Chandler City Council Study Session: Proposition 434 Withdrawal Discussion - July 14, 2026

On July 14, 2026, the Chandler City Council held a study session following a regular meeting. The primary focus was a discussion on whether to withdraw Proposition 434, a charter amendment addressing residency requirements for council-appointed positions and department directors. The meeting began with the approval of the consent agenda, then moved to the study session where council members heard presentations from staff and the city attorney, and ultimately expressed consensus to leave the measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot for voters to decide.

Consent Calendar

• The council unanimously approved the consent agenda (items 1 through 4) from the July 13, 2026 regular meeting, as moved by the Vice Mayor and seconded by Councilmember Arlando.

Discussion Items

• Proposition 434 Background: Deputy City Manager Ryan Peters outlined the history of the charter review process that began in April 2025. A citizen charter review committee held six public meetings and forwarded eight recommendations to council in February 2026. After prioritization, council advanced four amendments to the ballot, including Proposition 434, which requires all council-appointed positions (city manager, city magistrate, city clerk, city attorney) to reside in Chandler within one year of appointment (extending the current six-month requirement). The other three amendments clarify vice mayor selection timing, align resigned-to-run provisions with state law, and remove the two-reading requirement for ordinances to speed business.
• City Attorney's Explanation: The city attorney clarified that Proposition 434 sets a clear residency requirement for appointed officials and a "reasonable distance" requirement for other employees, but does not define "reasonable distance" or "residency." These terms could be defined later by ordinance or policy. Council would need to address definitions if the measure passes.
• City Manager's Testimony: City Manager stated the current charter requires him and eight department heads to live in Chandler, but there is no penalty for noncompliance. He affirmed he has moved into the city and has communicated expectations to staff. He emphasized that location does not guarantee community presence, and that he values competitive recruitment and retention. He noted that a long-term employee living just outside Chandler should not be disqualified if they demonstrate commitment and presence.
• Councilmember Harris's Questions: Councilmember Harris, who brought the item forward, asked about compliance enforcement, the city manager's discretion over personnel matters, and the lack of a defined radius in Proposition 434. The city attorney confirmed that personnel issues are not within council's purview, and that council only directly hires four positions. Councilmember Harris noted that the measure does not address "reasonable distance" and that council would need to return to that topic if the measure passes.
• Council Consensus: Councilmembers expressed comfort letting voters decide. Councilmember Poston noted the 18-month process; Councilmember Hawkins highlighted the citizen review panel's work. Councilmember Ellis said he trusted the city manager to handle reasonable distance as a personnel matter and did not expect it to return to council.

Key Outcomes

• No Vote to Withdraw: Council did not take a vote on withdrawing Proposition 434. Instead, consensus was to leave the measure on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot.
• Deadline for Withdrawal: The city clerk reported that the deadline to withdraw a ballot measure is August 20, 2026 (75 days before the election). No changes to the language are allowed after submission.
• Future Action on Reasonable Distance: If the measure passes, council will need to define "reasonable distance" by ordinance or policy. The city manager indicated he would propose a policy addressing time-to-respond and community presence for department directors.
• Special Election Option: If withdrawn, a special election in an odd-numbered year would cost $400,000–$500,000 (March or May 2027). Council did not discuss pursuing this option.
• Next Regular Meeting: The council will reconvene on Thursday, July 16, 2026.