The Wichita City Council convened on January 20, 2026, for a marathon session that lasted from 9:00 AM until adjournment at 12:27 PM. The meeting was dominated by extensive discussion of the troubled Wichita Water Works project, revealing that liquidated damages were not extended past the September 2024 substantial completion date—a detail not previously disclosed to the Council or public. The session also included approval of the Delano Common Consumption Area expansion, adoption of 2026 legislative agendas emphasizing sales tax removal on groceries, and routine business. All seven council members were present: Mayor Lily Wu, Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock, and Council Members Joseph Shepard, Becky Tuttle, Mike Hoheisel, JV Johnston, and Maggie Ballard. Assistance from Claude AI.
Quick Reference: Major Actions
Approved (All Unanimous 7-0 Votes):
- Minutes from three previous meetings (January 12, 13, 14)
- Consent agenda items 1-19
- Four petitions for public improvements
- Delano Common Consumption Area expansion to full-time status
- 2026 City and Joint State Legislative Agendas
- $769,446 Garver contract extension (Owner’s Site Representative Phase 3) for water plant oversight
- Council Member Shepard’s travel to NLC Congressional City Conference (March 15-18)
- Sarah Haymaker appointment to Food and Farm Council
Key Discussions:
- Extensive water treatment plant clarifier failures and repair timeline
- Contract terms and liquidated damages controversy
- Settlement claim negotiations with Wichita Water Partners
- Monthly water plant progress reports directed
Public Agenda
Road Improvement Request – Dale Jones
Speaker: Dale Jones, 1703 N Womer Drive
Issue Raised: Jones requested road improvements on 13th Street between West Street and Amidon, citing frequent accidents at St. Paul and Meridian due to lack of left turn lanes. Jones, who grew up in the area, emphasized the need for widening and turn lane installation.
Council Response: Council Member Maggie Ballard thanked Jones for attending and requested he leave contact information with the clerk for follow-up.
Context: Jones referenced previous council discussions about sidewalk improvements on Webb Road, contrasting them with what he sees as more pressing safety needs in his neighborhood on Wichita’s west side.
Consent Agenda (Items 1-19)
The council unanimously approved all 19 consent agenda items without discussion. Key items included:
Licenses & Administrative:
- Cereal malt beverage license applications
- Preliminary estimates for various projects
- Advisory board minutes (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board – November 10, 2025)
- Order of succession resolution
Economic Development:
- Five second five-year tax exemption authorizations:
- D&E QOZB, LLC (District VI)
- Profillment, LLC (District IV)
- OLP Wichita KS, LLC (District II)
- Textron Aviation (Districts II, III, IV)
- C & C Development/Atlas Aerospace, LLC
- Three Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) purchase options:
- Bombardier Learjet (District IV)
- Capps Manufacturing, Inc (District IV)
- Shannon No. 2, LLC (District IV)
Development Agreements:
- Developer’s Agreement for The Ranch 3rd Addition (District II)
- Supplemental Design Agreement for grading improvements at Courtyards at Jacobs Farm Addition (District V)
Infrastructure:
- Eminent domain acquisition for 143rd Street Improvement Project between U.S. Highway 54 and Harry Avenue (Ordinance 52-890, Resolution 26-048)
Planning:
- Zone change from LC Limited Commercial to GC General Commercial at northeast corner of East 29th Street North and North Oliver Avenue (District I) – Ordinance 52-889
Housing:
- Sale of property at 2410 West Haskell Street (District IV)
Airport:
- Ailevon Pacific Aviation Consulting, LLC Supplemental Agreement No. 1
- Operating budget transfer
Second Reading Ordinances:
- Ordinance 52-885 and 52-886: Amendments to Wichita/Sedgwick County Emergency Communications Advisory Board membership (first read January 13, 2026)
Petitions for Public Improvements
Presented by: Paul Gunzelman, Public Works & Utilities
The council approved four new petitions for infrastructure improvements:
- Betzen Addition – Sidewalk improvements (Resolution 26-039, PV_086249)
- Great Plains Business Park 3rd Addition – Sanitary sewer improvements (Resolution 26-040, SS_030245)
- Monarch Landing Commercial Addition – Water improvements (Resolution 26-041, WDS_030249)
- Tallgrass East Commercial 2nd Addition – Water improvements (Resolution 26-042, WDS_023195)
Action: Mayor Wu moved to approve the new and revised petitions and budgets, adopt the new and amending resolutions, and authorize necessary signatures.
