Independent Living and Assisted Living and Memory Care
Gracepointe Crossing
1545 Riverhills Parkway Nw, Cambridge, MN 55008 · Map
Licensed for 88 residents · GRACEPOINTE CROSSING
Gracepointe Crossing is a state-licensed independent living, assisted living, memory care community in Cambridge, Minnesota. It is licensed for 88 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 Gracepointe Crossing 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.
24-hour nursing care provided with dignity and compassion.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026)
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 88 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 426048, current license dated Sep 1, 2026. Licensee GRACEPOINTE CROSSING.
Nearest emergency room
0.9 miles
Cambridge Medical Center, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gracepointe Crossing this community | 88 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Rosewood Senior Living | 1.3 mi | 30 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Walker Methodist Levande | 2.1 mi | 80 | $5,040/mo | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Prairie Senior Cottages of Isa | 5.2 mi | 58 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Bethel Haven Care | 9.4 mi | 11 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- February 5, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (February 5, 2025, state report V3RB11)
MDH: “On February 3, 2025, through February 5, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed February 5, 2025: 2 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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Two (2) days · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “775 Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide a facility in compliance with Minnesota State Fire Code under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7511. This had the potential to affect residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- March 18, 2022: report E9GR11 · 18 correction orders
Details
Survey completed March 18, 2022: 18 correction orders
- Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the licensed assisted living director (LALD) was listed as the Director of Record with the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports (BELTSS).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the licensed assisted living director (LALD) was listed as the Director of Record with the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports (BELTSS). This had the potential to affect all of the licensee's residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must employ an assisted living director licensed or permitted by the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports.”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 500: 144G.41 Subd. 2 Policies and procedures Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who were in charge of the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures, as required, with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who were in charge of the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures, as required, with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must have policies and procedures in place to address the following and keep them current: (1) requirements in section 626.557, reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults; (2) conducting and handling background studies on [...]”
- Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post required information related to the licensee's grievance procedure to include the email contact information for the individual responsible for handling resident grievances.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to post required information related to the licensee's grievance procedure to include the email contact information for the individual responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
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 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 through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment as required. This had the potential to affect all of the licensee's current 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 18
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the employee records contained the required content for two of five employees (registered nurse (RN)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee records contained the required content for two of five employees (registered nurse (RN)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all of the required content. In addition, the licensee failed to provide the minimum frequency of inspection, maintenance and load test requirements for the emergency power generator as part of the EP plan to ensure proper performance of the generator. 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: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain proper functioning of the smoke alarms in resident rooms #217 and # 320 as required by Minnesota Statutes, 144G.45, Subd. 2.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain proper functioning of the smoke alarms in resident rooms #217 and # 320 as required by Minnesota Statutes, 144G.45, Subd. 2. This has the potential to directly affect all assisted living residents, visitors, and staff. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation documentation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide the minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation documentation. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of staff and all residents receiving care. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 910: 144G.50 Subd. 2 Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed. This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety), and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The contract must include in a conspicuous place and manner on the contract the legal name and the license number of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 970: 144.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 facility'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 facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1610: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (a-b) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) conducted an initial assessment using the uniform assessment tool for two of two residents (R3, R4) as required, with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) conducted an initial assessment using the uniform assessment tool for two of two residents (R3, R4) as required, with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment no more than 14 days after the initiation of services, for two of two residents (R3, R4) as required, and failed to ensure the RN completed a reassessment not to exceed 90 days for two of two residents (R1, R5) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment no more than 14 days after the initiation of services, for two of two residents (R3, R4) as required, and failed to ensure the RN completed a reassessment not to exceed 90 days for two of two residents (R1, R5) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of five residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of five residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services 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) conducted an individualized medication assessment with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized medication assessment with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment (HVA) plan to identify both the hazard vulnerabilities and the mitigations on and around the property.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, document review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide a complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment (HVA) plan to identify both the hazard vulnerabilities and the mitigations on and around the property. The hazards identified in the HVA plan must be mitigated to protect the memory care residents from harm. This has the potential to directly affect all memory care residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
- Tag 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and/or the residents legal/designated representative at the time of move-in. This had the potential to affect all residents with dementia care, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1, R3) who resided in the Arbor secured memory care unit, with record review.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1, R3) who resided in the Arbor secured memory care unit, with record review. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Two (2) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- March 8, 2024 · report HL307637810M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff, financially exploited resident #1, resident #2, resident #3, and resident #4 when the AP either took money from and/or gained access to bank account information to remove money from the residents' bank accounts.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP was able to gather personnel information from resident #2, resident #3, resident #4, and an additional resident, resident #5, who resided at the facility. The information allowed the AP to electronically withdraw money from the residents' bank accounts and deposit money into a mobile payment service account (cash application) owned by the AP. Due to information provided by resident #1's family, it was not substantiated the AP financially exploited resident #1 by taking the resident's wallet and $10.00.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility suspended the AP, completed internal investigations for each incident and sent out a letter to all residents and family members notifying of fraudulent activity. Facility leadership provided education to staff and notified law enforcement with each incident. The AP was no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed January 18, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure five of five residents reviewed (R2, R3, R4, and R5) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure five of five residents reviewed (R2, R3, R4, and R5) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person 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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
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”
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 88 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 GRACEPOINTE CROSSING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 426048
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-09-01
- Licensed capacity
- 88
- Licensee
- GRACEPOINTE CROSSING
- County
- Isanti County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Mark Pederson
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 0.9 mi, nursing home 0.0 mi, pharmacy 1.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Cambridge Medical Center, Cambridge. 0.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Gracepointe Crossing Gables, Cambridge. 0.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Compassionate Home Care Ltd, Zimmerman. 19.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Merwin Long Term Care. 1.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55008 as micropolitan (micropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care Cambridge, Cambridge, 1.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 13 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55008.
Triniti Hospice, office in Elk River, 24.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Princeton. 16.5 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively moderate; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively 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 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Gracepointe Crossing provide?
Gracepointe Crossing is licensed by the state of Minnesota for independent living, assisted living, memory care in Cambridge, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 88 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Gracepointe Crossing?
No. We publish state licensing details for Gracepointe Crossing 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 Gracepointe Crossing 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. Gracepointe Crossing does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Gracepointe Crossing?
Use Gracepointe Crossing's website, preshomes.org/living-options/find-a-community/gracepointe-crossing, or visit at 1545 Riverhills Parkway Nw, Cambridge, MN 55008.
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