Assisted Living and Memory Care
Mill City Senior Living
1520 17th Street Nw, Faribault, MN 55021 · Map
Licensed for 110 residents · MILL CITY SENIOR LIVING
Mill City Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Faribault, Minnesota. It is licensed for 110 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 Mill City Senior Living says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Apartment types named: one-bedroom.
1 Bedroom
(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, 110 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 421194, current license dated Jul 1, 2025. Licensee MILL CITY SENIOR LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
2.2 miles
Allina Health Faribault Medical Center, rated 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mill City Senior Living this community | 110 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Heritage House Elder Care | 0.8 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Rizon Homes, 7th Street Nw | 0.8 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Maplewood Homes of Faribault, Nw 5th Street | 1.1 mi | 14 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Caring Connections | 1.2 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- October 22, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (October 22, 2025, state report NJMY11)
MDH: “On October 20, 2025, through October 22, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed October 22, 2025: 12 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for three of four residents (R2, R3, and R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for three of four residents (R2, R3, and R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Two (2) days · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to complete fall assessments/follow up for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to complete fall assessments/follow up for one of one resident (R3). This practice resulted in a level three violation (a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, or a violation that had the potential to cause more than minimal harm to the resident) and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved or the situation has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4). [...]”
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 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”
Show all 12
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to specify in writing, specific instructions for as needed (PRN) medications and documented those instructions for three of four residents (R1, R2, and R4) for medication administration delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure vital signs were obtained prior to medication administration as prescribed for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure vital signs were obtained prior to medication administration as prescribed for one of one resident (R2). This resulted in an immediate correction order issued on October 22, 2025. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication set up included all the required content for one of one resident (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication set up included all the required content for one of one resident (R6). 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medications as
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medications as required for one of one discharged resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4) with treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4) with treatments. [...]”
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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for three of four residents (R2, R3
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for three of four residents (R2, R3 and R4) receiving treatments. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $1,000.00 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 two residents (R2) with bed rails.
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 two residents (R2) with bed rails. This resulted in an immediate correction order issued on October 22, 2025. [...]”
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.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1620 (144g.70 Subd.2 (c-E)- Initial Reviews,Assessments,And Monitoring): $1,000.00
- Tag 1760 (144g.71 Subd.8 - DocumentationOf Administration Of Medication): $1,000.00
- Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd.4 (a) - Appropriate CareAnd Services): $1,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- February 16, 2023: report 3FV111 · 16 correction orders
Details
Survey completed February 16, 2023: 16 correction orders
- Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents was provided to the resident and a written acknowledgement received for one of five residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the current Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents was provided to the resident and a written acknowledgement received for one of five residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “All assisted living facilities shall: (1) distribute to residents the assisted living bill of rights; (2) provide services in a manner that complies with the Nurse Practice Act in sections 148.171 to 148.285; (3) utilize a person-centered planning and service [...]”
- 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: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- 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 conduct evacuation drills for employees at least twice per year per shift, with at least one evacuation drill every other month.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review, interview, and observation, the licensee failed to conduct evacuation drills for employees at least twice per year per shift, with at least one evacuation drill every other month. These deficient practices had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure background studies were conducted prior to staff providing services for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure background studies were conducted prior to staff providing services for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). This had the potential to affect all residents currently receiving services. This resulted in an immediate correction order on February 15, 2023, at 2:10 p.m. [...]”
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 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”
Show all 16
- Tag 1380: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (b) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations included all the required training for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations included all the required training for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) In addition to paragraph (a), training and competency evaluation for unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must include: (1) observing, reporting, and documenting resident status; (2) basic knowledge of body functioning and changes in [...]”
- Tag 1610: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (a-b) 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 a registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized assessment for one of five residents (R5) as required. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living 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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing client monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for two of five residents (R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing client monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for two of five residents (R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for one of five residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for one of five residents (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored securely for one of seven residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored securely for one of seven residents (R3). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, 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: “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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of four residents (R4) who had treatments managed by the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of four residents (R4) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”
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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of three residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- 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 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 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 2140: 144G.83 Subd. 3 Supervising staff training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the designated person overseeing staff training in the care of individuals with dementia, had documented evidence of competency or knowledge test required by the commissioner.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the designated person overseeing staff training in the care of individuals with dementia, had documented evidence of competency or knowledge test required by the commissioner. This had the potential to affect all residents and staff of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “Persons providing or overseeing staff training must have experience and knowledge in the care of individuals with dementia, including: (1) two years of work experience related to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, or in health care, gerontology, or [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an individualized written activity evaluation that addressed all six provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for one of four residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an individualized written activity evaluation that addressed all six provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for one of four residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Immediate
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 three of thirteen residents (R3, R7, R8) 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 three of thirteen residents (R3, R7, R8) with siderails. This resulted in an immediate correction order on February 14, 2023, at approximately 1:30 p.m. [...]”
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.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $6,000.00.
- Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- February 7, 2025 · report HL343206003M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when meals were not provided in room per care plan.”
“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. The resident had a change in her care plan from meal delivery to escort assistance to meals although the communication plan for this transition took some adjustment to implement. The facility instructed the unlicensed caregivers to offer escort to the meal and, if refused, to offer a meal tray. After initial implementation, the facility made an adjustment in the plan included that if the meal tray was refused, the unlicensed caregivers were to offer an Ensure drink (meal replacement).”
Action taken by facility: “No action required”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 2, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- December 20, 2023 · report HL343206304M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when staff did not answer the resident's call light in a timely manner. The resident's leg got stuck in the wheelchair, and in an attempt to free herself, she pulled her leg, resulting in a lower leg injury that required 23 stitches in the emergency room (ER).”
“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. While the resident sustained a leg injury during an attempt to self-transfer, the facility staff members did respond to her call light, but the injury had already occurred.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed November 13, 2023: 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”
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 110 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 MILL CITY SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 421194
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 110
- Licensee
- MILL CITY SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Rice County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Lindsey Swartwood
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 2.2 mi, nursing home 1.9 mi, pharmacy 1.1 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Allina Health Faribault Medical Center, Faribault. 2.2 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Emeralds at Faribault LLC, Faribault. 1.9 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Rice County Phns, Faribault. 1.3 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.1 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55021 as micropolitan (micropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Faribault Dialysis Unit, Faribault, 1.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fmc - Cannon Valley, Dundas, 7.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita Northfield At Home, Northfield, 10.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 1 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 9 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55021.
- Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Southern Cities Clinic, Faribault. 1.2 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 high; 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 high. By hazard: inland flooding very high, wildfire very low, tornado very high, heat wave relatively moderate, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2025. 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 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 Mill City Senior Living provide?
Mill City Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Faribault, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 110 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Mill City Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Mill City Senior 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 Mill City Senior 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. Mill City Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Mill City Senior Living?
Use Mill City Senior Living's website, millcityseniorliving.com, or visit at 1520 17th Street Nw, Faribault, MN 55021.
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