[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] >>> WELCOME TO TONIGHT'S MEETING -- TONIGHT'S WORK SESSION MEETING. TODAY IS MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2025. THE FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING ARE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. WE WILL MOVE THOSE TO THE END. START OFF WITH CITIZENS INPUT. COMMENTS TAKEN FRM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY [5A. Discussion of proposed FY26 Budget. ] EMAIL COMMENT? >> NO. >> OUR WORK SESSION, DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FY26 BUDGET. BEFORE WE START THAT, LISA BOWERS IS OPTION. JOHN IS ON HIS WAY BUT RUNNING LATE. HE SHOULD BE HERE SHORTLY. MR. CITY MANAGER. >> THANK YOU. AS WE MENTIONED IN OUR JULY WORK SESSION, COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ITEMS YOU MENTION MENTIONED THERE AND IN PASSING SINCE THEN THAT YOU WANTED TO RE-VISIT OR ADD TO. WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSSION THOSE THINGS WITH YOU. THESE FOLLOW-UP ITEMS ARE AS FOLLOWS. A RECAP FOR POLICE COMPENSATION ENHANCEMENTS. I AUTHORIZED A COUPLE OF ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, $120,000 TO DIRECT SALARY ENHANCEMENTS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL $10,000 TO THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S. THAT'S A ROUNDED NUMBER. AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL CORPORAL PAY ENHANCEMENT. THOSE WERE INTEGRATED INTO THE BUDGET WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN JULY. IN THAT JULY STRATEGY SESSION, COUNCIL MEMBER GIBBS, WITH YOUR AFFIRMATION, ADDED $15,000 TO THAT PREVIOUS AMOUNT. SINCE THAT TIME, IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO ADD $15,000 TO SALARY. I HAVE INTEGRATED THAT INTO THE CURRENT BUDGET MODEL WITH A RARE THING THAT I DO, WHICH IS A PRESUMPTION YOU MIGHT BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. IF YOU ARE NOT, OF COURSE, THAT CAN EASILY BE CHANGED. THERE AGAIN IN RED YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGE SINCE WE LAST MET. MOVING OVER TO THE RIGHT, THE POINT ON THE RIGHT, TRAINING. AT THE TIME THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PRESENTED WE WERE ENHANCING TRAINING FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE HAVE ADDED $1,500 FOR ANY PLANNING RELATED OR ANY OTHER PLANNING OR ANY OTHER TRAINING THAT YOU WISH. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT MOST OF YOU INDICATED YOU WANTED TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR TRAINING WITH ADDITIONAL LAND USE PLANNING RELATED TRAINING ACTIVITIES. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU THE AMOUNT WHICH THAT BOARD RECEIVED, $1,500 PER COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT IS INTEGRATED INTO THE MODEL THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. LASTLY, THE NON- PROFIT GRANTS. YOU VOTED AND DISCUSSED AND YOU ALSO KICKED IT AROUND A LITTLE BIT MORE AND THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS. WE SAID IN HEARING YOUR CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME THAT WE WOULD BRING THIS BACK UP BEFORE YOU AGAIN. YOU CAN SEE THOSE THAT YOU APPROVED AT THE JULY SESSION. KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL, HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES, AND DEI COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND RELATED AMOUNTS ON THE LEFT. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO OTHER APPLICATIONS. YOU ASKED TO RECEIVE THEM. WE ARE CLOSING THIS DOWN AT THIS TIME. I TALKED TO THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS. IT'S NOT TENABLE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS PAST THIS POINT. THESE ARE THE LAST TWO THAT HAVE COME IN. $2,000 FOR THE ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL PTA AND $6,160 FOR THE CHILDREN'S DVOCACY COUNCIL. YOU CAN SEE THE GRAND TOTAL AT THE BOTTOM. IF IT'S YOUR PLEASURE, I WILL THE OTHER SLIDES. DO YOU WANT TO PAUSE HERE? THE REST IS INFORMATIONAL. THESE ARE THE TOPICS UNDER CONVERSATION. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? >> LET'S HAMMER THESE OUT BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON TO THE INFORMATIONAL PART. IF WE START AT THE TOP WITH POLICE, THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL $15,000 ON TOP OF THE $15,000 THAT WAS REQUESTED DURING THE BUDGET SESSION. MY ONLY QUESTION AROUND THAT IS HOW THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. WHERE DOES THAT $15,000 GO? >> ACROSS THE RANK AND FILE AS DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIS COMMAND STAFF AND INPUT FROM THE ASSOCIATION. >> THAT THIS WAS YOUR REQUEST. >> IT IS. >> YOU GOOD WITH THAT? >> I'M VERY, I GUESS, PROUD AND EXCITED FOR THIS. [00:05:06] THE CITY MANAGER -- DOES PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRYING TO HELP HIM. I FOR ONE, BEING FROM THE AREA, I KNOW HOW IT IS. WE'RE TRYING TO STAY AHEAD AND GET THERE. WASN'T TO KEEP GOOD PEOPLE, KEEP THEM IN THE CARS, KEEP THEM IN THE CITY. I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE STAY HERE FOR 30 YEARS OR LONGER. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THESE OFFICERS AND KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DO AND WE CAN KEEP THEM HERE. LET'S DO THAT. LET'S NOT PLAY MUSICAL CHAIRS WITH THESE GUYS AND GALS. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY SUPPORTING IT AND BACKING ME ON IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU GOT MY SUPPORT. >> ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? >> NO. >> SEEING NONE -- >> AS I MENTIONED, IT'S NOT OFTEN I WILL DO THAT, BUT THAT'S IN THERE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >> SECOND IS THE COUNCIL TRAINING. I THINK WE ALL EXHIBITED A DESIRE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT INCLUSION AS WELL? >> NO. >> SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO ON TO THE GRANT REQUESTS. START AT THE TOP AND WORK OUR WAY DOWN. AS YOU MIGHT RECALL, LAST YEAR WAS $150,000. THIS YEAR WAS $100,000. THE IDEA BEING THERE THAT WE ARE TRANSITIONING OR HAVE TRANSITIONED ALL OF THE CITY- OWNED EQUIPMENT INTO RCCC OWNED EQUIPMENT. THIS IS IN PART TO FUND THOSE PAYMENTS ON THOSE VEHICLES AS WELL AS MAINTENANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL OPERATING ETCH EXPENSES AS A BUDGET LINE ITEM. >> MAYBE IF WE STEP AWAY FOR A SECOND AND TALK ABOUT THE NON-PROFIT GRANTS IN TOTAL. I LOOK AT -- EVERYBODY COMES TO US. THEY ARE GOOD PROGRAMS. THEY ARE VALUABLE PROGRAMS. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE VALUE. THAT'S A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS. I LOOK AT IT. THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT SAYS, IS THIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY? I'M TALKING TOP TO BOTTOM. IS THIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO ESSENTIALLY FUND NON-PROFITS? TO ME, A NON- PROFIT IS SET UP, THEY FUND- RAISE, THEY GET -- THEY ARE A STANDALONE OPERATION. THEY FUND-RAISE. I WONDER HOW WE GOT HERE. