HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-20-1996 - X-B r
• 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 20, 1996
SUBJECT: Orange County Senior Centers Development Plan: 1996-2000
-------------------------------- -------------------------------
DEPARTMENT Aging PUBLIC HEARING YES NO _x-
-------------------------------- -------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT
Final Report on the Jerry M. Passmore, ext. 2000
Senior Centers Development Plan
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE: To submit to the Board of County Commissioners the final
report on the Senior Centers Development Plan: 1996- 2000
prepared by the Senior Centers Development Plan Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County Commissioners approved in May, 1994 the
establishment of a county wide Senior Centers Development
Plan Committee and a planning process. The Committee' s
charge was to prepare a long-range county plan for developing
senior citizens centers into the 21st Century. The thirteen
member Committee was recruited in the fall of 1994 and began
its work in February, 1995 with the review of past reports,
current senior center operations and demographic projections.
After site visits to all senior centers and community
centers, the Committee developed and presented
recommendations in an Interim Report to the BOCC on January
16, 1996. On the request of the BOCC, the interim Report was
presented to the Town Boards of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. In addition, nine public hearings were held in
March, 1996 for further input/comment before the final plan
was prepared for BOCC approval.
Page 1 of 2
2
FUTURE SENIOR CENTERS: THE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS. In light of
of the historical developments, future population growth and
distribution, coordination of aging services, state standards
for centers and cost constraints for the development and
operation of senior centers, the Committee recommended a
Centralized-Decentralized Model. Specifically, the Senior
Centers Development Plan recommends the following:
(1) Establish a large multipurpose Senior Center in
Hillsborough with a adult day care component.
(2) Purchase the existing Chapel Hill multipurpose Senior
Center and adjoining space for adult day care and other
multipurpose activities.
(3) Develop and expand satellite outreach senior programs
located in the population areas of Carrboro, Efland-
Cheeks Community Center, Cedar Grove-Northern Orange
Community Center and Chapel Hill/Northside area at the
Southern Orange Senior Center.
(4) Support for all Senior Centers and Satellite Outreach
Programs must in part be from a Friends organization to
promote a sense of community ownership, financial support
as well as volunteers.
(5) Support for the two multipurpose senior Centers should
come from a funding alliance with their respective town
(Chapel Hill or Hillsborough) , the County and the Friends
of each Center.
(6) Management of the two multipurpose senior centers and the
coordination of services at the four decentralized
satellite senior programs will be the responsibility of
the Orange County Department on Aging.
(7) The Orange County Advisory Board on Aging will be
responsible for reviewing the implementation and any
modifications of the adopted Senior Centers Plan on an
annual basis and report to the County Commissioners.
(8) The Orange County Department on Aging in cooperation with
the Advisory Board on Aging would develop a funding plan
by December, 1996 for the facility expansion or
improvements approved in the Senior Centers Plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : The County Manager recommends the Board of County
Commissioners receive the final report on the Senior
Centers Development Plan as information at this time.
FN:AB60820B.Doc r
Page 2 of 2
3
Orange County
Senior Centers Development Plan: 1996 - 2000
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
The Orange County Board of Commissioners
By
The Senior Centers Development Plan Committee
Jerry M. Passmore, County Aging Director/Staff Support
August 20, 1996
4
ORANGE COUNTY
SENIOR CENTERS DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1996-2000
August, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Structure
The establishment of a county wide Senior Centers Development Plan
Committee and planning process was approved by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners in May, 1994. (Appendix A) It's purpose was to prepare a
long-range county plan for developing senior centers to serve all older
adults into the 21st century. In the fall of 1994 the thirteen members of the
Senior Centers Development Plan Committee were recruited and selected from
the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough, the Orange County
Advisory Board on Aging and the seven townships. (Appendix B)
Planning Process
The Committee began its planning in February, 1995 with the review of current
senior center operations, demographic data and past reports. Actual visits to
senior centers and community centers took place during the summer before the
Committee developed recommendations in the Interim Report to the Board of
County Commissioners on January 16, 1996. Because of the importance of the
Plan, the Committee deliberately revised the timetable for completing the
planning process to May-June, 1996. (Appendix A) Additional planning tasks
scheduled were interim report presentations to Town boards (Hillsborough:
Feb. 12; Carrboro: Feb. 20; and Chapel Hill: March 25) and public hearings in
March. The nine public hearings with 214 attendees and 135 completed
Input/Comment Sheets (Appendix C - Public Hearings) highly supported
the overall senior centers draft plan and its recommendations. Comments
and suggestions from the public hearings are incorporated in this final report.
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Population Growth and Distribution. According to the 1990 Census there
were some 10,959 Orange County residents over sixty years of age from a total
population of 93,851. The projected older(60+) population growth is as follows:
Year 1995 - 12, 461, Year 2000 - 14,012, Year 2005 - 16,529, Year 2010 -20,510
Page 1 of 16
The county's oldest population (85+) is the fastest growing segment,
projected to increase by 87% by the year 2005. (Appendix D)
5
Approximately two-thirds of all county older adults 60+ (6,424) reside in the
Chapel Hill township. This number is likely to increase significantly as a result
of Money Magazine's recognition of Chapel Hill in 1994 as one of the top
retirement communities in the United States. The other one-third of all older
adults are distributed throughout the other six townships in central and northern
Orange. (Appendix E) Approximately 81% of all county older adults are White
and most live in southern Orange. A high concentration of minority elderly
(65+) reside in central and northwest Orange County. The largest township,
Chapel Hill, has only 16.5% (804) minority elderly. The percentage of minority
elderly (65+) in the township from highest to lowest is as follows:
Township %/# of Minority Elderly (65+)
1. Cedar Grove 42% (204)
2. Cheeks 26% (144)
3. Hillsborough 25% (287)
4. Chapel Hill 16.5% (804)
5. Bingham 15% (60)
6. Eno 11% (52)
7. .Little River 5% (6)
The highest and lowest concentration of elderly (65+) poor and living alone
also reside in the central and northern Orange townships. The national average
for elderly living alone is approximately 30% and classifed as poor is 19.5%.
