Assisted Living and Memory Care
Carriage House Senior Living
175 East Derrynane Street, Le Center, MN 56057 · Map
Licensed for 20 residents · CARRIAGE HOUSE SENIOR LIVING
Carriage House Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Le Center, Minnesota. It is licensed for 20 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 Carriage House 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.
- 3 meals a day.
Three Nutritious Meals Daily and Snacks
(page, checked Oct 12, 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, 20 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424346, current license dated Mar 1, 2026. Licensee CARRIAGE HOUSE SENIOR LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
10.4 miles
Minnesota Valley Health Center Inc.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carriage House Senior Living this community | 20 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Traditions of Montgomery | 8.3 mi | 45 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Waverly Senior Living | 9.8 mi | 37 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Oak Terrace Senior Housing of | 10.3 mi | 65 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Benedictine Court | 12.2 mi | 55 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 4, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 4, 2025, state report 37NU11)
MDH: “On March 3, 2025, through March 4, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed March 4, 2025: 13 correction orders
- 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
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to glove use and handwashing during AM cares for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to glove use and handwashing during AM cares for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- 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 plan with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. This had the potential
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors at the assisted living facility license. [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) day · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) day
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life and failed to keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life and failed to keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code. This had the potential to directly affect all of the residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”
Show all 13
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2-3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide or maintain fire extinguishers as required throughout the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide or maintain fire extinguishers as required throughout the facility. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff, visitors, and residents. [...]”
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 develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with required content, make the plan readily available, provide 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 required content, make the plan readily available, 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 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 annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
- 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 one of one direct care employee (unlicensed personal (ULP)-E) received the required annual dementia training for each 12 months of employment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one direct care employee (unlicensed personal (ULP)-E) received the required annual dementia training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
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 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration 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 by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) observed during medication administration for R4.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) observed during medication administration for R4. [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) demonstrated competency in compression stockings to a RN.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) demonstrated competency in compression stockings to a RN. 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 was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 conduct mitigation for hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment on or around the facility property.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct mitigation for hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment on or around the facility property. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- October 12, 2022: report 1VM811 · 16 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 12, 2022: 16 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of residents. 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: 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 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 a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
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 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to maintain the facility in good repair in regards to resident health and safety in accordance with maintenance and repair program.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the facility in good repair in regards to resident health and safety in accordance with maintenance and repair program. This deficient condition has the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
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 facility failed have detailed fire safety and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed have detailed fire safety and evacuation plans and associated confirming documentation. This deficient condition has the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 16
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (e; 5-7) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2). This had the potential to affect all 19 current residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 970: 144.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety or personal property of a resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all 19 current residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · 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 and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1) hospitalized.
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 and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1) hospitalized. [...]”
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. [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
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 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-A and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-A and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- Tag 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures that were developed under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures that were developed under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”
- Tag 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized assessment with the required content for two of four residents (R5 and R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized assessment with the required content for two of four residents (R5 and R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
- Tag 1790: 144G.71 Subd. 10 Medication management for residents who will Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed comprehensive written procedures for the unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed comprehensive written procedures for the unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) for unplanned time away, when the pharmacy is not able to provide the medications, a licensed nurse or unlicensed personnel shall provide medications in amounts and dosages needed for the length of the anticipated absence, not to exceed seven calendar [...]”
- 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, and failed to include a written statement in the service plan of the treatment or therapy service being provided 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, and failed to include a written statement in the service plan of the treatment or therapy service being provided 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 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and/or the residents legal/designated representative at the time of move-in. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1 and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1 and R2) who resided in the assisted living with dementia care facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
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 20 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 CARRIAGE HOUSE SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424346
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-03-01
- Licensed capacity
- 20
- Licensee
- CARRIAGE HOUSE SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Le Sueur County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Delwyn Spronk
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 10.4 mi, nursing home 0.8 mi, pharmacy 13.9 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Minnesota Valley Health Center Inc, Le Sueur. 10.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Central Health Care Center, Le Center. 0.8 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Samaritan Society Home Care St Peter, Saint Peter. 12.3 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 13.9 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56057 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 9 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56057.
Stch South Central Mn Opco LLC, office in Mankato, 20.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Mankato, 20.3 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Southern Cities Clinic, Faribault. 23.3 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 moderate, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively moderate, 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 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 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 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively 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 Carriage House Senior Living provide?
Carriage House Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Le Center, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 20 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Carriage House Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Carriage House 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 Carriage House 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. Carriage House Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Carriage House Senior Living?
Use Carriage House Senior Living's website, carriagehouseseniorlivingmn.com, or visit at 175 East Derrynane Street, Le Center, MN 56057.
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