|
|
|
Ohio Municipal League email:
Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need
further contact with you. Please type
“OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam. |
TO: Members of the Senate State and Local Government & Veterans Affairs Committee FROM: John Mahoney, Deputy Director, Ohio Municipal League DATE: April 18, 2005 RE: SB 82 A Brief Commentary Below is a summary of research we have done on the extent of municipal residency requirements. We hope this is helpful. Residency requirements in Ohio have been an issue for at least the last 85 years, since the Toledo Charter was adopted requiring residency of all city employees. During that period, the issue has always been seen as a local one. Locally, the issue has been decided fairly well. In many communities there are no residency requirements. In cities where employees could not afford to live there is no residency requirements. However, in cities struggling to maintain a middle-class for the sake of community stability, such as our major cities, we do see comprehensive residency requirements. Those who oppose such requirements have the option to go to the local voters and overturn those requirements, as they have done in a few instances, or to go to federal court and argue that such requirements are an undue burden on their freedom. This latter course has never been successful. The bill currently before the Ohio Senate (SB 82) would not only determine that residency requirements are a statewide concern, but, in doing so, attempt to overturn the popular vote of the people of many of our major cities, as well as the popular vote of many other municipalities. In addition, SB 82 would substitute the judgment of the General Assembly for the judgment of dozens of city councils across the state, which acted by ordinance, on the residency of city employees and the terms of employment for those employees. If this were a state without guaranteed initiative and referendum, and therefore a state without recourse for those who disagree with that local decision, such a substitution of judgment might be called for. In the case of Ohio, it is not. SB 82 would also attempt to overturn those collective bargaining agreements which impose residency requirements by agreement between municipal management and labor. That is inconsistent with the provision in the collective bargaining law, passed by the General Assembly, which says the provisions of that law always override other provisions of statute. An OML Review of Voter-Approved & Other Residency Requirements The Ohio Municipal League surveyed all of its 242 member-cities (out of 251 Ohio cities) asking for information on the residency requirements imposed on the employees of those cities by the city's charter. When the results of that survey proved inadequate to present a comprehensive picture of the requirements of residency for all communities, the League staff supplemented the survey results through its own review of the over 250 City and Village Charters kept on file at the League's offices. This review also provided a cross-check for the accuracy of the surveys. It should be noted that the emphasis of this study was on residency requirements existing in Charters, which are always adopted by popular vote. Though our survey results turned up a couple of instances where an ordinance on residency was taken to the ballot for amendment or repeal, the overwhelming majority of voter-approved residency requirements in Ohio are imposed by the Charter. Those Charter provisions are predominantly in Ohio's cities in that 180 of Ohio's cities have Charters, whereas only 53 of Ohio's 695 villages have Charters. This survey does not reflect the many residency requirements that are in force for Ohio's cities and villages through civil service rules, employment contracts, non-voter approved ordinances and residency provisions in the Ohio Revised Code used by all statutory (non-charter) cities and villages. With those limitations in mind, the combined results of our survey and Charter review resulted in the following figures: * 125 Cities and 13 Villages have some requirement for residency in their Charter. * Almost all City Manager-Cities (62 Cities) have a requirement that the Manager live inside the City during his or her tenure in office. * Many of Ohio's major cities (Akron, Toledo, Cleveland, Dayton, Columbus) and a few smaller cities (e.g. Parma Heights) have a residency requirement for virtually all employees in their Charter. These requirements are to live within the city limits, except in the case of Columbus, which allows employees to live in Franklin and adjacent counties. Cincinnati requires their employees to live within Hamilton county and Youngstown requires their employees to live within the city by ordinance. Canton repealed their ordinance requiring city residency. This change was related to changes in their collective bargaining agreements. * Outside of Ohio's major cities, the residency requirements in charters most often require the CEO (Manager/Administrator) to live within the city. To a lesser degree, other management employees are also required to live in or near the city. Those other management employees for which we found examples are: The City Clerk, the Public Service Director, the Law Director, the Finance Director or Treasurer, the Assistant City Manager or, simply, "All Department Heads." * When a residency requirement is described as broader than residency within the city, it is usually marked as within five, eight or fifteen miles from a designated point at the historic center of the city. In one instance, the description was "within a twenty-minute commute from the city. |
