Assisted Living and Memory Care
Mother of Mercy
230 Church Avenue, Albany, MN 56307 · Map
Licensed for 79 residents · MOTHER OF MERCY
Mother of Mercy is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Albany, Minnesota. It is licensed for 79 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 Mother of Mercy says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Provides transportation.
Transportation Services
(page, checked Oct 15, 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, 79 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 423234, current license dated Dec 31, 2025. Licensee MOTHER OF MERCY.
Nearest emergency room
19.0 miles
Centracare - Paynesville Hospital.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mother of Mercy this community | 79 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Covered Bridge | 8.2 mi | 15 | Not published | Active | 4 substantiated |
| Tree of Life Assisted Living | 9.1 mi | 16 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Cherrywood Richmond | 12.0 mi | 20 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Cura of Melrose (Assisted Living) | 12.8 mi | 66 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- August 7, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (August 7, 2026, state report 94YV11)
MDH: “On August 3, 2026 through August 5, 2026 the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed August 7, 2026: 5 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty One (21) 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 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 · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
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. [...]”
- 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 completed by a registered nurse (RN) conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services for one of two residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident reassessment and monitoring completed by a registered nurse (RN) conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services for one of two residents (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- 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 time sensitive medication insulin pen had an opened date for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medication insulin pen had an opened date for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
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): Food and beverage inspection report included
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): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- February 21, 2025: report QULH11 · 14 correction orders
Details
Survey completed February 21, 2025: 14 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to post an emergency preparedness plan (EPP) prominently. In addition, the licensee failed to and evaluate its missing person policy at least quarterly. This had the potential to affect all three residents receiving services under the assisted living license. [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) 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 comply with the Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, 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 develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content, to provide the required training, and to conduct evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content, to provide the required training, and to conduct evacuation drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 14
- Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative, on a separate form, for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative, on a separate form, for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- Tag 970: 144G.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. 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 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 resident, legal representative, and designated representative for one of one resident (R2).
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 resident, legal representative, and designated representative for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) completed ongoing resident reassessments that did not exceed 90 days for residents residing within the facility as required for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) completed ongoing resident reassessments that did not exceed 90 days for residents residing within the facility as required for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
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 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 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC) were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC) were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
- Tag 2140: 144G.83 Subd. 3 Supervising staff training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the designated person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia completed the required skills 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 to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia completed the required skills competency or knowledge test required by the commissioner. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with regards to signage posted oxygen in use for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with regards to signage posted oxygen in use for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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; no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- November 7, 2024 · report HL304615924M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to ensure Tramadol (a controlled drug pain medication) was available to administer as ordered. The resident was brought to the emergency department (ED) with increased pain after several doses of Tramadol were missed.”
“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 ensure the resident's scheduled Tramadol was available. After the resident did not receive approximately four doses of Tramadol, the resident experienced severe pain and withdrawal symptoms and was transported to the hospital for pain control.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility implemented a change in the controlled medication reordering system to include faxing the provider for a refill request.”
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 October 17, 2024: 1 correction order
- 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. R1 was neglected. 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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- March 21, 2025 · report HL304618802M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when morphine, an opioid pain medication, was administered causing the resident to fall. The resident was not assessed by an in-person nurse until the next day. The resident had a fractured hip.”
“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 not received morphine prior to the fall. However, after the resident's fall, the facility provided the prescribed morphine due to the resident's complaints of discomfort, notified and coordinated care with the hospice provider, who assessed the resident the day of the fall and notified the medical provider. Despite the efforts to treat the resident's pain did not resolve so the resident was transferred to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a hip fracture the following day.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed March 11, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- March 7, 2024 · report HL304618547C
Details
Survey completed February 22, 2024: 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”
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 79 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 MOTHER OF MERCY
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 423234
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-12-31
- Licensed capacity
- 79
- Licensee
- MOTHER OF MERCY
- County
- Stearns County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Penelope Viggiano
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 19.0 mi, nursing home 0.8 mi, pharmacy 5.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Centracare - Paynesville Hospital, Paynesville. 19.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Mother of Mercy Senior Living, Albany. 0.8 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Benedictine Home Health, Cold Spring. 13.5 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- K&S Pharmacy. 5.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56307 as metropolitan (metropolitan high commuting).
- Hospice
- 6 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56307.
Centracare Hospice, office in Waite Park, 17.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Saint Cloud, 18.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in St. Cloud, 21.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Allina Health System, Annandale. 33.6 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 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 high, 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 November 2024. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Mother of Mercy provide?
Mother of Mercy is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Albany, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 79 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Mother of Mercy?
No. We publish state licensing details for Mother of Mercy 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 Mother of Mercy 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. Mother of Mercy does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Mother of Mercy?
Use Mother of Mercy's website, benedictineliving.org/albany-mn, or visit at 230 Church Avenue, Albany, MN 56307.
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