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GROWING OVER THE YEARS? I LOOK AT THAT AND QUITE HONESTLY, I DO THINK IT'S FAIR TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT. HOW DO WE GET TO A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS HERE? I DON'T KNOW. WHAT KIND OF -- DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR? >> LAST YEAR WAS $206,000. THE YEAR BEFORE WAS $115,000. >> WE ARE GOING UP. >> AT OUR MEETING WHEN WE MET, I DON'T BELIEVE KRB WAS SHOWN IN THE INFORMATION. REMEMBER NOW THAT THIS IS ON THERE. THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE PRESENTATION. THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. >> IF WE ARE BEING TRANSPARENT, YOU GAVE THE CHAMBER $48,000 AND CHANGE AS WELL. YOU HAVE MOU WITH CHAMBER AND WITH KRB. YOU COULD ARGUE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. THAT'S A POLICY LEVEL DECISION. ULTIMATELY THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO DO YOU THIS AND WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? THE MAYOR MADE MENTION, THE RCCC REQUEST INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY LAST YEAR BECAUSE TO DO THE BUSINESS THE RIGHT WAY THEY NEEDED TO BE DIVESTED OF THEIR ENTANGLEMENT WITH THE CITY. THAT'S PART OF IT. HOW DID YOU GET HERE AS A CITY? I AM NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL THAT THE MUCH LARGER CITIES WILL GIVE NGO, NON- GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS MONEY. YOU SEE IT IN FT. WORTH. YOU SEE IN DALLAS. PROBABLY IN ARLINGTON, TOO. YOU SEE IT IN LARGER CITIES. I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW COMMON THIS IS IN CITIES OUR SIZE OR SMALLER. YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF IT HERE. >> BY WAY OF MAYBE ILLUSTRATION -- AGAIN, I KNOW -- I THINK WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE. $20,000 HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES, BASICALLY A SOCIAL SERVICES -- EMERGENCY SOCIAL SERVICES. VERY IMPORTANT. THE CHILDREN ADVOCACY CENTER, AGAIN, ANOTHER OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY TYPE PROGRAMS. I'M JUST POINTING IT OUT. I'M NOT SAYING CUT THEM. I'M NOT SAYING DON'T. I WOULD LIKE AT LEAST [00:10:08] MAYBE CONVERSATION OR SOME SORT OF SENSE OF WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS. IS THAT THE MISSION OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT WITH THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS? I TRY TO SEPARATE THOSE. YOU CAN -- I DON'T THINK ANYBODY -- THAT'S A CITY- DRIVEN THING, VERY -- YOU CAN TIE THAT DIRECTLY TO BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT. I JUST -- AS WE CAME AWAY FROM IT, I KNOW I'M THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A COUPLE DAYS AFTER THE BUDGET MEETING, THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAT JUST OVERALL SORT OF FELT LIKE, MAN, IS THIS JUST GOING TO KEEP SNOWBALLING? DO WE GET MORE AND MORE AND MORE EVERY YEAR? WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE TO DECIDE THAT WE DO GIVE THEM, NO, WE DON'T? I DON'T KNOW. I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE. >> YOU MAKE GOOD POINTS. I WILL AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. IF I'M PART OF THE BOOGIE MAN DUO HERE, THAT'S OKAY. THERE ARE THINGS OUT THERE THAT I LIKE. I AGREE. AND IS THERE ARE THINGS I DON'T AGREE WITH. LOOKING AT THAT TOTAL, THAT'S ALMOST A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS. I'M WONDERING IF -- ARE WE BEING GOOD STEWARDS -- I HADN'T THOUGHT IT. I THOUGHT ABOUT IT BUT NOT IN THAT CONTEXT. BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO TAKE TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR NON-PROFITS? >> SOME OF THE STUFF THAT I THINK THAT WE COULD STILL DO IS ONES WE KNOW ARE PROVEN, THAT CAME IN, THEY STARTED THEIR OWN -- THEIR OWN FUND- RAISERS AND BECAME ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY DOING THINGS. WE SEE THE BENEFITS OF WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING US. IT'S WHEN NEW ONES COME IN AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MONEY IS GOING TO DO AND HOW IS IT GOING TO PLAY OUT, WE HAVE NO CLUE, WE'RE JUST GUESSING AND GIVING THAT MONEY. THAT'S WHERE I HAVE ISSUES ON THAT STFF. IT'S A GOOD POINT YOU MAKE. >> LET'S SAY WE DID -- WE SAVED THE MONEY. WHAT WOULD THE CITY DO WITH THAT MONEY AS OPPOSED TO A GRANT? >> SEWER SYSTEM, HOPEFULLY. >> THAT'S UNRELATED. THAT'S THE UTILITY FUND. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> ANY NUMBER OF THINGS YOU COULD ALLOCATE IT FOR POSITIONS, FOR A PROJECT, PUT IT IN A RESERVE FUND. ANY NUMBER OF THINGS YOU DO WITH ALL THE OTHER 60 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS OF YOUR GENERAL FUND. >> THINGS WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO THAT CAN BE APPLIED. >> IF I COULD CONTRIBUTE -- I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN THIS CONVERSATION. BUT TO HELP IT ALONG, THIS IS A POLICY DRIVEN TOPIC, HOW YOU VIEW YOURSELVES AS STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS AND THE VALUE THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS GIVE TO THE COMMUNITY, WITH HOW YOU VIEW THAT RELATIVE TO THE COST. AS A COUNTERBALANCE, RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU ARE HITTING ON, RELATIVE TO THE COST FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE SOME OF THE SERVICES. SOME OF THEM WE WOULD NOT PROVIDE. DO YOU THINK THOSE ARE WORTHWHILE ENOUGH TO FUND THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED? IS IT YOUR OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE THEM? >> THE QUESTION WAS, HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT? FOR A LONG TIME THE CITY HAS DOLLED OUT GRANTS TO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS. LIFE MESSAGE, KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL. THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WORKED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY, THE CHAMBER INCLUDED. THERE IS A POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN I THINK 2023, MAYBE 2024 -- >> MARCH 2023, APPROXIMATELY. >> THAT WAS DESIGNED TO PUT STRUCTURE AROUND WHAT'S CONSIDERED, WHY IT'S CONSIDERED AND WHO COULD BE AWARDED THESE FUNDS. AT THE TOP OF THE GRANT POLICY, PROVIDE FUNDS TO ELIGIBLE NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ROWLETT RESIDENTS. ALL APPLICATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO AGENCIES THAT OFFER RESIDENTS THE FOLLOWING. PUBLIC SAFETY AND DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE. BASIC NEEDS AND SERVICES FOR VETERANS. BASIC NEEDS AND SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH LOWER INCOME. COMMUNITY BEAUTIFUL INDICATION AND UPKEEP. ASSISTANCE TO THE ROWLETT ANIMAL CENTER. BUSINESSES, RETENTION AND EXPANSION SERVICES. [00:15:02] THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN THE CITY BUDGET AND CONTRACTED WITH ON A MULTI-YEAR BASIS. THE MOU AGREEMENTS WE HAVE WITH KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL AND THE OTHER ONE. >> BASED THOON D ON THAT CRITERIA, NOT EVERY ONE WOULD BE WOULD ELIGIBLE. >> ALL APPLICATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THOSE ON THAT LIST. WE DO END UP CONSIDERING ALL OF THEM. