Assisted Living and Memory Care
Cascade Creek Memory Care
3530 Fairway Ridge Lane Sw, Rochester, MN 55902 · Map
Licensed for 50 residents · CASCADE CREEK MEMORY CARE
Cascade Creek Memory Care is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Rochester, Minnesota. It is licensed for 50 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, 50 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425741, current license dated Dec 1, 2025. Licensee CASCADE CREEK MEMORY CARE.
Nearest emergency room
1.7 miles
Mayo Clinic Hospital Rochester, rated 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascade Creek Memory Care this community | 50 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| Madonna Meadows of Rochester | 0.8 mi | 72 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Abilit Holdings Meadow Lakes L | 0.9 mi | 74 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Enjoy Home Healthcare | 1.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Shorewood Commons | 1.1 mi | 90 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 19, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 19, 2024, state report ZECY11)
MDH: “On December 16, 2024, through December 19, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed December 19, 2024: 12 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).
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 three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H, ULP-I).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H, ULP-I). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- 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 included a facility TB risk assessment.
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 facility TB 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 [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to comply with Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 12
- 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 training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to 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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the licensee's medication refrigerator was maintained at an acceptable temperature to ensure the medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommendations for five of five residents (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) who had medications stored in the medication refrigerator.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the licensee's medication refrigerator was maintained at an acceptable temperature to ensure the medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommendations for five of five residents (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) who had medications stored in the medication refrigerator. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to label a time sensitive medication with an opened date or included a proper label for three of 45 residents (R5, R7, R8) with medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to label a time sensitive medication with an opened date or included a proper label for three of 45 residents (R5, R7, R8) with medication administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · 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 required content for one of one discharged resident (R4).
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 required content for one of one discharged resident (R4). [...]”
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 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- December 9, 2021: report D02J11 · 5 correction orders
Details
Survey completed December 9, 2021: 5 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 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 according to the Minnesota Food Code. This had the potential to affect all 13 current residents of the facility. [...]”
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 an emergency preparedness plan with all the required content outlined in Appendix Z. In addition, the licensee failed to comply with the frequency of inspection, maintenance, and load test requirements for the facility's emergency power system (permanent generator) as part of the facility's emergency disaster and preparedness plan as required under Minnesota Rules, Part 4659.0100.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an emergency preparedness plan with all the required content outlined in Appendix Z. In addition, the licensee failed to comply with the frequency of inspection, maintenance, and load test requirements for the facility's emergency power system (permanent generator) as part of the facility's emergency disaster and preparedness plan as required under Minnesota Rules, Part 4659.0100. [...]”
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: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to secure a utility room that was in close proximity to the communal dining area and commonly accessible to residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to secure a utility room that was in close proximity to the communal dining area and commonly accessible to residents. This had the potential to affect all 13 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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 1, isolated scope, scope/level letter A · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were properly administered when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D recapped an insulin pen needle after administering insulin to one of one (R1) residents reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure medications were properly administered when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D recapped an insulin pen needle after administering insulin to one of one (R1) residents reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document the prescription number and date of destruction for the disposition of unused narcotics for one of one (R2) residents reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document the prescription number and date of destruction for the disposition of unused narcotics for one of one (R2) residents reviewed. [...]”
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. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: MDH granted the assisted living license; no immediate fines.
- 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
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- July 24, 2024 · report HL377853581M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility did not address the resident's choking risk.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect 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 facility received an order to alter the resident's food by cutting into small pieces. However, this information was not provided to direct caregivers which led to two more choking episodes, the second of which led to the resident's death by choking.”
Action taken by facility: “Facility staff called 911 and the resident was transferred to the hospital.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed June 20, 2024: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review the licensee failed to provide care and assisted living services according to an up-to-date service plan when the licensee did not implement nor communicate R1's dietary requirements, cutting food into quarter-sized bites, after a choking episode of one of one resident (R1) reviewed. R1 had two additional choking episodes, the last of which contributed to R1's death. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
- May 15, 2024 · report HL377852360M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected resident #1 and resident #2 when resident #2 threw resident #1 onto the floor.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. While the facility moved resident #2 to a new memory care unit to address his behaviors, the facility did not provide communication to caregivers regarding approaches to manage his behaviors or to help him acclimate to the new setting. Resident #1, who lived on the new unit and had a history of loud behavior, was thrown to the ground by resident #2 and required hospitalization. Despite these known concerns, the facility did not put interventions in place to address these risks.”
Action taken by facility: “Resident #2 moved to a facility to provide a higher level of care. Resident #1 required hospitalization.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed April 10, 2024: 2 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement specific individual abuse prevention plans (IAPP)s and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for four out of four (R1 and R2) residents reviewed after the residents were involved in resident-to-resident and/or resident-to-caregiver altercations.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to implement specific individual abuse prevention plans (IAPP)s and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for four out of four (R1 and R2) residents reviewed after the residents were involved in resident-to-resident and/or resident-to-caregiver altercations. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
- May 25, 2022 · report HL37785001C
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”
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”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury 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 50 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 CASCADE CREEK MEMORY CARE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425741
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-12-01
- Licensed capacity
- 50
- Licensee
- CASCADE CREEK MEMORY CARE
- County
- Olmsted County
- Executive Director
- Tiffany Bell
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.
Executive Director name from public records we reviewed, as of Oct 12, 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 1.7 mi, nursing home 2.2 mi, pharmacy 1.9 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mayo Clinic Hospital Rochester, Rochester. 1.7 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Edenbrook of Rochester, Rochester. 2.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Aveanna Home Health, Rochester. 1.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Hy-Vee Pharmacy. 1.9 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55902 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Mayo Clinic Dialysis St Marys, Rochester, 1.7 miles away, straight line
Mayo Dialysis Rochester Methodist Hosp, Rochester, 2.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Davita Rochester Dialysis, Rochester, 3.6 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 7 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55902.
Moments Hospice, office in Rochester, 1.3 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 1 of 5 stars)
Seasons Hospice, office in Rochester, 1.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Crown Capital Strategies, LLC, office in Rochester, 2.0 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester. 1.7 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 high, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively low, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers 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 very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Cascade Creek Memory Care provide?
Cascade Creek Memory Care is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Rochester, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 50 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Cascade Creek Memory Care?
No. We publish state licensing details for Cascade Creek Memory Care 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 Cascade Creek Memory Care 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. Cascade Creek Memory Care does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Cascade Creek Memory Care?
Use Cascade Creek Memory Care's website, anthemmemorycare.com/senior-living/mn/rochester/cascade-creek, or visit at 3530 Fairway Ridge Lane Sw, Rochester, MN 55902.
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