Charter review board debates residency rules; approves extending move-in period to two years

The North Port Charter Review Board spent much of its meeting discussing whether the city charter should contain a formal public‑comment policy and whether residency requirements for certain staff should be changed. On the question of residency, the board considered a recommendation to the city commission to place a referendum on the May special election to remove residency requirements for the city attorney and city clerk (Ordinance 2024‑49).

Board members offered competing views on the need for strict residency for municipal employees. "I can understand having the city manager and the police chief have to be in the city because if an emergency comes up, you don't want them half hour away driving here," said Speaker 1, arguing that some positions require rapid response. But Speaker 2 and others said residency rules can narrow the hiring pool and may be burdensome in a growing city with housing and construction delays.

Speaker 3 cited an ongoing lawsuit involving Mullen Park and said having a representative who lists a Venice address "but they're Northport" could send the wrong message, arguing that residency signals connection to the community. Speaker 6 agreed that living in the community can be a sign of leadership and local knowledge.

After extended discussion, Speaker 5 moved that "the policy remains as is with the change of taking the time from 1 year to 2 years to move into the city." The motion was seconded and passed 4–1; Art was recorded as the lone vote opposed. The board did not adopt a blanket removal of the residency requirement in the meeting minutes; rather, it approved the motion that would leave the policy framework in place while recommending a two‑year move‑in window for affected positions.

The board also noted the item would be presented to the city commission for placement on the special election ballot. The ordinance number cited during the discussion was 2024‑49. The board did not specify contract lengths or which positions would be legally bound by the change; members acknowledged that contract terms and commission decisions would affect implementation.

The board left several details to the city commission and staff, including whether contractual employees are covered, what exact positions should be affected, and how relocation or moving expenses might be handled. Several members suggested that relocation assistance or longer contract terms could address recruitment concerns; no binding direction to pay moving expenses was passed.