Council on Aging: needs assessment meets sampling threshold; MAPS planning continues as members press for outreach and funding clarity

Melissa reported that the older-adult needs assessment has reached the sample size required to pursue funding, telling the Council on Aging that “we received 368 responses so far. And that gives us plus or minus 4.7% margin of error with a 95% degree of confidence.” She cautioned that paper surveys were still coming in and asked members to allow time to include late submissions before finalizing the public summary.

The group agreed to a practical deadline for entering remaining paper surveys and to compile a complete summary of the results for the membership; two volunteers reported entering roughly 30–31 surveys each and said they expected the remaining forms to be submitted and entered by Friday. Melissa said she had delayed circulating the summary until those paper surveys were incorporated so the report would include all voices.

Melissa also described response patterns: Castle Valley “over-indexed” on responses while the survey pool overall skewed toward women and higher-educated, higher-income residents. She and other members said they were less successful at reaching non-white and Hispanic residents and that fear of counting or responding likely reduced participation from those groups. The group discussed follow-up outreach and the need for tailored communications to reach underrepresented populations.

On planning, members received an update on the Moab Area Senior Project (MAPS). A presenter described the project as planning work for roughly eight acres owned by the Canyonlands Health Care Special Service District to study senior housing and possible assisted-living options. The current procurement cycle had received multiple proposals; at least five firms had submitted materials and the group planned to ratify an extension of the RFP deadline to June 30 and to review and interview finalists in June and July. The planner selection and final plan were expected by the end of the year, and a potential groundbreaking for construction was discussed as likely farther out (staff estimated about two years), with many implementation details still to be resolved.

Members emphasized communications to set realistic expectations for residents. Colette and others urged a clear public-facing summary that explains what the assessment found, where planning stands on the MAPS project and the expected timeline — noting that long planning horizons can create unrealistic public expectations if not explained. Attendees discussed two-page informational spreads, press releases and posting results online once the compiled report is ready.

The meeting also covered potential funding avenues. A member referenced federal rural health initiative funding and reported that a representative had said money would be available; participants discussed varying figures cited in the meeting (some referenced $500,000 while others discussed larger statewide appropriations). Members noted that no funds had been disbursed at the time of the meeting and that available grants often have narrow allowable uses (for example, not for buildings) and tight application deadlines. They agreed that completing the needs assessment and producing concrete program proposals would be important to position the county to apply for competitive grants.

The Council approved the minutes from the prior meeting by motion (Suzanne Martin moved; Pat Loss seconded) and closed after agreeing to the next steps on survey compilation, communications and MAPS procurement.