Vote: 7-0
Delano Common Consumption Area Expansion
Presented by: Isaac Unruh, Parks & Recreation
Background
The council considered expanding the Delano Common Consumption Area from a pilot program with limited days to full-time operation. The program allows patrons of participating establishments to carry alcoholic beverages within a designated outdoor area.
Key Details
Current Participating Establishments (8):
- The Monarch
- Wichita Brewing Company
- The Vagabond
- Reuben’s Mexican Grill
- Manhattan Brewing Company
- Picasso’s Pizzeria
- Good Taps & Spirits
- The Ballpark
Program Rules:
- Patrons must purchase alcohol from participating establishments (no BYOB)
- Each establishment must file applications with both state and city
- Special event caterers can participate for one-day events (e.g., St. Patrick’s Day parade)
- Current expiration: September 4, 2026 (will require renewal)
Council Discussion
Council Member Hoheisel asked whether the ballpark allows liquor to come in from other establishments. Unruh clarified that the ballpark allows their own alcohol to go out into the common area, which is typical for participating establishments.
Insurance Concerns – Council Member Johnston: Johnston noted that when originally presented, insurance was expected to cost only a few thousand dollars. However, Unruh revealed the city couldn’t find a carrier willing to provide liability coverage.
Key Exchange:
- Johnston: “So we could be at risk for a half million dollars.”
- Unruh: “Potentially, I’d rather have legal speak to that.”
- City Attorney Jennifer Magana: “That’s correct, Council Member.”
Vice Mayor Glasscock asked if this was common for municipalities with similar programs. City Attorney Magana confirmed that other cities absorb this liability if they choose to hold the permit, and that most Kansas cities with common consumption areas don’t have general liability insurance for these programs.
Police Issues – Council Member Ballard: Ballard asked if there had been any police issues. Unruh reported none, stating he consulted with the Police Chief, who had no concerns and hadn’t issued a single citation related to the program.
Special Events: Mayor Wu confirmed that the eight regular providers will operate in addition to special event caterers, such as during the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade celebration.
Pilot Program Continuation – Council Member Ballard: Ballard asked whether the program would continue from its original start or begin anew. Unruh confirmed it would continue from the original start date, with the city filing an addendum with the state. The permit still expires September 4, 2026, requiring renewal before that date.
District Support
Vice Mayor Glasscock’s Statement: Representing District VI (Delano), Glasscock thanked colleagues for initiating the pilot program and reported it had been successful. He noted business confusion about which days common consumption was available as the reason for expanding to full-time.
“I’ve talked to the Neighborhood Association and also the Delano Business Association and I’ve yet to get negative feedback from this,” Glasscock said. “I look forward to this expansion, especially as we lead up to the baseball season and how Delano can continue to be a uniquely vibrant part of our community.”
Glasscock also mentioned working on additional Delano improvements:
- Enhanced walkability in the area
- Different illumination with the Delano Business Association
- Traffic calming measures with Public Works to encourage a unique experience
As a Delano resident himself, Glasscock expressed strong support for the expansion.
Action: Vice Mayor Glasscock moved to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 26-043 authorizing the designation of a Common Consumption Area and allowing consumption of alcoholic liquor on the dates, at the location, and during the times set forth, and authorize necessary signatures.
Vote: 7-0
2026 City and Joint State Legislative Agendas
Presented by: Jim Jonas, City Manager’s Office
Overview
The council approved the city’s 2026 legislative priorities for advocacy at the state level, with particular emphasis on sales tax removal from groceries and infrastructure support.
New Items on Joint State Legislative Agenda
Mayor Wu asked about two new items added to the joint agenda in economic development and infrastructure categories.
Jonas explained:
- National Defense Work: “As you know, being the air capital of the world, we have a lot of opportunity with National Defense work and it’s a competitive space nationally. We need to make sure we are reaching out as much as we can to attract that work.”
- Eisenhower National Airport: Supporting efforts to bring more and better air service to the region, which Jonas noted is “so important to this region to have quality and abundant air service.”
Sales Tax Exemption on Groceries – Top Priority
Mayor Wu asked for emphasis on the Wichita agenda item regarding sales tax exemption on groceries.
