March 23, 2006 Draft findings 1 Framingham PILOT/Impact Study Committee Draft Findings to Date

March 23, 2006Draft findings

1

Framingham PILOT/Impact Study Committee

Draft Findings to Date


2

Overview of this presentation

• Brief introduction of our charge, objectives and approach

• Background information• Presentation of information

gathered in our study concerning Framingham

• Presentation of data comparing Framingham to other communities

• Review of other PILOT’s in MA


3

About the PILOT/Impact Study CommitteeThe PILOT/Impact Study Committee has two charges:• To study the impact of private, non-profit social service

agencies in Framingham and compare Framingham to other communities

• To research and recommend a possible Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) program for private non-profit social services agencies

The identification and evaluation of impact on the operations of town government and the community due to social services is not a simple task.

• There are often many factors at work at the same time. • Precise determination of the effects of a single factor

may not be possible even with a thorough statistical analysis.

We will need to rely on the good common sense of our community to reach consensus on reasonable conclusions.


4

About the PILOT/Impact Study Committee: Approach

Research• Created and followed an Action Plan of detailed questions

related to our charge. • Examined public information produced by federal, state

and municipal agencies and from the private non-profit social service agencies operating in Framingham and other communities

• Conducted public meetings with representatives of relevant municipal and private agencies

• Met directly with department heads and other town employees, state officials, officials from other municipalities, and representatives of the social services

Findings• Our findings are based on available data• Clearly separate information gathered from our

conclusions• To pull together facts and lay them all out for public

review• Identify trends, offer interpretations and

recommendations


5

Topics Considered by the PILOT/Impact Study Committee

This is a partial list of tasks and questions we undertook • Create a comprehensive list of social service organizations

and the sites they operate, in Framingham and other communities

• Determine the total value of all taxed and tax-exempt property owned or rented by private non-profit social service agencies in Framingham.

• Are property values of abutters affected by sites? • What are the changes in real estate values in Framingham

compared to other communities over time?• Changes in crime statistics in Framingham over time, and

any relationship between police activity and sites.• Benefits social service agencies bring to Framingham.• How does Framingham’s income growth compare to other

communities?• What PILOT programs exist in other communities?• Does state and federal funding reflect the number of

private non-profit social service sites a community hosts?


6

What is not in this draft report …• Benefits to Framingham from the operation

of non-profit social services– Employment– Spending– Housing renovation– Services

• Additional data provided by social service agencies– Number of clients– Program descriptions

• Impact on fire, education and several other town departments

• Services provided directly by our town• Interpretations and recommendations


7

Background InformationFunding• Up until the mid 1970’s the state was a direct social service

provider. The main provision of these services was through state run institutions

• The state’s approach now is to de-centralize care by contracting out for services to private non –profit corporations, who would then provide services via community-based care.

Siting• MA spends approximately $2.5B annually on social service

contracts • The state has no specific siting policies, although the

various state funding agencies do have regions that they service.

• The state departments do not oversee: – Where the contracts go– Specific facility locations– The clustering of services

• Siting of services is determined by the agency that receives the contract, and those decisions are affected by affordability, transportation, infrastructure and other factors


8

Inventory of Sites in FraminghamPrivate non-profit social service agencies in 1990• 13 active non-profit social service agencies operating

through 33 sites • The location of 29 of these addresses are public record. 4

sites were from historical knowledge• Approximately 60% of these were residential

Private non-profit social service agencies in 2006• 40 active non-profit social service agencies operating

through 241 sites.• The location of 180 of these sites are public record. 61

sites have confidential addresses• 78% of these sites are residential• 22% of these sites are commercial

From 1990-2006 the number of private non-profit social service sites in Framingham increased by over 600%


9


10

Services in Framingham -Inventory of Sites - 2006


11

Impact on the 2006 Tax Base and Revenue StreamTaxed property used by Non-Profit Social Service

Agencies• $8,374,300 of taxed property owned by the agencies,

on which they will pay an estimated $103,900 this year

• 38 taxed properties are rented by the agencies. Valuation of this property has not been determined.

Tax-exempt property used by Non-Profit Social Service Agencies

• $39,326,100 of tax-exempt property owned by agencies

• Rent or use an estimated $1,495,880 of tax exempt property

• The total tax waiver of these tax exempt properties is estimated to be $648,995

The town assessor estimates the impact of this waiver on the tax rate is small.


