Reader poll
Do you think the city commission should change the policy to allow city employees to live outside Lyon County?
- Yes, city employees should have the option to live outside Lyon County
- No, city employees should live in Lyon County since they are paid with tax dollars
- Undecided
1054 total votes.
Last week, it was good to hear Emporia city commissioners challenging the need to change the residency policy for city employees.
The current policy states that all city employees must reside in Lyon County. Some city department heads have said that they are having difficulty attracting employees. If the policy were changed to let employees live outside the county, they said, it would help their recruitment efforts.
The Gazette believes the city needs to keep the current policy in place, and that Lyon County government and Emporia State University need to adopt similar policies to the city.
Taxpayers are funding these jobs, so it only makes sense that people receiving the wages live in Lyon County. It doesn’t make sense for workers to take their wages and go support another community an hour or two away. When city, county and state workers employed here spend their paychecks in Lyon County, it provides a return on investment to the taxpayers.
But there is also a secondary benefit. When people live in our community, they feel invested and want to make it better.
A downfall for ESU was when former presidents allowed university personnel to not live in Emporia. Professors and administrators would drive in from Lawrence, Kansas City and other towns for their days of service.
This has probably had more of an impact than administrators realized. The out-of-town staff don’t have the community connections; the commuity doesn’t feel connected to the staff and thus the community is less likely to financially support the university because community members don’t have close relationships with the employees.
The city needs to keep its policy and, now, the community needs to ask the county commissioners to put a similar policy in place for its employees. Currently, some county employees are driving more than an hour to work every day.
Having workers who are paid with taxpayer dollars live in Lyon County just makes financial sense and common sense.
Chris Walker
Editor & Publisher
reality (anonymous) says...
I can sign on to implementing this when it applies to emergency personnel, where geography could mean the difference between life and death. But ESU? Shouldn't the teaching positions be filled by the most qualified individuals? IMO, putting another agenda ahead of the quality of education for the students is a mistake.
July 21, 2010 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin (anonymous) says...
A job opportunity with the city should be open to everyone, not limited to only residence. Maybe the city of Emporia could work on becoming more attractive to those employees, making them want to move to the city.
It seems logical.
July 21, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
esu42 (anonymous) says...
I completely disagree with the statement about out-of-town professors- it seems like baseless supposition to me. The professors I know who live outside of Emporia are talented, creative, qualified individuals who oftentimes have family who for job purposes must live outside the Emporia area. This doesn't affect their exemplary teaching at all, which should be the focus instead of some vague notion of improving "community relations."
July 21, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reality (anonymous) says...
Your poll is weighted. Way to attempt to sway voters with the ending of the "No" vote.
July 21, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TexasGirl (anonymous) says...
I agree with both reality & justsayin. We should not limit our applicant pool of qualified candidates by requiring residency. The key should be to hire them, then make them want to move here and stay once they've got the job. To do that, we must offer competitive wages and remove unnecessary restrictions.
July 21, 2010 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reality (anonymous) says...
"The Gazette believes the city needs to keep the current policy in place". Good to know, I made the right decision in not paying for a subscription. Why is it so difficult for the media to maintain an unbiased opinion, instead of just reporting the facts?
July 21, 2010 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oops (anonymous) says...
So what you really want is the employees to help pay for themselves? Thats like telling someone who works at walmart that they have to buy at least 25% of their stuff at walmart.
I don't think emergency services in Emporia have any kind of mandatory callback so that is a non issue. Didn't the firemen win a huge lawsuit against the city in the 80s regarding this?
July 21, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Perhaps the city should pay their employees in script that can only be used in the company store. Then the city could set up some shacks for their employees to rent and this way the city money would stay in the city. Give the city employees a charge account so they can owe their soles to the company store.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj6DpR...
July 21, 2010 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
REWBA:
"Soles" or "souls?" It makes a difference in how funny what you said is. ☺
I got a good-natured laugh both ways. Thanks!
July 21, 2010 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TexasGirl (anonymous) says...
Love the Wal-Mart analogy, Oops!
