Official Statement on US Senate Run

For the past several months I have considered a run for the United States Senate.  I very much enjoyed this process and the response was sustaining and positive.  I am especially thankful for the encouragement and wise counsel I received from those that I have spoken to about my interest in the Senate seat. 

I believe this race is an important one for working families in Massachusetts, and I believe that a Democrat can win the seat.  I also agree with those I spoke with that to have the best shot at success requires candidates to announce early.  Thus, I had set an April deadline for myself.

I have concluded that I cannot enter the race at this time.  As I worked through this decision making process, it became increasingly clear to me that at present there is much to do here in Salem.  This is a critical period of time for the City and the next several months will be consumed with dealing with a very difficult budget, planning for the future of the City’s aging, coal based power plant, and managing strategic investments in our waterfront and transportation some of which are currently underway.  My first obligation is to the people of Salem, who have elected me to do the best job I can, here first, before I think about moving on.

Plain and simple, I do think the seat is winnable, but there is a time and place for everything and I have simply come to the conclusion that for me, at this time, I enjoy my job as Mayor of Salem and I believe my work here will require my full attention.

WE CAN'T AFFORD DECISIONS LIKE THIS

Wondering what you can do to help us spend tax dollars wisely?  Well, please read the following link: http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1248734585/Council-says-no-to-a-lower-lease-at-annex, which appeared in Saturday’s edition of the Salem News outlining our current lease dilemma and then contact your city councillors to help turn this issue around.

As you may know, the City of Salem has rented space for a City Hall Annex that houses various municipal departments since at least 1986.  For many years, these offices were located at One Salem Green, the building directly behind City Hall which is currently owned by Salem Five Bank.  In 2000, the City entered into a 10 year lease agreement with the former owner of the building located at 120 Washington Street. We rent approximately 20,000 square feet for $382,000 per year and the 10 year lease expires at the end of this month (February).  We have 5, one year options we can use if we want to extend the lease.  Rather than simply extend the lease under the current terms, we opted to put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to investigate the potential for new lease space and/or better terms under our current lease.  It’s a renters market and we wanted to take advantage of that fact. 

Keep in mind, that under state law, the city can not simply enter into a lease agreement for space without soliciting proposals from interested parties, nor can we simply negotiate with our current landlord or any other property owner for better terms, without going through a public bid process.  This helps to keep the “politics” out of leasing space and ensures an open and fair process is used before expending taxpayer dollars to lease public space.  The City can establish criteria for space needs and proposed terms, such as proximity to City Hall, length of term, etc. all of which must be spelled out in the RFP. 

In August, the City put out an RFP for lease space.  We received two proposals in response.  One from our current landlord and one from the owner of 10 Federal Street. Thus, we had two options to evaluate for our space needs.

The proposal from our current landlord was $42,000 less than our current rent.  In addition, the landlord included as part of their proposal some repairs/renovations to the current premises (new rugs, painting, upgrading HVAC systems).  Over five years, we would be able to save more than $200,000 off our current rent. The proposal from the owner of 10 Federal Street was more expensive ($370,000 vs. the 120 Washington St proposal of $340,000 per yr.) and would also entail additional costs to the city, such as moving expenses and connecting the new site to our data system via fiber optics.  The 10 Federal St. proposal included a contribution of one months rent to help offset some of these expenses, however that amount would not cover all of the costs of moving and data connection.