1996 Federal DHHS poverty guidelines are $7,740 for single and $10,360 for a
couple, and $12,980 for a family of three. The percentage of elderly (65+) poor
and live alone by township is as follows:
Township %/# of Elderly Poor %/# of Elderly Live Aone
1. Cheeks 45% (256) 47% (264)
2. Cedar Grove 24% (117) 48% (238)
3. Hillsborough 19% (221) 41% (480)
4. Bingham 10% (42) 36% (144)
5. Chapel Hill 9.7% (433) 34% (1,662)
6. Eno 7% (34) 30% (145)
7. Little River 9% (12) 17% (22)
Community Focal Point. Many older adults expressed the need for a
facility(s) that would be a highly visible focal point for services and
activities of many kinds. It should be easily accessible with adequate space
and be acceptable to the majority of seniors adults. In addition, Senior Centers
Page 2 of 16
f
6
should provide a meeting place to find friendship and support as well as
deal effectively with issues, concerns and interests of older adults.
Coordination of Services. Public and private agency services for older adults
have grown dramatically, but are often planned independently of each other.
Because of limited facility space activities, and services are scattered in
several community locations. This makes it difficult for older persons to know
where to go to meet particular needs.
III. GOAL STATEMENT
As more and more citizens reach "retirement age" with special needs and
characteristics, planning a comprehensive service delivery model should be, and
must be of vital concern to Orange County. The planning goal is to establish a
senior center network for the delivery of coordinated human services and
opportunities to a diverse older population. This will require innovative
strategies in securing financial support, appropriate center design and locations.
Also, relevant and responsive senior center programming, such as health
promotion for the well senior and long term care for the disabled and oldest
senior citizens, will be required.
IV. DEFINITION OF SENIOR CENTERS & CHARACTERISTICS
A Senior Center is defined as a facility for older adults which serves a
designated geographic area and provides a broad program of individual
services and group activities. " According to the National Institute for Senior
Centers, " the purpose of a Senior Center is to be a community focal point for a
designated geographic area which identifies needs and implements a
comprehensive program of services and activities to enhance the quality of life
for older adults." (NISC Self-Assessment Workbook)
Progam Requirements. According to N.C. Division of Aging Standards, a
Senior Center must provide through its own resources or through linkages and
agreements with other organizatons the following basic services:
1. Multigroup activities and individual services
2. Information and referral to the public and satellite senior programs
3. Outreach program with and through satellite senior programs
4. Health and Wellness Promotion to the public and satellite senior programs
5. Transportation services
Page 3 of 16
Delivery Requirements. According to N.C. Divsion of Aging Standards, a
Senior Center must be open at least 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.
Satellite Centers may operate less than 8 hours per day. Information on
services and activities must be posted and publicized. Coordination with
community services must be documented and input must be received from older
adults on center policies and procedures. The Center must be staffed by a full-
time paid Director and by paid or volunteer personnel capable of implementing
its program. A satellite center must be staffed by a paid manager who is
available during the hours of operation. Senior Center management training is
required of staff.
Ideal Facility Characteristics. Several facility characteristics have been
identified in the literature as ideal. They are as follows:
1. Is perceived as serving all or most older adults, potential and actual users in
the geographic service area. (Acceptability Factor)
2. Provides exclusive space in order to maintain identity, even though shared
with other age groups when not in use. (Identity Factor)
3. Maintains a wholistic approach to serving older adults; concern with all of
their needs. (Comprehensive Factor)
4. Is highly visible to older adults and the community. The center should be
clearly identified with a permanent outdoor sign. (Visibility Factor)
5. Is centrally located. The center should be located on a much-travelled street,
public area, conveniently located and easliy accessible to bus service.
(Accessibility Factor)
6. Has adequate parking. Parking space should be available and accessible for
older adult and staff use, especially for handicapped. (Accessibility Factor)
7. Is accessible to the handicapped. There should be special provisions for
handicapped older adults, such as handrails, ramps, wide electronic doors,
grab-bars, etc. (Functional Group Capacity Factor)
8. Involves older adults. The center operations and management should utilize
the skills of older adults and participants as employees, volunteers, advisory
and governing board members. (Volunteer Leadership Factor)
Page 4 of 16
8
V. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SENIOR CENTER FACILITIES
Since 1980 the Orange County Department on Aging has been managing Senior
Centers. In 1995 the Department was responsible for four Senior Centers and
provides transportation and senior programs at two Community Centers
(Appendix F- Center Locations). A comparative profile of the current facilities
and their use was prepared. (Appendix G)
The Department employs a Senior Centers Administrator who does overall
planning, as well as arranging, scheduling and publicizing programs, classes
and individualized services at each senior center. The Senior Times newspaper
coverage of each center is coordinated by the Administrator. Additionally, the
Administrator supervises the Facility Managers at each center location. They, in
turn, are responsible for overseeing daily activities as they occur, handling
registration and fee collections, responding to walk-in information requests and
managing room setup, scheduling and facility maintenance issues. JOCCA also
employs part time nutrition program managers at the Hillsborough, Carrboro,
and Southern Orange Senior Centers. The Dept. on Aging manages the
nutrition program at the Chapel Hill Center and reports to JOCCA. The
Community Centers at Efland-Cheeks and Northern Orange (Cedar Grove) are
managed by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department which
provides facility staff and oversight of programs for all ages. JOCCA also has
staff at these sites for their senior citizen nutrition program and to serve all ages.
The Department on Aging does not have on site staff at these sites.
The following is a brief description of the four senior centers and the two
community centers that serve older adults in Orange County. Each site
description includes an analysis as to their level of visibility, accessiblity and
acceptability.
The Hillsborough Senior Center. This center is the oldest ( established in
1980 with federal funds). It is located in the Whiffed Human Services Center, a
large governmental building shared with health, mental health and social service
clients of all ages. The administrative office space for the Department on Aging
and Transportation (OPT) is very cramped and small (350 sq. ft. for 7 staff plus
10 drivers) as is the senior center space (2,668 sq.ft.- 3 rooms not including the
hallway or restrooms). The hallway serves as a drop in lounge area, primarily
for the men. The older women generally gather in the nutrition room or
participate in a class in the Arts/Crafts room.
Hillsborough Township is second to Chapel Hill in the concentration of older
adults. This is the third most used facility surpassed only by the Chapel Hill and
Carrboro Senior Centers.
