Assisted Living and Memory Care
Northern Lakes Senior Living
8186 Excelsior Road, Baxter, MN 56425 · Map
Licensed for 85 residents · NORTHERN LAKES SENIOR LIVING
Northern Lakes Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Baxter, Minnesota. It is licensed for 85 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 Northern Lakes 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.
- Has a separate memory care unit, wing or neighborhood.
Memory Care courtyard is a hidden gem in the center of our Memory Care wing.
(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, 85 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424399, current license dated Apr 1, 2026. Licensee NORTHERN LAKES SENIOR LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
1.2 miles
Essentia Health St Joseph'S 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern Lakes Senior Living this community | 85 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Harmony House of Brainerd | 0.5 mi | 22 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Edgewood Brainerd Senior Livin | 1.1 mi | 107 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Edgewood Baxter | 1.2 mi | 85 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Nordic Wood Assisted Living | 1.5 mi | 20 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- July 30, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (July 30, 2025, state report XG9H11)
MDH: “On July 28, 2025, through July 30, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed July 30, 2025: 6 correction orders
- Tag 485: 144G.41 Subdivision 1.a (a) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to make menus available to residents at least one week in advance.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make menus available to residents at least one week in advance. This had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must offer to provide or make available at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to immediately report an incident of suspected maltreatment to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of seven residents (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report an incident of suspected maltreatment to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of seven residents (R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- 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 · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. 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 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 (R3) who was hospitalized.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative for one of one resident (R3) who was hospitalized. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) (3) Training in Dementia, Mental Illness, and De- Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of three employees (assistant clinical nurse supervisor/ACNS-C) received the required amount of mental illness and de-escalation training within the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of three employees (assistant clinical nurse supervisor/ACNS-C) received the required amount of mental illness and de-escalation training within the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care staff must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- May 17, 2023: report H3N411 · 10 correction orders
Details
Survey completed May 17, 2023: 10 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C, ULP-F) during personal cares for R1.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C, ULP-F) during personal cares for R1. [...]”
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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed provide interconnected smoke alarms in a resident room.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed provide interconnected smoke alarms in a resident room. This deficient condition had the ability to affect a limited number of staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 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 maintain the facility's fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements. 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 10
- 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 the registered nurse (RN) completed an ongoing reassessment and monitoring on or before day 90 for one of three residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or 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 ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or 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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D observed administering medications.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D observed administering medications. [...]”
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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of three residents (R7) who received medication management services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of three residents (R7) who received medication management services. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for three of three residents (R1, R6, R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for three of three residents (R1, R6, R7). [...]”
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: no immediate fines.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- November 19, 2024 · report HL319875001M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when a urine sample was ordered but not followed up on by facility staff. After family noticed the issue, another sample was collected, and the resident was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI). The resident's provider failed to write orders for antibiotics and the facility failed to follow up on orders for treatment of the UTI. [...]”
“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 collect a urine sample and failed to follow-up with a physician after the resident was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) resulting in a delay in care. In addition, facility staff failed to ensure the resident's air conditioner was in proper working order and failed to assess and follow-up on the resident's change in condition. Days later, the resident was taken to the emergency room by family and diagnosed with heat exhaustion and dehydration.”
Action taken by facility: “The resident's air conditioner was replaced.”
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 September 16, 2024: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to follow up to obtain a urine culture.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to follow up to obtain a urine culture. The facility did not notice the initial urine sample was never taken or brought to the lab. Family notified the facility and another sample was taken eight days after it was ordered. [...]”
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 residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
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 · correction period: Seven (7) days
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- November 20, 2025 · report HL319875743M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when it failed to administer medications as prescribed. The medication administration record (MAR) did not include instructions that a medication should not be crushed. Staff crushed the medication, resulting in the resident being admitted to the hospital with an acute kidney injury.”
“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. The resident took potassium, a medication that cannot be crushed. If the medication is crushed, it can impact absorption and cause high potassium levels. The RN failed to include instructions on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) that the medication was not to be crushed. The facility investigation determined unlicensed personnel (ULP) crushed at least 9 of 16 doses of the medications. The resident was hospitalized with hyperkalemia (high potassium) and an acute kidney injury. However, due to other comorbidities, it could not be determined if the potassium being crushed led to the resident's hospitalization.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility identified the medication error after the resident was hospitalized and investigated the incident. The facility reported the incident to MAARC and retrained staff on medication administration.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed September 25, 2025: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- March 5, 2024 · report HL319879288M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility did not provide updated services resulting in multiple falls.”
“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. Although the resident did fall multiple times during the last two months of his life, the facility did put interventions in place to prevent falls and/or injury. While the resident did have a decline, he was enrolled in hospice and the facility coordinated cares with hospice appropriately.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 30, 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”
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 85 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 NORTHERN LAKES SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424399
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-04-01
- Licensed capacity
- 85
- Licensee
- NORTHERN LAKES SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Crow Wing County
- Executive Director
- Brian Larsen
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.
Executive Director name from public records we reviewed, as of Oct 12, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 1.2 mi, nursing home 2.0 mi, pharmacy 0.6 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Essentia Health St Joseph'S Medical Center, Brainerd. 1.2 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Good Samaritan Society - Woodland, Brainerd. 2.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Barnabas Health Care Services, Brainerd. 0.6 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 0.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56425 as micropolitan (micropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care Brainerd, Brainerd, 2.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 8 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56425.
Good Samaritan Society Hospice, office in Nisswa, 10.5 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Princeton. 63.3 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 low; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively low, 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 2026. 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 Northern Lakes Senior Living provide?
Northern Lakes Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Baxter, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 85 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Northern Lakes Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Northern Lakes 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 Northern Lakes 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. Northern Lakes Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Northern Lakes Senior Living?
Use Northern Lakes Senior Living's website, northernlakesseniorliving.com, or visit at 8186 Excelsior Road, Baxter, MN 56425.
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