The Springfield City Council has begun the process of adjusting its residency requirement, at least temporarily.
Following debate last week that only ended due to time constraints, officials took up changes to Springfield’s worker residency requirement again during its final meeting of the year.
As it stands, when an individual is hired by the city, they’re required to find a place in the City of Homes within 12 months – a requirement critics say isn’t helped by rising housing costs and property values.
Citing difficulties described by department heads as well as apparent individual cases in which the city stands to lose talent, some councilors are seeking to double the mandated timeframe to 24 months.
The move has been met with some criticism as debates continued on-and-off over the past few months. Members like Councilor at Large Jose Delgado have pointed out the extension comes off as a permanent change in the face of shifting circumstances (i.e. the economy).
A week after debating the matter, though, Delgado and others put forward an amendment to the amendment – make the extension temporary and study the results.
“… the amendment listed above shall be subject to a three-year sunset clause, so that at the end of three years, from the September 1, 2023, retroactive date, the requirement for employment listed in Section 73-8(A) shall revert back to 12 months from date of the start of employment,” Delgado read into the council’s records Monday night.
However, some councilors remained concerned. Ward 1 Councilor Maria Perez voiced concern over legal ramifications from altering the ordinance, given its enforcement was the subject of a 2016 lawsuit.
Perez also described how a number of employees have been affected by the residency requirement – including at least one termination due to residency issues in recent years.
She also wanted to see the amendment go back to committee for further discussion.
Other councilors concerned about potential litigation included Councilors at Large Sean Curran and Tracye Whitfield.
“If that one person that was terminated during that time, then do we call that person back?” Whitfield said. “That is an interesting question, and we are backdating, so it's not effective today - it's effective September 1, 2023, so if that person was terminated during that time, I don't know.”
At one point, City Council Attorney Ken Shea was called up to answer legality questions and indicated the change would be unlikely to trigger grounds for litigation.
Also speaking during the meeting was City Solicitor Stephen Buoniconti, who claimed the 2016 lawsuit Perez referenced had more to do with “certain employees that were hired prior to March 17, 1995, and were required, based upon the ordinance that was put into effect, to then move into the city.”
For context, the city code states “every person first employed by the City of Springfield on or after March 17, 1995, shall, within 12 months of the start of employment, be a resident of the City of Springfield and shall not cease to be a resident during his employment by the City.”
Councilors went on to vote 10 to 3 to pass the ordinance. It was a first step vote, meaning the amendment to alter the residency requirement will need to be approved at a future city council meeting.
Notes on the meeting’s agenda indicated that in the meantime, the amendment would go the council’s General Government Committee following a first step vote.
Also Monday, and before the first step vote, the council gave final approvals on an ordinance amendment permitting free city meter parking for veterans and gold star family members with qualifying vehicle plates.
Following the regular agenda, the council then held an informal caucus for the election of its president and vice president ahead of the new year.
Council Vice President Melvin Edwards, representing Ward 3, announced he would not be seeking the VP role again and instead, called on the council to vote unanimously on the next second-in-command.
“I was told many years ago that I had to get comfortable doing things that are uncomfortable, because it's the right thing to do,” Edwards said. “So, today, I'm asking, respectfully, for my name not to be put in nomination, and for my colleagues in this chamber to support the nominee that is presented tonight unanimously.”
That nominee ended up being Whitfield, who, when officially serving in the role, would take the place of the council president if ever they were absent or abstaining from a vote.
Ward 2 City Councilor and current-President Mike Fenton was then picked to continue leading the city council, also unanimously.