12

Change in abutting properties assessed value, 1990-2005• The total assessed value of all residential property in

Framingham increased by 83% between 1990 and 2005.• From 1990-2000 the number of residential units increased by

1%, according to the U.S. Census The committee was not able to conduct a controlled study and account for this growth or any other factors.– Assessed value of properties abutting social service

sites established within the last 5 years grew at 91% (8% above Framingham average)

– Assessed value of properties abutting social service sites established between 6-14 years ago, grew at 63% (20% below Framingham average)

– Assessed value of properties abutting social service sites that were established at least 15 years ago, grew at 75% (8% below Framingham average)

• Two social service properties were sold in 1996 and reverted to private use. Properties abutting these facilities increased in value by 126% in the 1990-2005 period (43% above Framingham average)


13


14

Public safety statistics 2000-2004

From the Framingham Police Department Crime Statistics Lab

• Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) calls increased 12%

• Part 1 Crimes increased 23% [Part 1 crimes include: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft and are the basis of the federal Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics].

• Part 2 Crimes increased 7%[Part 2 crimes include: other assaults, prostitution and other vice crimes, vandalism, motor vehicle offenses, etc, and are not part of the UCR]

• Arrests decreased by 14%• Motor vehicle collisions increased by 36%• Motor vehicle citations decreased by 25%


15

Crime Statistics in Framingham

From Framingham Police Chief Carl’s report to the Board of Selectman on November 15, 2005:

• 40% of the arrests in Framingham occur in 1 square mile of downtown which is home to less than 10% of the population

• Between 2001-2005 9% -16% of arrests were homeless individuals

• The number of arrested individuals who provided the Common Ground wet shelter on Irving Street as home address, increased by 600% between 2001 and 2005.

• Police Department surveys in 2005 found that approximately 70% of the residents of the Irving St. shelter were from outside of the Framingham area.

Analysis of data gathered from public sources between July 2005 and March 2006 shows that:

• There were 721 arrests of Framingham residents• 15% had the wet shelter listed as their home

address• 70% were living within a 1 mile radius of the

Memorial Building


16


17

Computer Aided Dispatch Calls• In 2005 there were about 40,000 CAD calls, according

to Chief Carl. Many were motor vehicles calls• Assuming approximately 40,000 residential and

commercial units in Framingham, there is a yearly average of less than 1 CAD call per unit.

• Analysis of 1,884 calls over a nearly 2 year period from 104 of the non-profit social service sites listed on preliminary inventory of sites with published addresses, yields:– 20 sites averaged less than 1 call per year– 61 sites averaged between 1 and 10 calls per year– 21 sites averaged between 11 and 50 calls per year– An average of 63 calls per year originated from the

Psychiatric Emergency Services on Hollis St.– An average of 124 calls per year originated from

the Common Ground Wet Shelter on Irving St


18

Comparing Framingham to other Communities • Simple comparisons were done of Framingham

to other communities • Group 1 consists of 7 neighboring communities,

and includes Ashland, Marlborough, Natick, Southborough, Sudbury, Sherborn, and Wayland.

• Group 2 consists of 17 communities in the same federally defined HUD Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) as Framingham, with populations between 40,000 and 100,000.

Group 2 includes: Arlington, Beverly, Brookline, Cambridge, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Newton, Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Somerville, Taunton, Waltham, and Weymouth.

Not all communities are included in every analysis


19

Comparative Inventory of Sites

We used the same definition and the same methodology for searching and identifying private non-profit social service sites in other communities as that used in our analysis of Framingham’s inventory. To the best of our abilities, this data has been gathered consistently in all communities.

Findings• Framingham led all communities studied, with

241 sites• In group 1, Marlborough had the second

highest site count with 34 sites • Of the 10 group 2 communities studied. Lynn

followed Framingham with 132 sites, then Quincy with 101

• For all communities studied Framingham has the highest number of sites per person with 3.6 per 1,000 residents (based on 2000 census). Lynn was second at 1.5 per 1,000 residents.

Private Non-Profit Social Services

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Wayland

Southbrough

Sudbury

Sherborn

Brookline

Weymouth

Ashland

Taunton

Peabody

Natick

Waltham

Malden

Marlborough

Salem

Quincy

Beverly

Lynn

Framingham

Sites per 1000 residents


20

State and federal fundingTotal state aid and other special

revenue• Framingham receives $567 per

capita for total state aid and other special revenue

• Group 1 communities - Wayland ranked 1st with $928 per capita for total state aid and special revenue. Sudbury was 2nd with $727.

• Group 2 communities - Lynn ranked 1st with $1,745 per capita for total state aid and special revenue. Taunton was 2nd with $1,217.

• For all communities studied, 19 received more total aid than Framingham. 5 received less.

State and Special/capita using 2004 estimated Population

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Sherborn

Waltham

Natick

Brookline

Medford

Framingham

Beverly

Arlington

Southborough

Marlborough

Ashland

Plymouth

Quincy

Cambridge

Sudbury

Weymouth

Peabody

Salem

Somerville

Wayland

New ton

Malden

Revere

Taunton

Lynn

Source: MA MUnicipal Data Bank


21

Community Development Block Grants

CDBG Funds per capita

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

Framingham

Plymouth

Taunton

Waltham

Weymouth

Quincy

Salem

Medford

Cambridge

Arlington

Lynn

Newton

Malden

Somerville

Brookline

Source: HUD Entitlement Community Program

Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are given directly to 15 of the communities studied.

