O'Fallon committee narrows city‑administrator residency language to 'encouraged' within 10 miles

The O'Fallon Finance/Committee of the Whole on (committee date) amended and approved a proposed change to Title 3, Chapter 31 relating to residency expectations for the city administrator, sending the revised language to the full City Council for final action.

The committee accepted an amendment that makes clear the city administrator is “encouraged” to establish residency in O'Fallon but may not reside further than 10 miles from the city's corporate limits. The amendment was proposed and put on the floor by Alderperson Todd Roach; the committee then voted to pass the amendment and later approved the motion as amended to forward to council.

City staff told the committee the revision was pulled out of a larger human‑resources ordinance update because the city needs to fill the city administrator position in the near term and needs consistent hiring criteria. Grant Litekin, the interim city administrator, had previously told the committee he could meet any reasonable residency condition if it remained part of an offer discussion.

Committee members debated the radius and whether the rule should be a strict residency requirement. Alderperson Jim Blackburn and others questioned whether a residency mandate remains relevant in a post‑pandemic workplace with remote technology; Blackburn said residency rules were “dated” and argued for flexibility. By contrast, several public speakers urged a stronger mandate. Carrie Shaffer of Ward 1 said the proposed language matters because it would allow an administrator to live “in Webster Groves, 30 mile radius” if the wording were not tightened and urged the council to require living in the city.

The amendment that committee members approved reads, in effect, that the administrator is encouraged to reside within the city's corporate limits and, at minimum, must not establish residence more than 10 miles from those limits. Committee members discussed clarifying language to ensure the intent is to encourage relocation into O'Fallon while preventing a hire who would live well outside the local area.

The amendment vote was recorded by roll call in committee (votes recorded as in committee minutes). That amendment passed; the motion as amended was then approved by roll call and will be considered by the full City Council at an upcoming meeting. The committee chair, Jessica Lott (Ward 2), said additional ordinance cleanup will follow as part of the broader human‑resources code updates.

What happens next: The revised ordinance will appear on the Council agenda for first and second readings. Any final requirement — including exact wording and whether the measure becomes a mandatory residency requirement — will be determined by the full council during its formal ordinance process.

The committee's action does not itself change city policy until the council takes final action.