Nov 15, 2019 City Council on 2019-11-15 12:00 PM (Special Called)

Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Friday the November the 15th. 2019 is about 12.05 p.m. This is a special call meeting. Our first items on the agenda are a pledge to the US and Texas flag. Please stand if you're able. [Pledge of Allegiance] I'll go ahead and make the same announcement I did prior to the beginning of the meeting. That is we're doing our translation from English to Spanish, Spanish to English differently than we did last Tuesday. We've got some headsets down. Denton Independent School District has been so helpful in providing translators and equipment to simultaneously translate the meeting into Spanish so we do have headsets here if people need those and then when the public comes to speak if a translator is needed then we will have someone who comes forward to do that. Our first item on the agenda is, or second item excuse me, is item for individual consideration 2A is considered adoption of an ordinance canvassing election returns of the bond election held on November the 5th 2019 and providing an effective date. Good afternoon Mayor and City Council. My name is Rosa Rios and I am your city secretary. I am here to present the results of our November 5 2019 special bond election. So the election was ordered on August 13 and it was for the purpose of presenting to the voters the question of the issuance of $221,519,000 in ad valorem tax-supported public securities for streets, public safety, parks, and public art. There were certainly other provisions as required by state law that would we were required to to meet and those who are met. So the unofficial election results report includes a total number of votes received by each proposition in each precinct as well as the precinct by precinct totals of the votes cast. The results show that the following propositions A, B, and C did receive a favorable majority vote in which case they carried whereas proposition D did not receive favorable majority vote in which case it failed. So the City Council needs to accept the unofficial results in order to officiate the outcome. Once City Council adopts the ordinance it will be sent to Denton County and they will send us the the final official results. So you can see here this is from the report from Denton County. So proposition A related to street improvements and the results were that it received 7,770 votes in favor that being the majority therefore it carried. For proposition B relating to public safety facilities for the police department it carried 6,708 favors eight votes in favor therefore it carried. For proposition C which related to land for parks that did carry 6,668 votes in favor therefore it carried. And for proposition D the majority votes received were against at 5,228 votes therefore it failed. And those are your results and I'm here to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? The chair would entertain a motion oh I'm not seeing anything. Council member Ryan? Move approval. Mayor Pro Tem? Second. We have a motion in a second. Let's vote on the board please. Motion carries six zero. What I'd like to do now is I did receive some information prior to the meeting that Councilmember Davis is on his way so I just want to take maybe a brief five minute recess to contact him to see how close he is obviously if he's not very close we won't hold the meeting over but I'd like you know he requested that he be here for the discussion so if we could just take a five minute recess and then we'll reconvene at oh let's say 12 15 12 20 and then we'll take up our next item. Thank you. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Friday November the 15th 2019 it's about 12 27. I will move on to our agenda item number 2B and as a reminder we are doing simultaneous translation so if as you're speaking if you could slow it back just a little and maybe take some some pauses every now and then so that the translators will be able to keep up. To refresh those that weren't here we've got DSDS Denton Independent School District has provided translators and also has provided headsets so people who need headsets can have them and then we have some translators in the back that will be simultaneously translating the meeting instead of having to have an interpreter here. However if during the public comment we've got two cards so far wishing to speak during the public comment if a translator is needed someone will come forward and translate for us. Okay we will call this item agenda and I will try to give an example of just trying I've got to slow down I talked real fast so agenda item 2B consider a local declaration of emergency regarding the water service at Green Tree Estates and or the expenditure of city funds and use of city resources not to exceed $250,000 so if the presenter and council just be mindful of the simultaneous translation. Good afternoon there council members my name is Ken Banks I'm the general manager of utilities for the City of Denton here to present the current status of Green Tree Estates and then also your consideration of the declaration of disaster extension and cost associated with that. So to give a little background on actions to date we've had two community meetings for Green Tree residents one on October the 27th and one on November the 11th we received council direction at the meeting on November 12th earlier this week that was based on some feedback that we had received from citizens in attendance with that meeting the city was to provide a 55-gallon container for Green Tree residents as an initial way to store water and then a larger water container of 275 gallons of volume for the Green Tree residents the mayor declared a disaster based on the feedback from that meeting the mayoral declaration is good for seven days so that does expire on November the 20th and the council may extend that declaration for a specific amount of time that we are to determine today. The 55-gallon drums were purchased and each resident received one we were providing that for immediate non-potable potable water storage we did have a meeting at Green Tree Estates last last evening on November the 14th at which point we distributed the 55-gallon drums and answered any questions for the residents the residents were provided a fact sheet at that meeting in both English and Spanish today we are completing some road work we did survey work earlier in the week this was needed to facilitate the access for the water truck to go into this facility it's a large vehicle and very heavy and so we wanted to be sure it had a good working surface to be able to access residents are being kept in form of construction details and timelines as they are available the 275 gallon tanks will be delivered on November the 18th on Monday we had originally talked about delivery starting at four o'clock we're going to try to get out there earlier and start placing them so that we have as little disturbance on the neighborhood as possible this is to provide a higher volume for non-potable water storage