Assisted Living and Memory Care
Regent at Burnsville
14500 Regent Lane, Burnsville, MN 55306 · Map
Licensed for 170 residents · REGENT AT BURNSVILLE
Regent at Burnsville is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Burnsville, Minnesota. It is licensed for 170 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, 170 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425548, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee REGENT AT BURNSVILLE.
Nearest emergency room
0.9 miles
M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regent at Burnsville this community | 170 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Ladnan Health Care | 0.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Havenwood of Burnsville | 0.6 mi | 160 | $2,545/mo | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Right at Home | 0.9 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Open Arms | 0.9 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- November 6, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 2 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (November 6, 2025, state report 3VLJ11)
MDH: “On November 3, 2025, through November 6, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed November 6, 2025: 10 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: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to keep the facility in compliance with Minnesota State Fire Code under Minnesota Rule Chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to keep the facility in compliance with Minnesota State Fire Code under Minnesota Rule Chapter 7511. The deficient conditions have 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 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was current and eligible on NETStudy 2.0 (web-based system for submitting background study requests to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with the assisted living license for one of 92 employees (culinary assistant (CA)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was current and eligible on NETStudy 2.0 (web-based system for submitting background study requests to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with the assisted living license for one of 92 employees (culinary assistant (CA)-D). This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. This resulted in an immediate correction order issued on November 4, 2025. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment, and failed to conduct a timely change of condition assessment following hospitalization, for one of four residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment, and failed to conduct a timely change of condition assessment following hospitalization, for one of four residents (R2). The licensee further failed to conduct a change of condition assessment following hospitalization for one of four residents (R3). [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of four residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of four residents (R1). [...]”
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. [...]”
Show all 10
- 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 medications were transcribed and administered as ordered, and discontinued a scheduled medication without a prescriber order for one of four residents (R1) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were transcribed and administered as ordered, and discontinued a scheduled medication without a prescriber order for one of four residents (R1) observed during medication administration. [...]”
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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed upon discharge, to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed upon discharge, to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of four residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of four residents (R1). [...]”
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 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 treatment or therapies were administered as directed, or to document the reason they were not administered, for one of four residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatment or therapies were administered as directed, or to document the reason they were not administered, for one of four residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) 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 delegated procedures were followed for two of four residents (R6, R1) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed for two of four residents (R6, R1) observed during medication administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
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
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision1 - BackgroundStudiesRequired): $1,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 7, 2023: report EL0611 · 7 correction orders
Details
Survey completed June 7, 2023: 7 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 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included a history screening and testing result for one of three employees (registered nurse (RN)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included a history screening and testing result for one of three employees (registered nurse (RN)-C). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
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 ability to affect a limited number of staff and residents. [...]”
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 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a written contract with the required content for all residents of the assisted living with dementia care facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a written contract with the required content for all residents of the assisted living with dementia care facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”
- 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 the 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 the health, safety, or personal property of a resident. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- 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 a registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment 14 calendar days from the initial assessment for one of five residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment 14 calendar days from the initial assessment for one of five residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1780: 144G.71 Subd. 10 Medication management for residents who will Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to set up medications by a pharmacy or licensed nurse for a resident having a planned time away for one of one resident (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to set up medications by a pharmacy or licensed nurse for a resident having a planned time away for one of one resident (R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility that is providing medication management services to the resident must develop and implement policies and procedures for giving accurate and current medications to residents for planned or unplanned times away from home [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; 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)
- February 14, 2023 · report HL232174243M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a staff member, sexually abused the resident when he fondled the resident's genitals with digital penetration.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Video footage showed the AP digitally penetrate the resident's vagina and showed the AP rub the resident's external genitalia vigorously.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility conducted an internal investigation, provided re-education to staff, added services to reflect two staff assist for the resident's personal cares, and monitored the resident.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed January 10, 2023: 1 correction order
- 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: “Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. R1 was abused. The findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that abuse occurred, and individual staff person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. The MDH concluded there was a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred.”
