Legislation Details

File #: 26-0911    Version: 1 Name:
Type: General Business Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 6/18/2026 In control: City Commission Regular Meeting
On agenda: 7/21/2026 Final action:
Title: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Charter Review Advisory Board Recommendation Memorandum for Charter Officer Residency and Commission and Staff Interaction.
Attachments: 1. Memorandum, 2. 6-17-26 CRAB Minutes
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the North Port Commission

FROM: Heather Faust, MMC, FCPC, City Clerk

TITLE: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Charter Review Advisory Board Recommendation Memorandum for Charter Officer Residency and Commission and Staff Interaction.


Recommended Action

I move to direct the City Attorney to draft a referendum question(s) utilizing the language recommended by the Charter Review Advisory Board to be brought back to the City Commission for review.

City Commission Options

Option 1: I move to direct the City Attorney to draft a referendum question(s) utilizing the language recommended by the Charter Review Advisory Board to be brought back to the City Commission for review.

* Pro: Advances the Charter Review Advisory Board's recommendation in its current form, allowing the City Commission to review a formal referendum question that expands the eligible applicant pool while preserving the Commission's ability to impose stricter requirements through employment Contracts.

* Con: Moving forward with the Board's recommended language may limit the opportunity for the City Commission to refine the residency framework before a referendum question is drafted.

Option 2: I move to direct the City Attorney to draft the following referendum question(s) utilizing the following language: (Insert language) to be brought back to the City Commission for review.

* Pro: Allows the City Commission to tailor the proposed Charter amendment language before legal drafting, ensuring the referendum question reflects the Commission's preferred policy direction.

* Con: Modifying the recommended language may require additional discussion and could delay the process if the Commission does not reach consensus on the alternative language.

Option 3: I move to decline further action at this time and direct the City Clerk to notify the Charter Review Advisory Board.

* Pro: Maintains the existing City-only residency requirement and avoids placing a ...

Click here for full text