ST. LOUIS, MO – August 27, 2026 (STL.News) One hundred and fifty years after St. Louis City separated from St. Louis County in a historic decision known as the “Great Divorce,” discussion is again building over whether the city should rejoin the county.

The idea is not necessarily to merge the St. Louis City and St. Louis County governments. Instead, one proposal being discussed would allow the City of St. Louis to reenter St. Louis County while remaining a municipality with its own city government.

The distinction could become critically important as elected officials, business leaders and residents consider what a new city-county relationship could mean for taxes, government services, political representation and the region’s long-term economic competitiveness.

St. Louis County Executive Sam Page publicly raised the possibility in March, suggesting that the city could reenter the county as a municipality as part of a broader discussion about regional cooperation and government costs.

The discussion has gained renewed attention as August marks 150 years since the 1876 separation. First Alert 4 reported Wednesday that business leaders have also organized an effort to study the financial feasibility of city reentry.

What happened in the Great Divorce?

St. Louis City’s unusual governmental status dates to 1876.

At the time, many city residents believed they were contributing disproportionately to St. Louis County government while receiving insufficient benefits from rapidly developing areas outside the city.

The separation ultimately created an independent City of St. Louis with permanently established boundaries.

According to the City of St. Louis, the arrangement made St. Louis an independent city that is not part of any county. As a result, the city performs both municipal functions and many functions normally handled by a county government.

The city’s historical account notes that St. Louis took control of government property within its boundaries and assumed county debt as part of the separation. The arrangement took effect in 1877, following the political and legal process of the previous year.

One of the most consequential results was the city’s fixed geographic boundary.

Unlike many major American cities that subsequently annexed developing suburban areas, St. Louis could not simply expand outward as population, housing, retail development, and employment shifted beyond its borders.

That structural difference still influences discussions about the region today.

Reentry is different from a city-county merger

The current discussion should not automatically be characterized as an attempt to eliminate St. Louis City government or consolidate every municipality in St. Louis County.

Page’s March proposal envisioned St. Louis City reentering the county as a municipality rather than combining all city and county governments into one consolidated government.

That distinction separates the current conversation from some previous regional consolidation proposals.

Attorney Joe Blanner, who served on the 2019 Board of Freeholders and has extensively studied the city’s separation from the county, told First Alert 4 that describing reentry as a merger can create a misleading impression that existing local governments would automatically disappear.

Under a reentry concept, St. Louis could remain the City of St. Louis, keep a mayor and municipal government, and still become part of St. Louis County.

Exactly which responsibilities would remain with the city and which would transfer to county government would depend on the eventual reentry proposal.

No final plan has been adopted.

What could change for St. Louis City?

One of the biggest questions involves the governmental responsibilities St. Louis carries because of its independent-city status.

The City of St. Louis currently performs functions normally associated with both a city and county.

Its government structure includes county-type responsibilities, including courts, revenue collection, and other offices. The city’s official description of its governmental structure notes that St. Louis is Missouri’s only city operating its own county offices.

If the city reentered St. Louis County, some of those responsibilities could potentially change.

Blanner has argued that the city currently bears the financial burden of maintaining county-level offices in addition to normal municipal operations. Reentry could therefore spark a discussion about which county functions should continue independently and which St. Louis County could handle.

However, residents should not assume that reentry would automatically produce dramatic government savings.

The financial consequences would depend on the final structure, including decisions about employees, departments, property, pensions, taxes, courts and other government responsibilities.

What could change for St. Louis County?

Reentry would also represent a major structural change for St. Louis County.

The county currently surrounds the independent city and contains dozens of municipalities, each with varying governmental arrangements and services.

Under the concept Page raised, St. Louis City would join that system as another municipality rather than absorbing the county’s existing cities. First Alert 4 reported in March that Page’s proposal did not call for merging St. Louis with the county’s other 82 municipalities.

County government would potentially gain responsibilities for people and territory currently outside its jurisdiction.

That could affect county revenues and expenditures and potentially alter political representation.

Any formal proposal would need to address those details.

Regional services already cross the boundary

Despite the governmental separation, St. Louis City and St. Louis County are hardly isolated from one another.

Several major regional institutions and services already operate across the city-county line.

