By William C. Shelton

(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.)

Somerville faces some serious challenges in the near future.  Setting aside the question of whether our city government has the capacity to craft creative responses, the greatest constraint on implementing such solutions will be our ability to pay for them, or more accurately, our ability to pay for them without greatly increasing property taxes.  The prospect is not encouraging.

On the expense side, we see large Argenziano School construction cost overruns.  City government has conveniently postponed that project‚Äôs debt service until a year from now, when elected officials are not facing the voters.  We‚Äôre also paying debt service on recent DPW capital expenses, which some describe as lard. 

Along with most municipalities, we can expect continuing increases in wage and benefit expenses, as witnessed by recently concluded contract negotiations.  But we‚Äôll also be paying a lot more to compensate the mayor and the aldermen.  Needed capital investments, like building a new public safety building, renovating the library, and repairing our sewer system will only get more expensive the longer that we postpone them.  The coming wave of teacher retirements throughout the Commonwealth will obligate us to offer salaries competitive with other jurisdictions.

On the revenue side, we were able to dodge a bullet this year because the addition of hundreds of condominiums to the city‚Äôs tax base expanded its Proposition 2 1/2 limit.  We will not enjoy a similar expansion in the coming fiscal year, when the Agenziano School debt service comes due.

We were told fairy tales about how homeowners would all get a big tax breaks if the city gave the Assembly Square developers what they wanted.  In fact, it will be a few years before we see new Assembly Square tax revenues.  In Fiscal Year 2010, IKEA could add almost $1 million per year to a $170 million-per-year budget.  But there is legitimate doubt as to whether taxes on the large-format stores and housing planned for the site will not be offset by the new municipal expenses that they generate. 

Now I acknowledge that it is hard to discern what is really going on with the city‚Äôs finances, based on the budget documents available for public review.  From the Board of Aldermen‚Äôs discussion of the budget, or lack of discussion, it seems to be equally difficult for them. 

Nor do they get a lot of help.  The title ‚ÄúCity Auditor‚Äù implies that that office is a watchdog.  But I can‚Äôt recall the last time that the Auditor raised a meaningful question regarding matters of consequence to the city’s fiscal health.  The auditor is appointed by and reports to the mayor, rather than the Board of Aldermen.

The Board‚Äôs inability to dig into city finances is one reason why its budgetary authority, which is only the authority to approve or reduce the expense side of the budget, is nevertheless illusory.  Another reason is that if the Board did cut a specific item or department in the budget, the Mayor could then submit one or more individual supplemental appropriations.  Political pressure on the Board from a particular department‚Äôs staff and constituents can be considerable.  If, on the other hand, the Board declined to approve the entire budget, the Mayor would manage city government based on the previous year‚Äôs budget.  He could then pick and choose which individual appropriations he wanted to submit for Board approval.

So, it‚Äôs reasonable to ask whether our elected officials are up for the coming challenges and for finding prudent ways to pay for effective responses to them.  My answer is, ‚ÄúNo.‚Äù  And that ‚ÄúNo‚Äù has much less to do with the individual players than with a governmental structure and political culture that have long outlived their usefulness.

In recent columns, I’ve argued that the social institutions that once provided means for voters to know each other, created hundreds of mini political forums, made the Board of Aldermen a deliberative body, imposed personal accountability, kept patronage appointees effective in their jobs, and punished poor fiscal management have all disintegrated.

It‚Äôs easy, and sometimes legitimate, to blame the mayor or specific aldermen for our fiscal woes and legislative stagnation. But doing so doesn‚Äôt yield a solution that is persuasive of its ability to turn these conditions around. 

Elected officials achieve and retain their positions by making rational calculations, based on the existing political system and on the culture that surrounds it.  Those times when the outcomes of these calculations‚Äô are also what is best for the city‚Äôs wellbeing are merciful coincidences.  But I‚Äôm not persuaded that merely replacing the players would, over the long run, change the calculations required to win the game.

I am persuaded that we need to change the game.  And I believe that the way to do that is to change the city charter.

To be continued.