260 likes | 432 Views
Final Report. Social Service PILOT and Comparative Impact Study Committee. PILOT / Impact Committee. Charge from Town Meeting June 9, 2005 On April 27, 2006 Vote on Committee Final Report 6-3-0. Overview of Presentation. Background on service delivery Findings on inventory of sites
E N D
Final Report Social Service PILOT and Comparative Impact Study Committee
PILOT / Impact Committee • Charge from Town Meeting June 9, 2005 On April 27, 2006 • Vote on Committee Final Report 6-3-0
Overview of Presentation • Background on service delivery • Findings on inventory of sites • Benefits services bring • Impacts on Framingham • Recommendations • Conclusions
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
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
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
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
Inventory of Sites – Group 1 * The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.
Inventory of Sites – Group 2 * The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.
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
Impact on Police 70% of wet shelter clients are from outside of the Framingham area* *From Chief Carl’s Presentation to Board of Selectmen, November 15, 2005
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
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
Financial Impact – Taxes Paid • Agencies rent 38 taxed properties • Determination of taxes difficult • Agencies pay $240,818 on $13M taxed property owned (FY06)
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
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
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
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
Recommend a PILOT • PILOT is voluntary • Agencies benefit from town services • Town may negotiate services for payment, as a trade • P in PILOT = approach
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
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
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.