Final Report

1
Final Report

• Social Service PILOT and
• Comparative Impact Study Committee

2
PILOT / Impact Committee

• Charge from Town Meeting June 9, 2005
• On April 27, 2006
• Vote on Committee Final Report 6-3-0

3
Overview of Presentation

• Background on service delivery
• Findings on inventory of sites
• Benefits services bring
• Impacts on Framingham
• Recommendations
• Conclusions

4
Social Service Delivery in MA

• The State Hospital era
• Today
• State contracts private agencies for service
  delivery
• State provides funds and clients
• Agencies responsible to state and to their
  organizations
• Agencies make siting decisions

5
MA Delivery System Findings

• State provides funds and clients
• Siting is agency decision
• Many recipients of services do not originate in
  Framingham
• Communities represent their interests
• Local Officials Human Service Council (LOHSC)
• Framingham has not been engaged in the system

6
Comparative Communities
Group 1 Contiguous Ashland, Marlborough,
Natick, Sherborn, Southborough, Sudbury, Wayland
Group 2 HUD PMSA and Population
40-100,000 Arlington, Beverly, Brookline,
Cambridge, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Newton,
Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Revere, Somerville,
Taunton, Waltham, Weymouth
7
Inventory of Sites

• A site is a social service facility and may be
  a single family home, lodging house, condominium,
  office, or several buildings assessed as a single
  parcel
• Framingham had 34 sites in 1990, and 244 sites in
  2006 (600 growth)
• Marlborough has 34 sites serving a population of
  36,255
• Waltham has 46 sites serving a population of
  59,226

8
Social Services in Framingham 1990
8
9
Social Services in Framingham 2006
9
10
Social Services in Marlborough 2006
10
11
Social Services in Waltham 2006
11
12
Inventory of Sites Group 1
Community Sites
Sherborn 1
Southborough 2
Wayland 3
Sudbury 4
Ashland 10
Natick 21
Marlborough 34
Framingham 244
The social service sites counted and listed are
dependent upon the definition that has been used
consistently throughout the study.
13
Inventory of Sites Group 2
Community Sites
Brookline 22
Weymouth 30
Peabody 32
Salem 38
Taunton 41
Malden 43
Waltham 46
Beverly 53
Quincy 101
Lynn 132
Framingham 244
The social service sites counted and listed are
dependent upon the definition that has been used
consistently throughout the study.
14
Benefits to Town

• Jail Diversion Program helps police, agencies and
  clients
• At least 198 qualifying 40B units
• As many as 400 Framingham residents may be agency
  employees
• Agencies invest in renovation
• Services available to town residents

15
Impact on Police
70 of wet shelter clients are from outside of
the Framingham area
From Chief Carls Presentation to Board of
Selectmen, November 15, 2005
16
Impact on Framingham Schools

• All data from Dr. Martes office and the School
  Benchmarking Study
• 155 students qualified under the McKinney-Vento
  Act (2004 count)
• Average expenditure per student is 10,518
• 1.63M total estimated impact
• Costs associated with special education cannot be
  determined

17
Impact on Fire Department

• 8,844 calls town wide (2005)
• 549 calls (6.2) from 144 social service site
  addresses
• 16 (23 of 144) of the sites were among the top
  200 callers to the Fire Department

18
Financial Impact Taxes Paid

• Agencies rent 38 taxed properties
• Determination of taxes difficult
• Agencies pay 240,818 on 13M taxed property
  owned (FY06)

19
Financial Impact Tax Exempt

• 36.5M of tax-exempt property owned by agencies
  (FY06)
• Agencies rent 1.5M tax-exempt property
• Total tax waiver on these properties estimated to
  be 515,751 in FY06
• Impact on Tax Per Year about 15

20
What can Framingham Do?
The issue is Urban Planning. What do we want
Framingham to be? --Police Chief Carl

• Its all about the power structure in the
  community. How does the community respond?How
  does the community act? -- Fred Habib
  Undersecretary of EOHHS

21
What Framingham can do

• A community has the power to control how an
  agency acts, thus indirectly affect siting
  decisions
• Brockton has enforced a ban on new shelters for
  8 years
• Worcester licenses wet shelter as a lodging house
• Leaders use unofficial levers - licensing,
  permits, grants and site reviews - and strong
  relationships with agencies and state to control
  siting
• Local bylaws a must to enact this

22
Recommendations

• Create Human Service Coordinator position
  reporting to Town Manager
• Advocate for Framingham in the social service
  delivery system
• Assist Board of Selectmen in developing
  appropriate social policy
• Oversight of current and potential programs and
  sites in Framingham
• Liaison between town, agencies and State
• Tabulate information and statistics
• Framingham has never had a town employee charged
  with addressing impact and growth of social
  services

23
Recommend a PILOT

• PILOT is voluntary
• Agencies benefit from town services
• Town may negotiate services for payment, as a
  trade
• P in PILOT approach

24
Other Recommendations

• Join LOHSC - lobby state for Cherry Sheet funding
  for host communities
• Engage state and federal reps to address grant
  and aid disparity
• Count all social service units towards 40B
• Regulate or close the wet shelter
• Ensure any detox serves residents

25
Conclusions

• Framingham's interests have not been represented
  in this process
• Framingham must change approach
• Professional administrator is required
• Transparency needed for effective town governance
• These steps will ensure that our leaders can
  effectively direct Framinghams future

26
Motion

• I move that town meeting accept the Final Report
  of the Social Service PILOT and Comparative
  Impact Study Committee, and that the PILOT-Impact
  Committee be dissolved at the end of the 2006
  Annual Town Meeting.