Overall sentiment is strongly mixed: several reviewers praise Three Fountains for caring staff, good social programming, on-site clinical services and affordability, while a significant number of reviewers describe maintenance, safety, pest, and management problems that materially affect livability. Experiences appear to vary widely by unit, floor, and perhaps by timing of the visit, producing both strong recommendations from satisfied families and harsh criticism from those who encountered serious facility or neighborhood issues.
Care quality and staff: Multiple reviewers highlight genuinely caring, friendly and accessible staff, with many positive anecdotes about attentive employees and rehabilitation/skilled-care services. The facility offers integrated Skilled Care and Personal Care with medication administration included in the rental price — a meaningful advantage for residents who need clinical support without separate billing. Reported staff strengths include on-site presence (many staff live on property), helpful move-in assistance, and programs that engage residents. That said, there are also reports of layoffs, buyouts and “growing pains,” which contribute to inconsistency in service and occasional lapses in responsiveness.
Facilities and maintenance: The building is consistently described as older and once a hotel, which brings both charm (large apartments, roomy kitchens with stove/refrigerator) and drawbacks (dated finishes, small hallways, closed-in feel, confusing layout). A number of reviewers report chronic maintenance delays: unfinished repairs, paint peeling on bathroom doors, baseboards that were only touched up after cheap vinyl was installed, mismatched or beaten-up appliances, and roof leaks. Several amenities are reported broken or poorly maintained — reviewers specifically note non-working Jacuzzi and sauna, indoor pool problems (including smells and being "not swimmable"), fountains not working, and patio screens not installed. These recurring physical issues suggest an uneven capital-maintenance program.
Cleanliness, pests and safety: Reviews diverge sharply on cleanliness. Some residents praise the property as very clean with comfortable common areas and many activities; others report rodent (rats) and roach infestations inside units and describe “slumlord” conditions. Safety and neighborhood concerns are a major recurring theme: reports of gunshots across the street almost every weekend, drug activity and dealers on property, vagrants, loud Friday nights and repeated police presence. Several reviewers explicitly call out inadequate security. These safety issues are among the most serious concerns and have directly affected residents’ and families’ sense of comfort.
Dining and amenities: Dining receives mixed feedback. Multiple reviewers praise the meals, with some families saying loved ones “love the food” and rating dining highly. Others describe cafeteria-style food with limited choices, meals not included in base rent, and lack of breakfast service in some circumstances. There are convenient on-site services such as an in-house salon and dry cleaning; however, some amenities come with additional fees and there are many “nickel-and-dime” add-ons (cable, internet, food, housekeeping) that can increase overall cost unexpectedly.
Cost, contracts and logistics: Several reviewers highlight affordability and good value, while others call out inconsistent or high rent, surprise charges and variable application policies (some reports that credit reports were not required). A move-in fee and various optional charges were mentioned. Transportation options are limited (noted as primarily Tuesdays and Thursdays), which may be inconvenient for residents who rely on facility-provided transport. Important policy features include medication administration included in rent and availability of a benevolent fund or lifetime-stay support for eligible residents — both positives for those who may outlive financial resources.
Care continuum and limitations: The community appears to be primarily independent living with a smaller assisted-living footprint on one floor and no dedicated memory care; this is suitable for many seniors but raises concerns for families worried about future progression of care needs. Several reviewers explicitly worried about having to move their relatives if care needs escalate.
Patterns and recommendations: The most consistent positive patterns are strong staff interactions, meaningful clinical services (medication administration, rehab), active programming, and value for some residents. The most consistent negative patterns are deferred or poor maintenance, serious safety/neighborhood concerns, pest reports, and inconsistent management and billing practices. Given the variance in experiences, prospective residents and families should: (1) schedule multiple visits at different times (including evening/weekend) to assess noise and safety, (2) inspect specific units for pests and maintenance, (3) ask for written details on what is included vs. extra fees (meals, utilities, internet, housekeeping), (4) verify availability of assisted care if future needs are likely, and (5) confirm what security measures and recent maintenance/renovation work have been completed. When positive reviews are genuine, they point to a warm, activity-rich community with good clinical support; when negative reports are accurate, they indicate systemic facility- and neighborhood-level issues that could greatly affect resident comfort and safety.
