Issues »

911 Emergency Call Center Chaos

Unfortunately, operations of the newly consolidated Ramsey County Emergency Call Center (ECC) have been a disconcerting spotlight since the Ramsey County, St Paul, and Maplewood public safety comm centers merged last October.

Equipment glitches, insufficient training, inadequate staffing, outdated mapping software, and union disputes over wage and benefit disparities have created situations that place our public safety at risk. These factors have resulted in mandatory overtime, low employee morale, and delayed emergency response times - all at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

Call Center "Cry for Help" Downplayed by County Board

Union stewards for call center dispatchers and Ramsey County Sheriff, Bob Fletcher, have communicated the problems to the Board. Sadly, the concerns have been downplayed as cultural adjustments to the new environment.

Although call center management has conceded that issues exist, the Board's response is to do a "study" (costing taxpayers' $100,000) that would recommend the appropriate staffing levels for operating the center. The study results are anticipated to be available April 2009 - six months away!

What about our public safety in the mean time? Currently when ECC dispatchers show up for work they don't even know if they'll be able to go home at the end of their shift due to mandatory overtime. These are the folks we count on in life or death situations! The Board's plan for a "study" also has no reference to resolving outdated software or union benefit disparities.

The new ECC (costing taxpayers $30 million) was supposed to reduce operational costs, response times, and worker stress - yet just the opposite has happened.

Something clearly isn't right. Where are the Board's priorities? Why hasn't the Board visited the ECC to witness the issues first hand? Why didn't the Board foresee placing two unions with different pay structures (up to $700/mo for the same job) as a problem? Perhaps they've been too busy approving their own pay raises totaling 29% in the last two years.

I'm appalled that the Board has not made swift resolution of these issues their top priority. If you needed to call 911 today, would your call be answered? Would help be dispatched to the correct address? I don't believe a day should go by where residents should ever fear that answer being "No".

I believe the primary function of government is to ensure safety and justice. As commissioner, I ensure you that resolution of any issues potentially impairing your public safety will be my top priority.

Year	Raise	Salary	Inflation	Source
2009	3.0%	$82,400
2008	25.1%	$80,000	~ 4.59%
2007	2.8%	$63,948	2.85%
2006	2.8%	$62,206	3.24%
2005	1.7%	$60,512	3.39%
2004	0.0%	$59,500	2.68%
2003	20.6%	$59,500	2.27%
2002	2.9%	$49,325	1.59%

US Inflation Rates (InflationData.com)

Commissioner Pay Raises

In 2007, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners self-approved (6 to 1) an astronomical 25% pay increase - raising their salary from $63,900 to $80,000 for 2008.

Just five years ago they gave themselves a 20% raise as well. In fact, they've raised their pay 62% from $49,325 to $80,000 since 2003. That's 42% more than the rate of inflation!

The Board is clearly out of touch with private sector realities and the challenges currently facing county residents.

I'm outraged that the Board approved their own ridiculous pay increase at a time when the citizens they represent struggle to balance budgets at home due to the rise in food and fuel prices.

Such a decision demonstrates a lack in priorities and demands further attention on how the Board manages finances in other areas.

"The County Commissioners should be paid an equitable and fair wage for the work that they do, and an equitable and fair salary will attract high-quality individuals to run for elected office."

Ramsey County Commissioners (6 of 7): Bennett, Parker, McDonough, Ortega, Carter, Reinhardt
Minutes - Apr 17, 2007, pg 13

So much for public service! Does $80,000 for a part-time job sound like a fair wage to you?

The wage increase certainly attracted more candidates to the position, but not for the reason they anticipated. I favor repealing the 2007 commissioner pay raise, and implementing a policy that restricts commissioner pay increases to the current rate of inflation unless otherwise approved by voters.

Budgeting System Change

Our county government currently uses a hybrid of incremental and baseline budgeting. In this system, departments are encouraged to spend their entire budget in order to maximize the dollar potential for the following year. Program budgets for the previous year are automatically sanctioned (no approval required), and only increased expenditures require justification. Baselining the budget automatically plans a small percent increase for the consecutive year (in theory to accommodate inflation.)

This system proves useful for generating a budget forecast in long-term situations when the actual data is yet to be known. Unfortunately, this budgeting system has several critical issues when applied to creation of an actual budget.

Disadvantages of the Current Budgeting System:

1. The "use it or lose it" approach encourages unnecessary spending.
2. The automated increase involves no evaluation or justification for spending and confuses taxpayers regarding actual "cuts and increases."
3. It assumes activities and methods performed will continue in the same way.
4. There's no incentive for departments to develop new ideas or reduce costs.
5. The priority for resources and level of activity may have changed since the budgets were originally set.

