The plenary session of the Alcalá de Henares City Council witnessed a significant budgetary disagreement between governing partners, the PP and Vox. The People's Party's proposal for a credit modification of approximately 68 million euros, intended for investments and municipal commitments, was rejected by the votes of Vox, PSOE, and Más Madrid. This vote occurs in a delicate context, as the city continues to operate with prorogued 2025 budgets due to the lack of agreement for the 2026 accounts.
Despite this rift, the governing coalition between the PP and Vox is not considered broken, as both parties maintained joint positions on other matters during the session. However, the vote has highlighted a deep discrepancy in economic management and in the decision-making process for key budgets, especially relevant as the legislature enters its final phase.
The rejected budgetary modification aimed to compensate for the absence of new approved accounts for 2026, incorporating funds for investments, pending obligations, and projects that could not be reflected in the 2025 accounts. The People's Party argued that the expediente was essential for actions in neighborhoods, infrastructure, public lighting, citizen security, and equipment for the Local Police and Civil Protection.
For their part, Vox, through its spokesperson Víctor Acosta, explained that their negative vote was not due to opposition to the investments but to the procedure followed. They maintain that the proposal was presented without sufficient negotiation and without providing all necessary information. Vox links future budgetary negotiations to access to accounting information from the Municipal Sports City, something the PP considers must adhere to established administrative procedures.
The opposition, composed of the PSOE and Más Madrid, criticized the municipal government's management. The PSOE questioned the executive's capacity to advance important initiatives after three years of joint governance, while Más Madrid described the modification as excessively broad, lacking transparency, and with questionable priorities, also pointing out unexecuted budgetary items from the previous year.
The failure of this significant economic initiative raises questions about the local government's financial strategy for the coming months and reopens the debate on the need to approve specific accounts for 2026. The situation, with prorogued accounts at both municipal and state levels, places a shared responsibility on local political actors to provide the city with a clear economic roadmap in the final year of the term.
