Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Proposal for a New Senior Center, 12-06-1999
Lexington Council on Aging Long Range Planning Committee Proposal for a New Senior Center December 6, 1999 By Clark Cowen, Chairman Jacqueline Davison, Vice-Chairman Phyllis Rand, Secretary Donald Graham, Treasurer Marilyn Campbell, Board Member Dan Fenn, Board Member Nancy Freed, Director of the Social Service Department u Li t TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page Executive Summary 3 r History 5 The Long Range Planning Committee: Process and Progress 6 The Senior Center Today 7 The Senior Center of Tomorrow 9 Senior Center Facility Requirements 10 Lexington Population Trends 12 Appendices 13 H 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Board of Directors of the Council on Aging respectfully asks the Board of Selectmen to include in their FY2001 Capital Budget an amount for preliminary plans and specifications for a new Senior Center This request is based on an eighteen-month preliminary study conducted by the Council on Aging Long Range Planning Committee. Lexington needs a new Senior Center because: • According to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council our senior population has increased approximately 26% from roughly 5,700 in 1985 when Muzzey opened to about 7,200 in April 1999 • Projections by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and U.S. Bureau of the Census estimate that the number of Lexington citizens 60 and older will increase to 8,133 by year 2010 • We have long since outgrown the Muzzey facility, which was envisioned to be adequate until 1990 This forced us in 1996 to rent outside space in Lincoln for the Adult Day Care program in order to release a much needed space on the basement level. It also has required us to limit attendance at some of our very popular programs, to turn down requests for new activities and to cram existing ones into inadequate spaces. • We are unable to serve the needs of the young elderly (age 60 to 70) partly because we can not add the kind of programs which interest them and partly because, under the terms of our agreement with the Muzzey Condominiums, we can not offer evening and weekend events which fit their schedules and needs. 1 • The Town's Social Service Department operates in inadequate areas within the Senior Center facility The Department serves the Senior Center and Veterans as well as Lexington families and individuals under 60. • Elders 75 and older clearly require the greatest level of support services and are the most rapidly increasing segment of our senior population. We cannot meet the needs of this group in the current facility • Lexington is blessed to be a town with an extraordinary number of lively, active, and engaged men and women, of which a growing proportion are elderly Their full needs cannot he met in our current facility and their ideas and energy can not be given full scope inside our cramped four walls. • Lexingtonians generously want to volunteer at the Senior Center and are one of the Town's most valuable resources. We don't have adequate space to accommodate and attract them. Thus, seniors and the Town are deprived of this valuable resource. Lj 3 U •"1 Seniors want and need a facility specifically designed for and dedicated to their particular needs, comfort and condition. • Young seniors want late afternoon, evening and weekend programs, at the same time that young people also need program space. • While a Senior Center, with adequate transportation, can be located anywhere in Town, a facility for youth should be located in the center of town. The existing 8,000 usable square feet (10,000 gross) of the Senior Center are awkwardly configured: • We operate on two floors, a ground floor and basement, without a central reception area. • Our only elevator is located behind a locked door in the lobby area of the Condominiums. • Frail or poorly mobile seniors must walk a substantial distance from the parking lot to the building and then go down a long walkway in order to enter the Center They must then open two doors before entering the Center itself. More and more of our seniors, as they grow older and more frail, will find this walk a serious impediment to using the Center • There is no outside facility lighting and visibility is poor. • Despite improvements, ventilation and temperature controls in the Center are inadequate. Based on an initial study of our needs, visits to eight other senior centers in the area, and an extensive review of twenty-four senior center facilities conducted by the town of Needham, we have detennined that Lexington requires a senior center with some 30,000 square feet of usable space. The Executive Office of Elder Affairs uses the ratio of 5-6 square foot per senior for building a new facility, which for Lexington would he 36,000 square feet. Also needed is parking for 150 - 200 vehicles, with a drop-off area for cars and buses. We have undertaken an effort to locate one or two sites that would accommodate such a facility The Planning Board has provided us with a list of all town-owned lands. Joseph Marino, Economic Development Officer, will review the list and single out one or two appropriate sites. We will then, at Acting Town Planner, Glen Garber's suggestion, hire a professional consultant to conduct a detailed examination of the selected sites. This information will then be provided to the Board of Selectmen. Consequently on behalf of 7,200 of our senior citizens. close to 25% of Lexingtonians, we earnestly ask you, the Board of Selectmen, to respond favorably to our request. 4 HISTORY The Lexington Council on Aging was established in 1976 and housed on the second floor of the Visitors' Center. Because its program was growing so rapidly, the Selectmen appointed a Senior j Center Site Committee in February, 1978 (See appendix III). That group negotiated an arrangement with the Church of Our Redeemer for two rooms as a temporary facility, starting in the fall of 1978. Some relevant and interesting comments from the 1978 report: "The committee did not evaluate the need for a community-wide center serving a variety of age groups. The experience of other communities suggests that this kind of facility be designed so that different groups have different entrances and private spaces. Senior citizens generally are more comfortable with their own space. Research showed that seniors, while they enjoy pre- school children, do not want continual contact with them." "The Senior Center must also be available seven days a week." Town Meeting asked for a thorough needs assessment, and an evaluation of both the Munroe School and Muzzey Junior High School as possible sites. That study, completed in 1980, demonstrated a"significant need and desire" for such a Center and recommended that it be housed at Muzzey A provision for a Senior Center was a requirement to the developer as part of the Towns' transfer of Muzzey for apartments to be built at affordable rates. The Town did not incur any expense in providing a Senior Center Furnishings were provided by the Friends of the Council on Aging, private donations and fundraisers. Consequently, when the Muzzey School Conversion Committee was formed in 1981, the COA created a subcommittee that delineated its specific needs and identified an appropriate part of Muzzey for the facility That report submitted to the Town Manager and Selectmen in August 1982, (See appendix IV) declared that this facility would accommodate senior nroerams throueh the year 1990 In 1985 the Lexington Senior Center in the Muzzey Condominiums opened its doors to serve, according to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, approximately 5,700 seniors. By 1995 the senior center space problems in the Muzzey Condominiums, had become critical once more. Our limitations and visions for the future by staff, volunteers and our Board members were outlined in a 1995-96 Summary of Board Planning Activities Report (See appendix V). 1, L_1 5 THE LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE LEXINGTON COUNCIL ON AGING BOARD OF DIRECTORS: PROCESS AND PROGRESS Faced with a population of seniors that is growing rapidly and more appealing programs at the Senior Center, the Board of the Council on Aging, acting eighteen months ago, established a special Long Range Planning Committee to examine current and future facility needs. It should be noted that this decision came after many formal and informal discussions going back at least to 1995 The committee is chaired by Clark Cowen, COA Board Chairman and by Jacqueline Davison, COA Vice Chairman. The committee also includes Board members Phyllis Rand, Donald Graham, Dan Fenn, and Marilyn Campbell. In order to gather information on how the Senior Center currently operates, the Long Range Planning Committee reviewed existing programs with COA staff The committee also observed each program in action and interviewed seniors who use the center The Long Range Planning Committee has made eight site visits to Senior and Intergenerational Centers in neighboring communities, talked with their staff, often had lunch and observed their centers in action. A site visit checklist was used in order to compare each site with the others. The committee found that these senior centers were located in renovated schools or libraries, were additions to school buildings now shared with youth programs or were stand alone buildings on town/city owned land. (See appendixes VI and VII) The Peabody Life Center was particularly impressive. It was designed as a building that would meet the specific requirements of senior programming and includes an Adult Day Care Program. The building is on one floor, accessible from a variety of entrances and is very inviting to the citys seniors. (See appendix VIII) In a recent preliminary search for a site for a stand alone building, the Committee met with Selectman Jeanne Krieger and Acting Town Planner Glen Garber. Ms. Krieger explained the situation at the former Metropolitan State Hospital. It was agreed that any building plans concerning the hospital were likely to be in the distant future. Mr. Garber advised the Committee to hire a professional planning consultant to conduct a two-phase site feasibility study The two-phase study would consist of the following: 1 A screening of all possible sites to narrow down the options to one or two preferred locations. 