MP York’s mission: Can the Road Fund finally work?

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Darryl York’s first legislative initiative is not an attempt to create a Road Fund from scratch. The fund already exists in St. Maarten’s legislation. His proposal is intended to reform and strengthen that existing legal framework so that road-related revenues are more reliably protected, managed and used for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of the country’s road network.

The initiative reaches into one of St. Maarten’s most familiar frustrations: roads that deteriorate faster than they are repaired, projects that depend on whichever budget happens to be available and maintenance that too often begins only after conditions become dangerous.

York has described the proposal as a comprehensive reform of the existing Road Fund legislation, aimed at creating continuity in infrastructure financing and making it more difficult for revenues intended for roads to be absorbed into general government spending. He has not yet released enough detail for a line-by-line assessment of how the revised fund would operate, who would manage it or exactly which revenues would finance it.

He has promised to explain those details as the proposal advances through the legislative process. Until then, the central issue is whether reforming the existing Road Fund can finally give St. Maarten a more dependable way to finance and manage its roads.

A fund that already exists on paper

The first point readers should understand is that York’s initiative seeks to reform and activate a Road Fund framework that has already existed in St. Maarten’s laws for years, but has never functioned as originally intended. The "how" has not yet been disclosed or discussed.

A Road Fund already exists in law. The Motor Vehicle Tax Ordinance requires the establishment of a fund for road construction, maintenance, road safety, signs and traffic signals. The separate Road Fund Ordinance provides that motor vehicle tax revenues, an annual government contribution, previous surpluses and other income should flow into it. What has been missing is the actual functioning fund.

The General Audit Chamber found that successive governments placed motor vehicle tax revenue into the general treasury instead. Infrastructure then had to compete with every other government priority through the annual budget process. That arrangement gave government flexibility, but it also broke the visible connection between the road tax motorists paid and the roads they expected that money to support. In other words, St. Maarten has had the legal promise of a Road Fund without the practical benefit of one.

York’s initiative appears intended to close that gap by strengthening the law and making it more difficult for infrastructure funding to be redirected whenever government’s priorities change. His stated objective is to move the country away from annual uncertainty and reactive repairs toward predictable, long-term investment.

The numbers explain the attraction

The strongest argument for reform can be found in the Audit Chamber’s reports. In 2021, government collected approximately Xcg 10.3 million in motor vehicle taxes. Only Xcg 5.7 million was budgeted across road maintenance, drainage, public lighting and traffic management, and actual spending on those areas was approximately Xcg 3.6 million.

Government collected Xcg 10.8 million in motor vehicle taxes in 2022, while Xcg 5.34 million was budgeted for road-related infrastructure. Actual expenditure was approximately Xcg 2.06 million. In 2023, motor vehicle tax income increased to approximately Xcg 11 million. The infrastructure budget fell to Xcg 4.1 million, of which approximately Xcg 2.8 million was spent. The Audit Chamber calculated that, from the Xcg 275 paid in tax on a regular gasoline vehicle that year, approximately Xcg 73 went toward road infrastructure while Xcg 202 did not.

These figures expose two separate problems. The first is that a substantial portion of the revenue collected from motorists was not allocated to the road network. The second is that even the smaller amounts approved for infrastructure were not fully used. St. Maarten therefore does not have only a funding problem. It also has an execution problem.

The use

Depending on the final wording of York’s proposal, a Road Fund could support much more than filling potholes. The existing legislation already refers to road construction, maintenance, safety, signs and traffic signals. The Audit Chamber has also treated drainage and public lighting as closely related infrastructure expenses.

In practical terms, a modern and reformed fund could finance routine repairs, full resurfacing, drainage rehabilitation, road markings, guardrails, traffic signs, street lighting and safety improvements at dangerous intersections. It could also support regular technical surveys of the road network. St. Maarten cannot manage its infrastructure properly without reliable information about which roads are structurally sound, which require resurfacing and which must be completely reconstructed.

An effective system would rank projects according to published criteria instead of responding mainly to public pressure, accidents or whichever road has become politically urgent. That would not remove political responsibility. Parliament and government would still determine national priorities. It would, however, make it more difficult to ignore preventive maintenance until a road reaches crisis condition.

Managed at arm’s length, but not outside public control

Dedicated road funds are often most effective when their day-to-day administration is kept at some distance from normal ministry spending. That does not mean handing public money to a private organization/foundation or removing government from the process. It usually means placing the fund under a statutory authority, professional management team or representative board with a narrow legal mandate.

Government would remain responsible for policy, legislation, national planning and overall financial supervision. Parliament would approve the law and exercise oversight. The Ministry of Finance would retain an important role in financial controls, while VROMI would provide technical planning and coordinate the country’s wider infrastructure policy.

The fund’s management would be responsible for protecting the revenues, preparing work programs, approving eligible spending, publishing accounts and ensuring that the money is used only for the purposes established by law.

