City loses bid to make employees live in Lima

LIMA - A court ruling that ends the city's requirement for its employees to live within the city was applauded Wednesday by local unions representing city workers.

"We felt all along it wasn't appropriate for a city or any government to require you to live somewhere you didn't want to live in order to have a job," said Mike Watkins, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police, which represents the city's police officers.

The Ohio Supreme in a 5-2 decision Wednesday found the Ohio General Assembly's powers trump the concept of home rule. Lima Law Director Tony Geiger said he has no plans to search for a way to launch further appeals.

Lima Mayor David Berger, who's been the driving force behind the residency requirement, said he was disappointed with the decision.

"It's a problem for home rule. It's pretty hard for me to fathom how this decision isn't a gutting of home rule. Home rule is part of the Ohio Constitution. It's not just a theoretical concept. It's part of Ohio's founding law," Berger said.

Lima firefighters union President Sean Carpenter said firefighters were happy with the decision. Firefighters should have the decision to live wherever they choose. Some firefighters were raised in rural areas and want to raise their family in that setting, he said.

"We have said all along that it's always been a matter of freedom of choice," Carpenter said.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, whose office argued the case for the state, issued a brief statement saying, "This was a difficult case with tough arguments on both sides, and we know the court wrestled carefully with those arguments in reaching its decision."

One of Berger's key reasons for wanting employees to live in the city is employees are good people who would make good residents and invest in the city as good homeowners and residents.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger echoed a similar thought.

"Much like a private employer may seek employees who are invested members of the local community, a municipality may place a great premium on hiring individuals who exhibit a high level of commitment to that municipality," she wrote.

Watkins disputed that.

"Simply because you live in Bluffton or Delphos doesn't mean you're going to be any less loyal to the city or not do the job you were hired to do," he said.

Carpenter said the level of commitment and dedication firefighters have for their job does not waiver based on where they live.

"The fire service is not just a job you go to, it's a way of life," he said.

Geiger agreed with another point Lanzinger made saying the ruling gives too broad of powers to the General Assembly regarding public employee issues.

"I think there are fair and legitimate points of view on both sides of the issue but my belief is it's an issue best determined at the local level," Geiger said.

Justice Bob Cupp, who is from Lima, voted in favor of the state.

Berger said he expects many more employees to choose to live outside the city.

"It has to do with the selection of houses, particularly newer houses, that exists. Having a new house is the American dream. When you have more of a selection outside the city it's going to be more attractive," Berger said.

Watkins does not anticipate every police officer who has been required to live in the city to pick up and move outside the city anytime soon. He said there will be some but doesn't expect many.

"People live where they live for various reasons. Some live because they are close to their family, some live because of the schools," he said.

One issue police officers had with the residency issue was the potential it created for tension in a neighborhood if an officer had to arrest his neighbor, Watkins said.

Lima adopted an ordinance in 2000 requiring new hires to live in the city or move in shortly after they were hired, typically within a year. Those hired before 2000 were not subject to the requirement.

In 2006, the Ohio General Assembly enacted a law that said having a residency requirement as a condition of employment was not valid. The only exception was to ensure adequate response time by emergency responders.

Lima and a handful of other cities sued the state to be allowed to make their own laws. The trial court ruled in favor of the state, which was overturned by the 3rd District Court of Appeals.

Lima has 386 full-time employees, of which 95 have been hired since the ordinance was enacted in 2000. The city has 120 employees that list an address outside the city, said Vince Ozier, human resources director for Lima.

---------

Residency Ruling Summary

THE ISSUE: Many Ohio cities, including Akron, Lima and Cleveland, have local laws requiring city employees to live within city limits. A 2006 state law prevented cities from having such residency requirements.

THE ARGUMENTS: Ohio cities cite their home rule powers and say the residency requirements help their tax base, improve emergency services and make employees more responsive to local concerns. The state says it has the power to promote the general health and welfare of all employees; unions say the residency requirements are discriminatory.

THE RULING: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the 2006 state law is constitutional and overrides any home rule claims made by local governments. The high court's ruling overturns a ruling made by a state appeals court and affirms the initial ruling made by a trial court.