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO ACCEPT OR ALL OF THEM. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE COMMITTED TO THE RCCC. THAT'S A PROGRAM. IN SEPARATING THE CITY FROM OWNERSHIP OF THAT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, WE ESSENTIALLY MADE A MULTI- YEAR COMMITMENT TO THEM THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT THEM. WE DIDN'T ON PAPER. THE GRANTS ARE COMPLETELY CHANGEABLE EVERY YEAR. TO ME, BY DOING THAT AND BY EXECUTING THE PROCESS THAT WE DID LAST YEAR TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM A LOT OF THEIR EQUIPMENT AND GET THEM ON THEIR OWN INSURANCE AND THOSE S OF THINGS, WE MADE AN AGREEMENT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO FUND THEM GOING FORWARD. DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO. >> I HONESTLY -- THE TOP THREE ARE PROBABLY -- >> SECOND IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. >> IT'S MORE -- IT MAY NOT EVEN -- PART OF WHAT I GOT ASKED AND PART OF WHAT I WAS THINKING AND -- I THINK TO A CERTAIN POINT WE HAVE SORT OF GIVEN APPROVAL TO THESE THINGS. I DON'T KNOW -- THE TIMING IS NOT GOOD TO PULL BACK. I GET THAT. I GUESS WHAT I REALLY GET ASKED AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE DO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ROBUST -- WE TALKED ABOUT IT. ROBUST METRICS ON WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR OUR MONEY. I THINK THAT'S WHERE I NEED MORE THAN ANY SINGLE THING IS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU MONEY. I WANT TO KNOW FOR REAL WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR OUR MONEY. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S UNFAIR TO ASK. AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT SOUNDED LIKE, STAFF, THAT IS -- THEY WERE REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS, THAT THERE IS NOT -- NOT NECESSARILY A ROBUST QUARTERLY -- I'M ASKING. >> WE DON'T REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS IN A QUALITATIVE SENSE. WE REVIEW THEM FORRED ED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS. >> MAYBE TO GO FORWARD, THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW FOR NEXT YEAR IS AS PEOPLE COME TO US, WHAT ARE THE METRICS YOU ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE FOR US AND THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO GO BY FOR THE COMING YEAR THAT YOU NEED TO HIT TO PROVE TO US THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS MONEY? I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASK. RIGHT? PARTICULARLY FOR THE NEW ONES. I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST -- THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY. RIGHT NOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT I AM COMFORT ABLE WITH THE LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABLE. WE WANT TO SUPPORT THE CITY. WE WANT TO HELP THE WORTHWHILE CAUSES. BUT WE HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH WHAT OUR PRIMARY GOAL IS. IT'S STEWARDS OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND BENEFIT THE CITY TO THE BEST THAT WE CAN. TO DO THAT, I THINK WE HAVE TO -- WE HAVE TO BE WILLING AND EVERYBODY HAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE CYCLE COMES AROUND NEXT YEAR, SOMEBODY HAS TO COME UP THERE AND TELL US WHAT THEY DID WITH THEIR MONEY AND IF THEY WANT MORE, WHY WOULD I GIVE THEM MORE? >> JUST TO BE TOTALLY CLEAR, BECAUSE I TOLD OTHERS OUTSIDE THIS MEETING THIS AS WELL, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT OUR BUDGET STRATEGY MEETING WAS NOT A FORMAL DECISION POINT. WE MADE MAYBE COMMITMENTS TO SOME PEOPLE OR THEY MIGHT PERCEIVE WE MADE COMMITMENTS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, NOTHING IS DECIDED UNTIL THE BUDGET IS INKED AND DONE. AT THIS POINT, EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE. FROM THE NON- PROFIT GRANT APPLICATION POINT. ADD OR REMOVE. WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION THIS YEAR AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING, THIS IS WHAT IT IS AND GOING DOWN THE ROAD. >> FOR ME PERSONALLY, WE GOT TWO LATE APPLICATIONS. WORTHWHILE ORGANIZATIONS. DOES THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS A CITY, ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING THE PTA? I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE ARE. >> I DON'T THINK WE ARE. [00:20:01] >> THE SAME WITH THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ADVOCACY CENTER. I DON'T WANT TO -- I'M SURE -- AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THESE SOCIAL SERVICES NETS . NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT WORTHWHILE. IS THAT REALLY GOOD USE OF OUR FUNDS? PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE SORT OF FILLED THAT GAP WITH THE HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES FOR 20 GRAND? I KNOW THEY DON'T COMPLETELY PARALLEL. BUT THEY ARE BOTH SORT OF THE EMERGENCY SOCIAL SERVICES GRANTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD NECESSARILY BE JUST ON BOARD WITH ADDING TO THE LIST. >> I WOULD VERY MUCH DISAGREE THAT THOSE ARE IN THE SAME BUCKET. MAYBE AT A HIGH LEVEL TO SAY THEY ARE SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS. THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY SERVICE IS THERE TO SERVE AS AN INTERMEDIARY FOR KIDS AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL ABUSE AND CONNECTING THEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROVIDING A COUNSELOR SO THAT THE KIDS ARE NOT BEING INTERVIEWED BY A DETECTIVE IN A COLD ROOM. THEY ARE INTERVIEWED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IN A SOFTER SPACE. THEIR APPLICATION TALKS A LOT ABOUT WHAT THEY DO. IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE. WE PROVIDE COUNSELING -- THEY SAID IT BETTER THAN I DID. THERE'S A DALLAS COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER AS WELL, WHICH IS A LOT BIGGER THAN ROCK WALL'S. ROCK WALL'S IS RUN OUT OF A HOUSE, IF YOU WILL. REALLY GOOD PROGRAM. HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THEM A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. THERE'S SOME STANDUP INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PART OF THAT ORGANIZATION. