As an interim topic, the Commission Chair, Senator Dean E. Johnson, has designated consideration of the issue of the appropriate retirement coverage for emergency dispatchers, post-sentencing officers, and related public employment position.

The interim topic is the outgrowth of Commission actions and deliberations at its March 11, 2002, meeting, where the Commission recommended an amendment to the 2002 Omnibus Pension Bill providing for the inclusion of Hennepin County Medical Center protection officers in the Local Government Correctional Officers Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional) and considered without final action an amendment to the 2002 Omnibus Pension Bill requiring an interim study by the Commission of the appropriate retirement coverage for emergency dispatchers and post-sentencing officers. During the 2001-2002 Interim, the Commission also studied the topics of a proposed expansion of the membership of the PERA-Correctional Plan to include 911 dispatchers, county probation officers, and non-police-officer court bailiffs, and the topic of a proposed expansion of the membership of the State Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS-Correctional) to include sentencing-to-service crew leaders.

This meeting is the initial consideration of the topic by the Commission during this interim. Commission consideration of the topic is expected by the Commission staff to require at least two or three meetings.

This Commission staff issue memorandum is the initial memorandum on the Commission interim study topic. This memorandum will summarize the development of the membership, the retirement benefits, and the funding of the MSRS-Correctional Retirement Plan and of the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan, will summarize the information obtained by the Commission during the 2001 Interim study of the topic, and will summarize the options for the Commission in undertaking an additional interim study of the topic. This Commission staff issue memorandum is intended to provide a context for public testimony and other deliberations on the topic. Subsequent Commission staffing efforts will depend on the direction that the Commission chooses for advancing the study.

Background information on the State Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS-Correctional) is provided in Appendix A.

Background information on the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional) is provided in Appendix B.

During public testimony on the topic of potential expansions of the correctional employee retirement plans, the State Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS-Correctional) and the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional), several groups of public employees have been proposed for inclusion in the special quasi-public-safety employee pension coverage. These public employee groups proposed for inclusion in the MSRS-Correctional Retirement Plan or the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan are:

1. MSRS-Correctional Retirement Plan Proposed Inclusions.

1. Sentencing-to-Service Crew Leaders. 2001 Session S.F. 1738 (Terwilliger); H.F. 1798 (Wenzel) amends Minnesota Statutes, Section 352.91, Subdivision 3g, which specifies additional Department of Corrections employment positions for membership in the State Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS-Correctional), by adding the sentencing-to-service crew leader position who is responsible for county inmate supervision to MSRS-Correctional Plan coverage. It also allows retroactive MSRS-Correctional Plan service credit to June 30, 1975, to be purchased with the payment of the differential between MSRS-Correctional Plan contribution rate and the MSRS-General Employees Retirement Plan (MSRS-General) contribution rate by the member and the transfer of prior related MSRS-General assets. The proposed legislation would apply to all sentencing-to-service crew leaders employed by the Department of Corrections.

2. State Probation Officers. No specific proposed legislation was introduced in the 2001 or 2002 Legislative Sessions. Public testimony requesting the coverage change was presented by Mr. Robert Sutter, an Intensive Community Supervisor Agent in the Minnesota Department of Corrections and a representative of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.

2. PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan Proposed Inclusions.

1. 911 Emergency Dispatchers. 2001 Session S.F. 1038 (Pogemiller); H.F. 999 (Mares) amends Minnesota Statutes, Sections 353.01, Subdivision 2b, governing the membership exclusions from the General Employee Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-General), and 353E.02, Subdivision 1, governing the membership inclusions of the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional), by excluding county employees who are 911 dispatchers from PERA-General membership and including them in PERA-Correctional membership.

2. Community Corrections Probation Officers. 2001 Session S.F. 1038 (Pogemiller); H.F. 999 (Mares) amends Minnesota Statutes, Sections 353.01, Subdivision 2b, governing the membership exclusions from the General Employee Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-General), and 353E.02, Subdivision 1, governing the membership inclusions of the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional), by excluding county employees who are community corrections probation officers from PERA-General membership and including them in PERA-Correctional membership.

3. Non-Police-Officer County Court Bailiffs. Potential Amendment LCPR01-220, drafted in 2001 for Representative Harry Mares, amends Minnesota Statutes, Sections 353.01, Subdivision 2b, governing the membership exclusions from the General Employee Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-General) and 353E.02, Subdivision 1, governing the membership inclusions of the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional), by excluding county court bailiffs who are not covered by the Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Plan from PERA-General and including them in PERA-Correctional membership.

