Edgewood Egf Senior Living

Last evaluation

April 1, 2026

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

4 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

1 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (April 1, 2026, state report 87CJ11)

MDH: “On June 22, 2026, through June 23, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a follow-up survey for the above provider to follow-up on orders issued pursuant to a survey completed on April 1, 2026.”

Survey completed June 30, 2026: 13 correction orders

• Tag 345: 144G.30 Subd. 5. (c)(2), (d) Correction orders (re-issued) scope/level letter C
  Details

  Rule cited: “(c)(2) make available, in a manner readily accessible to residents and others, including provision of a paper copy upon request, the most recent plan of correction documenting the actions taken by the facility to comply with the correction order. [...]”

• Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  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 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”

• Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  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 (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  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 [...]”

Survey completed April 1, 2026: 13 correction orders

• Tag 345: 144G.30 Subd. 5. (c)(2), (d) Correction orders Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to make available the most recent plan of correction in a manner readily accessible to residents and others, including provision of a paper copy upon request, documenting the actions taken by the facility to comply with the correction orders, after a survey concluded on May 24, 2023.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to make available the most recent plan of correction in a manner readily accessible to residents and others, including provision of a paper copy upon request, documenting the actions taken by the facility to comply with the correction orders, after a survey concluded on May 24, 2023. [...]”

  Rule cited: “(c)(2) make available, in a manner readily accessible to residents and others, including provision of a paper copy upon request, the most recent plan of correction documenting the actions taken by the facility to comply with the correction order. [...]”

• 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 was 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 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information for reporting to Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information for reporting to Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC). This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”

• 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 included all required content for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B). [...]”

  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 maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to include a baseline TB screening that included a two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to include a baseline TB screening that included a two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or other evidence of TB testing such as IGRA (a blood test); and failed to provide TB training upon hire and annually for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”

Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included

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.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• February 3, 2025 · report HL306317702M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility and the alleged perpetrators (AP), both registered nurses (RN) at the facility, neglected the resident when they failed to have a system in place to ensure availability of medication refills. The resident's medications were not delivered immediately after new orders were received. AP/RN1 and AP/RN2 failed to notify the resident's provider that medications were not available. The resident was hospitalized after missing ten days of prescribed medications.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “The facility and AP/RN1 and AP/RN2 were responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility and individual responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility and AP/RN1 and AP/RN2 were responsible for the maltreatment. The resident had been hospitalized and treated for congestive heart failure and was started on nine new medications. After returning to the facility, the new medications did not immediately arrive. AP/RN1 and AP/RN2 were aware of this but failed to contact the pharmacy to follow up and failed to notify the primary care provider (PCP) that new medications to treat heart failure had not been started. The facility did not have a process in place to ensure the family and primary care provider were updated or a process to ensure new orders were followed up on to ensure the medications arrived. The resident missed ten days of essential medications. The resident was re-hospitalized with exacerbation of congestive heart failure.”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed December 27, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one residents (R1) reviewed for maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one residents (R1) reviewed for maltreatment. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”

  • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for one of one residents (R1) and failed to follow-up on medication administration practices when R1's medications were out of stock for eight days, resulting in R1 being admitted to the hospital.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for one of one residents (R1) and failed to follow-up on medication administration practices when R1's medications were out of stock for eight days, resulting in R1 being admitted to the hospital. The licensee also failed to identify and follow up on nine medication errors. [...]”

    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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with a change in condition.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with a change in condition. The RN failed to report 22 out of range blood sugars to the primary care provider (PCP) as ordered over six weeks. [...]”

    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 two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person and the facility were 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.”

• February 3, 2025 · report HL306317703M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility failed to provide continuous monitoring for signs and symptoms of a diabetic condition, resulting in the resident being admitted to the hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis. In addition, the facility caused a rib fracture by improperly transferring the resident into a car.”

  “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 failed to report 22 out of range blood sugar readings to the primary care provider (PCP) as ordered over a six week period. The resident was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with diabetic ketoacidosis (a complication of diabetes that results from increased levels of a chemical called ketones. Symptoms include excessive thirst, frequent urination, fatigue, and vomiting.) The facility also transferred the resident into a private car when the resident was not able to be safely transferred; however, it is unable to be determined when the rib fractures occurred.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility reported the resident's rib fractures to MAARC.”