Since under the new terms the space at our existing premises was $42,000 less expensive per year (not to mention the savings on moving and data costs), a Committee comprised of the Building Inspector, Planner, Purchasing Agent and Solicitor recommended staying at 120 Washington Street.  This recommendation was submitted to the City Council for their approval on December 9^th.  While the space at 120 Washington Street is not ideal, a short term lease will provide the City with the time and the impetus to put a plan together for how best to accommodate our space needs moving forward for the long term.  Several options exist, from the state owned District Court building which is expected to be available in 2013, to city owned land at the MBTA lot or Church Street, to leasing space or buying an office condo somewhere else in close proximity to City Hall.  While there is no shortage of ideas on where the City should be long term, it will require time to build consensus on a location (a 2/3 majority of the Council must agree on a space) and implement any plan-either in existing space or in something new that will have to be built.  It will also require another RFP process.  So, in the meantime, we’d like to take advantage of the $200,000+ savings that come from the new lease terms.  If we don’t approve the new lease, we’ll have no choice but to exercise our one year options and pay $42,000 more per year for the same 120 Washington Street space we currently rent. 

I seriously doubt we’ll have Council consensus on a new location that will be ready and available to us within the next three years, so why not save money while we explore these options?  Honestly, given the cost savings involved, I never thought this would be a controversial matter.  The only reason we didn’t simply extend the lease under the one of the five year options, was to try and save some money.  We did that, now we need to take advantage of the savings.   

A PLEA FOR MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

and Support for Governor Patrick’s Municipal Health Insurance Bill

As has been well reported, health care costs for municipal employees are growing at an unsustainable rate.  Finding ways to curb this dramatic growth is absolutely essential to maintaining basic city services.  The annual increase in municipal health care costs is robbing money from our schools, public safety efforts, public works projects and other important programs.

Local leaders have been clamoring for municipal health insurance reform for many years as a way to help manage budgets during these fiscally challenging times.  With that in mind, we are writing to express our support for legislation proposed by the Governor entitled, “An Act Further Strengthening the Commonwealth’s Partnership with its Municipalities” which aims to provide material and immediate savings to communities facing soaring health insurance costs.

This proposal will require that municipalities and its unions engage in expedited negotiations to establish new health insurance coverage, either by joining the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) or adopting local plans with benefits comparable to those provided by the GIC.  If the parties can not reach agreement within the expedited negotiation period, the municipality will have the right, without a union veto, to either join the GIC or adopt the lower cost plans.  This represents a multi-million dollar savings to municipalities, helping many communities to avert an out and out budget crisis.  And a switch to the GIC will provide local employees with some of the top rated commercial plans in the nation with benefits that are at least as generous as those provided to over 300,000 state and municipal employees and their families.  By any measure, employees will continue to receive quality health care at a reasonable price.

For far too long municipalities in Massachusetts have been denied authority to manage and moderate rising health insurance costs.  While we have been able to work with our collective bargaining unions on a host of issues, solving the problem of rising employee health care costs has been much more elusive.  Now more than ever, providing Mayors and Managers this vital tool is critical to balancing local budgets as we struggle to absorb even further reductions in local aid.  Although additional work will be required of the Administration to finalize the regulations,  in order to implement the necessary savings by the start of the next fiscal year, it is imperative that the Legislature act swiftly to adopt the proposed measure now.  We urge legislators to make municipal health insurance reform their highest priority and quickly approve this measure so that savings can be achieved in Fiscal Year 2012, which begins July 1^st.

After several years of mulling over this issue, we need this bill passed so that we can continue providing municipal services at the quality our residents have come to expect, but with the cost savings and efficiencies that taxpayers demand.

Jay Ash, City Manager of Chelsea

Thatcher Keezer, Mayor of Amesbury

Tom Ambrosino, Mayor of Revere                              

Carolyn Kirk, Mayor of Gloucester

Andrew Bisignani, Town Manager of Saugus

Scott Lang, Mayor of New Bedford

Michael Bonfanti, Mayor of Peabody

Bernard Lynch, City Manager of Lowell

Joseph Curtatone, Mayor of Somerville

William Manzi, Mayor of Methuen

Rob Dolan, Mayor of Melrose

Wayne Marquis, Town Mgr of Danvers

Kim Driscoll, Mayor of Salem

Andrew Maylor, Town Ad., Swampscott

Clare Higgins, Mayor of Northampton

William Scanlon, Mayor of Beverly