Page 5 of 16
0
9
Facility Summary. Hillsborough Center is centrally located, but lacks space to
accomodate large groups of seniors (40+). Parking is limited. The designated
center rooms within the building are scattered. Many people are unaware of the
Center's existence because of the lack of outdoor signage. The Whitted
building looks institutional - neither user friendly nor attractive. There is a lack
of volunteer leadership, such as the Friends of the Chapel Hill Center,.to help
promote the Center. Programs which have been successful at other centers
have been cancelled in Hillsborough for lack of interest or awareness. Because
of its limited space and governmental location, the Center's programming has
been targeted to low income and frail older adults.
The Carrboro Senior Center. This Center is located in a wing of the ArtsCenter
in the downtown business district and is approximately 1 1/2 miles from the
Southern Orange (Northside) Senior Center. The Center is composed of two
w rental rooms (2,122 sq.ft), plus other rooms that may be used when available.
There are no Department on Aging administrative offices, no drop-in lounge area
and just two small offices for the Center Manager and the JOCCA nutrition site
manager. The Dept.on Aging pays the ArtsCenter $14,132 a year(1995) for the
rented space and on all utilities.
Facility Summary. The Carrboro Center is accessible and is in a good location.
However, parking is limited , space sharing problems exist with the ArtsCenter
and there is a lack of visibility. The Carrboro Recreation Department assists in
creating an awareness of programs and services. This is the second most used
facility and its level of services remain stable. Some participants choose to also
use the new Chapel Hill Senior Center which has the space for a greater variety
of programs. Recently, a separate outside entrance door was installed into the
Carrboro Senior Center space and lettering placed on the door.
The Southern Orange Senior Center. This Center is housed in a section of a
building shared with the Dept. of Social Services, Child Day Care Center and
JOCCA. It is located in downtown Chapel Hill in the Northside Neighborhood
Community. The building serves primarily low-income and minority persons of
all ages. For the past 20 years, this facility has been used as a JOCCA
nutrition site. The Center space is limited: two rooms (1,800 sq.ft.), a large
multi-purpose room, and a small inadequate Arts/Crafts room. The use of
the building conference room and lounge area is shared with other agencies.
The Southern Orange building is scheduled to be occupied by OPC Mental
Health Center once a new Southern Orange Human Service Center is
constructed on Homestead Rd. in January,1998.
Facility Summary. The Southern Orange Center, because of its history,
residential location and limited space, has a neighborhood °Club Atmosphere".
The Center has an active program with over 50 members in the Golden Age
Page 6 of 16
10
Happy Circle Club, with predominately Black membership. The Southern
Orange multi-use building looks institutional. It is neither user-friendly in
design nor attractive. Parking is limited. The volunteer leadership is the
Golden Age Happy Circle Club and its officers. The center programming has
been primarily for low-income and older minority seniors. Morning programs
(Arts/Crafts, exercise, speakers), a luncheon, and minimal afternoon activities
are provided. The Center partially meets a need of those who have been
attending for many years. It is not visible nor accessible and it needs
improvement.
The Chapel Hill Senior Center. This Center is located in the Galleria shopping
center just off 15-501 Highway, the busiest traffic artery in Chapel Hill. It is the
newest (established in 1991) and largest center occupying 12,000 sq.ft. The
space is divided into a reception area, a manager's office, a courtyard, a kitchen,
a lounge area, an auditorium and three meeting/activity rooms. In addition, the
Center houses program offices for RSVP, a Wellness Center, Information and
Case Assistance, and the administrator of all the senior centers. It is the only
free-standing center in the county and is identified by large outdoor wall sign.
Chapel Hill Township has the highest concentration of older adults and this
Center is by far the most used facility, averaging over 200 people a day. The
Center is a public-private partnership involving the County, the Town of Chapel
Hill, and the Friends of the Chapel Hill Senior Center. The Friends is a
non-profit organization of primarily senior citizens who raise funds, promote
awareness of the center and serve as volunteers for center functions. They
provide funds for center renovations and contribute one-third the rent. The
Town of Chapel Hill provides funds to cover the center's utilities and
maintenance, plus leisure programming at the center. The County Department
on Aging provides center staffing, programming and two-thirds the rental
expense ($59,496 in 1995) and some of the maintenance.
Facility Summary. The Chapel Hill Senior Center is by far the most used, the
most visible and accessible, and serves predominately White seniors. The
Center is non- institutional, very user-friendly in design, and attractive. The
Friends provide the major volunteer leadership in the center operation. Parking
and lack of space are problems occassioned by its success in attracting more
older adults than all other centers combined. Because it has more space than
the other centers it is able to provide a more varied program.
The Efland-Cheeks Community Center. This is a fairly new (established in
1990) facility serving all ages. It is close to the center of the township off US
70 Hwy. The center is accessible to and is used primarily by low-income
people and the Black community. Because of its limited space (one large
multi-purpose room), the Center has a neighborhood "Club Atmosphere". The
facility is non-institutional, user-friendly in design and attractive, but not very
visible. The volunteer leadership is the Senior Citizens Club and its officers.
Page 7 of 16
11
The center programming serves mostly low-income and older minority residents
with morning activities (Arts/Crafts, exercise, shopping), lunch and minimal
afternoon activities. The average daily nutrition attendence is 26 persons.
The Northern Orange Community Center. This center is located on US 86
Hwy in Cedar Grove in an old Black elementary school and serves children as
well as older adults. There is no identification sign and no main entrance to the
building, creating problems for newcomers. The building is neither user-
friendly in design nor attractive, and it needs repair. The senior citizens rooms
are scattered and poorly lit. The seniors and children share the large lunch
room at the same time. Currently, the center programming, consisting of
morning activities and lunch, is primarily for low-income and older minority
residents. Like the Efland-Cheeks Community Center and the Southern Orange
(Northside) Senior Center, this center mainly serves people from the Black
community. This facility is not visible, accessible, or serves a majority of
seniors in the broad northern Orange (Cedar Grove and Little River townships)
area. The average daily nutrition attendance is 25 persons.
VI. CRITICAL FACTORS IN PLANNING SENIOR CENTERS
Before redesigning or planning any new senior centers in Orange County, four
critical factors must be recognized and addressed: (1) the basic designs of
senior center facilities, (2) the diversity of the older population and services they
need, (3) the types of senior centers based on their programming and (4) the
centralizing vs decentralizing of senior center operations.
