The Asenovgrad Municipal Council Opened a Procedure to Change the Status of the Former “Dental Clinic” Property. Its Own Councilors Have Already Called It “Scandalous”

A month before the Asenovgrad Municipal Council convened an extraordinary session to organize a public discussion on changing the status of a municipal polyclinic, the municipal councilors themselves twice attempted to remove the item from the agenda, and more than 2,000 citizens signed a petition against the change. One day before the discussion scheduled for September 9, a written legal opinion, registered under incoming number M-104, was submitted to the registry, challenging the lawfulness of the procedure. The documents, compared against publications by regional media, outline a case involving a specific investor, contradictory statements by the municipal administration, and a rift within the Municipal Council itself.

What Happened

The Investment Intent Behind the Memo

According to a memo by Eng. Stoyan Dimitrov, Deputy Mayor of the Municipality of Asenovgrad, registered under incoming No. DZ-332 of July 2, 2026, the municipal administration received an investment intent from the manager of the joint-stock company “Grinding Machines Plant” (“ZShM” AD) to purchase a municipal property on “Bulgaria” Boulevard — a plot of nearly 4,681 square meters, falling within a zone designated for public services and healthcare. The application was reviewed by the Commission for the Disposal of Municipal Property, which proposed drafting an amendment to the detailed development plan (DDP), by which the property would subsequently be declared private municipal property.

The publicly known content of the memo includes no health-related, demographic, or technical justification for a lapsed public need for the property — the only stated reason is the need to bring it into compliance with the city’s General Development Plan. At a commission meeting, Deputy Mayor Stoyan Dimitrov stated that the building “has a lapsed function,” that it houses only 3–4 practices, and that the municipality spends funds on its upkeep. A regional media outlet, citing sources familiar with the matter, cites a different figure: at least 10 dental practices are actually operating on the former polyclinic’s premises, with contracts in place with the municipality. The available documents contain no explanation for this discrepancy, and the municipality’s own accounting appears to arrive at different totals depending on the audience.

A Citizens’ Petition and a Tense Session

After the memo became public, residents of Asenovgrad organized a petition against the change of status. The youth organization “Green Movement” publicly stated that the municipality’s actions since June “demonstrate indifference to the public interest,” and noted that the process not only involves “a large number of legal gaps” but also harms dental practices, a sports club, and an existing green area on the property. Within a matter of days, the petition gathered more than 2,000 signatures.

On August 26, 2026, the day of the scheduled session, the municipal administration’s hall was full of dissatisfied citizens demanding transparency and a public discussion of the matter — an audience rarely seen for an agenda item officially presented as nothing more than a technical alignment with the development plan.

August 26: The First Attempt to Halt It (Minutes No. 37)

At the session itself, item DZ-332 appeared among 43 agenda items. The agenda was adopted unanimously, with 32 votes “in favor.” Immediately afterward, councilors Konstantin Kostadinov and Dimitar Yanev introduced a procedural motion to remove the item entirely, arguing that the memo “is not being proposed by the administration in this form” and leaves “citizens suspecting that something secret and improper is being done.”

The first vote on the motion to remove the item ended with 13 votes “in favor,” 6 “against,” and 5 “abstained,” with 9 councilors not participating — a result insufficient for adoption. A revote produced practically the same outcome. The motion failed, but it remains on record that at least 13 of the councilors present already considered the matter problematic at this stage — a rare instance of doubt directed at the administration’s own proposal, over an item presented as a pure formality.

The Standing Commission on Territorial Development, chaired by Kostadin Yakov, reviewed the memo over two sessions. At the second one, held jointly with the Commission on Municipal Property, the commission itself removed item three from the original draft decision — the one providing for the property to be automatically declared private municipal property immediately after the amendment of the development plan took effect. The commission’s final support stood at 3 votes “in favor” and 1 “against” — not exactly the unanimous enthusiasm that a seemingly technical proposal of this kind would normally attract.

After the commission’s opinion was presented, Chairman Sotir Kafalov announced, citing Article 79 of the Municipal Council’s Rules of Procedure, an intention to organize a public discussion on September 9 — without this specific decision being put to a separate procedural vote. Councilor Enko Naydenov reacted sharply, requesting the floor for a dissenting statement: “A vote was held on removing the item, which did not receive the necessary majority to be removed… You have gotten carried away with a procedure that, before the adoption of the agenda, is indeed incorrect… As the saying goes, we’re spitting on our own decisions.” Naydenov described the entire handling of the item as “absolutely scandalous.”