this could be used for toilets washing and other non potable uses and then those are to be refilled by the city the next steps are to receive any further council direction to continue communication with Green Tree Estates residents and during the time between now and December we'll be evaluating and developing additional options and we will be presenting those options to council in December that's the end of my presentation and I'll be glad to provide our provide answers to any questions councilmember Armitage yes well the the road work completed for bringing the water will that also make access easier for emergency vehicles in future I it's intended to improve the surface of the existing road so I think it's going to make access easier for all vehicles but keep in mind that it's just within the existing footprint of the road that's there today it's a dirt road and really the intention is just to try to smooth it out and remove some of the low spots any other questions for staff okay thank you thank you we have two blue cards wishing to speak this is an item for individual consideration which typically to speak you will need to fill out a blue card so I just want to make sure that if you want to speak you'll need to fill out a blue card because it's not a public hearing in the sense where after the blue card speakers have completed their their their comments that then anybody can come down to speak so I just wanted to make that that clarification we have two cards the first one is is it Beyonce Martinez B E A T N Z I believe Martinez four oh five five ash Lane be it is it Beatrice oh sorry I apologize and because translation we will have the additional time will be a total time of eight minutes okay when I started this concilium public on an adn me number is a t-shirt t-necks me direction is quite interesting quite a sink or ash lane that on Texas and they say to see and to such a estoy aquí para hablar por parte por mi comunidad este árboles verdes este estoy aquí con para pedirle a concilio que por favor voten para para estandar este los nuevos los noventa días de emergencia en que perdón que tenemos ahorita para para poder para que ustedes puedan tener este más buscar respuestas inmediatas a todos las preguntas que tenemos tenemos muchas preguntas pero poquito respuestas hello I am Beatrice I live on 455 ash Lane and I'm addressing the general council and I would ask y'all to please vote for an extension on the 90 days so that we can come with more concrete solutions necesita mos otros otros otros tinacos tengo entendido que lunes nos van a dar un tinaco de doscientos atenta y cinco galones necesitamos por lo menos otro tinaco por que tenemos familias de cuatro cinco personas so you have given us tanks of 275 gallons but we're gonna need another one because some of our families are up to five members una de mis opciones para mi verdad este tengo entendido son diecisiete o dieciocho tinacos por lo que se este otra cosa puede ser que le den dos tinacos como a personas que sean mas de de cuatro personas para arriba y de tres personas para abajo solo un tinaco from what I my understanding there can be from 17 to 18 tanks and I'm asking that if for people that have more than four people per family have up up to two tanks otra pregunta en el dos mil tres mi vecindario fue anexado a la ciudad de Denton mi pregunta es por que en ese tiempo la ciudad solo aviso al dueño de pozo cuando en el vecindario hay varios varios dueños para para pasar las líneas de agua so my neighborhood was annexed in 2003 and I would like to know why y'all only notified the owner of the well over this and not allow us to be able to gain access to the public water por el momento creo que es todo gracias por escucharnos y un mensaje el agua sucia no se lava gracias thank you for listening to me and a message dirty water you can't clean thank you the next speaker will be Elba Hernandez just state your name and address my name is Elba and I live on this I live on 65 Willow Lane I give thanks for what y'all have been able to provide for us up until now but I would ask y'all to please give us another tank of 275 gallons galones diarios como voy a poder yo sobrevivir con un tambor de 275 para cinco personas ni un día sobre vivo in my family there are five people on average a person uses up to a hundred gallons of water per day how can you ask me to survive on the 275 I hope that y'all will be able to approve of this también pedimos que vengan a llenar los tambos tres veces por semana lunes miércoles y viernes and I ask if y'all could refill the water tanks three times a week Monday Wednesday and Friday y que se comprometan también a cumplir y que no nos vayan a dejar sin agua and that you promise us to actually follow through with your promises and don't leave us without anything también por que la ciudad no hacen nada sobre violaciones del dueño del código de la ciudad aunque sea propiedad privada and I would like to know why y'all have not done anything to the owner of the well and the property even though it is private pedimos que se extienda la declaración de emergencia por lo menos 90 días y que sigan buscando respuestas a todas nuestras preguntas y vuelvan a tener una discusión en diciembre para responder las respuestas y encontrar una solución permanente que nos saque del problema definitivamente I'm asking you to extend the emergency to 90 days and we would and we would like answers to all of our questions and and we want to be sure that there will be a meeting and despite in December to continue answering our questions and find solutions también este pues gracias por también por la reparación del camino en verdad nuestros carros están dañados de tanto hoyos que hay and thank you again so much for fixing our road our cars have taken so much damage from the holes and how bad the road was pero si se pudiera también algo de fina definitivamente que no se dañan tan fácil sería mejor although we would like something that is more permanent or that doesn't get damaged as much so that we can keep it for longer gracias thank you no no I'm gonna wait for her to get her head set on okay we'll take questions now and again those questions will be translated simultaneously and the answers of those questions so just encourage everyone to be mindful of that councilmember armature so I had a question for the speaker and then question for staff related to the speaker's question I could I could ask them in reverse order since the speakers sat down whichever pleases council it's your it's your pleasure okay I'll ask staff question first as long as I can then still ask the speaker so I was wondering if somebody from staff could answer the question that was just asked about this this city's ability to and limitations in holding the well-owner accountable the you know difficulties communication with the well-owner and just to let synopsis about the situation with TC T's EQ and you see whatever else one to add to that to answer that question yes staff has no regulatory authority that city I should say has no regulatory authority