Minutes of the Work Session held on February 2, 2026

Meeting Minutes 
City Council Work Session 
 
February 2, 2026 | 4:30 p.m. 
Council Chambers Conference Room 
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:38 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Council Attendance 
 
 
 
 
Appointee Attendance 
Mayor Kevin Hartke  
 
 
 
 
John Pombier, City Manager 
*Vice Mayor Angel Encinas 
 
 
 
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney  
*Councilmember Christine Ellis  
 
 
Dana DeLong, City Clerk 
Councilmember Jane Poston 
 
 
 
  
Councilmember Matt Orlando   
 
 
Councilmember OD Harris 
 
 
 
 
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins 
 
*Vice Mayor Encinas and Councilmember Ellis attended virtually.  
 
Staff in Attendance 
 
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager  
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer  
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager 
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager 
Alexis Apodaca, Mayor & Council Public Affairs Senior Manager 
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director 
Tawn Kao, Deputy City Attorney 
Jenny Winkler, Assistant City Attorney 
Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk 
Marge Zylla, Strategic Initiatives Director 
 
City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee Members in Attendance 
René Lopez, Chair

Page 2 of 13 
 
Jim Jurnak, Committee Member 
Lisa Askey, Committee Member 
Heather Anguiano, Committee Member 
 
 
Discussion 
1. 
Discussion and Presentation of the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee 
Recommendations  
 
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.  
 
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, introduced the discussion item. 
 
RYAN PETERS, Deputy City Manager, thanked committee members in attendance.  
 
RENÉ LOPEZ, Chair of the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee, presented the 
following presentation.  
• City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee Council Presentation  
• Background  
o The City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee was established by City 
Council in June 2025 to make recommendations on potential charter amendments 
to be considered for referral to the voters.  
o Members of the committee include:  
 Chair Rene Lopez 
 Pastor Brad Davis  
 Heather Anguiano  
 Ursula Gordwin  
 Sherida McMullan  
 Lisa Askey  
 Jim Jurnak  
 Jennifer Pawlik  
 Allison Stewart  
• Committee Review and Recommendation Process  
o Committee Review Charter & Identified Opportunities to Revise  
o Committee Consensus on Proposed Charter Revisions  
o Committee Directed Staff to Prepare Draft Charter Amendment Language for 
Consideration by Committee  
o Committee Makes Recommendations to Council on Proposed Charter Amendments  
• Recommendation No. 1 – Gender Neutrality, Grammar, Punctuation, Capitalization, & 
Elimination of Legalese  
o Description: Non-substantive changes to modernize and ensure consistency 
throughout the Charter.

Page 3 of 13 
 
o Key 
Changes: 
Applies 
across 
Articles 
II-X 
(e.g., 
gender 
neutrality, 
grammar/punctuation fixes, removal of legalese, consistent capitalization). Adds 
words like “city” before “manager” or “council”. 
o Committee Vote: Unanimous recommendation. 
o Visual: Green highlights from original summary. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked about the section of the charter that already addresses gender 
neutral language. She said she understood the existing charter language to be there because it 
would cover everything, as these changes would have to be voted on individually. She asked if this 
could be written in a way to make that change all in one vote.  
 
JENNY WINKLER, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it was reviewed with outside election 
attorneys whose opinion it was that the single subject rule for elections does not apply to charter 
amendments.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how this amendment would be presented to voters in a way 
that makes sense.  
 
MS. WINKLER said it is likely that the full text of the city charter would have to be included in the 
publicity pamphlet, as the language changes to modernize and ensure consistency occur 
throughout the whole document.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons  
• Recommendation No. 2 – Clarifying Changes  
o Description: Changes to clarify existing provisions, align with state law, and remove 
outdated initial-adoption language.  
o Key Changes:  
 Article I: Clarifies contract authority 
 Article II: Clarifies reimbursement policies, city employment prohibition, 
petition rights, eliminates outdated utility rate references.  
 Article X: Strikes obsolete initial-adoption sections.   
o Committee Vote: Unanimous recommendation  
o Visual: Blue highlights from original summary.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO stated this recommendation would likely contain many language 
changes like the first proposed recommendation. He asked about how this charter amendment 
would be proposed to voters.  
 
MR. LOPEZ noted that Recommendation 2 does not have as extensive language changes as 
Recommendation 1.

Page 4 of 13 
 
KELLY SCHWAB, City Attorney, explained that if Council wanted to refer both Recommendations 1 
and 2 to voters, the entire charter would likely be published with strikethroughs to show the 
proposed changes. Recommendation 2 would require only the articles with relevant changes to 
be published.  
 
MR. PETERS said the publicity pamphlet would contain the entirety of changed charter language, 
and the summary question on the ballot itself would be a shorter description for voters to 
understand. 
 
