Brooklyn Park staff recommend studying fees for repeat 911 responses at congregate care facilities

City emergency services briefed the Brooklyn Park City Council at a work session on mounting demands from congregate care facilities and asked the council to provide guidance on possible fee schedules and ordinance authority.

The presentation, delivered by the city’s emergency services chief (identified in the meeting as Joe Ferguson), said staff identified roughly 424 congregate-care facilities that police and fire respond to regularly. Ferguson told the council those sites accounted for about 1,439 calls in 2025 out of approximately 9,996 citywide calls, or about 15 percent of the total. Staff said many of the calls are low-acuity — transfers, assistance with lifting or moving residents, or other incidents the facilities could address with proper training or equipment — and that repeat responses can delay the city’s ability to reach higher-priority emergencies.

Why it matters: Council members and staff framed the discussion as a balance between protecting public-safety response times and avoiding any policy that would discourage people from calling 911 in a genuine emergency. Staff described three broad approaches: separate fee schedules for fire and police, a single public-safety fee to cover both services, and escalation for repeat incidents at specific addresses. Staff emphasized these are options for study, not adopted policy.

Council members asked whether the city conducts preopening life-safety inspections of these facilities. Staff said the state issues licenses and that the city has limited authority for preopening inspections; if crews find immediate life-or-safety hazards they can act and then file a mark report with the Minnesota Department of Health for follow-up. Multiple council members asked staff to compile clearer documentation on license types, complaint/mark-report processes and the data definitions behind the call counts.

Several council members urged a precise, targeted approach rather than a blanket per-call penalty. One member pointed to the city’s crime-free housing ordinance as a model for a graduated, evidence-based tool that could address chronically problematic facilities without deterring legitimate 911 calls. Staff agreed and said data limitations and administrative burden are real considerations: identifying excessive use on a case-by-case basis will require officer time and clearer metrics.

Staff requested direction to return with a formal ordinance and a proposed fee schedule; council members generally said they were open to seeing a draft ordinance and fee proposal returned at a future meeting. The chief reiterated that the city intends to continue providing emergency care for true emergencies and that the proposed measures are meant to promote facility accountability, not to block access to emergency services.

The council did not vote on any ordinance or fee tonight; staff were asked to bring back more precise data, definitions, and a draft ordinance for further consideration.