Assisted Living and Memory Care
Norbella Centerville
2025 Michaud Way, Centerville, MN 55038 · Map
Licensed for 40 residents · NORBELLA CENTERVILLE
Norbella Centerville is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Centerville, Minnesota. It is licensed for 40 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 40 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 422175, current license dated Sep 23, 2025. Licensee NORBELLA CENTERVILLE.
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- October 22, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 3 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (October 22, 2025, state report OM3S11)
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 24, 2025: 7 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 comply with 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 Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules chapter 7511. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
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 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the required training to residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required training to residents. 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. [...]”
- 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 which contained the required content for an emergency relocation 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 which contained the required content for an emergency relocation 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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted a reassessment, as needed based on changes in the needs of the resident for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
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
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to finalize a current service plan within 14 days after the date services were first provided for one of three residents (R2) and failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of three residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to finalize a current service plan within 14 days after the date services were first provided for one of three residents (R2) and failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of three residents (R3). [...]”
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 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 provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards related to secure oxygen tank storage for one of three residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards related to secure oxygen tank storage for one of three residents (R5). [...]”
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 775 (144g.45 Subd.2. (a) - Fire Protection And PhysicalEnvironment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- September 15, 2023: report 7PDD11 · 6 correction orders
Details
Survey completed September 15, 2023: 6 correction orders
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control related to glove use for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-E, ULP-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 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 complete the required employee evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to complete the required employee evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all employees, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- 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 record with the required content for two of two residents (R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for two of two residents (R2, R3). [...]”
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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a treatment management record to include all required content for one of two residents (R2) with treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop a treatment management record to include all required content for one of two residents (R2) with 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 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individualized activity plan contained all required content for one of two residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individualized activity plan contained all required content for one of two 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 [...]”
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 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Immediate
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, 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 provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of two residents (R2) with bed rails. [...]”
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; MDH granted the assisted living license.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- April 2, 2025 · report HL392688302M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when they failed to address a change in the resident's condition after the resident complained of severe pain for days. The resident was later hospitalized and diagnosed with a hip fracture. In addition, the facility failed to perform daily wound care to the resident's left big toe as ordered by the resident's medical provider.”
“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 resident had a history of muscle spasms and periodically An equal opportunity employer. took tizanidine (medication to relieve muscle spasms) for her muscle spasms. Days before the resident was hospitalized she complained of a new different pain in her left hip and arm, but facility nurses failed to assess the resident's new pain or update the resident's medical provider. Instead, the facility continued to administer tizanidine without monitoring the effectiveness of the medication. The resident's pain was unrelieved and continued to worsen over several days until the resident's family arrived at the facility and called 911. The resident was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a hip fracture. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “The facility conducted an internal investigation.”
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 February 19, 2025: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services based on the resident's needs for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services based on the resident's needs for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed. The licensee's facility failed to address a change in R1's condition after R1 complained of new pain that became severe over several days. R1's family members (FM)-C and FM-D arrived at the facility and called 911. R1 was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a left hip fracture. [...]”
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.”
- 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 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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
Inconclusive investigations (3)
- May 11, 2026 · report HL392681880M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator, a facility staff member/(AP), abused the resident when the AP grabbed and pulled the resident's arms harshly to get the resident to a seated position which caused bruising on the resident's arms.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined was inconclusive.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined was inconclusive. The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Although the resident had bruises on her arms, the origin of the bruising was unable to be determined due to conflicting information provided by facility staff and the resident. The resident was also on blood thinners and had a history of bruises on her arms.”
Action taken by facility: “Facility staff reported the incident, completed a facility investigation and retrained facility staff. The AP is no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed March 4, 2026: no correction orders issued.
- October 16, 2024 · report HL392685427M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator abused the resident when she swore at the resident.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. While the alleged perpetrator was in the resident's room when swearing was reportedly overheard. The findings available to the investigation were not sufficient to determine if the behavior the occurred nor if it met the definition of abuse.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation and then provided re-education to staff on what abuse can sound like. The facility no longer employed the alleged perpetrator.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action at this time.”
Survey completed September 24, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- October 20, 2023 · report HL392684164M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrators (APs), three unlicensed caregivers, neglected the resident when the APs failed to follow the resident's care plan and provide safety checks and comfort cares over the night shift.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. Although, the resident passed away, the resident was on hospice cares was expected to decline based on her hospice diagnosis. The investigation found insufficient evidence the resident's cares were not provided nor evidence it affected the outcome for the resident. A care plan was created for services the resident required and the APs documented the tasks were completed on their shift.”
Action taken by facility: “The alleged perpetrators are no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action.”
Survey completed June 28, 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 40 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 NORBELLA CENTERVILLE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 422175
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-09-23
- Licensed capacity
- 40
- Licensee
- NORBELLA CENTERVILLE
- County
- Anoka County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Deborah Ashamu
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.
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 2025. 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 checked8 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 |
| 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 | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Norbella Centerville provide?
Norbella Centerville is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Centerville, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 40 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Norbella Centerville?
No. We publish state licensing details for Norbella Centerville 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 Norbella Centerville 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. Norbella Centerville does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Norbella Centerville?
Use Norbella Centerville's website, norbellaseniorliving.com, or visit at 2025 Michaud Way, Centerville, MN 55038.
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