CO.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO emphasized that the intent behind the clarifying changes must be 
made clear to voters, so that voters understand that these changes are intended to make existing 
charter provisions easier to understand and interpret. The voters may think the removed 
language removes their rights but that is not the case.   
 
MS. SCHWAB said how the information is communicated to voters is key. Most of the language is 
clean up for language that is no longer relevant. The intent must be communicated to voters 
clearly, so it is understood that no rights are being lost. 
 
MR. PETERS added that in the existing charter it reads “the citizens of Chandler have a 
fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relations between city 
government and its managers,” the change would be to reword this phrase to include “fostering 
harmonious cooperative relationships among city government and its manager.”  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked what would happen if the first two recommendations did not pass.   
 
MR. LOPEZ said these are intended to be grammatical clean up changes, that will not change the 
intent of the charter.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Recommendation No. 3 – “Resign to Run” & Filing Council Vacancies (Sections 2.05 & 2.06) 
o Description: The proposed changes bring the charter’s “resign to run” provisions in 
line with Arizona state law (A.R.S. §38-296) by requiring the mayor or a 
councilmember intending to run for any other public office to resign upon filing 
nomination papers for that office.  
o Key Changes: Resign to Run: Brings local rules in line with A.R.S §38-296, which deems 
an incumbent to have offered themselves for nomination/election (triggering 
resignation) specifically on the “filing of a nomination paper” (per A.R.S. §38-296(b)). 
o Vacancy Filing: Provisions for filing vacancies in the office of mayor or councilmember  
are consolidated under section 2.06. The council has 45 days to fill the vacancy;

Page 5 of 13 
 
otherwise, it is filled at the forthcoming election or, if no election is forthcoming, at a 
special election held as soon as practicable.  
o Committee Vote: Unanimous recommendation.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the intent behind this recommendation is to update the charter to be in 
alignment with existing state law and current practice.  
 
MR. LOPEZ agreed.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that whenever state law changes, the city charter must be 
updated to stay current.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE affirmed that this recommendation is in line with state law.  
 
MR. LOPEZ said the provisions for filling vacancies in the office of mayor or councilmember are 
not outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about the resign to run provision in state law.  
 
MS. SCHWAB explained that the state law used to say, when an individual held themselves out for 
election, they had to resign from their current office in order to run. The question was when is the 
time when that applies, which was determined to mean at the time when the individual files signed 
petitions to campaign for the new office. Currently, the city charter as written could be interpreted 
differently, so this recommendation is to clear it up and align with state law.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if the current vague language applies to the current candidate 
election and if it constitutes a violation of the charter.  
 
MS. SCHWAB said no, the city charter language is consistent with the old practice of state law. That 
language was vague; thus, the state law was amended to require resignation upon filing of 
nomination petitions for office. This change is to make city charter language consistent with the 
actual practice of state law.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if this interpretation would affect Chandler’s current election 
practices.  
 
MS. SCHWAB said state law is of the highest authority. Regardless of what is written in the charter, 
the city must follow state law and constitutional provisions. It does not change any current election 
practices.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS summarized that Chandler must follow state election laws, so even if 
charter language is vague, the state interpretation must be followed.

Page 6 of 13 
 
MS. SCHWAB said there are different laws applying to different parts of municipal elections. The 
resign to run provision is in the state constitution. 
 
MR. PETERS explained the difference between the charter as written and the proposed change. 
The current language has a specific number of days before the election that someone must resign, 
but the update would contain language referencing filing nomination petitions for the new office 
sought. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said there have been several court cases for charter cities and asked 
if courts have been consistent in their ruling regarding election laws in city charters. 
 
MS. SCHWAB answered that this is a constitutional provision versus a legislative position, which is 
what the courts have determined.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS asked if there is existing language in the charter regarding vacancies 
in the office of mayor or councilmember. 
 
MR. LOPEZ said the recommendation is to have 45 days to fill the vacancy, otherwise the vacancy 
is filled at the next upcoming election.   
 
MAYOR HARTKE shared that the current language in the charter says Council has 30 days to fill 
the vacancy. This change is to extend the amount of time Council has to fill the vacancy to 45 days. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about the experience of filling a vacancy on Council.   
 
MAYOR HARTKE said they were able to get it done in thirty days, but announcements, applications, 
and then interviews all had to be completed in that time frame. It is possible but quick paced.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO agreed. 
 
MR. LOPEZ added that when this process was done before, it helped to know a councilmember 
was going to resign before they did. The heads up allowed them to prepare ahead of time. Not 
anticipating a vacancy may be a struggle to complete within that timeframe.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said he had wanted to know more about the situation and that context 
helps. 
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS thanked them for sharing that experience.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons

Page 7 of 13 
 
• Recommendation No. 4 – Authorization to Recognize City Departments with Council 
Approval (Section 2.08 & 2.13)  
o Description: Authorizes the city manager to establish and organize the offices and 
departments of the city subject to review and approval of the city council.  
o Key Changes: Eliminates ordinance requirements for establishing or altering city 
departments and provides for council review and approval of city manager’s 
proposed changes by resolution.  
o Committee Vote: 5-2 recommendation.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if there is state law regarding this subject.  
 