in this particular situation this is a well that depending on whether or not it's considered to be a public water supply would be regulated by the TCEQ and depending on whether it's considered to be a retail utility would be regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Texas staff has interacted with both agencies throughout this process as we have as we were made aware that the odor was going to shut off the well the TCEQ came on to the initial site visit at staff's request and to make a determination about the system so we've been in contact with both of the agencies and to date the agencies are not claiming responsibility because it is below in the eyes of the TCEQ a public water supply threshold and in the eyes of the Public Utility Commission based on the current status from my understanding of the owner not receiving payments for the water it is not considered to be a retail public utility we were provided some information indicating that payments had been made we we shared that with the Public Utility Commission and have repeatedly asked them to give us a reply they have not we shared information regarding the number of people being served being significantly higher than what the TCEQ stated asked them to respond to us to date they have not and so follow-up thank you follow-up question to that that I had shared with with staff the email that was sent to me from Crystal Watkins who's the TCEQ regional regulator for whatever is called person in charge of this this area it it seemed to imply that they would be open to coming back there but I don't know if you if staff has since then heard any follow-up from them if there's been any any follow-through on that I as a council member you know I'm not in a position to be able to make that negotiation but I pass it on to you right when I received that information from you I reached out to miss Watkins specifically she has been the person that I've worked with since the beginning on this situation I asked told her again about the number of people being served and asked for a response that was on Wednesday to date I have not received a response Wow well thank you thank you let's see so a question about the you know what how TCEQ could in a situation like this if they were willing to come in and do or do a recount consider the receipts consider this well as a PWS I understand that they could prevent the well owner from turning off the well which was originally what the residents were asking for then of course with the promise of cleaner water from the city there the residents kind of backed off on that that request but what I'm still wondering about is outside of preventing the well owner from turning off the well could the TCEQ and or PUC do any intervention to prevent the owner from selling the property because of that status as a PWS I don't believe they could prevent or complicate the sale of the property that's really outside of their purview if it is deemed to be a public water supply it would be subject to the regulations of the TCEQ one of the complications of this particular situation is the owner is claiming many of the connections are illegal connections and so that issue would have to be worked through with regards to the prevention of turning off of the well the if the PUC deemed this to be a retail utility the retail utility would be required to go through what is referred to as cessation of service and cessation of service means that there is a process by which the well could be decommissioned and the service discontinued that process requires a minimum of 120 days notice okay and so and if a to your knowledge if a private property with a recognized PWS on it and I realize this has not been recognized as that but if that private property gets sold does the ownership does the PWS come along with it is the the buyer the new owner of the property responsible not the the PWS is just simply regulatory it says you have to meet these standards in order to provide the the water and so if the new owner decided to continue to provide the water then then yes it would fall under that definition so I want to caution us on being outside of posting on this as far as talking about regulatory matters in addition to the emergency declaration so in addition these are private property matters that I don't I don't believe we have mr. Banks is a is an expert at property law so I just really want to caution us in this line of questioning so that we don't misspeak and and provide some type of opportunity for people to say the city is doing certain things so I want to get us back on posting I also want to make one announcement we did receive one more card but I'm going to close that card participation simply because typically the blue cards have to be turned in before the the item is called I waive that but during this whole discussion we I'm gonna go ahead we're gonna give one more opportunity by the time this discussion ends if you want to speak you'll need to turn in a blue card once this discussion on this particular line of questioning is over we're gonna go ahead and close that period so councilmember and then so thank you I had a quick question for the speaker sure yeah if the speaker would come back forward please okay so first I wanted to know how is the head translation in the headphones I can hear well okay can you share with with council your feelings about how the annexation of your neighborhood factors into what you and other residents are asking for from the city how does the annexation contribute to your sense your personal sense of the city's responsibility or does it not if I could in a moment if I could get a ruling from the city attorney if that's still within posting of the agenda I sure you'll need that lot of questions gonna be on the post and we're here just to extend the emergency declaration so but I was responding to her questions that are about it so she's asked gets just to make the case again I'm not a lawyer but if we could provide a headset for the speaker so that as this is being discussed she can hear this in real time please okay okay yes yes okay so I want the city attorney slowly and then councilmember Armitage then you can you can reply so the posting that is before the council today is for what they're going to consider is extending is extending the current emergency declaration for a period of 90 days and with an expenditure amount during that period of up to $250,000 the posting is not to address long-term temporary or permanent solutions at this time including discussions of how the situation came about so I would like to okay yes yesterday I feel that's how the water is coming out I cannot use that water to take a shower I took that picture that the water is not why we here because it's an emergency yes yes can so this speaker can put the phone right there and everybody can see the picture you're showing okay see if you care so I think that that picture is on so I'm going to really phrase my question so that it's on posting how does the annexation factor into your request for the city