Committee opens lengthy discussion of proposal to create city administrator post; experts call it a path to continuity and efficiency

Alderman Velasquez presented Board Bill 162, a charter amendment proposal to establish a mayor-nominated, board-approved city administrator (city manager) charged with overseeing day-to-day municipal operations.

Velasquez described the office as a professional, nonpartisan manager “hired to manage the day to day operations or the business of local government ethically, efficiently, and transparently.” She said the bill is modeled on structures used in other U.S. cities, noting that “59% of cities over a hundred thousand people in the U.S. have some form of city manager/administrator.” The sponsor outlined a proposed organizational shift in which many mayoral-appointed operational departments would report to the city administrator; the mayor would retain appointment authority for certain offices listed in the draft.

The sponsor presented key design points in the draft: a mayoral nomination with board approval, a national search requirement, a prohibition on recent elected officeholders serving as administrator, and a removal mechanism allowing the mayor to remove the administrator and allowing removal by two-thirds of the board. The draft included proposed starting salaries — $275,000 for the city administrator and $132,000 for an assistant city administrator — and called for two assistant city managers and support staff; the sponsor described a total personnel cost figure during the hearing but the transcript figure was ambiguous.

The committee heard expert testimony from Jason Grant, director of advocacy for the International City/County Management Association, and from Chris Simpson, city administrator of Crestwood and president of the St. Louis area city managers association. Both witnesses emphasized continuity across election cycles, professional management of budgets and capital programs, better use of technology and data, and lower risk of corruption in professionally managed cities. Grant summarized research showing professionally managed cities often achieve higher bond ratings, greater budget solvency and cost savings; he said a manager “assures effective, efficient operation of government to achieve the mayor and council goals and objectives.” Simpson described real-world deliverables such as pavement-management plans, capital-improvement programming, quarterly financial reporting and performance dashboards.

City administration staff from the mayor’s office provided technical flags for the committee to consider. Casey Milberg (Mayor’s office) told the committee that replacing the Board of Public Service’s duties raises cross-references across the charter and city code that must be updated; she listed multiple charter articles (4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 21 and 24) and several code sections that would need review and revision to avoid unintended consequences. She also asked the committee to review how large existing contracts (including airport contracts) and roles such as eminent domain, franchise authority and local improvement funds would be affected.

Public comment included remarks from David Messner, who said a professional city manager could coordinate interdepartmental projects and reduce duplicated work and that the proposal would send a positive signal to the business community.

Committee members were generally receptive but agreed the draft needs significant legal and technical work before a final committee action. Chair Volmer indicated a willingness to hold the bill and schedule follow-up committee work within days. Because the proposal is a charter amendment, Velasquez noted any final charter change would require voter approval; the earliest feasible citywide election for such a question would be August 2026 under the schedule discussed.

The committee did not vote to advance the bill at this hearing; members asked the sponsor to continue refining the draft and for staff to return with legal cross-reference analysis and any fiscal detail needed for committee consideration.