Assisted Living and Memory Care
Walker Highview Hills
20150 Highview Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044 · Map
Licensed for 175 residents · WALKER HIGHVIEW HILLS
Walker Highview Hills is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Lakeville, Minnesota. It is licensed for 175 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
Starting prices the community publishes, with the date we checked each one and a link to where it is published. Care charges are usually added after an assessment.
| Care | Starting at | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Assisted Living | $5,455 /mo | Oct 12, 2026 |
| Memory Care | $9,735 /mo | Oct 12, 2026 |
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, 175 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424706, current license dated Mar 1, 2026. Licensee WALKER HIGHVIEW HILLS.
Nearest emergency room
6.7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walker Highview Hills this community | 175 | $5,455/mo | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Beehive Homes of Lakeville | 0.5 mi | 24 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| 2 Caring Hands | 0.7 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Beehive Homes of Lakeville Sou | 0.8 mi | 28 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Our Caring Hands, 207th Street West | 0.8 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- September 4, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 3 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (September 4, 2025, state report LLDQ11)
MDH: “On September 2, 2025, through September 4, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed September 4, 2025: 9 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) 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: “(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: Two (2) day
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1).
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 and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
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 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 two of four residents (R1 and R4).
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 two of four residents (R1 and 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 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services 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) conducted a face-to-face medication management assessment which included the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a face-to-face medication management assessment which included the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
Show all 9
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, and R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- 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 two of four residents (R2 and R4) with treatments.
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 two of four residents (R2 and R4) with treatments. [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 storage of oxygen in two of two resident rooms (R5, R7).
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 storage of oxygen in two of two resident rooms (R5, R7). This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
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.”
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- November 17, 2022: report EG7I11 · 12 correction orders
Details
Survey completed November 17, 2022: 12 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: (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 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 maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included history and symptoms screening for one of two agency staff (licensed practical nurse (LPN)-Q).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included history and symptoms screening for one of two agency staff (licensed practical nurse (LPN)-Q). [...]”
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 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide minimum emergency generator system inspections as part of the emergency plan required under Minnesota Rules, Part 4659.0100 to ensure the proper performance of the generator.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide minimum emergency generator system inspections as part of the emergency plan required under Minnesota Rules, Part 4659.0100 to ensure the proper performance of the generator. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- 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 provide working smoke alarms in the resident apartment units 107, 129, 149, 335, 348, 350, and 352.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide working smoke alarms in the resident apartment units 107, 129, 149, 335, 348, 350, and 352. This has the potential to directly affect 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 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 physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This has the potential to directly affect the health, safety, and well-being of 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 [...]”
Show all 12
- 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 provide the minimum required number of employee evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on documentation review and interview, the licensee failed to provide the minimum required number of employee evacuation drills. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of residents receiving care, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for one of six residents (R5). [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a notice with required content was provided to the resident/representative for two of three residents (R2, R5) who had an emergency relocation out of the facility. [...]”
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 1350: 144G.60 Subd. 5 Temporary staff Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing and requirements was completed for all employees prior to providing services for two of two agency staff reviewed, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D and licensed practical nurse (LPN)-Q).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing and requirements was completed for all employees prior to providing services for two of two agency staff reviewed, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D and licensed practical nurse (LPN)-Q). [...]”
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 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing and requirements included all required content for one of four employees, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-O).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure orientation to assisted living licensing and requirements included all required content for one of four employees, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-O). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a time-sensitive medication was dated when opened and a chemo-therapy drug was appropriately labeled for one of one resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a time-sensitive medication was dated when opened and a chemo-therapy drug was appropriately labeled for one of one resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 2240: 144G.90 Subdivision 1 Assisted living bill of rights; notification Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents was provided to two of six residents (R4, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the current Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents was provided to two of six residents (R4, R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must provide the resident a written notice of the rights under section 144G.91 before the initiation of services to that resident. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (3)
- March 15, 2024 · report HL307359287M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when resident sustained a fracture of her pelvis with unknown origin.”
“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. While the resident did sustain a broken pelvis, the facility took reasonable steps to prevent falls. The resident had several falls due to poor safety awareness related to dementia, and preferred to sleep on the floor, so at times slid herself off the bed to sleep on the floor.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility conducted an internal investigation and updated the resident's service plan after coordinating care with the hospice team.”
Action taken by MDH: “No action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 23, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- March 13, 2024 · report HL307359646M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility abused the resident when the resident sustained bruising and skin tears of an unknown origin.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. Although the resident had bruising on her forearm with skin tears, the resident was on a long-term blood thinner medication, which caused an increased risk for bruising.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the incident and provided caregivers education.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 23, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- March 11, 2024 · report HL307359951M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected resident #1 and resident #2 when resident #1 pushed resident #2 onto the floor.”
“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. While resident #1 did push resident #2 onto the floor, the facility had provided resident #2's medical provider with updates and put interventions in place to address her behaviors.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the incident and sent resident #2 to the hospital.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 23, 2024: no correction orders issued.
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 175 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 WALKER HIGHVIEW HILLS
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424706
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-03-01
- Licensed capacity
- 175
- Licensee
- WALKER HIGHVIEW HILLS
- County
- Dakota County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Sarah Ethridge
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 6.7 mi, nursing home 5.4 mi, pharmacy 0.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, Burnsville. 6.7 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Trinity Care Center, Farmington. 5.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Jb Kummer Enterprises LLC, Farmington. 5.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Cub Pharmacy. 0.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55044 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Lakeville Dialysis, Lakeville, 0.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Lakeville, Lakeville, 2.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 5 of 5 stars)
Davita Burnsville Dialysis Unit, Burnsville, 6.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 26 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55044.
Minnesota Hospice LLC, office in Lakeville, 3.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
Healthpartners Hospice And Palliatice Care, office in Bloomington, 13.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Caretenders Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 15.4 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Burnsville. 6.7 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?
- Your published starting price is a base rate. What would the total monthly cost be for my parent's needs?
- How much have prices gone up in each of the last three years?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
What we 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 | 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Walker Highview Hills provide?
Walker Highview Hills is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Lakeville, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 175 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Walker Highview Hills?
No. We publish state licensing details for Walker Highview Hills 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 Walker Highview Hills 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. The starting prices it publishes are in the Prices section on this page.
How do I contact Walker Highview Hills?
Visit Walker Highview Hills at 20150 Highview Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044.
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