Freeport council debates removing residency requirements for city directors; first reading moves forward after failed suspension

Freeport City Council heard a lengthy debate over a proposed change to city residency rules that would remove residency requirements for most department directors while keeping the requirement for the city manager.

City Manager Boyer urged the council to approve an ordinance amending residency rules, saying the change would “allow the city to have a little more flexible hiring practice in terms of who we can recruit” and help make Freeport competitive for qualified candidates, given a tight labor market.

The discussion centered on whether removing residency limits would undercut local accountability and city investment. Alderman Monroe said nonresident directors “don’t understand the problems” because they do not live in Freeport, and he argued the practice had allowed employees to benefit from city pay while taking tax dollars outside the community. Alderman Stacy said enforcement of existing rules had been inconsistent and called for holding staff accountable to current ordinances. Alderman Sellers and others said they supported the change as a recruitment tool; Sellers said it would “allow us to have a higher quality staff.”

Attorney Zito confirmed the city may legally adopt a residency requirement, but that councils sometimes revisit such policies when they become a barrier to hiring. Chief Schenberger and Deputy Chief Seacole described operational realities: long service and contractual arrangements have left some long‑tenured employees living outside city limits and several positions carry on‑call responsibilities. Seacole added that many staff “give you fine service” and urged the council to consider the practical effect on employees and emergency response.

A motion to suspend the rules and vote on the ordinance at the meeting (mover: Alderman Parker; second: Alderman Shadle) failed to obtain the required two‑thirds majority. The roll call on the suspension showed ayes from Stacy, Shadle, Sellers, Clem and Parker and nays from Sanders, Monroe and Simmons. With the suspension defeated, the proposal remains at first reading and is scheduled to return for a second reading at a future council meeting.

Discussion points raised by council members and staff that will inform the next hearing included: how the residency rule had been enforced historically; whether promotions created grandfathered exceptions; the operational impacts of personnel living outside city limits; potential effects on recruitment; and whether some positions (for example, the city manager) should remain subject to residency. Manager Boyer said staff would provide additional details requested by aldermen before the second reading.

The council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; the first‑reading motion remains on the agenda for a future session.