By Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Hours after I delivered my third inaugural address, a reporter called to ask how the city was going to pay for the many initiatives I had laid out for 2008, including such items as the expansion and reorganization of the police department, the creation of two police substations, an ambitious parks and open space rehab and upgrade effort, and another round of improvements to our customer service and environmental programs.  I told the reporter that with one notable exception ‚Äì the rebuilding of our fire-damaged East Somerville Community School ‚Äì the funding sources (operating budget, capital budget, bonds and grants) for our 2008 agenda were already identified.

Thanks to continued growth in our local commercial tax base – and thanks to prudent fiscal management and a strong bond rating – the city remains able to make ends meet while spending less per capita in local tax dollars than any city in Massachusetts with a population of 50,000 or more.

There‚Äôs no question, however, that Somerville‚Äôs budgets ‚Äì and those of cities and towns across the Commonwealth ‚Äì are going to continue to be painfully tight.  Even if our national economy doesn‚Äôt slip into recession this year, the forecast for revenues at the state level isn‚Äôt pretty ‚Äì and that means the forecast for restoring lost state aid to cities and towns is equally grim.

With a state deficit currently projected at $1.3 billion, it’s hard to see how the legislature can boost local aid back to historic, pre-2002 levels. As I said in my inaugural remarks, despite the best efforts of our local legislative representatives and a sympathetic governor, Somerville’s total local aid remains over $6 million below what it was in FY2002 – and we saw an additional net decrease of over $100,000 in FY08. The unfortunate truth is that these local aid cuts have forced communities to rely far too much on the property tax.

No one has understood this problem better than Governor Deval Patrick, who has offered several potential solutions to the state’s revenue problems. His Municipal Partnership Act would offer a city like Somerville up to $1.8 million in added annual revenue by closing the outdated 1913 telecommunications property tax loophole and by giving cities and towns the option to levy modest add-ons to the state’s hotel and meals taxes. Our delegation has made a strong case for these changes, but the legislature seems paralyzed.

The Governor has also suggested closing a series of corporate tax loopholes, resulting in an increase of $500 in state revenues – but the legislature seems to have rejected the idea.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has stepped into the fray with a proposal for a permanent revenue sharing plan under which 40 percent of the state‚Äôs growth taxes be set aside for direct municipal and school aid payments.  In my inaugural address, I backed the idea and called on the Governor and the legislature to adopt the MTF‚Äôs plan, which would give cities and towns more predictability in our finances without requiring the state to meet preset aid levels even in a year when revenues were flat.

Governor Patrick, to his credit, is trying to help cities and towns in as many ways as he can. We have every reason to believe the Governor‚Äôs pledge at last weekend‚Äôs Mass Municipal Association Annual conference, where he said that ‚ÄúOur budget will not be balanced on your backs . . . Cities and towns need the power to control their own destiny. . .  Our message is simple: What‚Äôs good for cities and towns is good for our Commonwealth.‚Äù

While every member of our local delegation is fighting hard on behalf of these proposals, the legislature as a whole isn’t responding to the governor’s challenge.

It may not be possible to get all of the key provisions of the Municipal Partnership Act and the corporate tax loophole and a more rational revenue-sharing plan.

But even if it can‚Äôt or won‚Äôt do everything, the legislature has to do something. The current paralysis on revenue policy will end up hurting everyone in the state ‚Äì and, once again, cities and towns will suffer for Beacon Hill‚Äôs poor judgment.