Dubuque helps to define Iowa's stance on residency requirements

Font Size:

By Tom Saul | Saturday, July 05, 2008 |

Iowa’s law pertaining to residency for public employees may seem cut and dried, but legal battles over key phrases such as “critical municipal employees,” “civil service” and “reasonable distance” have helped shape policies over where local government workers can live.

Nowhere has residency seemed to be more of a flash point than in Dubuque, where in recent years the score in the legal clash between the city and its employees over residency is tied at 1-1.

In the past five years, two cases from the river town have gone to the Iowa Supreme Court.

In a 2003 case, materials control clerk Virginia Barton, who worked for Dubuque’s sewage treatment plant, was determined to be a civil service employee in a noncritical job who did not have to live within a 6.5-mile residency boundary. In a 2005 case, the city won the right to call snowplow driver John Gotto a critical worker subject to the residency rule.

“It has been an ongoing issue in Dubuque,” said Dave Baker, president of Teamsters Local 421, which represents 130 city workers, including Gotto. “We didn’t cry foul when we lost over the snowplow drivers. But later, when questions came up about whether the mechanics who fix the snowplow might be critical employees, the city said maybe.”

Iowa law allows local governments to set “reasonable” residency requirements for critical civil service employees. Most often, those are determined to be police officers, firefighters and some public works employees. Residency rules can be set for all noncivil service employees as well.

Dubuque’s policy covers all noncivil service workers plus police, firefighters and other critical civil service employees, said Randy Peck, city human resources manager. Decisions about which employees are considered critical are handled on a case-by-case basis by the city manager after receiving written requests from workers who want to live outside the 6.5-mile limit.

While residency is strictly enforced, Peck said, workers mostly are on their honor to follow the policy. The city is likely to investigate where an employee lives only if it receives a complaint or has some other reason to believe there is a violation.

“For a long time, we said all city workers are critical employees,” said Barry Lindahl, city attorney who argued both residency cases for the city. “Now, we determine it on a case-by-case basis, with the exception of department managers. They all have to live in the city.”

Gotto said his home was seven-tenths of a mile beyond the city residency boundary when the suit was initially filed. During the years he worked for Dubuque as a part-time driver, the location of his home was not an issue. It was only after he was hired on full time that the city required him to move inside the boundary.

“I did the same job when I was full time and part time,” Gotto said. “I can get from my house to my job a lot faster then someone driving across town, so this was a bunch of baloney.”

Since the ruling that his job was critical to the city and subject to the residency rule, Gotto said he asked for and received reassignment. He is now a heavy equipment operator for the city landfill who is exempt from the residency rule.

“I still live where I did when this all started,” he said.

Tom Saul can be contacted at (563) 383-2453 or tsaul@qctimes.com.