Yesterday, Candelaria held the regular plenary session for the month of September, in which mainly economic issues were discussed. Thus, in the first and second points of the agenda, the modifications of the tax ordinances of the Tax on Real Estate (IBI) and the Tax on Construction, Installations and Works (ICIO) were approved, which had 11 favorable votes from the group from the PSOE Government and two from the PP in the case of the IBI. The modification of the ICIO was unanimously approved. Modifications that in the case of the IBI has extended its bonuses to the electrical use of solar installations to 30% to 5 years. For its part, in the ICIO, “a 50% discount will be applied for the installation of recharging points for electric vehicles”.
Likewise, the General Account for the year 2021 was approved with the favorable votes of the PSOE (11), Cs (one) and Vecinos por Candelaria (one), while PP (two) and CC (one) abstained. Some accounts from which the municipal comptroller emphasized the improvements in the financial magnitudes that denote the good financial health of the Consistory.
In the following two points of the plenary, the budgets for carrying out investments worth 1,817,917.32 euros were approved thanks to municipal savings. Thus, after approval, issues such as the comprehensive reform of the Teror square, conditioning of Amance and Manuel Sabina Coello streets, the Las Caletillas Public Fountain, installation of public toilets, improvement of local accessibility of Araya, the incorporation of the part of the Consistory related to the actions of the sanitation network of the coast of Candelaria Phase 1 or actions for campaigns and services for the capture and transfer of cats or in sports and cultural matters.
Both points had the favorable votes of the PSOE, VxC, CC and Cs, which totaled 14, with the exception of the two PP councilors, who abstained.
Likewise, the judgment of April 25, 2022 of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands on the Ordinance of the provision of the taxi service that gave the plaintiffs the reason only in relation to to the percentage of accessible taxis, which remains fixed at 5% and not 10%, as it was before.