Jonas Response:
- Representative Nick Hoheisel has introduced the legislation (HB 2456 in the House Committee on Taxation)
- The legislation has broad support but faces challenges
- A multi-state compact slows the process, preventing passage this year
- Staff will “push ahead” and “look for every avenue to try to increase that speed”
Council Member Johnston’s Statement: “I want to point out that I have also been very loud on this too. Not having sales tax on food affects the poor directly and I don’t think it should be on the county sales tax either, so I’ll go on record saying that. Very important issue. I think the state should act on it. I hope they do, and we’ll just hope and pray they do.”
Vice Mayor Glasscock’s Passionate Advocacy: Glasscock identified two items that “really excite” him: preservation of water supply and food security through removing sales tax on food.
“There’s again a few times that this bench agrees seven to zero on sales tax of food is primary objective of this Council and I think it should be for residents. It’s a 95-5 issue when I talk to residents that they believe we should move forward on this. I think it’s good policy.”
Glasscock highlighted the bill number (HB 2456) and thanked Representative Nick Hoheisel for leading the effort. He emphasized this issue originated with the Wichita City Council, not state legislators.
“This is something that we can lead that will not only benefit the citizens of Wichita but can benefit the citizens of the entire state of Kansas,” Glasscock said. “I look forward to more discussions. I look forward to being in Topeka next week to lobby for this. And then when this comes before any committee, also reappearing, and look forward to my colleagues coming up there and testifying in favor of this as well.”
Council Member Tuttle’s Comments: Tuttle thanked Jonas for achieving consensus among seven individuals on the agenda. She highlighted two items she’s “excited about”:
- Childcare as Economic Development: “I fought really hard several years ago to get childcare added to our legislative agenda, but also to get it put in the economic development bucket. Childcare is not a woman’s issue, it’s not a family issue, it’s an economic development and workforce issue.” She thanked Senate Majority Leader Chase Blasi for being her ally on regulation and legislation changes.
- Water Reuse: Tuttle served with Council Member Hoheisel on the Water Reuse Task Force and has “charged staff with being the 1st city in the state of Kansas to obtain direct potable water reuse.” She praised staff for working on both legislation and regulation.
Tuttle anticipated “a really intense and fast legislative session” and looked forward to participating.
Legislative Day in Topeka
Mayor Wu announced that the entire council will attend Legislative Day in Topeka on Wednesday of the following week, with Jonas coordinating the visit. The council will advocate for both the Wichita legislative agenda and the joint legislative agenda.
Action: Mayor Wu moved to approve the 2026 City and Joint Legislative Agendas.
Vote: 7-0
Wichita Water Works Project – Major Discussion
Presenters:
- Ron Coker, Wichita Water Partners
- Gary Janzen, Director of Public Works & Utilities
- Mark Dolechek, Garver (Owner’s Site Representative)
- Kevin Williams, Alberici
The Issue Before Council
The council considered a $769,446 contract amendment (Phase 3) with Garver for continued Owner’s Site Representative services due to delays in completing the Wichita Water Works treatment plant. The discussion revealed significant previously undisclosed information about liquidated damages and expanded into a comprehensive review of the plant’s problems.
The Liquidated Damages Revelation
The Bombshell: Mayor Wu confronted staff about liquidated damages language missing from the September 17, 2024 agenda report when the council approved substantial completion of the plant.
Mayor Wu’s Direct Question: “I want to know who exactly took the liquidated damages verbiage out of the contract. Who took that out?”
Gary Janzen’s Response: Janzen clarified that nothing was removed from the contract. The original Phase 2 amendment from 2019 stipulated that liquidated damages applied only to the substantial completion date, not final completion. When substantial completion was issued in September 2024, liquidated damages did not carry forward to the testing phase.
“That’s consistent on projects of this size,” Janzen explained. “Substantial construction was complete. What we were moving forward with was the testing. Our risk was more limited at that point.”
Mayor Wu’s Frustration: “I’m very upset because I’m looking at the agenda report from September 17th, 2024 and nowhere does it say anything regarding liquidated damages. So that was not pointed out to this Council, it was not pointed out to the Community. That is a problem.”
Mayor Wu demanded to know who failed to include this information in the report, stating: “This Council has now been blamed for something that was not highlighted to any of us, and a contract that was missing, I guess verbiage that again many of us on the Council did not even have to compare to.”
Janzen’s Explanation and Apology: Janzen took full responsibility: “Mayor, you’re looking at him. I was the one that made that presentation. Ultimately it’s my responsibility to put that together.”
