Council Recap: Comply Narrowly or Surrender Broadly

Source: h/t ChatGPT.

The Richardson City Council met June 15, 2026, with an agenda that did not presage anything particularly comment-worthy. But public comments spurred discussion that proved me wrong. One was about water rates. One was about an unwelcome business in the neighborhood. And another was about the state overriding local control on zoning matters. Much of the night's deliberations turned on the same question: when Austin tells Richardson what it can no longer regulate, should the city comply narrowly or surrender broadly?

---

Water Rates

In a public comment about last week's meeting, Justin Neth pointed out that a slide presented indicated that residential customers are paying a disproportionate share of water-system costs. He said, "Residents consumed 36% of the city's water," yet residents are projected to pay "roughly 39.4% of water sales revenue." He argued that instead "if residents only pay 36% of this current budget year's water revenues, that would be a difference of over $2.4 million. If you divide $2.4 million by the 29,600 residential water accounts, each account could save almost $82 for the year."

Neth's suggestion might already be in the works. At its June 8, 2026, meeting, the City Council reviewed the city's water and sewer rate structure. City Manager Don Magner recommended moving to a "meter equivalency" plan that would gradually increase the base charge for larger meters. That would shift bigger cost increases onto commercial users over residential users. The City Council is scheduled to set the new rates at its June 22, 2026, meeting.

Definition of Family (ZF 26-09)

Richardson's existing zoning ordinance restricts occupancy based on familial relationships and numbers of unrelated persons, both of which have now been prohibited under recent state law. A proposed new definition of "family" would allow "any number of persons occupying a single dwelling unit." The city would still retain building-code and fire-code enforcement authority to limit the number of occupants in buildings.

City Manager Don Magner said the wording in the ordinance "is kind of irrelevant", that "the maximum occupancy of any dwelling is limited by the International Property Maintenance Code, which we adopt locally in Chapter 6. And so regardless of the wording or the semantics of the way it's described, the occupancy is going to be limited." But surrendering on maximum occupancy does not mean the city has to surrender more broadly. That brings us to another public comment.

Courtney Barker said that she was "not opposed to state law compliance. I'm asking for precision because in land use law, vague language is not neutral. It's an invitation." She went on, "No Texas court has yet interpreted whether Senate Bill 1567 constitutionally overrides the Home Rule authority the city holds under Article 11, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution...Until a court rules, the narrowest possible compliance path is the prudent choice, not the broadest."

This is the "Don't surrender in advance" principle. Forcing state authorities to actively enforce rules restricting local government reveals the limits of state power and exposes their overreach. Barker said, "I'm asking that that 'any number of persons' be replaced with language requiring primary residency, a single lease or ownership arrangement, and shared household expenses, and that the language 'single housekeeping unit,' which is already in the definition, be defined to require that occupants' decisions are made collectively by the residents themselves, not by any outside organization or operator." So she is defining "family" not by relations or numbers, but by how families operate.

She anticipates the kinds of housing arrangements that Richardson might want to prohibit, and might still be allowed to prohibit with precise language, but could not prohibit with the new broad and loose language being proposed. Specific examples of businesses that could exploit the loopholes in imprecise language would complete her argument. Maybe she did. She said, "I have submitted proposed replacement language in writing tonight" but that submission was not made available to the public, so I can't review it here.

(I don't think her submitted proposal will ever be uploaded to a public place, which is criticism I have of how Richardson documents inputs to meetings, but that's something I won't go into here.)

You could tell Barker's comment caused some on the Council to slow down. Council Member Barrios said, "I will say in four years of serving on the council, I don't know if I've ever heard such a convincing speaker at that podium."

The Council ultimately decided to continue the public hearing on this agenda item, allowing the City Attorney to attend and answer City Council's questions about the reasoning behind his recommendation. Perhaps the council could wordsmith the ordinance in a way that would both comply with state law and retain more local power over this matter. The motion to continue this until July 16 was approved 5-1, with Council Member Jennifer Justice absent.

Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider was having none of it. He was the lone vote against continuing the public hearing. He said, "We have a professional attorney who we hire every year to review all of these things and he's telling us this is the language that..." He didn't finish that thought. This is the language that...what? The only language that complies with the new state law? The language least likely to invite a lawsuit? Surely not the only possible language.

In my view, Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider pays too much deference to the City Attorney. The motivations of the City Attorney and the City Council are not the same. The City Attorney represents City government. His higher priority is to keep the city from getting sued. Broad wording of the definition of "family" is one way of achieving that. The City Council represents the people of Richardson. Their higher priority is to set policy according to community standards. Weighing the risk of getting sued against that priority is a political question that only they can answer. The City Attorney can offer legal advice, but he cannot decide political questions.

The Council smartly wanted to explore other ways to comply with state law. They wanted the City Attorney to be present to answer legal questions. The City Manager himself said, "There is no urgency in taking an action tonight." Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider admitted that he, too, had concerns, but despite those concerns, he did not ultimately join the effort to postpone consideration for additional legal analysis.

I hope someone else on Council comes back July 16 with alternative language that provides more precise limits on what kinds of living arrangements constitute a "family" in a way that meets both community desires and state law. As Barker herself warned, the Amazon drone special permit that this council granted in 2025 without adequate "what-if" consideration means we now have to live with the consequences. Don't make the same mistake again.

Home Businesses (ZF 26-10)

If the case of defining "family" raises the question of how narrowly Richardson could comply with state law, the home-business case shows what happens when Austin leaves almost no room for local judgment at all.

Another speaker gave a heartfelt request for help in a dispute with a neighbor across the street from her house. She reports that the neighbor has "a mechanic shop, and this is a residential area, and there is a lot of cars coming in and out." She went on to say that the mechanic got aggressive when she complained to him.

That led into the City Council's other agenda item on new state laws limiting the city's enforcement ability regarding home-based businesses. The city proposed zoning changes to bring Richardson's ordinances into compliance with new state law. The city emphasized that the city is not pursuing these changes as a policy choice, but simply to comply with state mandates. The Council members who showed the most discomfort in accepting the city's proposed changes without exploring all avenues were showing that their priority was with the residents of Richardson.

In the end, not many options were offered. In effect, a homeowner has the right to run a home-based business. He can choose between a "HOME OCCUPATION" and a "HOME-BASED BUSINESS (NO-IMPACT)." The difference? Home occupations cannot occupy more than 20% of the home and must have no outside operations. Home-based businesses (no-impact) can occupy 100% of the property, indoors and out, but cannot generate any on-street parking.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but from my viewpoint, our Richardson resident with an auto mechanic across the street is SOL. The Legislature has decided that protecting residential neighborhoods from unwanted commercial activity is less important than protecting the right to operate a business from home. As long as the mechanic doesn't park on the street and keeps his noise down, our overlords in Austin have dramatically reduced Richardson's ability to keep auto repair businesses out of residential neighborhoods.

---

Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

---

"City attorney
Guards against tomorrow's suit.
Council guards the town."
—h/t ChatGPT