to provide water on a temporary basis and or temporary water service and water related resources or infrastructure to the residents of Green Tree Estates that was literally a quote council member I'm going to have to object we've getting a ruling from our city attorney the discussion of the annexation or opinions about the annexation are outside posting we can certainly get an answer to the question as far as we know it and we can answer it as staff but as far as talking about annexations or impacts of annexation is outside the posting according to the city attorney of this particular item and I'm hesitant to move forward for potential violations well given the given the legal advice from our attorney so I disagree we have talked about other things we've talked about TCEQ and PUC that are not in the posting I asked about that and council member armature I asked you to not talk about that because it was outside of posting so I don't think there was an inconsistency I think we can I think we can address the question it's a legitimate question and we can address that but to try to address it the city can address it with what the city knows and we can do that we just can't do it in this particular forum based upon the posting so thank you I disagree however if you would like to write to me your answer to the question I will share on publicly on my Facebook page if you would like to share with the public that's not homework so you don't have to okay thank you very much oh we've got one more blue card so we've closed the blue card submission George Ferry please come down state your name and address and will they be doing the simultaneous translation from in the back okay all right I'll talk slowly hi my name is George Ferry I live at 2932 Stockton Street Denton Texas 76209 good afternoon council and mayor I have a lot of thoughts that I'm going to try to get through first is so agenda item says local declaration of emergency I'm baffled as to why if an emergency is being called it has been proclaimed why TCEQ and PUC do not respond are not required to respond with immediate action to the city if this is such a huge issue I think it's odd that if the city has what they said on Tuesday had enough to call it a PWS why again in a state of emergency this can't be filed faster I think it's absurd we can't test the water they were said it was a $25 charge to test their water are they healthy are they sick could they be in danger from this water that they've been using for years I understand it's private but this again is a declaration of a local emergency what are the steps to be taken on TCEQ and PUC secession of service there was no minimum of 120 days because of the no PWS however they're telling you this 90 days is not enough time and the current provisions being provided are not enough because many families have more than four people I'm talking fast I apologize we've been charging them city taxes and property taxes since annexation yet they have no city roads they have no city trash they have no city recycling they have no clean water and they do not use our electricity where are those taxes going they have kids that go to public school yeah public Creek concrete elementary I just we just approved for new props like where I'm getting off topic the next meeting is set to be in September didn't say what day however that's another month they have to wait with less water than they need and with days they know they are asking for more than 90 I want to thank Keely for bringing up a Tuesday's meeting to ask for lists of more neighborhoods like this that were annexed to make sure that this doesn't happen again this is absurd to me this community is asking for help and 90 days and the lack of water that we're providing is not enough and I hope that we can listen and bring more concrete solutions thank you for your time thank you councilmember Meltzer most of what I intended to say what was about the longer term so I'm taking the advice from council that we have to restrict ourselves to just the emergency declaration and not speculate about longer term so I have some questions for for staff is it what is the is the impact of the request for more of the large containers significant would it make would that be able to be accommodated within the outlines of the proposal if the council so directs we can definitely look into that we have we have 17 of the containers right now 17 of the 55 gallons containers as well last night 14 of those were distributed and so we're we're assuming that on the larger containers 14 will be distributed as well our intention is to fill up both the 55 gallon and the 275 when serviced I will say that the the right now the anticipation is to be out there roughly every other day we're looking at once on a regular schedule of Monday Wednesday and Friday if we go to a larger volume that's probably going to have to go to an everyday delivery because of the volume of the truck the truck can only convey 5,000 gallons at a time so there's just some considerations like that to keep in mind but that's conceivably within our capacity if we chose to do that yes and then if I can hold you a moment as far as we know the water that they if the residents of the community have today is is not potable but that's we've accepted that as part of the emergency that they don't have portable they haven't had a murder they haven't had portable water even before it was going to be turned off but would it be within our capacity to in addition to providing this non potable water to make sure that they have potable water during the term that we're responding to an emergency we have taken provisions to provide potable water as well we have already have it on site and will be instructing the residents on how to obtain that water okay those are my questions for staff if we could get somebody to translate for us [Spanish] If you could come closer to the mic I can't hear you. Go ahead. [Spanish] Please go ahead. [Spanish] I would like to talk to you. [Spanish] In your own language. [Spanish] So that you can look at my eyes as I speak to you. [Spanish] As we are talking together. [Spanish] I don't have any doubt. [Spanish] That we're going to answer to this emergency. [Spanish] The period of 90 days. [Spanish] It's only because. [Spanish] We would like during this period. [Spanish] We think that it will be enough. [Spanish] To find a way to resolve. [Spanish] This situation. [Spanish] Within control. [Spanish] This is within our control. [Spanish] [Spanish] [Spanish] [Spanish] [Spanish] We can have more days if we need it. [Spanish] [Spanish] [Spanish] We would like to find. [Spanish] Resolution. [Spanish] I would like to make sure. [Spanish] In general. [Spanish] It is not necessary. [Spanish] [Spanish] [Spanish] To ask. [Spanish] For consideration. [Spanish] [Spanish] So that we can answer to your emergency. [Spanish] Of course we are going to answer to this emergency. [Spanish] That is all for now. [Spanish] I would like to talk more with the community. [Spanish] About the possibilities. [Spanish] [Spanish] To