Clark County Expands Employee Residency Rule to Five Nearby Counties

Clark County Board | June 18, 2026

Article Summary: The Clark County Board on June 18 approved a resolution allowing the county to hire employees who live in Coles, Crawford, Cumberland, Edgar or Jasper counties, replacing a prior requirement that employees live in Clark County. It was the only item of the meeting to draw a dissenting vote, from Board Member Mike Parsons.

County Employee Residency Resolution Key Points:

The prior residency resolution required county employees to live in Clark County.

The new resolution permits hiring from the surrounding counties of Coles, Crawford, Cumberland, Edgar and Jasper.

The motion passed with four of the five members present voting “aye” and Parsons voting “nay” — the meeting’s only recorded split vote.

The minutes do not record a resolution number, the resolution’s text, or Parsons’ stated reason for opposing it.

CLARK COUNTY — The Clark County Board on Thursday, June 18, 2026, broadened the pool of people eligible to work for county government, approving a resolution on county employee residency requirements that allows hiring from five neighboring counties.

Under the prior residency resolution, according to the minutes, a county employee was required to live in Clark County. The resolution approved June 18 includes being able to hire from the surrounding counties of Coles, Crawford, Cumberland, Edgar and Jasper.

Brandon Burkybile moved approval and Susan Guinnip seconded. The chairman put the question, and all members present voted “aye” with the exception of Mike Parsons, who voted “nay.” With five of the board’s seven members present — Darin Patrick of District 3 and Todd Kuhn of District 6 were absent — that made the tally four in favor to one against. Chairman Rex Goble declared the motion adopted.

It was the only dissenting vote cast on any item at the meeting. Every other motion, from the approval of general and highway claims to two commercial solar actions and a one-day liquor license, carried with all members present in favor.

The Record’s Limits

The minutes do not record any discussion of the residency change beyond the two-sentence description of what it does, and they do not state why Parsons opposed it. No resolution number appears in the minutes, and the resolution itself was not included in the meeting materials distributed with the agenda, so the exact language — including whether the change applies to all county positions or only some, and whether it took effect immediately — is not available from the public record of this meeting.

The agenda item was listed as “Discuss and Possible Approval of Resolution Regarding County Employee Residency Requirements.” It appeared under New Business and was not the subject of a public hearing.

Residency requirements are a recurring issue for small county governments, which often compete for the same skilled applicants — engineers, dispatchers, corrections staff — as neighboring jurisdictions and private employers. The record of this meeting, however, contains no statement from any board member or department head about recruiting difficulties, open positions, or what prompted the change.

Obtaining the adopted resolution from the county clerk’s office would establish which positions are covered and whether any residency condition remains in place.