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEIR GRANT REQUEST IS WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK THAT THEY DO AND THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THEY HAVE SERVED AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING SOMEONE GO THROUGH THEIR PROGRAM, THIS IS A PRETTY SMALL PER CHILD ASK. THEY'RE DOING THIS REGARDLESS. IT'S HAPPENING. THERE IS A STATE LAW THAT REQUIRED A KID IMPACTED BY THAT TYPE OF A FAMILY SITUATION TO GO THROUGH AN ADVOCACY CENTER. OF COURSE, THE STATE DOESN'T FUND ANYTHING. THEY RELY 100% ON DONATIONS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. >> THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER? >> YES. THEIR FINANCIALS ARE INCLUDED AS WELL. IN TALKING TO THEM, THEY WERE ACTUALLY -- THAT ORGANIZATION WAS FOUNDED IN 2016 AND OPENED IN 2018 AS A RESULT OF A PRETTY MAJOR AND VERY PUBLIC CHILD CHILD CASE THAT HAPPENED. THIS WAS SPURRED OUT OF THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A PRETTY BIG NEED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS THEY HELPED IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT -- WE SERVED 41 RESIDENTS TO DATE THROUGH SERVICES AT THE CENTER. PREVENTION AND AWARENESS AND 729 STUDENTS -- >> WHAT IS IT INCLUSIVE OF? MAYBE I DIDN'T READ -- THIS WAS HERE WHEN I GOT HERE. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DIVE INTO IT TOO MUCH. DOES THIS COVER ALL OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT? >> NO. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY GOING TO BE ROCK WALL COUNTY RESIDENTS. THAT'S THE 41 PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE SERVED HAVE BEEN FROM THAT SEGMENT OF THE CITY AS WELL. >> IT SAYS THEY HAVE GRANT REVENUE OF $855,000. >> THAT'S FROM OTHER GRANTS THEY APPLIED FOR. AS I UNDERSTAND IT ANYWAY. >> I'M NOT SAYING YES OR NO. WE WANTED TO LAY IT OUT THERE FOR A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION. THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. >> THIS IS TOWARDS THE END. THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE PAGES. [00:25:06] WE ARE REQUESTING $6,150 TO COVER SERVICES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED FOR CHILDREN RESIDING IN ROWLETT. THAT'S WHERE THEY GOT THE NUMBER. >> I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE GRANT PROGRAM IS TO -- >> I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER. >> THEY HAVE OPEN SINCE 2018. 41 CHILDREN OVER THE COURSE OF SEVEN YEARS. >> LET'S DO THE MATH. THE NUMBER WAS DRIVEN BY 41 CHILDREN OVER SEVEN YEARS. I WOULD ASSUME THAT -- MAYBE AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION. NEXT YEAR IT WILL COME BACK FOR A SIMILAR AMOUNT. IF IT TOOK SEVEN YEARS TO HAVE 41 PEOPLE IMPACTED AT THAT AMOUNT, IT WOULD NOT SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD -- THAT'S ALMOST A CHARGE BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE. GOING FORWARD, ARE WE PAYING FOR ANOTHER 41? I'M GETTING TOO LOST IN THE NUMBERS. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING. >> IT HELPS A LOT OF KIDS. A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT GOING TO DO THE INTERVIEW. THEY WILL TAKE THEM OVER THERE. THE ENVIRONMENT, NO POLICE OFFICER STANDING OVER THEM WITH A BADGE, A GUN. I'M NOT AGAINST IT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, IS THE CITY OF ROCK WALL, ARE THEY PARTICIPATING IN THIS? ARE WE THE ONLY ONES GIVING FUNDS? I WOULD BE OKAY TO MATCH WHAT THEY DID OR A QUARTER OR HOW MANY CITIZENS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION THAT IS. >> ABOUT A THIRD. >> WE WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >> DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DECIDED TONIGHT. >> AGAIN, THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES ARE NOT STAGGERING NUMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE THE DIAL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. MY OVERARCHING CONCERN IS MAYBE WE BECOME A LITTLE MORE JUDICIOUS IN EXACTLY HOW WE START LETTING THESE GRANTS GO AND FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE RECEIVED GRANTS THAT WE BECOME MUCH MORE METRICS DRIVEN ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO RECEIVE GRANTS. I THINK MAYBE THAT'S KIND OF THE DIRECTION I'M POINTING TO. >> YOU MAKE A GREAT POINT. WE'RE NOT DECIDING ANYTHING TODAY. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE CAN GO BACK AND ASK THEM OR ANY OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE AND FOR THIS GROUP IN PARTICULAR, WE CAN ASK IF THEY RECEIVE MONEY FROM ROCK WALL OR ANY OTHER CITIES WITHIN ROCK WALL COUNTY OR IF THE GRANTS ARE ALL STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH OF THEIR FUNDING THAT COVERS AND IF THERE'S -- I THINK THEY DID MENTION -- DID THEY MENTION FEDERAL? >> YEAH. THOUGHT SO. >> LET'S TAKE IT AT A HIGH LEVEL. IS IT SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE AT SOME LEVEL? >> I'M TORN. I REALLY AM. >> I AM, TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE YEAR TO SAY NO. I'M SURE THAT THAT'S -- I [00:30:06] THINK TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WE HAVE MADE OBLIGATIONS. >> I WILL ECHO -- I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S A DIRECT BENEFIT TO OUR CITIZENS. >> I DO, TOO. >> I DID NOT CONSENT ON THAT DAY. I STILL DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I WANT TO BE SENSITIVE. I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY KIDS THAT SERVES. I DON'T KNOW WE GOT THE ANSWER -- HOW MANY KIDS ARE UTILIZING IT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $23,500. WHAT SIZE OF THE POPULATION, IF YOU WILL, DOES THAT SERVE? I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE INSENSITIVE TO IT. I AGREE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD BE FUNDING THE PTA. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. >> FUNDING WHAT? >> PTA. >> WOULD THE CONVERSATION -- WHERE WE ARE AT RIGHT NOW, PICK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. COMMIT TO THE NON-PROFITS. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN NOW AND THIS PROCESS NEXT YEAR ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING. I THINK THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION. ARE WE TRULY IN THE NON- PROFIT GRANT BUSINESS? SHOULD WE BE? THAT'S THE OVERARCHING QUESTION. I THINK THAT'S -- THAT QUESTION IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT HERE. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF PTAS IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE CAN'T SERVICE THEM ALL. HOW DO YOU PICK OUT ROWLETT HIGH AND THEN YOU HAVE -- >> AGAIN, WHAT THE FUNDS ARE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWARD IS NOT OPERATIONAL EXPENSES. SUPPOSED TO GO TOWARD PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES. THE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY ARE DOING. I DON'T THINK PTA OUTLINED A CLEAR PROGRAM THAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON FUNDING WITH THAT $2,000. I AGREE WITH YOU. I BELIEVE THE OTHERS IN A LOT OF WAYS, FOR THE MOST PART, HAVE OUTLINED SPECIFIC PROGRAMS THAT THEY INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THEIR FUNDS. OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW WHAT THE PROGRAMS LOOK LIKE. WE ARE A PART OF THE PROGRAMS. WE SEE WHAT THEY DO. KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL IS CLEAR ON WHAT THEIR EXPENSES LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR THE CITY. SAME WITH THE ANIMAL CARE AND EMERGENCY SURGERIES AND THOSE THINGS ARE PRETTY CLEAR. I'M MORE FUZZY ON HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES. I WAS WILLING TO GIVE THEM A SHOT. SENSORY TENT HOUSING I'M CLEAR ON AND SUPPORT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF WE -- IF WE BASE ALL OF OUR FUNDING FOR ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS ON IT HAS TO BENEFIT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO BE VIABLE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS CUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WOULD NO LONGER EXIST. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CITY'S MISSION IS. THE CITY'S MISSION IS TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY AND HAVE PROGRAMS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. THAT'S EXACTLY TO ME WHAT THAT PROGRAM DOES. IF THE CITY WERE TO UNDERTAKE A PROGRAM LIKE THAT ITSELF AND GO OUT AND BUY THE TRAILER AND STAFF IT AT EVERY EVENT WE HAVE, IT'S WAY MORE THAN 23 $23,500. >> YOU GUYS WANT A SENSORY TENT. NO, WE DON'T WANT TO RUN IT. WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE. >> THE QUESTION WITH THEM IS, DO WE BELIEVE IN THEIR MISSION AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING? DO WE WANT THEM TO BE A PART IF WE'RE PAYING FOR IT? DO WE HOPE THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN ON THEIR OWN? >> SHORT OF THE PTA, I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS GOING AHEAD AND APPROVING EVERYTHING. I DO THINK THAT THE BIGGER QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ASKED SOMETIME BEFORE WE GET TO THIS POINT NEXT YEAR WHERE WE ARE CLEARER ABOUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY -- WE HAVE OUR PROCEDURES AND OUR BULLET POINTS THERE. I DO THINK MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE A MORE SYSTEMIC LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. AGAIN, IT'S NOT FREE. IT'S NOT FREE. IT'S A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS. I THINK WE LOOK AT THE BIG NUMBERS. [00:35:02] I JUST WANT TO FEEL LIKE WE HAVE GOT A HANDLE ON IT. WHAT I FEAR IS THAT AS TIME GOES ON, IT DOES BECOME THE DEATH OF A THOUSAN CUTS. IT'S JUST $5,000 HERE, $5,000 THERE, $8,000 THERE, ALL WORTHWHILE AND ALL GROUPS IN ROWLETT AND ALL MISSIONS THAT WE INDIVIDUALLY A LOT OF US DO SUPPORT. IS THAT REALLY OUR PURVIEW TO BE FUNDING THOSE? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. >> THERE'S ONE I'M UNCLEAR ON. THAT'S THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH. I HEARD WHAT COUNCILMAN REEVES SAID. I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT AND REMEMBER. I'M STILL CONFUSED HOW THEY ARE ABLE TO GET THE NAMES THAT THEY NEED TO HELP. THE OTHER I WAS THINKING ABOUT, I WAS POUNDING MY MEMORY AND TRYING TO REMEMBER THINGS AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT. WHY ISN'T MEDICARE FUNDING THIS? WHY ISN'T INSURANCE COMPANIES FUNDING THIS TO KEEP RECURRENCE OF SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON MEDICARE FOR THEM COMING BACK? WHY WOULD IT BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FUND THESE THINGS? >> THAT WAS MY BASIS. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. I HEARD TRY TO PROVIDE HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION TO PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED AND THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHATEVER. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S OUR JOB TO DO. I KNOW HOSPITALS DO SURVEYS. THAT'S PART OF THE THING IS WHEN YOU GET DISCHARGED, YOU GET SENT A SURVEY. DID YOU GET YOUR SERVICES AS YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD? ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERS? SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO REPLICATE WHAT -- I'M SURE ALL HOSPITALS DO IN SENDING OUT SURVEYS. >> THIS IDEAIDEA HAVING CRITICAL REVIEW AT THE END, THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE REALLY DECIDING. FOR 5 GRAND, LET IT GO FOR A YEAR. IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT. DOES THIS HAVE VALUE? LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR. SORRY, WE DON'T THINK THERE'S VALUE THERE OR IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW. OTHER THAN THE PTA, I'M FINE GOING AHEAD PERSONALLY APPROVING THESE. I DID WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION RATHER THAN JUST RUBBER STAMP THIS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM HAVE MORE -- SOMETHING BETTER THAN, WE WANT TO START THIS. I DON'T WANT A STARTUP FOR THE NON-PROFITS. LET THEM GET FUNDS AND COME BACK AND SHOW US HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY SERVICES AND MONEY THEY RAISED, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE THEY HELPED, HOW MANY ON THEIR OUTREACH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SEVERAL YEARS OF HISTORY BEFORE WE START -- >> YOU COULD SAY THE SAME ABOUT HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES. >> I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THESE -- THE FRESHMEN COMING IN AND SEEING WE DID THESE GRANTS. I THOUGHT WE WERE GIVING FEDERAL GRANTS. THAT'S NOT THE CASE. >> IN THE PAST, THE CITY HAS DONE A SORT OF SWAP, IF YOU WILL, WHERE SOME FUNDS WERE USED FOR LIFE MESSAGE AND THEN WE SWITCH AND WE STARTED SAYING, WE WILL DO -- I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS THIS GOT STARTED. WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH A PROGRAM THAT WAS PROVIDING FUNDS TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THEIR NON- PROFITS THAT ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN CITY OPERATIONS. KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL, RCCC, LIFE MESSAGE. THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE HAS HAPPENED. WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CODIFY IT AND SAY, HERE IS WHAT THE POLICY LOOKS LIKE. IT HAS TO FIT THESE PARTICULAR NEEDS, THESE PARTICULAR BENEFITS. I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THIS AND THEN LOOK AT THAT, THROUGH THAT LENS MIGHT HELP REFINE OUR SELECTION PROCESS A LITTLE BETTER. IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE CAN DO THAT. YOU MAKE THE POINT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE HAVE. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE DIS T AMONG THE GROUP. [00:40:01] IF WE GO DOWN THE LIST, WHICH I THINK WE CIRCLE BACK TO THE BEGINNING, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE ARE PREPARED TO UPEND THE ENTIRE PROGRAM THIS YEAR. LET'S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING AND SAY RCCC. ARE THERE ENOUGH HEAD NODS TO KEEP THAT IN THE BUDGET? THERE'S ENOUGH FOR THAT ONE. FOLLOW ALONG. KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL IS PART OF AN AGREEMENT. THERE'S NOTHING TO CHANGE UNLESS WE ARE PREPARED TO DISSOLVE THE MOU WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT. HEAD NODS? YES. HARVEST LIFE MINISTRIES. >> BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THEY DO, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED MORE. WHAT THEY DO. I'M HAZY. CUT THAT IN HALF. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. >> DO WE WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GIVE THAT ONE A FINAL NOD? FOUR NODS AT THE TABLE FOR THAT ONE? THAT'S ONE WHERE -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW PROGRAMS THAT AREN'T PROVEN. THAT FITS THAT BILL. SEEMS LIKE WE ARE SUPPORTIVE BUT AT THE -- >> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OF THAT $20,000 FOR SERVING ROWLETT RESIDENTS, HOW MUCH IS GOING TO SALARY? >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> THE ANSWERS IS IT WOULD BE -- I THINK I HEARD 5% OF THE $20,000 IS WHAT -- >> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IS THAT? >> THAT'S SORT OF MOVING BUCKETS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. I MADE CLEAR, THAT'S ONE THAT I HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THINKING ABOUT. AS I SAID, SECULAR TAX DOLLARS OR FAITH- BASED MINISTRIES REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD THE PROGRAM, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, I KNOW FOR ME PERSONALLY, THAT HAS CERTAIN IMPLICATIONS THAT I'M NOT COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITH ALL THE TIME. >> BETWEEN YES, MAYBE IF WE GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND NO, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THAT? >> GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> I WOULD GO ALONG WITH QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> SAME. >> WE ARE MAYBE ON THAT ONE. >> IF I COULD, YOU WANT THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. YOU MAY WANT THEM FROM OTHER ENTITIES AS WELL. HOW DO YOU WISH TO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION? WE CAN SAY, HEY, THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL ASKED. THAT'S A CLOSED COMMUNICATION. WE ARE ONLY GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ASKED HERE TONIGHT. WE BRING THEM BACK, HAVE ANOTHER WORK SESSION AND YOU CAN ASK THEM WHAT YOU WANT SHOULD THEY ATTEND. WHAT'S YOUR PREFRGS? >> I WOULD PREFER OPTION TWO. >> I WOULD, TOO. >> I KNOW IT'S MORE WORK. HAVE THEM COME BACK. >> FOR US, IT'S EASY. COMMUNICATION LETTER. >> WAY MORE VALUE TO AN OPEN- ENDED CONVERSATION AND THE ABILITY TO LOOK THEM IN THE FACE AND TALK ABOUT THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> SENSORY TENT IS NEXT ON THE LIST. YES, MAYBE OR NO? >> I'M A YES. I THINK IT'S VALUABLE. I THINK THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS GOING TO BE FOR OUR EVENTS. IT IS A ONE-TIME COST. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I'M A YES. >> I CAN GO ALONG WITH IT. >> I'M WITH IT. >> THAT'S A YES THEN? >> YEAH. >> YES TO SENSORY TENT. DEI COMMUNITY OUTREACH? >> QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> AGREE WITH THAT. WE WILL BRING REPRESENTATIVES FROM DEI COMMUNITY OUTREACH, HARVEST LIFE FAMILY MINISTRIES, ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL PTA? >> NO. THAT'S NO ON THAT ONE. CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY? I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT I STRUGGLE WITH THAT WORD. CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER. >> MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT IT'S JUST ROCK WALL COUNTY SIDE. IT'S NOT SERVING THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. IS ROCK WALL CONTRIBUTES? IF SO, HOW MUCH? >> WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP. >> PRELIMINARY RESEARCH IS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE. [00:45:02] WENDY WILL SEE IF ROCK WALL HAS IT, ST NOT SHOWING. >> I'M MAYBE ON THAT AS WELL. IF THERE'S ENOUGH MAYBE, WE CAN ASK THEM TO COME IN AND SAVE YOU THE WORK OF HAVING TO DO THE RESEARCH. ASK THEM WHERE THEY GET FUNDING. WE HAVE GOT RCCC IS YES. KRB IS MANDATORY. HARVEST LIFE IS MAYBE. SENSORY TENT IS A YES. DEI COMMUNITY OUTREACH IS MAYBE. ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL IS NO. CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER IS MAYBE. >> MOU, IF WE GET RID OF THAT, WHAT'S THE PROCESS? IS THAT LABORIOUS? >> GETTING IT IF PLACE WAS LABORIOUS. >> YOU PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. YOU VOTE. >> I WAS PART OF THE MEETINGS. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY PROVIDE FOR THE CITY. I DRIVE AROUND. THERE'S TRASH ALL OVER THE PLACE. WHERE IS KRB? MY PERSONAL OPINION. MAYBE THEY DO A LOT AND I JUST DON'T SEE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY DO. >> I WILL SAY THEY DO CLEAN UP ALL THE TIME. I THINK THEY HAVE SCHEDULED EVENTS, DON'T THEY? >> YES. THEY HAVE LAKESHORE CLEANUP EVENTS. >> THEY ARE PART OF IT. >> IT'S A LOT OF MONEY FOR -- >> DON'T THEY DO RECYCLING? >> THAT'S STILL A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING THE CITY COULD DO ONCE A YEAR. >> THAT'S ONCE A YEAR. >> I THINK THE REALITY OF HOWEVER YOU SPIN IT, THE CEO HAS A $30,000 SALARY. >> THAT'S PART OF SALARY. I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE GET OUT OF THAT. >> I DISAGREE. THAT'S SOMETHING THE CITY COULD DO. WHEN THE CITY DID DO RECYCLING EVENTS AND TRASH EVENTS, IT COST WAY MORE JUST TO DO IT. THEY ARE PUTTING IT ON. >> I'M GOING TO -- I TRY TO REMAIN SILENT BUT I WANT TO BE FACTUAL. THE MOU, YOU APPROVED IT -- THESE EVENTS, THE VAST MAJORITY, THEY ARE TAKING A POSITION OF LEADING THE CAMPAIGN OR THE MARKETING. SOME OF THEM, LIKE THE PICKUP CLEANUP EVENTS, THEY WILL LEAVE THE VOLUNTEER COORDINATION. LARGE- SCALE, WE PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTING SUPPORTING PARKS, PW EQUIPMENT, RECEPTACLES, ET CETERA. FOR THE RECORD. >> OUT OF THE AGREEMENT, THEY GOT A VEHICLE. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD RIGHT NOW. AT SOME POINT WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION. THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF IT. I'M CLUELESS -- I GET THEY DO AN EVENT AND MARKET IT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORTH IT. >> AT SOME POINT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER SERVE AS A LIAISON TO SOME OF THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD BE A POINT OF CONTACT. >> MOU, THAT'S OPERATIONAL. YOU DO REQUIRE THAT THEY -- YOU ARE STARTING TO BLUR THE LINE. GRANT AWARDEES IS YOUR MONEY YOU ARE GIVING AWAY. MOU IS OPERATIONAL. WE REQUIRE THEY GIVE YOU UPDATES. I WILL GET THEM IN HERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T -- I RESPECT THAT THERE'S INFORMATION. WE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T BLUR THE LINE WHERE WE GET INTO A POSITION WHERE WE ARE BACK DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IF YOU WANT INFORMATION, ANY TIME YOU TELL ME. I'M SURE THEY ARE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU. GIVE YOU UPDATES. PART OF THE MOU DOES REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UPDATES. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY. JUST LET ME KNOW. >> OUR SOLUTION IS A ONCE A YEAR JOINT MEETING WITH THEM WHERE THEY COME IN AND MAKE A PRESENTATION TO US ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, NUMBER OF HOURS CONTRIBUTES. >> THAT'S IN THERE. THERE MAY BE MORE FREQUENT UPDATES. I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND. THERE'S A REPORTING CADENCE THAT'S BUILT INTO THE MOU. >> I THINK PART OF THE CHALLENGE I HAVE -- SINCE THAT $40,000 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR NUMBERS WHEN WE WERE CRUNCHING, I THOUGHT THEY WERE SPENDING LESS ON NON- PROFITS ON GRANTS WHEN WE WERE APPROVING THIS. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR RATE GOING UP AND OUR GRANTS GOING UP COMMENSURATE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. [00:50:02] I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE GIVING MORE MONEY WHILE CHARGING MORE FROM RESIDENTS AND GETTING MORE MONEY OUT. THESE ARE ROWLETT RESIDENTS AND THEY SERVE THE RESIDENTS. I THINK FROM A NUMBER PERSPECTIVE, IT DOESN'T -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY WE SHOULD KEEP DOLING OUT MONEY WHEN WE ASK RESIDENTS TO PAY MORE FOR WHAT A CITY SHOULD BE DOING. PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS AND STREETS. I THINK THERE'S A BENEFIT TO CHARITABLE GIVING. I PERSONALLY DO THAT. WITH CITY FUNDS, TO GIVE MORE, AGAIN, WITH A HIGHER -- I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BACK TO YOUR POINT. WE KIND OF GAVE TACIT AGREEMENT. I WAS FINE WITH THAT. WE HAD DONE THAT. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT $40,000 WAS ALSO ON THAT. I DO THINK WE SHOULD REGARDLESS OF THIS AT SOME POINT MAYBE HAVE ANOTHER -- TO YOUR POINT, AGREE WE SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. MAYBE IT'S AFTER THAT BUDGET IS SET. TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY'S ROLE IS. IF IT'S A FLAT NUMBER, FINE. I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY KIND OF KEEP THE SCOPE NARROW. WE HAVE ALL GOT TONS OF EMAILS ABOUT PEOPLE -- CERTAIN THINGS THEY DON'T LIKE THEIR TAX MONEY GOING TO. ULTIMATELY, I THINK AS STEWARDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S MONEY, WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE CITY? IT'S TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC SAFETY. >> ESSENTIALS. >> ESSENTIAL SERVICES. I WILL GET OFF MY HIGH HORSE. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT IF WE SAY THE CITY IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SERVICES, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A CITY THAT HAS VIRTUALLY NO AMENITIES AT ALL. NOT THAT THESE ARE AMENITIES, PER SE. THEY ARE SUPPLEMENTING OTHER CITY SERVICES. THAT TO ME IS A REALLY DANGEROUS THING TO SAY IF WE SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO ESSENTIALS. >> THAT'S FAIR. THAT'S FAIR. >> WHAT I THINK I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT PARTICULARLY WITH THE BIG THREE, THAT THOSE ARE VERY MUCH COMMUNITY TYPE DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS THAT GET A LOT OF CITIZENS INVOLVED, THAT ARE REALLY DEEP LEVEL WITHIN THE CITY. TO YOUR POINT, IMPACT SORT OF THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE CITY. THOSE THREE DO. THAT VOLUNTEERISM, YOU LOOK AT RCCC, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IMPACTED. THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE CITY THAT BUILD A COMMUNITY, TO YOUR POINT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN THAT. WITH KRP AND -- I THINK THOSE HAVE THE GREATER VALUE MORE THAN JUST÷÷ TRYING TO FUND A CERTAIN PROGRAM. >> SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF A LITTLE OFF THE TOPIC FOR TODAY. LET'S MAKE A PLAN TO COME BACK AND DO THAT. COME BACK AND REVIEW THE GRANT POLICY ITSELF. WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH THE BUDGET PRESENTATION FOR TODAY UNDERSTANDING WE WILL BE BACK IN A WEEK, TWO WEEKS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS IN FRONT OF US. >> FORMALLY PRESENT ON THE 11TH. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. IT'S INTERSPERSING THAT WITH A PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET WITH YOU. WE DO HAVE ON THE SCHEDULE -- WE WERE HOPING TO REMOVE IT BUT IT'S ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THE 18TH, AN ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP. HEARING WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IN TERMS OF BRINGING PEOPLE BACK, WE WILL SCHEDULE TO BRING THEM BACK. ALSO GIVES THEM TIME TO PREPARE TO FIT THIS INTO THEIR SCHEDULE TO COME BACK ON THE 18TH. >> LET'S MOVE ON. >> I WAS TOLD THE REST IS INFORMATIONAL. >> WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON CERTIFIED VALUES. THOSE OF YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW WE GIVE YOU AS WE PRESENT THE BUDGET TO YOU, ESTIMATES. THESE ARE PROJECTIONS. YOU GET A COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED VALUES. THEY ARE NOT CERTIFIED. THEY CAN AND DO CHANGE. WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. LOOK TO YOUR LEFT, YOU WILL SEE THE MAY PRELIMINARY VALUES. LOOK TO THE RIGHT ON THAT COLUMN UP ABOVE -- THE TABLE UP ABOVE, JULY CERTIFIED VALUES. YOU WILL [00:55:01] SEE THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE. MOVING TO THE RIGHT, BUDGET PROJECTIONS. YOU SEE THE MAY PRELIMINARY VALUES. WE ADJUSTED THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THINGS SUCH AS A 5% REDUCTION FOR VALUES UNDER PROTEST OF WHICH WE USE 70% OF THAT ESTIMATE. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE RECEIVE IN TERMS OF THE JULY CERTIFIED VALUES WITH OUR BUDGET PROJECTIONS AND WHAT WE USED IN TERMS MAY PRELIMINARY VALUES. THERE'S A 5% CHANGE. WE WERE OFF 5%. WE WERE UP 2% FROM RCAD. OUR CERTIFIED VALUE BUDGET ESTIMATES WERE 4% OFF. MAINLY DRIVEN BY THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN DCADS CHANGE FROM CERTIFIED VALUES, REVENUE FROM PRELIMINARY VALUES TO CERTIFIED VALUES. WHAT DROVE THAT? WHAT DROVE THAT 10% CHANGE? IN MAY THEY DON'T GIVE YOU VALUES UNDER PROTESTS. WE RECEIVED THEM IN JULY. VALUES UNDER PROTEST WERE RIGHT AT $500 MILLION. THAT'S A LOT. RCAD YOU CAN SEE 1.5, $1.46 MILLION. BUDGET PROJECTIONS AGAIN, USING THE 5% ESTIMATE OF VALUES AND TAKING 70% FOR VALUES UNDER PROTEST, YOU CAN SEE WE ESTIMATED FOR BUDGET PURPOSES $310 MILLION WITH VALUES UNDER PROTEST. WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOST IN A VERY LONG TIME. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGE TO THE JULY CERTIFIED VALUES OF $500 MILLION, COMING DOWN RCAD $42 MILLION, APPROXIMATELY $43 MILLION IS WHAT WE ESTIMATED IN OUR BUDGET PROJECTIONS. WE WERE TO THE GOOD OF ABOUT 97% THERE. RCAD ONLY HAVING 1 $1. 4 MILLION IN VALUE UNDER PROTEST. TOTAL CHANGE, 42% WITH $500 MILLION IN CERTIFIED VALUES UNDER PROTEST, COMPARED TO OUR BUDGET ESTIMATE OF $353 MILLION. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE. A LOT IS TIED TO VALUES. TAKING THIS BACK HOPEFULLY IN A FULL CIRCLE WAY, ONE OF THE BIG CHANGES THAT HAS ALLOWED US TO REGAIN FINANCIAL FOOTING AND STABILITY HAS BEEN MOVING THINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO A DEBT MODEL VERSUS M & O MOD. WE TALKED ABOUT CAPACITY AND HOW WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE AIR ONUSLY SAY WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN ALL OF THIS DEBT WE ARE ISSUING UNDER THE VOTER APPROVED RATE. IT WAS BASED ON A CERTAIN DEGREE OF VALUE APPRECIATION. THAT FIRST YEAR'S WAS 8%. WE CAME IN AT 10%. THE TWO- YEAR VALUE APPRECIATION ESTIMATE WAS 2% EACH. YOU CAN SEE HERE, TOTAL, TAKING EVEN VALUES UNDER PROTESTED $500 MILLION UNDER CONTRIBUTION, WE ARE AT 2.64% OF VALUE APPRECIATION. THUS FAR, WE ARE 2. 