• Brookline ranked 1st with $60 per capita. Somerville, Malden, Newton and Lynn all receive more than $50 per capita

• Framingham ranked 15 out of 15 with $10 per capita


22

Comparative Property Values

Residential Property New Growth

• The impact of new residential units has not been accounted for

• The committee was not able to conduct a controlled study and account for this growth

• From 1990-2000 the number of residential units in Framingham increased by 1% (U.S. Census)

• Ashland had the highest increase in the number of residential properties at 20% followed by Sudbury at 15%

U.S.Census: Total Housing Unit Growth 1990-2000

-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Arlington

Medford

FRAMINGHAM

Malden

Somerville

Weymouth

Peabody

Beverly

Brookline

New ton

Sherborn

Natick

Salem

Quincy

Cambridge

Revere

Wayland

Waltham

Taunton

Marlborough

Sudbury

Ashland

Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000


23

Comparative Residential Property Values

Assessed Residential Property Values

The impact of new housing has not been accounted for

• The total value of all residential property in Framingham increased by 83% between 1990 and 2005..

• Southborough led group 1 communities with growth of 192%, followed by Ashland with 156%, then Sudbury and Wayland at 140%.

• Cambridge led group 2 communities with growth of 200%, followed by Brookline at 184%, then Plymouth at 157%.

• Framingham is ranked 24th out of 25 communities studied. Only Sherborn trailed Framingham at 82%

Cumulative Growth of Assessed Value of Residential Properties: 1990-2005

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Sherborn

Framingham

Waltham

Revere

Medford

Arlington

Lynn

Salem

Weymouth

Tauton

Natick

Peabody

Malden

Somerville

Marlborough

Beverly

Quincy

Newton

Wayland

Sudbury

Ashland

Plymouth

Brookline

Southborough

Cambridge

Source: MA Municipal Data Bank


24

Comparative Commercial Property Values

Assessed Commercial Property Values

The impact of new construction has not been accounted for

• Between 1990-2005 the assessed value of all commercial property in Framingham increased by 61%

• Of communities studied Taunton led with 163% growth followed by Brookline with 132% and Natick at 126%.

• Framingham ranked 4th among group 1 communities and 8th among all communities studied

Cumulative Growth of Assessed Value of Commercial Properties: 1990-2005

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

Newton

Waltham

Sudbury

Wayland

Somerville

Arlington

Lynn

Revere

Salem

Plymouth

Malden

Medford

Southborough

Sherborn

Quincy

Weymouth

Beverly

Framingham

Cambridge

Ashland

Peabody

Marlborough

Natick

Brookline

Taunton

Source: MA Municipal Data Bank


25

Comparative Median Sales Price

Median Sales Price of Residential Property from The Warren Group

The impact of new housing has not been accounted for

• Between 1990-2004, the median sales price of residential properties in Framingham increased by 119%

• Southborough led group 1 communities with growth of 207%, followed by Ashland with 167%, then Natick at 157%.

• Plymouth led group 2 communities with growth of 179%, followed by Brookline at 166%, then Revere at 157%.

• Framingham is ranked 24th out of 25 communities studied. Only Sudbury trailed Framingham at 110% growth.

Median Sales Value of Residential Properties Cumulative Growth 1990-2004

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Sudbury

Framingham

Peabody

Sherborn

Taunton

Lynn

Marlborough

Beverly

Salem

Somerville

Holliston

Wayland

Malden

Waltham

New ton

Weymouth

Cambridge

Arlington

Quincy

Medford

Revere

Natick

Brookline

Ashland

Plymouth

Southborough

Source: The Warren Group


26

Population Growth

• Framingham’s population grew by 3% from 1990 to 2000, the lowest among group 1. Southborough was the highest at 32%

• Plymouth led group 2 with population growth of 13% followed by Taunton at 12% and Revere at 11%.

• Framingham’s population growth was 11th of 18 group 2 communities


27

Household and Family Income• Framingham’s Median Household Income (MHI)

grew by 26.4% between 1990 and 2000, and Median Family Income (MFI) grew by 26.5% in that interval.

• Framingham had the lowest growth rate for both MHI and MFI among group 1 communities.

• Framingham ranked 16th out of 18 for MHI and MFI growth for group 2 communities. Only Lynn and Revere had a lower Median Family Income growth than Framingham

Household A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their

usual place of residence. A non-family householder is a householder living alone or with non-relatives only.

Family household A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same

household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family.