He explained that staff focused on limiting costs in Change Order #4, which totaled over $5 million. The city had requested the testing delay due to drought impacts—something not contemplated in the 2019 agreement. Staff negotiated for almost 18 months to extend testing past substantial completion while managing costs.
“Had we contemplated moving those liquidated damages to the final completion date, that change order number four, the cost would have escalated to, I don’t know how much,” Janzen said. If they had pursued a full project delay including testing, it would have added a minimum of $3.7 million to the change order.
Janzen acknowledged: “I can’t answer to you why I didn’t bring it up at that time. Our focus again was on the cost itself, trying to deal with the issue of moving forward, on reduction of retainage, and limiting the cost for extension of warranties.”
The Email Trigger: Mayor Wu revealed what prompted her questioning: “I did not appreciate getting an email from our local newspaper, making us aware that something was missing from the agenda report and from a contract that we couldn’t verify with a previous version of it.”
Moving Forward – Mayor Wu’s Request: Wu demanded new standard operating procedures for transparency: “I just want to know moving forward what standard operating procedures we will have regarding major red flags that I believe the Council should be made aware and the community should be made aware.”
City Manager Dennis Marstall’s Response: Marstall proposed a two-part approach:
- A workshop to educate council on standard boilerplate contract language—”the basic components of our contracts”—including liquidated damages clauses, out clauses, and other key criteria across all project types (roads, water, sewer, airport)
- Highlighting deviations from standard language when presenting specific projects
“I think understanding what I call the basic components of our contracts… then when we get to the actual specific projects, we can highlight if there’s some other than, or in addition, or whatever,” Marstall explained.
Council Member Tuttle’s Clarification: Tuttle sought to clarify the narrative: “Was something removed from the contract?”
Janzen’s Confirmation: “Nothing was removed from the contract. The terms of the contract related to liquidated damages being applied to substantial completion only were the same term that remained in the contract.”
Tuttle’s Follow-up: “So because it wasn’t highlighted in a meeting, doesn’t mean it was removed, correct?”
Janzen: “Correct.”
Tuttle: “I just want to make sure that that’s perfectly clear because something being removed from a contract sounds nefarious, and from what I’m hearing, nothing nefarious happened.”
City Attorney Jennifer Magana confirmed this was correct.
Clarifier Failures – The Technical Problems
Background: The $494 million water treatment plant has experienced repeated failures of its six clarifiers—the critical first step in the water treatment process. Two clarifiers have failed, and all six were shut down in November 2024 after Wichita Water Partners determined they needed comprehensive repairs.
The Two Major Design Failures
1. Missing Stiffening Ring
Ron Coker from Wichita Water Partners explained that manufacturer Westech designed the clarifiers in 3D software, but when transferring to 2D shop drawings for manufacturing, a critical stiffening ring was omitted.
“Westech didn’t send manufactured drawings to the manufacturer with that stiffening ring included,” Coker said. “All indications are that the manufacturer built it to what Westech sent them.”
The missing ring created a clearance issue between rotating components and stationary C-channels (tension cables). When filled with water and rotating, components moved in ways they shouldn’t, eventually causing failures—but the problem was invisible because components were submerged.
2. Wrong Gearbox
Four months into testing, Westech discovered they had supplied undersized gearboxes that didn’t allow the clarifier mixers to rotate fast enough to create proper mixing energy.
Coker used an analogy: “A 10-speed bicycle… there are some gears where it’s really easy to pedal, but you go really slow. And there are some gears where it’s really hard to pedal, but you go really fast. That’s what I’m talking about in this gearbox—it’s just taking the energy from the motor into a gearbox that changes the settings.”
After discovering the error, gearboxes were changed, and clarifiers were rebalanced. They ran for about six months before the first failure occurred.
Oversight Questions – Who Should Have Caught This?
Council Member Hoheisel’s Pointed Questions:
On the gearbox: “How did we miss that the wrong gearbox was missed?”
Coker’s Response: Westech manufactured the equipment and should have caught it during installation before signing off. “They signed off on all the installation of this equipment as that it was in line with what they had specked and designed. They just missed it. And they admitted that in the meetings that both we’ve had and the meetings that they presented to the City.”
On the stiffening ring: “Whose job was it to catch that?”
Coker’s Response: “Really, I don’t think it was anybody’s job to catch it. It was Westech’s job… They should have caught that as it was being installed and before they signed off on it.”
On the broader question: “Whenever we’re building this project, whose job was it to catch that the specs weren’t being followed?”
