The St. Louis Board of Aldermen will still need permission of a fiscal oversight board to boost spending in the city’s budget.
Voters outright rejected Proposition B on Tuesday in final unofficial results. It earned just 47% of the vote and would have needed 60% to pass.
Loading...
Aldermen are free to reduce line-item spending without any additional approvals or oversight. But spending increases are simply recommendations that must get the approval of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, a fiscal oversight board made up of the mayor, the aldermanic president and the comptroller. If E&A does not meet in time for the aldermen to pass a budget by June 30, or rejects the increase, it is not adopted.
Proposition B would have eliminated the need for E&A approval.
Proponents of the change argued that aldermen needed the right to advocate for and work on behalf of the needs of their constituents. Opponents worried it would affect the city’s credit rating and increase funding for specific projects, known as earmarks.
Two other measures adjusting the city’s charter easily cleared the 60% threshold.
Beginning in 2029, the St. Louis streets department will be known as the Department of Transportation.
Proposition T got nearly 90% on Tuesday. The newly created department will have responsibility over every mode of transportation, from cars to bicycles to pedestrian travel. The idea is that centralizing planning and oversight in one department will make the city’s roads safer and allow the department to better use its limited funding.
The adoption of Proposition T does not provide the new department with the staffing or funding needed to carry out its expanded duties. That requires action from either the current or a future Board of Aldermen.
Out-of-state property owners will likely face higher penalties for leaving their buildings to decay, after St. Louis voters on Tuesday adopted Proposition V with nearly 80%.
Proposition V lifts the $500 cap on fines and fees for violations of ordinances related to “vacant and non-owner-occupied deteriorated buildings,” or actions such as illegal dumping or unpermitted demolitions. Supporters say the current limit is not enough of a deterrent for large companies, which consider the low fines among the costs of doing business.
The key phrase is non-owner occupied – backers say they are not targeting homeowners who cannot keep up with the maintenance on their property.
