Together with the other regional Mayors, I went to the Eagle Tribune editorial office recently to plead the case for cities. 

We have been meeting on a regular basis to formulate plans to deal with what we all see as a long term, sustained budget crisis for cities.  We have introduced regional purchasing in an effort to lower costs, and Haverhill will participate this year in regional purchasing for fog line painting and sewer cleaning. 

To read the entire Eagle Tribune story, click here

Monday night, I’ll be meeting with councilors to outline our budget problems, and to give some possible solutions.   

I’ll first outline how this is a State wide problem, not a city one. 

We are fortunate, in a way, that the steps we took earlier to reform health care (saving $1.5 million a year) and improve our tax base, have left us in a position that we can, and we will, manage this problem.

The key is this:  plan, don’t panic.  We have been preparing for months.  I meet with Department heads on a weekly basis-each one of them has an assignment to either enhance revenues or cut expenses. 

Working together, we have made some substantial progress.   Monday night you will see that our $5.8 million deficit is now substantially reduced, but we still have a ways to go.   

Here are some of the ideas I’ll be putting forth on Monday night:

a.  Health care reforms– will save us about $1.5 million, but requires union approvals;

b.  Raise fees, to make certain that the amount of the fee is commensurate with the work being done. 

c.  Sell vacant land which we took for back taxes.  (Not park land and not land we need for other purposes.)

d.  Sell water sewer hookups to other communities

e.  Streamline and cut our government.

Going forward, we are determined to protect public safety and public education, there are the keys to our city.

Stay tuned. Check my web site, http://www.jamesfiorentini.com/ for more details on my plans and please feel free to offer your comments, suggestions and ideas.

Jim Fiorentini

Yesterday, most of the Mayors throughout the State met with the Lt. Governor and several State finance officials concerning the Governor’s casino gambling proposal. 

The numbers the Governor outlined to us were compelling:  without licensing fees from casinos, State aid to cities and towns will tumble, with licensing fees, State aid will remain level funded, and aid to schools will increase. 

The Governor’s proposal cuts local aid to Haverhill by $1.6 million, and then adds it back in a special line item, gambling revenue.  This $1.6 million deficit would be in addition to the multi-million deficit we now face.   

One the Mayors made an interesting point— here we are in a battle with the legislature, over level funding.  This means that if all goes well, if we get our way, that State aid will not keep pace with inflation or with the rising costs of our heating oil, electricity, health care, pensions etc.   

(Of course, Haverhill is in a unique position.  We received $1 million in additional aid in the Governor’s budget for relief from the Hale debt. Believe me, I had no complaints about the Governor’s budget. ) 

There was talk at the meeting that the legislature will meet the Governor’s revenue numbers, but will do it without licensing fees from gambling, and will take the money from the State rainy day fund instead. 

The problem with that is, as one State official said, the rainy day fund is for a recession, it is for a time when State revenues are falling.  Our State revenues are rising, not falling. 

The basic gist of the problem is that State aid to cities and towns is tied to the lottery.  If lottery receipts are down, then State aid can drop also.  This year, the lottery shows a $192M drop from last year as, horror of horrors, people are gambling less in anticipation of an economic downturn. 

My position?  As I said to the press, I have always been personally opposed to casinos, but I have to represent my city, not just my own personal point of view. 

We need the revenues—we certainly can not afford another $1.6 million gap.  The Governor’s office made a compelling point– there will be gambling, either the State will license it, the Federal government will license the Indian casinos, or our residents will drive to Connecticut to gamble.  The question is, who gets the taxes and licensing fees.

If the legislature does not want to license gambling, then we hope they can come up with an alternative.  Cities and towns need the money.

The Gamble on Local Aid

Under Proposition 2 and half, cities depend upon local aid to survive.  State aid is based upon lottery receipts.   This year, lottery receipts are down, meaning local aid may be in for a fall.  If local aid is cut, cities and towns are forced to raise taxes or lay off employees.  

