GREAT BAY--The Council of Advice raised a series of concerns over St. Maarten’s draft 2027 national budget and recommended that it not be forwarded to Parliament until government had taken those concerns into account, but the government subsequently responded point by point, saying several changes were made before the adjusted budget documents were submitted.
The exchange, contained in the budget package now before Parliament, provides a fuller picture of the scrutiny that took place before the draft reached the legislature. The Council issued its advice on August 18, 2026, while government’s formal response is dated September 7, 2026, one day before the budget package was sent to Parliament.
The Council welcomed government’s effort to restore St. Maarten’s budget cycle to the legally required timetable, but warned that early submission by itself has little value if important preparation and review steps have not been completed.
One of its first concerns involved the request for urgent advice. The Council had been asked to provide its opinion as quickly as possible, preferably within 14 days, but said the file did not contain the required explanation justifying the urgency. It noted that similar omissions had occurred with other urgent requests and asked government to address the issue going forward.
Government acknowledged the point, thanked the Council for dealing with the matter quickly and said future requests for urgent advice would receive the necessary attention and justification.
A larger issue concerned the timing of the 2027 budget while the 2026 budget had still not been formally established when preparation began. The Council said the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislation had been unable to complete its full legislative-technical review because of the status of the 2026 budget.
The Council warned that important steps in the preparation process had therefore been skipped, affecting the quality and careful preparation of the draft. It also noted that amendments adopted during Parliament’s consideration of the 2026 budget could flow directly into 2027 and require additional changes.
Government responded that it deliberately chose to proceed in an effort to break St. Maarten’s long-running cycle of late budgets. It said the 2026 budget has since been approved and amendments adopted by Parliament were incorporated into both the 2026 budget and the 2027 proposal.
Government specifically referenced an amendment increasing the Ministry of Justice’s gross salary allocation by Cg 2 million, explaining that the adjustment was incorporated without affecting the ministry’s overall result because it involved a budget-neutral transfer within the same cost center.
The Council nevertheless made clear that it considered the decision to place the 2027 draft before it before the 2026 budget had been finalized less than ideal, even while recognizing the difficult circumstances and government’s intention to restore the legal timetable.
Another concern involved St. Maarten’s backlog of annual accounts. The Council noted that the annual accounts for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 had not yet all been formally established, despite their importance in showing the actual outcome of government spending and providing a reliable foundation for future budgets.
The Council warned that as long as those backlogs continue, the quality of budget preparation remains under pressure and statutory deadlines continue to be missed.
Government acknowledged the importance of catching up and said efforts are being made to eliminate the backlog. It added that the 2025 annual account is expected to be presented to Parliament in the second quarter of 2027.
The Council also returned to several financial risks previously raised by the Committee for Financial Supervision, including the structural financial condition of SZV, risks associated with government-owned entities, liquidity, the multi-year investment agenda and establishment of the collective sector.
Of particular concern was the legality of cross-financing between social funds. The Council noted that the Cft had asked St. Maarten to obtain an independent legal assessment on whether such cross-financing is permitted under existing legislation and said government’s earlier response to the Cft had not addressed that specific issue.
Government said the Cft’s concerns had been incorporated into the 2027 budget where possible and that matters which could not yet be addressed would continue to be dealt with in discussions with the financial supervisor.
The Council also pushed government to move beyond annual budgeting toward a realistic multi-year budget in which policy plans, investments, performance and financial consequences are linked over several years.
Government agreed with the principle but said introducing a complete multi-year budgeting system immediately would require significant organizational changes, new processes, systems, forecasting methods and stronger capacity throughout the ministries.
Government said preparations will begin during 2027, with the objective of structurally introducing a multi-year perspective beginning with the 2029 budget cycle.
One Council proposal was accepted outright: publication of a simplified version of the national budget for the general public.
The Council argued that a public version, released at the same time as the formal budget, would make government’s financial plans easier for citizens to understand while reducing the circulation of competing summaries and interpretations.
Government said it welcomed the proposal and intends to introduce such a public version for future budgets.
The Ministry of Justice also came under specific scrutiny. The Council said the Justice section of the explanatory budget book still contained an explanation based on the 2026 budget rather than one properly aligned with the 2027 proposal. It also questioned why the figures appeared to show only limited changes compared with 2026.
The Council said it was not plausible that Justice would require little or no adjustment and urged government to update both the explanation and figures before sending the budget to Parliament.
Government responded that the necessary changes had been incorporated, including the Cg 2 million adjustment to gross salaries, and said the revised documents now provided sufficient explanation of the changes affecting Justice.
The Council also identified a different method being used by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport to show differences between the 2026 and 2027 budgets. Government agreed and said the necessary corrections were made.
Questions were also raised about the proposed Road Fund under VROMI. The Council stressed that under the legal framework it reviewed, management of the fund remains the responsibility of the VROMI Minister. While a foundation could provide operational support, the Council said financial management and decision-making could not simply be transferred away from ministerial responsibility.
Government accepted that further work is required on the proposed structure, including governance, financial consequences, implementation capacity and supervision.
It said the Road Fund concept will be developed further during 2027, with the results of that work and resulting policy choices expected to be incorporated into the 2028 budget.
The Council additionally identified a number of technical and editorial problems in the draft documents, including references to 2026 where 2027 should have appeared, incorrect or missing difference amounts in the figures book and other inconsistencies requiring correction.
Government thanked the Council for those observations and stated that the technical comments had been incorporated.
The Council’s final recommendation was that the draft budget ordinance should not be sent to Parliament until its observations had been taken into account.
Government’s September 7 response indicates that it considered that process completed. It formally requested that the adjusted draft ordinance, memorandum of explanation, figures book and explanatory budget book be forwarded to Parliament.
The exchange therefore shows both sides of the 2027 budget review. The Council identified weaknesses in the process and content, while government accepted several recommendations, made corrections and explained where longer-term issues will require additional work.
Some matters were corrected before submission, while others, including multi-year budgeting, the Road Fund structure, annual-account backlogs and broader financial risks identified by the Cft, remain works in progress as Parliament begins its consideration of the 2027 national budget.