A. Two Basic Senior Center Designs. In investigating and visiting various
senior centers, two distinct facility designs emerged:
1. A separate special purpose facility for seniors only. This type of design is
found in the Chapel Hill Senior Center.
2. An interQenerational facility. This type of design involves serving seniors
as part of a larger facility serving all age groups. Orange county's three
other senior centers reflect this design: The Hillsborough Senior Center
is on the ground floor of the Richard E. Whitted Human Services Center;
the Southern Orange Senior Center is a section of the Southern Orange
Human Services Building #1, and the Carrboro Senior Center is a section
of the ArtsCenter.
Page 8 of 16
12
B. The Diversity of the Older Population and Needed Services.
We need to recognize that older adults are a diverse population with varying
degrees of functional abilities. Three functional subgroups of older adults
have been identifed: the "Fit-Well", the "Frail- Disabled" and the "Fragile-
Institutionalized". These might be viewed as the three "stages of aging"
over time and are more specifically described below. (Appendix H)
1. Fit/Well Seniors. Most (almost 80%) of the people over age 60 in this
country fall into this category. Though many of these "Well-Active"
persons have a chronic health problem, these problems do not constitute
a major impairment or prevent them from living their usual way of life.
Senior Center planning for this group is usually for group activities and
services for productive living and the maintenance of good health.
2. Frail/Disabled Seniors. Just over 15% of older adults (60+) have
health problems serious enough to make them "frail". Typically, they
experience difficulty with one or more of the common activities of daily
living (ADL) such as bathing, dressing, eating, toileting and moving
around. Disabled Seniors may also have difficulty with specific
"instrumental" life tasks (IADL) such as preparing meals, doing
necesssary shopping and light housekeeping or using a telephone.
Thus, center planning focuses on this smaller group of older adults with
rehabilitative services to support and provide the help needed in their
homes to continue to live independently. These are known as
community-based long term care services.
3. Fragile/Institutionalized Seniors. Finally, there is the 5% of older adults
(60+) who are sufficiently ill and impaired as to be genuinely "fragile",
and who need to have almost constant care or supervision either in their
home or in a residential setting. Center planning focuses on being the
point of contact for the provision of 24 hour protective care or assistance
to care givers (such as day health care or support groups in a center) in
order to do all that can be done for Seniors to remain as active and
socially involved as is possible.
C. Types of Senior Centers Based on Programming. Again, three types of
centers emerge based on the center programming emphasis and
available space.
1. Multi-activity type. This type of center focuses its resources on social
and recreational activities that emphasize meeting interactional needs
Page 9 of 16
13
with others and thus, create new relationships. Examples are games,
classes, dances, pot-luck dinners and senior citizen clubs.
2. Multi-service type. This type of center focuses its resources on
programs that involve individual service needs. Examples are
information/ referral, health services (flu shots, blood pressure checks),
nutritious meals, tax and insurance assistance, case management,
placement services ( volunteering, jobs), home maintenance (chores,
repairs) and special support groups.
3. Multi-purpose type. This type of center tries to maintain a balance
between group activities and individual services as described above. In
addition, some multi-purpose centers attempt to also be multi-
functional type carrying out training, research, advocacy, outreach,
and community planning.
D. Centralized vs Decentralized Center Operations. Both of these
operational models have specific advantages as well as disadvantages.
1. Centralized Center. This model employs administration and staff
at a single site center which covers a geographic service area having
no satellites. All needed activities/services are housed in one
facility. Key to the model is locating the center at or near the heart of
the older population to be served, or at least at the midpoint of
transportation routes.
Specific advantages. A centralized center, especially a large one, can
be recognized as the one place to channel services, saving time and
energy, as well as money. It can provide a greater number and variety
of programs/services and avoid unnecessary duplication of services. It
is more likely to distribute services and opportunities to all older adults
equally than small satellite centers.
Specific disadvantages. A centralized center without adequate space
or transportation services is not able to serve potential senior citizens in
the geographic service area. Seniors may be forced to interact with
others outside their local neighborhood and thus, feel de- personalized
or not feel part of the center.
2. Decentralized Center. This model calls for locating staff and services
in neighborhood facilities covering smaller designated geographic
service area.
Page 10 of 16
14
Specific advantages. At decentralized centers transportation may be
less of a problem. The centers may offer the opportunity for more
persons to become involved as leaders in their community. It may prove
more beneficial in meeting the cultural needs of various local groups.
Specific disadvantages. Several decentralized centers, especially
small ones, covering the same service area as a larger centralized one,
require more paid staff to operate. In addition, effective communication
between sites may be difficult to maintain, and thus older adults may
lose the unity for social action.
VII. FUTURE SENIOR CENTERS: RECOMMENDATIONS
Center Development Options. In light of historical developments, future
population growth and distribution, coordination of aging services, NCDOA
senior center standards and cost constraints for the development and operation
of senior centers, two senior center development options were considered
for the long term.
OPTION #1: CENTRALIZED CENTER MODEL.
Establish two large multi-purpose Senior Centers located in Chapel Hill,
and Hillsborough with designated non-overlapping geographic service
areas. The senior programs at the Efland and Northern Orange (Cedar Grove)
Community Centers would be consolidated and all participants transported to
the new comprehensive Hillsborough Senior Center. The senior programs at
Carrboro and Southern Orange Senior Centers would be consolidated and all
participants transported to the new comprehensive Chapel Hill Senior Center.
OPTION #2: CENTRALIZED- DECENTRALIZED MODEL
Establish two large multi-purpose (and Multi function) Senior Centers
located in Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough with the further development of
satellite outreach senior programs. The purpose of the outreach senior
programs is to target areas with a high concentration of low-income
persons, isolated populations (live alone), and older adult minority
members.
Page 11 of 16
15
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Senior Center Network Model. The Senior Centers Development Plan
Committee carefully reviewed the two senior center development models and
recommend Option #2: Centralized-Decentralized Model. Specifically,
1. A Large Mulltipurpose Center should be located in each of the two
townships which have the highest concentration of elderly 60+ in the
County, namely Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, (8.006). 73% of all county
elderly reside in these two townships.
