Residency requirement? — City debates requiring employees to live within, near city limits

Editor's note: This story has been updated to state that the Newcastle officer that lives in Sundance is the officer with the drug dog and not the animal control officer. We regret the error.

A discussion on Oct. 6 during a Newcastle City Council meeting over a new police hire sparked a broader debate among Newcastle City Council members about whether city employees should be required to live within or near city limits.

Newcastle Police Chief Derek Thompson presented a conditional employment offer for Cameron Henson, a candidate who had previously declined an offer from the department. Henson, who had been exploring a military career and cited pay concerns during his first application, has since asked to be reconsidered for the position.

Thompson told the council he was willing to give Henson another chance, describing him as a promising candidate. The proposed offer includes a starting wage of $21.91 an hour, a one-year probationary period and standard conditions, such as passing a psychological and medical evaluation, background check and drug screening.

“I’ll admittedly tell you that it didn’t really impress me that he said, ‘No thanks,’ and then came back,” Thompson said. “But I think he’s a promising candidate.”

Residency question resurfaces

The conversation took a turn when Councilman Tom Voss asked whether Henson lived in Newcastle and Mayor Tyrel Owens questioned whether he planned to move to Newcastle if hired.

Thompson said the applicant initially wanted to commute until completing police academy training, after which he would consider relocating.

That prompted Voss to express frustration over the issue of city employees living outside city limits.

“I think we’ve had enough with this living out-of-town stuff,” he said.

Thompson acknowledged that while the city has frequently discussed such a requirement, he could not find any written policy mandating that employees live within a specific distance of Newcastle.

Owens said that he had believed that was a requirement but is unsure of why.

“I always thought it was a requirement to live within the city limits or within 5 miles,” Owens said. “But I don’t know how I ever came to that conclusion. I think it was word of mouth. I never actually read it.”

Councilwoman Ann McColley noted that response times for police officers should be taken into consideration.

“I think Gillette’s a little far,” she said, referencing the distance from where Henson currently resides.

Thompson cautioned that strict residency rules could limit the city’s hiring pool and create additional burdens for new employees.

“Affordable, acceptable housing is not always readily available for somebody in an entry-level position,” he said.

Councilman Don Steveson added that “sometimes good housing is not within the city’s limit area.”

Thompson also pointed out that the officer who handles the police dog lives in Sundance, suggesting that any new rule would need to be applied consistently.

Next steps

After further discussion, council members agreed to move forward with the hiring process while also directing the personnel committee to review whether a residency requirement should be added to the city’s personnel policy.

Because the required evaluations and background checks could take several months, Thompson said that adopting a new policy in the meantime “would make better sense to keep things flowing.”

The council voted to approve the conditional offer for Henson while planning to revisit the residency issue at a future meeting.