Overall sentiment in the reviews is predominantly positive about the physical plant, amenities, and the social atmosphere at Rolling Hills Retirement Community, with recurring praise for the new, modern look and well-maintained spaces. Multiple reviewers emphasize that the community is brand new and beautifully appointed, citing apartments with full kitchens, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, included utilities, and garage options. Community spaces such as a movie theater, conversation/gathering rooms, and a well-appointed guest suite are frequently noted as strengths. Many reviews describe the facility as organized, clean, and stylishly built, which contributes to residents feeling safe and at home.
Dining and on-site services are strong selling points but show mixed signals. Several reviewers note that three meals a day are included and that there are on-campus services like a hair salon, gym, and regular events. Some people praise the food and the dining options, and the availability of both cafeteria-style and a later sit-down main meal is mentioned positively. However, multiple reviews also report a decline in dining quality over time (mentions of fried food and a lower quality of meals) and turnover in dining room staff, which contributes to an inconsistent dining experience for some residents.
Activities and social life are highlighted as lively and beneficial to resident wellbeing. Reviewers repeatedly mention daily activities (chair volleyball, movies, shopping trips), top-notch events, and opportunities to build friendships and a sense of community. The presence of organized outings and in-house programming is a clear plus; however, there are complaints about frequent turnover of the activity director, which can disrupt continuity and the quality of programming.
Staffing and management receive mixed but important attention. Many reviewers praise staff for being warm, kind, and bent over backwards to help, and several single out supportive and attentive personnel who make residents and family members feel comfortable. A number of reviews specifically call out managers Michael and Laura as attentive and supportive. In contrast, other reviewers describe management as unprofessional, rude, and disrespectful, and explicitly say that managers need accountability. This apparent contradiction suggests variability in individual experiences — some staff and leaders are seen as engaged and caring, while others (or perhaps moments of poor management behavior) have led to strong negative reactions from residents and families. There are also comments that some resident managers are not conscientious, adding to the perception of inconsistent oversight.
Care quality and services beyond independent living are noted but limited in description. The community is identified as independent living (55+) with 24-hour staff and on-site home health care planned, and reviewers appreciate transportation assistance for medical needs (e.g., taking a family member to rehab). The reviews indicate a community focused on independent living convenience and safety rather than intensive medical care. The planned on-site home health suggests an intention to expand services, but it is not described in detail by reviewers.
Value and occupancy are additional themes. One reviewer calls the price not worth $50,000 per year, while another cites a monthly rate of $4,200 and calls the community an affordable value. Occupancy is noted as not fully filled, which could influence atmosphere, social programming, or the economics of the community. These differences reflect divergent perceptions of cost versus value — some residents and families feel the amenities and services justify the price, while others feel pricing may be too high for what is delivered, especially where dining and management issues are of concern.
In summary, Rolling Hills Retirement Community is consistently described as a beautiful, well-equipped independent living community with strong amenities, a welcoming social environment, and many conveniences that make daily life easier for residents. The principal strengths are the new facility, apartment features, included services and utilities, diverse activities, and many staff who are described as caring and helpful. The main areas of concern are inconsistent dining quality, turnover in activity and dining staff, and uneven management practices — including sharp contrasts in reviewers’ opinions about particular managers. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s clear strengths in physical environment and social programming against reported variability in management behavior and dining consistency, and should ask targeted questions about staffing stability, dining menus, and leadership accountability during tours and sales conversations.
