“Saying in a press conference that the Municipality closes not one but both eyes on the work of the Piacenza Parcheggi company is equivalent to claiming that the organisation, its managers, its employees and its administrators are acting in a non-transparent and dishonest way given that turning a blind eye is a voluntary action”. It is the intervention of Gianluca Ceccarelli (Pc Oltre), Luca Dallanegra (Civic Tarasconi), Andrea Fossati (Democratic party), Boris Infantino (Piacenza Courageous).
“We consider this to be an unacceptable position which casts discredit and suspicion not only on the pro tempore administrators of this Municipality, i.e. on the political party, but also on those who work in the offices with commitment and dedication. And this is excluding the affair linked to the surety policy which turned out to be false: it is one thing to express an opinion on a scam in which the Municipality is the injured party and for which the institution itself has turned to the judicial authorities; another thing is to make inferences, not even too veiled, about alleged favoritism made by the municipal body to private companies such as, in this case, Piacenza Parcheggi which is currently in relations with the Municipality by virtue of a valid concession dating back to 2012″.
“We strongly reiterate: the Municipality of Piacenza does not turn a blind eye, it does not reserve preferential treatment for anyone and the actions of those who administer it and those who work there are in the interest of the community. We are absolutely certain of this. With reference to the merits of the issues raised in a press conference by the advisors of the Brothers of Italy, it is necessary to make some fundamental clarifications to eliminate any instrumental mystification and bring the issue back to the reality of the facts”.
“The concession contract in place between the Municipality of Piacenza and the Piacenza Parcheggi company, in the part that concerns the construction of the underground car park in Piazza Cittadella, originally provided for the concessionaire to present a deposit with a surety policy equal to 10% of the total cost of the Opera. In 2012, the year the contract was signed, the total cost of the work amounted to 7 million 860 thousand euros. And, for this amount, the dealer presented a surety that guarantees 786 thousand euros. The Municipality of Piacenza is currently in possession of this policy”.
“The contractual addendum signed last December 22nd, in addition to strengthening the position of the Municipality towards the concessionaire, introduced a new element which places the municipal body in a clear position; this addendum, in fact, is conditional on the so-called bankability of the entire work. Without bankability, the Municipality can terminate the concession contract. To put it more simply: without bankability you don’t even need a guarantee. Conversely, when bankability arrives, then the Municipality will be able to request the modification of the surety policy in compliance with the provisions of the law”.
“Now, as is known because it has been reiterated on several occasions, the Municipality of Piacenza is waiting for the concessionaire to present all the documents relating to bankability and this, according to what was notoriously communicated by the concessionaire itself, must happen within this month. If these documents are not presented, the institution will be in a position to be able to terminate the existing contract and the issue of the guarantee will not even arise”.
“As soon as these documents are sent to the municipal offices, the authority will then be in a position to hand over the area for the construction site. And only at that point, as expected, will the suretyship come into play. We do not understand the point of demanding the surety policy before the documents relating to the bankability of the construction of the underground car park in Piazza Cittadella have been provided. And consequently it is not clear how it can be argued that, currently, the Municipality is “half guaranteed”, and therefore “discovered”. It’s false. The documents that must precede the presentation of a valid surety policy are simply still missing. And, to date, as already said, we are still on schedule. The bankability condition, introduced by the addendum, is what the Municipality best guarantees; without that, we cannot move forward.”
“Once obtained, it will be the turn of the guarantee. Why should it be requested first? It is an incomprehensible claim to the point of appearing biased, misleading, such as to create a sort of suspicious case when in reality the case does not exist, the basis for it is missing. We are faced with specious positions which, in our opinion, are aimed at creating an unacceptable aura of suspicion on the actions of the municipal administration, throwing mud into the fan without caring about the discredit that falls on those who, in the municipal offices, are working in the interest of the community”.