The Governor has proposed level funding local aid.   Level funding is certainly better than a cut.  However, even if State aid is level funded, this creates enormous problems for cities and towns.  Our fixed costs for fuel, electricity, heat, pensions and health care are all going up, so level funding means that we have to cut something else to pay for these fixed costs.  

To make up the difference between the shortage in lottery receipts and the amount required to level fund local aid, the Governor has proposed making up the difference using $124 million in licensing fees from legalized casinos.   [Boston Globe:  Patrick says $124m from fees could fill local aid shortfall ]

The problem, of course, is that the legislature has not legalized casino gambling.  There are no licensing fees or other fees from casinos.  The Governor’s proposal is designed to put pressure on the legislature and is certain to touch off a long and protracted debate.

There has been a good deal of comment in the newspapers lately about
police details.  Our police chief has been the subject of a good deal of criticism, most of it unjustified.  I thought I would write and start a discussion about it.

Contrary to popular belief, no Massachusetts law, at least no law that we can find, requires that the police provide roadside details.  In the 49 other States, roadside details are sometimes provide provided by police, and often by civilians known as flagmen.  Here are some details:

What are police details?

You know what they are.  These are the police you see by the road (hopefully) directing traffic while work is being done on the roadway.  Police details are done if a road is being paved, or if construction work is being done that affects the roadway.

There are many times when it is perfectly legitimate to have a police officer directing traffic while construction work is being done.  There are other times when we all scratch our heads and say, why is an officer required here?

Who pays for police details?

The short answer is, you do.  Most of the details, most of the time, are paid for by the utility companies that are doing the work.  They add it to your bill.

But the State and local governments do roadway work all the time, and in those instances, the government (that’s you) pays for the roadway details.  The city of Haverhill paid only a small amount of money for roadwork last year, about $20,000.  However, we have some major projects scheduled next year, and we estimate we are going to spend $80-$100,000 next year of your money on police details. 

Why don’t we use flagmen here? 

The short answer is, it isn’t that easy.  Although no State law prevents it, nearly every city and the State have collective bargaining agreements with their local unions that require that police do the details, not civilians.  Even when it is not in the agreement, the collective bargaining laws require that if work that is traditionally done by a group covered by a collective bargaining contract, you must first bargain over that.   How likely do you think it is that the police union is going to agree to give this up?

It will probably take a State law to bring in flagmen.  That State law would have to say that notwithstanding any collective bargaining agreement, a city or the State could use flagmen to direct traffic at roadsides. 

Would a community save money if you they used flagmen?

That isn’t as clear as might think.  The Massachusetts prevailing wage law requires that if you hire private people to do public work, you have to pay them what is called the “prevailing wage.”  The prevailing wage is a the equivalent wage to what the job would be if it were unionized. 

I have no idea what the prevailing wage is for flagmen, or even if the the prevailing wage law applies here, but it is definitely something that has to be considered.  The prevailing wage is set by a committee of business people and unions, municipal leaders are not at the table when the prevailing wage is decided.  The prevailing wage for lawn mowing is set at $43 an hour, which seems outrageous to me.  (We all know we can get people to mow our lawns much cheaper than that.)

 What is we can’t get enough police to do the details?

Here is where the police can not have it both ways.  In many communities, there simply are not enough police to do the details.  Why can’t a community use flagmen here?  The communities instead resort to hiring retired police officers, axillary police, reserve police, police from other communities, sheriff’s officers, and, sometimes, fire fighters. 

All of these folks, respectfully, are not police.  The argument often given by the police unions that it is critical to have police officers by the side of the road quickly goes out the window when you see non police such as firefighters doing the details.

How can Haverhill save money on details?

This is the critical issue to me, as Mayor.  The easiest answer is, don’t have details.  Details are not required every single time you dig up the roadway, it is in the discretion of the project manager and the police chief when details are needed.  We are looking into when we need details, and when we can do without them.

What are your thoughts? 

Welcome to Mayor Jim’s blog!   This is your chance to give advice to city leaders on the running of the city.

Please be patient!  I am new to this, and am doing this myself from my home.  I do not have a great deal of time to do this and may not be able to respond to every post.

 Thanks for logging in!

Mayor Jim Fiorentini