This is a heavy, decision-packed meeting. The Council faces roughly $16.5 million in potential new borrowing across two items handled very differently: a $6,430,000 tax note for streets and drainage that needs no public vote (Item 6), and a November 3 special election asking voters to authorize up to $10,110,000 in certificates of obligation for water, sewer, streets, and drainage (Item 7). The certificate-of-obligation question is not new — a citizen petition asked that voters decide the debt instead.
That same November 3 ballot would also carry the Home Rule Charter (Item 15), with Item 16 (a Parker County joint-election contract) as the vehicle for both. City Manager Toni Fisher’s contract returns for a third straight meeting, in open session (Item 14) and closed session (Item 18).
Two small annexations, decommissioning of the old wastewater plant, a social-media policy for elected officials, and quarterly finance and public-works reports fill out the agenda — with the finance report showing legal costs running well over budget amid the city’s active litigation.
Presiding: Mayor Teresa Palmer. Council: Eric Contreras, Chawn Gilliland, Buddy Wright, Scott Smith, and Nathan Crummel (Mayor Pro Tem). City Manager: Toni Fisher. Invocation: Pastor Matt Lantz, Christ Chapel Bible Church. Agenda: 22 numbered items, including a three-item executive (closed) session. Posted: August 5, 2026 at 6:00 PM.
The Council last met July 14 and July 28 (minutes for both are in this packet). Most of the summer’s recurring threads — a proposed Code of Conduct, the City Manager’s contract, the Mayor’s agenda-setting concerns, and data-center subdivision rules in the ETJ — drew discussion but no final action, and the data-center item is not on this agenda. Operationally, Public Works reported the new wastewater plant at 94–95% and entering testing, and a Texas Municipal League advertisement for the Police Chief position was halted pending the search.
The meeting opens with the invocation (Pastor Matt Lantz, Christ Chapel Bible Church), the pledges, and the Mayor’s standing comments (a Bible verse and business recognition). A North Texas representative of the Texas Court Clerks Association will then present a plaque to Certified Municipal Court Clerk and Court Administrator Michelle Lowe.
Lowe was recognized at the July 14 meeting for completing Level III Court Clerk Certification, the highest certification level for court clerks in Texas. This item is ceremonial; no Council action is required.
The briefing sheet reports the new wastewater treatment plant at 95% completion, with a phased startup and equipment/SCADA testing schedule running through September. On the water system, the city logged 31 significant water leaks between January 1 and July 31, 2026, losing about 364,500 gallons — 111,000 gallons of that on Squaw Creek Road. Monthly produced water (well production plus Fort Worth purchases) ran between roughly 22.5 and 26.7 million gallons per month January through June.
The Squaw Creek Road water loss lands in the same meeting as a tax-note vote (Item 6) that would finance street and drainage work; prior reporting has tied the tax-note mechanism to the Squaw Creek Road project. It is worth watching whether the road and utility work there are being coordinated.
A September testing finish for the new plant sets up the decommissioning of the old plant in Item 8.
The report covers nine months of the city’s 12-month fiscal year (October through June). Actual results against the full-year budget as of June 30:
| General Fund | Revenue $4,660,338 · Expense $4,050,176 · Net +$610,162 |
| Water Fund | Revenue $2,904,237 · Expense $3,147,969 · Net −$243,732 |
| Wastewater Fund | Revenue $1,518,719 · Expense $1,359,654 · Net +$159,065 |
Total cash across all funds was about $18.57 million as of June 30, down from $19.37 million at March 31 and $20.09 million at the start of the fiscal year — largely reflecting capital spending. Among the major capital trackers: the Fort Worth water line is 100% built (about $1.0 million of proceeds remaining); the wastewater package plant has roughly $4.78 million left to spend; and the water/sewer line extension has about $3.43 million remaining.
Through nine months, the General Fund’s city-attorney line (10-005-58416) shows about $403,200 spent against a $100,000 annual budget — more than four times the budgeted amount, roughly $303,000 over. The Water Fund’s legal line shows about $218,775 against $150,000.
Combined, legal costs are running well above budgeted amounts. This is consistent with the city’s several active lawsuits (the Beall-Dean Ranch annexation suit in Item 17 and the Halff Associates litigation referenced in prior meetings). Reported here as a budget fact, not a conclusion about any case.
