MURRAY -- The City Council will revisit an old battleground Tuesday night when it considers a proposal to revise its residency requirement law.
Adopted in a special meeting last Dec. 30, the ordinance requires the city's police chief, fire chief, public works director, executive director to the City Council and the mayor's administrative assistant to live in Murray.But since four of the people now holding those posts already live in Murray, opponents of the residency law contend it is directed at Mayor Dan Snarr's chief of staff, Salt Lake City resident D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli.
The way the ordinance is currently structured, Pignanelli will have to move to Murray by the first of January or lose her job.
Council members will consider a proposed amendment to the ordinance Tuesday night that would eliminate the residency requirement for Pignanelli and council director Shannon Jacobs.
That would leave Pignanelli's job intact but require the remaining three department heads to live in Murray.
The residency law was adopted under contentious circumstances as the council held a special afternoon meeting, two days before three lame-duck city officials -- two council members and former Mayor Lynn Pett -- were due to leave office.
Pett declined to veto the law, and Snarr pledged to revisit the residency issue by the end of his first year in office.
How the vote will come out Tuesday night is difficult to assess.
The law was originally adopted by a 4-0 vote, but the council composition has been changed somewhat by elections and resignations.
Councilman John Rush and former Councilman John Ward, who was elected in November 1997 but resigned last August for personal reasons, both firmly opposed the ordinance last December.
Councilman Gary Ferrero, who voted for the law, resigned last summer to become the judge for Murray's new justice court. Ward has since been replaced on the council by the man he defeated at the polls, veteran Councilman Lynn Turner.
That means three of the council members who voted for the law are still on the council, leaving them in the majority unless one or more of them have changed their minds on the requirement.
While there have been rumors one or two council members may have had a change of heart, none has discussed the residency issue publicly in recent months.