Councilor Georgi Samarov likewise voted against the subsequent motion to postpone the item and stated: “It has been made clear to all of us that this administration of the Municipality of Asenovgrad, headed by Dr. Grudev and the GERB party, has run its course… in practice it is fading away and even buying time to postpone the things it would like to accomplish before the end of its term.” The motion to postpone the item until after the public discussion was adopted with 18 votes “in favor,” 8–9 “against,” and 3 “abstained.” A regional media outlet described the session’s outcome as a “turnaround” — the item was postponed precisely because of “sharp procedural disputes and tension in the hall.”

August 31: The Extraordinary Session on the Discussion Itself (Minutes No. 38)

Five days later, the Asenovgrad Municipal Council held an extraordinary session with a single agenda item: a formal decision to organize the public discussion postponed on August 26.

Before the vote, citizen Dimitar Baberkov took the floor, under Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, with a five-minute limit. He pointed out several procedural inconsistencies in the very convening of the extraordinary session: the invitation cited a statutory provision that does not exist in the form quoted; it remained unclear whether the session was convened on the chairman’s initiative or at the request of one-third of the councilors, since the invitation referred to both scenarios simultaneously, even though they require different notice periods — ten days for the former, five for the latter. Baberkov also noted that the invitation was published only three days before the session. He further stated that he had learned of a remark attributed to the investor in question, according to which the purpose of the session was for the Municipal Council not to support the public discussion, so that it would not be held at all.

Chairman Kafalov interrupted his statement, saying, “Mr. Baberkov, do not manipulate the public,” and later informed him that his time had expired, summarizing to the hall that the statement “was not on point” — without the available minutes containing any independent explanation of why these particular procedural objections were considered beside the point. The only substantive response came from another councilor, Konstantin Kostadinov, who characterized Baberkov’s remarks as “technical details” and stated that legal norms “are interpreted broadly” by the courts, not by political parties — an assurance that will get a chance to be tested rather soon, should the matter reach a court.

Unlike the divided votes of August 26, on August 31 the decision to organize the public discussion passed with 25 votes “in favor,” with none against or abstaining — including the votes of councilors who, a week earlier, had insisted on removing the item. The decision allowed for preliminary enforcement under Article 60(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code.

September 8: A Written Legal Objection

One day before the discussion scheduled for September 9, an opinion was registered with the Asenovgrad Municipal Council under incoming No. M-104 of 08.09.2026, addressed simultaneously to the Council chairman, the Standing Commission on Territorial Development, and the mayor. The opinion sets out seven separate legal grounds against the procedure.

What the Documents Show

A Contradiction Within the Administration’s Own Statements

The available documents and media publications outline an inconsistency in the proponent’s justification: the memo and the deputy mayor’s statement to the commission claim the building has a “lapsed function” and houses only 3–4 practices, while an independent source cites at least 10 practices actually operating, with contracts in place with the municipality. This discrepancy remains unexplained and warrants an explicit response from the municipality before it can be treated as a normalized accounting misunderstanding.

Minutes No. 37 — An Internal Institutional Rift

The minutes of August 26 document that doubt about the merits of the status change was expressed in writing, through procedural motions by the councilors themselves, a month before the extraordinary session, with arguments similar to those later raised in the legal opinion. The Commission on Territorial Development trimmed part of its own draft proposal before it even reached the plenary session.

Minutes No. 38 — The Convening Procedure

The minutes of August 31 confirm only the act of organizing the public discussion, without any independent factual justification for why the status change is necessary — that justification is contained in memo DZ-332, whose publicly known content is limited to the investment intent and a reference to the General Development Plan, without any health-related, demographic, or technical expert assessment.

The Legal Opinion Under Incoming No. M-104

The opinion builds its objection on seven grounds, the most substantial of which are the following.

The nature of the change. Under Article 7(1) and (2) of the Municipal Property Act, a property that is public municipal property cannot be alienated, transferred to third parties, or encumbered with property rights. The opinion argues that the only real legal consequence of declaring the property private would be to open the possibility of its sale — a claim that aligns, in direction, with the existence of an already declared investment intent from a specific buyer.

Absence of an analysis of lapsed need. Under Article 6(1) of the Municipal Property Act and the settled case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, declaring a public property private requires that its designated purpose under Article 3(2) of the same act has objectively ceased to apply. The opinion argues that the memo lacks any analysis of population needs, technical expert assessment, or demographic and health-related justification.

Lack of maintenance as an argument. The opinion notes that the obligation to maintain and repair municipal properties is placed on the municipality itself under Article 11 of the Municipal Property Act, and that poor maintenance constitutes administrative inaction, not a legal basis for a change of status.

Required consent from the Minister of Health. According to the opinion, the property carries an active designation that includes a dental facility — a healthcare object. Article 134(2)(1) of the Spatial Development Act requires the prior written consent of the relevant minister for any amendment to a development plan affecting a municipal property designated for a healthcare facility. The opinion states that no such consent appears in the case file.

