I don’t know if I’d call residency requirements a hill I’d die on, but I also don’t think the Charter should be changed on the subject.

When the question of residency requirements came up in June at a workshop, the original request was what is on the agenda this week “appropriate means by which the Mayor can reframe, and City Council can approve the application of 6.01 to be limited to only those that report directly to the Mayor.” The Mayor was interpreting the Charter broadly and I believe there is a way to use the org chart that makes clear who the admins are that directly report to the mayor. It’s less than 10. Plus the named positions in the Charter—CFO, Chiefs of Police & Fire. Currently the Admin is applying the standard to more than 24 department heads and deputy admins. The City Attorney indicated she believed through a resolution and executive order the interpretation could be more narrowly defined, thus limiting the residency requirements to just the very top decision makers and named positions in the Charter. Again, that is the Charter now. There is a 3 year waiver period. For the top paid, most important decision makers we should hope are long term parts of our city. Council voted 5-2 with Carlson and Hurtak opposing to put the question to the voters on a presidential ballot that also includes the CIT renewal.

Two weeks ago under new business, Council member Viera motioned for a waiver to allow his appointment to the Citizen’s Budget Advisory Committee to be a non-resident of the city. Item 64 Thursday is a motion to amend the Citizen’s Budget Advisory Committee resolution to allow for members to be either a resident, a business owner or a former city employee (within 10 years of appointment). The motion to bring this back passed 4-3 with Clendenin, Hurtak and Carlson voting no. Hurtak and Carlson have been consistent about maintaining the residency requirements in the Charter. Clendenin had a visceral reaction to the idea of a “Citizen advisor” not being a resident. I’ve expressed that’s how I feel thinking about the Chief of Police living in Pasco County.

I’m not a lawyer, but the language in 6.01 seems to be the same for department heads as it is for board members. However Council Attorney Shelby informed me there are numerous citizen board members that are not residents and are not bound by the Charter language for Boards. All Boards are not created equal it seems. If I ever get time, I’ll explore exactly which boards are and aren’t bound by that provision. Apparently there are seats on some boards that require such a specialized profession that not a single person living in Tampa city limits can fulfill.

I think if Council was going to consider Charter amendments for the 2024 ballot, that should have been a more public process that considered any other outdated or ambiguous language. Not a knee jerk reaction to a singular item. I also think from the concept of a governing document like a Charter, or Constitution all attempts to remedy the problem should be attempted before resorting to changing the language. I believe the discussion that is being continued until after the election is that last attempt to remedy ambiguity without altering the core document. I also think the Chief of Police should live in the city they serve. I’m also open to starting discussions about the city annexing more of the County.