Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates $5,000 moving allowance and residency language for city manager; no change voted
Summary
Councilors discussed whether the $5,000 moving allowance in the city manager's contract should be limited to residents within city limits, expanded to nearby communities, or tied to prorated repayment; city attorney cautioned about public-purpose requirements and no motion was made.
The Morris City Council spent a substantial portion of its July 23 meeting debating a $5,000 moving allowance for the city manager and whether contract residency language should be revised. The council received a memo from consultant Patrick Melvin recommending caution around strict residency requirements and suggesting alternatives, including widening eligibility to nearby communities and requiring prorated repayment if the manager left within a set number of years.
Reading portions of Melvin's memo, a council member summarized the consultant's view: "Statutory cities are not allowed to require employee residency," and that in special public-safety positions a response-time requirement, rather than a strict residency rule, may be appropriate. The memo also recommended consulting the city attorney and suggested that a prorated repayment schedule (three to four years) could be included if residency-related moving assistance were broadened.
The city attorney warned council members that any moving allowance must have a public purpose and should not appear as a gratuitous gift. The attorney suggested retention and public-purpose language and discussed whether to limit eligibility by radius (e.g., within the county or state) or to set a response-time requirement.
Council members described competing concerns: some emphasized the importance of incentivizing a manager to live in the community the manager will lead, citing recruitment challenges and local housing shortages; others noted that many city employees do not live inside the city limits and questioned whether the allowance was equitable or enforceable. One councilmember said the contract language is currently clear: "City shall pay employee $5,000 to assist with moving expenses upon sharing proof of residence within [the] city limits." Another noted the council had extended a prior six-month requirement to a year during hiring because of housing availability.
Despite the lengthy discussion and invitations for motions, no councilmember moved to amend the contract or change the residency language that night; the council left the item without action and instructed staff to consider the points raised for possible future motions.
What happens next: staff and legal counsel may prepare draft language or options for a future council vote, including possible prorated repayment or residency-radius alternatives. The subject remains open for future action.