1. 2001-2002 Interim Study Topic and Approach. During the 2001 Interim, the Commission staff attempted to gain information on the demographics of the four employee groups proposed for inclusion in the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional), 911 dispatchers, local government probation officers, Hennepin County Medical Center protection officers, and non-police-officer county court bailiffs. With the assembled demographics, the intended course of action was the preparation of reliable actuarial cost estimates of the transfer of these groups from the General Employee Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-General) to the PERA-Correctional Plan. The Commission staff was assisted by the Association of Minnesota Counties and the League of Minnesota Cities in assembling the demographic data, who contacted the various employing units with a questionnaire. The questionnaire requested the following information:

1. Employee information (the number of employees by county in these employment classifications, the age, sex, salary, total length of public employment, and length of employment in the occupation for each individual);

2. Job/position descriptions (to give an insight into the nature of the employment); and

3. Employer support (whether the employer supported shifting these occupations from PERA-General to PERA-Correctional).

The Commission staff received considerable county and city information, although approximately 37 counties out of 87 did not respond and there were concerns about the quality of the data received. The data quality issues for received data was the omission of some potentially eligible employees or the inclusion of employers who are already members of the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan. Additionally, the Hennepin County Medical Center never responded to the Commission staff’s written and telephonic requests.

As a consequence of the extent of unreported data and the concerns over data quality, the Commission staff did not proceed to have actuarial cost estimates prepared for the proposed expansions in late 2001. The protection officers of the Hennepin County Medical Center were transferred from PERA-General to PERA-Correctional by the 2002 Legislature without the benefit of the preparation of any actuarial cost estimate.

2. Results of the 2001-2002 Interim Study.

1. Extent of Responses. Three broad categories of public employees were proposed for transfer to the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan, the 911 dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and court bailiffs. Slightly over 40 counties identified employees who may be eligible for transfer under the various legislative proposals. All city employees in the applicable job categories appear to have been identified.

2. Identified Employment Positions. Counties and cities were requested to identify 911 dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and non-peace-officer county court bailiffs. Job titles vary, given the unique nature of each employer and the range of duties the employees perform. Employer discretion entered into identifying the specific job titles that fell under our data request. This diversity is reflected in Table 2.

Aitkin County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 20 Assistant Jail Administrator - 1 Jail Administrator - 1 Program Coordinator - 1 Anoka County 911 Dispatcher - 23 911 Lead Dispatcher - 6 Probation Officer - 46 Senior Probation Officer - 15 Benton County Part-time Court Bailiff (Detention Officer I) - 1 Public Safety Dispatcher - 8 Blue Earth County 911 Dispatcher - 13 Probation Officer - 14 Brown County 911 Dispatcher - 6 Probation Officer - 8 Carver County 911 Dispatcher - 7 Lead 911 Dispatcher - 2 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Public Safety Answering Point Supervisor - 1 Terminal Agency Coordinator - 1 Cass County 911 Dispatcher - 8 Chief 911 Dispatcher - 1 Probation Officer - 2 Chippewa County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 9 Chisago County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 10 Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 2 Probation Officer - 6 Dakota County 911 Dispatcher - 14 Lead 911 Dispatcher - 1 Probation Officer I - 22 Probation Officer II - 29 Probation Officer III - 23 Douglas County 911 Dispatcher - 9 Communication/Dispatch Sergeant - 1 Faribault County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Fillmore County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Freeborn County Court Services Director - 1 Court Services Officer - 5 Grant County 911 Dispatcher/Records - 3 911 Dispatcher/Records Supervisor - 1 Confidential Exec Secy/911 Dispatcher - 1 Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Records - 2 Hennepin County Career Probation/Parole Officer - 222 Probation/Parole Officer - 68 Senior Probation/Parole Officer - 61 Sheriff's Telecommunicator - 37 Isanti County 911 Dispatcher - 7 Jackson County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 9 Jailer/911 Dispatch Administrator - 1 Probation Officer - 2 Kandiyohi County 911 Database Manager - 1 Asst. Dir. of Emerg. Communic. & Records - 1 Director of Emerg. Communic. & Records - 1 Non Peace Office Court Bailiff - 2 Probation Officer - 18 Public Safety Dispatcher - 8 Kittson County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer/Clerk - 5 Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Jailer/Clerk - 1 Lake of the Woods County 911 Dispatcher/Jailer - 5 McLeod County 911 Dispatcher - 10 Communications Sergeant - 1

