CITY EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS

Home Browse Search

OPINION N0. 75-7 Page Two establishing its own territorial jurisdiction as an employee residence area. It does not prohibit a city from requiring its employees to reside within the area of the county. The second clause permits local agencies to require employees to live within a "distance" of their place of em- ployment, provided that distance is "reasonable" and "specific." It is our opinion that the use of the term "distance" does not necessarily mean that employee residency requirements can only be imposed in terms of mileage or that the distance from the place of employment must be equal in all directions (i.e. a radius in miles from city hall). To set the county line as the residency area limit is to establish a distance from the place of employment. Concerning the requirement of specificity, the county boundary limitation is as specific as any mile limitation, and it has the advantage of being more readily ascertainable. In requiring employee residency regulations to be "reasonable," Proposition 5 does not impose anything new. Re- solution 69-118 is neither more nor less vulnerable to challenge on allegations that it is unreasonable or arbitrary than it was prior to the adoption of Proposition 5. Nothing in Proposition 5 precludes a general residency requirement applicable to all employees. Nothing requires any special findings as to reason- ableness before a residency requirement can be imposed. It is therefore concluded that Proposition 5 does not operate to invalidate Resolution 69-118.. This, of course, is no guarantee that the county boundary employee residency limitation will be upheld if challenged in court. It is simply an opinion that Proposition 5 would not affect the result of such a possible court action. Respectfully submitted, James A. Withers, City Attorney BY 7 (ifl~.ca~C _ Richar E. Lay, Deputy JAW:REL:nr -34-