Assisted Living and Memory Care
Park Gardens of Fergus Falls
215 East Skogmo Boulevard, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 · Map
Licensed for 68 residents · PARK GARDENS OF FERGUS FALLS
Park Gardens of Fergus Falls is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. It is licensed for 68 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, 68 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 422636, current license dated Nov 1, 2025. Licensee PARK GARDENS OF FERGUS FALLS.
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- February 16, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (February 16, 2025, state report ZHB411)
MDH: “On January 13, 2025, through January 16, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed January 16, 2025: 8 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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (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 maintain 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain 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. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training and 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. [...]”
- 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 written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and/or designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R4) who was hospitalized.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and/or designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R4) 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. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the correct health facility identification (HFID) with the assisted living license for one of three employees (director of culinary (DC)-H).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the correct health facility identification (HFID) with the assisted living license for one of three employees (director of culinary (DC)-H). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment for two of two residents (R1, R4) with a change in condition and failed to ensure a smoking assessment was completed for one of two residents (R8).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment for two of two residents (R1, R4) with a change in condition and failed to ensure a smoking assessment was completed for one of two residents (R8). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- 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 for one of one resident (R6).
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 for one of one resident (R6). [...]”
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.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- May 11, 2022: report JEEC11 · 14 correction orders
Details
Survey completed May 11, 2022: 14 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 had the potential to affect all of the licensee's current residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the required employee evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on the interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required employee evacuation drills. This has the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 60 residents of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 980: 144G.51 ARBITRATION Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident agreement arbitration requirement did not include a choice of venue provision.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident agreement arbitration requirement did not include a choice of venue provision. This practice resulted in a level one violation, 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 of the residents). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in writing in an assisted living contract, any arbitration provision in the contract that precludes, limits, or delays the ability of a resident from taking a civil action. [...]”
Show all 14
- Tag 1350: 144G.60 Subd. 5 Temporary staff Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure contracted staff met all requirements required for personnel employed by the facility for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure contracted staff met all requirements required for personnel employed by the facility for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “When a facility contracts with a temporary staffing agency, those individuals must meet the same requirements required by this section for personnel employed by the facility and shall be treated as if they are staff of the facility.”
- 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 the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment using the Uniform Assessment Tool for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) as required with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment using the Uniform Assessment Tool for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) as required with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a treatment management plan to include all required content for one of one resident (R5) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a treatment management plan to include all required content for one of one resident (R5) with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident with a treatment and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of one resident who wore a compression device (R5) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident with a treatment and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of one resident who wore a compression device (R5) with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
- Tag 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed, or to document the reason they were not provided for one of one resident (R5) who wore a compression device, with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed, or to document the reason they were not provided for one of one resident (R5) who wore a compression device, with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
- 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 ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of one resident (R5) who received a treatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of one resident (R5) who received a treatment. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a complete hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment plan to identify hazard vulnerabilities and mitigations on and around the property to protect the residents from potential harm.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, document review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide a complete hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment plan to identify hazard vulnerabilities and mitigations on and around the property to protect the residents from potential harm. This has the potential to directly affect all memory care residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
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 develop and implement all required policies and procedures related to dementia care.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement all required policies and procedures related to dementia care. 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) 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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 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 for two of two residents (R3, R4) who utilized bed rails with records reviewed.
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 two of two residents (R3, R4) who utilized bed rails with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
- 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
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 68 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 PARK GARDENS OF FERGUS FALLS
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 422636
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-11-01
- Licensed capacity
- 68
- Licensee
- PARK GARDENS OF FERGUS FALLS
- County
- Otter Tail County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Heidi Ashfeld
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 current license dates from 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
What we 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 Park Gardens of Fergus Falls provide?
Park Gardens of Fergus Falls is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 68 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Park Gardens of Fergus Falls?
No. We publish state licensing details for Park Gardens of Fergus Falls 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 Park Gardens of Fergus Falls 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. Park Gardens of Fergus Falls does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Park Gardens of Fergus Falls?
Use Park Gardens of Fergus Falls's website, twdcc.com/Park-Gardens-of-Fergus-Falls, or visit at 215 East Skogmo Boulevard, Fergus Falls, MN 56537.
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