Richardson City Council District Boundary Commission March 22nd, 2022
Eight of the nine commissioners are present, Chairman Bryan Marsh, Vice-Chair Stephen Springs, Michael Keller, Sybil LaCour, Gwen Walraven, Joe Costantino, and Ken Southard. Alternates Gary Beach and Nate Roberts are also present.
Notably, Ken Southard is absent. Him being the Mayor’s campaign treasurer was one of my biggest concerns coming into this meeting, and he won’t even get to vote. Fantastic! We’re starting off well.
This commission gets formed every 10 years, prompted when a new census is taken. Its purpose is to determine if changes should be made to city council district boundaries in order to even out the district after the most recently documented population changes. Traditionally, the City Planning Commission, including alternates, is appointed to serve as the Council District Boundary Commission. In Richardson, we have at-large voting for all city council positions. With this current system of voting, one of the main factors to consider in deciding district boundaries is the requirement for councilmembers to reside in the district they are running for in places 1-4. Places 5 and 6 are at-large councilmembers that have no district-specific residency requirements. It is worth noting that Richardson ISD, which covers the majority Dallas County portion of Richardson, parts of the North Dallas and Lake Highlands areas of Dallas, and a small portion of Garland, was forced to move to single-member districts via a Voting Rights Act lawsuit in 2019. 5 of the RISD School Board places are now only voted for by members of the district they represent, while 2 members still represent the district at-large. The City of Richardson and Richardson ISD governing areas share approximately 35% of the same area, so I could definitely see the Richardson City Council flipping in that time to support either single-member districts or ranked-choice voting, at least that’s what we’ll push for. I hope it doesn’t take a lawsuit to realize this change.
The meeting begins with approving the minutes of the work sessions of this commission. They are adopted unanimously.
Staff introduces the requirements of the Council District Boundary review, and the public hearing begins. Staff recommends a maximum population deviation of no more than 10% across all districts. Staff presents the two options. Option A meets all consideration requirements. Option B has one major difference that doesn’t quite meet the consideration requirements. Option B would split the CityLine neighborhood, a major mixed-use development that centers around the State Farm corporate hub and includes many different apartment communities along with retail, dining, and open spaces to enjoy concerts etc. (This is my neighborhood, so I had something to say about it.) Canyon Creek, one of the most affluent neighborhoods of Richardson currently sits in the same district as CityLine, District 4. (I don’t think it was just a coincidence that Option B carved out and split up CityLine into another district. They split the CityLine neighborhood by the DART rail line, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense to me when all the other boundaries are roads and/or creeks. Luckily, we don’t have to worry too much about Option B with the result of the vote at the end. One resident has also pointed out to me that both options move the Mark Twain neighborhood from District 4 to District 1 and could create a minority opportunity voting district if we move to a single-member district voting system.) Up until this public hearing, several commissioners didn’t see the CityLine neighborhood as something that should be given the “neighborhood splitting” consideration. Commissioner Beach even thought that the split only affected commercial property according to the detailed minutes from the work session, which is completely untrue. Chairman Marsh asks staff to clarify the meaning of “communities of interest”. (Something that traditionally refers mostly to homeowner’s associations.) Staff clarifies that CityLine could be considered a “community of interest” due to the many shared amenity and recreation spaces. Staff also clarifies that CityLine is different from traditional gated garden-style apartment communities. (Both points that I raised in my public comment that had not been considered thus far.) Vice-Chairman Springs asks about the population of the CityLine area west of the proposed split in Option B. Staff clarifies that there are roughly 700 apartment units existing and roughly 60 new townhomes being built in that area. (So not a solely commercial area as Commissioner Beach tried to purport, but an area with over a thousand residents.)
No speakers are present and only one comment card was received. (Mine!) Chairman Marsh asks if they should consider continuing the public hearing to potentially entertain other options besides the two presented this evening. Staff points out that, while this is an option, the community has had sufficient time and avenues for public input and recommends they continue deliberations until they decide on a recommendation with the public hearing remaining open.
Commissioner Walraven is first to state her opinion. She expresses that she is inclined to support Option A, so as not to split CityLine. Then, Commissioner LaCour. She states that she was initially supportive of Option B due to the lower population deviation. The public comment submitted changed her mind and she now supports Option A. She also states that she doesn’t support extending this process to consider other options as these are both high quality options. Next is Vice-Chairman Springs. He also states that he was initially supportive of Option B, but now supports Option A. Now it’s Commissioner Beach’s turn. He states that he is still supportive of Option B. He also states that one resident’s opinion doesn’t matter all that much and that, since we have at-large voting, it doesn’t really matter at all. (Why the hell are you on the commission then if it doesn’t matter to you? We’ll fix that in August.) Commissioner Costantino also expresses his support for Option A. Commissioner Roberts references Commissioner Beach’s remarks. He states that, while the public comment submitted only reflects one opinion, he also recognizes the time and effort put into this comment which swayed him towards Option A as well. He also does not support continuing the process to entertain other potential options. Commissioner Keller is the last to express his opinion before Chairman Marsh wraps up the remarks. He states that he also does not see a need to entertain other potential options given the amount of work staff has put into these two current options. He also references Commissioner Beach’s remarks and disagrees with Beach stating the boundaries don’t matter. Councilmembers will always make decisions in the best interest of the neighborhoods they represent. He agrees that the neighborhood should not be split, expressing support for Option A. Chairman Marsh concludes by stating that he was originally supportive of Option A, then Option B because of the slightly lower population deviation. However, the public comment “struck a chord” with him and he is now supportive of Option A. He notes that one reason to avoid neighborhood splitting is the possibility of two councilmembers serving from the same neighborhood, thus potentially giving it more representation. Sam Chavez, Director of Development Services for the city, inserts a final comment referencing the final line of my public comment. He states the following, “What’s unique in the public comment [the commission] received today is that the vision for CityLine was to create a community. And this gentleman, in writing, said that ‘We are a community’. And so, that vision came to fruition today...” (Thank you, Sam.)
The commission votes to close the public hearing and recommend Option A. The vote is 7-1, with Gary Beach being the lone dissenting vote. The city council will now take action at a future meeting to adopt an ordinance changing the district boundaries. (And I will now begin taking action to replace Commissioner Beach with someone more competent.) Staff mentions they will need a short reconvening of this commission prior to the next CPC meeting in order to adopt the minutes of this meeting.
Adjourned.