Congregate Care in the Community

Compassion and accountability belong together.

People who live in congregate care and other licensed residential settings are residents of Champlin. They deserve dignity, safety, appropriate services, and the opportunity to participate meaningfully in community life.

Their neighbors also deserve safe, well-maintained properties and confidence that legitimate concerns will be addressed.

Responsible providers deserve clear expectations and consistent enforcement.

Police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, behavioral-health professionals, and taxpayers deserve systems that respond effectively without allowing preventable crises to become routine.

Safe communities and compassionate care are not competing goals.

We should be able to protect the dignity of people receiving supportive care while also expecting providers, licensing agencies, counties, and local government to fulfill their responsibilities.

Congregate care and supportive residential settings occupy a unique place in our communities.

They are homes. People should be able to receive the care or assistance they need while living in ordinary neighborhoods rather than being unnecessarily isolated in institutions.

At the same time, they are not simply ordinary rental properties. State-licensed providers may be responsible for care, supervision, disability services, behavioral-health support, medication assistance, or other significant needs.

They are also not hospitals or traditional institutional facilities.

That creates a shared responsibility.

The State establishes and enforces the licensing requirements governing providers and the services they deliver. Champlin works within the authority State law gives cities over matters such as building, fire, zoning, property, and public safety.

The challenge is making sure there are no gaps between those systems.

Champlin should fully use the authority State law gives us, advocate for additional authority where local experience shows it is needed, and maintain strong communication with State and County agencies when information from our community suggests that a licensed facility requires additional attention.

Before 2024, Champlin could require certain small State-licensed residential facilities to participate in the City's rental-licensing program.

That gave the City a routine local way to inspect those properties as rental housing and address violations through its own licensing process.

In 2024, Minnesota exempted certain State-licensed residential settings serving six or fewer people from municipal rental licensing. The State continued to license the provider and the services being delivered, but Champlin lost that additional local licensing tool.¹

The basic building, fire, zoning, property, and safety requirements that generally apply within the community continued to apply.

In practical terms, Champlin continued responding to problems at these properties but had fewer tools available to identify and address some concerns locally.

That loss of local authority became one of the issues Champlin and other northwest-metro communities brought to the Legislature.³⁴

Minnesota made meaningful changes in 2026 that brought cities back into the process without recreating the former municipal rental-licensing system.

Beginning July 1, 2026, the State must provide municipalities with information about certain newly licensed small residential facilities, including where the facility is located, what type of license it holds, its capacity, and contact information for the provider.²

For certain new small assisted-living facilities, the State must also consider local conditions such as the size of the community, land-use planning, access to services, and the number of similar facilities already located there.²

The law also generally prevents certain newly licensed small residential facilities from locating on the same or adjoining property as another covered facility.²

Beginning January 1, 2027, Champlin may request State authority to conduct limited inspections of eligible facilities for physical-plant and zoning requirements. The State would pay for those inspections and would remain responsible for the facility license and licensing enforcement.²

The distinction is straightforward:

Municipal rental licensing gave Champlin its own local licensing and enforcement process. The new delegated-inspection system allows Champlin to help inspect and document certain concerns while the State remains responsible for licensing and enforcement.

That is a reasonable State-local partnership, and Champlin should make full use of it.

Champlin should request delegated inspection authority when it becomes available and use that authority consistently with State law.

Local inspectors should focus on the physical safety, property, and zoning matters they are legally authorized to inspect. When concerns are identified, the City should document them and communicate them promptly to the State agency with authority over the facility's license.

Where Champlin's experience shows that existing law leaves a significant gap, the City should continue working with neighboring communities, Hennepin County, State agencies, and lawmakers to improve the system.

The goal is not to create a separate Champlin licensing system.

The goal is to make sure State standards work in practice and that information discovered locally reaches the agencies that have the authority to act.

One of the important purposes of community-based care is allowing people who need assistance to live as members of ordinary communities rather than being unnecessarily institutionalized.

That principle matters.

People should not be pushed out of neighborhoods because they have a disability, mental illness, substance-use history, age-related needs, or another condition requiring support.

At the same time, community integration should not mean clustering provider-operated homes so closely together that a neighborhood begins to function like a dispersed institution.

The goal of community-based care should be to allow people to live as members of a community — not to recreate institutional settings one house at a time.