Coker’s Explanation of Proprietary Equipment: Because the clarifiers were specified on a performance basis rather than detailed design drawings, there wasn’t a traditional design to compare to during installation. Westech transferred their design to manufacturing drawings, sent them to a manufacturer, and then certified that delivered equipment matched their design.
“It’s not something that was readily apparent that it was an issue because when you install these things and you put them in and you connect in those C channels and you tighten all the cables, they’re still, they don’t move,” Coker explained. “But what happened, because that stiffening ring wasn’t there and because they had that clearance issue, once it was filled with water and they were turning, it was creating things inside that clarifier that shouldn’t have been occurring, but nobody could see it because it was submerged.”
Council Member Johnston – Concrete Concerns:
Johnston raised concerns about concrete quality in the clarifiers, based on information from someone whose father-in-law worked for a subcontractor.
Johnston’s Allegation: During construction, spec concrete was in short supply due to other large projects (including the Amazon warehouse). To avoid delays, a lesser grade of concrete was substituted for the clarifiers.
Ron Coker’s Initial Response: Coker acknowledged there were multiple concrete mixes throughout the project. There was a change due to fly ash shortage (material from coal-fired power plants becoming scarce), but he didn’t believe it affected the clarifiers. He deferred to Kevin Williams from Alberici.
Kevin Williams’ Technical Explanation: Williams explained they had six different concrete mix designs on the project. Due to an industry shortage of Type C fly ash (used in the original mix), they developed a revised design with Type F fly ash. However, knowing the performance of the original mix, they had their supplier set aside Type C fly ash specifically for the clarifiers.
“I believe that both of the clarifiers were using the original Type C fly ash because we were able to set aside enough supply to make that happen,” Williams said. “Regardless, any of the fly ash mix designs that we submitted perform at the level needed to provide the water bearing structure, strength and other characteristics for those facilities.”
Council Member Johnston’s Pushback: “I’m going to push back on that because our Garver representative told me differently. Told me that the other concrete mix was used in clarifiers.”
Gary Janzen’s Definitive Response: Janzen intervened with strong technical backing:
“When I started with the city over 30 years ago, I worked in our materials testing lab and worked at overseeing construction projects. I got to know a lot about concrete mixes. Back then, we didn’t use fly ash. It’s something that’s been used over time and implemented more to offset some cost savings.”
Janzen confirmed that staff verified through correspondence with Garver and the owner’s rep that revised mix designs were approved. Most importantly:
“Regardless of what the type of fly ash is, I’m confident it wasn’t lesser and here is why: It meets all of the specifications.”
These specifications include:
- National specifications
- American Concrete Institute standards
- ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) standards
- Recognized standards used nationwide on projects everywhere
“The revised mix design meet all the specifications and the tests that were done on the concrete also meet all the strength requirements,” Janzen stated. “I am absolutely confident that there is no issues.”
Johnston on Cracks: Johnston noted major cracks in the first clarifier observed during a tour, which he was told were “normal.”
Janzen’s Response on Concrete Cracking: “Concrete cracks. I will tell you when we build bridges and the day we pull the forms off of concrete bridges, there’s cracks in the concrete. It’s not ideal. It’s the world we live in.”
Janzen explained they see cracks on all projects—structural concrete, flatwork, curb and gutter—even with purposeful jointing. Some cracks in the clarifiers have been addressed, and monitoring continues.
“My staff has seen them. Garver has seen them. There’s nothing out of the ordinary. If there’s anything that we feel is out of the ordinary, it is being addressed and some have already been addressed.”
Johnston’s Foundation Comparison: Johnston compared to his own house foundation on Wichita’s sandy west side with no cracks.
Janzen’s Rebuttal: “It’s not a very fair comparison for a foundation that’s buried. It’s different. It’s different environments. There’s different things happening. It’s not the best comparison to structures like this.”
Janzen noted he sees cracks everywhere he walks or runs, including in 20-year-old concrete that has remained stable. The plant is still under Wichita Water Partners’ ownership, and cracks are considered part of the defect/punch list covered under warranties.
On Core Sampling: When Johnston asked if core samples had been pulled to test concrete, Janzen said not yet, but it’s an option if issues progress. A third-party analysis suggested watching for delamination, especially on the slab. All test data supports that the concrete mix met specifications and meets the city’s needs.
Water Quality Achievement
Council Member Johnston’s Question: “Have we ever gotten clean water out of this plant when you did testing?”
