Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Residency And Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees in principle on 30‑minute residency radius for city administrator; job to be posted 90 days
Summary
Myrtle Creek councilors reached consensus to propose a charter amendment requiring the city administrator to live within a 30‑minute radius (with a council waiver option) and directed staff to post the administrator position for 90 days and ask legal counsel to draft ballot language.
Myrtle Creek — Council members reached a consensus on Thursday to pursue a charter amendment that would require the city administrator to live within a 30‑minute driving radius of Myrtle Creek, while allowing the council to grant waivers on a case‑by‑case basis. Staff will post the city administrator position for 90 days and consult legal counsel to prepare ballot language and clarify interim appointment rules.
The decision followed extended discussion about whether the residency requirement should be limited to city limits, tied to the 97457 ZIP code, or framed as a 30‑minute radius. Staff member 4 explained that the ballot will show only a short caption and question while a longer explanatory statement will appear in the voter booklet, and recommended separate measures if councilors want voters to pick among multiple charter changes.
Why it matters: Council members said expanding the residency rule to a 30‑minute radius would increase the pool of candidates for a city administrator while preserving the council's ability to require local presence in emergencies. Several councilors expressed concern that a strict city‑limits residency requirement could dissuade qualified candidates.
Council Member 2 said the council must follow due process and give the public clear notice of the proposed changes; after weighing options, members agreed to the 30‑minute approach with an appeal/waiver process to be drafted by the city attorney. "I feel like it's a slap in the face, and this is just how I feel," Council Member 7 said of moving too quickly on personnel decisions, urging patience with staff and interim leadership. Council Member 2 replied the council will do "due diligence" and provide time for applicants and the interim administrator to demonstrate suitability.
Staff described calendar and filing deadlines for ballot measures, noting the elections clerk will confirm whether the March or May cycle would change the city's costs. Staff also reviewed recruitment outlets and said the position will be posted on the League of Oregon Cities website, the city website and WorkSource; staff will investigate additional job boards such as Indeed.
On the hiring process, councilors favored a standard posting period and a two‑stage screening: a broader public posting (90 days) followed by a smaller review panel to shortlist candidates for final interviews before the full council. "We can start it. We can start it," Council Member 2 said when members agreed on the timeline to solicit applicants.
The council also asked staff to clarify charter language on the six‑month interim appointment period and whether consecutive service can be paused and restarted; staff will send proposed language to the attorney and return a consolidated package for council review at the next meeting.
What happens next: Staff will post the city administrator job for 90 days, draft proposed charter amendment language with the attorney (including waiver/appeal procedures and the consecutive‑service clause), and present consolidated language at the council's next meeting for formal action to place the measure on the ballot. No formal vote was taken at the special session; councilors recorded consensus on the approach and instructed staff to proceed.
