We need to talk about the Ravine year for a moment. After all, in 2026, the government is cutting billions from the municipal fund. Until now, this has been quite abstract because, let's face it: do we have any idea what money in your city goes where and from whom it comes? Municipal spending is a black box. My city has now listed what that municipal spending is all about. At the request of the Board of B&W, Utrecht officials have figured out what all the municipality could cut back on in 2026, when the national government's contribution will be decimated. That means they need to find 75 million euros in Utrecht's municipal coffers. Not nothing.
The list was in the mailbox here yesterday, and it takes some swallowing. But that, of course, is the point. All municipal expenditures have been listed, along with what a cut would yield in cash and cost in social loss. So councillors now have a neat list of which things they can sacrifice.
That produces descriptions like the following:
Coverage for capital costs is included in the investment agenda and coverage for operations in the culture programme. €425,000 concerns programming and €280,000 concerns investment (unprofitable top).
Influential option
Both components could be released, should a choice be made to cancel this investment.
Social impact
The realisation of a youth culture house in Leidsche Rijn - Vleuten de Meern is a long-cherished desire of many young people from that part of the city. There is little on offer for young people. The social effect is that with the scrapping of this facility, dissatisfaction will increase and risk of nuisance is magnified."
Which could then be squared away against this one, for example:
Influential option
Reduce subsidy for national foreigners' services (subsidies to NGOs)
Social impact
Less long or less intensive guidance, resulting in slower realisation of the future prospects (staying in the Netherlands or returning to country of origin). A consequence may be that waiting lists are growing and that homelessness among this group is increasing, resulting in safety and humanitarian issues. This measure is realistic only if the state decides to make the provision to continue on a multi-year basis (this is currently a pilot). Assumption is that if the state continues the provision and the municipality gets sustainable budgets, a part of the budget to be used as an austerity proposal. If the central government or the municipal council decide stop this facility, then the minimum municipal contribution in the first years will be needed are for winding down the provision.
Implementation
Currently, there is temporary funding, which ends in 2024. Given the election results and the views on migration, it is highly uncertain whether subsequent funding will be continued and if so on which way. In case of discontinuation of this provision, the first two to three years the (shelter) provision should be phased out.
This option is scalable."
Before you take to the streets right now to occupy a town hall, close an intersection or start shouting really loudly: there is a clear disclaimer to all this:
"This document concerns an official inventory of possible savings for the purpose of decision-making by the college and city council. This is a technical inventory regardless of desirability and does not contain any proposal or decision by the college or city council."
So read, and shudder, but realise that this is an extraordinarily useful piece: now we have a neat overview of what is on the council's plate, and we may understand a little better the terrible dilemmas facing councillors in the time ahead.
Annex-Ambatical-inventory-of-cutting-options-Utrecht-Budget-alternatives
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