2. A detailed site feasibility study of the resulting preferred sites. Subsequently, in discussion with Peter Kelley, Chair of the Friends of the Council on Aging, the Board decided to conduct the Phase I study internally by obtaining a list of possible sites from the Planning Board and submitting it to Joseph Marino, Economic Development Officer, for review The committee then plans to hire a consultant to make a through examination of the selected sites. It should be noted that the Town has an asset as the owner of the Senior Center at Muzzey Its value should be determined and the site considered for other Town purposes. L_l 6 u THE SENIOR CENTER TODAY Since 1985, the Lexington Senior Center has been located at 1475 Massachusetts Avenue in the Muzzey condominium complex. Fourteen years ago this location was a great improvement over the center's previous site at the Church of Our Redeemer. Today the expanded services and programs needed by Lexington's growing senior population can no longer be accommodated at the Center. A brief look at the range of activities going on underscores this point (See appendix IX). World War II veterans gather to hear and tell the stories of that conflict; current events are the topic of another regularly scheduled group. Fitness and muscle building classes attracted about 230 seniors in FY99; other popular programs include computer classes, band, chorus and diversity activities such as the Chinese New Year and Mah Jong. The Senior Center's programs serve up to 100 participants daily The Center's dining room is the only room in the facility able to accommodate a large group. For this reason the Center's largest and most popular programs, such as Grad for A Day and the annual Women's Day Conference are held there. However, the dining room can only accommodate about 100 seniors. Because of inadequate space, seniors are routinely turned away from these and other programs. (See appendix X) The small 12' x 15' library on the basement level, needing additional bookcases and tables on which to store its collection, spills out into the adjacent lounge. The Center's rapidly increasing fitness programs often take place in the same lounge area, spread around a pool table in a heavily trafficked area adjacent to the elevator. Because of inadequate space for exercise equipment, one lone treadmill is tucked under a stairway Student Social Work interns, an important part of the Senior Center, must be housed in the Fix-It Shop, which itself can barely accommodate four workers, along with their workbenches and inventory The acoustics in the facility are poor and storage is almost non-existent. Most importantly there is almost no available space to accommodate the new programs now being requested. In addition, there is no space for the increased Social Service support that will be required by Lexington's rapidly growing population of frail seniors. The existing facility poses additional problems: • Seniors entering the Center facility often do so with difficulty They must walk a substantial distance from the parking lot to the building and then walk through 2 sets of double doors into the building itself. They then walk down another corridor to the reception desk. • Because it is located in a condominium complex, with lease restrictions, the Senior Center can only operate Monday through Friday, from 8.30-4.30 p.m., despite many requests for evening and weekend programming. • Parking, particularly when large programs are scheduled, is a serious problem, which causes 1 continuing controversy with the condominium association. The Condominium Trustees do 7 not permit parking on weekends or evenings. These parking restrictions are also incorporated into the lease. r • There are only 4 parking spaces for handicapped seniors, which is inadequate for center participants. • Additionally, because the Senior Center design had to adapt to the limitations of a renovated building, the Center is now located on two levels, ground and basement. (See appendix XI) To travel from one floor to the other, seniors must walk down the stairs or use a small elevator which can only be reached by leaving the Senior Center and walking through the condominium area of the complex. • The present site design on two floors ultimately made the Center inadequate and potentially unsafe for the Center's Adult Social Day Care Program. As the program grew, it had to be moved to an alternate site in Lincoln. This site now constitutes an annual rental expense for the Town of$12,000 • hi 1996, the Social Service Department was created to include the Council on Aging, Senior Center and the provision of Social Services to families and non-seniors in Lexington. All staff and services are now located in the Senior Center on the basement floor of the Muzzey Condominium building. Each of the departments two Social Workers operate from offices on the lower level of the Senior Center One of these Social Workers has an office next to a 1 radon pump and must conduct all his business, including interviewing, with a loud noise continually in the background. r • The professional Social Services staff has no additional private or confidential meeting rooms for counseling services. Clients coming to meet the social workers must travel a very public route, often walking through the middle of classes in session to reach their destination. • The office of the Director of the Social Service Department is actually located outside the Center facility, in the former gift shop. This office sits in the entryway and common area of the condominium complex. J 1 } 8 THE SENIOR CENTER OF TOMORROW This initial description is based on discussion with staff, our observation of each of the current ongoing programs, our site visits—especially the one to the Peabody Life Care Center and our considered estimate of our future needs. In addition, we have paid special attention to those seniors who are either unserved or underserved: the "young elderly,"aged 60 to 70 The Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs recommends five to six square feet for each elder or, in our case a minimum of about 36,000 square feet today and a minimum of 40,665 in 2010. (See appendix XII) Our estimates are considerably more modest. We believe that a building of at lease 30,000 square feet of usable space will satisfy Lexington's requirements in the near future. (Muzzey is 10,000 total square feet with 8,000 square feet of usable space). However, we must remember that Lexington is a special place, characterized by an unusually active and engaged population. The Lexington senior population, age 60+is a dynamic group, rich in interests, skills and experience. These citizens, like their younger counterparts, are interested in a multitude of areas including international and local politics, fiscal affairs, wellness, science, the arts and technology Our Grad for a Day programs, in demand to the point that they are dramatically oversubscribed, attests to that fact. The Adult Social Day Care Program, now located in Lincoln, has limited space that will not allow for necessary for expansion. This program should be included in the new senior center , i facility In addition, we would note that this proposed facility should be on one floor, as opposed to our current configuration of two floors, ground and basement. Finally, it would require 150—200 parking spaces and an auto and bus drop-off area located contiguous to the building. 1 1 I k 9 SENIOR CENTER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Current Facility Proposed Facility Parking Parking 117 spaces/4 handicapped 150—200 spaces with mandated daytime/weekday parking number of handicapped spaces Day, evening and weekend parking Entrance Entrance Not directly accessible from Direct and accessible parking lot, through two sets Waiting/Reception Area of double doors Coat Storage Limited Coat storage it Levels Levels Two floors One Floor Office / Work Rooms for Staff Office/ Work Rooms for Staff Volunteers and Student Interns Volunteers and Student Interns 5 Offices: Director, 2 Social Workers, 10 Staff offices to meet future needs Program Coordinator and Administrative Assistant No Volunteer Work Rooms Volunteer Work Room No Student Intern Office/Work Room Student Intern Office/Work Room Dining Room Dining_ Room Seats 100 Seats 200 Small kitchen with area for Nutrition Commercial Kitchen with office for Coordinator Nutrition Coordinator Exercise Area Exercise Area 1 Treadmill under stairway Rooms for expanded classes and 1 Ancient Exercise Bike equipment Adult Social Day Care Adult Social Day Care Relocated to rented house in Lincoln Adult Day Care area of approximately 2,000 square feet on site 10 Proaram and Meetina Rooms Proaram and Meetina Rooms All on Basement level Classrooms 4 Multi purpose spaces Library housing all material Small Library Fix-It Shop Gift Shop Lounge Area Quiet Area Expanded Fix-It Shop Meeting Rooms Conference Rooms Large Function Room folding walls and platform Social Service Area Social Service Area 1 No rooms for confidential counseling Rooms for confidential counseling to to individuals and families individuals and families Health Clinic Health Clinic None Office with waiting room Based on the Senior