Assisted Living
Aurora Assisted Living
115 Magnolia Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55117 · Map
Licensed for 5 residents · AURORA ASSISTED LIVING LLC
Aurora Assisted Living is a state-licensed assisted living community in St. Paul, Minnesota. It is licensed for 5 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
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, 5 residents
Assisted Living Facility 422438, current license dated Oct 28, 2025. Licensee AURORA ASSISTED LIVING LLC.
Nearest emergency room
1.4 miles
Regions Hospital, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora Assisted Living this community | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Sunshine Group Home | 0.0 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Healing Homes Living Services | 0.1 mi | 3 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated |
| Trusted Care Residence | 0.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Avelia Estates | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 6, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 6, 2025, state report AD2711)
MDH: “On February 3, 2025, through February 6, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed February 6, 2025: 14 correction orders
- Tag 340: 144G.30 Subd. 5 Correction orders Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to record actions taken to comply with all correction orders from a survey completed September 27, 2022.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to record actions taken to comply with all correction orders from a survey completed September 27, 2022. The lack of action to ensure compliance with regulations had the potential to affect all residents staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A correction order may be issued whenever the commissioner finds upon survey or during a complaint investigation that a facility, a managerial official, an agent of the facility, or staff of the facility is not in compliance with this chapter. [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services 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 prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
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, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 580: 144G.42 Subd. 2 Quality management Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement and maintain a quality management program appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement and maintain a quality management program appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall engage in quality management appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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) which
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on 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) which includes a TB facility risk assessment. [...]”
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 14
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document annual review and updates to the emergency preparedness (EP) plan and hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document annual review and updates to the emergency preparedness (EP) plan and hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA). This had the potential to affect all 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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a facility with clear access to egress windows in compliance with Minnesota State Fire Code under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide a facility with clear access to egress windows in compliance with Minnesota State Fire Code under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7511. This had the potential to affect residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- 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 the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the 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 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to obtain a cleared Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) background study clearance prior to providing services for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to obtain a cleared Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) background study clearance prior to providing services for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 1310: 144G.60 Subd. 3 Licensed health professionals and nurses Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN), who was providing services as an employee of the licensed facility, had a current Minnesota license or registration to practice, for one of one employee (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN), who was providing services as an employee of the licensed facility, had a current Minnesota license or registration to practice, for one of one employee (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A). This had the potential to affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Licensed health professionals and nurses providing services as staff members of a licensed facility must possess a current Minnesota license or registration to practice. [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted direct supervision of staff performing delegated nursing or therapy tasks within 30 days of first providing those services for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted direct supervision of staff performing delegated nursing or therapy tasks within 30 days of first providing those services for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment, utilizing a uniform assessment tool, no more than 14 days after start of services, and not more than 90 days from the previous assessment for one of two 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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a service plan had been signed or authenticated by the facility representative and by the resident, or the resident's representative, to document agreement on services to be provided, for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a service plan had been signed or authenticated by the facility representative and by the resident, or the resident's representative, to document agreement on services to be provided, for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R3) who utilized hospital style side bed rails and two of two residents (R2, R4) who utilized consumer-style bed rails.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R3) who utilized hospital style side bed rails and two of two residents (R2, R4) who utilized consumer-style bed rails. [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
- Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $6,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- September 27, 2022: report 8ROR11 · 10 correction orders
Details
Survey completed September 27, 2022: 10 correction orders
- Tag 580: 144G.42 Subd. 2 Quality management Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to engage in and maintain documentation on quality management activities appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to engage in and maintain documentation on quality management activities appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall engage in quality management appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. [...]”
- 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 develop an emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required components included in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required components included in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all 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: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview the licensee failed to ensure installation and maintenance of portable fire extinguishers at the facility. 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 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 provide the required fire safety training and evacuation plans for residents and staff.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required fire safety training and evacuation plans for residents and staff. This has 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 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, to include all required content with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, to include all required content with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”
Show all 10
- Tag 1380: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (b) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of one employee unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B to include all required content with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of one employee unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B to include all required content with record reviewed. This had the potential to affect all of the licensee's current residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) In addition to paragraph (a), training and competency evaluation for unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must include: (1) observing, reporting, and documenting resident status; (2) basic knowledge of body functioning and changes in [...]”
- Tag 1460: 144G.63 Subdivision 1 Orientation of staff and supervisors Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations was provided for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
Rule cited: “All staff providing and supervising direct services must complete an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing assisted living services to residents. [...]”
- Tag 1480: 144G.63 Subd. 3 Orientation to resident Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided to individual residents for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided to individual residents for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Staff providing assisted living services must be oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided. This orientation may be provided in person, orally, in writing, or electronically.”
- Tag 1490: 144G.63 Subd. 4 Training required relating to dementia Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure completion of required dementia training for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure completion of required dementia training for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “All direct care staff and supervisors providing direct services must demonstrate an understanding of the training specified in section 144G.64.”
- Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: MDH granted the assisted living license; no immediate fines.
- Tag 580: 144G.42 Subd. 2 Quality management Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- May 28, 2025 · report HL377879522M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when they failed to supervise the resident who was walking up the sidewalk to the facility without his cane. The resident fell on a step, struck his head, and passed away two days later.”
“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. A facility staff member opened the front door onto the porch and observed the resident fall back from the bottom stair. It was snowing and the resident wore Crocs foam footwear. The day programming driver who brought the resident from day programing to the facility did not escort the resident all the way to the door before walking away.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility nurse reached out to the day programming director to make sure the driver always walked the residents to the door before leaving. The nurse reinforced that the driver should provide stand-by assistance until the resident was physically handed off to a staff member inside the facility. The day program director stated he would re-educate all drivers.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed May 14, 2025: no correction orders issued.
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”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to 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 5 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 AURORA ASSISTED LIVING LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 422438
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-10-28
- Licensed capacity
- 5
- Licensee
- AURORA ASSISTED LIVING LLC
- County
- Ramsey County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Pang Vang
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.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 1.4 mi, nursing home 1.4 mi, pharmacy 1.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Regions Hospital, Saint Paul. 1.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Capitol View Transitional Care Center, Saint Paul. 1.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Divine Healthcare Network, Saint Paul. 2.0 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55117 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Medical Care - Midway St Paul, Saint Paul, 1.0 mile away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
St Paul Capitol At Home, Saint Paul, 1.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita St Paul Capitol Dialysis, Saint Paul, 1.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 23 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55117.
Sholom Hospice, office in Saint Paul, 4.1 miles away, straight line
Our Lady Of Peace Hospice, office in Saint Paul, 4.3 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Presbyterian Homes Hospice Inc, office in Roseville, 4.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Saint Paul. 3.2 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 moderate; 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 moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado very high, heat wave relatively high, 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?
- Who is here at night? Are they awake, or asleep and on call?
- Who covers when the owner is sick, on vacation, or away for the day? Can we meet them?
- Is it one flat rate, or does it rise with care needs?
- Can you help someone who needs two people to move, or a mechanical lift?
- 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?
What we checked11 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 | Nothing on record |
| 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Aurora Assisted Living provide?
Aurora Assisted Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in St. Paul, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 5 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Aurora Assisted Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Aurora Assisted 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 Aurora Assisted 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. Aurora Assisted Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Aurora Assisted Living?
Visit Aurora Assisted Living at 115 Magnolia Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55117.
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