Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 8, 2012 at 4:20pm

The "importance" is in the eyes of the supporters. This means that opinions will differ. I can understand some residency requirements, especially for those depts where call backs are routine, as well as a mileage radias for volunteer depts.

 

Other than that, I've seen excuses for residency from taxpayers pay the salary to availability for callback, or emergency recall. The most I hear from a municipal standpoint is the taxpayers pay your salary, so you should live in the municipality. I don't agree with this sentiment because in all actuality, what a taxpayer really pays for a single employee for the year is very minimal for them to make a say in how and where someone should live.

 

Our city had a residency requirement that any employee had to live in the city limits. That was relaxed years ago until a percentage was met. When I got hired I could live outside the city (I live inside the city because I choose to have a voice to my elected officials). Anyone hired after me, the residency requirement was reinstated and new hires had to live in the city. We had one alderman that wanted to force all employees BACK into the city. Yeah, we were ready for that, like proposing the city absorbs the costs for those who can't sell their homes, etc......it was a stupid idea, but there are clowns out there that have them.

 

The problem with such requirements is you lose potential employees, especially the top ranked ones. I have known police and fire candidates offered a job, but turned it down because they couldn't move their family into the city, let alone try and sell their house in this market. There have been jobs like mechanics, etc where the case was quite similar, it is difficult to make such a mandate on people, especially in this housing market.

 

A couple weeks ago, the city council, looking at such issues as described, decided to open residency to the county and contiguous counties....which opens up options quite a bit.

 

 

 

 

The other reason for employees to live in the city was for call backs or emergency staffing. Problem with that was the time a city resident may have to take to staff a rig, someone from outside may have a better access. For example, I live on the east side of the city and at one time, stationed on the west side. For some call ins, I would have to cross the city to get my gear, then go to where I was needed. The time savings idea doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russ on October 8, 2012 at 7:03pm

i was required to "live in the district" when i was hired but when we merged with a neighboring department that went out the window. they said it was for callbacks and when we were called back, they complained about paying the overtime-LOL

i see the issue as either election year political blustering or an attempt to exert control over its employees. where i live it was suggested that no elected offical should be allowed to own property outside the city "so that the tax money can stay here"- (you can imagine how that went over) because several on the board were landlords and had property in the county depriving the city

JOHN: i love the "cover the cost if the employee cant sell their home" thing "priceless"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on October 8, 2012 at 7:04pm

My career FD has no residency requirement.  Both of the POC FDs have a 5 mile limit.

For volunteers, unless you have to be at the station to pull shifts, residency makes perfect sense.

For career firefighters, especially now in the age of MABAS and automatic aid it makes no sense at all anymore.  I have been a member of my career FD for 15 ears and not one time have I been called back.

I firmly believe the more obvious reason is as John mentioned above, the phony reason that we should be in the community to help pay the taxes that pay us.  What difference does it make where I live as long as I am there on time for my shift?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 8, 2012 at 9:55pm

Recently our county just enacted a law that any commission or leadership group members that has any control of county operations or finances will live within the bounderies of our county.

 

 

I addressed the employee aspect of things in regards to residency, but when it comes to elected positions or appointed positions.......I DO agree they should be residents. The only difference would be if the commission etc was of a multi-county, multi-municipal commission. The other caveat may be for those select few who live outside the jurisdiction, but work in the jurisdiction......and that would be by case by case basis.

 

For the most part, such commissions etc are answering to the county or municipality as well as handling issues that affect residents and employees of the county/municipality, Such people should have a grasp of the demographics and if making such decisions, should be a resident. Like elected officials, it makes sense to have personnel who are residents, to be able to make the decisions that concern the residents.......not some outsider who has no stake.

 

So say the commission decides there is too much staff and that cuts should be made. If these folks weren't impacted by the cuts, then why should they have a say? On the flip side, you could get something like Obion County, TN where outsiders may make a better call vs their elected officials, but again, that is an outsiders POV.

 

Quite frankly, I see no problem stipulating residency for those folks who are in charge of making decisions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 8, 2012 at 9:59pm

JOHN: i love the "cover the cost if the employee cant sell their home" thing "priceless"

 

Yep, pretty easy to address such thoughts like forcing people to move back into the city. Granted these were established employees that already could live outside the city.....forcing them to move back in would create hardships where making such a stipulation would not be cost indusive for a city and would actually incur unforeseen costs....thus making it easy to say it is a bad decision. Otherwise, how else can you make such mandates, when they already were OK'd to live outside the city?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ethan Foster on October 10, 2012 at 1:01am

John covers most of the points thoroughly.

Adressing the first point, commission members being required to live inside the area they have a say in just makes sense. You make the point that it will entirely change how business is being done; not saying anything wrong is happening now, but that is how it needs to be. People that live within the district/boundaries are the ones that need to be deciding what is in their best interest.

Second point, volunteer fire issues. I'm not sure what it is like where you're at, but volunteer residency is a big point where I'm from. I couldn't imagine trying to travel 30+ miles for a call to the next fire departments station. I'd be of no help by the time I got there, unless of course it's a large incident. So it only makes sense to be a member of my local volunteer fire department.

And as for career departments, sadly it's whatever they (admin or city officials) want. I worked for a department that had no residency issues because they never did call-backs. And even though I lived far outside the county, I still paid my taxes to eat. However, there is another local dept that requires you to live within 25 min of the station and they do call-backs.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion