Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Civic Governance Membership topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Port Richey advisory panel votes to require members be city residents

Port Richey Citizens Advisory Committee · January 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Citizens Advisory Committee voted to require CAC members be Port Richey residents after debating whether nonresidents with expertise should sit on advisory committees. The motion passed by voice vote; exceptions for business owners may be considered case-by-case.

The Port Richey Citizens Advisory Committee voted at its Jan. 8 meeting to require advisory members be residents of Port Richey, following a short debate over whether nonresidents with specific expertise should be allowed to serve.

Committee members raised examples of other city committees that include nonresidents — notably the events and historical committees — to secure outside expertise. One committee member said, “I mean, since this is a citizen’s advisory committee, I would think we would need to remain to just citizens.” After that exchange, a motion to adopt the residency requirement was made, seconded and adopted by voice vote. Individual roll-call votes were not recorded in the meeting minutes.

Members noted a possible narrow path for outside participation: business owners who operate in Port Richey but live elsewhere could be considered on an individual basis, and nonresidents remain welcome to participate from the audience and offer input during public comment. The committee did not adopt a formal hardship or exception process; members said such cases would be handled individually and could require council review.

The motion will be relayed to city staff and placed into whatever administrative rules govern CAC membership. There was no immediate legal citation brought up in the discussion; the committee framed the change as aligning membership with the committee’s citizen-focused purpose.

The committee moved on to other agenda items and adjourned after completing the evening’s business.