Center facility requirements the proposed 30,000 square feet facility is roughly divided as follows: 1 Main Entrance Area 2,250 sq. ft Multi-Purpose Room 8,200 sq. ft. Dining Room Activity Room Multi Purpose space total Gift Shop 600 sq. ft. Game & Card Rooms 1,600 sq. ft. Class Room Area 3,400 sq. ft. Office Areas 2,930 sq. ft. 1 Health Clinic with waiting room 600 sq. ft Small Conference Room 300 sq. ft. Kitchen 1,990 sq. ft. Staff Lounge 200 sq. ft. Social Day Care 2,000 sq. ft. Volunteer Workspace 325 sq. ft. General (i.e. public toilets, general storage, Maintenance Office & storage,janitors closet) 1,550 sq. ft. Circulation, Wall thickness, Mechanical and Misc. (at 20%Net) 5,189 sq. ft. . d i 11 J LEXINGTON POPULATION TRENDS As a critical part of its study, the Long Range Planning Committee examined Lexington's demographics. According to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, there were approximately 4,300 senior citizens in town in 1976 when the Council on Aging was first opened in the Visitor's Center By 1985, when Muzzey opened, that figure had grown to approximately 5,700. The senior population in Lexington increases annually In 1999, Lexington's 7,200 seniors constitute almost 25% of the total population. The total population of Lexington will likely decrease through year 2020, while the number of seniors will continue to increase. Seniors aged 75 years and older are the most rapidly increasing group of seniors in Lexington. (See appendix XIII, XIV and XV) These statistics mean that within the next five years, the Senior Center will be required to provide more programs and services to a broader age range of seniors. This group will include an increasing number of recently retired seniors as well as older seniors and their families who will require support services. Council on Aging services, such as the Adult Social Day Care Program, support groups, and the library will require expansion. New programs to address needs and interests such as the arts, fitness, ethnicity and educational events will need to be added. The 1 Social Service Department, located in the Senior Center, will also be expected to see more families and individuals who are seeking assistance for their aging parents as well as individuals and families under 60 who require counseling and support services. l 1 1 . I 12 j APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Appendix I—Mission Statement 14 Appendix II—The Definition of a Senior Center 15 Appendix III— 1978 Senior Center Site Committee Report 16 Appendix IV— 1982 Senior Center Site Committee Report 21 1 Appendix V— 1995-96 Summary of Board Planning Activities 26 Appendix VI—Long Range Planning Committee Site Report 35 Appendix VII—Trends and Suggestions for Senior Centers 37 Appendix VIII—Peabody Life Center Report 38 Appendix IX—A Brief Look at the Range of Activities at the Senior Center 48 Appendix X—A List of Programs the Senior Center is Now Unable to Schedule 49 1 Appendix XI—Current Senior Center Floor Plan 50 lAppendix XII- Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs Space 52 Recommendations for Senior Centers 1 Appendix XIII— Seniors Age 60+ in Lexington 54 Appendix XIV— Seniors Age 75+ in Lexington 55 Appendix XV— 1999 Town Profile 56 1 j � j 13 I Appendix I COUNCIL ON AGING MISSION STATEMENT The Council on Aging, the policy making board of the Senior Center, the professional staff and the volunteers are dedicated to being of service to older adults as they encounter the challenges of aging. In cooperation with private and public agencies,we provide information, education, recreation and human services. We support the independence, and promote the intellectual and social well being of our elder l population. J We believe that an accessible and welcoming Senior Center is necessary to attract participants, volunteers and supporters from the Lexington community 14 Appendix II Definition of a Senior Center + + + + + + + + + . + + + + + + + Asenior center is a community focal within the center and link participants with point where older adults come together for resources offered by other agencies. Center services and activities that reflect their programs consist of a variety of individual experience and skills, respond to their and group services and activities. diverse needs and interests, enhance their The center also serves as a resource for 1 dignity, support their independence, and the entire community for information on encourage their involvement in and with aging, support for family caregivers, training the center and the community professional and lay leaders and students, As part of a comprehensive community and for development of innovative strategy to meet the needs of older adults, approaches to addressing aging issues. senior centers offer services and activities � S it I J 15 i) Appendix III SUMMARY The Senior Center Site Committee was appointed in February/1978 by/the Board of Selectmen to -Investigate available facilities in the Town which would accommodate senior citizen programming. ' ; -Investigate other needs for community services and recreation that might be integrated with a senior center if the committee finds this approach desirable. -Investigate senior center facilities in other communities as a basis to compare a center for Lexington. -Estimate the cost of a proposed center and investigate sources of funding ] Much of the Committee's efforts for the first few months was devoted to J locating a temporary site for the Council on Aging which could also serve as a senior center. The Committee identified over 30 sites within the Town, including many schools and churches, drew un preliminary design requirements, and investigated funding available through HUD and the Massachusetts' Department of Elder Affairs. The search for quarters was successful, and the Council is now housed at the Church of Our Redeemer. With the temporary center -underway,- -the Committee began--a- review--of facilities in other communities, visiting centers in Peabody, Leominster, J Amherst, and Winchester. Across the state, centers range from rented store- fronts to lavish, free-standing buildings or multipurpose community centers. Programming also shows great variation. A subcommittee interviewed representatives of approximately fourteen agencies providing service to seniors in the Lexington area in order to investigate I1 available programs, how these are being used, and determine what needs are not being met. Based on our research and many discussions, we recommend that a senior center be established in the Munroe School in conjunction with some housing units, and that space also be reserved there for other human services agencies f1 within the Town. I 16 1 r SECTION 1 n1 APPROACH, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee in its initial review of its charge divided the task Iassigned to it into two phases. The first phase was to relocate the Council on Aging offices into a temporary site which was suitable to test the concept of a senior center, and the second task was to make recommendations for a more long-term or permanent center. This direction was taken because the Committee recognized that although a center was desirable, there was no concrete evidence of need, and, hence, it would be difficult if not impossible r to expect a senior center to be supported by the Town Meeting_ Further, the Committee recognized that the establishment of any permanent center would require a significant amount of time, probably two or three years. In the interim it would be impossible for the center to be even given an opportunity to grow because of the location of the Council on Aging offices which was on the second floor of the Visitor's Center. The Committee in conjunction with the Town Manager's Office and Council on Aging assisted in the location of a temporary site suitable for testing the center concept. PHASE I As a first step space requirements for the temporary site were established. Working with the Council, the Committee established four criteria: 1) A center should be within walking distance of Lexington's center. 2) A center should include private office space for counseling which _ would be for the sole and private use of the Council. 1 3) There should be meeting room space large enough for 40 people_ J4) Space should. be available Monday-Friday. In addition, the Council and Committee agreed it would be very desirable to have space suitable for congregate meals. Sites considered included churches and schools in the Town center, Cary Hall, Hayden Recreation Center and the Town Office Building. By May, this was narrowed to two churches, and during the Summer months final negotiations were completed with the Church of Our Redeemer for a one-year lease of two i rooms. PHASE II Phase II has been a more difficult task. In order to answer both the Charge to the Committee and the Committee's own concerns, the Committee was divided into two groups The first group looked at what other towns were doing. A summary of these findings is included in Section III. The second group was assigned to evaluate need. This task was complicated by the fact Li i 1 LI LA 17 that an indepth needs assessment was scheduled for the Fall and would provide more concrete data. Because of this pending study, the needs assessment team ri limited their study to interviews with representatives of senior citizen organizations and provider organizations. Their report is summarized in Section IV. IThe Committee considered a number of sites for both the temporary and the permanent centers. Included were churches, schools, public buildings and privately owned halls. In addition, the Committee drew up a list of prelimi- nary requirements for the space needed. Both of these are included in the Appendix. I Based on all its information, the Committee concluded