The Council will consider Ordinance No. 943-26 authorizing the issuance and sale of the “City of Willow Park, Texas, Tax Note, Series 2026” in an amount not to exceed $6,430,000, to finance contractual obligations for streets, roads, and intersections — including drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, signage, traffic signalization, utility relocation, and right-of-way acquisition — plus issuance costs. A tax note is a short-term, tax-backed borrowing tool authorized under Chapter 1431 of the Texas Government Code.
| Amount | Not to exceed $6,430,000 |
| Dated / maturity | September 9, 2026; matures February 15, 2033 |
| Installments | $715,000 to $1,215,000 annually, 2027–2033 |
| Interest rate | Left blank in the draft; set when the note is priced/sold |
| Security | Continuing direct annual ad valorem (property) tax |
| Authority | Texas Government Code Chapter 1431 (no election required) |
Unlike voter-approved general obligation bonds, a Chapter 1431 tax note does not require an election and carries a maximum seven-year maturity — which matches the 2027–2033 schedule here. It is a faster, lower-cost way to fund construction the city treats as a contractual obligation. Prior reporting has connected the city’s tax-note financing to the Squaw Creek Road project; the ordinance’s stated purpose is written broadly to cover street, road, and drainage work generally.
This $6.43 million can be borrowed without a public vote (legal for a tax note) and without the 5% petition step that applies to certificates of obligation. In the same meeting, Item 7 covers a larger, similar-purpose package that a citizen petition already pushed toward a vote — so watch how the two financing routes are meant to fit together.
The interest rate and final structure are set at pricing; residents won’t see the true cost until the note is sold.
The Council will consider calling a special election on whether it may issue up to $10,110,000 in certificates of obligation (COs) for: (i) waterworks and sewer system improvements; (ii) streets, roads, intersections, and drainage; (iii) the municipal drainage utility system; and (iv) related professional services — including adopting an ordinance to that effect.
Under the Texas Certificate of Obligation Act (Local Government Code Ch. 271, Subchapter C), COs normally require no election; a city publishes a notice of intent, and a vote is triggered only if at least 5% of qualified voters petition for one. That is what happened here. Earlier in 2026, the Council moved to issue roughly $10 million in COs for infrastructure repairs on Squaw Creek Road and neighboring streets, but a citizen petition asked that voters decide the debt instead. The question is now being set for November 3. The current ballot figure is $10,110,000.
A Chapter 1431 tax note (Item 6) is tax-backed but does not require an election and is not subject to the same 5% petition mechanism that stopped the COs. So the two items on this agenda would fund similar street-and-drainage work by two different routes: about $6.43 million the Council can approve on its own, and $10.11 million that must go to voters because of the petition. Together they contemplate roughly $16.5 million.
Whether the Council intends to pursue both the tax note and the certificates — or treat one as a fallback for the other. Watch the discussion for how the $6.43M no-vote track and the $10.11M petitioned track are meant to fit together, and how much of the same Squaw Creek Road work each would cover.
If called, this CO question shares the November 3 ballot with the Home Rule Charter (Item 15), administered under the Parker County contract (Item 16).
The Council will consider approving Rey-Mar to decommission the “old” wastewater treatment plant. This is the direct sequel to the new plant coming online. At the July 28 meeting, Director McBride said that once the new facility passes testing and goes live, the city would work with its engineers to decommission the existing plant, but that no timeline existed yet. With the new plant at 95% and testing running through September (Item 4), the decommissioning of the old plant is now before the Council.
Watch for a dollar figure and scope: what “decommission” includes (demolition, equipment removal, site remediation, or repurposing) and how it is funded.
Sequencing matters — the old plant should not be taken offline before the new one is fully certified and operational.
Two resolutions, each accepting a voluntary petition for annexation and calling a public hearing: Item 9 covers approximately 0.82 acres owned by Bar-Ko Land Company LLC; Item 10 covers approximately 0.33 acres owned by Willow Park Services LLC. Both parcels sit in the James Oxer Survey, Abstract No. 1029, Parker County.
These are voluntary (owner-requested) annexations under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code — small infill parcels being brought into the city at the owners’ request. The Oxer Survey (A-1029) is a large historical survey that runs through the Ranch House Road / Bankhead Highway area and has been the reference tract for several prior Willow Park annexations. This action only accepts the petitions and sets the public hearings; the actual annexation would follow after those hearings.
These consensual, small-parcel annexations are the routine, low-conflict opposite of the contested Beall-Dean Ranch annexation being litigated in Item 17 — a useful reminder that most annexations are ordinary housekeeping.
Watch for the public-hearing dates and what the owners intend to do with the parcels.
The Council will discuss creating a social-media policy for elected officials. The agenda does not describe what the policy would cover; its scope will become clear in the discussion. The item arrives amid a broader run of governance-standards discussions this summer, including the proposed Code of Conduct.
