Springfield considers changing residency requirements for city jobs

SPRINGFIELD — Wearing a pair of earrings shaped like a map of Springfield, Jean Canosa Albano, deputy director of libraries, said she supports a residency rule as a concept for city jobs, but also said that requirement made it very difficult to find certified librarians. , who must have a master’s degree.

Springfield Libraries are an attractive place to work because the system is large, salaries are competitive, and the population is diverse. But people are turning down jobs, she said.

As Springfield’s residency rule adds to the challenge of finding and retaining qualified employees in a tight job market, the City Council is taking a first step to consider changing the requirement.

The law requires that most municipal employees live in Springfield. There are exceptions for some school employees, and police officers and firefighters can move after working 10 years. Department heads, including the fire marshal, as well as police and school directors, must reside in the city.

This requirement was created in 1995 and has been amended several times. In 2021, a Hampden Superior Court judge ruled that the city must enforce the residency after decades of inaction. The decision follows a lawsuit filed against the city in 2016.

“We are losing candidates,” said Caitlyn Julius, assistant director of human resources. “There is a need for workers and there is competition all around us. »

Even in situations where employees are granted waivers allowing them to live in another community, they are tied to the position and not the person, meaning the worker must either move or reject a promotion if offered one. , she said.

“We need to develop ours. We have so much talent,” Julius said. “I can’t tell you how many employees we’ve lost to Chicopee, since they don’t need residency.”

Chicopee eliminated the residency requirement for department heads in 2014, calling it ambiguous and rarely respected. Holyoke considered requiring employee residency in a 2016 ordinance, but the measure never passed.

City Council President Michael Fenton said he knows of no other community in Western Massachusetts that imposes a residency requirement on its employees. He was one of the councilors who drafted amendments to the ordinance several years ago.

“There is no proposal. There is no solution proposed,” he said during a meeting he called on Monday. “We’ll decide if we want to try to do something about it.”

The ordinance was initially put in place because the real estate market was struggling, homes were difficult to sell, and the tax base needed strengthening. It also made sense for city employees to live next to taxpayers, he said.

But times have changed. Unemployment is at an all-time high, making it difficult to find employees, and the housing market is tight, making it difficult to find housing, Fenton said.

The city’s department heads took turns talking about people, including directors, who were quitting after a year because they couldn’t meet the 12-month deadline to move to Springfield. Others turn down a job because it’s not worth the hassle for them to move.

Most say they are in favor of residency, but also point out that positions remain vacant for months or even years because it is difficult to attract people.

“We are not getting the best candidates and we need to recognize that,” said Cathy Buono, chief administrative and financial officer.

While Buono said she supports the residency requirement, she also sees challenges to it. For example, she personally has a mortgage with an interest rate of 2.5% and would not consider moving, since rates are now triple that amount.

Applicants who live in neighboring communities reject positions more often than those who live on the other side of the country because, for locals, it doesn’t make sense for them to move, Canosa Albano said.

Other department heads said it’s even harder to attract and retain lower-paid employees who need training, like 911 dispatchers. Many will work for a year, receive training, then be recruited to work in surrounding communities, where there are no requirements.

City councilors agreed to continue discussions with Fenton, saying, “This wasn’t created overnight, and it’s not going to be solved overnight. »

The problem is multifaceted, because everyone brings a different point of view. Some have a negative perception of Springfield and others want to live in a community where the schools are considered better or do not want to disrupt their children’s education. Many just want to be able to choose where they live, said Councilman Melvin Edwards.

“I love the city of Springfield and I have no desire to live anywhere else, but the city of Springfield is not what it used to be,” Edwards said.