Unlocking Fiscal Benefits: St. Louis County and City Collaboration

Ever since the Great Divorce St. Louis City and County have been looking for ways to get back together, in one way or another. As government and the economy has gotten more complex it has become a reality that they need each other. Conversations around cost sharing began to happen and eventually the Missouri Council for a Better Economy solicited a study for City-County collaboration focused on cost sharing.

Essentially, they were looking to find opportunities for economies of scale between the entities. Collaboration without a vote of the people. The following is a summary of key pieces of the executive summary of that report with a downloadable policy brief. St. Louis County enjoys a fairly high rate of purchasing power, in part because it has minimalities within to partner with to help drive down costs. Budgetary constraints or storage capacity in the city often prevent the single entity from flexing the same muscle.

A former chief executive relayed this example years ago. He said road salt is a good example, and this is somewhat hypothetical at this time as it may be the city and county are collaborating more closely when it comes to salt. Municipalities and county transportation use salt on roads and the county has storage capacity to purchase for the estimated need of the whole winter season. This drives down costs significantly. St. Louis City, on the other hand, may have to buy a barge at a time, over time, to spread out the costs because they are at capacity.

St. Louis County government maintains what is referred to the matrix. It’s a spreadsheet of every agreement it has with municipalities to provide services such as inspections, plan review, and police support. This improves capacity for St. Louis County, creates efficiency of service and provides for better purchasing power. They do this in a number of areas. On the other hand, St. Louis City is often left to their own devices, which leads to higher costs with a constrained tax base. It should be pointed out that St. Louis City has been growing that tax base significantly in the last decade. But the economic constraints remain and collaboration would go a long way in burden sharing in the region.

City of St. Louis and St. Louis County Intergovernmental Collaboration Study– The PFM Group

Key Context and Issues –

1. Structural Fragmentation

• Missouri has an unusually high number of local governments, including counties, municipalities, special districts, and school districts.
• The City–County separation (1876) created rigid boundaries with limited flexibility for addressing shared regional challenges.
• Multiple constitutional amendments (1924, 1945, 1966) created legal pathways for cooperation or consolidation, but all consolidation efforts have failed due to insufficient support.

2. Fiscal Pressure as a Catalyst

• The 2008–2009 national recession significantly reduced revenues for both City and County governments.
• Budget stress increased the urgency to pursue shared services as an alternative to structural consolidation.

3. Existing Regional Cooperation

• The report emphasizes that cooperation is not theoretical—numerous regional efforts already exist, including transportation, cultural institutions, and large facilities.
• Beyond high‑profile examples, the report notes “scores” of less visible shared activities already underway.

Shared Services Framework

The study categorizes collaboration opportunities into four primary mechanisms:

1. Economies of Scale – Combining operations to reduce per‑unit costs
2. Combined Purchasing Power – Joint procurement to lower prices
3. Co‑location – Shared facilities or administrative functions
4. Excess Capacity Utilization – One government providing services for the other where capacity exists

Initiatives are further organized by:

• Implementation timeframe (short‑term vs. long‑term)
• Service delivery area

Major Service Areas and Key Findings

Administration

• Opportunities for shared training, cooperative purchasing, and consolidation of administrative functions.
• Significant savings potential from combined purchasing, particularly utilities, bulk commodities, and employee benefits.
• Printing operations identified as an area where economies of scale are likely.

Health

• Strong case for regional coordination, given that public health risks cross jurisdictional boundaries.
• The report explicitly states that service quality and health outcomes may improve, but direct cost savings are unlikely to be substantial.
• Non‑quantifiable benefits (“positive externalities”) are emphasized.

Parks and Recreation

• Limited overlap between City and County systems.
• Opportunities exist for joint volunteer programs and mutual aid agreements, but savings potential is modest.

Finance

• Identified as a high‑potential area for shared systems.
• Shared property tax assessment and collection systems could:
  • Produce economies of scale
  • Improve overall tax collections

Economic Development

• The report notes a national shift away from jurisdictional competition toward cooperation.
• Greater coordination, especially around federal grants, is expected to benefit both governments.

Human Services

• Populations served (e.g., homeless services, workforce development, aging services) are well‑suited to regional or co‑located delivery models.
• Other regions have achieved cost reductions and/or service improvements through such approaches.

Public Safety

• The County’s electronic monitoring program is highlighted as a model the City could leverage to reduce incarceration costs for non‑violent offenders.
• Additional cooperation is suggested, though police services are largely excluded due to state governance structures.

Public Works

• Opportunities include:
  • Joint fuel purchasing
  • Fleet standardization
  • Standardized code enforcement to reduce costs for both governments and residents

Cost Savings Analysis (As Stated in the Report)

• The report repeatedly emphasizes that precise savings estimates are difficult due to:
  • Political feasibility
  • Implementation complexity
  • Resource availability
  • External economic factors
• Not all initiatives have quantifiable fiscal impacts.
• Despite these limitations, PFM concludes that:

If key initiatives are successfully implemented, combined annual savings could range from $10 million to $40 million in 2011. Savings may be increased today when adjusted for inflation. Some recommendations have been initiated or concluded, such as in economic development. It has been about 15 years since the Economic Development Partnership has been created. It might be worth reviewing whether the expected cost savings were realized

Conclusion on Cost Savings

Based strictly on the document’s findings:

• Meaningful cost savings are achievable, but they are unevenly distributed across service areas.
• The largest and most reliable savings are likely to come from:
  • Administrative consolidation
  • Cooperative purchasing
  • Shared financial systems
  • Public works standardization
• Health and human services offer strong service and outcome benefits, but limited direct fiscal savings, according to the report.
• The projected $10–$40 million annual savings range should be understood as:
  • Dependent on sustained political support
  • Incremental rather than immediate
  • Strongly tied to execution quality rather than policy intent alone

Overall conclusion:
The study positions intergovernmental collaboration not as a one‑time budget fix, but as a long‑term cost‑containment and service‑improvement strategy. Financial savings are real and potentially substantial, but the report makes clear that governance commitment and implementation discipline are the decisive factors in realizing them.

Initiatives vs. Savings Certainty