My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CITY EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
CITY EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/21/2010 9:14:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
CITY EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
Date
2/21/1975
Agency
Police
Notes
OPINION 75-7
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OPINION N0. 75-7 <br />Page Two <br />establishing its own territorial jurisdiction as an employee <br />residence area. It does not prohibit a city from requiring <br />its employees to reside within the area of the county. <br />The second clause permits local agencies to require <br />employees to live within a "distance" of their place of em- <br />ployment, provided that distance is "reasonable" and "specific." <br />It is our opinion that the use of the term "distance" does not <br />necessarily mean that employee residency requirements can only <br />be imposed in terms of mileage or that the distance from the <br />place of employment must be equal in all directions (i.e. a <br />radius in miles from city hall). To set the county line as <br />the residency area limit is to establish a distance from the <br />place of employment. <br />Concerning the requirement of specificity, the county <br />boundary limitation is as specific as any mile limitation, and <br />it has the advantage of being more readily ascertainable. <br />In requiring employee residency regulations to be <br />"reasonable," Proposition 5 does not impose anything new. Re- <br />solution 69-118 is neither more nor less vulnerable to challenge <br />on allegations that it is unreasonable or arbitrary than it was <br />prior to the adoption of Proposition 5. Nothing in Proposition <br />5 precludes a general residency requirement applicable to all <br />employees. Nothing requires any special findings as to reason- <br />ableness before a residency requirement can be imposed. <br />It is therefore concluded that Proposition 5 does <br />not operate to invalidate Resolution 69-118.. This, of course, <br />is no guarantee that the county boundary employee residency <br />limitation will be upheld if challenged in court. It is simply <br />an opinion that Proposition 5 would not affect the result of <br />such a possible court action. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />James A. Withers, <br />City Attorney <br />BY 7 (ifl~.ca~C _ <br />Richar E. Lay, <br />Deputy <br />JAW:REL:nr <br />-34- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.