64% AHEAD OF THE GAME. IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER THAN THAT, WE BELIEVE. WE WILL TELL YOU WHY. HERE IS A HISTORY OF VALUES UNDER PROTEST. WE WENT BACK TO 2020, FISCAL YEAR 2021, $280 MILLION. YOU CAN SEE THE YEARS THEREAFTER, $49 MILLION, $206 MILLION, 157. LAST YEAR, $127 MILLION TOTAL. THIS IS COMBINED OF VALUES UNDER PROTEST. HERE THIS YEAR, WE JUMPED TO $500 MILLION. WE DON'T THINK THAT'S A REAL NUMBER. IN FACT, A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES -- MOST COMMUNITIES HAVE SEEN SIMILAR SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THEIR VALUES UNDER PROTEST. WE HAVE THEORIZED ABOUT WHY FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TO OTHER REASONS. SUSPECTED THAT MAY BE PART OF IT. THE REALITY IS, IT DOESN'T -- WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A REAL NUMBER THAT'S GOING TO LAST IN TERMS OF OUR LEVIED TAXABLE RECEIPTS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY THERE, THERE'S NO LOGICAL REASONING THAT ONE CAN COME TO, CONCLUSION WE CAN COME TO WHY YOU WOULD ALMOST DOUBLE THE HIGHEST TOTAL IN LAST FIVE YEARS OF $280 MILLION. WE DON'T THINK THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO STICK. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE TOOK WHAT WE CONSIDER STILL TO BE A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF THOSE VALUES UNDER PROTEST AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE 25% OF THAT BACK IN TERMS OF VALUES. WE PLUGGED THAT INTO OUR PROPOSED BUDGET. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE THINGS THAT WE SHOWED YOU ON SLIDE ONE THAT WE WERE ADDING TO THE BUDGET IN PREPARATION FOR [01:00:01] THIS, SUCH AS THE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE POLICE SALARIES, THE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE TRAVEL TRAINING. WE DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE TWO THAT WERE LATE. IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THOSE TWO, THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NET CHANGE AMOUNT BY ABOUT WHATEVER AMOUNT YOU SAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE AT MOST UNDER CONSIDERATION IS $6,000. YOU CAN SEE THERE FOR FISCAL YEAR '26 PROPOSED, WE SIM RISE BEGINNING RESERVES CURRENT REVENUES, EXPENSES, NET CHANGE, ING AND BUDGETS TODAY $333,000 IS A NET CHANGE. YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACT ON OUR ENDING RESERVES, ESTIMATED $34 MILLION, JUST SHY OF $35 MILLION, TRANSFERS IN. WE ARE PROPOSING 53. 1% OF BUDGETED FUND BALANCE IN RESERVES. ANY QUESTIONS? I CAN GO BACK TO ANY SLIDE THAT YOU WISH. MY MARCHING ORDERS ARE CLEAR. WE WILL BRING BACK THOSE GROUPS, REPRESENTATIVES YOU ASKED TO SPEAK TO ON THE 18TH. WE WILL PREPARE SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS FOR YOU TO DECIDE HOW YOU WISH TO PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMUNITY GRANT SERVICES PROGRAMMING. ADDITIONAL, WE ALSO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTING THREE FIRMS, WE WILL NARROW IT DOWN, 12 RESPONDENTS TO AN RFP THAT WE ISSUED FOR STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES FOR YOU. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. I TOLD WE WOULD GET THIS UNDERWAY. WE HAVE. WE HAVE GOT 12 RESPONDENTS. WE WILL WITNESSLE IT DOWN TO THREE THAT WE WILL BRING TO YOU. YOU WILL SELECT THE FIRM YOU WISH TO WORK WITH FOR YOUR STRATEGIC VISION. WHY DO I MENTION THAT? TO THE POINT OF WHAT IS IT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING? YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. THEY'RE GOING TO HELP YOU FIGURE THAT OUT AND HELP US DECIDE WHAT'S OUR VISION WHERE YOU WANT US TO GO. THAT WILL, OF COURSE, BOOKEND TO THE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE? >> IS ANYBODY SURMISING WHY THE VALUES ARE SO HIGH? IS THERE A POTENTIAL THAT IT'S A DELAY IN HEARINGS? YOU MENTIONED ADMINISTRATIVE -- >> THAT'S MY FUZZY WORD. IF YOU WISH TO BE MORE EXPLICIT, PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY JUST HAVEN'T PROCESSED THEM YET. >> THERE'S ES THAT DO THAT. >> YOU DON'T GO FROM $280 MILLION TO $500 MILLION. IT'S PROBABLY -- AS CAN HAPPEN WITH LARGE AGENCIES. PROBABLY ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. >> A VERY BIG QUESTION MARK IN THE BUDGET, UNFORTUNATELY. THANK YOU. [2. EXECUTIVE SESSION] >> WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE BACK TO OUR EXECUTIVE SECTION ITEMS. I WILL READ BOTH INTO THE RECORD. WE WILL COVER THOSE AND COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SECTION BEFORE WE ADJOURN. CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SECTION, PERSONAL MATTERS, APPOINTMENT -- EMPLOYMENT, DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICE, CITY MANAGER. CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, PERSONNEL MATTERS, DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, CITY SECRETARY. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND SECURE THE ROOM AT 7:04 P.M. >>> WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR EXECUTIVE SECTION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> I MOVE WE AUTHORIZE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SECTION, SECTIONS 3. 2, 5. 1 AND 6. 1 AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 3. 5 TO THAT AGREEMENT AS FURTHER DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ? >> I SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BY A SHOW OF HANDS. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0. MOVE ON TO 2B. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF CITY SECRETARY TO AMEND SECTION 2, SUBSECTION C OF THE [01:05:02] AGREEMENT AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THAT WE FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DEBORAH ON THE TERMS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IF FAVOR BY SHOW OF [6. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR AUGUST 5, 2025, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.] HANDS. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 6- 0 AS WELL. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX, DISCUSSION OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY WE WANT TO PULL? >> HAVE 6C PULLED. IF WE CAN DO IT -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN. WAS THERE ANY OTHER BIDS OUT THERE, COMPETITIVE BIDS THAT CAME IN ON 6C? >> I DON'T REMEMBER 6C. >> IT'S THE COMPUTERS -- THE LAPTOP COMPUTERS FOR -- >> IT'S BUYBOARD. >> WE WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> WE WILL BE READY. >> YOU WANT A PRESENTATION? >> I DO. SORRY. >> THAT'S WHAT WE DO. ALL THE TIME. >> PULL 6C. ANYTHING ELSE? PERFECT. WE WILL ADJOURN AT 7:54 P.M. SEE YOU TOMORROW. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.