28

Median Household Median Family Income

Median Household Income 1990-2000 Growth

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Revere

Weymouth

Framingham

Sherborn

Lynn

Quincy

Taunton

Malden

Ashland

Salem

Medford

Beverly

Plymouth

Marlborough

Peabody

Wayland

Waltham

Natick

Somerville

Newton

Cambridge

Brookline

Arlington

Sudbury

Southborough

Source: U.S. Census

Median Family Income growth: 1990-2000

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Revere

Lynn

Framingham

Sherborn

Malden

Weymouth

Somerville

Quincy

Ashland

Taunton

Salem

Medford

Beverly

Plymouth

Waltham

Wayland

Peabody

Cambridge

Marlborough

Arlington-

New ton

Brookline

Natick

Sudbury

Southborough

Source: U.S. Census


29

Uniform Crime Reports for Part 1 Crimes

The U.S. Department of Justice advises to be aware of the pitfalls of comparing and ranking UCR data due to variations in each locale and police department. Data is not available for all communities.

• In 2004, Framingham reported 1,771 Part 1 crimes, or 27 crimes per 1000 residents

• Revere reported 45 crimes per 1000 residents, followed by Lyn with 44• Framingham and Somerville ranked 7th of 17 communities

Trends• From 1990-2000, total Part 1 crime in Framingham decreased by 51%• Brookline led with 67% decrease followed by Newton at 62%. All

communities reported a decrease in part 1 crime in this same period• Framingham’s decrease was ranked 6th out of 16 communities studied• From 2000-2003, total Part 1 crime in Framingham increased by 11%• Part 1 crime increased in Peabody by 30% followed by Revere with a

22% increase.• Framingham’s increase in crime was ranked 3rd out of 16 communities

studied


30

Crime Rates from Uniform Crime Reports for Part 1 Crimes

2004 Crime Rates per 1,000 populationUCR statistics and 2000 population

0 10 20 30 40 50

Newton

Arlington

Waltham

Beverly

Weymouth

Brookline

Taunton

Natick

Quincy

Framingham

Somerville

Medford

Peabody

Salem

Cambridge

Lynn

Revere

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Census


31

Uniform Crime Reports for Part 1 Crimes

Change in Number of " Total Crimes" 1990-2000

-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0

Brookline

Newton

Peabody

Arlington

Weymouth

Framingham

Quincy

Medford

Cambridge

Revere

Somerville

Salem

Waltham

Natick

Lynn

Taunton

UCR Crime Data

Change in the number of "Total Crime" 2000-2003

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4

Medford

Taunton

Quincy

Salem

Lynn

Cambridge

Waltham

Newton

Weymouth

Natick

Somerville

Brookline

Arlington

Framingham

Revere

Peabody

UCR Crime Data


32

Admissions to residential and outpatient substance treatment services

Substance Abuse Treatment Fact Sheets from MA Department of Public Health

• In 2004, there were 102,226 admissions to licensed substance abuse treatment services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• 1,333 of these admissions reside in Framingham, or 20 per 1,000 residents

• Revere reported 26 admissions per 1000 residents, followed by Lynn with 25

• Framingham ranked 3rd in the number of admissions per 1000 residents

2004 Substance Abuse Admissions to licensed treatment faciltiy per 1,000 population using 2004 estimate

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Newton

Brookline

Waltham

Arlington

Cambridge

Medford

Plymouth

Somerville

Peabody

Malden

Taunton

Weymouth

Salem

Quincy

Framingham

Lynn

Revere

Sourse: BSAS and MA Municipal Data Bank


33

Massachusetts PILOT Programs: Background InformationMGL Ch 59 and CH 121B outlines procedures for Payment In

Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) for properties owned by other communities, MWRA and MDC, and housing authorities.

• A 2003 Department of Revenue report on PILOT payments to cities and towns in Massachusetts for charitable or educational properties revealed that 6 out of 25 communities studied had such programs

• Boston has a PILOT program for charitable and educational properties where the payment is determined to be 25% of the taxes waived

• Salem requests PILOT payments to tax exempt properties based on public services used

• Newton is currently developing a PILOT program for all tax exempt properties

• Framingham Town Assessor recommended a PILOT in 1997 for tax-exempt properties. This was not implemented.

• Our work uncovered no communities with a PILOT specifically for private non‑profit social service agencies

• Contracts issued by Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) with non-profit social services do not address PILOT payments


34

Reminder …

• This is a draft presentation of our findings to date.

• Our committee consists of volunteers who have worked diligently to meet our charge to the best of our abilities.

• The data and findings herein are supported by the majority of the members of this diverse committee.

• We recognize that this document may include some incomplete or incorrect data.

• We welcome your written corrections and comments. PILOT/Impact Committee

150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702


35

Questions and Comments…

Documents

March 23, 2006 Draft findings 1 Framingham PILOT/Impact Study Committee Draft Findings to Date