that there was a need for additional senior center programming in Lexington ani that needs_could best be met in a senior center The Committee did not evaluate the need for a community-wide -Center serving a variety of age groups. The experience of other communities suggests that this kind of facility be designed so that different groups have different entrances and private spaces. Senior citizens generally are more comfortable with their own space. Research showed that seniors, while they enjoy pre-school children, do not want continual contact with them. Also, the Committee agreed that a permanent site must be within walking distance of the Town center The senior center must also be available seven days a week. The preliminary requirements included in the Appendix further outline the minimum criteria. Most important iii these is the requirement that the facility allow the provision of daily congregate meals for at least 40 people. Under the congregate meals program, the food is distributed to the i center pre-cooked and, therefore, only minimum kitchen facilities are required. RECOMMENDATIONS jAfter evaluating_all .sites listed, and in view of the November 9, 1978, announcement that the School Committee will consider closing Munroe School in June 1979, the Committee recommends that a senior center be established j.n f Munroe School. The Committee feels it would be necessary to use one level of the building for this purpose and would recommend that the center be consolidated with senior citizen housing and/or human services office use. The Committee has_ done only preliminary evaluation of the building and further recommends that if the Munroe School is closed that part of the closing costs be set aside for preliminary architectural and engineering studies for_. one level of the Munroe School to be convei a into a senior center. 1 18 SECTION IV -7 NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY As a means of establishing a better understanding for the need of a senior center and the specific problems which could be addressed in such a center, the Committee established a Subcommittee on Needs. This Subcommittee conducted interviews with fourteen individuals who were rep- resentatives of senior citizen groups and providers of services for the elderly. Topics discussed included health services, transportation, housing, home care services, alternatives to independent living, meals, outreach, information and referral, rehabilitation services, social needs, counseling 1 and recreation needs. As a result of these interviews the Subcommittee gained a better under- , 1 standing of some of the needs of senior citizens and was able to rank them. Some of these problems could be dealt with in a senior center, others could be solved through greater coordination and the communication of the availability of existing services for the elderly. These needs are as follows: 1 1. No new taxes 1 1 2. Transportation 3. Housing alternatives [ 1 4. Information, referral, and coordination of health, legal, and counseling services 5. Home care services on a sliding scale 6. Congregate meals 7. Outreach 8. Recreation and social programs 9. Day care. In view of these findings the Subcommittee recognized that the current Council on Aging facility will allow program testing and growth to continue for at least a short term period. In addition, the Subcommittee recommended that there be an increase in the funding for administration of the Council on Aging. 1 , 1 LJ Li 19 SECTION V 1 FUNDING SOURCES Investigating sources of funding was one of the first t_=_-s undertaken by the Committee Specifically, we were hoping to find monies for the rental and equipment costs for the temporary center and also for pla-_-inc for the permanent site. There are two major sources of funding: the Department of HoLsing and Urban Development (HUD) Small Cities Grants, and funds available under the Older Americans Act. We learned that grant requests made to HID are ranked by two criteria 1) the number of low and moderate income persons residing in the community, and 2) the number of low and moderate income persons to be served by the facility. By these standards, a request for fu.-:cs =rom Lexington for a senior center would get & ow ratings because_of our population characteristics,and also because a senior center would serve more than just low and moderate income persons. The Committee feels that it would be more realistic to lo>c to the Massachusetts Department of Elder Affairs (DEA) for support rider the Older Americans Act. Based on grants given by this agency last year, f,__ds to sup— port the renovation or building of a senior center would be ar eligible service Representatives of DEA have indicated their interest in and support of a senior center serving Lexington residents. Because we ha—e no information on how much money the Congress will appropriate, we cannot sa: at this time if money will be available next year for this purpose. I On a town level, the monies for the Council on_A_ging rentaLat the Church und_Iof Our Redeemer have been generously supplied by the Bridce Charitable Fund- , 1 , 1 II j I 1 iJ 20 i Appendix IV 1 1 w 'Il COUNCIL ON AGING BOX 636 LEXINGTON,MASS.02773 , 111 LEXINGTON COUNCIL ON AGING REPORT 1 SENIOR CENTER ISSUES REGARDING MUZZEY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED TO TOWN MANAGER AND BOARD OF SELECTMEN IJ 10 AUGUST 1982 it �I1 lJ JS MOayy. ie.; r 21 Mmole L!d A LEXINGTON SENIOR CENTER IN THE MUZZ.EY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL I Fl Since the founding of the Council on Aging in 1976, there has been con- tinued and impressive growth in senior programming and services in the town now serving 5,000 people with 33 programs During the last six 1 years, there has been a series of investigations and reports regarding a permanent senior center Questions brought to the Council on Aging (CoA) by the Planning Board include the following Is a senior center needed? What are the program/space requirements? What are the operating budget requirements? What sites have been explored? Where does Muzzey rank among the alternative sites considered? Where does Muzzey School fit in the analysis of sites? This brief discussion wil' summarize the various studies and reports that address these questions The CoA feels that an expanded senior Icenter is needed and that Muzzey School is an excellent and desired site to house such a center 11 Background The Council on Aging (senior center) was housed on the second floor of the Visitor's Center in 1976 As a result of its rapid program growth, it moved to its current and temporary location in the Church of Our ' 1 Redeemer in 1978 This current location has several severe drawbacks; among them are no handicap access to the meals program; no private II office for counseling, fuel assistance application, or legal and tax , advice; there is no "wet" room for many crafts and horticultural projects; and, perhaps most significantl'r, the existing space in the Church of the Holy Redeemer does not allow for any growth necessary to provide programs required by the number of elders in the Town of Lexington This location is now costing $11,600 per year in rent while the programs and services are rapidly outgrowing the space IJ Site Exploration II After the temporary church site had been located, the CoA continued to LI investigate the question of a permanent home for the senior center Town Meeting passed Article 32 in 1978, approving the concept of the Senior Center to instructing the Selectmen to develop a plan for perma- nent facilities (Appendix I) As a result of this Town Meeting vote, the Senior Center Site Committee 1 conducted a study of possible sites They also addressed the need for FJ1 a senior center and reviewed facilities in several other communities 1 i I zz L1 ea/ l' After extensive evaluation, the Committee delineated a need for a per- manent senior center and determined that the Munroe School was the ri preferred alternative among the 30 possible sites reviewed. At that time the Muzzey School was considered as a potential site and was later eliminated because it was unavailable (Appendix II) During 1978 an architectural firm was hired to explore the possibility of the conversion of Munroe School into a senior center that could also house the Minuteman Home Care Corporation and the Lexington Housing Authority. The projected cost for conversion ranged from $518, 303 to $771,164, depending on the level of improvements made The Council on Aging prepared a comprehensive statement of its 30 programs at that time, in justification of the development of this center. (Appendix III) The Council on Aging believes that the Muzzey School is the best alterna- tive in which to locate a Senior Center. We also believe that the renova- tion of the Muzzey School to incorporate the Senior Center is the most cost effective alternative Needs Assessment I Town Meeting felt the need for a more thorough exploration of the need for a senior center befor, committing such a substantial sum, and on March 24, 1980, passed warrant article 33 to perform a needs assessment including the determination of the suitability of Munroe School and Muzzey Junior High School (which by that tine was due to be closed) This needs assessment was performed in the summer and fall of 1980 and included an exhaustive survey of all of Lexington's elderly citizens It was concluded that there is a significant need and desire among Lexington's elderly for the kinds of services and programs that are offered in a multi-purpose senior center, with almost fifty percent of Lexington's elderly population making use of one or another of its programs. (Appendix IV) Lexington's elderly population had grown to 5,000 (16% of the total town population and a 31 9% increase over 1970) These people have significantly lower incomes than the population at large (38% have household incomes of less than $10,000) and expressed a desire for a number of programs it 29% want to go to a drop-in center 26% want a congregate meal site 62% feel the need for elderly health clinics 50% want consumer education and counseling 47% want recreational activities 322 would like to attend adult education classes 482 said they would go to a senior center H -2- 23 ti i rlf ' The Elderly Needs Assessment also concluded that the Muzzey School was 7 07 a preferable site for several reasons It is located a quarter mile from Lexington Center and within walking distance from Depot Square. It has ground level accessibility and sufficient space on the ground floor to house all the senior programming, in contrast to Munroe School which had expensive access problems It has a kitchen and cafeteria r It also has enough space for the owner to rent to other agencies for co-location of programs that complement the senior center and for the generation of revenue. 