Year on year comparisons shows Rosemount’s budget/fee to be significantly less than West St Paul’s for roughly the same number of calls/dispatches.
2010 Calls: Jan-July, Rsmt = 20,917, WSP 2010 = 18,914;
2011 (thru July), Rsmt = 21,874, WSP = 20,061.
Budget: Rsmt 2010 = $396K, WSP 2010 = $564K;
Rsmt 2011 =$377K (down 5%), WSP 2011 = $613k (up 8%).
Questions abound.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Does it cost more for WSP to operate their law enforcement/public safety departments than the other cities?
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:41 am
Chapter & Verse- You are looking at the population, not the calls for service. Calls are much different: Rsmt 2010 = 12676 for law enforcement and 630 fire while WSP 2010 = 23,248 for law enforcement and 2862 for fire. So WSP generated more than twice the number of calls than Rsmt.
As with most articles, this effort by the Star – Trib is not very in depth. WSP makes their pitch thru the article and the reporter provides little background or effort to verify any of the info provided. What did it cost WSP to operate so much cheaper – as claimed – and how did they do it? Are they comparing all their former costs accurately to the costs now? it seems unlikely because a dispatch center operates 24/7/365, requiring a very minimum staffing level just to do the basic work of 5 persons (very, very minimal). So if they paid less than half of their fees they must have really been underpaying staff – 5 @50,000 salary + benefits = 250000. That doesn’t include any equipment or building operations for housing the people.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:26 am
I wouldn’t complain too much about the costs of the DCC. Comparing it to Ramsey County, it costs about half as much and covers 80% the amount of people and over 3 times the area. WSP should have realized by being a larger community in Dakota county that they are going to end up subsidizing smaller communities and covering rural areas.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:35 am
My WAG is that WSP is looking at costs before the construction of the the joint facility. This ignores the increased costs that were facing all parties participating in the joint facility. If I recall, changes were being required to the technology and equipment that every city was using. These costs for updates were high, which is what triggered the discussions of sharing the cost across cities. The idea being that by consolidating resources, all would still see costs, but these costs would be some percentage less than if each city tried to roll it their own.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
@Debunker, my bad, thanks!
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:32 am
Twoboot, WSP isn’t that big — their population was 19,540 in the 2010 census. While that’s larger than, say, Randolph or Miesville, it’s smaller than most other municipalities in the county.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:40 am
My point is that as a area the DCC is getting a lot better deal than Ramsey county. It’s always going to cost more money to drive a new Cadillac than sticking with that ’86 Geo Metro that people have telling you to get rid of for years. WSP is looking at the DCC as being really expensive for adding a few features to their old system, but they can’t really walk away and start their own system in a tin shed somewhere…… or can they?
September 14th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
More from the StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/129571758.html
June 13th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Fees are charged to the communities for use. Each call to the center generates what they call a “CAD” call. Basically a computer entry. Each CAD call costs about $20 (is what I heard). That being said the cities with the most calls for services pays the most. So I could see WSP paying more than Rosemount.