Meeker County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Correctional Officer - 9 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Part-time Bailiff - 2 Part-time Correctional Officer - 4 Mille Lacs County Part-time Court Bailiff - 4 Morrison County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Nobles County Corrections Agent - 5 Olmsted County Jury Attendant - 9 Probation Officer - 29 Senior Probation Officer - 9 Otter Tail County 911 Dispatcher - 8 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Part-time Bailiff - 12 Part-time Probation Officer - 1 Probation Officer - 4 Polk County 911 Dispatcher - 7 Pope County 911 Dispatcher - 5 Law Library Secretary - 1 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 4 Probation Officer - 1 Ramsey County 911 Dispatcher - 37 Comm Corr Wkr 1 - 39 Comm Corr Wkr 2 - 47 Comm Corr Wkr 3 - 164 Radio Dispatcher 1 - 1 Red Lake/Polk/Norman Probation Agent - 12 Rice County Probation Officer - 12 Scott County 911 Dispatch Lieutenant - 1 911 Dispatch Sergeant - 3 911 Dispatcher - 8 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 5 Sherburne County 911 Dispatcher - 11 Bailiff - 2 Probation Officer - 12 St. Louis County Bailiff - 17 Emergency Comm Specialist - 38 Probation Officer I - 13 Probation Officer II - 30 Probation Officer III - 36 Stearns County 911 Dispatcher - 21 Career Agent - 7 Corrections Agent - 5 Senior Agent - 21 Stevens County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Waseca County 911 Dispatcher - 4 Head 911 Dispatcher - 1 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Probation Officer - 2 Washington County 911 Call Taker - 2 911 Center Coordinator - 3 911 Public Safety Dispatcher - 12 Bailiff - 9 Probation Officer I - 5 Probation Officer II - 15 Probation Officer III - 22 Watonwan County 911 Dispatcher - 3 Part-time 911 Dispatcher - 2 Winona County 911 Dispatcher - 13 Wright County Civilian Communication Officer - 10 Communication Shift Supervisor – 1

Table 3 Indicates the considerable range of possible employment positions considered by reporting employing units to be included in the general categories of 911 dispatcher, community corrections/probation officer, or court bailiff:

3. Analysis Relating to the 911 Dispatcher Group.

   1. Argument for Inclusion—Job Stress. At the Commission’s first consideration of the PERA-Correctional Plan expansion study during the 2001-2002 Interim, the Commission heard testimony from some 911 dispatchers. The main argument for inclusion in the PERA-Correctional Plan rather than the PERA-General Plan is that 911 dispatcher employment is emotionally stressful, because of the emergency nature of the calls received.

      The Commission may wish to consider whether the emotional or psychological stress created by a particular type of employment is sufficient justification for inclusion in a public safety plan. Including positions in PERA-Correctional due to the stressful nature of the employment, rather than the more specific risk of injury or death due to responsibilities for the custody and control of inmates, would be a fundamental shift in the criteria for plan inclusion, and would represent a reversal of the recent direction in defining the membership of this plan.

      The revised 2000-2001 membership criteria for the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan narrowly define the coverage group to include only employees in county correctional facilities, in certain positions, who are responsible for the custody, security, and control of inmates and who are required to respond to incidents that may occur at the institution. Employment as a 911 dispatcher may be stressful, but that specific work does not expose these employees to the physical demands and physical dangers to which current PERA-Correctional Plan members may be exposed. The job descriptions and comments provided by the counties indicate that in some cases 911 dispatchers may be located at a county correctional facility, or in other cases, in an entirely separate facility, possibly many miles from the correctional institution. Dispatchers, as part of their 911 dispatcher duties, have no contact with inmates regardless of where the employee is located.

      Inmate contact, including responsibility for security, custody, and control of inmates, may occur in situations where a 911 dispatcher has multiple responsibilities. In some cases, this is suggested by the job titles, like the 911 dispatcher/jailer employment title, although in many cases the numerous responsibilities of an employee are not indicated by the job title. In some cases, the multiple duties assigned to dispatchers are sufficient to permit them to qualify for coverage under the existing criteria of the PERA-Correctional Plan, under the jailer/dispatcher category noted in the current eligibility criteria.

