Assisted Living
A Pleasant Senior Living
41 Brand Avenue, Faribault, MN 55021 · Map
Licensed for 40 residents · PLEASANT VIEW ESTATES LLC
A Pleasant Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living community in Faribault, Minnesota. It is licensed for 40 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Care and services
From the community’s website
What A Pleasant Senior Living says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Provides transportation.
Residents are also offered housekeeping services, scheduled transportation to and from appointments, apartment maintenance, and a selection of social and recreational events.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026)
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 40 residents
Assisted Living Facility 423821, current license dated Dec 1, 2025. Licensee PLEASANT VIEW ESTATES LLC.
Nearest emergency room
0.5 miles
Allina Health Faribault Medical Center, rated 3 of 5 stars by CMS.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Pleasant Senior Living this community | 40 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| New Perspective Faribault | 0.4 mi | 65 | $5,130/mo | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Rizon Homes, 3rd Avenue Sw | 1.3 mi | 9 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Ivy Hill Senior Care | 1.3 mi | 16 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Maplewood Homes of Faribault, Nw 5th Street | 1.4 mi | 14 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- May 1, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 1
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (May 1, 2024, state report X3VF11)
MDH: “On April 29, 2024, through May 1, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed May 1, 2024: 15 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan that included an evaluation completed by a registered nurse at least twice a year.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan that included an evaluation completed by a registered nurse at least twice a year. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required information related to the contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care and the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post the required information related to the contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care and the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including documentation of completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including documentation of completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”
Show all 15
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to install two portable fire extinguishers as required by statute.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to install two portable fire extinguishers as required by statute. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide required training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide required training and drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment for one of three residents (R1), failed to conduct a change of condition assessment following hospitalization for one of one resident (R1), and failed to conduct a follow-up assessment within 14 days of admission for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment for one of three residents (R1), failed to conduct a change of condition assessment following hospitalization for one of one resident (R1), and failed to conduct a follow-up assessment within 14 days of admission for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards related to oxygen storage. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed for one of three residents (R5) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed for one of three residents (R5) observed during medication administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- November 20, 2023 · report HL305537564M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited a resident when she accepted 25,000.00 dollars from the resident.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP worked in a leadership role while she was employed at the facility and developed a personal relationship with the resident outside of the boundaries of a professional relationship. Although the resident managed her own finances, her health status was failing, and she received hospice cares.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility provided education to their employees.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment. The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. [...]”
Survey completed October 2, 2023: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- June 10, 2026 · report HL305531420M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when facility staff failed to follow the resident's plan of care and provide necessary care and services to the resident's left leg wound.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There was not a preponderance of evidence that staff did not provide necessary cares or services. The resident developed a leg wound, the facility coordinated additional services with a homecare agency to assist with wound care. There were conflicting reports to indicate the wound care order was changed multiple times by the homecare agency but not communicated to the facility. The resident declined wound care at times and his health declined. The resident passed away while receiving hospice services.”
Action taken by facility: “When the resident developed a wound on his left leg, the facility updated the primary care provider, obtained orders for wound care and homecare. The facility also encouraged the resident to seek treatment from the hospital.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed May 26, 2026: 1 correction order
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to complete a change of condition reassessment for one of one resident (R1) who developed a wound and had increased pain.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to complete a change of condition reassessment for one of one resident (R1) who developed a wound and had increased pain. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- October 24, 2023 · report HL305534563M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when she failed to follow the plan of care and perform safety checks. As a result, the resident fell and sustained fractures of her spine.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. Staff members observed the resident two hours prior to the fall. The resident was independent in her apartment and was able to communicate her needs for assistance.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility increased the resident's services to meet her changing needs.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed October 2, 2023: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 40 residents; larger communities are evaluated and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division, data as of September 28, 2026. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.
License and ownershipActive license, licensee PLEASANT VIEW ESTATES LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 423821
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-12-01
- Licensed capacity
- 40
- Licensee
- PLEASANT VIEW ESTATES LLC
- County
- Rice County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Ronak Patel
Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.
Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Staff pay and workplace safety2 OSHA inspections, 5 violations cited
Federal records about how the employer here treats its staff.
OSHA workplace safety inspections
OSHA inspects workplaces for staff safety, such as lifting, needles, chemicals and workplace violence. It does not inspect resident care.
- Jan 16, 2018: programmed (planned) inspection, complete (safety). Case closed Mar 21, 2018. 5 violations cited (5 serious). Penalties: $3,000 proposed, $2,100 now. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 96658 - Pleasant Manor INC.
Details
- Serious: Keeping exit routes clear and marked (1910.37(b)(2)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Mar 23, 2018.
- Serious: Personal protective equipment (general) (1910.132(d)(1)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Mar 23, 2018.
- Serious: Eye and face protection (1910.133(a)(1)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Mar 23, 2018.
- Serious: Hand protection (1910.138(a)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Mar 23, 2018.
- Serious: Cited rule 5205.140. Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Mar 23, 2018.
- Jan 16, 2018: programmed (planned) inspection, complete (safety). Case closed Feb 27, 2018. No violations cited. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 96659 - Pleasant Manor INC DBA Pleasant View Estates.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, as of Oct 15, 2026, inspections since 2016. Penalties can change while a case is open or contested.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 0.5 mi, nursing home 0.7 mi, pharmacy 1.6 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Allina Health Faribault Medical Center, Faribault. 0.5 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Emeralds at Faribault LLC, Faribault. 0.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Rice County Phns, Faribault. 1.3 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55021 as micropolitan (micropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Faribault Dialysis Unit, Faribault, 2.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fmc - Cannon Valley, Dundas, 8.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita Northfield At Home, Northfield, 10.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 1 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 9 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55021.
- Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Southern Cities Clinic, Faribault. 1.4 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively low; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively low, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | See above |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does A Pleasant Senior Living provide?
A Pleasant Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Faribault, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 40 residents.
Does Lilisity rate A Pleasant Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for A Pleasant Senior Living but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.
How much does A Pleasant Senior Living cost?
Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. A Pleasant Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact A Pleasant Senior Living?
Use A Pleasant Senior Living's website, monarchmn.com/pleasant-manor-and-pleasant-view-estates, or visit at 41 Brand Avenue, Faribault, MN 55021.
How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid