Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residency Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chandler council discusses leaving residency charter amendment on the ballot
Summary
At a July 13 study session, Chandler council members heard staff explain Proposition 4 34 — a charter amendment that would require certain appointed city officials to live in Chandler — and signaled a preference to let voters decide; the proposition does not define a "reasonable distance" for other employees and would require follow-up action to set that standard.
CHANDLER, Ariz. — City council members spent their July 13 study session discussing whether to withdraw Proposition 4 34, a charter amendment referred to the Nov. 3 general election that would require council-appointed positions to reside within Chandler and would extend the residency-establishment period to one year.
Council member Harris brought the item forward for discussion and asked staff to explain how the measure reached the ballot. Deputy City Manager Ryan Peters told the council the charter changes — four amendments in total — were advanced after work-session discussion in April and were referred to voters on April 23. "A voter, neutral voter guide is available on the city's website to help residents understand each measure," Peters said.
The city attorney cautioned that the proposition as written sets a geographic residency requirement for appointed positions but leaves several terms undefined. "If Proposition 4 34 goes forward and passes, then the council could bring back the issue of if there are any terms that would need to be defined, for purposes of, say, reasonable distance, then that could be brought back and addressed after the election results are final, by way of ordinance or by way of policy," the city attorney said.
Harris pressed staff on scope and enforcement, asking whether the measure "fully secure[s] that that person has to live in Chandler, or is there some still wiggle room" and whether the ballot language addresses specific distances. The city attorney responded that appointed officials would have to live within city limits, while the reasonable-distance standard for nonappointed employees is left open and could be set later by ordinance or city manager policy.
City Manager (title) described the current practice under the charter and his expectations for department heads. He said the charter now requires him and the eight department heads to live in Chandler but that there is no penalty provision in the charter. "For me, that presence is more important," the city manager said, arguing the amendment could make Chandler more competitive in hiring by allowing some flexibility while preserving expectations for community presence.
The city clerk told council members that Maricopa County requires final proofs and that a ballot measure may be withdrawn up to 75 days before the election (noted in the meeting as Aug. 20); the clerk added that a special election in an odd year would require meeting separate deadlines (for example, a Sept. 10 notification for the March special-election calendar) and that holding a stand-alone special could be substantially more expensive than consolidating with a primary or general election, with an estimated cost in the $400,000–$500,000 range.
Council members expressed differing emphases but generally said they were comfortable leaving the question to voters while acknowledging that the proposition does not spell out what "reasonable distance" would mean in practice and that the council or city manager would need to set that standard if the measure passes. Mayor Hartke also noted a member of the Charter Review Committee, Lisa Askey, was in the audience.
No vote was taken to remove or alter the measure during the session; council members indicated they would either leave it on the Nov. 3 ballot or, if they chose to withdraw it, would need to meet the county deadline and consider the expense and timing of any special election.
