Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Rule Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated debate, Willow Park council votes to form charter commission to consider adding data-center ban
Summary
Following a lengthy public and council debate about a proposed home-rule charter and the city's ability to block data centers, council voted to appoint a new charter commission to adjust dates, correct items and consider a charter provision to prohibit data centers; the move drew sharp public disagreement about timing and legal risk.
Willow Park’s June 23 city council meeting devolved into a two‑hour, at times heated, discussion over the city’s pending home-rule charter and whether the charter should include explicit language to prohibit data centers inside Willow Park’s limits.
Several residents and speakers urged the council to submit the charter that a prior citizen commission had prepared without changes; others urged inserting a new chapter in the charter to prohibit data centers permanently. City attorney Andy (last name on the record) briefed the council on legal mechanics: a home‑rule charter becomes the city’s governing constitution and is changed only by voter-approved charter amendment, whereas zoning and development agreements are subject to legislative discretion and may be altered by later councils. Andy cautioned, however, that novel charter provisions could invite legal challenge and that state or federal preemption is theoretically possible.
After extensive public comment and internal debate about missing deadlines for the November election schedule, a motion carried in open session instructing the mayor and council to appoint a new charter commission with a limited scope — to correct dates and other housekeeping items and to draft an explicit provision addressing data-center siting to be considered for inclusion on the proposed ballot. The motion specified a 12‑member commission appointed by council and three appointments by the mayor; a council member seconded the motion and the measure passed in open session.
Supporters argued a charter prohibition would be the strongest legal protection because charter provisions are harder to change than zoning; opponents warned that trying to alter a presented charter now could delay the charter’s submission to voters, risk legal complexity, and create further litigation exposure. Several speakers urged that, if modifications are required, the original charter commission should be reconvened to avoid novel legal procedures.
Next steps: the new commission is to be constituted by the council and mayor; council and staff discussed the compressed calendar to make changes before the uniform election filing deadline and noted a limited number of meetings remain before August deadlines to place the charter on the November ballot.
