Assisted Living and Memory Care
Boulder Ponds Senior Living
192 Jade Trail North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 · Map
Licensed for 115 residents · BOULDER PONDS SENIOR LIVING
Boulder Ponds Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. It is licensed for 115 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, 115 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425818, current license dated Jul 29, 2026. Licensee BOULDER PONDS SENIOR LIVING.
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 1, 2022
- Evaluations on record
- 1
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 1, 2022, state report 9UVW11)
MDH: “On November 29, through December 1, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed December 1, 2022: 10 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
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) 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: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) 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 comply with the requirements for reporting suspected maltreatment for one of five residents (R4) when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, a mandated reporter, was aware of signs of potential abuse but failed report them to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) or a person in charge per the licensee's policy.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements for reporting suspected maltreatment for one of five residents (R4) when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, a mandated reporter, was aware of signs of potential abuse but failed report them to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) or a person in charge per the licensee's policy. [...]”
Rule cited: “144G.42 Subd. 6. Compliance with requirements for reporting maltreatment of vulnerable adults; abuse prevention plan. (a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- 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
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 included a history and symptom screening result for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
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 [...]”
- 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 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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative for one of one resident (R4) who had an emergency relocation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative for one of one resident (R4) who had an emergency relocation. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
Show all 10
- 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 living licensing requirements and regulations was provided prior to providing assisted living services to residents for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations was provided prior to providing assisted living services to residents for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C). [...]”
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 1540: 144G.64 (a) 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 direct-care staff completed the required hours of dementia care training in the required time frame for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed the required hours of dementia care training in the required time frame for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care employees must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment within the required time frames for one of five residents (R5).
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 within the required time frames for one of five residents (R5). [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or resident to document agreement on the services to be provided for two of five residents (R2, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or resident to document agreement on the services to be provided for two of five residents (R2, R5). [...]”
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 3000: 626.557 Subd. 3 Timing of report Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements for reporting suspected maltreatment for one of five residents (R4) when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, a mandated reporter, was aware of signs of potential abuse but failed report them to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) or a person in charge per the licensee's policy. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated, or who has knowledge that a vulnerable adult has sustained a physical injury which is not reasonably explained shall immediately report the information [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- January 6, 2023 · report HL370713446M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when staff did not answer his call light for over two hours, resulting in the resident calling emergency services to assist with his cares. In addition, the resident was abused when he was found to have bruising of unknown origin on his left thigh.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: neglect substantiated; abuse not substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident was unable to move in bed or independently complete cares without staff assistance. After waiting for staff assistance for almost two hours with no response, the resident called 911. The paramedics assisted the resident with cares. The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. Although the resident did have four small circular bruises on his left thigh, the resident denied anyone An equal opportunity employer. harmed him, and it could not be determined how the bruises occurred. There was no correlating documentation or staff concerns regarding the residents bruising.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility developed a plan to increase staffing coverage.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed November 22, 2022: 2 correction orders
- Tag 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement current written medication management policies and procedures when one of one residents (R1) did not receive medication for 3 months.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement current written medication management policies and procedures when one of one residents (R1) did not receive medication for 3 months. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving medication services from the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, was free from maltreatment. The resident was neglected. Findings include: On November 22, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that neglect occurred, and that the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents, which occurred at the facility. The MDH concluded there was a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred.”
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 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- January 6, 2023 · report HL370711403M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when the resident's medication was not administered according to physician orders. The resident passed away.”
“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. Although the facility did not provide the resident a medication, Esbriet (used to treat lung conditions and ease breathing) according to physician orders for approximately four months, it could not be determined if the missed medication contributed to the resident's decline and/or death.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility updated policy and procedures regarding transcribing medication orders and auditing to ensure residents are receiving medications as prescribed.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed November 22, 2022: 2 correction orders
- Tag 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement current written medication management policies and procedures when one of one residents (R1) did not receive medication for 3 months.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement current written medication management policies and procedures when one of one residents (R1) did not receive medication for 3 months. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving medication services from the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, was free from maltreatment. The resident was neglected. Findings include: On November 22, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that neglect occurred, and that the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents, which occurred at the facility. The MDH concluded there was a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred.”
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 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- May 9, 2025 · report HL370719582M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the "I'm okay" check was not completed, and the resident was found deceased in her bed.”
“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. While it was true the "I'm okay" check was not completed as planned earlier in the day, the resident was found deceased in her bed in her nightclothes and likely passed away in her sleep. The death record indicated the cause of death was suspected cardiac arrest and her advanced directives called for do night resuscitate.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation and provided additional training and education to all unlicensed caregivers.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed April 28, 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”
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 115 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 BOULDER PONDS SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425818
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-29
- Licensed capacity
- 115
- Licensee
- BOULDER PONDS SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Washington County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Catie Hogan
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.
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 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- 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?
What we checked7 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 |
| 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 Boulder Ponds Senior Living provide?
Boulder Ponds Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 115 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Boulder Ponds Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Boulder Ponds 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 Boulder Ponds 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. Boulder Ponds Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Boulder Ponds Senior Living?
Visit Boulder Ponds Senior Living at 192 Jade Trail North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
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