1. May 9, 20061 Final Report Social Service PILOT and Comparative Impact Study Committee

2. May 9, 20062 PILOT / Impact Committee Charge from Town Meeting June 9, 2005 On April 27, 2006 Vote on Committee Final Report 6-3-0

3. May 9, 20063 Overview of Presentation Background on service delivery Findings on inventory of sites Benefits services bring Impacts on Framingham Recommendations Conclusions

4. May 9, 20064 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. May 9, 20065 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. May 9, 20066 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. May 9, 20067 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. May 9, 20068 Social Services in Framingham – 1990 8

9. May 9, 20069 Social Services in Framingham – 2006 9

10. May 9, 200610 Social Services in Marlborough – 2006 10

11. May 9, 200611 Social Services in Waltham – 2006 11

12. May 9, 200612 Inventory of Sites – Group 1 CommunitySites* Sherborn1 Southborough2 Wayland3 Sudbury4 Ashland10 Natick21 Marlborough34 Framingham244 * The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.

13. May 9, 200613 Inventory of Sites – Group 2 Community Sites* Brookline22 Weymouth30 Peabody32 Salem38 Taunton41 Malden43 Waltham46 Beverly53 Quincy101 Lynn132 Framingham244 * The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.

14. May 9, 200614 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. May 9, 200615 Impact on Police *From Chief Carls Presentation to Board of Selectmen, November 15, 2005 70% of wet shelter clients are from outside of the Framingham area*

16. May 9, 200616 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. May 9, 200617 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. May 9, 200618 Financial Impact – Taxes Paid Agencies rent 38 taxed properties –Determination of taxes difficult Agencies pay $240,818 on $13M taxed property owned (FY06)

19. May 9, 200619 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. May 9, 200620 What can Framingham Do? Its 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. May 9, 200621 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. May 9, 200622 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. May 9, 200623 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. May 9, 200624 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. May 9, 200625 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. May 9, 200626 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.