Member Harris.

On our consent agenda tonight, we had opportunity to meet with city manager.

Council, how would you like to and staff?

How would you like to proceed?

Mayor.

Uh Vice Mayor.

I move to approve the consent agenda of the July 13, 2026 regular meeting, items one through four.

Second.

So we have a motion by Vice Mayor, a second by councilmember Arlando.

Any recusals, any questions?

Seeing none, are we able to vote electronically or just do a voice vote?

We can try it.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Councilmember Harris.

Maybe motion carries unanimously.

Very good.

And with that, I'm gaveling out of this meeting, and we will go into our study session.

Welcome to the study session of July 13, 2026.

I would like to call this meeting to order.

Clerk, please take the roll.

Mayor Harkey.

Here.

Vice Mayor and Sinus.

Sure.

Councilmember Poston.

Here.

Council Member Ellis.

Yeah.

Councilmember Orlando?

Here.

Councilmember Harris?

Yeah.

And Councilmember Hawkins.

Here.

We have a quorum.

All right.

Thank you so much.

No items were called in for discussion or presentation.

So really the item that we have before us is a item 24 discussion of withdrawing proposition 434.

The charter amendment addressing residency requirements for city council appointees and department directors.

A single council member can bring this to the council on a Monday for discussion.

And if council wants to take action, recommend that action uh from this meeting.

So there is no voting on this, just a uh answering questions and seeing if council would like to proceed.

With that, I'll turn this over to council member Harris.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, um, Mayor, Council members.

Uh, I wanted to bring this item forward.

So I have staff that's going to do a couple of presentations.

Uh, and uh Ryan um will this is a particular this particular item is about a ballot measure and I want Ryan to discuss how we got here, and then I want to turn it over to the city attorney to uh to add to that.

Mayor uh council members, can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Uh just my way background separate reconduct a comprehensive review of the city charge began in April 2025 and down commitment open session.

There's no potential further amendment alongside the vote upon the election.

Uh during the work session, council ordered presentation on two potential amendments requirement.

However, council decided not to move forward with the amendment and instead focus on two other more time amendments for the November of 2025 ballot, and they also call for a broader resident of the review before we bring any other amendments for election in June 2025.

Council traded the city charter amendment resident by nine residents were appointed to review the charter are involved by article between July and December.

The committee held six substance of meetings uh publicly ultimately the committee voted to forward eight recommendations to council in February 2026.

The committee chair presented those recommendations during a council work session, recognizing the length of the general election ballot.

Council directed staff to prioritize them and after discussion in a work session on in April of this year.

Council agreed to advance four amendments to a council vote at a regular meeting with some additional revisions to the residency requirement proposal.

It's a proposal as recommended by the committee, applies solely to the city manager.

However, proposition 434 is referred by council instead, requires all council appointed positions to reside in the city and provides for a year to establish residency after appointment rather than the current six months.

Recognizing the diversity of the workforce and ease of access to Chandler from communities here in the Valley.

Council also directed the city manager to develop and maintain an expectation for leadership team to live within a reasonable distance and continue to have a community presence.

On April 23rd, 2026, council officially reform referred the four amendments to voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election.

And for the benefit of the public, the other amendments include clarifying the timing for selecting the vice mayor, aligning the resigned to run provisions with Arizona law, and removing the two reading requirements for ordinances to facilitate a faster speed to business.

These amendments have been transmitted to the county in adherence with the regulatory deadlines.

The county's voter guide will also contain information on the measures, but that will not be published in closer until closer to the general election.

So that's a brief narrative of how we got here and how those four amendments were presented to council and ultimately placed on the ballot.

Thank you.

Um thank you, um Deputy Manager.

Now I would like um city attorney to indulge us on what we're doing here and what exactly um are the options if we continue if we continue to keep Prop 434 on the ballot.

Okay, thank you.

Um through the mayor, council member Harris.

Um if proposition 434 goes forward and passes, then the council could bring bring back the issue of if there are any terms that would need to be defined for for purposes of say reasonable distance, then that could be brought back and addressed after the election results or final um by way of ordinance or by way of policy direction to the city manager by way of policy because for the employees that report to the city manager.

Okay, thank you.

And then um, I wanted to ask the city clerk if we was to where are we at right now in the process in terms of if we removed it or if we kept it going forward, what's where are we at in terms of when it comes to election if council so decide to remove this item?

Yes, through the mayor, council member Harris.

So I provided the approved ballot language, the resolutions on June 8 that was required by Maricopa County, and then just recently they had me sign off on that final proof, but I did reach out to the county and they said up until E75, which is 75 days before the election, August 20, the council could withdraw a ballot measure, but nothing can be changed.

Um there's no amendments right now or changes to those ballot measures, but they could be withdrawn.

Okay, thank you.

And so I wanted to um so city attorney.

So with this particular ballot measure, the question that's at hand right now, does this does this particular measure in terms of the ballot does it does this answer the question of a residency, like in terms of distance of where they're live?

Because I kind of have some questions about the distance of where they live, and this does not necessarily address this particular area.

So, what does this ballot actually address?

And then talk to us about the distance that it does not address mayor, council member Harris, it addresses the residency requirement for appointed, so appointed city manager, city magistrate, city clerk, and city attorney, and to be residents of the city, and that is a geographical requirement.

Then it goes on to say that employees would be required to be to live within a reasonable distance of the city, and that is an accessible requirement.

And so what it does not, it does not include definitions of these things, it doesn't include definitions of residency or reasonable distance that could be provided in an ordinance or policy should the proposition be adopted.

So it doesn't so with this particular proposition, it doesn't necessarily um it doesn't in layman terms.

Does it fully secure that that person has to live in Chandler or is there some still wiggle room that they can get around to say, hey, well, that's within a proximity?

Uh through the mayor, council member Harris through for residents if it's an appointed, if it's an appointed employee, then they're to reside in the city, and that's clear.

Residency is is clear as far as you know that they would have to be geographically within the city limits, live in the city limits for employees outside or the rest of the employees, the non-appointed employees, let's call them, then the requirement for reasonable distance would be would be left open to to interpretation, which could be set by ordinance or policy.

So that would be um what would be what would be reasonable distance for certain department heads, certain employees that may need to be more um accessible to the city closer within distance.

So that would technically be underneath like a city manager function in terms of addressing that issue through the mayor, council member Harris.

Yes, it could if city manager is under the charter, the supervisor of employees and department heads.

So it could be set by policy by the city manager and uh by personnel rolls, for example, and then but if the city council wanted to opt to have an ordinance to define that for certain positions, the council could do that, and then it would go into the city code.

Okay, okay, and um city uh manager, city manager.

Um in the charter, what's your understanding of where the charter is today in terms of what residency looks like?

What's your understanding today?

Uh mayor, councilmember Harris, under the current charter, myself and all eight department heads as noted within our ordinances must reside in the city of Chandler.

Okay.

And then what happens if they don't reside in the city of Chandler?

There is no penalty, mayor, council member Harris, there is no penalty provision in our charter.

Okay.

So recently there we were in the news with a personnel issue that spoke to residency and things of that nature, and I just want to clear that up.

That's not something that mayor or council typically handle.

That's something that will fall underneath the city manager's jurisdiction, correct?

Yes, personnel matters for all employees other than points fall to me.

Okay.

So previously, when there was an issue there, it was that would be underneath the discretion of the city manager in that person in that employee.

Yes.

Okay.

So what happens if today, if an employee does not live within that time within that distance or within what the charter recommended, what do we do?

What do we do with that today?

How do we address that?

For myself and the eight department heads, we they need to live in the city of Chandler.

So if they do not currently, and I become aware of that, I have a conversation to ensure that they do live within the city of Chandler.

And sis, all the different conversation that has happened, have you addressed this issue with the department heads in terms of what the charter residency requirement is?

Mayor, Councilmember Harris, I've addressed this issue not only with my direct staff, but all directors in the city, um, and probably anyone else in your show.

