Assisted Living and Memory Care
Maple Care Homes
14424 Lower Guthrie Court, Apple Valley, MN 55124 · Map
Licensed for 8 residents · MAPLE CARE HOMES
Maple Care Homes is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Apple Valley, Minnesota. It is licensed for 8 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 Maple Care Homes says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Offers behavioral support.
Every home provides support with daily tasks like dressing, bathing, and medication reminders, alongside memory and cognitive care, mental health and behavioral support, and coordinated transportation to medical and non-medical appointments.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Provides transportation.
Every home provides support with daily tasks like dressing, bathing, and medication reminders, alongside memory and cognitive care, mental health and behavioral support, and coordinated transportation to medical and non-medical appointments.
(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, 8 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 423558, current license dated Feb 1, 2026. Licensee MAPLE CARE HOMES.
Nearest emergency room
2.5 miles
M Health Fairview Ridges 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maple Care Homes this community | 8 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Evergreen Comfort Living | 0.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| The Centennial House of Apple | 0.3 mi | 80 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Serendipitous Living | 0.5 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Apple Valley Villa | 0.7 mi | 230 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 11, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 11, 2025, state report BHQJ11)
MDH: “On March 10, 2025, through March 11, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed March 11, 2025: 6 correction orders
- Tag 345: 144G.30 Subd. 5. (c)(2), (d) Correction orders Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have sufficient documentation with actions taken to comply with correction orders (tag identification: 0780, 0800, 0810, and 1620) for a survey completed on October 18, 2022.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have sufficient documentation with actions taken to comply with correction orders (tag identification: 0780, 0800, 0810, and 1620) for a survey completed on October 18, 2022. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors at the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c)(2) make available, in a manner readily accessible to residents and others, including provision of a paper copy upon request, the most recent plan of correction documenting the actions taken by the facility to comply with the correction order. [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 for the licensee's one resident (R3) who was hospitalized.
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 for the licensee's one resident (R3) who was hospitalized. [...]”
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 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the assisted living with dementia care license for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the assisted living with dementia care license for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C). This had the potential to affect all residents living in the facility. This resulted in an immediate correction order on March 11, 2025. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors on and around the property for the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors on and around the property for the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R3) with siderails.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R3) with siderails. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
- Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $6,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- October 18, 2022: report ZXDG11 · 9 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 18, 2022: 9 correction orders
- 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 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 have a written emergency disaster plan with all required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency disaster plan with all required content. This had the potential to affect all six 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 bedroom A&E and ensure smoke alarms are interconnected so that actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling to actuate as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms in bedroom A&E and ensure smoke alarms are interconnected so that actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling to actuate as required. 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 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 maintain the facility physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 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. [...]”
Show all 9
- Tag 970: 144.50 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 facility's liability for resident 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 resident 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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident reassessment and monitoring did not exceed 90 days from the date of last assessment for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident reassessment and monitoring did not exceed 90 days from the date of last assessment for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommendations for refrigerated medications in one of one medication refrigerator.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommendations for refrigerated medications in one of one medication refrigerator. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all six residents residing in the assisted living with dementia care facility, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- 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
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- April 21, 2026 · report HL306412620M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident had a change in condition resulting in various bruises, lacerations, a malfunctioning catheter, a left hip fracture, and hospitalization.”
“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. Facility staff did not notify nursing leadership that the resident fell twice, and after the falls the resident required assistance for transfers and walking. The resident was not assessed after the falls, and the resident's change in condition was not communicated to nursing leadership. The resident was transferred to the hospital two days after the falls.”
Action taken by facility: “The resident was transferred to the hospital for an evaluation.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed March 31, 2026: 3 correction orders
- Tag 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) ensured training and competency demonstrations were completed for unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F before providing suprapubic catheter care and monitoring for symptoms of epilepsy and seizures for R1.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) ensured training and competency demonstrations were completed for unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F before providing suprapubic catheter care and monitoring for symptoms of epilepsy and seizures for R1. [...]”
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 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN)-H) instructed unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) in the proper methods to administer medications for one of one resident (R1), and the unlicensed personnel had failed to demonstrate the ability to competently follow the procedures for administering medications.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN)-H) instructed unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) in the proper methods to administer medications for one of one resident (R1), and the unlicensed personnel had failed to demonstrate the ability to competently follow the procedures for administering medications. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) reviewed was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) reviewed 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.”
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 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
- December 5, 2025 · report HL306415422M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) physically abused the resident when he twisted the resident's arm, pushed her into a wall, made her bleed, and called her stupid.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP unreasonably confined the resident. The AP documented in the incident report he closed the resident in an office room and held the door shut. The AP documented in the report hours later the resident pushed his buttons so many times he pushed her in her room and closed the door. The AP documented he physically pushed the resident twice. The AP stated he pushed the resident during an investigative interview.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility provided appropriated training to staff on abuse and neglect.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed November 10, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) 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 8 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 MAPLE CARE HOMES
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 423558
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-02-01
- Licensed capacity
- 8
- Licensee
- MAPLE CARE HOMES
- County
- Dakota County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Ayo Awoleye
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 2.5 mi, nursing home 0.7 mi, pharmacy 0.9 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, Burnsville. 2.5 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Apple Valley Village Health Care Center, Apple Valley. 0.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Omega Home Healthcare LLC, Eagan. 3.3 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Allina Health Apple Valley Pharmacy. 0.9 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55124 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Burnsville Dialysis Unit, Burnsville, 2.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita East Valley Dialysis, Apple Valley, 2.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Lakeville, Lakeville, 3.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 5 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 25 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55124.
Minnesota Hospice LLC, office in Lakeville, 4.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
Healthpartners Hospice And Palliatice Care, office in Bloomington, 8.0 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Caretenders Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 10.7 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Burnsville. 2.5 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 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 state recorded a finding in April 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?
- 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 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?
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 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 |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Maple Care Homes provide?
Maple Care Homes is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 8 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Maple Care Homes?
No. We publish state licensing details for Maple Care Homes 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 Maple Care Homes 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. Maple Care Homes does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Maple Care Homes?
Use Maple Care Homes's website, maplecarehome.com, or visit at 14424 Lower Guthrie Court, Apple Valley, MN 55124.
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