Orimattila mayor faces no-confidence vote after controversial property deal justification

A temporary committee in the southern Finnish city of Orimattila has unanimously proposed a vote of no confidence in mayor Kalle Larsson, following his handling of a municipal property sale where he reportedly stated, “I need that money,” writes Yle journalist Kaisa Halme.

The city’s 2024 budget process has been marred by turmoil, centering on the planned sale of a health center property to a city-owned subsidiary. The deal’s preparation has involved unusual developments, ultimately prompting an investigative committee to assess Larsson’s conduct. Their final report concludes that the mayor provided city council members with “incorrect and unverified information” and acted “recklessly and in a manner that misled the council.” The committee deemed his actions “seriously inconsistent with sound judgment” and failing to meet the standards of his position.

Pressure to push through the sale
According to the report, Larsson pressured the CEO and board chair of Orimattila Business Properties Ltd—the city’s real estate arm—to withdraw an ownership directive that threatened to delay the sale. During the meeting, he explicitly stated his need for the funds to balance the budget. When the buyer later rejected the proposed price, Larsson introduced an unspecified external party allegedly seeking to block or postpone the transaction entirely.

In a briefing for council members, he invoked “deteriorating European security” and anonymous contacts, framing Orimattila’s strategic location as a national preparedness concern—claims that left some councillors fearing broader security implications. The confusion deepened when the city filed a criminal report over suspected document forgery related to conflicting property valuations (one abridged, one detailed), though police later dropped the case for lack of evidence.

Contradictions and shifting blame
The committee’s review found Larsson’s accounts of the deal’s delays to be inconsistent. In November, he told councillors the regional wellbeing services county (responsible for healthcare) was not behind the cancellation; yet in an April 2026 hearing, he claimed a county representative had requested the postponement. Investigators confirmed the health center sale was never on the county’s agenda, and county officials denied opposing the deal. Instead, they stated Larsson had himself asked whether the sale should be scrapped or the property retained—receiving confirmation that there were no objections.

The report further criticizes Larsson’s “deficient communication” with the real estate company’s leadership, warning his unilateral actions risked exposing board members to personal liability. It also notes his tendency to “evade responsibility” during hearings, offering vague or shifting explanations.

Next steps
The final decision on Larsson’s potential dismissal rests with the city council, requiring a two-thirds majority. The mayor could also choose to resign. The budget—contingent on the health center sale—was ultimately approved, but the controversy has left councillors deeply divided.

“The committee’s decision was unanimous,” stressed its chair, Riitta Lonka.