On May 3rd, during the Martella-Venturini debate, the latter made several remarks worth revisiting. The first concerns “public debt [which has been] reduced by two hundred million euros”… “Venice is the only major Italian municipality reducing its debt, going against the national trend”… “now that the books are in order, we can do much more.”
The claim about the books being in order refers to the current budget surplus — the “little treasure chest” that Councilor Zuin discussed in recent days.
But a public budget cannot be treated like a business’s or a household’s budget. A surplus in a municipal budget means that expenditures fell below revenues (taxes and other income): thus, it means elderly people left without assistance, children without daycare, people in need without support, public housing left unmaintained. There is nothing virtuous about it, nothing to be proud of.
Let us also ask what has been done with this much-trumpeted surplus: it was transferred to the capital account to fund investment spending. And what does that spending consist of? The biggest item is the Bosco dello Sport — the construction of a Stadium and Arena where Mayor Brugnaro’s Reyer basketball team will play. Reyer won the concession contract — the only bid submitted — paying a laughably low fee while shifting the construction and infrastructure costs on to the public. This is a blatant conflict of interest. The city is paying for concrete in exchange for the abandonment of welfare. From 2012 to 2025, social spending (Mission 12) went from €111 million to €114.8 million. That looks like an increase, but once we account for inflation (which was severe between 2021 and 2024), in real purchasing-power terms the municipality is today spending less than it was ten years ago on social services.
And finally, let us turn to the much-touted debt reduction. Yes, the municipality has reduced the debt recorded in its own balance sheet, which fell from €321 million (2015) to €120 million (2016 projected). A drastic cut, to be sure. But we should note:
The downward trend in debt has continued uninterrupted since at least 2010, at annual rates consistent with the passage of time. This is not a feature of the current administration.
The reduction does not apply to the debt recorded in the consolidated balance sheet, which has declined at a far lower annual rate (–36% over ten years), but only to the municipality’s debt “in the strict sense” (–63% over ten years). In other words, the municipality appears virtuous and “debt-free” only because it has shifted its borrowing onto its subsidiaries (Veritas, AVM…), which today carry approximately €600–800 million in consolidated debt. In exchange, the City Council has significantly raised the TARI (waste tax) rate and water bills, passing the burden of the operation on to taxpayers. Veritas “costs more” and demands a higher rate because the municipality stopped funding it directly, forcing it to borrow on the market.
The vaunted debt reduction is largely due to the recording in the 2026 budget of a repayment of approximately €95 million, owing to the maturity of the old Merrill Lynch/BOC debt from the 2000s. To do this, the municipality is drawing on a record cash surplus (€354 million) — but this is “temporary” liquidity, the product of payment delays and large advances of external funding not yet spent (PNRR funds, central government transfers, European funds, and others). Using this cash surplus to repay the €95 million Merrill Lynch debt today means draining the city’s financial buffer. When the “accrual-basis” payments (public works and services already committed but not yet due) come to maturity, the municipality will find itself without liquidity.
The 2026 budget maneuver is not a structural fiscal consolidation — it is a risky gamble on liquidity. Using cash generated by timing mismatches (outstanding payables) to retire financial debts merely shifts the problem: the debt to banks disappears, but a potential shortfall in funds for future payments to vendors and services is created. This is an approach that prioritizes the cosmetic soundness of the financial statements at the expense of the stability of services to residents — who become the residual variable in the whole operation. The municipality is playing “high-stakes finance” with public services: this year the municipality will be formally less indebted, but financially more fragile, with citizens less protected.
L’articolo Simone Venturini, Aggressive Financier proviene da ytali..
4uMagazine