The new State restrictions on locating certain facilities on the same or adjoining property are an important step toward that balance.²

Champlin should implement those requirements fairly and continue monitoring whether State law adequately considers facility concentration, access to community services, neighborhood integration, and demands on local public services.

If further changes are needed, they should be based on evidence — not fear of the people who live in these homes.

Champlin has experienced a significant increase in public-safety calls connected with congregate-care locations.³

In March 2026, the City reported 54 congregate-care facilities in Champlin and said calls for service at those locations increased from 397 in 2020 to 879 in 2025. The City also reported growing demands on police, fire, EMS, and social services and said its embedded social worker was already carrying a full caseload.³

Those numbers matter.

They do not prove that every call was preventable.

They do not prove that every facility is poorly operated.

They do not mean that people living in congregate-care facilities are the problem.

They tell us that something is occurring at a scale large enough that the City, County, providers, and State licensing agencies should pay attention.

Champlin has recognized that many facilities are responsibly operated while some locations may generate disproportionately high public-safety demands or recurring property, safety, or operational concerns.³⁴

Our response should preserve that distinction.

As a Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor and outpatient mental health therapist, I have seen how important a person-centered approach is when helping someone engage with services or make changes in their care.

Even a well-intentioned intervention from a city or law-enforcement agency can feel very different from working directly with a provider, case manager, counselor, or other professional who knows the individual, understands the circumstances, and has an established helping relationship.

That is one reason Champlin should not use public-safety data to make clinical or placement decisions.

But the City does have information that providers, counties, and State agencies may not otherwise see.

Police, fire, EMS, code enforcement, the embedded social worker, and other local personnel may observe recurring patterns over time.

Repeated emergency contacts might reflect changing behavioral-health or medical needs. They might reveal inadequate staffing, poor crisis planning, a provider-management problem, an inappropriate level of care, gaps in outside services, or another problem entirely.

The City should not assume which explanation is correct.

Local data should open the door to further review — not dictate the outcome of that review.

When meaningful patterns emerge, Champlin should have a clear process for communicating relevant information, within appropriate privacy and data-practice requirements, to the provider and to the County or State agencies with the relationship, expertise, and legal authority to respond in a person-centered way.

The appropriate model is simple:

Champlin observes. Champlin documents. Champlin communicates. The agency with legal authority evaluates and acts.

If a provider is repeatedly accepting residents whose needs it cannot safely or appropriately meet, that ultimately becomes a provider-accountability and licensing question.

Champlin should not make that determination.

It should make sure the people who can make that determination have the local information they need.

Many congregate-care providers do difficult and important work.

They provide homes, daily assistance, disability support, healthcare coordination, behavioral-health services, recovery support, and other services that allow people to live in the community rather than in institutional settings.

Responsible providers should be treated as partners.

They should also be expected to be good neighbors.

That means maintaining safe buildings and properties, complying with applicable laws and licensing requirements, keeping reliable management contacts, responding to legitimate concerns, cooperating with lawful inspections, and participating in problem-solving when recurring concerns arise.

Accountability is not hostility toward congregate care.

It protects residents.

It protects neighborhoods.

And it protects responsible providers from being unfairly grouped with operators that fail to meet appropriate standards.

Behavioral-health crises occur throughout Champlin.

They happen in private homes, apartments, businesses, public spaces, senior housing, congregate-care facilities, and families experiencing difficult moments.

Not every behavioral-health crisis requires police.

Some situations, however, involve an immediate safety concern, an allegation of criminal conduct, potential maltreatment, or circumstances in which law enforcement appropriately needs to respond.

In those situations, behavioral-health expertise can be valuable while the incident is happening, not only after it is over.

A person can make an allegation that needs to be taken seriously while also experiencing psychosis, paranoia, severe anxiety, intoxication, cognitive impairment, trauma, or another behavioral-health crisis.

Those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

The safest response can sometimes involve a law-enforcement professional addressing immediate safety and legal concerns while a behavioral-health professional simultaneously helps assess the crisis, communicate with the person, support de-escalation, and identify the most appropriate next step.

That need exists throughout Champlin — not only in congregate-care facilities.

Champlin already has an important resource through its partnership with Hennepin County: a full-time embedded social worker assigned to the City.⁵

The worker's primary role involves consultation, referrals, service connection, and follow-up after police contact. The social worker may also respond on scene in certain circumstances when officers determine that doing so would be appropriate and safe.⁶

That work is valuable.

