4659 Lyndale Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55412
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Brotts Family Care Center Costs & Pricing
The Brotts Family Care Center offers a compelling value for residents, with monthly costs significantly lower than both Hennepin County and the broader Minnesota area. For instance, the center charges $2,100 per month for both studio and semi-private rooms. In contrast, similar accommodations in Hennepin County can cost up to $4,356 for semi-private rooms and $3,713 for studios, while statewide averages remain high at $4,051 and $3,617 respectively. This pricing structure not only highlights Brotts Family Care Center's commitment to affordability but also positions it as an attractive option for families seeking quality care without the financial burden often associated with such services.
| Floor plans | Brotts Family Care Center | Hennepin County | Minnesota |
|---|---|---|---|
| Studio | $2,100 | $3,713 | $3,617 |
| Semi-Private | $2,100 | $4,356 | $4,051 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of Brotts Family Care Center
Pros
The director seemed very nice.
Cons
The nurses are rude and do not treat the elderly as they should.
They laugh at and mock the residents.
A nurse named Tammy is reportedly calling residents fat pigs, and many other nurses speak badly of residents and do not deserve to care for the elderly.
The facility should be shut down or new nurses should be hired.
Families should monitor the employees and check on their loved ones regularly.
Living in downtown Minneapolis is not desirable; the area is not appealing.
Review
Brotts Family Care Center in Minneapolis is best suited for families who want an urban, downtown-adjacent location and are prepared to play an active oversight role in their loved one’s day-to-day care. This is a setting where proximity to city amenities matters, and where positive outcomes hinge on vigilant family involvement and ongoing communication with staff and administration. In short, this community works best for families willing to advocate, monitor interactions, and escalate concerns as needed to protect a resident’s dignity and safety.
Those who should consider alternatives are families seeking consistently compassionate, respectful care without heavy day-to-day oversight. The feedback emphasizes troubling patterns in staff behavior, including disrespect and belittling comments toward residents. For families that cannot commit to regular, close supervision or that prioritize a consistently warm, professional culture, other options with stronger staff training, better accountability, and proven resident-centered care are worth exploring. If a quieter or less city-centered environment is important, expanding the search beyond downtown Minneapolis is prudent.
On the upside, there are indicators that a portion of residents and reviewers have had positive experiences at times. A subset of reviewers awarded high ratings, suggesting that when interactions go well and leadership is perceived as approachable, moments of satisfactory care do occur. The director is described by at least one reviewer as very nice, which signals there can be responsive leadership and potential for positive change if concerns are raised and addressed promptly. These elements point to a facility that can function well in the right circumstances, provided accountability and staff behavior improve.
The most troubling realities, however, are clear and consequential. The dominant concerns center on staff conduct: nurses described as rude, dismissive, or even openly disrespectful toward residents; accounts of staff making fun of residents and targeting individuals with humiliating remarks. One report highlights a nurse explicitly using demeaning language about residents, with several others implicated in a pattern of negative commentary. These behaviors erode trust, increase resident anxiety, and create a riskier care environment. For families counting on consistent dignity and safety, such patterns are non-negotiable deal-breakers unless substantial corrective action is demonstrated.
Balancing the limited positives against the significant risks leads to a cautious, no-nonsense conclusion. The pros, proximal urban location and the possibility of responsive leadership, offer some offset if the facility commits to concrete, verifiable improvements: rigorous staff training, transparent accountability measures, and proactive resident advocacy. Yet without reliable, respectful care, the drawbacks overpower the potential benefits. Families should approach with a concrete plan: tour with a careful eye on staff-resident interactions, request to meet with the administrator about staff training and incident reporting, speak to current residents and families about day-to-day experiences, and insist on a transparent break-in period to assess real-time care quality.
In practical terms, a decision to move forward should include immediate checks and clear expectations. During tours, watch how staff address residents, whether eyes stay on the resident when speaking, and if tone matches the care being provided. Ask for documentation of staff training, complaint-resolution processes, and turnover rates. Confirm that there is an accessible, accountable channel for concerns and that escalation protocols exist for any instance of mistreatment. If these safeguards cannot be confidently demonstrated, the prudent move is to keep exploring other communities that deliver consistently respectful care in a calmer, more supportive environment.











Understanding the True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025: A Comprehensive Guide
Understanding Medicaid Coverage for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Guide
How and When Medicaid May Cover Assisted Living Costs