get more time. In the long term. In the long term. Thank you. Council Member Briggs. Yes. So when the speaker was up. That she asked a question about the annexation. And I know we are not going to get into it. But I would like to at this moment. Ask staff to put in a Friday report. Or something. About this one. I narrowed it down. So when the annexation happened. The owner got the agreement. But I asked the question on Tuesday. About individual lots. And I think there were some there. So if they also. The individual lots. Got individual annexations. That would be a question. That I would like to know. In that future report. So for clarification here. This ordinance. That we are going to approve today. Has the 90 days. On it and in it. So if approved. That will be extended. And if approved. I guess my question here. For staff. Does this ordinance limit. The amount of tanks to fill. And times to fill. So does it. It's not limited if approved. So it can be. Worked on if we need one more tank. Or two more tanks. Or one more time. Could you repeat the question just so I'm clear. So in the ordinance. It doesn't specify how many tanks. And how often. I just received the ordinance. Just when the council meeting started. I didn't see it in there. So. I'm just clarifying that if approved. And another tank needed to be. Out there or another day. Needed to be filled that that flexibility. Lies within the city staff to do so. The ordinance gives the staff. The ability. Within the needs of the community. To do what they need to do to satisfy. Their needs. So it will be left up to them to address that. And I'm not limiting them of what they can do. It's just in duration and amount. So I just wanted to make sure that. The community knew that. And with this. And also. I guarantee that conversations. Will continue. Regarding longer term issues. And with all the different parties involved. So. I would like to move approval. Of this. Ordinance. So. I would like to. Second. But now. That won't close off further discussion with it. No. I also had a question. Has. Now this ordinance. As a council member Briggs just mentioned. That you know, this is just came out. Come out. So it wasn't in the backup. So I'm looking at here on the day is. I just came from work. Haven't had time to fully read this, but. I know that I will. I'm just about done. And I will by this time. I get to. When I say fully read it, I've read it. I need to read it again. To give it a full read. But. As I understand it. I'm going to. Vote yes to it. I'm. Has there been time to. Have a translation of this. In Spanish and if not. Can one be. Provided. Online and. Given to the residents. Certainly. Thank you. Council member Davis. I have a couple of questions and depending on the. The answers I may have an amendment. To offer to the ordinance. First, my question is. Can we get a count of. Again, of what's been provided. So far and how much that has cost. So far. Just under the mayor's declaration. That we already have. Understanding that this is very fluid. I'll try to give you the. I'll give you the most accurate information. That I have to date. Thank you. We spent approximately. $1,140. On the 55 gallon barrels. Approximately. $6,715. On the tanks. Got $600. Worth of bottled water. Basically that effort. To date. With shipping and transportation. Has been. $8,727. In 9 cents. This does not include staff time. And this is just simply. The purchase of this material. The grading of the road. Is in progress. It's difficult to. Determine the cost of that at this time. I believe that it will end up being. Somewhere under $10,000. But it's going to be. Heavily dependent on. Exactly what has to be done out there. Which is currently ongoing. As we speak. Roughly with the option. Of delivering water every other day. As proposed. It will be $18,500. Per month. If we go to an option. Where there are. Deliveries occurring every day. That is probably going to. Approximately double. In terms of monthly charge. And so that is. To date. That's generally what we have spent. Or will be soon spending. There was a statement made. At our Tuesday meeting. That the neighbors out there. Were willing to pay for water. That they had an issue with what to do with it. Once it got there. But they were willing to pay city rates for water. Has that conversation continued? Or are your numbers all contemplating. Gratis free water provided to neighborhoods. To my knowledge. That conversation has not continued. The actual cost of water. In this scenario is relatively small. You are looking at. Probably five to seven hundred dollars. Worth of water. So the main costs are associated. With the infrastructure. Necessary to hold the water on site. And then the cost of the truck. And personnel to go out there. And fill the containers. And when you say infrastructure. You mean the containers. That are holding the water. And not any kind of plumbing or anything like that. That's correct. And this is a neighborhood that has never received. City water ever before. Not to my knowledge. At this time Mr. Mayor. I offer the following amendment to the ordinance. As presented. I move to amend. The. Seventh. And final whereas clause. To remove the words. To enable the city. And to change the amount. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars. To one hundred thousand dollars. And in the. Section four. Of the ordinance itself. The same change to remove the words. To enable the city. And to amend the amount. In that section as well. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. And please forgive my. Redundancy. So in the last whereas. It's the. Third or fourth line. Where it says. We'll change the two hundred and fifty thousand. To one hundred thousand. In both places. The last whereas. And in section four. And then in the last whereas. And in section four. To change the language from. During this period to enable the city. You're saying to omit. What again? The words to enable the city. So it would simply read. To offer the residents. Et cetera et cetera. In both places. The whereas and the. Section four. Now that. You didn't. Say that you wanted to ask for a friendly amendment. I don't recall. No simply moving the amendment. Yes. So we have an amendment motion for an amendment. That motion would be. Need to be seconded to. Obtain a vote. Council member Ryan. I'll second the amendment. So we have a second for the amendment. Presented by. Council member. Davis. If I could ask. It's open for discussion. Amendment is open for discussion. So if I could maybe just ask a couple of clarifying questions. Yes sir. On the. To remove. To enable the city. Or just. Help me understand. What your concern was with that language. Yes sir. I am very much in favor of the delivery of water to this neighborhood. On a temporary basis. The solution that staff has come up with. For the. Temporary provision of water is very appropriate. I'm concerned that if we leave that language open. To enable already we are grading roads. Which is fine. That's not terribly expensive to do. I