MS. SCHWAB said they will confirm that.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO spoke about the difference between ordinances and resolutions, 
approval by ordinance would be entered into city code while a resolution would not.   
 
MS. SCHWAB agreed.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked how the committee brought up this subject.  
 
MR. PETERS said this suggestion was brought up by city staff in prior discussions in order to 
streamline and promote operational efficiencies. These staff recommendations were presented 
to the charter committee for their consideration. This topic was reviewed by the committee.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS stated he felt like the accountability of establishing, organizing and altering 
departments should remain with Council.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons  
• Recommendation No. 5 – Elimination of the “Two-Readings” Requirement for Ordinances 
(Section 2.15)  
o Description: Eliminates the requirement that the city council consider an ordinance 
twice – as introduced and as adopted.  
o Key Changes: Removes the requirement for ordinances to be considered twice by the 
City Council.   
o Committee Vote: Unanimous recommendation.  
 
MR. PETERS added this was discussed in Council previously. The intent of this was to streamline 
charter language. This will help to improve the speed of business in housing and development 
projects. There is interest in maintaining two readings and allowing for citizen input on other types 
of ordinances, such as those related to fees and taxes. Further clarification on what ordinances 
require two readings would be put in ordinance.

Page 8 of 13 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the differentiation would be included in the charter.  
 
MR. PETERS said the staff recommendation was to be concise in the charter to reduce confusion. 
Instances of when two readings would be required can be approved by ordinance, which would 
be entered into city code.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the ordinances are currently two readings to allow for 
resident input.  
 
MR. LOPEZ said the minimum two reading requirement for all ordinances would be removed from 
the charter. Any types of ordinances that Council wished to have two reads on could still be done.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO emphasized his concern was for clarity in the charter.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON noted that other cities do this many different ways. She asked about 
the charter language for emergency meetings and ordinances.  
 
MS. SCHWAB said an emergency can be declared for an ordinance to be effective immediately. 
COVID-19 is an example of where an ordinance is effective immediately. Ordinances approved 
with an emergency clause are not subject to referendum. Ordinances cannot all be approved with 
emergency clauses, in order to protect the voter right to referendum. This authority is both in city 
charter and in state law. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said that is very specific language regarding emergencies and asked 
if there is a legal definition provided.   
 
MS. SCHWAB said there is language there that says it must be for an actual emergency, not just to 
increase the speed of business.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said his only experience with emergency meetings and ordinances was with 
COVID-19. He mentioned other cities may have declared emergencies for funding. 
 
MS. SCHWAB clarified that cities declaring an emergency for meetings and ordinances is different 
than declaring an emergency to get emergency funding, such as due to natural disasters. 
Emergency ordinances are not commonly used in the state. The Council would have to find if there 
is an emergency justifying the ordinance going into immediate effect rather than waiting the usual 
30 days.   
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons  
• Recommendation No. 6 – Add “gender” and “other protected status” as bases for prohibited 
discrimination (Section 9.02)

Page 9 of 13 
 
o Description: Expands prohibited discrimination grounds.  
o Key Changes: Adds “gender” and “other protected status” to existing list.  
o Committee Vote: Unanimous recommendation 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if this is a generally accepted practice.  
 
MS. SCHWAB said nondiscrimination language is included other places, such as personnel policies 
and the nondiscrimination ordinance, and are part of federal and state protected status. Charter 
amendments do not change the policies that are already in place. These protections exist in other 
areas.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS shared concerns about putting all these recommendations on the 
ballot for voters to consider. He asked if all charter amendments would be considered at once and 
how they would be presented to voters. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE said that would be up for discussion. This is the first review of this subject by 
Council.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation. 
• Other Charter City Comparisons  
• Recommendation No. 7 – Residency requirements for department directors (Section 9.03) 
o Description: Eliminates requirement that department heads establish residency in 
the city within six months of appointment; continues residency requirement for city 
manager; authorizes council to require residency as a condition for any other 
position council appoints.  
o Key changes: Removes automatic residency requirement for department directors.  
o Committee Vote: 5-2 recommendation.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for the committee’s perspective on this recommendation.  
 
MR. LOPEZ said considerations included community buy-in, the employment market and 
succession planning, and considerations where people live. He shared a situation where an 
appointed officer could not find housing in Chandler for their family.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said this would have to be made clear for other appointive officers: 
City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Magistrate.  
 
