Fratelli d’Italia returns to talk about the expansion tanks of the Senio river in Tebano, which never became operational. The leader of the party in the Faenza city council, Stefano Bertozzi, presented a question regarding the guarantee which has only now been enforced by the municipal administration, despite the fact that the construction site for the work has been at a standstill for years.
«The municipal council of Faenza adopted resolution no. on 30 April. 101 with the subject “Court of Ravenna – enforcement of the surety policy to guarantee the correct fulfillment of the agreement for mining activities. n. 3480 of 19/1/2010 (Cava Ca’ Lolli) – Appeal for injunction and appointment of defenders”.
Seeing the Faenza council take this decision today raises a series of questions, a certain anger and quite a bit of surprise” explains Bertozzi.
«The surety guaranteed (we hope it still guarantees) the correct and complete implementation of the interventions on the reservoir and the embankments for the expansion tank no. 3 called Ca’ Lolli, one of the three expansion tanks ever built and never connected to the Senio river in the Teban area. This is one of the main themes that was at the center of the technical and political debate following the May 2023 flood.
In 2005 the Region had approved the program agreement for the construction of the reservoirs for the lamination of the Senio floods, already foreseen by the variant to the excerpt plan for the Senio Basin; in 2006 – with the decision of the Soil Defense and Reclamation Service of the Emilia Romagna Region – the definitive and executive project was adopted, in 2010 the Municipality of Faenza and the interested private subjects had stipulated and signed an agreement for the extraction activity aimed at the realization of the invasion.
This was supposed to be the last formal act that would finally start the work.»
The construction of the crates was to take place within five years, once the aggregate quarrying activity was exhausted, with the possibility of an extension of up to twelve months.
«Scrolling through the Council resolution no. 101 of 4/30/2024 we learn with happy surprise that the works had to be guaranteed by a specific surety policy, the total amount being €2,172,733, corresponding to 100% of the then presumed expense. The guarantee actually had to be issued by the two implementing entities: €1,238,457.81 from the company that had to carry out approximately 57% of the work, approximately €935,000 from the second company, the one in charge of the remaining 43%. .
Unfortunately, the positive surprises end here and have all remained on paper.
As has been said several times in recent months, case 3 has never seen the light, the progress of the work has stopped at a marginal percentage of the project, no embankments, no reservoir, consequently no connection with the river, essentially nothing of functional, the extensions requested (and granted by the Administration) were not of one year but of three years, with the deadline set for 01/18/2018 instead of January 2015, but what is incredible is what we learned today after the resolution of April 30″ explains Bertozzi.
«The guarantee that was supposed to guarantee the work, and which nine years ago (first deadline for enforcement) certainly had a different value in real financial terms, saw a first attempt at enforcement only nine months after the rejection of a fourth request of extension by the clients, then apparently no formal act until two and a half years later, when on 10/25/2021 the request was reiterated without success. The script repeated itself identically after another two years, on 12/21/2023 the Municipality asks again, again without going to court, the guarantor evidently does not make the payment and the Municipality waits again.
To see the first judicial act of protection of one’s credit, one must wait until today, 30/4/2024 to be precise, six years after the events and one year after the terrible flood that hit our cities”.
«Another disturbing situation then emerges from the documents, guarantee two, the one for €935,000, the one provided for in the same agreement, the one which was supposed to cover the remaining 43% of the works, is the subject of litigation before the Court of Appeal of Bologna. Here the Municipality was sued by the insurance company after it had unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Ravenna to block the first request for enforcement. The Municipality apparently requested direct enforcement and was the passive subject of the insurance company’s denial, no apparent responsibility, but given the successful outcome of the first instance, why was the judicial route not attempted first for the other guarantee as well?
This incredible and opaque sequence of events therefore needs detailed answers, these are the reasons for the question that I presented today to the City Council, accompanying it with a request for access to the documents to recover both the 2010 agreement and the text of the guarantee obtained.
Why did we wait six years to start a legal case against the guarantor? Why did we wait nine months for the first enforcement request and why reminders were sent every two years? If, as we all hope, the two guarantees were actually collected, how will that money be used today? Having collected that money nine years ago would have contributed to the creation of the fund and would have contributed, and I repeat once again, to alleviating the damage suffered by the area south of Via Emilia in the tragic May 2023. What will be done today?
The start only today of the monitoring procedure for the recovery of the guaranteed sum, as well as raising enormous doubts about the timing, raises serious doubts about its effectiveness.
The municipal administration of Faenza must give immediate feedback to our requests because looking at the matter from the outside, without all the available elements, it suggests serious omissions and potential and enormous damage to the treasury, as well as social and environmental damage.
And if that were the case, and for the good of the city I hope it isn’t, it really wouldn’t be acceptable in any way.”