   2. Job Stress, Addressing by Diversifying Responsibilities. The duties of 911 dispatchers unquestionably involve stress. It is evident, however, that a sizable majority of the job positions involve multiple responsibilities. The individuals are dividing their time between handling emergency calls and various other tasks. In part, this may be a response by the employer to the stressful nature of handling emergency calls and to help minimize that stress, other duties are assigned to the employees so only part of the work day involves handling these stressful calls. In other cases, there may not be enough emergency call activity to justify having one or more people concentrate entirely on that activity for a full work day.

   3. Difficulty Defining Sufficient Connection. If the Commission concludes that 911 dispatching is extraordinarily stressful, and that a proper response to that stress includes an expansion of PERA-Correctional Plan membership, the effort to specify positions or activities for inclusion will require the Commission to make several decisions. Presumably, the individuals under the most stress are the individuals who directly perform the emergency dispatching work. There are arguments, though, for including individuals who directly supervise these individuals. These supervisors may be next in line to handle 911 calls if the need arises, and the Commission may choose not to discourage advancement by eliminating from PERA-Correctional Plan coverage anyone promoted to a 911 supervisory position. Covering the supervisors would be consistent with the current criteria for the PERA-Correctional Plan, which covers not only correctional guards and dispatcher/jailers, but also their direct supervisors. At some point, however, continued employment advancement suggests a different career path, and activities far removed from the stresses of 911 activity.

      Even with higher level managers and administrators removed from the group, the remaining group includes many individuals with employment appearing to have little direct connection with 911 activity. In part, this identification problem stems from the tendency for 911 dispatcher job descriptions to list numerous responsibilities or tasks, only some of which are related to emergency call activities, and only some of which may be stressful. Another problem is the difficulty in determining who is truly "on the front line," rather than having a role later in the chain of events, and general difficulties determining which positions are truly comparable across cities and counties.

      Given the difficulty in identifying specific positions directly involved in 911 call activity, and where a sufficient percentage of time is spent in that activity, the Commission and Legislature may choose to explore some other approach to addressing the stress of 911 dispatcher employment other than attempting to address this through revised pension plan coverage. If the Commission does choose to revise pension plan coverage, it may choose to limit the coverage group to those most connected with the activity and their immediate supervisors, and setting a threshold for minimum percent of time spent on these activities. The counties would be given the task of deciding which positions or individuals met the criteria.

   4. Part-Time Employment Policy Issues. Some of the 911 dispatchers are part-time employees. The Commission may wish to consider some of the policy issues this raises. Minnesota’s defined benefit public pension plans are geared to full-time employees. Full-time 911 dispatcher work is likely to be stressful, but the duty does not require considerable strength or place the individuals in physical danger. Part-time 911 dispatchers are presumably under less stress than full-time employees providing similar service, further lessening the justification for including part-time 911 dispatchers in the PERA-Correctional Plan. If they are included in plan, the benefit they will receive based on the service and salary will not be sufficient to allow them to truly retire from the labor force. The public policy objectives reflected in the public safety plan design do not carry over to the part-time employment situation. The individual will receive a somewhat higher benefit than if they remain in a general employee plan, but the transfer of the part-time dispatchers and possibly the full-time dispatchers does not seem consistent with typical public safety plan policy objectives.

      Table 4 provides some indication to the Commission regarding the percentage of employees in the broad "911 dispatcher" category who are part-time employees rather than falling into various full-time employee groupings.

3. Analysis Relating to the Community Corrections/Probation Officer Group.

   1. Argument for Inclusion. The Commission heard testimony during the 2001-2002 Interim from probation officers regarding the stressful nature of community corrections/probation officer duties, and the physical danger to which these individuals are exposed. Testimony also indicated that police officer duties and parole/probation officer activities are merging and becoming more similar.

      The reporting counties indicated 21 job titles that fall under the general category of community corrections/probation officer. The jobs in the community corrections/probation officer category all appear to have a strong connection to community corrections/probation officer work. Thus identifying the coverage group for purposes of inclusion in the PERA-Correctional Plan may be more straightforward than in the 911 dispatcher situation.

   2. Nature of Employment. To enable the Commission to determine whether the employment is sufficiently similar to positions already included in the PERA-Correctional Plan or other public safety plans to warrant inclusion, the 2001-2002 Interim Commission staff study requested employers to provide job descriptions. There was, however, a lack of position descriptions from many counties. Not all counties that responded with employee and salary data included position descriptions.

