1 / 26

Final Report

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

bevis
Download Presentation

Final Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 * 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 * 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 Carl’s 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? 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

  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 Framingham’s 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.

More Related