It provides continuity and connection to services that a responding patrol officer cannot provide alone.

It is also different from having a dedicated co-response team available during active behavioral-health calls.

Both roles have value.

They serve different purposes.

I believe Champlin should pursue access to a dedicated behavioral-health co-response team in addition to the existing embedded social-worker program.

That team should serve the entire Champlin community.

A co-response model places a qualified behavioral-health professional alongside law enforcement during appropriate active calls so that both public-safety and behavioral-health expertise are available at the same time.

The distinction is important:

The embedded social worker provides consultation, connection, coordination, and follow-up.

A co-response team provides behavioral-health expertise alongside law enforcement during the active response.

Hennepin County's COPE program already provides mobile crisis response for behavioral-health situations that may not require police.⁷

A co-response team would help fill a different need: situations where law enforcement is necessary but a police-only response may not be the most effective response.

Champlin should pursue this through partnerships with Hennepin County, available State funding, neighboring communities, regional partners, or other appropriate resources.⁸

The precise staffing, hours, cost, and administrative structure require further development.

The policy direction does not:

Champlin should have access to behavioral-health expertise during appropriate active calls — not only after police contact has ended.

Champlin has also advocated for stronger communication after reports of suspected maltreatment of vulnerable adults.⁴

Current Minnesota law provides limited information to a reporter, upon request, about receipt and initial disposition of a report within five business days.⁹

Champlin sought a stronger standard: an initial written response within 72 hours, providing greater clarity about whether the concern is moving forward and who is responsible for the next step.⁴

The Legislature made several important congregate-care reforms in 2026, but that stronger response requirement was not enacted.²

Champlin should continue advocating for it.

A 72-hour response would not require an investigation to be completed within 72 hours.

It should simply provide enough information, when legally permissible, for the reporter and appropriate professionals to know that the concern was received, whether it is being investigated or referred elsewhere, and who is responsible for follow-up.

People reporting potential maltreatment should not be left wondering whether a serious concern disappeared into the system.

There may be circumstances in which a facility remains open and State-licensed while repeated emergency contacts suggest that a resident's needs, the services being provided, the facility's operations, or the current placement deserve additional review.

Champlin should advocate for a clear process through which documented patterns identified by local public safety can be referred to the appropriate County or State authority for a person-centered review.

That review should remain focused on whether the individual is receiving appropriate support and whether the provider is meeting its responsibilities.

Decisions involving treatment, services, or placement should remain with the individual and the professionals and agencies legally responsible for those decisions.

A move should never become an easy way to remove someone because their disability, illness, or behavior is challenging.

At the same time, keeping someone in a setting that cannot safely meet their needs is not compassionate either.

The City should provide the information. The responsible care and licensing systems should determine what action, if any, is appropriate.

Champlin is not facing these issues alone.³

The City has already worked with other northwest-metro communities to advocate for changes involving inspection authority, facility location, communication, vulnerable-adult reporting, and provider accountability.³⁴

That collaboration should continue.

Cities can share information, identify common gaps, learn from effective approaches, pursue regional behavioral-health resources, and advocate together when State law needs to change.

This should not become an alliance against supportive housing or congregate care.

It should remain a partnership for safe housing, accountable providers, integrated communities, effective behavioral-health response, sustainable public-safety systems, and better coordination between cities, counties, and the State.

Minnesota's recent changes moved in a constructive direction.²

They recognize that people receiving supportive services deserve the dignity of living in community settings rather than being unnecessarily institutionalized.

They also recognize that cities need information, that facility concentration matters, and that local governments can appropriately help identify physical and zoning concerns while the State remains responsible for licensing.

There is more work to do.

Champlin should use every tool State law gives us.

It should advocate for additional authority where local experience demonstrates a genuine need.

It should use public-safety information intelligently rather than simply responding to the same problems repeatedly.

It should make sure that what happens locally becomes meaningful information for the providers, County systems, and State agencies that have the authority to respond.

It should hold facility operators accountable without treating the people who live in those facilities as the problem.

And it should strengthen behavioral-health response for the entire Champlin community by pairing our existing embedded social-worker program with access to real-time co-response.

Compassion without accountability can leave vulnerable people in unsafe situations.

