Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public criticizes CCPD funding as council approves TxDOT grant applications with city match drawn from CCPD funds
Summary
A public speaker criticized the Crime Control Prevention District (CCPD) while the council approved the consent agenda, which included staff requests to apply for TxDOT grants that list $1,428,000 and $122,000 in grant amounts with city matches described in the meeting as $86,000 and $25,000 to be provided from CCPD funds.
The Fort Worth City Council on May 13 approved its consent agenda, which included items authorizing staff to pursue Texas Department of Transportation grant awards; a public speaker used his time to criticize the Crime Control Prevention District (CCPD) funds proposed for the city match on those grants.
In public comment Adrian Smith, speaking from "District 6," identified two agenda items and figures he said were in the packet: a $1,428,000 TxDOT request and a $122,000 TxDOT request. Smith said the city’s matching portions were listed as $86,000 and $25,000 and called out a proposed transfer of $111,000 from the CCPD fund as the local source. He told the council: "Considering it hasn't produced the results necessary for change that it's being designated for... Why not go further and do away with the entire program?" He later urged the council to "Transfer all the funds out of out of the CCPD."
Why it matters: the consent agenda vote approved several routine and grant-related items at once; Smith’s comments framed those grant matches as a use of CCPD dollars and prompted public scrutiny. The council approved the consent agenda, recorded in the minutes as "motion carries," and the listed M&C/consent items moved forward.
Details and council action: Smith identified the packet line items by number and the amounts he referenced during public comment. The consent agenda passed without a separate roll-call recorded in the public record beyond the standard motion-and-vote summary. City staff did not provide new fiscal detail during public comment; the meeting packet identifies the specific M&C items for which staff sought authorization to pursue grants.
Next steps: staff will proceed with the grant applications and any required local-match accounting according to city procedures. Public commenters urged additional scrutiny of CCPD program results and suggested broader changes to the fund’s use; the council did not change the consent agenda vote during the meeting.
