Orimattila city manager resigns

Monday 29th June 2026 on 19:30 in Finland Finland

local government, Orimattila, resignation

Orimattila’s city manager Kalle Larsson has resigned, Yle reports.

The city council was set to vote on his dismissal during an extraordinary meeting on Monday evening. Council chair Tuomo Jussila (National Coalition Party) announced the resignation at the start of the session, prompting a recess to reassess proceedings.

In a Facebook post, Larsson called the decision difficult, citing progress on fiscal balance, economic growth, collaboration, and key projects for the city’s future. “Not everything is finished, but much has been set in motion and built together,” he wrote. He thanked the city, calling his service “a joy and an honour.”

After the break, National Coalition Party council group chair Pekka Törrönen urged unity, noting the council must continue making decisions together for the next three years. “The council cannot be replaced,” he said.

A proposal to launch a special audit for 2025 was tabled after Centre Party councillor Salla Ritala’s amendment to postpone the matter passed.

Finns Party councillor Laura Jokela submitted a motion to establish a temporary committee to prepare the dismissal of the city board over a loss of confidence. She argued the board was no longer functional, with internal conflicts paralysing decision-making. Jokela added that some councillors had declined to sign the motion due to pressure.

Board chair Jussila declined to speculate on a timeline for a new city manager but said discussions would begin immediately, with scheduling to start on Tuesday. He described the mood after the meeting as one of relief, given the prolonged handling of the issue.

The dispute stems from a planned property sale involving a health centre. A temporary committee had proposed the city manager’s dismissal over allegedly misleading preparations for the sale, which was intended to support the 2026 budget. Larsson abruptly cancelled the sale a week before the budget vote, citing an unspecified “preparedness issue.” It later emerged that the buyer and seller had vastly different valuations for the property.

Source 
(via Yle)