don't want anyone in the community. To have promises made to them. That this council cannot keep. I don't want anyone in the community to read this ordinance. And believe that that means the city is going to do more. Than we actually have the ability to do. And I worry that if we leave. Leave it open. That the city can do anything. To. To quote unquote enable. The delivery of that water. That the next thing we're going to get a request to from staff. Is not just grading the roads to the truck and get out there. The next thing we're going to be asked for. Are some of the solutions that I don't think. That we have the wherewithal to do. Or appropriate. Some of the plumbing into homes. Connecting containers to homes. I don't want staff to be asked those questions. Without direction from this council. As to whether or not we're going to do that. So that's my intention in taking that out. Delivering the water. To continue to deliver the water. But to stop there without further direction from the council. Okay. All right. And then on the $250,000. Your desire to change that to $100,000. Yes sir. I think we're going to have an update in December. Facts on the ground could change there. Again I think this neighborhood should be clear. That we need to change that to $200,000. Again I think this neighborhood should be seeking competent legal advice. Pursuing all their possible remedies. I think we should check in on the dollar amount again in December. And see if that's still what we need. And then if. Between now and December. If we need more money right then. This council meets every Tuesday. We have an agenda that goes out. Every Friday. We have the ability if staff sees the need. To up that number anytime between now and then. It doesn't sound like we need a full $250,000. Committed right now. To this effort. Okay. And is this the discussion on the amendment? Yes. Council Member Meltzer. Yeah I think. This particular staff. Is exceedingly competent. At managing financial matters. And I don't believe that having. That amount. First of all I believe that they're having that amount. It's a. It's a. Reflects. Their judgment about the latitude that they require. I don't think that it. Obligates them to spend that amount. And I trust that they will be good stewards. Without. You know without unnecessarily tying their hands. If they need to respond to an emergency situation. Which this is. Which this is. Secondly regarding. The concern about scope creep. In my opinion the ordinance is. Very clearly drafted and describes. Precisely what is. Intended and. Explicitly. Addresses only that which. We agreed to go forward with. And not. Those things that. Council Member Davis is. Is concerned about. So I. Oppose the amendment. And. Council Member Ryan. The verbiage part doesn't. Mother me I could go either way on that. But the. We many times in the past started out with. One dollar amount and as time goes on if we see the need. We can always increase that. This is emergency funds. This is not budgeted funds. We're going to have to try and figure out where they're coming from. Based on what staff told us. Between delivering the containers. And. Grading the roads were at about 20,000. 90 days is three months. They're saying about 20,000 per month. That totals up to about 80,000. So there's still a 20,000 dollar push. Left in there even at this. And we have plenty of opportunities. If we see the need to increase it. If something comes up that. Was unexpected. If we do find that the amount of water that they're going through. Does take it. Require daily deliveries as opposed to. Two or three times a week. And. Again even if it were that. We still have 60 days worth of. Funds for delivering every day of water. That can be adjusted over time. Council member Amater. So I want to. Explain why I am. Against this. This amendment. It's not because I'm opposed to. Considering reduction in cost. In fact as we heard from. Residents. Tuesday they too are concerned about escalating. Costs. It's because as. Council member. Meltzer mentioned. The there are. Limits constraints. You know within this ordinance now that I've had a. Opportunity to read it. I haven't heard. I've heard concerned about false promises being made. I haven't made any promises to anyone. Other than that. I will. Represent people and advocate for them. No. Guaranteed results of anything I have not heard any. My colleagues. You know promise anything or predict anything. And. So. You know unless there's something specific in this. This ordinance. That's vague. That I'm missing. That's not an issue for me. I would. I'd like to ask of staff. Couple questions about the. The budgeting because I do. I did have some questions about. The. Presumed cost of. Of all this. That it doesn't affect my support. Because I understand that again. It is. At least as I understand it. It's an amount not to exceed 250,000. It doesn't mean that. We're going to definitely spend all of it. It's just. That's the maximum that's hitting a cap. But. For instance. The containers. The. And some of these are. Are some of these the IBC. Containers. Or. Whoever can answer that. One real quick question. If I could. Just from a procedural perspective. That's a valid question. We're on the amendment right now. Which he's asked to change that. So your question. Is in regards to his request to change. Yes. And I'll explain where I'm going. I mean my question is that you know. We can under the current ordinance. We can. Ask questions and look at ways to keep costs. Down. To make the most of that. 250,000 that we don't even need to spend. In other words I would be all for looking at. Within the current ordinance. You know how can we. Keep the cost down. My point being that I think that. If we. Put in a hundred thousand dollar cap. For 90 days. That could be. Self-defeating in terms of the goal being. To address the emergency situation. If that makes sense. So if you could. Answer about. Yeah I'm not sure it makes any. Practical difference. I tend to agree with. Councilmember Davis. You know we can certainly bring back. An updated budget. Council's always got the ability to amend the time. The dollars. The time. Or even. Restrictions on staff. So. It can work either way. We're not going to be pushing up against that. Hundred thousand dollar cap anytime soon. You know so. My intention following this conversation. I've already asked. Tony to set up an accounting for. To track all the costs and give those to you on a. On a monthly basis. I don't think we're. Debating the right thing here in terms of the dollar. Amount you can always change that if it looks like we need. To exceed it and it's really going to be dependent on how. Long you would like the service to continue. That's going to be the driver. Okay so the. So the 90 days is not. It's so am I right in understanding that. The 90 days here. Is not. Time. To restart. Better way to ask the question. If that. Hundred thousand dollar limit is hit before the 90 days. We can come back within the 90 days. There's nothing in here that