2. Satellite Outreach Senior Programs should continue to be located in the
following older population areas:
(A) Carrboro at the ArtsCenter.
Rationale: Offers diverse and unique programs in the arts in con-
junction with the Carrboro Recreation Dept. & serves
older persons who identify with Carrboro community.
(B) Cheeks Township at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center.
Rationale:The highest concentration in the county of the elderly
poor (45%), second highest percentage of elderly who
live alone (47%), and minority (26%).
(C) Cedar Grove Township at the Northern Orange Community Center.
Rationale: The highest concentration in the county of isolated elderly
who live alone (48%) as well as minority elderly (42%),
and second highest of poor elderly (42%).
(D) Chapel Hill/Northside area at the Southern Orange Senior Center.
Rationale: The highest concentration of minority elderly in Chapel
Hill reside in the Northside Community. To reflect the
program focus, the facility name should be changed to
the Northside Community Center.
B. Center Administration.
The Orange County Department on Aging should be responsible for the
operation/ management of the two Multi-purpose Senior Centers and for
the coordination of services at the four decentralized satellite senior
centers.
Page 12 of 16
16
C. Facility Design.
1. All existing and future facility design should meets OSHA and ADA
handicapped standards.
2. The two Multipurpose Senior Centers should be free-standing, separate
exclusive facility for seniors only. (not located within government
buildings or all-age community centers.)
3. The two Multipurpose Senior Centers should be accessible, visible, and
attractive as well as acceptable locations for most senior citizens.
4 . The Center facilities should accomodate an average daily attendence
between 125-175 older persons at the Hillsborough Senior Center
(10,000 - 15,000 sq.ft), and between 200-300 older persons at the
Chapel Hill Senior Center (20,000-25,000 sq.ft.). Source: Senior Center
Design by J. Jordan
5. The Southern Orange- Northside Senior Citizens Center should have
additional 1,500 sq. ft. of space allotted for multiple activities such as
arts/crafts sewing area, storage and lounge to take place at the same
time. The Public hearing indicated the desire by senior citizens to remain
at Northside rather than relocate to Hargraves Community Center, two
blocks away, or to another location. Concern by senior citizens was
expressed about the consequences if OPC Mental Health Center is
allocated Social Services space when they relocate to the new Southern
Orange Government Center.
6. The Efland-Cheeks Community Center should be expanded with an
additional 1,500 sq. ft of space to accomodate enhanced programming
and activities such crafts storage, larger stage and pool table, as well as
assess and optimize existing space. The facility should continue to be a
community center not just a senior center.
7. The Northern Orange Human Services Center should be re-designed
(partitioning, etc.) so that existing space will be able to offer better
services and additional programs. In addition, all senior citizen space
should be relocated to the south wing of the building which is closest to
the parking area. A handicap ramp and covered entrance with
porch/waiting area should be constructed. An outdoor senior center sign
should be posted. This would provide increased visibility and
accessibility for the center.
Page 13 of 16
i
17
8. The Carrboro Senior Center at the ArtsCenter should establish a new
agreement to utilize more space for senior citizens with outdoor signs on
the facility awning and at the street. For more space and visibility, the
Public Hearing indicated a desire for a free standing senior center by
acquiring space at another location or locating land to eventually
construct a new senior center such as on the property of the United
Church/New Covenant Senior Housing Project ( Smith Level & Culbreth).
D. Service Area.
1. The Chapel Hill Senior Center's designated service area should be the
townships of Chapel Hill and Bingham with a senior (60+) population of
9,342. The Hillsborough Senior Center designated service area should
be the townships of Eno, Hillsborough, Cheeks, Cedar Grove and Little
River with a Senior 60+ population of 4,670. (Est. by year 2000)
E. Program Design.
1. The Senior Centers should have a wholistic approach- assisting with all of
the older adults' needs and serving the diverse older population-the Well,
the Disabled and Institutionalized people.
2. The Senior Centers should be multi-purpose and comprehensive in their
programming, and include:
a. Focus on both multi- activities and individual services.
b. Information center to the public and to satellite senior programs
c. Care management resource center for the public and frail older persons.
d. Coordinated outreach program with and through any satellite senior
programs.
e. Health and Wellness Promotion Center
f. Community planning (needs identification and service provision)
g. Transportation services center
h. Research and training site in association with area universities and
agencies.
i. Adult day care wing for frail older adult.
j. Central Arts/crafts outlet for seniors (homebound & at satellite centers)
k. Drop-in lounge area.
I. Large kitchen for food preparation and service.
3. The Satellite Outreach Senior Centers at Efland, Cedar Grove,
Northside (Downtown Chapel Hill), and Carrboro should be multipurpose
(group activities and individual services), but targeted to the special
Page 14 of 16
• 1
18
socioeconomic, cultural needs of area older adults. The minimum
programming should include:
a. Meals/Nutrition (daily)
b. Arts/crafts classes (daily)
c. Educational classes (weekly)
d. Recreation/fitness (weekly)
e. Volunteer opportunities (daily)
f. Information/referral,esp. public assistance (daily)
h. Insurance/tax assistance (weekly)
i. Health Promotion- blood pressure and classes (weekly)
k. Drop-in lounge area (daily)
F. Funding Design and Strategy.
1. The Orange County Advisory Board on Aging in cooperation with Dept. on
Aging should be directed to develop a funding plan by December, 1996 for
the facility expansion or improvement approved in the Senior Centers
Development Plan.
2. The Hillsborough Senior Center and Satellite Outreach Senior Centers
must be supported, in part, by a Friends organization or other supportive
groups. This promotes a sense of community ownership, financial support
as well as volunteering.
3. The two Multipurpose Senior Centers should be supported by a funding
alliance with their respective towns (Chapel Hill and Hillsborough), the
County and the Friends of each Center.
4. The Satellite Senior Outreach Programs also should be supported by a
funding alliance with their respective community, the County; and the
Friends organizations.
5. For the immediate future ( 1996-97), the County should investigate the
purchase of the existing Chapel Hill Senior Center property and the adjoining
space for adult day care and other multi-purpose activities. If unsuccessful,
a search committee should be formed to identify available property/land in
the east Chapel Hill business area where the highest concentration of
older adults reside. (Appendix I - Past Developments at the Chapel Hill
Senior Center)
6. In the immediate future (1996-97), the County should locate property
(preferrably donated land) in the Hillsborough area for the construction of a
free- standing Multipurpose Senior Center by the year 2000.
