The municipal control body has questioned the legality of regulated parking management, warning of an unlawful situation. The report highlights irregularities detected since 2020 and expresses an “unfavorable opinion” on the current administrative and economic status.
Consequently, an immediate order has been requested to cease collection and management activities by the concessionaire company. It is even suggested that the Mayor's Office instruct the Local Police to ensure compliance with the termination agreement, including the eviction from public roads and the seizure of collected funds.
“"20 years have passed without the City Council issuing a new concession, while the original concessionaire company has continued to provide the service and collect blue zone revenues, a situation that causes financial harm to the Treasury of this local entity."
The origin of this issue dates back to 2005, when the Local Government Board made two contradictory decisions: one declaring the termination of the concession for controlled parking services in Vecindario and surrounding areas, and a subsequent one extending the contract “until a public service tender process is completed.” The Intervention emphasizes that, despite this, no new tender has been issued in two decades.
Municipal sources have indicated that the service remains operational because revenues are currently allocated to a special employment center, although they confirmed that a new tender process is underway. A failed attempt to transfer management to the Sociedad Municipal de Aparcamientos de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Sagulpa), which was “halted” by the capital's City Council, was also mentioned.
Another questioned aspect is the legal nature of the revenues. The report suggests that the amounts paid should not be considered a municipal fee but rather a “non-tax public patrimonial service,” as it is a service managed through administrative concession. Therefore, it recommends repealing the current fiscal ordinance and approving a new one adapted to current regulations. Furthermore, the Intervention points out the absence of an economic study or exploitation preliminary project to justify the concessionary fee and the lack of a tender type in the original administrative specifications, as well as the non-accreditation of the concessionaire's civil liability insurance.