legal. And again this is because. This is the first time I'm seeing the ordinance. There's nothing here in this ordinance. That says that we can't. Come back and do what you're saying. That's right. After the 90 days. You've always got the ability to amend the ordinance. The idea was that. There was at least a framework for staff to work within. To start procuring the. The necessary. Equipment personnel. That sort of thing. Commodities in order to help this neighborhood out. We will be back to you. Either on December 10th or 17th. To discuss some future options. Which will impact the 90 day cap. Most likely depending on the direction. That you give us. So this will be an ongoing conversation. The dollar amount really is going to be a material. It's going to be much more of what's the. What's the longer term plan. Once we get your feedback in December. So if that's the case. Thank you very much for that. I don't quite understand. Then the reason. The rationale for the. For the amendment. But I did still have this question about staff. About the containers. Because it has to do with this. Budgeting issue. Councilmember Armitage. If we could. Dispense with the amendment. Certainly you're going to be allowed to ask your question. But if we could just get through the amendment discussion. And then we can move on to discussion. Of the underlying motion. Thank you. Councilmember Briggs. I do have some clarification questions. But most I guess I need to ask a process question. Because there's this. Other amendment on. It's been first and seconded. So what happens if that ties? Yeah, I think. Based upon our rules of procedure. Under certain items. If there's a tie then it becomes back to. When we have a full council. However, I think this amendment. May be one that is not subject to that. But I'm going to let the city attorney speak to that. No, the motion would fail. Okay, I just want to make sure. Because we have the potential here to actually. Actually mess up and move this on to another. Agenda item. I don't want that to happen. And I know the community and staff. Does not want that to happen either. Okay, alright. Did you have any other questions. About the amendment discussion. Councilmember Briggs. So for clarification. So the 100,000 is for the 90 days. Only, correct? Because it would be within this ordinance. Which is for the 90 days. Is that a question for me? Is that what you're saying? And. Do we have an. Actual December date yet? We'll either place this on the. December 10th or 17th agenda. Depending on how quickly we can get. All of the options vetted for you. Okay. Because that goes into the holidays. And having a full council meeting. After that is. Alright, so. I am going to be okay. Because I'm afraid there's a few. Council members up here that aren't. Okay with the current ordinance. So I am okay with the. Amendment. Being that we meet. December 10th. Which is early. And that. If for any reason. Within that amount of 90 days. The 100,000 is already met. That. We give the city manager. The ability to spend more money. Without coming back to council. Okay. Okay. Alright. Council member Davis. The only other thing I wanted to say on the amendment. Is that I don't in any way. Mean to imply that I don't. Trust staff's ability to manage. The resources. And to manage the delivery of water. I just want the community's expectations. To be very clear. And I want the community to know. That everything that we do. On your behalf. We can only do as a council of seven. One council member. Cannot make representations to you that bind the rest of the council. And that we're going to do everything we can. To address this situation. Within the bounds of the law. Thank you. Council member Ryan. I just wanted to remind everyone that. This meeting had to be posted. This item had to be posted prior to our discussion. On Tuesday even taking place. Due to 72 hour posting law. And so the 250,000. Was in there at that point. And there was additional items that were discussed. Staff did not necessarily know. How many of those items. We were going to take up at this time. I think that those items will probably come back to us. For further discussion in December. And that's why I'm in favor of. Lowering us back down to the 100,000. Council member Briggs. So I did want to just mention to the community. And those out there that someone has reached out. From the community who owns a water well company. And is willing to dig a well for you. Pro bono. And so I'm not as concerned with the. With this amendment for the 90 days. Because I feel like there is potential help. Out there. So. I just need to. Make a comment to that comment. Okay. I think what we're going to do. I think we need to be careful. Because. Within the city we have codes and regulations. For drilling of water wells. And septic tank spacing. And things such as that. So. I think we need to just. Understand that there are. City codes and policies that. Will come into play. No matter what kind of service someone is offering. So I just want to be cautious. In saying that there may be. Some opportunities out there that may not. Pan out based upon. Further review. Of our codes and ordinances. Councilmember Armitage. And then I have a few things to say. So. I was originally going to. Vote against this amendment. But after hearing. About. The implications. And our ability to. And feeling confident that we can. Extend it. I don't want to take the risk. And I'm saying this mostly for the public. So that people understand what's happening. If there's a tie. If we vote and there's a tie. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Anybody. If we vote and there's a tie. Then this amended motion. Then this amended ordinance. Fails. Then it goes back to the original ordinance. But if that fails. When we vote on. The original ordinance. Then. We're back to the drawing board. So. In the. You know chess game of. You know risk analysis of voting. I'm going to go with this. But I do want to. Ask that. Along with this motion. Along with this motion. This is about this motion. I'm going to go with this. I'm going to go with this. This amended ordinance. That we explore possibilities. For in kind. Donations of services. So I understand. You know that. There are legal complications with. Say. You know somebody. Drilling a well for instance. What about if somebody were to offer. And. If they would like to know. Not necessarily now. But a future at least assurance that. Staff would look into. Offers of in kind donations of services. For the. Truck. To bring things back and forth. I know that that's a big part of the cost. And maybe there's some rule that says that. You know the cities can't accept that. Because we need to meet this and that standard. Again. I want to be clear. During anybody I know of. I don't want to create false hope. There are offers on the table. I'm just wondering if that's something. That. The city could. Receive to keep cause down. I would like at least that to be explored. Also. I had heard. This was just today before coming over