Page 15 of 16
1
19
7. In the immediate future (1996-97), the County, in cooperation with the Town
of Carrboro, should explore the initial development of a Carrboro Senior
Center on property of the United Church/New Covenant Senior Housing
Project. (Smith Level and Culbreth Rd.) or other donated land.
G. Plan Oversight.
Once the Senior Centers Plan is adopted, the Orange County Advisory Board
on Aging should review the implementation status of the recommendations,
or consider modifications on an annual basis and report back to the County
Commissioners..
Prepared for the Orange County Senior Centers Development Plan Committee
by Jerry M. Passmore, Director , Orange County Department on Aging.
Special Thanks to Department on Aging Support Staff:
Janice Tyler, Senior Centers Administrator
Katherine Leith, I/R Specialist
FN:SCPLN896.Doc (Final Report to BOCC, August 20, 1996)
Page 16 o 16
r
20
Appendix A
ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CENTERS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS: MEMBERSHIP, PROCEDURE AND TIMEFRAME
Revised January, 1996
PURPOSE: To prepare a long-range county senior centers development plan(SCDP)
for Board of County Commissioners approval and Community supported..
TASKS COMPLETION DATE
1. Recruit and select SCDP committee members January, 1995
A. Request two appointments by the Town of
Chapel Hill and one appointment by the
Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough.
B. Request two appointments by the Orange County
Advisory Board on Aging.
C Select one representative from each Township
by the County Commissioners.
2. Hold SCDP Committee meetings to review/analyze the Feb.-Apr., 1995.
following minimum background materials:
A. Current Senior Center Facilities: management,
budget, activities and citizen use.
B. State and national standards for center operations
developed by NC Division of Aging(NCDOA) and
the National Countil on Aging(NCOA).
C. The 1991 Report of the Task Force on Southern Orange,
The Establishment of a Senior Center Network Model:
Long and Short Recommendations.
D. The 1993 Report on Southern Orange Senior Center:
Developments since the 1991 Task Force's
recommendations.
E. Senior Center space in the proposed new Southern Orange
Human Services Center on Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill.
F. The County Aging Board's 1993 Senior Center
recommendations covering all of Orange County.
3. Visit all current Orange County Senior Centers and Apr.-June, 1995
community centers that serve older adults.
Pagel of 2
21
t
4. Establish policy recommendations covering the number, Aug.-Oct., 1995
design, functions, services, and location of senior
centers throughout Orange County for both the short
and long term.
5. Prepare and complete Senior the Centers Development Plan Nov., 1995
Interim Report, five-year period to the year 2000 and beyond.
6. Present the draft Senior Centers Development Plan tothe the Dec.,1995
SCDP Committee for approval and the Orange County Advisory
Board on Aging for review/comment.
7 Present the Senior Centers Development Plan Interim Jan., 1996
Report to the Board of County Commissioners for review,
and comment.
8. Present the Senior Centers Development Plan Interim February, 1996
Report to the Town Councils (Hillsborough, Carrboro
and Chapel Hill)for review and comment .
9. Hold public hearings at centers and other locations by Feb.-March, 1996
the SCDP Committee to receive comments on the Plan.
10. Hold final SCDP Committee meeting to make necessary April-May, 1996
changes in the Plan.
11. Present the final Plan to the Orange County Aging May-June, 1996
Advisory Board for review and comment.
12. Present the Senior Centers Development Plan: 1996- June-August, 1996
2000 to the Board of County Commissioners for
final review, changes and adoption.
13. Present to Town Councils of Chapel Hill, Carrboro August-Sept., 1996
and Hillsborough for review and action.
(Orange County Advisory Board on Aging, approved March 24, 1994. Process
updated by SCDP Committee Jan. and Dec., 1995 and BOCC in Jan.,1996).)
FN: SCPLANPR.DOC
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX B
. 22
ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CENTERS DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMDUTTEE
MEIIIBERSHIP LIST- 1995
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONLNUSSIONERS APPONTIN NTS:
Chapel Hill Township: Frances Hargraves
108 Caldwell St.
Chapel Dill, NC 27516
942-5847
Bingham Township: Bob Schmidt
4405 Borland Road
E$and,NC 27243
563-3504
Cheeks Township: Roy McAdoo
P.O. Box 153.
E$aad, NC 27243
Hillsborough Twp: Louise Clayton
P.O. Box 541
Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-3320
Eno Township: Mary Bacon .
3801 St.Mary's Rd.
Msborough,NC 27278
732-3282
Cedar Grove Twp Ina Wbitted
JOCCA-Cedar Grove
732-8194
Little River Twp: Frances Hamlin
7300 NC 157 West
Rougemont,NC 27572
732-3444
23
ORANGE COUM ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING APPOINTIMLNTS:
At-Large: Betty Am Hayes
Orange County Register of Dads
Hillsborough,NC
732-8181, act. 2676
Ruth Long
437 W. Tryon St.
fflllsborougb,NC 27278
732-2948
TOWN OF CHAPEL TmI APPOINT5MM:
Chapel Hill
Resident: Betty Landsbager
807 King's Mill Rd.
Chapel Hill,NC 27514
929-3919
George Snowden:
413 Lake Shore Lane
Chapel Hill,NC 27514
TOWN OF CARRBORO APPOVffMENTS:
Carrboro
Resident: Elizabeth Hutton
409 Lindsey St.
Carrboro,NC 27510
942-2276
TOWN OF MLLnOROUGH APPOOTMENT:
Town of Kills.
