Assisted Living and Memory Care
Cedar Creek Senior Living
19131 Taylor Street, East Bethel, MN 55011 · Map
Licensed for 90 residents · CEDAR CREEK SENIOR LIVING
Cedar Creek Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in East Bethel, Minnesota. It is licensed for 90 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 Cedar Creek 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.
- Nurse on site: 24 hours a day.
Nurse and health services staff on-site 24/7
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026)
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 90 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424547, current license dated Mar 1, 2026. Licensee CEDAR CREEK SENIOR LIVING.
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- May 7, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 3 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (May 7, 2025, state report CE9111)
MDH: “On May 5, 2025, through May 7, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed May 7, 2025: 8 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 to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) 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 of Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511. 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 affected or one or [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b-f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide required training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide required training and drills. 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 of the residents). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and completed for the current health facility identification (HFID) number for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) on the facility provided employee roster.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and completed for the current health facility identification (HFID) number for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) on the facility provided employee roster. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). 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 affected or one [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”
- Tag 1380: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (b) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). 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 affected or one [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) In addition to paragraph (a), training and competency evaluation for unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must include: (1) observing, reporting, and documenting resident status; (2) basic knowledge of body functioning and changes in [...]”
- Tag 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for one of one resident (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for one of one resident (R6). 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 a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic [...]”
Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 28, 2023: report 6IUX11 · 3 correction orders
Details
Survey completed June 28, 2023: 3 correction orders
- 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 for one of one resident (R4) with records reviewed.
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 for one of one resident (R4) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed an ongoing reassessment and monitoring on or before day 90 for four of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information for one of one resident (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- June 23, 2022 · report HL36636001M
Unsubstantiated investigations (3)
- June 13, 2025 · report HL366361040M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused the resident when she restrained the resident's arms during toileting cares.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. The AP followed the service plan which instructed two staff to assist with toileting cares. There was conflicting information on the AP's placement of her hands on the resident during toileting but no indication she placed the resident in a "head lock." The facility suspended the AP during their investigation. She was re-educated on conduct and safe transfers and returned to work. The resident was unharmed.”
Action taken by facility: “The resident was assessed for harm. The AP was suspended pending an internal investigation. The AP and all other staff received re-education.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 4, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- March 19, 2025 · report HL366366924M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected to provide appropriate care and services to the resident resulting in a delay of care.”
“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 staff acknowledge delays in treatment and care did occur, staff continuously monitored the resident's condition and updated the healthcare provider and family when any change in condition was observed..”
Action taken by facility: “The facility communicated with the resident's provider and family regarding change in condition.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action at this time.”
Survey completed January 16, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- January 23, 2024 · report HL366366664M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to ensure staff repositioned the resident according to her service plan and failed to ensure staff routinely offered or assisted her with meals and eating. The resident developed painful pressure sores on her heels, buttocks, and tailbone (coccyx). In addition, the alleged perpetrator (AP), abused the resident when she forced the resident to take medications.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: neglect not substantiated; abuse not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. Facility staff provided care to the resident according to the resident's plan of care and as the resident allowed. The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. The AP denied forcing the resident to take her medications. The facility reviewed video footage from the resident's room and determined the AP did not force the resident to take medications. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed October 4, 2023: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to serious injury, impairment, or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 90 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 CEDAR CREEK SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424547
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-03-01
- Licensed capacity
- 90
- Licensee
- CEDAR CREEK SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Anoka County
- Executive Director
- Stasha Andrews
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.
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 checked8 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 |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Cedar Creek Senior Living provide?
Cedar Creek Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in East Bethel, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 90 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Cedar Creek Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Cedar Creek 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 Cedar Creek 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. Cedar Creek Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Cedar Creek Senior Living?
Use Cedar Creek Senior Living's website, cedarcreekseniorliving.com, or visit at 19131 Taylor Street, East Bethel, MN 55011.
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