What the policy is intended to cover, and whether it is framed as guidance or as an enforceable rule.
This is a process item: it would let staff take the first pass at drafting or flagging an ordinance change, with the Council retaining final say on adoption — a common workflow in many cities meant to speed routine code updates. It lands against the backdrop of this summer’s disputes over how the agenda and city business get set (see the July 28 discussion of the agenda-setting process).
Where the line sits between “staff initiates” and “Council decides,” and whether any members see this as shifting initiative away from elected officials.
A report on the federal grant-funding application for water-system improvements in the West Oaks Subdivision. Federal or state grant dollars for water improvements would offset costs the city might otherwise have to bond for — relevant given the water-system work also contemplated in the certificate-of-obligation package (Item 7). Watch for the grant program named, the dollar amount sought, and the application’s status.
This is the third consecutive meeting to touch the City Manager’s contract. On July 14, the Mayor asked that the contract be made public and posted online. On July 28, Councilmember Scott Smith — who had placed that meeting’s version of the item — moved to table it after saying he had the information he needed; the Mayor objected because she had a letter she wanted to present, but as the item’s sponsor Smith was able to table it. It now returns under the Mayor’s name.
Whether any action is actually taken this time, or the matter is again deferred. Personnel specifics are likely reserved for the closed session (Item 18); open-session action, if any, would happen after the Council reconvenes.
The Council will consider an ordinance calling a special election for November 3, 2026, to submit the Home Rule Charter to Willow Park voters as presented by the Home Rule Charter Commission. Willow Park is currently a General Law city; a home-rule charter (available to Texas cities over 5,000 population) would let residents adopt a locally written framework of government instead of operating strictly under the state’s general-law provisions. The charter did not make the May 2026 ballot; this item would place it on the November 3 ballot. The Commission’s draft has been the subject of extended public discussion, including proposed changes to the mayor’s role and recall procedures.
This is the formal step that puts home rule before voters. If adopted alongside the certificate-of-obligation question (Item 7), Willow Park voters would face two consequential questions on the same November 3 ballot.
The Council will consider approving the Joint Election Agreement and Contract for Election Services with Parker County Elections. This is the administrative vehicle that lets Parker County run the city’s November 3 election. It is routine, but it is the item that makes Items 7 and 15 operational — without it, there is no county-administered ballot for the certificate-of-obligation and charter questions. Watch for the city’s estimated share of election costs.
Under Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, the Council will recess into closed session for three matters. No decisions are made in closed session; any action must be taken after reconvening in open session.
Item 17 — Beall-Dean Ranch annexation lawsuit (§ 551.071). Consultation with the City Attorney on City of Aledo and City of Fort Worth v. City of Willow Park (Beall-Dean Ranch and Parker County), Cause No. CV26-0175, 43rd District Court. The suit, filed February 9, 2026, challenges Willow Park’s annexation of territory tied to a large mixed-use development near I-20 and FM 1187. This litigation has appeared on every recent agenda and is consistent with the elevated legal spending noted under Item 5.
Item 18 — City Manager contract (§ 551.074 / § 551.071). Personnel discussion and attorney consultation on the City Manager’s contract — the closed-session companion to Item 14.
Item 19 — Police Chief position (§ 551.074 / § 551.071). Personnel discussion and attorney consultation on the Police Chief position. The department is under interim leadership, and a Texas Municipal League advertisement for the role was halted at Councilmember Gilliland’s request on July 28; this item suggests the search remains active.
The consent agenda is a single item: approval of minutes from the July 14 regular meeting (both the original and a corrected version), the July 18 special meeting, and the July 28 regular meeting — four sets of minutes across three meetings. Consent items pass in one motion unless a member pulls one for separate discussion.
City Manager comments (including National Night Out on October 6, 2026 at The District of Willow Park, and staff recognition), Council and Mayor comments, and future agenda-item requests. No action; a useful window into what may appear on upcoming agendas.
Two money decisions, two different routes. The Council may borrow $6.43M for roads and drainage on its own (Item 6), while a separate ~$10.11M package heads to a November 3 vote — not by choice, but because a citizen petition earlier this year forced it to the ballot (Item 7). Combined: about $16.5M in potential new debt.
A consequential November ballot is taking shape. The Home Rule Charter (Item 15) and the certificate-of-obligation question (Item 7) could both land on the same November 3 ballot, administered under the Parker County contract in Item 16.
Unfinished business continues. The City Manager’s contract is back for a third straight meeting (Items 14 and 18), and quarterly finances show legal costs running well over budget as the annexation lawsuit (Item 17) continues.