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
Inconclusive investigations (2)
- January 19, 2024 · report HL232177306M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when she failed to report to nursing that she performed the Heimlich maneuver on the resident, who choked to death.”
“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. While the AP did not initially report the resident choked when she called facility staff for help, she performed the Heimlich maneuver on the resident. It was inconclusive if the outcome would have changed had other facility staff known the resident choked when they arrived to help. Interviews produced conflicting information on when or if staff were to call 911 for a hospice resident.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility conducted an internal investigation, retrained staff on the Heimlich maneuver and the AP is no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed December 6, 2023: 1 correction order
- 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 facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review, observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure the facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan. Two of two memory care residents, (R2 and R5) choked during meals when one staff was assigned in the dining room which required staff to perform the Heimlich maneuver, yet also try to contact other staff in the facility to call for emergency assistance or services. [...]”
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 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
- January 2, 2024 · report HL232179346M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused a resident when he rough handled the resident during toileting.”
“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. Even though the resident had a red mark on his back, interviews produced conflicting information on several aspects of the incident.”
Action taken by facility: “Facility conducted an internal investigation, assessed the resident and the AP is no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed December 6, 2023: 1 correction order
- 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 facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review, observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure the facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan. Two of two memory care residents, (R2 and R5) choked during meals when one staff was assigned in the dining room which required staff to perform the Heimlich maneuver, yet also try to contact other staff in the facility to call for emergency assistance or services. [...]”
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 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- January 8, 2024 · report HL232175923M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when she fell out of her wheelchair and suffered spinal fractures.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglected was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglected not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglected was not substantiated. The AP followed the resident's service plan which required staff to use a wheelchair when transporting the resident. The AP escorted the resident back to her room in a wheelchair when she suddenly fell forward, face down onto the floor, injuring her face and spine.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility had interventions in place and sent the resident to the hospital. The facility conducted an internal investigation.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed December 6, 2023: 1 correction order
- 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 facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review, observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure the facility could respond promptly and effectively to individual resident emergencies when developing the licensee staffing plan. Two of two memory care residents, (R2 and R5) choked during meals when one staff was assigned in the dining room which required staff to perform the Heimlich maneuver, yet also try to contact other staff in the facility to call for emergency assistance or services. [...]”
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 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
- October 4, 2023 · report HL232173304M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
“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 started a medication for Parkinson's to see if it would be effective and there were supply issues with the medication. The resident also had multiple medication changes as the facility provided updates to the medical provider, and multiple predisposing health conditions which contributed to hospitalization.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed July 12, 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 170 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 REGENT AT BURNSVILLE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425548
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-06-01
- Licensed capacity
- 170
- Licensee
- REGENT AT BURNSVILLE
- County
- Dakota County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Julianne Fries
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 0.9 mi, nursing home 1.2 mi, pharmacy 0.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, Burnsville. 0.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Ebenezer Ridges Geriatric Care Center, Burnsville. 1.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Community Home Health Inc, Savage. 4.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 0.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55306 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Burnsville Dialysis Unit, Burnsville, 1.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita Scott County Dialysis, Savage, 4.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Lakeville, Lakeville, 4.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 5 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 16 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55306.
Minnesota Hospice LLC, office in Lakeville, 3.4 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
Healthpartners Hospice And Palliatice Care, office in Bloomington, 8.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, office in Saint Louis Park, 13.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Burnsville. 0.9 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 very 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 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?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Regent at Burnsville provide?
Regent at Burnsville is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Burnsville, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 170 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Regent at Burnsville?
No. We publish state licensing details for Regent at Burnsville 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 Regent at Burnsville 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. Regent at Burnsville does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Regent at Burnsville?
Use Regent at Burnsville's website, regentburnsville.org, or visit at 14500 Regent Lane, Burnsville, MN 55306.
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