Laserfiche WebLink
OPINION N0. 15-7 <br />February 21, 1975 <br />SUBJECT: C?zy Employee Residency Requirements <br />REQUESTED BY: Police Department <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />BY: Richard E. Lay, Deputy <br />QUESTION: Is Council Resolution 69-118, imposing <br />a requirement that City employees re- <br />side within Orange County, invalidated <br />by the recently enacted ballot measure, <br />Proposition 5? <br />ANSWER: No. <br />ANALYSIS <br />Proposition 5, adopted in the November 5, 1974 <br />general election, amends the California Constitution by add- <br />ing section 10.5 to Article XI, reading as follows: <br />"A city or county, including any chartered city <br />or chartered county, or public district, may not <br />require that its employees be residents of such <br />city, county, or district; except that such em- <br />ployees may be required to reside within a reason- <br />able and specific distance of their place of employ- <br />ment or other designated location." <br />Santa Ana Council Resolution 69-118 requires that <br />employees establish their residences with the limits of Orange <br />County (with an exception for "hardship" cases). This resolu- <br />tion was adopted pursuant to SAMC Section 9-3 (formerly Section <br />2202) which empowers the City Council to designate the resi- <br />dency area for city employees by resolutidn. (That part of <br />Section 9-3 which sets the city itself as the employee resi- <br />dency area in the absence of such a council resolution is now <br />invalidated by Proposition 5). <br />The first clause of Proposition 5 only prohibits <br />each type of local governmental agency mentioned therein from <br />-33- <br />