The City of Murphy held its regular council meeting on January 6, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. The session opened with a prayer and pledge of allegiance, followed by the adoption of consent calendar items, public comments regarding water infrastructure challenges, and various staff presentations. The meeting featured significant deliberations on creating a municipal court of record, approving a new coffee shop patio, and a contentious review of a townhome site plan which was ultimately denied due to density concerns.
Well, it was 75 today. Exactly. Welcome as I call to order the January 6th regular city council meeting. The time is 6 p.m. Wise with me as I offer the indication to leave the pledge of allegiance. Our Heavenly Father bless us as we consider the agenda in front of us tonight. Give us the wisdom to act with compassion and vision for what is best for the community. Bless and watch over our public safety officers, the community they serve. In your name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I will turn the time over to the City Secretary for Wall Call and Certification of the Quarn. Mayor Scott Bradley? Here. Mayor Pro Tim Elizabeth Abraham? Here. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Janay Butler? Here. Councilmember place to Scott Smith? Here. Councilmember place three, Andrew Chase. Here. Council Member Place 4 can Oakman. Here. Councilmember Place Five, Laura Dill? Here. Mayor certify the presence of a quam. Thank you. All right. We're going to turn, we're going to move on to public comments. It's time we set aside on the agenda to allow residents to address council and item not on the agenda this evening. We do have one public comment form from Mr. Little. Welcome today, Mr. Look. How are you? Sir. Good evening. Maynard Little, 1004, St. Mark Drive. Tonight I wish to comment on water loss fiasco that Murphy residents have endured for over a decade. During this time, city leaders have done a disservice to residents for not informing them of the added cost of water loss due to the loss to the water rates due to the loss or mitigating the loss issue. For many years and numerous times, I questioned council and staff about the high water rates of city charges when compared to other area cities. Not one person ever disclosed that water loss was significant reason for rates that rates were so high. Not one of the annual five-year rate presentations by New Gen ever mentioned water loss as a factor in the ever increasing rates that were recommended. Yet the consistently high 20 to 30% water loss for more than 10 years had to be covered with higher rates each and every year, costing the ratepayers an added $10 per year. This occurred despite the fact that two different ordinances stated the loss should be 12% or less. These ordinances were passed in 2014 and 2019, but the water loss ever increased and culminated in 23, 2023 to close at close to 30% when the taker pay with NTMWD was set.