11 Space Requirements As a result of this needs assessment, consideration was turned to Muzzey School. After the Muzzey School Conversion Committee was established in the winter of 1981, the Council on Aging appointed a sub-committee to make specific recommendations on program and space needs. The result of this work is reflected in a memo delineating specific facility needs (Appendix V) The sub-committee concluded that the area of the west wing of the ground floor of Muzzey School plus the "shop," approximately 8,000 square feet altogether, would accomodate programs with projected use figures through the year 1990 With some spaces overlapping in function, this area will meet the net useable square footage goal of 6,000 square feet 1 The Council on Aging voted to adopt this memo as reflecting the appro- priate amount of space which will fulfill the goals of a senior center in the Town. In an effort to project future parking needs to accommodate center activities, the CoA has counted cars at the current site as well as projecting program growth at a larger site The seniors who come to the ' ' current site frequently walk, use Lexpress, or car pool as well as drive their own cars Current parking use ranges from 10 to 30 cars at any one time, with occasional major events drawing up to 50 cars It is anticipated that current center activities would approximately double over the next five years. Projected parking needs are for 40 - 50 spaces, with expanded need for 100 spaces three or four times a year. I Operating Budget Impact Should a Senior Center of 8,000 square feet be included in the Muzzey i -1 School, the budget of the CoA would naturally be increased by approxi- mately 40% Most of this increase is due to personnel costs and utility costs The CoA believes that in any event, the allocated budget of the ,_ I CoA will have to be increased to maintain current programs and to accept new required programs, regardless of whether the Senior Center is provided in the Muzzey School. Li -3- 24 Conclusion • The Council on Aging has unanimously endorsed the goal of having an expanded and permanent Senior Center in the Muzzey School occupying an area of at least 8,000 square feet Unanimously Approved 10 August 1982 C. L. Harris Chairman Appendices on File in Selectmen's Office and Town Manager's Office (2) copies enclosed P 1 . 1 25 -4- L.l - Appendix V SUMMARY OF COA BOARD PLANNING ACTIVITIES 1995-1996 - On June 21, 1995, the Council on Aging Board met to discuss the space problems and increased utilization rates at the Senior Center. The Board looked at both short-term options for improving the daily living and working arrangements, as well as long range ideas for meeting the space demands of an increasing elder population. As a result of the June 21st meeting, the Board drafted short-term goals aimed at making the existing facility more workable; endorsed a branch office concept; and began to articulate long range plans for a new facility. See the attached memorandum dated July 18 , 1995. As a further step toward articulating current and future needs of the Lexington Senior Center, in January, 1996, the COA Board agreed to-begin the-process-of-writing-a-COA-Board-mission bLdtement.The Board concluded that it was necessary to interview the professional staff and key volunteers to ascertain their views regarding their program or service, the limitations placed on their function and their vision for the future. The staff interviews took place on February 5th and 7th and the volunteer interviews took place at a retreat held on March 15th. The enclosed outlines, Appendix j C for the staff, and Appendix D for the volunteers, summarize the input received from each group. At the March 13 , 1996, COA Board meeting, the working draft of the COA mission statement was revised (see attached) . LIST OF APPENDIXES ATTACHED APPENDIX A Memo to Julia Novak dated July 18 , 1995. APPENDIX B Draft of COA Board Mission Statement as of March 13 , 1996. APPENDIX C Summary of staff interviews. 1 APPENDIX D Summary of Volunteer Retreat input. -1- \ 26 1, j I Lexington Senior Center APPENDIX A Council on Aging TO: Julia Novak, Assistant Town Manager FROM: Linda Crew Vine, Executive Director, C.O.A. RE: COA Board Report regarding space issues at the Senior Center DATE: July 18, 1995 I _ _ The members- of the- Council- On Aging Board met on June 21st to discuss the space problems at the Senior Center. They looked at both short term options for improving the daily living and working arrangements as well as the long range ideas for meeting the space demands of an increasing elder population. The following outline summerizes the options the Board would like to pursue over the next twelve months (Track I) and for the next 3-5 years (Track II & III) . TRACK I Changes in Existing Facility - Secure consultant/architect to review space and function - Explore installation of electric door. - Increase outdoor space for recreational purposes. - Track progress of air quality study. _ TRACK II Branch Office Concept - Relocate some services outside of the Senior Center - Day Care - Fix-It Shop - Explore Town space availability. sis•^••,., e ors LINDA CREW VINE,Executive Director !!! 1475 Meeeetusens Avenue,Lexington,MA 02177 -2- Telephone(817)861-0181 °gr•cto* Fax(617)863-2271 ,. 2,j . i - Formalize relationship with Lexington Housing Authority in order to increase off-site program. - Ask the Town to recognize/appoint a Long Range Planning Committee for the Senior Center. - Investigate purchase of unit inside Muzzey Condominium. TRACK III New Facility - Secure position on the Capital Expenditure list to build a new "Center". Work ,pn. ,educgtj,on of community as to the increase of the elder population and the limitations of existing space. - Investigate a community center concept with the co-location of various social and recreational services. - Keep informed as to what buildings become available on the market that might be suitable for Senior activities. The Executive Committee of the Hoard would like the opportunity to meet with the Town Manager to discuss their recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if there should be any questions. I I, ' c. c. Members of COA Board -3- t A 2B I APPENDIX B MISSION STATEMENT AS EDITED BY THE COA BOARD ON MARCH 13, 1996 The Lexington Council on Aging (a policy making board) , the professional staff and volunteers of the Senior Center are dedicated to enriching the quality of life of our older adults as they encounter [the challenges of aging. ] new challenges.* -' Til cooperation_with_public and_private__agencies,_we_provide________ _ _____ -- information, education, recreation and [human] social* services. We support the independence and intellectual and social well being of our elder population. We strive for a welcoming Senior Center and encourage active participation by the families and friends 1 of the citizens we serve. In order to achieve this mission, we set forth the following goals. . .** / i * Brackete words are the original edited Board language; the italicized words are suggestions received from seniors attendi��g the Volunteer Retreat on Long Range Planning. ** The Board will continue working on these goals at a future Ij meeting. -4- i , 29 a '1 APPENDIX C In order to facilitate the creation of a COA Board mission statement, the members of the Senior Center staff were asked to present the following to the Board: a description of his or her function at the Senior Center, limitations, if any, on the ability to accomplish that function and a vision of the function in five to ten years. The following is a summary of the presentations: OUTREACH SOCIAL WORKER FUNCTION * Handles caseload of approximately 40 frail elderly persons receiving Senior Health Monitor nursing benefit. * Crisis intervention and case management of seniors not on Senior Health Monitor. * Support groups for chronic illnesses and life crises. * Counseling senior citizens and families with regard to issues relating to aging. Acting Director when-Executive-Director --absent; -- -- __ Supper --- Supper Clubs/Health Clinics. LIMITATIONS *As nursing home requirements become more stringent and as more seniors are forced into HMO's, demand for Senior Health Monitor nursing service will outrun ability to provide service. * With senior population growing and the need for crisis intervention and counseling increasing, the time of one social worker is not adequate. The addition of an Intake Social Worker handling information and referral has helped. * Lack of reliable, accessible, quiet space to hold groups meetings interferes with amount and quality of service delivery. VISION Additional staff--another social worker, nurse, assistant director, home health aide for SHM. * New multi-purpose community center, plenty of parking, daily transportation for all in need. * Volunteer programs for unmet needs, such as grocery shopping, errands, visiting. * Increased funding for Senior Health Monitor. -5- _J+ 30 l� 1 INTAKE SOCIAL WO KER i FUNCTION * Handles initial requests from seniors and family 1 members, asking for information and services relating to housing, health insurance, transpor- tation, meals, homemakers, chores, finances, self-neglect, companionship and so forth. * Organizes publicity, information, and displays; redesigns COA pamphlets. 