MR. LOPEZ continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons 
 
MR. PETERS continued the presentation.  
• Recommendation No. 8 Staff Recommendation for Additional Clarity (Section 2.03)

Page 10 of 13 
 
o Description: Provides additional clarity regarding the timing of the selection of the 
vice-mayor by codifying a long-standing past practice of the City Council.  
o Key Changes: Clarifies that the vice-mayor is selected at the first regular City Council 
meeting in January of each year, rather than within a specified number of days (31 
days).  
o Committee Vote: Not applicable – staff recommendation.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said single year vice mayor terms were introduced by a former mayor. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that there could be changes at the state level that affect this 
charter amendment, if it was tied to a specific month.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said the language could be amended to say when the Council takes office. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said that would be every two years.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked for the language in the charter that says this. 
 
JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk, read that within thirty-one (31) days after taking office, each council 
shall elect from among its members a vice-mayor who shall act as mayor during the temporary 
absence or disability of the mayor. The interpretation of this language is vague and could allow 
the term of vice mayor to be for two years. The suggested change would be to clarify selection of 
vice mayor to once yearly in January, for a one-year term.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO thanked the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee 
for their work on providing recommendations to Council.  
 
MR. LOPEZ said the committee looked at the charter with the intention to streamline and make it 
easier to understand. Some recommendations were provided by staff, and some were discussed 
by committee members but not recommended to Council.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested information on the other recommendations, as they may 
be valuable to consider. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE said the purview was to ask the committee to look at the entire charter. He 
thanked the committee for their work. 
 
MR. LOPEZ thanked staff for their hard work.  
 
MR. PETERS continued the presentation.  
• Other Charter City Comparisons  
• Current Estimated Election Costs

Page 11 of 13 
 
o Informational Pamphlet: 
 Varies by page count, arguments submitted, & postage  
 No pamphlet cost if no ballot measures on General Election 
o Additional Election Costs:  
 (~$9,000): translation, security, legal notices, etc. 
o Note: special election costs are higher because the costs are not shared unless other 
jurisdictions have ballot measures.  
• 2026 Election Timelines  
• 2027 Election Timelines  
• Thank you! 
• Questions  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the date of the primary election was moved, what would the new 
deadline be for the Council to vote on the call of election at a meeting. 
 
MR. PETERS said if the primary election date was moved up, it would have to be voted on at the 
next Council meeting.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked what would happen if the primary election date was moved up two weeks 
instead of the previously anticipated two weeks.  
 
MR. PETERS said a special meeting would have to be called for approval.  
 
DANA DELONG, City Clerk, explained that if the election date was moved two weeks earlier, the 
deadline for Council approval would be February 23, 2026. Council is planning a special meeting 
that day to call the election for the 2026 General Plan, and the charter amendment call to election 
could be at that same meeting. If the election date was moved one week earlier, the deadline 
would remain February 26 for the primary election.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO commented he would not be prepared to take this to a primary 
election. He asked if there is a franchise election planned for 2027. 
 
MR. PETERS replied that the recommendation for the franchise election with APS was for 
November 2026. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if both the charter amendments and franchise election went in November 
2026 at the general election, the franchise would bear some of the costs of the election in 
partnership with Chandler. 
 
MR. PETERS said that was correct.

Page 12 of 13 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked if the franchise election details needed to be discussed in executive 
session. 
 
MS. SCHWAB affirmed that it is okay to discuss the timing of the potential franchise election at 
this time. 
 
MR. PETERS asked for Council’s opinion on bringing charter amendments to a primary or a general 
election in 2026. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS requested staff recommendations for the timing of the election.  
 
MR. PETERS said staff recommendations regarding the timing of this election can be provided to 
Council. 
 
Council consensus was to bring City Charter amendments to the ballot in November 2026.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE commented that planning for the November 2026 general election will give 
Council until early June to discuss potential charter amendments.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO shared concerns about ballot fatigue on the November 2026 general 
election. He noted that the ballot items must be concise and clear for voters to understand. He 
emphasized bringing forward those ballot items that are important for Chandler voters.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE recommended that Council review charter amendments further to get all the 
information needed to feel confident putting this on the November 2026 general election.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS emphasized that educating the community on the charter and 
delivering information about proposed charter amendments will be key before this election.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said Council can ask staff to put together a communication plan to share 
information with residents on charter amendments. He added that members of the City Charter 
Amendment Resident Advisory Committee were passionate and can be part of the process of 
education in bringing these questions to the ballot.  
 
Public Comment 
None. 
 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m.

Page 13 of 13 
 
 
ATTEST:  _______________________  
______________________________ 
                       City Clerk                                                   Mayor 
 
 
Approval Date of Minutes:  February 26, 2026 
 
 
Certification 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work 
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 2nd day of February 2026.  I further 
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
DATED this _______ day of February, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
                                                         
           City Clerk