AlmeríaCádizCórdobaGranadaHuelvaJaénMálagaSevillaAlpujarra AlmerienseLos VélezComarca Metropolitana de AlmeríaFilabres-TabernasLevante AlmeriensePoniente AlmerienseValle del AlmanzoraBahía de CádizCampiña de JerezCampo de GibraltarCosta NoroesteLa JandaSierra de CádizAlto GuadalquivirCampiña de BaenaCampiña Sur CordobesaLos PedrochesCórdoba (comarca)SubbéticaValle del GuadiatoValle Medio del GuadalquivirAlpujarra GranadinaComarca de AlhamaComarca de BazaComarca de GuadixComarca de HuéscarComarca de LojaCosta GranadinaLos MontesValle de LecrínVega de GranadaEl AndévaloEl Condado de HuelvaCosta OccidentalCuenca MineraComarca Metropolitana de HuelvaSierra de HuelvaÁrea Metropolitana de JaénCampiña de JaénEl Condado (Jaén)La LomaSierra de CazorlaSierra MáginaSierra MorenaSierra de SeguraSierra Sur de JaénLas VillasComarca de AntequeraLa AxarquíaGuadaltebaCosta del Sol OccidentalMálaga Costa del SolNorormaValle del GuadalhorceSerranía de RondaSierra de las NievesAljarafeBajo GuadalquivirCampiña de CarmonaCampiña de Morón y MarchenaComarca de ÉcijaComarca Metropolitana de SevillaSierra Norte de SevillaSierra Sur de SevillaVega del GuadalquivirAlmeríaCádizCórdobaGranadaHuelvaJaénMálagaSevillaAlpujarra AlmerienseLos VélezComarca Metropolitana de AlmeríaFilabres-TabernasLevante AlmeriensePoniente AlmerienseValle del AlmanzoraBahía de CádizCampiña de JerezCampo de GibraltarCosta NoroesteLa JandaSierra de CádizAlto GuadalquivirCampiña de BaenaCampiña Sur CordobesaLos PedrochesCórdoba (comarca)SubbéticaValle del GuadiatoValle Medio del GuadalquivirAlpujarra GranadinaComarca de AlhamaComarca de BazaComarca de GuadixComarca de HuéscarComarca de LojaCosta GranadinaLos MontesValle de LecrínVega de GranadaEl AndévaloEl Condado de HuelvaCosta OccidentalCuenca MineraComarca Metropolitana de HuelvaSierra de HuelvaÁrea Metropolitana de JaénCampiña de JaénEl Condado (Jaén)La LomaSierra de CazorlaSierra MáginaSierra MorenaSierra de SeguraSierra Sur de JaénLas VillasComarca de AntequeraLa AxarquíaGuadaltebaCosta del Sol OccidentalMálaga Costa del SolNorormaValle del GuadalhorceSerranía de RondaSierra de las NievesAljarafeBajo GuadalquivirCampiña de CarmonaCampiña de Morón y MarchenaComarca de ÉcijaComarca Metropolitana de SevillaSierra Norte de SevillaSierra Sur de SevillaVega del Guadalquivir
ES|EN

La Voz de Andalucía

PSOE of Algeciras rejects 2026 municipal budget as “unstable and deficient”

The opposition group argues that the accounts are conditioned by the Ministry of Finance and reflect economic non-compliance and high debt.

Generic image of financial documents on a table, symbolizing budget debate.
IA

Generic image of financial documents on a table, symbolizing budget debate.

The Socialist Municipal Group of Algeciras has announced its vote against the 2026 municipal budget, to be debated this Monday, arguing that the accounts are “unstable and deficient” and conditioned by a report from the Ministry of Finance.

The socialist spokesperson and general secretary of the local PSOE maintains that the budget document is late and subject to a prior and binding report from the Ministry of Finance, as the Algeciras City Council remains under financial supervision.
According to the party, the Hacienda report includes seven observations that must be incorporated into both the final approval and the execution of the accounts. The socialist spokesperson denies that the document was endorsed “unconditionally” by the Ministry, as, she claims, the municipal government asserts, and states that the report indicates non-compliance with the current adjustment plan and financial sustainability plan.
“

"The budget project is conditioned by a prior and binding report from the Ministry of Finance, due to the City Council remaining under financial supervision."

a PSOE spokesperson
The debate on the Algeciras 2026 municipal budget takes place in a context of high debt. According to data provided by the PSOE, the City Council maintains a bank debt of 248 million euros, with an amortization horizon extending until 2070, in addition to outstanding obligations with suppliers and creditors.
The new budget must absorb more than three million euros pending from the previous year, including income refunds and recognized obligations without budgetary allocation. Furthermore, the Ministry's report points to a negative net saving exceeding three million euros and a possible non-compliance with the spending rule by an amount of four million.
Regarding planned investments, the Socialist Group maintains that the plan includes actions already in the 2025 budget that were not executed, reflecting a low investment capacity of the governing team. They also warn that the budget document anticipates increasing revenue through basic municipal service fees, which they interpret as a possible increase in rates or public prices.
Among the criticisms raised by the socialists is the alleged absence of specific allocations for actions in different neighborhoods and for concrete projects such as the repair of the Río Pícaro bridge. They also demand greater investment in public services such as cleaning, as well as in employment, youth, and housing. The opposition group believes that if the imbalance between income and expenses is not corrected during budget execution, the City Council could be forced to approve a new economic-financial plan.

Related News