Coker’s Response: “Oh yeah, we have. I’ve got slides that will show you.”
Johnston: “That meets KDHE standard?”
Coker: “If eight months ago was prior to the second round of PTA testing, then that was probably true” [that it didn’t meet standards].
Johnston: “So when was the last testing you got clean water out there?”
Coker: “November of this past year” [2025].
This revelation was significant—the plant has demonstrated it can produce water meeting Kansas Department of Health and Environment standards when the clarifiers function properly.
Financial Status and Settlement Claims
Council Member Johnston’s Questions on Payments:
Johnston: “Exactly how much have we paid Wichita Water Partners to date?”
Janzen’s Response:
- Original contract: About $3 million still outstanding
- Change orders: About $4.5 million in outstanding approved change orders (work already done)
- Total currently held: Approximately $7.5 million owed but not yet paid to Wichita Water Partners
Johnston: “The contract was… $494 million?”
Janzen: “Correct.”
Johnston’s Calculation: “So we paid them $487 [million] something like that. I just [wanted to inform] people who keep asking that question. How much have we paid them? How much do we owe them? So I think the public should know that.”
Mayor Wu’s Clarification: “So just for clarification, 7.5 million is still owed to Wichita Water Partners and we are holding those funds… That is roughly about 1.5% of the total $500 million dollar contract. Is that standard?”
Janzen’s Explanation: Not standard for typical retainage. As part of Change Order #4 at substantial completion, retainage was reduced to limit risk and overall project cost. The reduction avoided additional financing costs on what was still owed and prevented the $3.7 million (and growing) cost that would have come with carrying full extended warranties.
Can the City Recover Damages?
Mayor Wu’s Direct Question: “Can the City still recoup damages from Wichita Water Partners?”
Janzen: “That is what we’re working on now through the settlement agreement, yes, ma’am.”
Wu: “So the answer is yes. Is that accurate?”
Janzen: “Yes.”
Clarification on Timeline: Janzen emphasized that cost recovery starts from April 2, 2025 (the day after the original final completion date), not from the September 17, 2024 substantial completion date. The testing phase between those dates was supposed to occur successfully but wasn’t, leading to the missed April 1st deadline.
What Costs Will Be Pursued?
The city is gathering all actual damages for an amended claim, including:
- Extended Garver OSR costs (today’s $769,446 item)
- Chemicals and power (mentioned by Ron Coker)
- Staff costs for operating two plants simultaneously
- Consultant costs (Westech analysis, third-party reports)
- Depreciation on the non-operational plant (Johnston’s request)
City Attorney Jennifer Magana: “Mayor, we are in the process of gathering all actual damages to present as part of the claim and the amended claim.”
Recovery Mechanisms:
Council Member Johnston asked: “What happens if damages are more than seven and a half million dollars? Do they write us a check?”
Janzen’s Response: It’s possible. He reminded council of a recent claim on a previous project related to design issues where the city recovered damages through direct payment. “The mechanisms are there.”
Repair Timeline and Schedule
Temporary Repair (One Clarifier):
- Timeline: January-February 2026
- Purpose: Get one clarifier operational for staff training and to test the repair approach
- Status: As of January 20, Westech was expected onsite with proposed installation contractor
- Note: The temporary repair will not remain long-term; permanent repair will replace it in April-June 2026
Permanent Repairs (All Six Clarifiers):
- Third-party reports (both Wichita Water Partners’ and the city’s from West Yost and Associates) show no aversion to the proposed repair approach
- Westech has started at-risk work on drawings and design components to speed the process
- Additional improvements identified: Westech found a couple other areas to fix while clarifiers are down, including additional structure on the rake arm
Original Completion Date vs. Current Status:
- Original contract completion: April 1, 2025
- Status: Missed, triggering notice of claim
- Current projected completion: Not yet determined
- Garver contract extension: Through December 2026 (as needed, based on actual hours)
Ron Coker on Projections: Coker acknowledged the impossibility of providing a firm completion date: “Until we know when things wrap up, it will take probably through that period of time.” The final completion date will be part of the next change order that reconciles all costs.
Westech’s Track Record and Admission
Vice Mayor Glasscock’s Question: “Has Westech experienced any similar problem at any of the other development projects across the country?”
Coker’s Response: Westech has not conveyed experiencing any similar issues, nor has HDR (the design firm) reported awareness of such problems elsewhere.
