Riverdale City Council members on Tuesday discussed rebranding the city’s senior center and adopting a membership model to broaden the facility’s funding options and community use.

Staff said some grant programs exclude facilities labeled strictly as “senior centers,” and a name change could make the building eligible for additional funding. “If we maybe change the name, to something that's not so descriptive as a senior center, that that might open some doors to apply for some of this other funding,” said Mister Taylor, a staff member presenting the topic.

The issue matters because the building already hosts activities beyond senior programming, city staff said. Taylor told the council the senior center served about 18,000 lunches last year and that the city has tracked membership for two years: 223 resident members and 554 nonresident members. He proposed shifting from per-transaction lunch charges toward a membership fee (yearly or monthly) to reduce daily transactions and to allow staff to compact sales into a short, staffed period once a year.

“18,000 transactions is a little scary to me to try to do them in a different way,” Taylor said, explaining the administrative burden of charging per lunch and describing a model used successfully at the community center where annual passes are sold during a limited sales window.

Councilors generally supported exploring both a rebrand and a membership option but emphasized protecting seniors’ access and avoiding confusion. “I would shy away from naming it after somebody,” Councilor Stevens said, arguing for a descriptive name tied to location or use rather than a person’s name. Councilor Hansen said she supported selling memberships and suggested outreach so family members could buy passes as gifts for seniors.

Councilors discussed several constraints staff should consider before returning with a formal proposal: limited staffing at the senior center, some users’ technology barriers, the number of nonresident users, and sensitivity to seniors on fixed incomes. Taylor said the city would likely start with a low annual fee to “get it on the books” and monitor attendance and impacts before raising rates.

No formal motion was made. Staff were directed to continue developing options, including pricing scenarios and staffing plans, and to return to the council with a refined proposal and recommended language for any name change.

The council also discussed expanding the facility’s programming and occasional evening uses (for example, talks or classes) while ensuring seniors would not be displaced. Several councilors suggested clearer signage or a descriptive name that includes location to avoid confusion with other city buildings.

The council did not set deadlines or adopt specific fees at the meeting; staff will return with alternatives and cost estimates.