This page is outdated. Please refer to the PILOT Committee Final Report page. |
On April 26, the Framingham PILOT Study Committee released it preliminary report with its draft findings and recommendations. Among the recommendations:
Download |
PILOT Committee draft report (1.3 MB Acrobat PDF) |
As a draft document, everything is subject to change. However, the main topics are unlikely to change and the basic findings of fact will likely remain, even if the interpretations are unclear or controversial. The Committee's key finding were:
—Police Chief Steven Carl
|
Financial Impact of Non Profits on Framingham. Though not all properties owned by nonprofits in town are tax exempt, the committee reported that in fiscal year 2006, social services owned $36,546,350 of tax-exempt property and that the total tax waiver on those properties is estimated to be $515,751. Though small on a percentage basis, that represents over 7% of the Town's projected $7.2 million budget deficit next year.
Impact on crime and the Framingham Police Department. The committee reported on stunning findings by the Framingham Police Department: 40% of the arrests in Framingham occur in 1 square mile of downtown, 15% of arrestees listed the wet shelter listed as their home address, and 70% of the clients at the wet shelter are from outside Framingham. Social service addresses often had disproportionally high numbers of police calls. The Department was also concerned by the "impact of people being released from prison by the Department of Corrections and being brought into our community because of the abundant social services programs available here. There are at least six programs in Framingham assisting in prisoner re-entry, some specializing in "difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders."
Impact on the Framingham Fire Department. As with the police, social service facilities made more than average number of calls to the Fire Department. Of the 144 social service addresses found by the committee, 12 sites averaged between 11 and 30 calls per year, and one -- the wet shelter -- was the origin of 40 calls! Those 144 addresses accounted for 6.21% of the 2005 total calls for the fire department.
Impact on the Framingham School System. According to the report, the Framingham Public Schools reported that 155 students qualified under the McKinney Vento Homeless Act or reside at a social service facilty. Based on 2005 costs per student of $10,518, plus related costs such as costs would include health insurance and other school fees, the total cost to the town for these students was $1.8 million. If accurate, that figure would represent 25% of the Town's projected $7.2 million budget shortfall.
Impact on Framingham’s Housing Authority and affordable housing. According to the committe, Beth O’Grady, Deputy Director of the Framingham Housing Authority, says Framingham has seen an increase in the number of former shelter residents residing in Framingham Housing Developments and that this increases costs because of difficulties with residents. O'Grady said that her job has expanded from just a “landlord” role to more of a “social worker” role. In addition, she said, this influx of social service clients has taken affordable housing units away from Framingham residents.
Impact on Property Values. This was the most controversial finding by the committee, as critics noted that there was insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions and that studies have shown no impact on property values from social services. However, as we note in our own property values page, many of these studies are flawed, and both overly large and overly concentrated services can negatively influence property values. The PILOT Committee reported that depending on their age, social service facilities can have a negative impact on residential property values and that overall, properties value growth in Framingham ranked 24th out of the 25 communities studied.
Impact on Income Growth. This section will also be controversial, due largely to the "chicken or the egg" argument: is Framingham's lower than expected income growth caused by social services, or did social services come here because the lowered income meant there was need for their services? We believe there is a mixture of the two at work, but the social service industry must share some of the blame. After all, there is significant evidence that shelters draw needy residents to Framingham, rather than just serving the needy already here. So the PILOT Committee's finding that the change in Framingham's median income was lowest of the 54 communities studied is not surprising.
Cost to the Town for the LIFT Transportation System. The Committee could find no ridership data on the LIFT bus detailing which riders came from social service facilities and which did not, merely stating that " we would be remiss not to offer this link to a plausible cost incurred by the town of Framingham." The LIFT buses are largely empty and it seems unlikely that adding social service riders would cause any appreciable added cost to the system. However, it is clear from the report that the existence of the LIFT system is one of the reasons the social service industry like to site in Framingham. For this reason, we support the expansion of the LIFT system into a regional transportation system, so that neighboring towns can share the cost and share the benefits -- and drawbacks -- of the system.
Benefits. The report also details benefits to the Town from social service agencies, including availability of needed programs, such as the Voices Against Violence shelter, increases in Framingham's affordable housing, and social service agencies' spending, hiring, and renovation of properties. (They do not point out that most of this spending is done with tax dollars and much of it would be spent here anyway, even without the social services acting as middleman.) We at STEPPS have always stated that there is both value from and need for social services. Our mission statement calls not for elimination of social services, but for basic fairness in their siting and for openness and competence from the social service industry.
Once again, we thank the PILOT Committee for their fair and thorough report.
In its 73 page report, the committee devoted six pages to recommendations. In summary, they are:
Human Service Coordinator. Towns are so befuddled by the mishmash of vague provisions in state law and the "disability" loophole in Federal law that there is actually a bill before the Senate that would require the Office of Health and Human Services to write a guide to these laws outlining to municipalities and nonprofits what their rights are. Currently, Framingham has no expert in these laws and no Town personnel keeping tract of nonprofits in town. A Human Services Coordinator (HSC) is an expert in the relevant laws and uses this knowledge to act as an advocate for the Town. Such a person would be of immense benefit to the Town, and we call on the Board of Selectmen to plan for the hiring of this position and for Town Meeting to fully fund it.
Coalition of Communities. The committee recommended that Framingham join the organization Local Officials Human Service Coordinators (LOHSC) in order to take advantage of the wealth of knowledgeavailable from this organization of Human Service Directors and Coordinators from over 50 Massachusetts communities and "be a leader in the effort to coordinate statewide legislators to lobby for additional funding in the cherry sheet as compensation for hosting social service sites."
Grant Funding. Despite being much needier, Framingham ranks far behind wealthier communities such as Wayland and Sudbury in state and federal aid per capita. The committee recommended that the Board of Selectman meet with our state representatives and senators, in conjunction with our U.S. Congressman, to discuss this disparity. They also recommended that the Town hire a professional grant writer.
Affordable Housing. The State mandates, through M.G.L. Chapter 40B, that all cities and towns have at least 10% affordable housing. (See our Dover Amendment FAQ for more.) Framingham is of the few towns in the state to meet this goal. However, due to quirks in the law, many affordable units in Framingham are not counted. The committee recommended that the Town pursue any action possible to ensure that Framingham's numerous social service facilities are, when applicable, counted as affordable housing in order to protect Framingham from "unfriendly 40B" developments.
Common Ground Wet Shelter. The wet shalter, one of only six in the state, is the source of many of downtown's most pressing problems. The report recommends that the Town enforce the laws that apply to the shelter and close down the shelter if it "has violated any part of its original mission [or] accords with Framingham. In addition, the Board of Selectmen should "develop strict licensing requirements that would apply to the establishment of any future wet shelter."
Payment in Lieu of Taxes. The committee recommended that the Board of Selectman institute a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program for non-profit social service agencies in Framingham and authorize the Town Assessor, Mike Flynn, to implement the program and conduct the necessary negotiations. Though voluntary, PILOT programs can be successful. The committee points to successful PILOT programs in numerous other towns, such as Boston and Newton.
Creation of the PILOT Committee
Town Counsel's memo to the PILOT Committee on religious organizations
Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!
