Willow Park is updating its Comprehensive Plan — the city’s long-range guide for how it grows, develops, and sets priorities. The last plan was adopted in 2014. As an early step, the city and its consultant, ZacTax, ran a community survey and presented the results to the City Council on June 23, 2026 (Item 8). This page summarizes those findings and points to the official documents; the survey, the report, and the analysis are the city and consultant’s work, linked above.
This was a voluntary, opt-in survey, not a scientific poll. It drew about 298 responses from residents who chose to participate, so the results reflect the views of engaged residents who took part — not a random, statistically representative sample of the whole city. ZacTax, the city’s consultant, notes the same caveat in its report. The figures below describe what respondents said, and should be read as “of those who answered,” not “all of Willow Park.”
The survey is just one early step. There are still public workshops and draft reviews to come, and the city runs an official engagement site — WillowParkPlan.com — where you can read every document, sign up for updates, and find event dates as they are scheduled. If you care about how Willow Park grows, that is the place to weigh in. Visit WillowParkPlan.com →
The survey ran for twelve weeks, from March 11 to June 5, 2026, and was extended to keep participation open during election season. It included 18 questions, a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended. The city reached residents through a mailed postcard with a QR code, posters at local businesses, Facebook posts, and website and text blasts.
Among those who responded, 96 percent live within the city limits or its extraterritorial jurisdiction and 94 percent are homeowners. The largest age group was 35 to 54 (46 percent), with residents 65 and older making up 31 percent. Respondents skewed toward higher education, with more than 70 percent holding a four-year degree or more. The consultant flagged that residents aged 18 to 34 were underrepresented and said additional outreach is planned. All twelve of the city’s neighborhoods were represented, with the largest shares of responses coming from Willow Crest/Squaw Creek (22 percent), Willow Wood (16 percent), and Trinity Meadows and El Chico (12 percent each).
Asked which values should guide the city’s planning decisions, respondents placed two nearly even at the top: smart, planned growth and genuine public participation in decisions.
| Smart Growth | 28% — planned, sustainable development |
| Community & Civic Engagement | 27.7% — genuine public participation in decisions |
| Small-Town Character | 19% — preserve the city’s scale and identity |
| Quality of Life | 18% — safety, amenities, walkability |
| Economy & Fiscal Responsibility | 16.6% — growth that strengthens fiscal health |
Small-town character was the most-cited strength by a wide margin.
| Small-Town Character | 34.6% — the atmosphere, feel, and pace of a small town |
| Location & Access | 20.4% — between Fort Worth and Weatherford, with I-20 access |
| Local Businesses | 18.3% — The District, shops, and boutiques |
| Parks & Trails | 14.2% — Kings Gate Park, greenbelts, walking trails |
| Community Spirit | 9.0% — neighbors who know and look out for one another |
Road repair was the most widely shared concern across all parts of the city.
| Road Repair | 39% — the most widely shared concern citywide |
| Parks & Green Space | 21% — more trails, trees, and preserved natural areas |
| Growth Management | 20% — development paced to what infrastructure can support |
| Infrastructure Gaps | 16% — aging utilities and city systems |
| City Leadership | 15% — a desire for unified, transparent governance |
The consultant noted that respondents tended to link road quality directly to growth outpacing maintenance.
Property taxes led this question by a wide margin.
| Property Taxes | 35.5% — cited most often, across ages and incomes |
| Roads & Streets | 18.4% — pavement condition and deferred maintenance |
| Water Supply | 14.3% — aging lines, quality, cost, and capacity |
| Infrastructure Aging | 12.6% — drainage and utilities, maintained before expansion |
| Elected-Official Effectiveness | 11.3% — stability, accountability, and transparency |
Because property taxes were the top concern, the report compared Willow Park’s 2025 tax rate against seven neighboring cities. By that measure, Willow Park’s rate sits third-lowest of the group.
| Aledo | $0.355 per $100 valuation |
| Weatherford | $0.392 |
| Willow Park | $0.421 |
| Springtown | $0.494 |
| Mineral Wells | $0.571 |
| Azle | $0.624 |
| Fort Worth | $0.670 |
The report observed that tax concern was roughly flat across every age group, and suggested it is likely driven by rising appraisal values rather than the rate itself — pointing to clearer communication about how tax dollars are used as one response.
Two patterns stood out when the consultant broke the results down further.
A north–south split. Northern neighborhoods cited road conditions far more often than southern ones (44 percent versus 26 percent) and reported lower satisfaction with city communication (2.74 versus 3.06 on a five-point scale). Concern about water supply, by contrast, was about even across the city at roughly 23 percent.
Tenure, more than age. How long someone had lived in Willow Park shaped their answers more than their age did. Newer residents (ten years or fewer) named small-town feel as the top asset more often (41 percent versus 28 percent) and cited overdevelopment as a pressure more often. Longer-tenured residents (eleven years or more) were more likely to name city leadership as a challenge (19 percent versus 9 percent). Both groups landed at about the same level on smart growth (around 28 percent) and property taxes (around 36 percent).
Only 28 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with current city communication. Asked how they prefer to be reached, the most common answers were an email newsletter, Facebook, direct mail, and the city website, in that order.
These are the report’s own takeaways to Council, presented here as the consultant’s interpretation rather than as WPCN’s conclusions. The consultant offered four:
First, that property-tax concern is citywide rather than a senior issue, and is better understood as a question of affordability and transparency. Second, that length of residency, not age, was the main dividing line in responses. Third, that concerns clustered geographically, with northern neighborhoods pointing to roads and a far-southern area showing low communication satisfaction. And fourth, what the report called a clear mandate: that respondents value the city’s small-town character, worry that growth is eroding it, and expect roads, water, and infrastructure to keep pace with development.
The survey is an early step in a longer process. According to the project timeline, the kickoff and the community survey are complete. Still ahead are the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee’s first meeting, two in-person public workshops (dates not yet scheduled), committee and City Council reviews of the drafted vision and themes, a community review of the draft plan, staff review, and finally a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council ahead of adoption.
Residents who want to weigh in directly — including the two upcoming public workshops, once dates are set — can follow the city’s official project site at WillowParkPlan.com, where the city posts updates, documents, and event announcements. WPCN will note the workshop dates here and in our meeting coverage as they are scheduled.
