Residency requirement

County commissioners appeared reluctant this week to enact an ordinance that would require county employees to also live in Clark County.

The proposal -- put forth by Commissioner Tom Collins -- was delayed at least a month at Tuesday's meeting.

Mr. Collins said he proposed the measure because he wants county workers to feel loyalty to the community they serve. But -- betraying his Democratic instincts -- he also argued that the county is losing tax revenue by allowing workers to live where they choose.

In fact, Mr. Collins' idea is not unusual. Many municipal governments require police officers and some other public employees to reside in the jurisdiction in which they work. There is logic in suggesting that bureaucrats who don't have a real stake in the community that employs them may have more tendency to run amok.

That said, however, this hardly seems a pressing issue in Clark County.

Given the size and residency patterns of Southern Nevada, is it really a problem if a Clark County employee based in Laughlin lives across the river in Bullhead City, Ariz.? Or if a Mesquite firefighter has his permanent home up the highway in southern Utah?

In fact only 106 county workers -- less than 1.5 percent of the county's full-time work force of 7,500 -- now live outside of Clark County. They reside in St. George, Pahrump, Lincoln County or northwestern Arizona, reports Don Burnette, the county's chief administrative officer.

Commissioners other than Mr. Collins questioned whether the ordinance would make it more difficult to find applicants for hard-to-fill positions. That's a stretch. The larger question: Is there a compelling reason at this time to impose a residency requirement?

The answer is no.