High court to decide issue

By Marc Kovac

Youngstown and Warren are among the Ohio cities and villages with employee residency requirements.

COLUMBUS — It’s now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether cities can require public employees to live within their corporate limits.

The court’s decision will have an impact on 130-plus cities and villages that have employee residency requirements, including Youngstown, Warren and Cleveland.

Justices heard oral arguments on both sides of that issue Tuesday, more than two years after the state Legislature finalized a new law prohibiting such employment policies.

The court must determine whether the General Assembly overstepped its authority in enacting the new law, whether that law is unconstitutional or whether the ban on residency requirements will remain as is.

“We have hanging in the balance two very legitimate sets of interests,” said Justice Paul E. Pfeifer. “The understandable interest of employees to live where they choose ... but the cities also have a whole set of legitimate and compelling interests as well. So when we get into weighing, that’s a tough call.”

The law took effect in May 2006, stating “no political subdivision shall require any of its employees, as a condition of employment, to reside in any specific area of the state.” The immediate effect was to ban enforcement of existing municipal ordinances that required employees to live within city limits.

Akron and Lima were among the first cities to file suit. Trial courts in both cases ruled in favor of the state, but separate appeals courts ruled in favor of the cities, finding the law unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Legal counsel for the cities argued that lawmakers acted outside their constitutional authority in enacting legislation that conflicted with cities’ home rule, and they said the residency requirements have a legitimate purpose.

“It creates, if you will, an intangible quality within employees that, because they live in the city, there’s a greater likelihood they will be more responsive to the city’s governmental concerns,” said Tony Geiger, counsel for the city of Lima.

He added, “Whether it’s a good idea to have [residency requirements] certainly is a matter of fair debate. But when you’re talking about the decision of what employees to hire and what qualifications they should have, that’s a matter that should be left to the local entities, not the state.”

Deborah Forfia, representing the city of Akron, said residency requirements are particularly important for police, firefighters and other emergency responders.

“It is essential to the city’s ability to respond quickly, and, again, I think the record is replete with the city’s evidence that minutes matter,” she said. “… The line that [the Legislature has] drawn simply cannot address the different factors in geography, in roads, in the needs of every city. That has to be done on a local level.”

But Ben Miser, representing the state, said lawmakers acted within their constitutional authority in passing the legislation banning employee residency requirements, in part because the issue presented significant statewide concerns.

“The General Assembly recognized that this is an issue that affects the welfare of Ohio citizens...,” he said. “This affects the lives of everyday citizens. If a spouse works for the city of Akron and the other spouse works for the city of Canton, and if both of those cities have residency restrictions, that household cannot live together and hold their jobs because one has to live in Canton and one has to live in Akron.”