Municipalities receive money and disburse money: the accounting of a municipality should only be a financial statement: how much goes in and how much goes out. Unfortunately, the result of municipal budgets is never so simple to measure. In the case of the Municipality of Naples, says the technical report of the administrators to the final balance of 2010, released by the Jervolino junta, that on January 2010st 140 there were 1818 million euros in cash. During the year, the Municipality collected 140 on an accrual basis, which added to the 1958, make 1823 and, having paid for various and different reasons, 125, which at the end of the year had 2010 million euro in hand. But this interpretation must take into account that the transfer of funds, entered and exited on an accrual basis, ie for reasons related to events placed during 3346, must deal with two major stocks: active and passive residuals. The first is worth 3379 million euros and the second 125. To the first you have to add the cash of 92 million and you will have total assets. If you remove the total liabilities, unfortunately, 140 million remain, less than the cash which, in any case, was less than 92 million at the beginning of the year. Without the case, inherited from the previous year, that XNUMX would have become negative.
In their report on the financial statements, the auditors add dangerous news to this state of affairs. The auditors write that "The Board deems the value of the provision for bad debts absolutely deficient, deeming it completely inadequate, both in consideration of the amount of residual assets ascertained, and in consideration of the low risk coverage ratio".
And they add a statement where it can be seen that the residual assets were 3616 million euros in 2008, and the provision for risks was equal to 4,88% of the total. Now, in 2010, they are 3346 million lire and the provision for risks has decreased in absolute value and is equal to only 2,53% of the total residual assets. The financial fragility is evident: 6% of residual assets, minus 2,5% of the fund, would already be equal to 3,5% of the 3346 million and there would no longer even be the surplus of 92 million built with the money of the 'last year. The auditors are right in judging that risk provision to be deficient. Also because the auditors also report that the off-balance sheet debts, generated by unpaid and unrecognized supplies of services, would be, from 2007 to 2010, the following series, in millions: 48,90,76,50. They are decreasing but they are still there in the dimension of 2007 and, over the four years, they have gone up and down but they are still there. Another financial fragility is that which concerns taxes and duties: in 2010 the tax on urban waste, the tarsu, was worth 145 million levy, it was paid for 14! The ICI arrears, from 1998 to 2008 reaching 37,6 million; 2,5 were collected. Of 612 million fines, again in 2010, 45 million had been collected.
Of course, the Municipality has buildings and land for 2347 million euros, but only less than 200 million are available for sale, while debts to banks and suppliers could overall exceed 4 billion euros, including funds to cover investments and capital expenditures. Over 800 million would be the annual sum for personnel expenses and for the losses of investee companies, during 2010. The Municipality is not in a state of instability according to current regulations but today it is close to exceeding the threshold that would declare it so. But the instability, with the new rules governing local authorities, generates a tsunami on citizens: due to the increase in taxes and tariffs, on employees and suppliers and also on future operations. Because it would also block hiring. The Municipality could self-declare the collapse but it would be a catastrophe for the city: a suicidal gesture. There's also a poison pill on the new mayor's table. The budget for 2011 had to be approved by 1 January 2011. Two three-month extensions could be had and the government granted them. If, on June 30, 2011, the budget for 2011 were not approved, the failure to approve it within the established deadlines would be cause for the dissolution of the Municipal Council which would be followed by the appointment of an ad acta commissioner, after the formal warning by the Prefect . In short, the Government is waiting at the gate for the new Mayor.