1 * Manages special events on subjects such as How to Choose an HMO, Food Stamps, and activities, such as Men's Breakfasts. * Tracking down sources for grant monies, such as Senior Volunteer Corps funding obtained from Symmes Hospital and Raytheon Corporation. DATION- * Space--no place to conduct private interviews. N VISION \ * Town multi-service center, sharing space needs of Human Services Coordinator, COA, Replace, Recreation Department and others. * Intake expansion, follow-ups, home visiting; staff a development committee to find grants. PROGRAM COORDINATOR FUNCTION * Plan, implement, supervise and evaluate recreational and educational programs for the Senior Center; schedule all space assign- ments at the Senior Center. * Identify the leisure needs and interests of Lexington's senior citizens and develop diver- sified program to fit those needs. LIMITATIONS * Lack of space resulting in crowding, noise, late starts and confusion. * Limited hours of usage and parking. / * No access to reliable computer, which delays projects. Incompatible functions sharing office (Intake Social Worker and Program Coord) VISION * More rooms, such as rooms for fitness, dance, exercise equipment, special projects and interests. Combined usage of new space with other Town programs. -6- I 31 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 1 FUNCTION * Monitor and administer financial work of Senior Center, including Town budget monies, fee-for- service programs (Meals on Wheels and Adult Day Care) , state and private grants. * Manage FCOA Recreation account. * Provide support services to executive director, receptionists, staff and volunteers; act as purchasing agent for Senior Center. LIMITATIONS * Lack of space in office for clerk, staff and volunteers to work, use telephone, copy machine and fax. Lack of quiet tine to concentrate * Lack of computers for staff, interns and volunteers to use for correspondence, projects, newspaper, publicity, statistics, reports. * Lack of time to provide information and support to general public, senior clients, volunteers, interns, director and staff. VISION * Large multi-purpose support room with computers, telephones, copy machine and fax where volunteers would have comfortable and efficient work space and where they could be taught and teach each other computer and other skills; additional sup- ' port staff. MEALS ON WHEELS MANAGER FUNCTION * Manage Meals on Wheels, a program which delivers two meals daily to approximately 30 clients. * Recruit, train and manage close to fifty volun- teers. * Intake assessments from clients, families and referral sources; support nutrition director in dining room and attend provider meetings. LIMITATIONS * Do not currently have private administrative space, telephone or computer. VISION * The combining of all COA nutrition services and • a commitment to greatly improved food quality, /% which would result in service delivery to greater "I 1 numbers of seniors. -7- 32 ADULT DAY CARE DIRECTOR , FUNCTION * Manage Adult Day Care program, comprised of five staff members and 40 clients. * Clinical and intake assessments for clients and families. * Program development for expanded six-hour day. * Support to families of day care clients; informa- tion and referral source for clients and families. * Transportation manager for clients. LIMITATIONS * Program has outgrown space available in Senior Center. /! \* Need for increased staffing and hours for current staff; a need for staff nurse. f �* Mix of transportation resources available to / clients by several providers less than ideal. --- _ ur-own- Senior-Center-vans--to-provide -- ------- ransportation. * Quality of program secured through increased staffing. * Space issues resolved with all Senior Center activities, including day care, under one roof. II INTERGENERATIONAL COORDINATOR 1 FUNCTION * Administer growth of intergenerational program- ming; conduct needs assessment of youth and seniors; information resource; recruit youth and senior volunteers; plan and supervise activities. LIMITATIONS-* Time for program expansion; lack of project " funding. VISION* ncorporate Senior Center into a community center. * Aging be understood as a continuation of a life long process of learning. * Additional funding for intergenerational needs. -8- I 33 APP IX D A group of wenty fifive Senior Center volunteers we' assembled and asked to re es ions regaraing programming and service delivery. The following represents a summary of their responses. QUESTION WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY TO OUR ELDER POPULATION? ANSWERS * Sponsor or coordinate home repair services for elders. * Help develop contacts for additional in-home services, such as house sitting and pet care. * Encourage the diversification of transportation options for seniors, such as a taxi voucher system, group subscription rides, increased dial-a-ride services; consider owning our own vehicle; increase education around transportation options available in the community. QUESTION WHAT ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR SERVICES SHOULD THE SENIOR CENTER BE OFFERING? ANSWERS .__*_Our-awn-health clinic.- - * Increase amount of exercise equipment, plus a larger exercise space. .- -- - * Fitness club. * Public copy machine easily accessible to seniors. * Public access computers and computer lessons. * Showcase talents of seniors with displays.. * Provide educational forums regarding health main- tenance organizations for seniors. QUESTION LOOKING AHEAD TO A NEW FACILITY, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO LOOK LIKE AND WHAT SERVICES SHOULD IT INCLUDE? ANSWERS * Ground level with activities all on one floor. * Central location * Large amphitheater holding 300 plus with break-out rooms. * Full kitchen with on-site food preparation. * Larger library with technical support center. * Fitness, game, dance and computer rooms. * Space for small groups to socialize. * Adequate classroom space. * Increased days and hours of operation. * New name, such as "Lexington Life Center. " * Increased transportation to Center. * Programs to attract disabled. * Men only programs; more intergenerational programs * Programs for younger, newly retired seniors. -9- I J 34 J Appendix VI Senior Site Visit Information May 10, 1999 COA Board Long Range Planning Committee The Long-Range Planning Committee of the Board of the Lexington Council on Aging visited the following Senior sites: l.Arlington Council on Aging Two different groups; one a private organization and the other the Town of Arlington administer this senior site, within a building housing other senior services. The former provides activities and the latter as the COA provides transportation, medical and social services to Arlington's 10,000 seniors. The Center is located in a converted school building which cost approximately $250,000 to renovate and serves 100 Seniors per day 2. Peabody Life Center This site is a new, free standing Senior Center of 30,000+ square feet. The land was owned by the city, and the building, which cost 3.2 million, was completely funded by the city of Peabody Peabody has a total senior population of 10,000 and the center serves 4,000 seniors annually 3 Winchester Senior Center This site is a new, free standing Senior Center, half utilized by the COA and half by a private senior group. The Center, built on Town owned land,was built with an endowment from a Winchester citizen. Winchester has a total senior population of 4,000 and the center serves 250 seniors per day 4. Sudbury Senior Center This site is one-half of the Sudbury Community Center A shared kitchen and moderately sized gymnasium link the Center, with its own entrance,to a section devoted to youth and to the Town Recreation Department. The Senior Center is housed in a new wing which was added to the original structure, a converted school building. The building is also adjacent to the attractive Town swimming pool. The Town funded the Senior Center addition and the Sudbury Foundation renovated the cafeteria for $40,000 Sudbury has a total senior population of 2,100 and the Center serves 1200+ seniors annually 5. Marblehead Community Center This site is one-half of the new Marblehead Community Center A spacious common lobby leads to two separate entrances and receptionist windows, one for the Recreation Department and one for the Senior Center The Senior Center is housed in its own wing and shares an enormous gym with the Recreation Department. The Community Center was built entirely with Town funds. Marblehead has a total senior population of 3,000 and the Senior Center serves 100 seniors per day I J 35 6. Newton Senior Center This stand alone Senior Center is housed in a centrally located, renovated library The building is in the historic district and so cannot be expanded. The Center hopes to find additional space for programming, near the Center in this area of Newton. The Library itself was renovated with a HUD grant and furnished by funds raised by a Senior Center steering committee appointed by the mayor Newton has a total senior population of 16,000 and the Center serves 3,000 seniors annually 7 Chelmsford Senior Center This stand-alone Senior Center is housed in a building, designed for the center and constructed in1987 Chelmsford is built on town owned land, on the site of a former school that had burned down. The Town paid for the construction cost of 2 million dollars. Chelmsford has a total senior population of approximately 5,000 8. Bedford Senior Center This Senior Center is housed in several rooms within a Town owned community services building. The building also houses some Town organizations and a pre-school. Bedford is now advocating for a larger facility Bedford has a total senior population of about 2500 36 rl Appendix VII NOTED TRENDS & SUGGESTIONS FROM TOURS OF SENIOR CENTERS 1 Plan ten years ahead so you don't outgrow your space too quickly!!!! 