“This is certainly the first time we’ve experienced this. I don’t want you to think Westech is just some firm that just came up and started a year ago. Westech is an old firm. They have been established in the water business a long time. They do a lot of clarifiers.”
Correction on Company Age: Coker initially said Westech had been in business 80 years, but Mayor Wu looked it up during the meeting: “I’m looking at the Westech website. They were founded in 1973 out of Salt Lake, Utah.”
Coker’s Acknowledgment: “I’m so sorry. I was off just a bit then.”
Westech’s Response: Council Member Johnston noted that Westech brought a different team to the city meeting than the original design team—essentially their leadership and department managers to review every element of the design process. “It appeared they brought the A-team,” Johnston said.
Council Member Johnston’s Optimistic Note: “I think a good thing about this is the clarifiers are being scrutinized to a level they probably would not be if it went normally… So I think we may end up getting better clarifiers than we ever expected.”
Coker: “Well, let’s hope so.”
Garver’s Role as Owner’s Site Representative
Council Member Hoheisel’s Questions:
On the original selection: “Originally did we go out for an RFP for this or was it part of the selection committee?”
Janzen: “We did go out with an RFP for the Owner Rep Services, yes sir.”
Mark Dolechek from Garver explained their comprehensive role:
Design Phase Review:
- Reviewed all design documents for accuracy and compliance
- Provided comments on thousands of design elements
- Ensured designs met city standards and specifications
Construction Phase:
- Daily onsite inspection and monitoring
- Quality assurance and quality control
- Materials testing coordination
- Documentation of construction progress
- Verification that construction matched approved designs
Administrative Oversight:
- Reviewed and processed payment applications
- Maintained project records and documentation
- Coordinated between city staff and design-builder
- Managed change order documentation
Issue Resolution:
- Formal “notice of nonconformance” process for items not done per specifications
- Thousands of memos documenting issues and resolutions during design-build
- Maintaining punch list of items to be completed before final acceptance
On Proprietary Equipment Oversight:
Dolechek explained that for proprietary equipment like the Westech clarifiers, the standard design process involves developing the structure, specifying the equipment, and ensuring the manufacturer agrees they can meet specifications. Similar to a pump—they verify the manufacturer certifies it has the right materials, pressure, and flow capabilities, but don’t necessarily examine how the pump is internally built.
“Take that and apply it to a clarifier and it’s a similar application,” Dolechek said.
This meant Garver couldn’t have caught the missing stiffening ring because it was omitted from Westech’s shop drawings from the beginning—the drawings Garver would have reviewed didn’t show it either.
The Garver Contract Vote – Mayor Wu’s Conditions
After the extensive technical discussion, attention returned to the contract amendment vote.
Mayor Wu’s Concern: “I don’t feel comfortable approving $769,446 without knowing that those specific costs will be recovered.”
The Mayor’s Request: Wu wanted Ron Coker to state in writing that Wichita Water Partners would ensure the city recoups the Garver costs.
Coker’s Limitation: “The contract with Garver is a city contract, not something that we’re asking for approval related to. The approval piece would be with the city… All I can tell you because of the claim situation is that we’re going to work together with the City to reach a mutually agreeable settlement in the end and that we expect that settlement to be in excess of what the city would be owed from liquidated damages if they were applicable here.”
Coker couldn’t commit to specific line items in the Garver contract as he’s not privy to all details of what the city has Garver do.
Gary Janzen’s Practical Plea: Janzen emphasized the necessity of the contract:
“The value that Garver brings to us in our process, the reason why we have an owner’s rep—we have owners reps on all of our major projects… This is consistent across the industry. Agencies like ours would hire owners representatives. We will be in a very challenging situation, not even sure what we would do to be able to move forward and monitor the project or receive progress, analyze plans, approve plans, and be a part of their performance testing without Garver in place. I don’t have the staff.”
The Legal Solution:
City Attorney Magana’s Proposed Language: After discussion, Magana suggested the mayor could add to the motion: “and direct staff to pursue this extended [cost] as part of the cities’ claim for damages” or “request staff to add this amount into the cities’ claims for damages.”
Mayor Wu’s Insistence: “I will not be comfortable moving this motion as is, unless there is a specific clause that says that we will specifically be asking for the $769,449 in addition to many other damages.”
Vice Mayor Glasscock’s Clarification Request: “If staff, let’s say cannot add it to the settlement of the claim, would it nullify the agreement we would enter into?”
Magana’s Response: “We come back and visit with you Council Member if that is the case.”
