Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., reconsidering if senior city staff should live within city limits

Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., is re-evaluating its policy requiring department heads to live within city limits, aiming to balance accountability to residents with the need to attract top talent. 

City staff have been directed to draft a report on residency requirements for senior roles following a motion by Coun. Stephan Kinach earlier this month.

Kinach emphasized the importance of local residency for senior staff during a city council meeting, describing it as a key aspect of public service.

"Every time we raise our hand to vote in this chamber, the outcome affects us, our friends, our families and our neighbours. I believe having department heads that share in the responsibility and reside in the community is an essential part of our public service because of how vital their positions are with financial requests and delivery of services," Kinach said. 

However, Kinach encouraged potential candidates living outside the city not to be discouraged from applying.

"I hope this doesn't discourage you from applying. We still want you to apply and if you are successful, you can always relocate within our wonderful city," he said.

City council carried the motion to investigate the possibility of introducing a distance-based residency requirement to ensure proximity without imposing overly restrictive conditions.

The discussion in Sault Ste. Marie takes place against the backdrop of a landmark 1997 Supreme Court case, Godbout v. Longueuil (City of). The ruling found that municipal residency requirements for employees could violate individual rights.

Jack Cunningham, a public policy professor at the University of Toronto, explained the ruling's implications.

"Deciding where to live falls within your right to the private citizen, the right to a private sphere of autonomy. While you can waive charter rights in a private employment contract, a governmental entity, such as a municipality is bound to respect your charter rights," Cunningham said.

He added that overly restrictive residency rules could also be seen as discriminatory, particularly for candidates unable to afford housing in the city.

"The requirement that you live somewhere you simply can't afford to live is obviously ridiculous. Discriminatory intent is hard to prove, but, in a case like this, you can make a plausible case that the requirement is at the very least unreasonable unless there is compensation sufficient to cover the costs," he said.

In Greater Sudbury, three hours east, the city has adopted a flexible policy. Department heads and senior staff are required to live in Ontario but not necessarily within city limits.

Kevin Fowke, Greater Sudbury's chief administrative officer, highlighted the benefits of this approach.

"You can find some very talented people who given the right conditions can provide great service to the municipality, stay connected and be very cost-effective for us as well. It's a tight labour market for a variety of different skills. If you're an employer that doesn't afford that kind of flexibility, your market will be limited," Fowke said.

While there are a few city staff members in Greater Sudbury who work remotely, he noted that broader residency policies have helped recruit and retain staff for positions in information technology, engineering and project management.

"If everybody else is offering the chance to contribute both in a hybrid fashion, remotely and at work and we're not, we'll lose those candidates. They will go and work somewhere else. And so, it absolutely has approved both the attraction and retention in tough labour markets for us," Fowke said.

Sault Ste. Marie's report will examine potential residency parameters, including distance-based requirements. City officials aim to find a solution that respects individual rights while ensuring senior staff remain connected to the community they serve.