Resident: Ted Moore
116 E. Union St.
ILllsborough,NC 27278
732-3625
FN: SCDP-MEM.DOC
PUBLIC HEARINGS REPORT Appendix C
ON 24
THE SENIOR CENTERS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
March, 1996
In order to receive citizen comments on the interim report and recommendations, public
hearings were held in March at nine locations throughout the county at senior centers,
community centers and churches. The schedule of public meetings was as follows:
Location Date Attendance # Survey #
1. Recreation & Parks Bldg, Hillsborough March 4, 11 am 25 23
2. Chapel Hill Senior Center at the Galleria March 7, 2 pm 40 17
3. Carrboro Sr. Center at ArtsCenter March 11, 10 am 30 23
4, Hargraves Community Center, Chapel Hill March 12, 10:30 37 26
5. Antioch Bapt. Church, Young at Heart Club March 12, 11:30 25 15
6. Northern Orange H.S. Ctr, Cedar Grove March 19, 10:30 15 0
7. Efland-Cheeks Community Center, Efland March 20, 10:30 25 11
8. Presbyterian Church, AARP , Hillsborough March 21, 11:30 12 9
9. Caldwell Community Ctr, Little River Twshp. March 26, 2 pm 5 4
Totals 214 124
Over 214 citizens attended the hearings with an estimated 70% female, 40% minority and
60% in the 70-79 age group. Attendees came from all over the county, from southern
Bingham township to Northern Little River township with an estimated 40% rural, 20°x6
Hillsborough, 25% Chapel Hill and 15% Carrboro. The public hearing agenda included
distributing an Executive Summary of the Senior Centers Plan, a brief staff presentation on
the plan and closing comments by-participants. A total of 124 persons completed a Citizen
Input/Comment Sheet, giving their opinions about the Senior Centers Development Plan.
The public hearings revealed a high percentage of support for the overall Senior Center
Development Plan. No participant spoke against the overall plan and 73% of the
completed citizen input sheets indicated yes to "the establishment of two large multi-purpose
Senior Centers located in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough with the further development of
satellite outreach senior programs.". 23% expressed no opinion with 4% not in favor of the
plan. There was 77°x6 support for the multi-purpose Centers to "be comprehensive,
including both multactivities and personal services" including an adult day health wing for the
frail older adult. With specific centers and satellite outreach senior programs there was less
support, falling in the 69% to 57°x6 range. Generally, participants indicated no opinion or left
the question blank if they were not familiar with the specific satellite programs. There was
74% support for Satellite Outreach Senior Programs at Efland, Cedar Grove, Northside and
Carrboro to" be designed for the special socioeconomic, cultural needs of area older adults"
with a minimum program of meals, crafts, education classes, fitness, information assistance,
health promotion and drop-in lounge. The majority ( 71%) felt the senior centers and
outreach programs must be supported by a funding alliance including the County, the towns
and a private Friends organization that would promote a sense of community ownership,
volunteers as well as financial support.
Page 1 of 3
Appendix C
25
SUMMARY TABLE: CITIZEN INPUT AND COMMENT SHEET
QUESTION QUESTION YES NO NO OPINION/BLANK
4 OVERVIEW NUM./%0 NUM/0/6 NUM./010
1 2 Multipurpose Sr.Centers 91 /73% 29/23%
2 A New Large Free Standing
Multipurpose Senior Center
in Hillsborough 70/ 57% 47/37%
3 Senior Centers should be
Comprehensive& support Satellites 95 / 77% 22/17%
4 Satellite Outreach Senior Programs
should continue at:
CARRBORO AT ARTSCENTER 86/69% 35 /29%
CHEEKS AT EFLAND
COMMUNITY CENTER 70/ 57% 54/43 %
CEDAR GROVE AT NORTHERN
ORANGE COMM. CENTER. 72/ 58 % 51 /41 %
CHAPEL HILL AT SOUTHERN.
-ORANGE SR. CENTER 82/66% 41 /33 %
5 Special Socioeconomic and Cultural
Influences at each Center, but -
Maintain Minimum Programs 92/74% 30/26%
6 "Friends" Type Support is a Must
at All Locations. 88/71 % 33 /26%
7 Multipurpose Senior Centers Require
Local Town Funding Alliance. 80/65 % 43 / 34%
8 Satellite Outreach Programs Need
Local Funding Alliance and or Support 92/74% 30/ 24%
Page 2 of 4
Appendix C 26
Highlights from Public Hearing Comments
March, 1996
The following is a brief summary of citizen comments at the nine public hearing locations.
Generally, participants made comments and were concerned about their center or their area
of the county.
1. Hillsborough - Recreation & Parks Facility.
A. Concern that 15,000 sq.ft. for the proposed Hillsborough Multipurpose Center would
not be enough for future needs (Year 2005 and beyond) and that there be enough land
for future growth.
B. Need ways to attract more older people, suggested a restaurant.
2. Chapel Hill Senior Center at the Galleria
A. Support purchase of the Chapel Hill Senior Center space.
B. Concern that the adult day care be separate from the rest of the senior center and have
its own entrance.
3. Carrboro Senior Center at the ArtsCenter
A. Need more space at the Carrboro Center.
B. Need a Center sign at the street entrance and on the facility awning.
C. Many express the desire for a free- standing Carrboro Center and willing to relocate to
other rental space.
4. Hargraves Community Center- Chapel Hill
A. Because of the historical significance of Northside Center (first Black training school),
many expressed a desire for the senior citizens programs to remain there rather than
relocate to Hargraves Community Center or elsewhere.
B. Concern that seniors would have to share space at Hargraves Community Center with
Children/youth and wanted their own space for seniors at Northside.
C. Need more space at Northside for multiple activities such as crafts sewing area,
storage, drop in lounge and meeting room. Est. 1,500 sq.ft.
D. Suggested need for a advisory group to help develop programs - especially to attract
younger seniors.
5, Antioch Baptist Church-Young at Heart Club- Bingham Township
A. Support the Senior Center Development Plan.
6. Northern Orange Human Services Center- Cedar Grove
A. Support the re-design of existing space to offer more activities and services such
TV/lounge area.
B. Support idea to relocate all senior citizens space to south wing of the building,
close to parking area, but some felt it would be too far from the restroom and water
fountain.
C. Need for handicap ramp and covered entrance with a porch/waiting area.
D. Need outdoor sign indicating the Senior Center.
E. Need for rooms to have better lighting.
Page 3of4
Appendix C 27
7. Elfand-Cheeks Community Center- Efland
A. Expand the space to accommodate activities such as crafts, bingo/games, classes,
storage, larger stage and pool table. Est. 1,500 sq.ft.
B. Suggest enclosing the covered porch area.
C. Want the facility to continue as a community center for all ages.
D. Support idea of partnership of various groups to help expand the building.
8. Presbyterian Church -AARP Chapter- Hillsborough
A. Support the overall Senior Centers Plan, especially the free standing Hillsborough
Senior Center.