here. From the owner of. Armadillo ale works that it is. Who has offered. These big. IBC containers of water refillable. That he gets from a supplier. To the to the community. And I know that staff had contacted him. Asking about his supplier. He received them. At seventy seventy five dollars. Now they're used containers. Seventy five dollars apiece. But as I. The cost for new ones. And we're going to be getting new ones are five hundred dollars. So that's a big price difference. So. I would like don't have to have this explained now. I understand people want to get on with this and vote. But I would just like to know. This is just about cost savings. I just want to know. Was the decision. To go with the. With the new containers. About. Liability or. Cleanliness of the containers. This is outside the scope of this amendment. So please wrap up your conversation. So we can move on. I would like. Staff to explore the possibility. Of used saving money. By having used containers. And cleaning those used containers. To see if that is at all possible. Because I. And the residents. Also are interested in keeping the cost down. For the city. And addressing this emergency. I find it interesting. That. It seems that a lot of my colleagues. Know exactly how each one is going to vote. I find that interesting. I appreciate all the comments. Here at the dais. I want to say that. To the residents. You've heard a lot of words. From a lot of people. I think I can. I think you can rest assured. That with the passing of this order. The city of Denton. Is continuing to commit. To do what they can. In this temporary situation. To make sure. That you have the water you need both potable. And non-potable. Some say potable. And whether it's $250,000. On this ordinance. Or $100,000 on this ordinance. We're going to make sure. That there's not going to be. A gap. There's not going to be some time. Where we've got to have an emergency meeting. To make up for that. The next meeting is scheduled. In less than probably 30 days. Even given the longest. December the 17th. Because I think that is the meeting. That we will begin to outline. What are the alternatives moving forward. Which to me are the most important. In this discussion. And the most critical. So. I was very well prepared. Not to vote for the amendment. And support the ordinance as it is. Because I don't think whether it's $250,000. Or $100,000 really makes a difference. But it seems like that. A lot of my colleagues have expressed support. For the amendment. So we'll see. We'll see how that goes. So we have a motion. For an amendment. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well let me ask. Councilmember Davis. It's been pointed out by the city attorney. Section 3 has that enabled. The city language as well. So would your amendment. Basically striking anywhere in the ordinance. Where there's similar language. With similar intent. Yes sir. And I appreciate the correction. So you're okay with that amendment. I am thank you. And councilmember Ryan is the seconder. You're okay with that amendment. Okay so we have a motion and a second. For the amendment. To the ordinance. Which I'm going to go ahead and summarize. In the last whereas. We will change the $250,000. To $100,000. And we will delete. Enable the city. Or to enable the city will be deleted. So that will read declaration of disaster. For an additional 90 days and authorize. The expenditure of no more than $100,000. During this city. During this period. To offer the residence of green tree estates. Potable water etc. etc. And then in section 3. The ordinance will also be. Amended to remove. Again in. About line 4. Down from the beginning of that section 3. To enable the city to. Is that correct. All four of those. And then in section 4. Change the $250,000. To $100,000. And also to remove. Okay so I want to make sure I got this clarified. So I'm seeing a scratch. For the to enable the city. Those are the words that we are deleting. We're not deleting that subsequent. To after the city. Is that correct? Correct in the words to enable the city. Alright so those will be the. The language that will be. Deleted. Councilmember Briggs a question about the amendment. Yes. Because I'm not a lawyer. And the word enable can mean different things. And so by having it in there. Does that give us the right to go on. To these roads that we are unsure about. I mean is it going to by taking that out. Put us in any jeopardy. Of not being able to get water to them. No the declaration of disaster. Is what allows us to get there. Under emergency basis. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Okay so this is a vote for the. Proposed amendment. To the ordinance that we're considering. So let's vote on the board please. Motion carries. Five to one. And I believe we go now to our. Underlying motion. With the incorporated changes from the amendment. There was a. Motion by councilmember Briggs. And then a second by councilmember. Armature I believe. And so now that motion will include. The amendment as just approved. Is that correct Mr. City Attorney. That's correct. Councilmember Ryan. Thank you mayor. Question for staff. Regarding the fact that we've talked about. There's 17 occupied units out there. But one of them is the owner. Who did turn off the water. Is that person included in. The container delivery. Were 14 containers. That were delivered last night. So our operating number is 14. Regardless of that. The odor was not provided. The owner of the well. That exists on the site. Was not provided. A container either 55 gallon. Or the 275. Nor did that owner request. To be provided that. Those containers. Thank you. One question for legal. In the ordinance. Where it talks about. To offer the residents of green tree estates. Is the intent of that. To mean the current residents. And not. If someone moved in in 60 days. Is that. Is that the intent here. Well it would be whoever is residing out there. See if you want to limit it to current residents. We can do that by amendment. Is it. Who's residing out there at the passage of the ordinance. Or this ordinance basically says. That we are committing ourselves to provide water. To anyone out there. Whether they're a current resident. Or one that will locate there in the future. Within that 90 days. You could read it both. The intention was just who's residing there now. We can limit that if we need to. Okay. I'm not going to worry. That challenges me. I sort of have a concern. However this is only for 90 days. And if we need to make that correction. Moving forward. With an extension. We can make that correction. Okay. Any other questions on the underlying motion. The motion that's on the floor. All right. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board please. Motion carries 6-0. All right. That brings us to the. We do not have any more agenda items. So that brings us to the conclusion of the meetings. Therefore I will adjourn. This meeting of the Denton City Council. On November 15th. On November 15th. On November 15th. On November 15th.