Representatives for the Walker’s Park subdivision asked the Bridgeport City Council Aug. 11 for consent to proceed with a municipal utility district (MUD) and to advance the proposed development agreement. Developers said the site requires substantial TxDOT frontage work, a future signalized intersection and water infrastructure; they said the MUD financing would be repaid by property taxes on the new homes over roughly 25–30 years.

Dustin Austin, project representative, described the proposal as "a pretty complex project" that includes TxDOT work and a planned north–south road connection. He said the developers removed a previously proposed tax increment financing component ("terrors/tiers") to make the financing pencil without requiring city property-tax support.

Developer representatives and the city’s outside counsel explained that Walker’s Park currently lies inside the West Wise SUD water certificate-of-convenience-and-necessity (CCN). Jeff David, representing the developer team, said West Wise could provide phase 1 water service but that capacity for later phases would require upgrades; he and Darcy Norton of Winstead (developer counsel) said the developer seeks city consent to create the MUD but warned the creation cannot be filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality until the city grants consent because the tract sits inside city boundaries.

Councilmembers and city staff discussed four possible water-provider scenarios, including: (1) West Wise serving all phases with upgrades; (2) the city supplying wholesale water to West Wise; (3) West Wise selling the CCN for the tract; or (4) the city serving the development directly if the CCN were removed. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized they want the development to move forward but asked for assurance the city would not be exposed to unexpected obligations if water arrangements changed.

Council agreed to direct staff to bring the development agreement for Walker’s Park to council "ASAP." The council also said it will continue confidential negotiations and technical discussions (some held in executive session) about incentives, CCN issues and the city’s legal exposure. Several councilmembers asked for updated marketing and feasibility materials before final action; Darcy Norton said the development agreement could be ready for council review in the next couple of weeks and the developers requested a Sept. meeting if possible.

No final binding decision about water-provider ownership or CCN transfer was reached during the open meeting; council decisions to approve a development agreement and any MUD consent will be considered after staff and legal review.