Accountability without compassion can stigmatize the very people our systems exist to support.

Champlin needs both.

As Mayor, I will:

• treat residents of congregate-care and supportive residential settings as valued members of our community;
• protect the principle that people who need support should be able to live with dignity in ordinary neighborhoods;
• use the authority State law gives Champlin while respecting the legal limits of municipal government;
• request State-delegated inspection authority when it becomes available;
• ensure that local inspection concerns are documented and communicated to the State agencies with authority to act;
• use new municipal-notification requirements to establish reliable communication with licensed providers;
• support fair enforcement of Minnesota's new restrictions on same-property and adjoining facilities;
• continue advocating for thoughtful statewide standards that support community integration without allowing excessive facility concentration;
• use public-safety and other appropriate local information to identify recurring patterns without treating those patterns as proof of wrongdoing;
• establish a clear feedback process so local information reaches providers, Hennepin County, State licensing agencies, and other appropriate partners;
• hold facility operators to reasonable expectations for safety, property maintenance, communication, and good-neighbor practices;
• continue Champlin's embedded social-worker partnership;
• pursue access to a dedicated behavioral-health co-response team serving the entire Champlin community;
• coordinate that work with Hennepin County, COPE, State resources, and regional partners;
• continue advocating for an initial written response to vulnerable-adult maltreatment reports within 72 hours;
• advocate for a clear State or County review process when recurring emergency contacts suggest that a provider, placement, or support system may warrant additional evaluation;
• continue working with neighboring communities and State lawmakers to address gaps in the system;
• protect residents' privacy, dignity, and civil rights;
• and pursue solutions that strengthen compassionate care and public safety together.

People receiving supportive care should not have to sacrifice safety or dignity.

Neighborhoods should not have to accept neglected properties or preventable systems failures as unavoidable.

Responsible providers should not be undermined by operators who fail to meet appropriate standards.

First responders should not be left repeatedly managing problems that require action from providers, counties, or State agencies.

People experiencing behavioral-health crises should have access to appropriate expertise while a crisis is occurring — not only after police contact has ended.

Safe communities and compassionate care are not opposing goals.

Each depends on the other.

1. 1.Minnesota Laws 2024, Chapter 108. The 2024 law created municipal rental-licensing exemptions for specified small State-licensed residential settings while preserving other generally applicable requirements. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/108/
2. 2.Minnesota Laws 2026, Chapter 121. The 2026 law established municipal notification, location-related restrictions, and State-funded delegated local inspection authority for eligible small residential settings. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2026/0/Session+Law/Chapter/121/
3. 3.City of Champlin, March 31, 2026 coalition statement on congregate care. The City reported 54 congregate-care facilities, 879 calls for service in 2025 compared with 397 in 2020, increasing demands on public-safety resources, and an embedded social worker at caseload capacity. https://www.champlinmn.gov/CivicSend/ViewMessage/message/286537
4. 4.City of Champlin, 2026 Legislative Agenda — Congregate Care. The City identified local inspection authority, facility proximity, more timely vulnerable-adult reporting responses, municipal notification, and a clearer process for problematic placements as legislative priorities.
5. 5.Hennepin County Board Resolution 25-0043 and Embedded Social Worker Program materials. The County approved continuation of a full-time embedded social worker assigned to Champlin through its partnership with the City. https://hennepinmn.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?FullText=1&GUID=9F2BED12-815D-403D-A456-F90156DF9906&ID=7106538&Options=&Search=
6. 6.Hennepin County Criminal Justice Behavioral Health Initiatives response regarding Champlin's Embedded Social Worker Program. The response describes consultation, referral, follow-up, and the circumstances in which an on-scene response may occur.
7. 7.Hennepin County, COPE Mobile Crisis Response. COPE provides 24-hour mobile behavioral-health crisis response throughout Hennepin County. https://www.hennepin.us/en/residents/emergencies/mental-health-emergencies
8. 8.Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Crisis Response Grant Program. The State program supports co-response and alternative-response teams and allows local governments and collaborating agencies to seek funding. https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/ojp-grants/grant-programs/crime-prevention-and-public-safety/crisis-response-grant-program
9. 9.Minnesota Statutes section 626.557, Vulnerable Adults Act. Current law provides, upon request and subject to statutory exceptions, initial-disposition information to a reporter within five business days. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.557