B. Support idea of adult day care at the senior center.
C. Need for more access for older handicapped adults to use the center.
D. Need to make sure the Hillsborough Center is large enough to serve seniors 10 years
from now.
9. Caldwell Community Center- Little River Township
A. Support the development of a large free standing Hillsborough Senior Center and had
no opinion on the rest of the plan.
The public hearing comments were helpful In modifying the final draft of the Senior Centers
Development Plan.
FN:Pubhr-SC.Doc
Page 4of4
APPENDIX D 28
CO O
� a
U c
C � �
m N
+ aQ aQ aQ O
a
m m
n (�H m 10 ^ v CPf
wl
al a �
0
CR
C4 a s
uj
g a g o
� a N
a
a`
m
U
Z
W �.. D
e ^ ^ m
cy n
w o r% e a
c
r
da P O m e ^ m
c3 v
w ..� R V C4 r
V pa
m
R
APPENDIX E
9
ORANGE COUNTY OLDER POPULATION- 1990 CENSUS
TOWNSHIP DISTRIBUTION
Little River Twp.
Cedar Grove Twp. I
60+-620(5.6%) I 60+—238(20/*)
65+-487(6%) 65+-129(1.6%)
Minority 65+-204(42%) Minority -(6501.)—6(5 01.)
80+-118(24%) ' 80+-35(27%)
Living Alone(65+)-233(48%) Living Alone(65+)=22(17%)
Below Poverty(65+)=117(24%) I Below Poverty(65+)=12(90%)
Cheeks HMsborOU&TwP. i Eno Twp. 1
160+-1,582•(14.4%)! 60+=698(6.4%) `
60+-817 (7.4%) 65+-478(6%)
65+—564(7%) (65+-1,171(14%) Minority(65+)—32(11%)
Minority-(65+)-144(25.5%) Minority-(65+) 80.E-58(12%)
80+—80(ne (6 1-297(25%)8 50(21%) Living AlOne(65+)=145(30%)
Living Alone (63+)=264 (47%) ' (65+) f Below Poverty(65+)-34(7%)
Below Poverty(65+)-256(45°h) '=480 Alone
Below Poverty(65+)
(-221(19%)
Bbigbm r
Twp. C>mpolainTwp.
1990-60+—610(5.5%) 60+—6,424(58.5%)
65+-404(5%) 65+-4,887(60%)
Minority (65+)-60(15%) Minority(65+)—804(16.5%)
80+-96(21%) 80+-1,103(23%)
Living Alone(65+)—144(36%) Living Alone(63+)-1,662(34%)
Bdow Povaty(65+)-42(10%) Below Poverty(65+)-433(9.7%)
COUNTY TOTAL 60+= 10,989
65+= 8,120
60+AND 65+(%)-PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COUNTY 60+/65+POPULATION
MINORrrY,80+,LIVING ALONE AND POVERTY(%)=PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TOWNSHIP 65+POPULATION
APPENDIX F
-
CURRENT LOCATIONS OF SENIOR CENTERS 30
SEPTEMBER, 1995
Orange County, N.C.
To
wnshi p and 1990 Census Tract Boundaries
{ tittle River
{
* CEEM (HOVE {
{
Cedar Grove {
r
i 1
Cheeks I 1 Eno
*
EFLAND
C
. {°�x' t 1
{
t
1
HllLqborough
1 thaFe
t
sots an= c ENM;t
Bingham i OURMIDE)
{ * CAPS,
CNRRBCIRD
Ic c
To--hip.
.r no Cw+na! of Cavana a
on app May 4. LY'S
�PPEZ7DIX 31 G
0
hw
is
seal i
sec S 8 d < S C4 $ C4
—
iC U Z t
T coo _
1 -
< s
a. z gv � dd
to
SIR
~
�Sol �
to I O yr. N � N v
M '< <
as
V
Z
aIe;I
o a� vs r 3 Id V
lot,
. � 4 t I
<
p pP1�N�� 8 32
4
Its.
A
♦ Y
d do„s. pis �� sill, � • .a=0'�
r
IRS
a
< # Eli _ a
Eli
• V
_
r
33
APPENDIX I
PAST DEVELOPMENTS AT THE CHAPEL HILL SENIOR CENTER
July, 1996
The Chapel Hill Senior Center,located in the Galleria Shopping Center on Elliott
Road,was established in June, 1991 through a public-private partnership between
the County of Orange,the Town of Chapel Hill and the Friends of the Chapel Hill
Senior Center,Inc., a non-profit citizens support organization. The County entered
into a five year lease arrangement with an additional five year option through the
year 2001. Specific accomplishments for the past years are as follows:
1. Since its formation in August, 1991, the Friends of the Chapel Hill Senior Center
provided financial support by paying one-third the rent,totaling$100,000 and
contributing over$200,000 for facility renovations. In addition,the Friends have
provided thousands of dollars of upfit volunteer manpower. The Friends
organization has grown to over 1,500 contributors to the Center.
2. Since August, 1991, the Town of Chapel Hill has provided $66,000 to the Friends
for the Center's operational expenses (electric,water, etc.) , $11,000 for the
construction of the kitchen (fall, 1992) and staff'for recreational programming at
the Center.
3. Since August, 1991,the County through its Department on Aging has provided
over$200,000 toward rental expense plus staff to manage the Center.
4. The Chapel Hill Senior Center has become the most highly visible and accessible
facility to both Seniors and other community groups. It has the most varied
activities and is the most used facility in the county, surpassing the combined
participation of both Carrboro and the Southern Orange Center.
5. In the Fall of 1993 all ground level areas (9,000 sq. ft) of the Chapel Hill Senior
Center were completed for use. The mezzanine renovation was completed in
November, 1995, providing 3,000 sq. ft, which made it possible to centralize
Dept. on Aging services. The Center has become a truly multipurpose,one-stop
center with such individual services as eldercare assistance, information/referral,
health promotion activities, tax and insurance assistance to name a few.
6. In July, 1996, the Friends board endorsed the Senior Centers Development Plan
which recommends the purchase by Orange County of the leased Chapel Hill
Senior Center- space and the adjoining space for adult day care and other multi-
purpose activities and services.
FN:Ch-Ctr96.doc