Assisted Living
Golden Oaks Living
1265 Belmont Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125 · Map
Licensed for 6 residents · GOLDEN OAKS LIVING CORPORATION
Golden Oaks Living is a state-licensed assisted living community in Woodbury, Minnesota. It is licensed for 6 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, 6 residents
Assisted Living Facility 423854, current license dated Feb 6, 2026. Licensee GOLDEN OAKS LIVING CORPORATION.
Nearest emergency room
1.8 miles
M Health Fairview Woodwinds Hospital, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Golden Oaks Living this community | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Greatercare Facilitiesllc | 0.2 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Goldenlightassistedliving | 0.7 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Artis Senior Living of Woodbury | 0.8 mi | 64 | $8,745/mo | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Sotam Homecare, Cayenne Plaza West | 0.9 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- February 20, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (February 20, 2025, state report KI7911)
MDH: “On February 18, 2025, through February 20, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed February 20, 2025: 9 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) 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: “(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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control. The deficient practice had the potential to affect residents, employees, and visitors. [...]”
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 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), failed to ensure history and symptoms screening for active TB (either a two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or blood test) was completed and a second step TST was completed, for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E and
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), failed to ensure history and symptoms screening for active TB (either a two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or blood test) was completed and a second step TST was completed, for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E and ULP-F). [...]”
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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain required interconnection of smoke alarms.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain required interconnection of smoke alarms. 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 [...]”
- 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 the required content and provide the required training.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training. 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. [...]”
Show all 9
- Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative, or document the resident declined to designate a representative, and include the required verbiage notifying the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative, or document the resident declined to designate a representative, and include the required verbiage notifying the resident of their right to designate a representative, for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- Tag 970: 144G.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. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- 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 the registered nurse (RN) supervised unlicensed personnel (ULP) within 30 calendar days of beginning to provide delegated tasks for one of two employees (ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) supervised unlicensed personnel (ULP) within 30 calendar days of beginning to provide delegated tasks for one of two employees (ULP-F). [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per protocol for one of four residents (R3). 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 an 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 [...]”
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. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 28, 2022: report C2T511 · 16 correction orders
Details
Survey completed June 28, 2022: 16 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
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, and interview, 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 residents). [...]”
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to COVID-19.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to COVID-19. [...]”
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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21)
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview the licensee failed to post contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) and the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (OMHDD), or any information for reporting suspected maltreatment to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC). This had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and e-mail contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 580: 144G.42 Subd. 2 Quality management Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to engage in and maintain documentation on quality management activities appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to engage in and maintain documentation on quality management activities appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall engage in quality management appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. [...]”
- 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 post the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to post the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones. 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 [...]”
Show all 16
- 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 (EPP) with all the required components included in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required components included in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 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 provide smoke alarms in some of the resident's bedrooms.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms in some of the resident's bedrooms. In addition, the facility failed to provide smoke alarms that were interconnected in some resident's bedrooms and in a basement bedroom. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- 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 fire safety training and evacuation plans for residents and staff.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required fire safety training and evacuation plans for residents and staff. This has 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 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C to include all required content with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C to include all required content with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter F · 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 the individual begins working for the licensee for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, 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 begins working for the licensee for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1460: 144G.63 Subdivision 1 Orientation of staff and supervisors Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations was provided for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C, with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations was provided for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C, with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
Rule cited: “All staff providing and supervising direct services must complete an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing assisted living services to residents. [...]”
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living facility statutes included all the required content for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living facility statutes included all the required content for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1480: 144G.63 Subd. 3 Orientation to resident Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided for one of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided for one of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Staff providing assisted living services must be oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided. This orientation may be provided in person, orally, in writing, or electronically.”
- Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 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 training and competencies for providing medications to residents for unplanned time away from home when the licensed nurse was not available for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed training and competencies for providing medications to residents for unplanned time away from home when the licensed nurse was not available for two of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B and ULP-C with record reviewed. [...]”
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 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a required notice was posted at the main entry way of the licensee's facility to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure a required notice was posted at the main entry way of the licensee's facility to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors to the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “Subd. 8.Notice to visitors. (a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities." (b) The [...]”
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- April 3, 2024 · report HL306528164M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to follow doctor's orders with medication administration, failed to develop and implement interventions concerning weight loss, and failed to provide medical care as needed.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There were conflicting accounts surrounding the details of the concerns reported and records reviewed did not reflect if the care received, or a lack of care, contributed to the disease process or any complications experienced by the resident.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility followed orders from the care team throughout the resident's facility stay and conducted care conferences to discuss and address concerns related to the resident's care.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed March 6, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven days (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of one resident (R1). 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 a limited [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven days (7) 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 6 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 GOLDEN OAKS LIVING CORPORATION
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 423854
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-02-06
- Licensed capacity
- 6
- Licensee
- GOLDEN OAKS LIVING CORPORATION
- County
- Washington County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Marriam Abdi
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 1.8 mi, nursing home 1.8 mi, pharmacy 0.6 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Woodwinds Hospital, Woodbury. 1.8 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Woodbury Health Care Center, Woodbury. 1.8 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Mils Home Health Care Agency, Woodbury. 0.9 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- CVS Pharmacy. 0.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55125 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care Woodbury, Woodbury, 0.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Woodbury Dialysis, Woodbury, 1.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Sun Ray Dialysis Unit, Saint Paul, 4.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 22 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55125.
Hospice Of The Midwest, office in Woodbury, 1.3 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in Oakdale, 1.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Beyond Hospice, office in Oakdale, 5.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Saint Paul. 10.8 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 low, wildfire very 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?
- Who is here at night? Are they awake, or asleep and on call?
- Who covers when the owner is sick, on vacation, or away for the day? Can we meet them?
- Is it one flat rate, or does it rise with care needs?
- Can you help someone who needs two people to move, or a mechanical lift?
- 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?
What we checked11 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Golden Oaks Living provide?
Golden Oaks Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Woodbury, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 6 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Golden Oaks Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Golden Oaks 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 Golden Oaks 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. Golden Oaks Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Golden Oaks Living?
Visit Golden Oaks Living at 1265 Belmont Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125.
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