And do you feel like that issue has been resolved?

I feel like everyone in the city has a clear understanding of what I expect.

Okay, and then my last question is that um in terms of compliance, how would you how are you going to assure that compliance does happen with any other uh residency requirements as it pertains to that?

What does that look like for our council?

Under our current policy or under the if this passes?

Um if well, under our current policy or if if it passes, both probably just give me just granular on both.

Under the current policy, uh, councilmember Harris.

I've made very clear my belief that the individuals that need to live in the city of Chandler.

Um as you can imagine with department heads and those that work that closely with me, there's a trust element that goes with that.

So I expect that if they tell me they will live there, they will live there, and we deal with it in that regard.

Okay.

Um I I would hope that this issue does not arise again in the city.

Um, if it passes, I've talked to this council.

I believe we will I will at least propose short of an ordinance a presence policy that looks at each individual department director, the role they play within the city, and how quickly we need them to be able to be in the city.

Secondly, and more importantly, this council knows I believe presence of the department heads is incredibly crucial to our community.

So, apart from how long it takes to actually drive to downtown, because on any given day, like a night to like tonight, that can take a little bit longer.

I expect them to be well known in the community.

I mean, going to city events, I mean going to city establishments.

I want people in the community to know who leads the city from a managerial standpoint so that when they have a problem or when they have a concern, they can address it directly.

I want them to understand how vested my directors are in this community.

And city manager, have you moved into the city of Chandler?

I have moved into the city of Chandler.

I think my wife's actually watching right now, so yes, I have okay.

And then do you believe that mayor and city council members should live in the city of Chandler?

That's not a question that's related to this.

I know, but I'm I'm just asking for residency for mayor council.

It's not related to the okay, that's fine.

That's fine.

I'll keep going.

All right.

So my last question to you, um city manager is my last question, is probably in terms of looking at what um the city attorney have already said to make sure that there's a reasonable effort or reasonable mileage that these have to live.

Um, is that is that your understanding that there will be a reasonable mileage from their point of where they actually uh work into the city?

Mayor, council member Harris, I'm not sure if I would set it up as much by mileage as time.

Okay.

Uh depending on your route in a you can live certain distances, and I think each department will be different in that expectation.

We will set up a policy that not only denights denotes the importance of that distance and time, but also that presence that we expect in our community.

Some of my most active employees do not live in the city of Chandler, they are here day in and day out at all the community events.

And to be fair, Councilmember Harris, you are aware that from the day I interviewed for this position, I have talked about the importance of opening up the city to competitiveness.

And that uh location does not guarantee presence.

I can live in Chandler and you can never see me.

Or I could live three miles outside of Chandler and you could see me every single day at all the events and be very well known in the community.

For me, that presence is more important.

Now the charter required me to move in, and I did not hesitate to do so, but that presence is incredibly important.

And I want this city to always remain competitive for the highest and best employees.

As long as they are committed to this community, that time and distance is less relevant to me than it is their actual presence at our in our city and how we live.

Okay.

Yeah, and I just kind of wanted to make sure that now that we laid out the expectation for residency and what that should look like with this particular ballot uh initiative.

This basically it uh it takes away that layer um from the department here so we can be more competitive as we go out and search if we need to search for new department heads or not.

This is gonna allow us to be a little bit more competitive in the market so that way there's a reasonable, obviously, there's gonna be a reasonable distance that you're gonna require as a city manager, but will this make us more competitive in the market?

I think it'll make us more competitive in the market, but it also will acknowledge that you could have believed it uh an employee who starts their career with the city is not required to live in the city.

Let's just say hypothetically lives a mile outside of that city, and as they grow and and they learn and they excel within this city, they could rise to the level of department director, right?

And if you have a 20, 25-year employee who has shown their value, shown their presence in this community, is that one mile that important, or is it more important that their commitment community has shown throughout their career?

So it will not only make us more competitive externally, but it will show the value of that length of service internally to make this a destination of choice for all employees in the state.

