City Council Debates Property Transfer in New Health District Agreement

Contribution or purchase? Two nouns that stirred the City Council as it discussed the final approval of the program agreement between the Municipality and the Azienda Sanitaria Locale 22 (Local Health Authority 22) for the implementation of the new health district. The agreement includes the division of property ownership of the complex in Canova, based on thousandths (millesimi).

In practice, the ground floor where the Red Cross will be headquartered will remain owned by the Municipality, while everything else, including the surrounding land of approximately 2200 square meters, will form part of the real estate unit that will be registered either to the Municipality or the Azienda Sanitaria Locale, depending on the expenses incurred. The entrance road and external parking areas will remain with the Municipality, which is responsible for their maintenance.

Positions of the majority and minority

The majority council (opposed by the minority, with Zeno Gianfranceschi abstaining) approved the possibility for the Azienda Sanitaria Locale to acquire the entire complex related to its services. Currently, for the use of the part not under its jurisdiction, the Azienda Sanitaria Locale 22 pays a rental fee.

However, within this entire process, there is a point that did not convince the minority. “At no point in the Council discussion was there talk of purchase, co-ownership, joint participation, or other arrangements by the Azienda Sanitaria Locale; it was only about a contribution,” argued Pietro Meschi.

“It is not permissible, after the fact, to claim that the agreement foresaw a transfer of ownership. That would distort what was approved in a Council resolution back in 1996.” But there is more.

“Why does a resolution of Azienda Sanitaria Locale 22 from August 1998 clearly mention a purchase, whereas this does not appear in the municipal documents? All this is unfair,” protested the minority. “We have gone from a promised and accepted contribution to a payment share in mille-thousandths. Essentially, it was not an advance payment.”

“There has never been talk of a non-repayable contribution,” retorted Mayor Armando Ferrari, while Councillor Aristide Avanzini clarified that “the discussion is based on the misunderstanding of the concept of contribution.”

“Azienda Sanitaria Locale contributes with other administrations for social services, not for building bricks. Perhaps, because of this, those who drafted the previous resolution were misled by the term ‘contribution,’ which implies ‘we contribute together with you to build,'” explained the public works assessor.

“You cannot interpret the documents,” concluded Francesco Marchiori. “I find it absurd that a City Council sets a certain course of planning, and after years, one ends up with a different solution. If there were misunderstandings, there was enough time to correct the documentation.”

“I don’t remember,” said Councillor for Social Services Ermanno Azzolini, “whether the issue was explained poorly at the time, but in fact, this opportunity was taken because there was a risk of losing all services from the Basic District, which otherwise would have gone to Peschiera.”

“We are not debating the importance of the project,” reiterated Meschi, “but the fact that the Council was bypassed. In Italian, a contribution is not the same as a purchase.”

“I have never heard of a purchase,” emphasized Zeno Gianfranceschi, majority councillor. “Perhaps it was implied or somehow concealed.”

“Adopting the new resolution contradicts the 1996 one,” Marchiori resumed. “It’s not very nice to see that you have to change documents mid-way.”

The role of councilors and issues with the minutes

A question naturally arises when reading the minutes of the council meeting from five years ago. Why did none of the councillors present in the assembly consider the words of Ezio Martinelli significant?

The then member of Lega Nord urged the Administration to “early define the methods for dividing the property thousandths with the USL, proportionally to the contribution paid, so that in the future the USL does not acquire the entire property at a low cost.”