may 9, 20061 final report social service pilot and comparative impact study committee
TRANSCRIPT
May 9, 2006 1
Final Report
Social Service PILOT and
Comparative Impact Study Committee
May 9, 2006 2
PILOT / Impact Committee
• Charge from Town Meeting June 9, 2005
On April 27, 2006• Vote on Committee Final
Report 6-3-0
May 9, 2006 3
Overview of Presentation• Background on service delivery• Findings on inventory of sites• Benefits services bring• Impacts on Framingham• Recommendations• Conclusions
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 6
Comparative CommunitiesGroup 1 – Contiguous Ashland, Marlborough, Natick, Sherborn, Southborough, Sudbury, Wayland
Group 2 – HUD PMSA and Population 40-100,000Arlington, Beverly, Brookline, Cambridge, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Newton, Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Revere, Somerville, Taunton, Waltham, Weymouth
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 8
Social Services in Framingham – 1990
8
May 9, 2006 9
Social Services in Framingham – 2006
9
May 9, 2006 10
Social Services in Marlborough – 2006
10
May 9, 2006 11
Social Services in Waltham – 2006
11
May 9, 2006 12
Inventory of Sites – Group 1 Private Non-Profit Social
Service sites per 1,000 people using 2000 U.S. Census
Population
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.9
3.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Sherborn
Southborough
Sudbury
Wayland
Ashland
Natick
Marlborough
Framingham
Source: PILOT research 2000 Census
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.
May 9, 2006 13
Inventory of Sites – Group 2 Private Non-Profit Social
Service sites per 1,000 people using 2000 U.S. Census
Population
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.5
3.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Brookline
Weymouth
Taunton
Peabody
Waltham
Malden
Salem
Quincy
Beverly
Lynn
Framingham
Source: PILOT research and 2000 census
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.
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 15
Impact on Police
1543 40
76105
0
50
100
150
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
I ndividuals providing Wet Shelter address at time of their booking
*From Chief Carl’s Presentation to Board of Selectmen, November 15, 2005
70% of wet shelter clients are from outside of the Framingham area*
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 18
Financial Impact – Taxes Paid
• Agencies rent 38 taxed properties – Determination of taxes
difficult• Agencies pay $240,818 on
$13M taxed property owned (FY06)
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 20
What can Framingham Do?
It’s all about the power structure in the community. How does the community respond?How does the community act? -- Fred Habib Undersecretary of EOHHS
The issue is Urban Planning. What do we want Framingham to be? --Police Chief Carl
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 22
RecommendationsCreate 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
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 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
May 9, 2006 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 Framingham’s future
May 9, 2006 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.