   3. County Reservations. Some comments received from county officials indicate that community corrections/probation/parole officers are exposed to dangerous situations on occasion, but the officials had strong reservations against including them in the PERA-Correctional Plan. The administrators contend that the occurrences typically are not as dangerous or as frequent as the dangers to which jailer/correction guards, the current PERA-Correctional Plan coverage group, are exposed. A few commented that if probation/parole officers are included in the plan, there is little justification for not also including social workers, and if social workers are included, there is no justification for not also including many other county employees. They also note that including the community corrections/ probation officers in the plan would be stepping back from the 2000-2001 revisions to the PERA-Correctional Plan, which had been urged by the Association of Minnesota Counties, and which include requirements that employees eligible for the plan must work in county correctional facilities, be responsible for the custody, security, and control of inmates, and be required as part of their job responsibilities to respond to incidents. Most community corrections/parole officers do not work in correctional facilities and have different responsibilities than the jailer/correctional guards.

   4. Part-Time Employment. Some community corrections/probation/parole officers appear to be engaged in part-time employment, either as identified by the job description or as suggested in the salary data. Table 5 summaries the data on part-time and full-time employment by probation officers.

5. Analysis Relating to the Non-Peace-Officer Court Bailiff Group.

   1. Argument for Inclusion. The Commission heard testimony during the 2001-2002 Interim from a Washington County bailiff that Washington County is unique in using non-licensed bailiffs, that the non-police-officer bailiff employees are responsible for escorting defendants into and out of the court, and that bailiffs are responsible for maintaining control in the courtroom.

   2. Nature of Employment. The reported data does not appear to lend strong support for including non-peace-officer bailiffs in the PERA-Correctional Plan. The nature of the employment is too inconsistent across counties to sufficiently support any revision in the PERA-Correctional Plan coverage group.

      At least nine counties, in addition to Washington County, use non-licensed court bailiffs who are not covered by PERA-P&F. The provided position descriptions and employer comments suggest a wide range of approaches for handling bailiff functions, and great differences in perceived physical risk involved in the occupation. Bailiff position descriptions typically specify that bailiffs are involved in preparing the court room for trial or hearing, and in dealing with the jury. The bailiff may advise the jury on courtroom procedures, monitor the actions of jurors during breaks to ensure no improper actions or communications occur, and provide beverages and meals for jurors. The position description may contain a statement that the bailiff is responsible for maintaining control and generally responding to incidents in the courtroom.

      The perception of the physical risks involved in the responsibility to maintain control and respond to incidents in court room varies greatly across counties. The perception obtained from the position descriptions and the county comments is that non-licensed bailiffs are unlikely to be placed in dangerous situations, although there may be a statement in the position description that the bailiff is responsible for maintaining order in the courtroom.

      In reporting information on court bailiffs, one county included a law library secretary and a few counties included a position called jury attendant.

   3. Part-Time Employment Issue. Part-time bailiff employment appears common. Placing part-time employees in public safety employee retirement plans is not fully compatible with the intended objectives of those plans. Table 6 summarizes the data on part-time and full-time employment by non-peace-officer bailiffs.

4. Age Issues. The Commission has determined that public safety retirement plan coverage is appropriate for occupations which are public safety in nature and where strength and youth are required to perform the duties and there is noticeable risk of physical harm. These conditions are not consistently encountered in the non-licensed bailiff function across counties. The high percentage of part-time employment in bailiff and the age of many individuals providing bailiff functions also argues against public safety plan coverage for non-police-officer bailiffs. For the entire identified court bailiff group, the average age is nearly 61, approximately six years older than the age 55 normal retirement age (full unreduced retirement age) of the PERA-Correctional Plan. Coverage by a public safety plan, where full unreduced retirement is permitted at age 55, presumably because the physical demands and danger of the covered occupations requires a low normal retirement age, does not appear appropriate for this non-peace-officer court bailiff group.

