On Tuesday, September 28, Rep. Gunderson introduced a bill preempting local control of residency requirements for employees who are married. The bill provides that if both spouses of a married couple work for different local governmental units that have local residency requirements, the married couple may reside within the jurisdictional limits of one of the local governmental units that has a residency requirement and that employs one of the spouses and the other spouse may not be subject to the residency requirement of the local governmental unit for which he or she works. Also under the bill, if one of the spouses of a married couple works for a local governmental unit that has a residency requirement, the other spouse may not be prohibited from applying for a job or taking a test to determine fitness for employment in another local governmental unit that has a residency requirement. The League opposes this bill because it interferes with local home rule authority. A survey of League members found that 192 cities and villages have some type of residency requirement.
Municipal employers consider hardship cases on an individual basis.
This bill, however, would eliminate that practice for an employee who is married to an employee of another local government. We believe a decision to exempt an employee from residency requirements should be reached by the employer, not the state Legislature. The goal of public employee unions is to get rid of local residency requirements through the state legislature. This bill is one small step toward reaching that goal. While many communities with residency requirements would grant an exemption for married couples, it is imperative that it continues to be under the jurisdiction of the local employer to do so, and not the state legislature.