A suspensive condition in the draft decision. The opinion notes that the draft decision makes the declaration of the property as private conditional — “as of the date the amendment to the development plan takes effect” — a construction that, in the submitter’s view, impermissibly mixes the spatial planning procedure with the disposal procedure and circumvents the requirement for a qualified two-thirds majority of councilors.

An important clarification: the points listed above represent the submitter’s reasoned legal position. They have not been confirmed by a court or a competent administrative authority and should not be read as an established fact of the decision’s unlawfulness. Baberkov’s claim about a remark attributed to the investor is relayed secondhand, without an independent document, and should be treated as his personal statement. The remarks by councilors Naydenov and Samarov are the personal political assessments of sitting municipal councilors, made and recorded in an official set of minutes — not findings by InstiGuard.

The Municipality’s Position

As of the date of publication, the Municipality of Asenovgrad and the memo’s author, Eng. Stoyan Dimitrov, have not provided a public written response to the questions raised in opinion No. M-104, including the discrepancy between the number of operating practices cited by the deputy mayor and the data from independent sources.

The opinion insists that answers be provided in writing before any vote is taken on the memo — a request that, given the timeline alone, appears practically difficult to fulfill: the opinion was registered on the morning of September 8, while the public discussion is scheduled for the afternoon of the following day. The time between the opinion’s registration and the start of the discussion is under 24 hours, which objectively leaves no real procedural window for the municipal administration to prepare and deliver a comprehensive written response, even with the best of intentions. Whether and how the administration will address this timing mismatch — for instance, with an oral comment at the discussion itself or a delayed written response afterward — remains an open question.

What Remains Unclear

Was a request submitted, and was written consent obtained from the Minister of Health, before the procedure to amend the development plan was launched, as required under Article 134(2)(1) of the Spatial Development Act?
How many dental and other practices are actually operating on the property at present, and why is there a discrepancy between the deputy mayor’s claim and the data on at least 10 practices cited by an independent source?
What exactly did item three of the original draft decision contain, before it was removed by the commission on August 26, and on whose initiative was it dropped?
Does a technical expert assessment or survey of the building exist, supporting the claimed “lapsed function”?
What funds were budgeted and spent by the municipal budget on maintaining the property over the past five years?
Has the manager of “ZShM” AD made any public statement regarding Baberkov’s claim about a remark on the purpose of the August 31 extraordinary session, and is it confirmed or denied?
Why did councilors who voted to remove the item, or against its handling, on August 26 support organizing the public discussion on August 31 with none against or abstaining?
Will opinion No. M-104 receive an official written response before the discussion scheduled for September 9?

Analysis

Deputy Mayor Stoyan Dimitrov assured the commission that the building has a “lapsed function” and shelters only 3–4 practices — a figure an independent source multiplies by more than two and a half. One of the two claims does not survive cross-checking, and the available documents so far offer no hint as to which one — though arithmetic rarely errs in favor of the smaller public interest.

It is not often that a commission trims its own draft decision before it even reaches the podium — yet that is exactly what the Standing Commission on Territorial Development did on August 26, dropping item three from its own proposal, as if even its own proponents had grown uneasy with their own design. Rarer still is for half a Municipal Council to vote to remove an item from the agenda, only to adopt it unanimously a month later, with none of the former skeptics explaining what exactly changed their minds in the meantime. Between the two sets of minutes, we found no new expert assessment, no new financial analysis, and no new opinion from the Minister of Health — we found only newly arrived unanimity, and more than 2,000 signatures against it.

If a real property, real patients at a dozen dental offices, and a real sports club were not standing behind all this procedural choreography, the story of the wrong statutory provision, the vanishing item three, and the suddenly discovered 21 votes of unanimity would sound almost like a comedy of local-government manners. But the property is real, and the deal — should it go through — would not be so easily undone by a second revote.

Why This Case Matters

This concerns a property of nearly half a hectare in a central urban area, combining a healthcare function with green space — precisely the kind of property the law protects because it serves lasting public needs. Changing its status from public to private opens the door to future disposal of the property, including sale to the already declared buyer — a step that, once taken, would be difficult to reverse. The fact that a specific investor has already declared an intent to purchase the property, that doubt about the merits of the change was expressed in writing by the councilors themselves, and that more than 2,000 citizens have signed a petition against it, firmly places this case within Asenovgrad’s public interest.

What Comes Next

The public discussion is scheduled for September 9, 2026, from 4:00 PM in Hall 601 of the Municipality of Asenovgrad, running until 6:30 PM with the possibility of a two-hour extension. The outcomes of the discussion, including any opinions and proposals submitted, are to be recorded in minutes and submitted for review by the Municipal Council together with the draft decision. InstiGuard will follow the further course of the procedure and will publish an update as matters develop, including the roll-call vote of the councilors at the final vote.

Individual Vigilance for Institutional Excellence