Assisted Living
Harmony View Assisted Living
1420 2nd Street North, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 · Map
Licensed for 30 residents · HARMONY VIEW ASSISTED LIVING
Harmony View Assisted Living is a state-licensed assisted living community in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. It is licensed for 30 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, 30 residents
Assisted Living Facility 423882, current license dated Jan 3, 2026. Licensee HARMONY VIEW ASSISTED LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
1.8 miles
Centracare - St. Cloud 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harmony View Assisted Living this community | 30 | Not published | Active | 4 substantiated | |
| Summit Ridge Place | 0.7 mi | 25 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Legacy Place | 0.9 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Ridgeview Senior Living | 1.2 mi | 57 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated |
| Good Shepherd Homes | 1.2 mi | 64 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record4 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 12, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 4 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 2 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 12, 2026, state report 2WTY11)
MDH: “On March 10, 2026, through March 12, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed March 12, 2026: 8 correction orders
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of one employee, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of one employee, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) Days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2-3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Two (2) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, isolated scope, scope/level letter A · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b-f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Twnty One (21) Days · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 (a) (1-2) Training in Dementia, Mental Illness, and De- Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide two hours of initial training on mental illness and de-escalation topics effective July 1, 2025, for one of one employee, (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide two hours of initial training on mental illness and de-escalation topics effective July 1, 2025, for one of one employee, (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following dementia care, mental illness, and de-escalation training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on dementia topics specified under [...]”
- 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 finalize a written service plan within 14 calendar days for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to finalize a written service plan within 14 calendar days for one of one resident (R2). 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 [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with an opened or expired date for two of two residents (R2, R6) and to keep a medication in its original container bearing the original prescription label for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with an opened or expired date for two of two residents (R2, R6) and to keep a medication in its original container bearing the original prescription label for one of one resident (R2). In addition, the licensee failed to discard expired medication for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
- Tag 810 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (b-F) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $1,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- March 22, 2024: report E8LB11 · 5 correction orders
Details
Survey completed March 20, 2024: 5 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements 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: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- 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 effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control and current recommendations for hand hygiene.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control and current recommendations for hand hygiene. This had the potential to affect all the licensee's residents, staff, 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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which included an updated facility TB risk assessment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which included an updated facility TB risk assessment. In addition, the licensee failed to provide documentation of a completed health history and symptom screening for one of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-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 [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the Office of Long-Term Care (OOLTC) for one of one resident (R6) who had an emergency relocation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the Office of Long-Term Care (OOLTC) for one of one resident (R6) who had an emergency relocation. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription and failed to include the opened or expiration date for time sensitive medications being stored by the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription and failed to include the opened or expiration date for time sensitive medications being stored by the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
From MDH’s letter: 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.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- March 3, 2026 · report HL334268202M
- July 29, 2024 · report HL334262583M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The resident was neglected when the facility failed to provide appropriate care, services, monitoring, and wound care for pressure ulcers as ordered. As a result, the resident had poor wound healing of multiple stage 3 pressure ulcers.”
“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 provide wound care, monitoring, supervision, and implement ordered interventions to promote wound healing and reduce pressure. The facility failed to ensure unlicensed personnel (ULP) staff were trained and competent to provide wound care to the resident. The resident had two pressure ulcer wounds that progressively worsened after admission to the facility to stage 4 pressure ulcers with exposed bone.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed June 10, 2024: 4 correction orders
- Tag 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, reviewed for a pressure ulcer had a registered nurse (RN) or licensed health professional trained and had documentation unlicensed personnel (ULP) staff had demonstrated competency in the proper methods to perform tasks and procedures specific to each resident as ordered by the provider and delegated to ULP staff for one of one resident (R1) who received wound care for pressure ulcers.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident, R1, reviewed for a pressure ulcer had a registered nurse (RN) or licensed health professional trained and had documentation unlicensed personnel (ULP) staff had demonstrated competency in the proper methods to perform tasks and procedures specific to each resident as ordered by the provider and delegated to ULP staff for one of one resident (R1) who received wound care for pressure ulcers. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) When the registered nurse or licensed health professional delegates tasks to unlicensed personnel, that person must ensure that prior to the delegation the unlicensed personnel is trained in the proper methods to perform the tasks or procedures for each [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure accurate and timely management of ordered treatments to include in the service plan a written statement of services that will be provided to the resident, and a current up to date individualized treatment and therapy management record with the required content for each resident as ordered to promote wound healing for 1 of 1 resident's (R1) admitted with pressure ulcers.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure accurate and timely management of ordered treatments to include in the service plan a written statement of services that will be provided to the resident, and a current up to date individualized treatment and therapy management record with the required content for each resident as ordered to promote wound healing for 1 of 1 resident's (R1) admitted with pressure ulcers. [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted an accurate timely nursing assessment of the resident's needs including implementing ordered interventions to promote wound healing for 1 of 1 resident's (R1) admitted with pressure ulcers.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted an accurate timely nursing assessment of the resident's needs including implementing ordered interventions to promote wound healing for 1 of 1 resident's (R1) admitted with pressure ulcers. [...]”