2. Put a lot of thought into the desired ambiance you want to convey in the finished product. It makes the difference!!! 3 Allow ample space for parking! 4 You need to design flexible/versatile program space which can be converted to other uses, Now, and in the future as interests change. 5 It's a good idea to provide soundproof room dividers in any room possible to maximize on Your program space. 6. It's very important to consider the acoustics in all rooms for effective programming. 7 By having a large function hall in your center, it affords you many other potential uses, Some of which may be revenue producing! 8. If planning to rent or lend out space for other purposes, it's a good idea to have restroom Facilities close by, as well as a separate entrance and exit to that space. 9 Stay away from flat roofs whenever possible! They seem to cause more problems than They're worth! 10 Consider including revenue generators to offset operating expenses. 11 Consider inclusion of other senior-related agencies or businesses to compliment your Operation and to attract a wider range of seniors. Some of these may be contracted out. 12. Create a facility that reflects the personality of the community 13 Build on a parcel large enough to allow for expansion. 37 Appendix VIII BUILDING A NEW SENIOR CENTER MCOA 1991 ANNUAL CONFERENCE OCTOBER 24, 1991 •Denis Coleman Executive Director Peabody Council on Aging Martin A. Kretsch Principal/Architect DiNisco Kretsch and Associates, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts J 38 11 r r OUTLINE r � PRESENTATION BY DENIS COLEMAN AND MARTIN A. KRETSCH 1. Determination of Need/Project Viability - Precedent - Fact Gathering - Visits to other communities - Ground roots support/political approvals - Availability of funding sources 2. Engagement of Architect - Criteria Experience Design Working relationship (flexibility, it's your building) References Cost Control 3. Client-Architect Relationship - Collaborative process - Architect's role to transfer your ideas to reality - Architect and Owner's Representative each head up a team - Prime Owner Representative is often the Director of Senior Center, sometimes it is a Building Commission or an existing board(Council on Aging) - Owner's Representative as a leadership role Input from: Staff Users Community at large Council on Aging Collaborate with: Municipal staff Planning Department Governing body (Mayor, Board of Selectmen,Town Manager, etc.) Meetings j 1 39 La l - Time Commitment Feasibility Study, design, construction is minimally a 30 month process Meetings Involvement prior to Architect, involvement and during start up and training stage (could be a total five year period) Major time committments Input into program Input into site selection Review of design options Review of finishes, materials Involvement in construction related progress 4. Architectural Services -Feasibility Study - Programming - Site selection* - Budget - Feasibility of design accommodating all of the above - Promotional graphic documents (renderings,plans,etc.) * Site selection may be virgin site or existing building(s) suitable for renovation/addition 5. Architectural Services - Design and Construction - Preliminary design concepts (Schematic Design) - Design development - Construction documents - Bid documents - Construction 6. Selection of Furnishings and Equipment 7 Some Special Concerns - Encouragement of use by many segments of senior population - Relationship between various functions - Movement of people through building - Ambiance/Image/Size of multi-purpose room and Center as a whole - Social Day Care, Adult Date Care - Sharing of use with Community at large - Expandability - American Disabilities Act - Outdoor activities - Parking/Vehicle access/drop off 4 0 _1 1 PEABODY SENIOR CENTER Peabody, Massachusetts 1 1 ...-ti.':-' .fie us—., • 4_:-' •y � 'iii;1i$ ..;: 1Alf.�. 1c: IP.' ce • The Peabody Senior Center is one of the largest such facilities is the Common- wealth,encompassing some 30,000 square feet of floor space. Some of its special features include multi-purpose and class- room spaces,a central kitchen and a cepa- ' rate wing for social day care.The facility is designed as the focal point in a"cam- pus" setting, surrounded by residential housing complexes serving the elderly population. au ._h I It 1 Irl 1 1 l_ 4 LiH _ I 1 41 tD 01)a.� . _ ,, <� vel!m.____-- '. 0 wM1/YN' / s"IAKF.'a I'FO FATF �•- -••• 1.iii a wGLn CD lesou 0 weer--A05-- 'In 'i'' 4 l .� b .3 p r On . k\ .. _ ___ __ .. ....,:,. ._,..i.,,, „........:....c....03.,.....s....,„ y„ ,.... —. . 4. ....... ,....,,,.,....„)........c, „.. N 1.4 It ,• • Q t k.'' ' X .J _ . ' , I ,� 3A 1 _ -,-.--w- 1. fr.,--411‘ 411 % -fl. , ?<UK*:.,,Ci.,:: .;::::.i;;;;;/.1.... 6., ...,:i.. • ,.., -ags (/ 1 .A ,., . _ iiiiii iiii Sal �y) e.•.nw.1.4.1 0 re iD a) Z I q•�•p��q;;7, i t9• ao r+ , , , w +op, : - m ` rY�r ,. : 1 Mil . i e� r -..i;_ s•nt vur.rC el in 4 ) ;:l''.''fi<g'I;,r )rI• ry,._.`.',i ---4 ar4„ ,-,�r prv- - kr ----? II 1 " ' ' ' 0, i M . i r.r.,' nn p�n cwt.___} i d--- 'I'ilN n I I * N ;; �_ ::s- ---� C.r93CF, © ' Cry 11 iir M M 4-.-.. .- ----'-- !viii !i ' L tH,;;. � I I 1. ._!1 E, 1 ...‘P.-.9,4, arm �. ` el : r____tr i 1 illi -:1..ii _ s U am ] 0 um 0 1.e: ' ea', . ..„ .. .. Nra k#i.:.t c3 y -" , ..-ii .. . ,.. .,.. , _ ..... . . . •i , 0) m .3 .3 . . t-x-fi-2-0- C C 13&t rnil%` - rr1 ry� 1.rm .4, glint i I `. .. -7 . . . fj. i i `-Peabody Senior Center Floor Plan ' 43 A NFERENCE I� n 1 r 4 SOCIAL KITCHEN DAYCARE _ - •I. r n : t i .x 1s. a 4- k JUBILEE r HALL M H jI STAGE il CLASS- LASS GAME ROOM` rSITTING COUR i ROOM B n I ROOM. ROOM YARD VOLUNTEER I I I _L 1 WOOD CERAMICS_ WORKRETAIL SHOP AREA I I I I — STORE , Program layout and graphic design by Jim Wynn (617)773-7373 r PROGRAM OUTLINE Main Entrance Area 2250 Entrance/Lobby 300 Sitting Room 500 Consignment Services 1450 Thrift Shop/Gift Shop 600 General Store 400 Barber/Beauty Shop 200 ATM Machine 50 Future Growth Space 200 Multi-Purpose Room 8000 Greenhouse 200 Game Room 900 Card Room 700 Classroom Area 3400 Classroom(quantity of 2) 1600 Ceramics Room 1000 Classroom 900 Kiln Room 100 Wood/Fix It Shop 800 Li)eabody Senior Center Program Summary { 45 Office Areas 2930 Administrative Offices 1455 ( Waiting Area 120 Receptionist/Secretary 240 Director 175 Accounting 175 Future Growth Office 125 Conference Room 200 Copy/Supply Room 120 Computer Room 175 File Storage 125 Activity Coordinator's Office 175 Volunteers Office 325 Volunteer Coordinator 125 Volunteer Work Area 200 Social Services 500 Social Services Coordinator 125 Social Worker Office 375 Transportation Services 300 Meals On Wheels 175 Health Clinic 600 Meeting/Meditation Room 300 Kitchen 1990 Staff Lounge 200 Peabody Senior Center Program Summary 46 l.� Social Day Care 2000 Entrance 100 Activity Room 1500 Office 200 Toilet Room 200 General 1550 Public Toilets 600 Medical Equipment Storage 200 General Storage 500 Maintenance Office and Storage 200 Janitors Closet 50 NET TOTAL 25,020 Circulation, Wall thickness, Mechanical and Misc. (at 30% Net) 7,506 GROSS TOTAL 32,526 OPTIONAL PROGRAM AREAS (Additionall Additional Multi-Purpose Room for Special Functions (allowing dining for 700 persons)* 4000 Kitchen Alternative (preparation and serving capacity for 1500 - 2000 meals) Total area needed equals 4890 square feet 2900 Adult Day Care Program 4000 *Note: Assuming the initial Multi-Purpose program area allows for dining of 450 persons keabody Senior Center Program Summary 47 ._J 1 A brief look at the range of activities going on understores this point Appendix IX Exercise groups: 180 seniors each week (duplicated) Yoga, Fitness Workout for Active Seniors, T'ai Chi, Stretch and Bend, Muscle Class, Line Dancing, Falon Gung I Discussion groups: World War II, The News Hour, Spirituality Group, Jay Kaufman Roundtable, l Travel Talk Computer Computer Club,Public Access Computer i Finance and Estate Eduation 1 Women and Money, Trusts and Probate, finance lectures, AARP Tax Assistance Health services: Podiatry Clinic, Blood Pressure Clinic, Treadmill, Meditation, health lectures, SHINE (medical insurance counseling), 55 Drive Alive Fine and Popular Arts Poets Live Again, Beginning, Intermediate and Advanced Quilting, Movies 'n More Film Series Music groups Pryme Tyme Band, Young at Heart Chorus f Games Scrabble, Bridge, Cribbage, Bingo, Chess Entertainment and Socialization 3 Thursdays Café, holiday and birthday lunches, After Hours, Annual Summer Picnic, Congregate Lunch Program Diversity Proeramming Chinese New Year, Martin Luther King celebration, Mah Jong, Chinese movies Support Groups Parkinson's, Widowed, Caregivers, Older and Growing, Diabetes, Prostate Elmer Bull Fix-It Shop Library Community Education Classes Literature, Watercolor, Pastels, Spansih, Italian, German, Geneology, Knitting, ESL, Writing, Estate Planning { Yearly Conferences Post Grad For a Day, Women's Conference 48 L Appendix X List of Programs Unable to Schedule Dining Room fully booked all the time. Precludes booking: • Any event that needs access to the kitchen, such as receptions, ethnic festivals, cooking demonstrations • Any arts event that needs a