I watched the doings of the Little Falls City Council last night on local access Channel 6. The most heated debate took place concerning a residency requirement for the new City Administrator. A motion was made to require the City Admin to live within 5 miles of Bank Square in Little Falls. There was some discussion as to whether there should be a response time requirement instead, with Council Member Michael Doucette favoring this approach, rather than a particular geographical requirement. Mayor Cathy VanRisseghem wanted to do away with the residency requirement altogether, saying that it would cut down on the number of qualified candidates that would apply for the position. Both Doucette and VanRisseghem recently attended a conference with employees from other cities who asked how the search was going and, upon learning that it’s going nowhere, wondered what’s wrong with the city. Doesn’t that make you feel confident? When the official vote on the residency requirement was taken, all Council Members, with the exception of Doucette and VanRisseghem, voted in favor, so the motion passed.
This led me to wonder, what does state law say about residency requirements for city employees? The applicable Minnesota Statute is 415.16. It says -
“415.16 EMPLOYMENT; RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT.
Subdivision 1. No exception for on-premises residence. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision of other law, home rule charter, ordinance or resolution, no statutory or home rule
charter city or county shall require that a person be a resident of the city or county as a condition
of employment by the city or county except for positions which by their duties require the
employee to live on the premises of the person’s place of employment.
Subd. 2. Reasonable area or response time requirement. A statutory or home rule charter
city or county, except if it is located in the area defined in section 473F.02, subdivision 2, may
impose a reasonable area or response time residency requirement if there is a demonstrated,
job-related necessity.
Subd. 3. Volunteer or nonprofit firefighters. A statutory or home rule charter city or
county may impose a reasonable residency requirement on persons employed as volunteers or as
members of a nonprofit firefighting corporation if there is a demonstrated, job-related necessity.
The residency requirement must be related to response time and established without regard
to political subdivision boundaries.“
Got that? So, the real question, according to the statute, is whether there is “a demonstrated, job-related necessity” for the City Admin to live within the city limits. If so, then we can hash out what “reasonable” means in relation to area and response time.
Even a fish can look up a law in the great state of Minnesota,
Phineas F. A. Pickerel
October 13, 2007 at 9:37 am
As one of the two original finalists who withdrew from my name from consideration for the administrator’s position, I feel I can speak with some authority on this item.
The residency issue was two-fold for me. First was that if I moved again, I was going to buy a home that came as close to my ideal home because I assumed I’d be coming to serve the city for the rest of my professional career. Few, if any, homes within the 3 mile limitation met my personal criteria.
Second was that such a rule is not allowed by the State. You cited the statute yourself and nowhere in the promotional literature or job description did it mention anything about the administrator being a public safety officer, or a mission-critical person in an emergency situation. Typically emergency management is headed up by the police or fire department – not the administrator. Cities are only allowed to do what the state authorizes them to do; so in this case if the evidence isn’t provided that the city meets the set standards, it cannot create it’s own rules on the matter.
There are a number of my fellow city administrators in the region who have mentioned that they are staying clear of Little Falls because of the residency requirement. It isn’t just the rule itself… it is also the assumption that the only way you’ll get a top-shelf, completely dedicated to their job sort of senior executive is if they live in a house near city hall. Another concern that several of my administrator associates have noted relate to the fact that the Council seems to easily disregard the State Statutes when they disagree with them.
The last significant issue is that of the Little Falls charter. It is my understanding that the city’s charter contains the residency language. There are very detailed, specific state statutes which govern how a charter can be ammended. The only way a council can amend a charter without holding a vote of the people is for there to be a unanimous vote in favor of a charter ordinance change – and that is on top of additional process issues like sending the item to the charter commission for review, holding a public hearing, etc. This is all covered in State Statutes 410.12 (specifically subd. 5)
Lastly, I’ve heard from a number of administrators that another negative regarding the Little Falls administrator position is that the city has 9 council members. It’s like a mini-legislature in comparison to the five members that most cities have throughout the state. The time, energy and effort to address the needs and concerns of a board nearly twice the average size makes the position far less attractive than others which pay similarly but allow more time to be spend on other aspects of the job.
There is doubt that Little Falls will eventually find an administrator. And, they’ll probably be a top-notch one. The city and its staff are wonderful, but the added complexity coming from the Council is what is scaring off a lot of qualified people.
- Mini Mackerel
October 13, 2007 at 10:16 am
[...] under business , development , fish wrap , government , lakes , morrison county , opinion October 13, 2007 at 9:37 am [...]
October 29, 2007 at 10:32 am
[...] Council is so strong-headed that it’s willing to pass ordinances that go against state law (i.e. the ordinance that requires that the city admin live in the city). The Council better realize that it’s going to take a strong-headed person to deal with [...]
November 12, 2007 at 3:22 pm
[...] important for a City Admin to become a part of the community – the real issue is one of legality. As I posted previously, state law only allows for residency requirements for emergency personnel. I would consider the [...]