This separation is intended to prevent road funding from quietly becoming money for unrelated expenses. It can also make responsibility easier to trace. When roads are not maintained, the public should be able to determine whether the problem was insufficient revenue, weak planning, delayed procurement or poor management.

The World Bank’s better-performing road-fund model includes a strong legal foundation, an independent executive authority, professional management, user representation and third-party auditing. The purpose is to keep the fund responsive to public needs without leaving it vulnerable to arbitrary political withdrawals or internal misuse.

Cayman offers a nearby example

The Cayman Islands provides a useful comparison because it is also a small Caribbean jurisdiction with limited land, growing traffic demands and expensive infrastructure needs. Cayman’s National Roads Authority is established by law and governed through a board. Revenue is transferred through a Road Fund to finance the Authority’s operating costs and, specifically, the construction, upgrading, rehabilitation and maintenance of public roads.

The Authority operates separately from the ministry’s daily administration, but it does not operate independently of government policy. Cabinet controls transfers, appoints the board and retains regulatory authority, while the Authority advises the responsible minister about funding needs and possible financing mechanisms.

That is the collaboration an arm’s-length model is meant to achieve: professional road management without removing democratic oversight.

St. Maarten would not need to copy Cayman’s system word for word. Its road network, tax base, administrative capacity and constitutional structure are different. The comparison nevertheless shows that a small jurisdiction can legally separate road administration from routine government operations while keeping the authority answerable to ministers, Cabinet and the legislature.

Jamaica also offers a warning

Jamaica previously operated a Road Maintenance Fund through a board that managed money specifically for the maintenance of main roads and related structures. The legislation provided for a bank account separate from the ministry’s other accounts and restricted the money to road-maintenance purposes.

However, Jamaica repealed the Road Maintenance Fund Act in 2017. The lesson is that creating a separate fund does not guarantee that the arrangement will remain effective or politically sustainable. A road fund can become another layer of bureaucracy if it duplicates ministry functions, accumulates overhead costs or fails to demonstrate better results.

The institution must justify its existence through visible improvements, credible reporting and more efficient use of public money. Any operational fund would require measurable objectives, performance indicators, expenditure controls, independent review and reliable audits. It also asked whether a management board could genuinely represent the interests of the people paying into the fund and what control the Ministry of Finance would retain over the revenues.

If this is York's direction, these details will determine whether York’s proposal establishes a disciplined infrastructure mechanism or merely creates another institution with a director, staff, office and operating expenses. However, what cannot reasonably continue is the present situation in which the law requires one system while government operates another.

A fund cannot work without a road plan

Perhaps the most important requirement is a complete, current assessment of St. Maarten’s road network. A fund cannot make rational decisions if the country does not know the condition, expected lifespan and repair cost of its public roads. The Audit Chamber recommended a phased, multi-year infrastructure plan with financial projections and measurable targets. It later found that VROMI had adopted broader multi-year priorities, but that the objectives still lacked sufficient financial planning and clear, measurable outcomes. That means the Road Fund and the road plan must be developed together.

The plan should identify which roads need immediate safety work, which can be preserved through maintenance, which require full reconstruction and how drainage, lighting, sidewalks and public transportation will be incorporated. It should also establish a realistic annual maintenance standard. Without one, government can spend millions and still be unable to tell the public whether the road network is improving or merely deteriorating more slowly.

Why York’s proposal deserves serious examination

York’s initiative does not yet provide enough public information for a final judgment. The strength of the legislation will depend on its governance, financing, reporting requirements and relationship with VROMI and the Ministry of Finance. But the proposal addresses a genuine structural problem.

For years, St. Maarten has collected road-related revenue without maintaining the operational fund required by law. Infrastructure allocations have been smaller than motor vehicle tax collections, and even approved allocations have sometimes remained unused.

In 2025, the Audit Chamber went as far as initiating a formal objection process over the distribution of road-tax revenues. It did not file the objection after discussions with the responsible ministers produced an action plan, although the Chamber said visible improvement was still necessary.

MP York’s legislation therefore enters a debate that was already active inside government, Parliament and the country’s principal public-audit institution. The task before Parliament will be to determine whether his reform improves the existing legal framework, complements the government’s action plan and creates a structure St. Maarten can realistically manage.

And then, finally, the real test will be continuity. St. Maarten’s road problem has never been only about asphalt. It is about planning, drainage, procurement, supervision, public safety and the repeated loss of momentum when administrations or priorities change.

A properly designed Road Fund could protect a dependable stream of money and allow roadwork to continue across budget years and political terms. It could help government plan earlier, maintain roads before they fail and show motorists where their contributions are going. A poorly designed fund could simply move the same weaknesses into a separate institution.

The need for a different approach is difficult to dispute. The question now is whether the legislation can convert that need into a system that finally delivers continuity, accountability and roads built to last.

‍