July 21, 2010 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
I may have missed the part where the Gazette distinguished the difference with moving the printing of the paper out of town and not having those employees with requiring employees of the city/university to live locally. Maybe the only difference is when it's tax dollars being spent everyone should live locally ?????
July 21, 2010 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spectator (anonymous) says...
Excellent, REWBA, excellent. I'm surprised the city hasn't thought of this. Or maybe thay have and weren't able to make it work. Yet.
Years ago, the city required its employees to reside within the city limits. Even terminated an employee who lived at Lake Kahola, city owned property but out of the "city limits."
The city cares nothing about attracting, or retaining, good employees. This began years ago with a certain commissioner who stated "I don't see why we should give them anything that any other business in town does."
I always thought it was a good idea to attract, and try to keep, good people but, no matter what they say, the city only cares about a warm body to fill the position.
CMs can get raises but the rank & file employees are always the ones to take a hit. So few consider a career with this city it's no wonder this option is under consideration.
July 21, 2010 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof, Bless your soul and the bottom of your shoe! Thanks!
Too funny marko.
I still believe it is archaic for an employer to pry into the private lives of an employee. Especially when they are off duty and not receiving pay. After the employee "clocks out", they shouldn't be expected to return until their next scheduled duty shift. Demanding that they be "on call" without pay is an unreasonable expectation. What if they have plans to visit family out of town after work? Does their lives go on hold so long as they are employed by Emporia?
Yes, I would say that it would be difficult for a policy like that to attract the best qualified people.
July 21, 2010 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
finch (anonymous) says...
So... it's ok for the Gazette to pay people who live in another city to print the paper and who don't spend their tax dollars in Emporia, but not ok for employees to live (for example) in Cottonwood Falls and shop, get gas, eat lunch in Emporia?
Hypocrits.
Oh, and by the way - we taxpayers also pay for KU, KSU, FHSU, PSU, and WSU - sometimes in larger proportion than to ESU. Should the employees of those state universities be required to live in Emporia as well? There is no correlation between being the amount contributed by taxpayers in Lyon Co and the amount of revenue ESU gets from the state.
July 21, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
not to mention the property tax on that new press that wasn't purchased......
July 21, 2010 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
booker5m (anonymous) says...
If I am paying them they should live inside the city
July 21, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
bookerrm, Where do you stop? Do you get to go to their home and inspect to ensure that they are not living above or below their means? I pay the taxes that pays Emporia's municipal employees and the various municipal properties like the golf course, parks, zoo, recreation center, airport etc...and their activities. I don't reside in Lyon County and I have no vote on the upcoming 1/2 cent sales tax. Of course, I didn't get to vote for that asinine smoking ban thing either but I did get to vote with my pocketbook. I haven't spent a dime in your taverns. I still frequent your restaurants, but I never went to a restaurant to smoke anyway. I wonder if I will decide to keep my spending money "local" too. Beware! Protectionism always backfires.
July 21, 2010 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
if the city gives tax breaks to a new industry to locate in here, then they should require the factory to only hire people that live here, RIGHT? too bad for the farm families that need a second income.
July 21, 2010 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
booker5m (anonymous) says...
If the town is not good enough to live here then why should I pay for them
July 21, 2010 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cap (anonymous) says...
So the position of the Gazette is that all employees in Lyon county should reside in Lyon county. I guess that means all your subscriptions should likewise stay in Lyon county.
July 21, 2010 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
booker5m, The city as an official employer shouldn't need to have a written policy mandating residency requirements. That comes with common sense. Live where you work...or as close as possible. Transportation expenses can add up fast.
I still believe that each person is entitled to the right to make that choice themselves. Only the individual can truly understand the cost/benefit ratio for themselves for they themselves know their own life and lifestyle and it is them who earns the money that pays their bills. Emporia starts cops off at 15 bucks an hour. A drug dealer in Emporia can make that in a second. Are you going to require your crackhouses be located inside city limits? lol :-)
Notice I added the customary laughing out loud and smiley face...
July 22, 2010 at 12:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Have some or a lot of you people forgotten, that allowing people to work at ESU, the City and even the County and not be required to live in Emporia and Lyon County, that these people are allowed to take advantage of being paid by the people of Emporia and Lyon County and not have to pay into the property tax fund that would in turn be helping to pay their wages and be helping to " Grow " and improve the place they make their living in.
