Introduction
Recently, County Executive Dr. Sam Page stated he thought the City should enter the county as a new municipality. There are currently 88 cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated areas throughout St. Louis County. I’ll discuss the difference of these in a future blog, but bringing St. Louis City, a charter city. A charter city is a municipality that operates under its own “home-rule” charter rather than general state laws. This is interesting considering the state recently took over St. Louis City’s police department, again. In theory home rule allows local residents to define their own form of government, powers, and administrative procedures, provided they comply with the Missouri Constitution. There are 42 charter cities in Missouri.
Terry Jones, author of Fragmented by Design – Why St. Louis Has So Many Governments, wrote a policy brief for the Public Policy Research Center in 2011 discussing the implications and feasibility of one variation of St. Louis City-County reunification, reentry of the city into the county. the PPRC is now a part of the Community Innovation and Action Center at the University of Missouri- St. Louis. Below I summarized the the policy brief and then discuss some of the key thoughts and findings. Keep in mind, this policy brief was published before Better Together attempted to reunify the city and county, which ended disastrously for many reasons. I’ll get into that later. But I bring it up because there may have been legislation between 2001 and now, intended to help Better Together, that changes some of these findings. As we review studies we’ll uncover a lot of ways the city and county differ in governance and some of those issues have to be addressed before reentry can happen.
The conclusion of the brief is that reentry is feasible, but not without it’s own issues. This will also take time to form the vehicle for reentry, create a plan, and inform the people, and have them vote on it. All along the way, studies will be drafted and polling will occur in order for regional leadership to thread the needle of democracy.
Summary of Reconciling the Great Divorce: The City of St. Louis Reentering St. Louis County
Overview
The policy brief examines the legal, administrative, and political implications of the City of St. Louis reentering St. Louis County as its 92nd municipality. Drawing on Missouri constitutional provisions and historical precedent, the author argues that while reentry is legally feasible and often viewed as the most practical reunification option, it presents complex structural challenges that require careful resolution (Jones, 2011).
Key Findings
- Reentry Is Constitutionally Permissible and Politically Feasible
- Missouri’s Constitution explicitly allows the City of St. Louis to reenter St. Louis County.
- Among several consolidation options, reentry is widely viewed as the least disruptive to existing City and County autonomy and thus the most politically viable (Jones, 2011).
- The Process Is Voter-Driven and Highly Structured
- Reentry would require voter-initiated petitions in both the City and the County.
- A Board of Electors would be appointed to develop a plan, which must then be approved by concurrent majorities of City and County voters.
- The board’s authority is broad and cannot be restricted solely to reentry, increasing uncertainty in outcomes (Jones, 2011).
- County Functions Would Likely Shift to St. Louis County
- If reentry occurs, the County would probably assume most or all “county functions” currently performed by the City, fundamentally altering City governance responsibilities (Jones, 2011).
Major Problems and Challenges
- Integration of Non-Judicial County Functions
- The City and County organize functions such as tax collection, revenue administration, and record keeping differently.
- Transferring City offices into County departments raises unresolved questions about organizational structure, efficiency, and employee placement.
- Judicial System Consolidation
- Reentry would eliminate the City’s status as an independent judicial county.
- This would require merging court systems, prosecutorial offices, jail facilities, and jury pools—posing logistical, legal, and political challenges.
- Employment and Labor Protections
- Missouri’s Constitution protects the employment rights of displaced City workers.
- It remains unclear whether affected employees would transfer to County employment or remain on the City payroll, creating potential financial and legal conflicts.
- County-Like Functions Performed by the City
- The City independently manages functions typically handled at the county level, such as:
- Economic development
- Property assessment
- Public health
- Post-reentry, policymakers must decide whether these functions should be merged into County systems or remain uniquely City-operated.
- The City independently manages functions typically handled at the county level, such as:
- County Council Representation and Redistricting
- Reentry would require redrawing County Council districts.
- Decisions about the number of districts and how City voters are distributed raise concerns about political representation and equity.
- Special District Governance
- Joint City–County entities (e.g., Metropolitan Sewer District, Zoo-Museum District) are built on shared governance.
- Reentry could destabilize these arrangements as other municipalities question the City’s continued influence.
Conclusion
Terry Jones concludes that while City–County reentry is legally possible and superficially attractive, it would trigger far-reaching institutional changes. The process would be lengthy, politically demanding, and likely dominate regional civic debate for years. Any reentry plan must address not only governance efficiency but also representation, labor rights, and regional equity.
