Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett police say added patrols reduced downtown disruptions; staff seeks Citywide cleanup of loitering ordinance
Summary
Rowlett police reported a decline in downtown fights and disturbances after adding a second officer and launching outreach; staff proposed amending Chapter 34 to expand disruptive-behavior rules from the downtown footprint to all city‑owned or -operated properties and to modernize definitions.
Chief Kenyon told the Rowlett City Council at its May 4 work session that an uptick in fights and disruptive behavior after the 2025 school year prompted a multifaceted response that paired police with school staff and neighborhood services and added a CDBG-funded second officer downtown.
"It it won't give us any additional enforcement ability, but it will help clarify, some of the language," Chief Kenyon said, summarizing a proposed amendment to Chapter 34 that would modernize definitions and expand the scope of section 34‑4 beyond a small downtown rectangle to all city-owned, held, operated or controlled properties within Rowlett's corporate limits.
The presentation credited GISD and library staff for early coordination, and noted a public‑safety video produced with GISD that reminds families disorderly conduct is a criminal offense and that criminal trespass warnings can lead to arrest if ignored. The department said it has used a combination of increased officer presence, SRO engagement, community policing and a newly formed CORE unit to reduce incidents.
"We made a total of 21 arrests, 136 citations and 5 criminal trespass warnings," Chief Kenyon reported for the November–April time frame, and staff said the department saw incidents fall after the November addition of a second officer.
Casey Moore described the CORE (Community Outreach Response and Engagement) unit as two officers paired with a clinician to handle crisis calls and repeated contacts with people experiencing homelessness or mental-health crises, freeing patrol officers to respond to 911 calls. The CORE unit recorded 151 contacts and 19 ordinance violations during its deployed months, staff said, noting some contacts were with the same individuals.
Council members asked several procedural questions about jurisdiction, private-property boundaries (for example, the Village apartment complex adjacent to the library), and the interplay between loitering/disruptive-behavior rules and free-speech protections. Staff emphasized that the draft amendment is intended to clarify language and city applicability as the city expands, not to broaden enforcement powers beyond existing law.
The council discussion produced no vote at the work session; staff said the ordinance amendment will return for formal action as an agenda item at a future meeting after legal review and additional clarifications regarding property boundaries and affected facilities.