piano, a stage or staging area, large audience • Any "large movement" event, such as aerobics,ballroom dancing, square dancing. Fitness Workout for Active Seniors (current held in Muzzey Room) • Educational programming, such as Pilgrimmage to Lexington teas, Lexington History Millenium Lectures (currently held in Muzzey Room) Inadeouacv of Rooms We have five rooms available: Dining Room, Muzzey Room, Conference Room, Classroom and Lounge. These 5 rooms are available morning and afternoon,which results in 50 potential bookings per week. All rooms are completely booked, except the Lounge,which is an inadequate meeting place because it is not enclosed by walls. Access to other offices through the Lounge creates foot traffic and noise infiltration from dining room above(especially from chorus and band) interferes with hearing. Next to the The Muzzey Room is the most inadequate. All mid to large groups (25-40 seniors) must go into Muzzey Room. Problems are as follows: Site lines are terrible due to poles Ventilation is awful It is too small and oddly shaped for 30-40 people Must turn away individuals because of space limits Coffee and refreshments are difficult to manage on lower level (stairs,no sink) Incompatible activities (exercise and discussion groups) share space,which causes furniture to be constantly set up and broken down. Important programming, such as SHINE counseling and Tax Assistance, must share space with or bump existing services. No adequate private space is available for these programs. L 49 ' J —..—__ 25 21 Q7511 9 9 LADIES 189 KITCHEN 396 16 7 8 VUti ' STORAGE 112 MAl51PE6EN 19 9 I �coKENTRY 78 a IS 1. FIRST DOORS TO STAIRWAY 529 – 184.340+100) 53 MENS 2, STAIRCASE TO OFFICES L21 3, DIANE 145 205 4. CHRIS 125 5, KITCHEN (225V1) 396 EEN 56 7 0 NINGG ROOM (1643+24) 1667 1557 12 8. RANGY 353 3383 31 DINING ROOM 116131 3 D. R. STORAGE 112 CHITS c/' 10. 11E45 205 12'0' o IL LADIES 189 2 1; 041 12 4A 26 cLDSErsI — 12, HALL CLOSETS 40 13. EXEC. LAY. 28 It ENTRY 15, EXEC CLOSET Da 12 81) 9,10' 521 121 11 121 648 ENTRY 13181 9'8' 7 (\\ I0 //1 4 4 3 DIANNE 3031 3 11 \ 9 \J 9g• a �I 15 TOTAL TI-EIS LEVEL 4031 1te® 115 1118 _ 0'B 25 4031 MANGY 11811 53,2 TOTAL FOR 60TH LEVELS 9373 3$3 [-5-;J 36' l05'5'8• `, CLDSE 5LAV 0 ai 19OK r. X 11 - 15 -99 L - XINGTO\ S- \IOR CE \T = RH ._,PP-R L -- VEL AR -AS .- __ - ._ -__ ___..—_ -__ ___. __. ___' __. .— -J ___1 L .JD 18/7 742 IL LIB, CFC, CLOT STEVE 11 17 6 I 187 ENTRY 11 5 205 BACK 41 HALL 58 I — L SHALL COMPUTER ROOM 80 16'8' 2. F. I. SHOP 388 15 12 3. GLASS 335 4. COIF, 268 5 LOUNGE 936 223' 223' 223 6 LIBRARY OFC 187 7 STEVE 187 8. UNCARPETED BILLIARDS/EXERCISE 935 SHOP CLASS GONE IL12•I57+348+157+16V LOUNGE- 935 INCLUDING STAIRWAY 9. LIBRARY 288 368335 268 935 L0. AMY 184 48 I.1 MU ZZET (392.120+190) - 935 692 4452 OCMP 33 LB 80 254 FRONT HALL 8 U 8 f 12. LIB, DEC. CLOSET 42 9 3B' 15'6' L4, LIBDREAR HALL EVE ENTRY 205 9'6 96 4� IT 181 12 IIBsi 1 ' 15. FRONT HALL 264 CLOSET 16. MUZZEY HALL 422 AHK ! LIBRARY �7 17 MUZZEY CLOSET 9612 IB 280 17. L 4 4 19. LAV2 44 N ` H == 20 LAV ENTRY 62 \\\ _ 899 191 1N510E1 =s. 11:2: WMEDD , 01® 13621 IQICL. SYAIXWAI(i Ea 2l'6' 95 NEF 4452 28 11291 I157) l}BBILL IARDS/IXERCISE 30 890 MUZZEY - Be' - TOTAL THIS LEVEL 5312 692 ` Am 14 1191 12 7W i9 11091 11611 14'6' 11 - 15 - 9966' I N EXINGTON SENIOR Cr \-FR 7ENTRY 7 529 DOWNSTAIRS - VrI AR- AS ` LAVE 8 44 5,5' I AV2 crkat a�.i 9aci ettl Appendix XII _!f &Re Sutton Mace, atitas Si 02708 :,ime ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Phone (617) 727-7750 GOVERNOR Fax(617) 727-9368 JANE SWIFT TTY/TTD 1-800-872-0166 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LILLIAN GLICKMAN 28 July 1999 SECRETARY Marilyn Campbell, Director Weston Council on Aging 44 School St. Weston, MA 02493 i � - Dear Ms.�pbell: /Vim i`r This is in response to your request for information regarding senior centers in Massachusetts. There are more than 290 senior and drop-in centers in Massachusetts. The vast majority of -these are free standing,-lo lly--fiunded-(incluSing "Friends-offgroups)-facilities ranging from-new construction to reused schools and other public buildings (including housing authority sites), regional/ multitown structures and offices in town/city halls, storefronts and community centers. The only other resources for senior centers beyond the municipality include the Mass. Department of Housing and Community Development's Small Gilles"program and a few public/private partnerships. With respect to senior center size, Elder Affairs recommends between five and six square feet per elder (more for communities with fewer than 1000 seniors). Given the changing (read: aging) — nature of the elder population, and its expected doubling in the next thirty years, it is imperative to provide for flexible, expandable space. Few senior centers in this state, even those of recent vintage, are adequate to meet long term needs; in fact, the recent comprehensive Duxbury COA study of 30 facilities in Massachusetts found none whose space met current programming requirements! Very few Councils on Aging share common space (even in part) with other municipal entities such as a iibrary or a recreation, veterans or health department. Two faciiides (Bourne, Sudbury) report no concerns with respect to allotting recreation space—given few time overlaps with other outside agency programs. However, most senior/community center directors indicate difficulties in control of space, "personality'issues, and unique design considerations for seniors. Please contact me regarding specific facilities in Massachusetts (1-800-698-9723), or to discuss any other questions relative to this topic. Sincerely, Emmett H. Schmarsow Program Manager for Councils on Aging and Senior Cent irrf7(1 r r _t!iIL JUL 3 0 199: J 0s2 �11i�1�L7LI U L Django Consider for Senior Canters - — Parking Disabled and emergency vehide access. Van awns for patrons. r1 Consider overhanging entryway. (Separate)meal delivery loading/unloading. Entry & (Endosed) Enhance vistityfiderrdfication of center. Energy conservation. Lighting transitions Vestibule (exterior-interior). Consider assisted/automatic doors(motion detectors). Display Area / Consider endased announcement/bulletin board for public notices, volunteer Shop(pe) recognition,program highlights, etc. Display racks. 1"edged cork strips in halls. Waiting / Use for bus groups awaiting departure. Guest registration /sign-in. Reception Coat storage. I Recreation & Multi-usearbve! (, )space: meals, presentations,assembly, exercise, line Assembly dancing, tai du and other. Consider intercom,A4 assistive loop, PA system. ,Audit_riun Noiseless doors. Consider chairs with 250#may; stackability; storage racks. Stage Ensure ardhrai access. Consider storage, toilets, dressing. Classes Multi-use space: adult education, training, rehearsals, music, sink/s, lockers. Arts & Crafts Seasonal and other storage. Dedicated space for computers, pottery/kiln. Dining Avoid institutirnalfeel (roundtables colorful decor,'cafe"style, and adequate --- -- -s pace-farwhedtnafrs a.service). t.oneaer access to outdoor areas. Kitchen Refrigerated, dry and temporary(vs. long temp)storage. For serving/food return, consider a"pass through." Consider restaurant style appliances, sinks, -= dishwashers. Separation of dean/soiled dishes,utensils) - ---- --- ,Ise-a-FoodSeEvice-Ala Wotan-en in -- --- - _-_ -- _ -_ �9�E 9 F�fesign-cansaltationc Lounge Quiet corners; conversation, cards, reading. Use a Physical or Occupational Therapistto design/suggest furnishings. Consider washability. Lavatories Statewide, tutees many women participate in senior center programs as do men. (There are 43%more older women than older men). Plan accordingly. Social Day Care Consider 50 sq.feet per participant Site movement Encourage walks(to lavatories)that pass by activities. Use dear/translucent glass (in doors—reduce rrecinns); consider interior blinds for support groups/programs. Administration Staff, board meetings/spedai functions, individual(confidential) services. - Computer&copier accessibility. Lavatory near director, nurse and/or outreach space. Use of glass/curtains/blinds. Supply storage. F'uiiding Services Corridors"short, wide. eventful." Consider recessed benches. Ej•en uharira 1 ;n s essential. Consider covered rant. Ensure tle:f actures are ;perec'e '.4•'• closed fist. Suggested: assisted main doors; interior FM loop; overhead speaker partitioning for divisible rooms; wiring for modems. Lockers for volunteers. Outdoor Rec. Consider fitness paths, exercise, picnic or quiet areas. 4 Maximize multipurpose/shared space possibilities—through floor-ceiling (movable) partitions. Design for ultimate use of five to six sq. feet per elder(allow more square feet/elder in towns with fewer than 1000 seniors) or"stub" construction for cost-effective expansion. idNer.Exec.Office of Eder Affairs June 99frev1 EHS -i 53 — — _ __ _ _ seniors Age 60+ in Lexington 40000- e 0 30000—et j a e 20000- a 410000- MI 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Decade Total Population 31866 29479 28974 28404 27767 270001 Seniors (60+) 3718 4905 6599 1 7070 8133 8640 I % Seniors 60+ 12% 17% 23% 125% 129% 132% 1 I Total Population ® Seniors (60+) I m r- x x H H H Seniors Age 75 + in Lexington 4000 3000-- - I a 2000 N c 1000 4 CID 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Seniors (75+) 1058 1468 2167 3071 3388 3896 , Decadercs r x H H Appendix XV TOWN OF LEXINGTON STOWN PROFILE 1999 TOWN TOTAL POPULATION 31,984 MALES 15,117 FEMALES 16,867 K RESIDENTS (17 AND OVER) 25,564 AGE GROUPS: UNDER 20 7,762 20-29 2,835 it 30-39 4,135 i40-49 5,635 50-59 4,383 60-69 2,968 70-79 2,565 80+ 1,701 REGISTERED VOTERS 21,077 ' DEMOCRAT 8,613 ■ REPUBLICAN 3,309 UNENROLLED 9,113 OTHERS 42 PERCENT REGISTERED 83 % ...,,�� APPENDIX TO 1999 RESIDENT BOOK 56