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 one of one of one residents reviewed, (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of one of one residents reviewed, (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details. No plan of correction is required for this tag.”
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 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
- January 27, 2022 · report HL33426013C
- January 11, 2022 · report HL33426001M
Inconclusive investigations (2)
- December 22, 2022 · report HL334263364M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The staff member/alleged perpetrator (AP) abused Resident #1 when the AP pulled up the resident's pants roughly. The AP neglected Resident #2 when the AP did not provide scheduled services causing skin breakdown.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse and neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were inconclusive. Staff and residents interviewed provided conflicting accounts of the incidents and the AP denied the allegations.”
Action taken by facility: “The AP is no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed October 27, 2022: 1 correction order
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) 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 ensure care and services were provided according to an up-to-date service plan, and acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards, and supervision for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to an up-to-date service plan, and acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards, and supervision for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. R1 was diagnosed with cellulitis from bed bug bites. [...]”
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 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
- December 22, 2022 · report HL334263365M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident was bit by bed bugs causing cellulitis. The resident was later sent to the emergency room for worsening of cellulitis.”
“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. Nursing staff was aware of the bed bugs but did not complete an initial assessment or monitoring. It was unable to be determined if an initial assessment and monitoring would have prevented the resident's cellulitis.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility contacted pest control and the resident was seen by the provider.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed October 27, 2022: 1 correction order
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) 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 ensure care and services were provided according to an up-to-date service plan, and acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards, and supervision for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to an up-to-date service plan, and acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards, and supervision for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. R1 was diagnosed with cellulitis from bed bug bites. [...]”
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 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- October 17, 2025 · report HL334265122M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to provide health care when she developed a skin mass. As a result, the resident required hospitalization.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. Hospital physicians determined lymphedema (swelling from excess fluid) caused the mass in the resident's groin. Prior to this hospitalization, the facility sent the resident to the hospital five times within two months due to her skin rashes, swelling, and groin pain. Subsequently, the resident discharged from the facility approximately one month prior to this hospitalization.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility coordinated medical appointments for the resident.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed September 26, 2025: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to serious injury, impairment, or death”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 30 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 HARMONY VIEW ASSISTED LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 423882
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-01-03
- Licensed capacity
- 30
- Licensee
- HARMONY VIEW ASSISTED LIVING
- County
- Benton County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Amin Yousuf
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 1.2 mi, pharmacy 0.9 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Centracare - St. Cloud Hospital, Saint Cloud. 1.8 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Good Shepherd Lutheran Home, Sauk Rapids. 1.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Shepherd Home Health Care, Sauk Rapids. 1.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 0.9 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56379 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care St. Cloud, Saint Cloud, 2.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 16 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56379.
Centracare Hospice, office in Waite Park, 4.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in St. Cloud, 5.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Saint Cloud, 8.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Allina Health System, Annandale. 23.5 miles away, straight line. 2 geriatric medicine doctors 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 low; 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 low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, 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 state recorded a finding in March 2026. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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 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?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
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 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Harmony View Assisted Living provide?
Harmony View Assisted Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 30 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Harmony View Assisted Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Harmony View Assisted 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 Harmony View Assisted 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. Harmony View Assisted Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Harmony View Assisted Living?
Visit Harmony View Assisted Living at 1420 2nd Street North, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379.
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