Independent Living and Assisted Living
The Towers
1011 Feltl Court, Hopkins, MN 55343 · Map
Licensed for 245 residents · THE TOWERS
The Towers is a state-licensed independent living, assisted living community in Hopkins, Minnesota. It is licensed for 245 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, 245 residents
Assisted Living Facility 421973, current license dated Oct 1, 2025. Licensee THE TOWERS.
Nearest emergency room
3.0 miles
Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Towers this community | 245 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| The Terraces Assisted Living | 0.1 mi | 92 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Karen Home | 0.9 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Parkinson's Specialty Care | 1.1 mi | 12 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Gracefull Living | 1.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- September 25, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (September 25, 2025, state report 4N4Z11)
MDH: “On September 22, 2025, through September 25, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed September 25, 2025: 9 correction orders
- 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 establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B). [...]”
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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A,
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B). [...]”
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: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that functioned
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that functioned and were interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm caused all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative for one of two residents (R4).
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, or designated representative for one of two residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure reassessment and monitoring were completed no more than fourteen calendar days after initiation of services; and ongoing resident reassessment and monitoring were completed as needed based on changes in the needs of the resident but not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of assessment for three of three residents (R4, R5, R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure reassessment and monitoring were completed no more than fourteen calendar days after initiation of services; and ongoing resident reassessment and monitoring were completed as needed based on changes in the needs of the resident but not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of assessment for three of three residents (R4, R5, R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
Show all 9
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the license failed to ensure medication administration was documented accurately for one of two residents (R6). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death) and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected [...]”
Rule cited: “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 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of three residents (R5, R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of three residents (R5, R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of two discharged residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of two discharged residents (R1). [...]”
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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure written or electronic treatment orders were maintained for one of one resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure written or electronic treatment orders were maintained for one of one resident (R4). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death) and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 780 (144g.45 Subd.2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And PhysicalEnvironment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- August 17, 2023: report UXDB11 · 12 correction orders
Details
Survey completed August 17, 2023: 12 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to meet the reasonably foreseeable unscheduled needs of each resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to meet the reasonably foreseeable unscheduled needs of each resident. This had the potential to affect all 65 residents. [...]”
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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) 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 ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) 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 provide smoke alarms in the immediate vicinity of sleeping rooms and failed to provide smoke alarms that are interconnected so that the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms in the immediate vicinity of sleeping rooms and failed to provide smoke alarms that are interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all 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 physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to 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 physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
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 develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements; fire protection procedures necessary for residents, and procedures necessary for resident movement, evacuation, or relocation during a fire or similar emergency with identification of unique or unusual resident needs for the movement or evacuation and failed to conduct required evacuation drills as required by statute.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements; fire protection procedures necessary for residents, and procedures necessary for resident movement, evacuation, or relocation during a fire or similar emergency with identification of unique or unusual resident needs for the movement or evacuation and failed to conduct required evacuation drills as required by statute. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 12
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for individuals who resided in the second bedroom of a resident's apartment of the licensee's assisted living facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for individuals who resided in the second bedroom of a resident's apartment of the licensee's assisted living 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 1610: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (a-b) 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 a conduct a nursing assessment by a registered nurse (RN) of the physical and cognitive needs for one of four residents (R6) on or before the admission date.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to a conduct a nursing assessment by a registered nurse (RN) of the physical and cognitive needs for one of four residents (R6) on or before the admission date. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- 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) conducted ongoing nursing assessments not to exceed every 90 days for one of four residents (R6), and failed to complete a nursing assessment for a resident after possible change in condition due to hospice service admission (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing nursing assessments not to exceed every 90 days for one of four residents (R6), and failed to complete a nursing assessment for a resident after possible change in condition due to hospice service admission (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 service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of four residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of four residents (R4). [...]”
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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) 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 service plan included the required content for one of four residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of four residents (R3). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for one of four residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for one of four residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- Tag 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 administered appropriately for one of four residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered appropriately for one of four residents (R5). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or [...]”
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. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 245 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 THE TOWERS
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 421973
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-10-01
- Licensed capacity
- 245
- Licensee
- THE TOWERS
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Jen Zinnel
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.
Staff pay and workplace safety1 OSHA inspection, 4 violations cited
Federal records about how the employer here treats its staff.
OSHA workplace safety inspections
OSHA inspects workplaces for staff safety, such as lifting, needles, chemicals and workplace violence. It does not inspect resident care.
- Mar 16, 2017: complaint inspection, partial (health). Case closed Apr 27, 2017. 4 violations cited (4 serious). Penalties: $3,200 proposed, $2,240 now. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 94912 - the Glenn Hopkins. Matched by street address; the name OSHA recorded differs from the community's.
Details
- Serious: Flammable liquids (1910.106(e)(9)(iii)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Apr 29, 2017.
- Serious: Medical services and first aid (including eyewash stations) (1910.151(c)). Penalty $600 proposed, $420 now. To be fixed by Apr 29, 2017.
- Serious: Woodworking machinery (1910.213(c)(1)). Penalty $1,000 proposed, $700 now. To be fixed by Apr 29, 2017.
- Serious: Woodworking machinery (1910.213(c)(3)). Penalty $1,000 proposed, $700 now. To be fixed by Apr 29, 2017.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, as of Oct 15, 2026, inspections since 2016. Penalties can change while a case is open or contested.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 3.0 mi, nursing home 0.8 mi, pharmacy 1.8 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Saint Louis Park. 3.0 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Hopkins Restorative Care Center, Hopkins. 0.8 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Nightingale Home Healthcare, Minnetonka. 3.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.8 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55343 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita St Louis Park Dialysis Center, Saint Louis Park, 3.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Concerto Minnesota LLC, Saint Louis Park, 3.7 miles away, straight line
Davita Minnetonka Dialysis Unit, Minnetonka, 4.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 24 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55343.
Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, office in Saint Louis Park, 4.0 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Caretenders Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 4.2 miles away, straight line
Brighton Hospice, office in Saint Louis Park, 4.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Park Nicollet Clinic, St Louis Park. 3.0 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 high, 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 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- 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?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked11 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 | See above |
| 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does The Towers provide?
The Towers is licensed by the state of Minnesota for independent living, assisted living in Hopkins, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 245 residents.
Does Lilisity rate The Towers?
No. We publish state licensing details for The Towers 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 The Towers cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. The Towers does not publish its prices.
How do I contact The Towers?
Visit The Towers at 1011 Feltl Court, Hopkins, MN 55343.
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