The "Zero-Based" Bonus

The current system lacks critical financial accountability and provides little to no justification for how our tax dollars are being spent. Since a primary duty of a county commissioner is to plan, approve, and allocate spending, I think that it's imperative that every item on the budget be justified.

Therefore, I propose implementing a hybrid of a cost and zero-based budgeting system.

"With zero-based processing one can forget about last year, pretend that the program is brand-new, and see if one can provide a detail of expenses for what one would need to fully accomplish the program. This technique will help one to develop a complete picture of what the program actually needs to cost and not just what it has been costing."

Batarla, Rob. Playbook: Add Value to Your Budgeting Process. Parks & Recreation, 00312215, Sep 2005, Vol. 40, Issue 9)

"Good Steward" Employee Recognition & Incentive Program

The current system provides no incentive for managers or employees to look for means to operate more efficiently. I propose creating a "bonus" program to reward employees and departments that are able to streamline operations, reduce costs and come in under budget.

The program would have two parts:

1. Recognition.
   (A monthly newsletter posted on the county website and internal bulletin boards.)
   • Recognize the top "Good Stewards of the Month" (individuals or departments) that identified improvements with the greatest return on investment based on time, cost, and quality metrics. (The key factor being a reduction in budget requirements.)
   • Identify all employees or departments that submitted efficiency suggestions that were successfully implemented.
2. Incentive
   • Investigate frugal "bonus" options (compliant with employee contracts) for solutions generating a significant financial savings. Possible ideas: "Preferred parking" space of choice, gift certificates donated by local businesses, a vacation day, a monetary bonus, etc.

Rewarding employees for wisely using department funds makes a lot of cents!

Tax Revenue & Levy Increases

Even though Ramsey County property tax revenue is up over 20% ($41 million) since 2006, the Board is proposing a 4.5% levy increase to balance their approved 2009 budget.

WARNING: Don't be fooled Ramsey County! Unfortunately, since home values have likely decreased in the last year, the tax levy increase may not be apparent on your property tax statement.

Articles like "Ramsey County Board approves 4.5 percent increase in tax levy" (Star Tribune - Sep 9, 08) are misleading - indicating that homeowners can expect their property taxes to go down when the tax levy increases.

The benefit of a tax rate is that it is a percentage, which means tax rates do not need to increase in order to increase income. As more properties are introduced into the county or as values increase, property tax revenue goes up. Regardless of this fact, Ramsey County property tax rates have consistently increased.

In this economic state, why does our county continue to raise and spend such a significant amount of funds? Clearly, "living within OUR means" is not the current Board strategy.

SOURCE: Property Tax Revenue, 2008-2009 Budget, pg 464
SOURCE: Tax Levy Increase, Minutes - Sep 9, 2008, pg 20

Board Meeting Times

The Board currently meets Tuesday mornings at 9:00 AM. This is not conducive for easy resident involvement as most residents work during that time.

I support holding regular evening meetings as well as mandating all public hearings to be held at 7:00 PM.

Community Partnerships

See Community Partnerships under "Community & Environment".

Recycling for Recreational Areas

The noticeable absence of recycling bins is a common issue across the county parks that I've visited. If visitors aren't provided an option to recycle, they have no convenient, responsible alternative to tossing their aluminum can or plastic bottle into the trash. Unfortunately, this unnecessarily adds to landfill waste.

I propose the addition of recycling containers alongside trash bins for our parks and recreation areas.

Community Partnerships

I view maintaining and improving county parks and recreation areas as a great opportunity for building relationships, uniting the community, and reducing a small aspect of county spending.

Too often our local government takes the easy road when it comes to maintaining and improving parks and recreation areas; they tax accordingly, so the necessary resources can be hired and purchased to complete the job. Unfortunately, that does nothing for community growth, and only further burdens citizens with taxes.

In contrast, I propose a "community partnership program" as an alternative to the current tax and spend approach.

Community Partnership Program Proposal:

1. Recruit businesses to sponsor park and recreation projects and maintenance.

   Benefits:

   • Businesses get name recognition through advertising which likely leads to more customers.
   • Business owners develop customer loyalty and admiration within the community.
2. Plan designated "community beautification days" for families and groups to voluntarily clean up and spruce up local parks and beaches.

   Benefits:

   • Residents build relationships with others in the community through a fun and safe opportunity.
   • Individuals and families develop a vested interest and pride in their community.

Community involvement with clean-up of recreational areas additionally instills greater pride in one's community. Folks, especially children, will likely think twice about dropping a piece of trash on the ground next time around.

Note: The 2008 budget has $8.6 million+ allocated for recreation and parks, of which $2.3 million+ (27.5%) is allocated for "park maintenance and operations."

SOURCE: 2008-2009 Budget, pg 86