When Page raised the reentry idea in March, he pointed to existing regional arrangements including Metro transit, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the Zoo Museum District, Great Rivers Greenway and police helicopter operations.

These arrangements demonstrate that regional cooperation can occur without completely consolidating governments.

A reentry plan could potentially extend that model by changing the underlying governmental relationship while preserving local municipal identities.

Taxes and services will be central questions

For taxpayers, one of the most important questions will be straightforward: What happens to taxes?

No definitive answer exists yet.

Any serious proposal would need to examine property taxes, sales taxes, earnings taxes, county taxes and the numerous special taxing districts operating throughout the region.

It would also need to determine who pays for services and which government provides them.

Police, courts, public health, roads, parks, emergency management and administrative functions could all become part of the discussion.

First Alert 4 reported shortly after Page introduced the idea that questions surrounding costs, services and taxation were among the immediate issues raised by the proposal.

Those questions will likely require detailed financial modeling before voters could reasonably evaluate a reentry plan.

The region has tried government reform before

Attempts to change the relationship between St. Louis City and St. Louis County are not new.

Numerous proposals have surfaced during the 150 years since the Great Divorce.

One of the most prominent recent attempts was the Better Together initiative, which proposed a much broader governmental restructuring.

That effort collapsed in 2019 amid intense political opposition and controversy.

A Board of Freeholders was subsequently formed as another possible avenue for governmental reform. According to Blanner, the county made its appointments, and Missouri’s governor selected an appointee, while then-St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson nominated city representatives. The city’s nominees were not ultimately approved by the Board of Aldermen, and the effort stalled before the COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted the process.

That history could influence how supporters approach the latest discussion.

A narrowly defined reentry proposal could be politically different from an effort to eliminate municipal governments or establish one consolidated metropolitan government.

What would happen to St. Louis’ boundaries?

Reentry would not necessarily expand the geographic boundaries of the City of STL.

The city could potentially retain its existing municipal boundaries while those boundaries became part of the larger territory governed at the county level by St. Louis County.

The boundary question nevertheless remains historically important.

St. Louis’ inability to annex surrounding territory after the Great Divorce has long been cited as one consequence of the 1876 decision.

The city’s own historical preservation materials note that the fixed boundary prevented St. Louis from expanding to capture subsequent residential, industrial and commercial development outside the city.

Reentry would not erase 150 years of suburban development, but advocates may argue that placing the city and county under a shared county structure could reduce some institutional competition.

A major political process would be required

The current discussion remains preliminary.

Page’s comments did not change STL’s governmental status, and no reentry plan is complete or awaiting implementation.

Any serious effort would require decisions about the mechanism used to develop a proposal and ultimately obtain the necessary legal and voter approvals.

The Board of Freeholders process is one potential route that has been attempted previously. Blanner described the structure used in 2019 as involving nine county appointments, nine city appointments and a gubernatorial appointment from outside the city and county.

The precise legal process for a new effort would have to be determined as an actual proposal develops.

That means the public discussion now should be viewed as the start of a potentially lengthy process rather than an imminent governmental change.

Why the conversation matters

The debate comes at a symbolic moment.

The Great Divorce has now shaped St. Louis government for approximately a century and a half.

What appeared advantageous to city voters in the 1870s produced consequences that became much more significant as the metropolitan area expanded far beyond the city’s fixed boundaries.

Today, STL City and STL County operate as separate governments while residents routinely cross the boundary for employment, entertainment, education, health care, shopping and transportation.

Businesses likewise operate within a metropolitan economy that does not stop at the city line.

That reality is one reason discussions about regional cooperation have repeatedly resurfaced.

The latest proposal does not guarantee reentry. Nor does it establish that reentry would solve the region’s financial, demographic or governmental challenges.

It does, however, reopen a fundamental question that STL has confronted repeatedly since 1876: whether a governmental boundary created 150 years ago remains the best structure for a modern metropolitan region.

Before voters can answer that question, they will need much more information about taxes, services, representation, government employment, finances, and the legal structure of any proposed reentry.

For now, the Great Divorce remains intact.

But 150 years after STL City left STL County, the possibility of bringing the two back under the same county structure is once again part of the region’s public conversation.