Boston City Council to review residency requirements for city workers

Multiple members of Boston City Council expressed support Wednesday for examining – and potentially changing – the residency requirement that applies to city employees.

The conversation was started by Councilor Ed Flynn, who filed a hearing order this week. 

“As Boston continues to rank as one of the most expensive cities to live in the United States, it is critical that we discuss whether the city’s residency requirement has impacted our ability to recruit and retain talent to ensure both public safety and the quality of life for our residents,” Flynn said in a statement. “While the residency requirement was implemented so that workers are invested in the communities they serve, the reality now is that many of our dedicated employees and working families are unable to afford nearly $1 million for a home, or to raise their families with the high cost of living.” 

Since 1976, municipal employees have had to maintain residency within Boston. But officials are concerned that the city’s increased cost of living and related staffing challenges could be tied to the residency requirement. 

The average salary for a city employee is currently $79,000, according to the hearing order. Flynn cited a recent study from SmartAsset that found a single adult needs to make $124,966 a year in order to live comfortably in Boston. The only places in the country where one needs to make more than this to live comfortably are New York City and three California cities: San Jose, Irvine, and Santa Ana. 

Younger people, who typically earn less, are disproportionately impacted. Flynn referenced a survey from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce that found that 25% of adults aged between 20 to 30 years old are planning to leave Boston in the next five years. The most important factors in their decision-making process are job availability, the cost of rent, and their ability to purchase a home. The median sales price for a house is about $961,250, the Greater Boston Association of Realtors found earlier this year. 

In 2022, the city enacted a temporary moratorium on the residency requirement for 357 municipal positions. The moratorium still exists for positions like lifeguards and police dispatchers, according to the hearing order. But Flynn wants to know whether “the residency requirement has become a barrier to recruiting and retaining talent in other areas.”

Councilor Brian Worrell said that officials cannot afford to ignore the difficult situations faced by many living in Boston. He expressed support for a hearing to learn more, but said that adding one-time exemptions to the residency requirement would be preferable to eliminating it entirely. 

“I’m not in favor of completely lifting the residency requirement. Boston jobs, I believe, should be for Boston residents, but we do need to be realistic and explore where strategic exemptions for critical roles can help fill vacancies and keep our city running smoothly,” he said. 

Flynn has voiced concern over staffing within public safety positions in the past, telling The Boston Herald last month that he wanted to examine the residency requirement. Police Commissioner Michael Cox, however, said that many police departments across the country without residency requirements are still struggling with hiring and retention, and that there’s no correlation between residency requirements and the number of people a police department can attract. 

Councilors Liz Breadon, Tania Fernandes Anderson, John FitzGerald, Ruthzee Louijeune, Julia Mejia, Erin Murphy, and Enrique Pepén added their names to the hearing order during Wednesday’s meeting. It was referred to the Committee on Labor, Workforce, and Economic Development.