6. Average Age and Age Range of Proposed Coverage Expansion Groups. According to the PERA-Correctional Plan July 1, 2000, actuarial valuation, the average age of active plan members was 37.5 years. The average ages of the dispatcher, community corrections/probation officers and court bailiffs reported during the 2001-2002 Interim are all greater than that age. The average ages of dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and court bailiffs are 39.2 years, 41.1 years, and 60.9 years, respectively. This suggests that the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan normal cost would increase by adding these groups. This would impact not only the cost of adding these additional employees, but it likely would increase employer and employee contribution requirements for all existing PERA-Correctional Plan members, due to increased contribution requirements. Table 7 summaries the average and age range information for all reported 911 dispatchers, probation officers, and non-peace-officer bailiffs.

7. Fiscal Impact of Potential PERA-Correctional Expansion. There is a fiscal impact from a transfer of employees because PERA-Correctional Plan employer contribution rates are higher than those required by PERA-General. In total, 1794 positions are assumed to transfer, and the total fiscal impact in the first year is estimated to be $2.497 million ($2.219 million on the counties, and $278,635 on the cities).

   Several factors will change these estimates. Many counties did not respond to the data request and therefore are not included in the table. Although we believe we have identified all the cities, it is possible there are omissions there as well. Obtaining data from additional counties would identify fiscal impacts on those counties and would increase the total statewide fiscal impact. If the Commission were to drop certain jobs from consideration, the fiscal impact would be less. Table 8 provides a preliminary indication of the fiscal impact on counties and cities if all the identified employees in all the employment categories were to transfer from PERA-General to PERA-P&F.

	Total Positions	Salary (Calendar or Fiscal Year)	Correctional Plan Employer Contributions (8.75% of Total Salary)	PERA-General Plan Employer Contributions (5.53% of Total Salary)	Increased Contribution Requirement
Cities
Albert Lea	8	$239,570	$20,962	$13,248	$7,714
Bloomington	13	$489,060	$42,793	$27,045	$15,748
Brooklyn Center	6	$223,922	$19,593	$12,383	$7,210
Burnsville	11	$306,557	$26,824	$16,953	$9,871
City of St. Paul	70	$3,256,935	$284,982	$180,109	$104,873
Hutchinson	7	$78,106	$6,834	$4,319	$2,515
Maplewood	9	$365,105	$31,947	$20,190	$11,756
Minneapolis	73	$2,853,193	$249,654	$157,782	$91,873
Minnetonka	8	$305,548	$26,735	$16,897	$9,839
Richfield	9	$324,246	$28,372	$17,931	$10,441
West St. Paul	6	$ 211,017	$ 18,464	$ 11,669	$ 6,795
Total	220	$8,653,259	$757,160	$478,525	$278,635
Counties
Aitkin County	23	$703,195	$61,530	$38,887	$22,643
Anoka County	90	$4,089,184	$357,804	$226,132	$131,672
Benton County	9	$244,252	$21,372	$13,507	$7,865
Blue Earth County	27	$843,276	$73,787	$46,633	$27,153
Brown County	14	$513,232	$44,908	$28,382	$16,526
Carver County	13	$410,500	$35,919	$22,701	$13,218
Cass County	11	$397,252	$34,760	$21,968	$12,792
Chippewa County	9	$270,934	$23,707	$14,983	$8,724
Chisago County	18	$491,334	$42,992	$27,171	$15,821
Dakota County	89	$3,800,056	$332,505	$210,143	$122,362
Douglas County	10	$285,361	$24,969	$15,780	$9,189
Faribault County	4	$112,000	$9,800	$6,194	$3,606
Fillmore County	4	$129,800	$11,357	$7,178	$4,180
Freeborn County	6	$260,042	$22,754	$14,380	$8,373
Grant County	7	$160,306	$14,027	$8,865	$5,162
Hennepin County	388	$18,460,931	$1,615,332	$1,020,890	$594,442
Isanti County	7	$208,379	$18,233	$11,523	$6,710
Jackson County	12	$378,074	$33,081	$20,907	$12,174
Kandiyohi County	31	$1,095,304	$95,839	$60,570	$35,269
Kittson County	6	$133,426	$11,675	$7,378	$4,296
Lake of the Woods County	5	$144,893	$12,678	$8,013	$4,666
McLeod County	11	$300,876	$26,327	$16,638	$9,688
Meeker County	21	$367,300	$32,139	$20,312	$11,827
Mille Lacs County	4	$23,654	$2,070	$1,308	$762
Morrison County	6	$177,371	$15,520	$9,809	$5,711
Nobles County	5	$189,720	$16,601	$10,492	$6,109
Olmsted County	47	$1,225,376	$107,220	$67,763	$39,457
Otter Tail County