Times Union, January 21, 2010, Thursday

Times Union

January 21, 2010, Thursday

Times Union


A job may mean a move to Albany
Councilman wants city to consider residency laws for new employees

ALBANY -- Two months after the Common Council required all department heads to live in the city, one member of the Common Council wants to extend the residency requirement to new city employees.

But the measure would sidestep arguably the most controversial aspect of residency requirements by excluding employees already covered by other state, federal or local laws -- which include police officers and firefighters.

Local Law C would give new hires six months to move into the city, where they would have to remain for the rest of their tenure on Albany's payroll. Current city employees would not be affected.

The law would also create a five-member board of residency that could exempt employees from the requirement if the job requires a certain level of specialization or creates a hardship.

"I think with these tough economic times, it speaks to the fact that if you can help people in the city, and that's what we're elected to do ... why not offer that incentive?" said 8th Ward Councilman John Rosenzweig, who is sponsoring the measure.

It's not immediately clear just how many of the city's 1,250 to 1,300 full-time employees the law would apply to because New York's Public Officers Law protects not only police and firefighters from local residency requirements but could also be read to exempt classes of public works employees, said Assistant Corporation Counsel Patrick Jordan.

That could put the city in the difficult position of requiring some members of the Department of General Services to live in the city while permitting others to live outside it, Jordan said.

Currently, city employees need only live in the city for 30 days prior to taking a civil service test, at the time the list of candidates is certified and again at the time of appointment, said Personnel Director Elizabeth Lyons. The city does not track the residency of its workers, but a 2005 Times Union analysis revealed 44 percent of Albany's employees lived outside of the city.

State law limits the distance that police and firefighters can live from the cities they serve to the nearby counties. Cities can request dispensations to impose tighter restrictions, which Troy did in 1995 when it imposed a residency requirement on its police.

Two years ago, the Collar City relaxed the requirement to allow officers to live outside the city in exchange for a monetary penalty during their first five years of service, said Bob Fitzgerald, president of the Troy Police Benevolent Association.

Cops who opt to live outside the city for their first five years forfeit their holiday pay, he said. Schenectady has the same policy.

Fitzgerald said the residency requirement was unpopular with his members and shrunk the pool of potential new hires the city could draw from, which he said hurt taxpayers.

"The municipality and the union recognized that we were losing out on candidates that were qualified that did not reside here," Fitzgerald said, noting that the city never seriously tried to enforce the law.

Rosenzweig cited the problems in Troy when explaining why he sought to exclude police and firefighters from the law.

He said the city could provide other incentives to police officers and firefighters to live in the city, such as five-point bonus on promotional exams.

"It, number one, gives the advantage to a city resident and, number two, I think it will ultimately promote the sustainability of our population here," said Rosenzweig, who is a teacher in the city school district. "Why not give an advantage to someone who's living in the city and is qualified for the job over someone else."

Ken Margolies, director of Organizing Programs at the New York City extension of Cornell University's Industrial and Labor Relations school, said pushes for residency requirements have ebbed and flowed over the past 30 years but that, generally, the smaller the city the less effective they are.

"I think there's political appeal to residency requirements because it seems to be something that would both increase the economy of the city and make sure that the people who work for the city have a vested interest in the city because they live there," said Margolies. "I think it's unclear whether it really has that effect, and if every city did it, I think people would realize it's not the wisest thing to do."

Margolies said the requirements tend to be more attractive in smaller cities but also less effective. He noted a labor economist might argue requirements restrict the labor market in an irrational way that doesn't mean the most qualified person gets the job.

He said incentives, such as the promotional credits, are typically better solutions.

Rosenzweig's measure is expected to be referred to the council's human resources committee.

"I wanted to get it on the agenda early," he said.

In November, the council approved a law that requires department heads to live in the city but stopped short of extending the requirement to their deputies.

Jordan Carleo-Evangelist can be reached at 454-5445 or by e-mail at jcarleo-evangelist@timesunion.com.

Privacy Rights | Terms of Service
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2010, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, NY