Check against delivery
Lord Mayor,
Dear colleagues,
Dear members of the audience here in the chamber and on the livestream,
Good politics begins with a clear vision. For us at Volt, that means a sustainable, liveable Münster with strong European connections, where equal opportunities are a top priority. But it also means consistently making our city fit for the future – so that tomorrow we do not pay for today's failures.
But what if money is tight? What if not everything can be done at once? That is the honest question behind this two-year budget, and the one we are answering today.
This budget did not come about in a vacuum. The administration laid a good foundation. As a coalition, we built on it, discussed a great deal and made decisions. Three parties with different priorities, and yet jointly responsible. For us, that is democratic work.
One thing was central for us: we will not make cuts at the expense of those who already have a hard time, and above all not without warning, out of the blue.
That is why we deliberately made adjustments at key points. One example is the dedicated school bus service. It was originally due to be cut immediately after the 2026 summer holidays. For many parents, that would have been extremely short notice, with no real opportunity to adjust to the new situation.
At the same time, the following also applies here: the dedicated school bus service costs the city around €600,000 a year. It is a discretionary service that we cannot guarantee permanently.
What we can offer, however, is certainty for planning: the service will continue as usual in 2026 and 2027. And for Loevelingloh primary school, it will even continue at least for as long as the current first-year pupils attend school there. This makes it possible to plan and does not raise false hopes. These are concrete decisions that make a difference to the everyday lives of people in Münster.
But we are also concerned with investing in Münster's ability to meet the future. I would like to illustrate this with three points.
The first point is the digitalisation of our city administration. Hardly any topic is invoked so often and at the same time so rarely implemented consistently. Yet we have long known what is possible. In Estonia, for example, more than ninety per cent of all administrative services are now used digitally. Tax returns there often take only a few minutes, companies can be set up in less than twenty minutes, and yet administrative costs are well below the European average. This is not a technical miracle but the result of a political decision: there, administration is understood as a service, not as an obstacle.
If we apply this standard, it becomes clear where we stand. In Münster, submitting an application today still often means filling in forms, providing the same data several times and then waiting weeks or even months for a response. For people, this is frustrating; for staff in the administration, it is a burden; and for the city, it is simply inefficient.
This is exactly where this budget comes in. We are providing €800,000 for digitalisation and anchoring this process in long-term financial planning. In addition, we are investing specifically in the processing of housing benefit, in order to speed it up through automated preliminary checks and the use of AI. The aim is not technological progress for its own sake. It is about making work in the administration easier while putting citizens at the centre.
One could describe this development as modernisation. It would be more accurate to see it as a long-overdue adjustment. Other cities and countries have been showing for years that this kind of administration is possible. The real question, therefore, is not whether we can afford this step, but why we have put it off for so long.
Another important point for Münster's future is how attractive our city is for the people who live here and want to make it their home.
Because right now we can see very clearly where things are stuck: almost 5,000 naturalisation applications are pending, and procedures not infrequently take more than 2 years. Behind each of these applications is a person. Someone who lives here, works here, has started a family and simply wants to be part of this city.
When procedures drag on for so long, this is not an abstract number but real uncertainty in these people's lives. Whether people can truly make Münster their home is decided at precisely such points. And there is an economic side as well: anyone who wants to live and work here should be able to do so, and without unnecessary obstacles.
That is why we are tackling the naturalisation backlog and creating additional staff capacity to clear it – the equivalent of 2.5 full-time posts. Because an administration that works well not only helps people, it also strengthens Münster as a place to work and live.
The third point concerns how we implement the climate transition in Münster. Climate action is often perceived as an additional task, as something that causes costs. A look at the figures, however, paints a different picture. Buildings are responsible for around a third of energy consumption and CO₂ emissions. Unrenovated buildings consume many times the energy of modern buildings. Every school and every administrative building that we do not renovate today causes ongoing costs that we will have to bear in the coming years.
Against this background, investment in the energy-efficient renovation of municipal buildings is not a discretionary service but a form of forward-looking financial policy. It reduces expenditure in the long term, stabilises the budget and at the same time contributes to climate action. Studies estimate that public buildings in Germany alone require investment running into hundreds of billions of euros to achieve climate neutrality. At the same time, funding is available at European level that can cover a substantial share of this investment.
If we provide funds for renovation today and supplement them with European funding programmes, we are doing so not only in the interest of the climate and a liveable future, but also for the financial stability of our city. In this way, we avoid future burdens while making use of the opportunities offered by European funding.
This brings me to a point that is particularly important to us as the Volt group. Münster is not an island. Many of the challenges we face have been tackled in other European cities for years. Solutions have been developed there that we do not need to reinvent. Digital administration, energy-efficient buildings and smart infrastructure are not projects for the future but already established practice.
It is therefore not a sign of weakness to take these examples as a guide. On the contrary. It reflects a self-confident approach to the opportunities that Europe offers us. We can learn from others, enter into partnerships and make targeted use of funding. A city like Münster in particular, which historically stands for understanding and cooperation, should follow this path consistently.
This budget is not an easy budget. It demands priorities, it demands trade-offs and it demands decisions that will not meet with approval from everyone. But it contains exactly the approaches we need now: investment in functioning structures, in an efficient administration and in sustainable infrastructure.
In the end, it comes down to a simple consideration. We can continue to manage the existing problems and push the costs into the future. Or we can decide to tackle them now and create the conditions for Münster to remain able to act in the years to come.
We have chosen the second path.
Thank you.