Ponder this, Do you believe it is fair to you, as a citizen who pays property taxes in Emporia and Lyon County and yet pay the wages of someone who does not live in and pay property taxes in Emporia or Lyon County ?
Does hiring outside Emporia and Lyon County and not requiring those hired to be a resident of Emporia and Lyon County, in order they be hired, necessarily mean you/we are absolutely getting the best of what we/you pay for with your/our tax money ?
July 22, 2010 at 6:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
powercat (Jerry Seinfelt) says...
Marko let me clarify if you don't live here. The Gazette nor the employees are not paid with tax payer dollars. So it doesn't matter where their employees live or where they print. The article was talking about employees who get paid with tax payer dollars.
July 22, 2010 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"Demanding that they be "on call" without pay is an unreasonable expectation."
Agree. How quickly we forget about the lawsuit brought by Emporia Fire Department personnel involving the same thing.
methusla, not all city employees pay property tax; some rent.
If other cities and counties were to pass such a ridiculous ordinance, would that mean that those who live in Lyon Co. and work at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Facility would have to move? What about all the people who drive to Topeka every day? How many precious tax dollars would such a drain like that represent?
Careful, Chris Walker. Sometimes that stick you pick up is a snake.
July 22, 2010 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"methusla, not all city employees pay property tax; some rent."
Now come on create, you're more intelligent than that. Do you not think that the landlord of a rental property pays his property taxes wirth the rent payments he/she collects? Renters do in a sense "pay taxes" in Emporia.
The firemen are now "subject to call ins" as are all emergency personel, it's part of the job. A stipulation stating such is included on a contract that you must sign before you start to work acknowledging that you will be expected to be available in the event of emergencies or at times when others are unable to make it to work.
Wolf Creek is not a public facility run by tax dollars.
July 22, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
The only "City Employees" that I think should reside in Emporia are those who make decisions that affect spending, taxes, the budget and so forth.
July 22, 2010 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cxf6642 (anonymous) says...
What most commentors here are overlooking is that virtually every municipality in this country has the same or more stringent residency requirements for employees. This is a common practice and an expectation in the public works/government industry. This isn't something Emporia has cooked up and is behind the times on.
Also - it is interesting that people here are jumping on the city when the reason that the request came in is because the leadership feel that the town and county do not provide enough qualified candidates or trainable candidates to meet the need and demand for services. Where is the civic pride and outcry at that slap in the face?
July 22, 2010 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
City of Emporia paid for by city residents.
Lyon County paid for by city and county residents.
State of KS paid for by city, county, and state residents.
ESU is a state entity
Rules should apply respectively
We don't pay the Governor of Kansas and let him/her live in Missouri. Elected or not each employee affects the work done on behalf of the people. The more people who have ownership of their community the more qualified people we will attract and in turn this will attract a better quality of life.
Don't try to compare this to a private entity.
July 22, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Demanding that they be "on call" without pay is an unreasonable expectation."
When I was in the Army I was on call 24/7, whether I was on leave or it was a "weekend", it didn't matter. I figured it out one day what my pay was per hour since I was a soldier 24/7, it came out to just over a dollar an hour. There are certain jobs in this world that require people to go above and beyond what is expected of the average worker. I have said before how much I appreciate military personnel, firefighters, and police. This is another reason I do. This is another sacrifice they willingly make for us all. It is sad that we don't have more people willing to sacrifice in this manner but I don't think changing this policy is the answer. It is there for a reason, a good reason. Just like a platoon wouldn't be able to go up against a battalion, an under staffed(because they are waiting for back up to come from Missouri or where ever) fire department can't effectively go into battle against a raging prairie fire without putting the firefighter's lives at greater unnecessary risk. Just because you don't understand the need for a policy like this to exist doesn't mean that there isn't a very good reason to have it. Just some food for thought.
July 22, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
Powercat, Do people that don't live in this area a read this stuff and comment? That amazes me. Maybe they should have to pay extra.