Yeah, and this particular issue didn't come up.

This this issue that we're dealing with.

We've been working on this for quite a long time.

So this is not this is not council playing favors to any particular anybody in the city.

This is us saying we started this process over a year or two ago, and we're we're here today to allow the voters, we're putting it out to the voters to decide what they want to do with this particular issue.

Is that correct?

Mayor, councilmember Harris.

Conversations about residency have been gone going on for years.

Okay.

And this council has addressed it through uh presentations as was noted previously by deputy city manager Ryan Peters.

This was not over one any individual incident or any individual.

This was a conversation about competitiveness and what was best for the city of Chandler, uh, up to and including the efforts and the time that the charter committee put in to address this issue, having no knowledge of any internal city issues, they looked at their duty, they handled that duty, and they recommended that we add this to the this charter amendment.

So I I this was not done by council for any one consideration.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, I just wanted to mayor council, I wanted to bring this forward because I wanted us to be able to have a robust conversation by residency and then making sure that that this particular item that brought was brought forward was brought forward in good intention by our charter committee.

It was brought in good intention by those that worked on it, it was to help us expand all the the benefits that we can get.

I just wanted the council to be aware, and I wanted the public more so to be aware exactly what we're doing with this particular issue and making sure that um residency is addressed.

And I and I would say probably dealing with any personnel issues, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, personnel issues, not the the purview of the city council per se, right?

Through the mayor, council member Harris, that is correct.

So we don't, so we don't deal with the direct hire, we just deal with the four people.

Correct.

Okay, good.

All right.

Well, with that being said, I wanted to bring that forward.

Um, you guys have the information.

Um, if you guys want to continue to keep it on the ballot, that's fine.

I just wanted to make sure that um just know that when it's all said and done, we're gonna have to still come back and address the radius.

What was it?

Um, city attorney, we're gonna have to come back and dress.

What was it?

Reasonable distance, reasonable distance.

So if we move this thing forward, it does not address reasonable distance.

So I wanted to make sure that council is aware that that it will not be addressed.

And if it and if we choose to continue to move forward with it, um, well, we move forward and it passes, we have to come back as a council to to discuss reasonable distance, or we can just remove it and put it, you know.

Um, what's the options if we wanted to put it back on the special election city of Claire?

Yes, sir.

The mayor, council member Harris.

Uh, your options for a special election in an odd year are going to be in March and May.

Um, to get on the March ballot, the deadline is September 10 to notify the county that we want to have that election for the May.

It would be in November, November 19.

The other information I have for you too is that a special election is considerably more expensive than when you consolidate on a primary or general, it can be anywhere from 400 to 500,000.

Okay.

Well, thank you so much.

Um, I wanted to leave that mayor uh for us to decide.

If we want to continue to move forward, let the voters decide.

I just want to make sure that we might have to we might still have some more work to do to deal with the reasonable distance because that hasn't fully been addressed.

So I'll leave it with you, Mayor.

Yeah.

Or we can trust the city manager to decide that since it's a personnel issue where it probably belongs to start with.

So on my right, any further comments on this?

Then we'll move to the left and I'll adjourn.

I'm very comfortable continuing to let the voters decide on this issue.

Thank you.

Same thing here, but uh the fact that I just uh check with the city manager that will fall under his review.

We will give him direction to deal with that because those will be his stuff he has to discuss the reasonable distance with not us.

It's not coming back to us.

Yeah, okay.

Nothing I heard tonight uh is different from what we went through the last 18 months, so I'm good with this.

Okay, that's what we happens.

Um, I agree.

I think we have done all of the checks and balances.

We had a citizens' review panel.

Um, we've heard loud and clear that that's the direction that they want, so we'll leave it up to the voters in my opinion.

Yeah, I do see uh at least one member of the charter review, Lisa Askey is in the audience.

Thank you for coming.

Do we have any other uh committee members?

Okay, all right, with that uh adjournal meeting.

We will be back on Thursday.

Thank you all.