Comptroller Darlene Green's Statement Regarding Proposed Charter Changes
Some of the proposed charter changes have been submitted by the charter commission and some by the board of aldermen.
The proposed charter changes are presented in 9 (BB) Board Bills:
- BB 30
- BB 60
- BB 61
- BB 71
- BB 72
- BB 73
- BB 75
- BB 76
- BB 77
Some of the proposed charter changes have been submitted by the charter commission and some of the changes are submitted by the board of alderman.
While I acknowledge there has been a fair amount of deliberations regarding the charter commission‘s proposed charter changes, I respectfully stand in opposition. The proposed charter changes do not improve the city’s financial position; they do not improve the city’s credit; they do not improve city services; they do not improve public safety; and they create more bureaucracy and chaos in city government. For example, the proposed public advocacy office, is a redundant and nonessential office that would add an enormous amount of additional costs to our annual operating budget.
The proposed charter change for an office of public advocacy does not add new safeguards to the City. Instead, it will take away money that could be budgeted for other city services like public safety. According to the enclosed Budget Office Fiscal Impact Statement, the proposed public advocacy office would cost taxpayers $5.4 million dollars annually, for an office that duplicates other department’s duties and enables unnecessary lawsuits between city departments that could cost millions more in additional taxpayer dollars. These types of legal costs threatens to reduce city services like public safety and is just not sustainable. The Budget Office Fiscal Impact Statement states that “the proposed funding of this office is drastically unrealistic and fiscally unsustainable”. There’s only one public advocacy office in the whole country and that’s in New York City. The Wall Street Journal in a recent article written just two weeks ago on July 10th says … “the office has turned harmful” to the city of New York.
The elected public advocacy office is not about protecting or supporting the city against corruption and abuse as is true of the current government finance structure that includes an elected comptroller who serves as an independent public advocate for the people and watchdog over taxpayer dollars. And the 14 elected aldermen and alderwomen serve as the public advocate in their own ward. Together the independent elected comptroller and the aldermen and alderwomen Advocate for the community without duplication of duties.
The current policy that governs the budget process provides for a layer of structural protection and accountability for local government finances that strengthen the city’s credit rating. The irresponsible proposed charter change to permit the Board of Aldermen to increase any item in the City’s annual budget would remove a very sound budget process that rating agencies currently recognize as an important component of the city’s strong fiscal management. The Budget Office Fiscal Impact Statement reports it would weaken the city’s credit. The city’s strong fiscal management is counted as an important component for our city’s credit rating upgrades and this misguided proposed charter change threatens to take that away.
Last year, in 2023 during the city’s credit assessment, all three credit rating agencies upgraded the city’s credit. On May 19, 2023 Standard and Poors upgraded the city’s credit to an A+ from an A rating, citing “strong management with good financial management policies under our Financial Management Assessment (criteria)”; on May 5, 2023 the Fitch rating agency upgraded the city’s credit from an A- to an A rating, reporting “the ratings are also supported by the city’s adequate spending controls”; and on September 19, 2023 Moody’s rating agency upgraded the city’s credit to A2 from A3. Moody’s reported (in part): “The financial improvement was largely driven by careful budget management”.
It is most certainly confirmed that each of the rating agencies reported that the city’s good credit depends on its sound financial management and budgeting policies. These misguided charter changes would ruin what is good with city government finance structures.
The city has earned and maintained good credit for 30 years for its strong fiscal management and budgeting policies. Protecting and maintaining the city’s good credit is hard work; that’s why I’m fighting so hard against these misguided charter changes that would damage the city’s credit. Once again, these charter changes would remove the careful budget management, good financial policies, and adequate spending controls that rating agencies regularly report that St. Louis city must have to earn and maintain its good credit.
The proposed charter change to create a transportation department (renaming the streets department) appears to be an ill-conceived addition. According to the Budget Office Fiscal Impact Statement, the proposed transportation department would add an additional ongoing cost to the city’s operating budget, estimated to be $2 million dollars annually. This proposed charter change adds no improvements, but would combine city department’s functions eventually leading to more bureaucracy and chaos.
If the people we elected to represent us won’t work to protect the good credit of the city then the voters must do it and reject these charter amendments to protect the city’s good credit. The proposed changes are irresponsible at best and they offer no improvements, no new safeguards or protections, and they threaten the health and well being of our good credit and good government structures.
I urge this committee today to not let these misguided charter changes ruin what is good with the city’s financial and budgeting policies.
-
Department:
Office of the Comptroller
-
Topic:
Annual Budget and Operating Plan
Policy Making