July 22, 2010 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
knute (anonymous) says...
"If the town is not good enough to live here then why should I pay for them"
I don't pay for them to LIVE here, I pay taxes for them to WORK here. For that matter, I LIVE & WORK here so when are you going to start paying ME?
Maybe law enforcement types are so deep into the less enjoyable aspects of our city that they need a break from here.
I do agree that the decision makers, such as they are, should reside within the city limits.
July 22, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
okay (anonymous) says...
If you are going to require City/County employees to live in the City/County then you need to be prepared to pay them enough to make it worth living in the City/County. For some applicants to live in the City/County means that thier spouse/significant other will have to give up a job somewhere else. I'm not sure if our wages are competitive but with a residency requirement, they better be good to get the best!
July 22, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The city of Emporia can't even get all their residents to register their cars in Lyon county. I know of several long term residents of Emporia, KS with Missouri license plates. These aren't hoopties parked in trailer parks either. Many are brand new luxury vehicles parked in the city offices parking lot and in driveways on the north west side of town. A few of them have mason emblems and others have that fish thing that makes people think that they are good Christians.
July 22, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Has anyone making comments on here, ever thought, that just possibly those who want to be employed by the City of Emporia or Lyon County and yet do not want to live here, just may not want to live in Emporia or Lyon County because of the exorbitant amount of property tax, sales tax, uncontrolled, nonsensicle, rate at which property taxes are raised, sales taxes are extended, just to sustain a nonsensicle rate of spend and tax, over and over and over , just to sustain the local governments leaders growing habit of spending and taxing unnecessarily and it is not just about the rate of pay but the rate of local government spending and taxation ?
If the rate of a governments spending and taxation, out paces the rate of the taxpayers amount they are paid, then of course no one is going to want to live in that particular, area, City, State or County.
July 22, 2010 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The Federal Employees at the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve National Park are encouraged to reside in Euphoria.
"NO PARK HOUSING IS AVAILABLE; rentals and houses for sale are limited in Chase County but plentiful in Emporia."
http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.asp...
July 22, 2010 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sherryh (anonymous) says...
Interesting thought......I was engaged in a conversation about this and someone was telling me the other day that they once worked for a department in the city (not emporia) and they did not have a rule like this. They said that the people who handled some of the equipment within the department did not always do so with respect (not taking care of trucks and such) and when asked about it they responded "I don't live in the city, so I don't pay for them what do I care..." I am not sure which side of the fence I sit on this topic as I work for the federal goverment so I guess I could live anywhere....but thought that was an interesting point of view.
July 22, 2010 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
seriously,
You summed up my thoughts quite nicely. I had tried about four times to type my thoughts about the roles and rules for public servants being different than those of other local taxpayer-funded jobs even, but it never read as well as what you typed. Public servants make a lot of sacrifices because they have to. Most of them-the ones who are any good, anyway- know this and willingly accept it. If they can't accept the rule, they aren't much of a public servant.
July 22, 2010 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I served in the military and happen to know that Soldiers work to standard, not to time. That means when the mission is accomplished your able to go to your home and relax. Soldiers are able to reside anywhere they want to call home. It's called "Home of record" You pay taxes based on your home of record and not your physical location. Also, Soldiers are allotted a housing allowance. This to is based upon the zip code of the Soldiers Legal residence. Soldiers who maintain a home in New York or San Fransico receive a much larger housing allowance than a Soldier residing in Emporia.
Anyway, there is options for Soldiers to reside on base, off base, or even live in barracks and claim geographical bachelor so they can receive tax free variable housing allowance and basic allowance for quarters. When a Soldier is not required to be present for duty, the Soldier is eligible for space A travel on military aircraft. They can fly to their home in Hawaii for about $10. on a military "hop". When a Soldier is stationed in an area of imminent danger, they receive a special pay called imminent danger pay. Married Soldiers are also allowed a family separation allowance. Soldiers are allowed 30 days paid vacation, free medical, free dental, tax free housing, subsistence allowance, clothing allowance, special duty pay, meals, incidentals, Per Diem, dislocation allowances, a retirement in a few as 15 years and the list goes on and on. The only pay a Soldier receives that is taxed is their base pay and bonuses. In designated combat zones even this pay is exempt from tax. So to make a really long story short, Soldiers are not "forced" to reside where they work. Heck, when my mother in law was on her death bed, the Army paid to get my wife and children back to her home in Panama and gave me a temporary job close by so I could be with them. The Army is a GREAT employer!
