Altach opposition demands transparency over 2.47 million euro levy

Four of Altach’s five municipal factions are demanding a public review after the municipality was ordered to pay about 2.47 million euros in levies linked to the refilling of a former gravel extraction site. ORF reported that Mayor Markus Giesinger has rejected the demand, citing legal requirements for confidentiality.

Gravel and sand were extracted for years at Sauwinkel, an area in Altach where the resulting depression was later refilled. A February 2009 decision by the Feldkirch district authority identified Altach municipality as the owner, applicant and permit holder, stating that the refilling was being carried out by the municipality.

On August 11, 2026, the Austrian Customs Office issued three levy notices against the municipality totalling 2,474,823.56 euros. The amount is equivalent to about one tenth of Altach’s 2026 budget of almost 24 million euros. Interest, surcharges and legal representation costs could be added. The outcome of the proceedings remains open.

According to the four factions, documents relating to the customs notices show that the Feldkirch district authority warned the municipality in May 2020 that one construction phase was not being operated in accordance with the permit and that no material examination had been carried out. Filling nevertheless continued until 2022. The factions do not have the original letter from the district authority.

The factions also say the customs office has assumed conditional intent. That would extend the limitation period from five to ten years. Without that assumption, they say, most of the claim would have become time-barred.

The Citizens’ List Altach and Greens, ÜSR Altach, the Social Democratic Party and the Freedom Party accuse the mayor of failing to inform residents for months, either in the municipal newsletter or on the municipality’s website. The case became public only through ORF reporting on September 18. The municipal executive board had been informed but was required to keep the matter confidential, the factions said.

“This is not official secrecy, it is secrecy for political reasons. And it has not saved the municipality a single euro,” said Bernie Weber, parliamentary group leader of the Citizens’ List Altach and Greens, at a joint news conference on Tuesday at Gutshof Altach. Deputy Mayor Herbert Sohm of ÜSR said the factions did not want to publicly single out those responsible, but wanted to prevent further damage. “Both are only possible with full transparency,” he said.

The municipal council discussed the levy notices in a closed session on September 1. The four factions then secured a majority for a motion to discuss the matter publicly at the earliest possible opportunity, limited to information not covered by confidentiality rules. The factions say this decision has not yet been implemented.

They are calling for all councillors to receive the complete documents and correspondence, information on the status of the proceedings, scenarios showing the financial consequences and clarification of political responsibility. They also want the municipality to examine and safeguard any possible recourse or compensation claims against third parties within the applicable deadlines. Before any further decisions on the Sauwinkel and Götznerhof expansion project, they are demanding an updated risk assessment.

Giesinger, a member of the Austrian People’s Party, said on Monday that the issue was not whether anyone wanted a public discussion, but whether the Vorarlberg Municipal Act was being followed. He said the mayor and all municipal council members were bound by the law.

Where the law provides even one reason for confidentiality, an issue as a whole cannot be discussed publicly, Giesinger said. In that case, the mayor is required to place the item on the agenda of a closed meeting. He said his position was based on the Vorarlberg Municipal Act and legal assessments by the Vorarlberg Association of Municipalities, which had been provided to all factions in advance.

Giesinger also said the majority-backed motion to return only the parts not covered by confidentiality was not legally possible. The Municipal Act did not allow the subject of the discussion to be divided, he said, adding that the municipal council could only request that the entire matter be returned for further consideration.