Jones, E. T. (2011). Reconciling the great divorce: The City of St. Louis reentering St. Louis County (Policy Brief No. 25). Public Policy Research Center, University of Missouri–St. Louis.
Adding Context and Reviewing the Policy Brief
One of the key findings of Fragmented by Design (2000) is that if the municipal or major regional governments don’t want to take blame or responsibility for the needs of the people then they create a special government entity to manage the issue. In doing this, we have gotten Metropolitan Sewer District, Great Rivers Greenway, and the St. Louis Economic Development Partnership, which is actually an umbrella organization of state authorized programs or political subdivisions. There are good reasons for these to be external. But their structure is regionally focused at least between the city and county, and GRG includes surrounding counties as well.
However, we have found our structure of governance is also duplicative in services, varying in capabilities among regional populations leading to inequities, and funded through varying tax structures. The policy brief lays out political implications of changes, such as the ability of the City to retain powers, like appointments to these regional governance organizations I mentioned. Regional boards and commissions get appointed by the county executive and mayor through a mix of city and county and sometimes state governor appointments. Recently, the St. Louis County Council has tried to require more input through the approval process of some of these appointments, adding a layer of politics that can be a wedge at times.
The key takeaways of this brief, I think, are in the transfer of powers questions. Will the city want to turn over its county responsibilities now, like collector of revenue and judicial and prosecutorial responsibilities to the county? Dr. Page may have provided a baked in solution when he called for reentry. He also called for the county to move offices into the city.
Proposals for the county to reestablish a physical presence in the city also intersect with broader economic conditions. According to Cushman & Wakefield, at the end of 2025 St. Louis City recorded an 18.5% office vacancy rate, with the Central Business District reaching 26.0%. Strategic relocation of county functions could therefore serve both governance and economic revitalization goals. That is considered high and has a significant impact on local restaurants and can lead to a compounding of economic problems and crime. Over the last ten years, the commercial vacancy rate has been 16-20%.
Simultaneously, the county has to vacate its administration building by December 2027 because it is not up to code in the City of Clayton. It is unlikely city reentry would happen by then. But given the average vacancy rate of the city this solution appears possible and would only strengthen the City’s economy. Keep in mind, City reentry would cause some county functions managed by the city to be transferred to St. Louis County already.
Currently, the St. Louis County Charter requires the county seat to be in the City of Clayton. All this really means is that the county council must meet there. Offices have already operated around the county. But in the last 15-20 years there has been significant decentralization of services from Clayton to surrounding areas. For instance, the St. Louis County Department of Transportation and Public Works moved its offices out to N. Lindbergh Blvd from Clayton over a decade ago. In 2012, the Department of Health built a new headquarters on N. Hanley Road.
Decentralization has been happening for some time and has not appeared to disrupt services or management coordination. So, moving some operations into the City makes functional sense, while solving certain city occupancy issues, should they continue. The question is, which offices or departments and where in the city? One may presume the Central Business District, but that may put a burden on regional stakeholders who established offices near Clayton. Clayton is already on the east side of the county. Moving it further from businesses on the western edge may be met with resistance. Again, this goes to the question of what gets moved and where.
Conclusion: Aligning Authority, Accountability, and Place
The governance challenges facing the St. Louis region are not simply the result of inefficiency or institutional inertia. They are the cumulative outcome of deliberate decisions to separate authority from accountability through a proliferation of special districts and regional entities. While many of these structures were created for sound functional reasons, their collective effect has been a fragmented system that duplicates services, varies widely in capacity across communities, and obscures responsibility for outcomes.
As the policy brief makes clear, the most consequential questions now facing the region are not about consolidation for its own sake, but about the transfer and alignment of powers. Decisions about whether the city should relinquish certain county‑level responsibilities, how appointments to regional boards are structured, and where governmental functions are physically located all reflect deeper choices about who governs, who benefits, and who bears the political risk of reform.
Proposals for county reentry into the city, including the relocation of offices and operations, illustrate this tension clearly. Such moves are not merely symbolic or logistical. They carry real implications for economic activity, accessibility, and the balance of power between city and county stakeholders. At the same time, they offer an opportunity to rethink how governance structures can better support both regional efficiency and urban revitalization, particularly in the context of persistent office vacancy and decentralization trends.
Ultimately, any meaningful reform of regional governance in St. Louis will require confronting the tradeoffs that fragmentation has long deferred. Aligning authority with accountability—and doing so in a way that promotes equity across the region—demands more than technical fixes. It requires political clarity about the purpose of regional institutions, transparency in how power is exercised, and a willingness to reconsider long‑standing assumptions about where government belongs and whom it serves.
The Structure of Society 