The core of Mayor Mario Russo’s March statement is not merely a tax dispute but an open conflict over the work of the municipal technical office, or UTC. On 13 March, Scalea Oltre, led by former mayor Giacomo Perrotta, announced that it would scrutinise every UTC act and every public tender. Its statement connected that scrutiny with criticism of old, “unclear” methods and a warning about “plainly illegal dynamics”. It did not, however, identify a specific unlawful UTC act or document that a formal report had been filed. On 18 March, Russo said the opposition was throwing mud at the office, insisted that the UTC and the council acted lawfully, and told Perrotta to report any illegality to the competent authorities if he knew of one.

The confrontation had begun at least several weeks earlier over the Villa Comunale project. On 20 February 2026, the municipal executive approved Resolution No. 32, varying works funded with €2.5 million. Scalea Oltre said this was not a technical necessity but a political rewriting of its predecessor’s project, removing a bus terminal, multipurpose court, amphitheatre and modern fountain while risking the entire ministerial grant. The council replied that the funding’s purpose under Law 145/2018 was primarily to mitigate hydrogeological risk and that asbestos-cement sheets found embedded in concrete structures required the change. According to the council, the €2.5 million budget remains unchanged and the variation provides for hazardous-material remediation, preservation of the historic fountain and reuse of buildings for the municipal police and tourist information.

The existence of asbestos is not itself the principal point of disagreement. Perrotta acknowledged that it was present in two buildings but argued that the original design would have demolished both; he also described one as unauthorised. In his view, asbestos therefore did not explain the decision to retain and repurpose the structures. The council says the way the asbestos was embedded required a special removal procedure and a project variation. Without a published independent technical opinion, the articles do not establish which design response was technically necessary; what is documented is that the two sides propose different solutions to the same hazard.

The parties also dispute who had read the papers and where any confrontation should take place. The council said the opposition issued its forceful statement on 23 February and only requested access to the variation documents the next day, under protocol No. 6430. Perrotta replied that he already held the original project papers and sought the new material partly to check for possible subcontracting. He rejected the first invitation to a public debate, saying he would not give the mayor a stage for a noisy political show. Instead, he proposed convening the public-works committee with the opposition, contractor and RUP, the official responsible for the procurement procedure. On 18 March, Russo repeated his challenge and offered any place, time and moderator chosen by Perrotta. In the public sources reviewed through 4 September 2026, we found no report that either this debate or the proposed committee meeting took place.

The political background helps explain the personal sharpness of the exchange. Perrotta served as mayor until December 2024, when the simultaneous resignation of an absolute majority of councillors ended the council and a prefectural commissioner took over. Annalisa Alfano, now a member of Russo’s executive, had been part of Perrotta’s administration when the feasibility study was approved in 2022 and was later among the resigning councillors. Russo’s administration stresses that the final executive design was approved only by the commissioner on 28 January 2025; Perrotta says the current administration is dismantling a plan developed during his term. Mario Russo was elected mayor in May 2025 and Perrotta is now an opposition councillor.

The announced scrutiny of the technical office soon produced another concrete dispute. On 24 March, Scalea Oltre questioned €133,000 works on Viale Europa, which it said had been directly awarded. It claimed that the pavements, drainage, relocation of streetlights and railings visible on site did not yet match the project. Russo replied the same day that the works were unfinished, no progress certificate had been approved and no payment had been made, so the result could not be judged before completion and technical checks. Here too, the cited sources contain no independent inspection finding; they record the opposition’s allegations and the mayor’s response.

Taxes and the environment are secondary parts of the March dispute. Scalea Oltre described possible outsourcing of local-tax administration as a council failure and warned of more aggressive collection and possible clientelism. Russo said the option responded to structural and staffing shortages and promoted a “fiscal peace” with instalments and relief where legislation permits it. In the video, he also credits his administration with raising separate waste collection from 36 to 45 per cent and obtaining funds for schools, the landfill and other projects. Unless supported by a separate official act, these figures and assessments remain attributed claims by the mayor or opposition, not independent findings.

The material question is therefore not which politician used the sharper language, but whether the complete acts, technical opinions, variation budget, any subcontracts and final inspections will be published. The sources located so far do not show that the €2.5 million grant was withdrawn, that a competent authority found the UTC’s conduct unlawful, or that either side documented a formal complaint relating to these statements. That is not proof that no such step exists; it is the limit of what could be publicly verified as of 4 September 2026.