July 22, 2010 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I"ve got a great plan for this.
FIRE all firefighters and EMT's and of course the chiefs and go to a strict volunteer dept. How many on here would report to the firehouse when the tornado sirens go off? I would, as long as all I had to do was Drive and run the siren :-)
V
V
V
V
V
please note the smiley face
July 22, 2010 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Your home insurance rates can skyrocket if the fire department is "volunteer". Emporia provides top rate fire protection saving each homeowner big bucks on insurance annually.
The water department is great too. My guests from across the United States always complement the water quality in Emporia.
The city engineers are fantastic! They provide excellent streets, curbs, sidewalks, and do a fantastic job maintaining this city.
Parks in Emporia are some of the best in the country. Peter Pan Park is a real treasure. Thanks WAW! Now he was a visionary.
Anyone lucky enough to be selected for employment for the city of Emporia would be crazy to reside anywhere else. With that said, I don't believe that Emporia really needs an "official" residency requirement with everything that Emporia offers it's residents. That's my opinion for whatever it's worth.
July 22, 2010 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
REWBA
Which Emporia are you living in ?
July 22, 2010 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
REW your office in the Trussler Center?
Edward McKernan
PS: I agree with your statements
July 22, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
REW your office in the Trussler Center?
Edward McKernan
PS: I agree with your statements
July 22, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
methusla, I don't live in the big city. Too many people living too close together. I work in Emporia but local tax doesn't pay my salary. I do spend a large percentage of my earnings in Emporia though. If you haven't noticed, there isn't much competition in about a fifty mile radius of the city center.
July 22, 2010 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And you, REWBA, working in Emporia and not for the City of Emporia/the taxpayers of Emporia and Lyon County, who would be paying your salary. There is a big difference between working for the City of Emporia or Lyon County and working in Emporia and Lyon County, but living outside either or both and the biggest difference is who pays property taxes in said City or County, that would pay your salary !
July 22, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess it would be the city merchants who sell us out of town folk all that crap. And the sales tax we pay. The hotel tax and bed tax. Maybe some of those federal and state funds that the municipality receives. I can't help it that your city officials spend it on plastic football fields, clock towers, and a one time ad in a magazine called "O". Oh!
The owners of coal mines used to use that same argument when they required their employees to live in the company town and spend company script at the company store. It is called involuntary servitude and it is against the Constitution of the United States of America. Most cities in the U.S. have eliminated their residency clause as a condition of employment because it is archaic.
July 22, 2010 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And were those mine owners paying the miners with property tax monies recieved from taxpaying citizens of the local town, county or area ? I seriously doubt it.
Big difference there.
July 23, 2010 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
no, they were just freely mining without a severance tax
July 24, 2010 at 6:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What does severance tax have to do with requiring a public employee of a City, County or State to live within said Citys, Countys or States, when the citizen taxpayers of said Citys, Countys or States, taxes are used to pay the salaries of the Citys, Countys, States employed or desiring to be employed in/at said Citys, Countys or States ?
How in the world is a severance tax, anywhere remotely the same thing ?
July 24, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
doggage (Anthony Hartman) says...
I think people on both sides of this debate have good points. However, I think Mr. Walker doesn't consider all the facts when he proposes extending this "in-county employee" policy to Emporia State. Firstly, there are many professors who are very qualified but who, for personal reasons, can not live here. I wouldn't be so quick to deprive ESU students of the teaching from these professors without further consideration. Secondly, ESU has programs outside Lyon county. For example, the School of Library and information Management has a not-insignificant Colorado and Oregon cohort. The university also has an Overland Park branch.
I don't mean either of these as a red herring, but instead would offer them as examples of the complications when attempting implement a blanket policy like this. It's not as simple as you might hope.
July 24, 2010 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )