71 Battle Street, Somers, CT 06071
To contact a resident: (860) 749-4658
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Woodcrest Elderly Phase II Costs & Pricing
Woodcrest Elderly Phase II offers an affordable living option with a monthly cost of $683 for a one-bedroom unit, significantly lower than the average costs in both Tolland County and the broader state of Connecticut. In comparison, residents in Tolland County typically pay about $4,145 per month for similar accommodations, while state averages soar to approximately $6,383. This notable difference underscores Woodcrest's commitment to providing accessible housing for seniors, ensuring that quality support and community are within reach for those seeking a welcoming living environment without the financial burden often associated with elder care facilities.
| Floor plans | Woodcrest Elderly Phase II | Tolland County | Connecticut |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Bedroom | $683 | $4,145 | $6,383 |
Senior living communities with a similar price nearby
-
from +$122 / mo
Whispering Pines II
$805 to $905 / month24.0 miles away -
from +$122 / mo
Peachtree Village
$805 to $904 / month24.0 miles away
Overall Review of Woodcrest Elderly Phase II
Pros
The staff offered to provide the paint for the painting task.- The sister could participate in the project with the supplied paint.
- The situation showed a willingness to support residents with maintenance needs.
Cons
The facility seems poorly managed, with maintenance tasks dumped on residents.- The staff told her they would provide the paint and let her do the painting, which feels inappropriate for a place serving the elderly.
- It raises concerns that elderly residents are expected to handle basic upkeep like hallway painting.
- This approach gives the impression the facility does not take upkeep seriously.
Review
Woodcrest Elderly Phase II in Somers is best suited for seniors who do not require a maintenance-free, turnkey living environment and who are comfortable handling basic upkeep themselves. The lone published feedback depicts hallways with chipped paint and doors that need painting, and the reviewer notes that staff suggested residents could provide the paint and do the work. That signals a culture where upkeep tasks are expected to be handled by residents or their families rather than being fully managed by the community. For families seeking a polished, move-in ready setting with proactive maintenance, this community appears to fall short from the outset.
Explicitly, those evaluating options should consider alternatives if a consistently maintained atmosphere is a non negotiable. The negative emphasis on maintenance responsibility makes this one a poor fit for anyone who expects routine, professional repairs and upkeep as part of the service package. Prospective residents should compare with nearby facilities that advertise full maintenance programs, clear service agreements, and staffed maintenance teams with defined response times. If cost savings are a factor, demand precise clarification on what is included, what tasks are expected of residents, and where staff intervention begins and ends.
The review offers virtually no positive data to counterbalance the visible drawback. The implication that residents may be asked to paint and perform upkeep resembles a DIY model more than a professional care setting. In practical terms, that undermines the central value proposition of assisted living: relief from home maintenance and a predictable level of support. If no credible maintenance guarantees exist, any other benefits the community might offer quickly become irrelevant. The absence of any substantiated counterweight means the maintenance concern dominates the decision.
To move forward, the prudent path is to verify maintenance policies in writing before committing. Request details on staff-to-resident ratios for maintenance tasks, hours of coverage, and expected repair timelines. Inquire whether residents or families are billed for materials or labor when painting or minor repairs are performed by the community versus done by the resident themselves. Conduct a walkthrough with focus on current upkeep, paint integrity, door and wall condition, handrails, lighting, and the state of common areas. The answers will reveal whether the DIY element is tolerable or untenable.
From a risk-management perspective, the potential upside of lower cost or a more intimate setting is overshadowed by the fundamental expectation problem. If the policy is to have residents shoulder cosmetic maintenance, satisfaction, independence, and perceived value can erode quickly. Families should assess whether their loved one can accept living in a community that does not provide a standard level of facility upkeep. If not, prioritize alternatives with clearly communicated maintenance support and reliable on-site teams to avoid ongoing disappointment and friction.
In sum, Woodcrest Elderly Phase II currently leans toward a DIY maintenance model that clashes with typical assisted living expectations. The best fit candidates are those who accept occasional upkeep tasks as part of daily life and who are comfortable managing an environment with staff-provided supplies and limited cosmetic maintenance. For most seniors and families, this community requires careful vetting and a readiness to challenge maintenance policies head-on. The prudent decision is to pursue alternatives first, then revisit Woodcrest only after obtaining concrete, favorable guarantees about upkeep, response times, and resident involvement in cosmetic repairs.
Active Adult Communities (55+)
Activities on-site
Devotional services off-site
Indoor common areas
Bradley International (13 miles away)
Ambulatory care
Diabetic care
Meals provided
Seniors and Modern Transportation: Exploring Uber, Lyft, and Other Ride-Hailing Options
Comprehensive Guide to Qualifying for Home Health Care Services
Powerful Realities of Elder Abuse and the Most Effective Ways to Report It