  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 December 27, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one residents (R1) reviewed for maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one residents (R1) reviewed for maltreatment. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”

  • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for one of one residents (R1) and failed to follow-up on medication administration practices when R1's medications were out of stock for eight days, resulting in R1 being admitted to the hospital.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for one of one residents (R1) and failed to follow-up on medication administration practices when R1's medications were out of stock for eight days, resulting in R1 being admitted to the hospital. The licensee also failed to identify and follow up on nine medication errors. [...]”

    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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with a change in condition.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with a change in condition. The RN failed to report 22 out of range blood sugars to the primary care provider (PCP) as ordered over six weeks. [...]”

    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 two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person and the facility were 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.”

• September 11, 2024 · report HL306313341M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to ensure the resident was provided appropriate treatment after the resident developed a fever and a red spot on her leg. Facility staff told the resident's responsible party to not bring her to the emergency room and they'd check her in the morning. The responsible party returned the next day and noticed the redness had spread so took the resident to the emergency room. The resident was admitted to the hospital and treated for sepsis, cellulitis, MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a drug resistant infection), and a UTI.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “The facility and the alleged perpetrator (AP), a registered nurse (RN), were responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility and individual responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility and the alleged perpetrator (AP), a registered nurse (RN), were responsible for the maltreatment. The facility had no system in place to monitor skin concerns and failed to report to the resident's provider when skin concerns developed or worsened. The AP/RN failed to seek immediate treatment or notify the resident's provider for an acute change in condition and failed to provide additional monitoring or supervision after they were notified of the resident's leg redness. The resident had an ongoing open area to her ankle that the facility failed to identify, treat, or monitor, which became infected and developed into a cellulitis infection.”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed July 15, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to submit a report to MAARC for one of one resident (R1) who had a delay in care after the registered nurse (RN) failed to address a change in condition.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report to MAARC for one of one resident (R1) who had a delay in care after the registered nurse (RN) failed to address a change in condition. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when a change in condition was not reported to the appropriate supervisor or healthcare professional for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when a change in condition was not reported to the appropriate supervisor or healthcare professional for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed. Unlicensed personnel (ULP) reported a change in condition to the registered nurse (RN) when they observed a bright red rash on the R1's leg along with a fever. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred for R1, and the facility and an individual were 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 2480: 144G.91 Subd. 20 Grievances and inquiries Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to respond to grievances of two of two resident (R1, R2) reviewed for grievances.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to respond to grievances of two of two resident (R1, R2) reviewed for grievances. In addition, the licensee failed to have a process in place to respond to and resolve resident grievances. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to make and receive a timely response to a complaint or inquiry, without limitation. [...]”

• September 11, 2024 · report HL306314662M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to address a change in the resident's condition following a fall, resulting in a delay in care. The resident was not sent to the hospital until two days later, where he was diagnosed with a hip fracture.”

  “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 resident fell on a Friday evening. Unlicensed personnel (ULP) reported they heard a "pop" and that the resident screamed in pain and couldn't bear weight on the impacted leg. The facility registered nurse (RN) was notified, who directed staff to put the resident in bed and administer Tylenol. The resident complained of pain Friday night through Saturday and Sunday and was not able to perform activities of daily living at his normal level of function. Multiple facility staff failed to take appropriate action over the weekend, including failing to notify the RN, failing to notify the resident's provider, and failing to assess a change in condition and the resident was diagnosed with a hip fracture that required surgical intervention.”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed July 15, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to submit a report to MAARC for one of one resident (R1) who had a delay in care after the registered nurse (RN) failed to address a change in condition.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report to MAARC for one of one resident (R1) who had a delay in care after the registered nurse (RN) failed to address a change in condition. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when a change in condition was not reported to the appropriate supervisor or healthcare professional for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when a change in condition was not reported to the appropriate supervisor or healthcare professional for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed. Unlicensed personnel (ULP) reported a change in condition to the registered nurse (RN) when they observed a bright red rash on the R1's leg along with a fever. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred for R1, and the facility and an individual were 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 2480: 144G.91 Subd. 20 Grievances and inquiries Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to respond to grievances of two of two resident (R1, R2) reviewed for grievances.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to respond to grievances of two of two resident (R1, R2) reviewed for grievances. In addition, the licensee failed to have a process in place to respond to and resolve resident grievances. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to make and receive a timely response to a complaint or inquiry, without limitation. [...]”

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.

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 38 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.