Council debates city manager vs. administrator role; leans toward administrator model without hire/fire authority

Councilors and staff discussed the pros and cons of creating a city manager or city administrator role to relieve the mayor’s operational workload and provide continuity.

Participants outlined tradeoffs. A city manager typically has broader authority — including hire‑and‑fire power — which centralizes operational control in an unelected official. Several council members expressed concern that this could shift power away from elected officials. An administrator model would give an executive administrator clear administrative duties without the full employment authority of a manager; council members expressed preference for that route if the city pursues a restructuring.

Why it matters: Midway’s mayor currently performs many operational tasks. Councilors said the city is approaching a workload and scale where a dedicated administrator could improve continuity, reduce demands on the mayor, and provide a stable conduit to staff. Several councilors proposed considering a formal change when the city population or complexity reaches a threshold (one participant suggested around 7,000 residents as a review point).

Operational considerations: Staff noted the differences among assistants, supervisors and an administrator. The council discussed training and transition windows and the potential budget implications of hiring an experienced administrator. One councilor suggested the coming budget cycle would be the appropriate time to evaluate costs and timing; staff were asked to prepare options and a draft ordinance or job description for review.

Next steps: Staff to include an organizational‑structure item in the budget discussion and to prepare options that delineate responsibilities, costs and authority levels for a potential administrator role. Councilors asked that any proposal avoid excessive concentration of unilateral authority and preserve elected oversight.