Glasscock: “So you come visit us about the latter part that the Mayor added, not the parent contract.”
Magana: “Correct.”
Glasscock: “Then I would feel comfortable seconding that.”
Council Member Tuttle’s Process Concern:
Tuttle questioned whether the Garver contract and damage recovery should be combined in one motion:
“I think the contract with Garver is different than seeking the other funds… Is it better to not have it be a part of the motion and just have it be a direction from staff just to keep it clean?”
Mayor Wu’s Reasoning for Combined Motion: “I want that in particular because I wanted to stay in the public sphere for conversation, not an executive session, but rather this is something we are specifically asking for as this is something that again would not be happening if we actually had a water treatment plant that we would have ownership over which would have been back in April 1st of 2025. So I want to make sure that this remains in the public sphere so that there can be public engagement on it.”
Final Motion Language:
After continued discussion about whether to separate the issues, Mayor Wu made her motion with the added language, and Vice Mayor Glasscock seconded.
Action: Mayor Wu moved to approve the OSR Phase 3 Contract Amendment and authorize the necessary signatures.
Vote: 7-0
Note: The final motion did not explicitly include the damage recovery language in the stated motion, though the extensive discussion and direction to staff was on the record.
Directed Monthly Progress Reports
Mayor Wu’s Direction to City Manager: Given Ron Coker’s offer and the significance of the project, Wu directed that monthly reports on the water treatment plant be provided at council workshops, starting in February after the temporary clarifier fix.
“I think the community wants to have clear and consistent understanding of where the water treatment is in the process to final completion and in the process of full ownership of it by the citizens of Wichita,” Wu stated.
The council consensus supported this direction, establishing ongoing public accountability for the project’s progress.
Staff and Contractor Praise
Despite the frustrations, several council members offered praise:
Council Member Johnston on City Staff: “I will say that just so the public knows our staff that Public Works and Gary hired is very, very good. They’re very, very knowledgeable, obviously by the questions they asked of you and of Westech during that meeting. And I’m really impressed with them, and I think that you’ll work well with them and get Wichita good water.”
Johnston on Westech’s Cooperation: “It might be noted that it was a different team than the original team that came… It appeared they brought the A-team.”
Coker on Westech: “I do appreciate Westech as well. It would have been easy for Westech not to come and do that meeting with the city… I thought they did a good job. We asked them to look at everything. Don’t just look at the problem. Go back and look at your full design and make sure there’s nothing else that needs to be fixed while these clarifiers are down. And they did that.”
Council Member Tuttle on Garver’s Value:
Tuttle: “Is it industry standard to have an owner’s rep on a project such as this?”
Janzen: “It is. I’m not aware of, probably even regardless of the size of municipality, I think you would see this everywhere and we have owners rep on other projects underway right now too.”
Tuttle: “When using an owner’s rep, have we seen savings on projects?”
Janzen: “I think we could dig in, in multiple areas. There are thousands of documents, more than that, over the course of a project like this, where if we really dug in and pulled those things out, we could show that there were cost savings as a result of their expertise.”
Tuttle: “Yeah, and I think a savings of time and treasure, right, which are both equally important to us.”
Key Unresolved Questions
As the discussion concluded, several questions remained:
- Timeline Uncertainty: No firm completion date for the permanent repairs or final plant acceptance
- Total Damage Amount: The full scope of recoverable damages still being calculated
- Settlement Timeline: Months away, with City Attorney Magana unable to provide specific timeline
- Warranty Extensions: Under negotiation as part of settlement discussions
- Long-term Reliability: Whether additional problems might emerge with the clarifiers
Technical Context
Council Member Hoheisel asked about clarifier design: “These are relatively new designs, right, as far as how these clarifiers operate?”
Coker’s Response: “No, they’re not. This is pretty standard water treatment technology. It’s kind of proven water treatment technology. The difference is each manufacturer, their mixer, how their mixer mixes. I think it’s more the proprietary focus of each one of those. This is about as standard of water treatment design as you could have.”
This made the failures even more perplexing—these weren’t experimental systems but established technology that Westech has implemented many times before.
Closing Clarification from Gary Janzen
Before the vote, Janzen wanted to ensure clarity on the repair plan:
“The plan is only to fix one clarifier. It’s a temporary fix. I just want to make sure everybody knew that. As we start getting our folks involved with operations and understanding how the plant works, there will be some value in them operating that clarifier, kind of see how some things work with some chemical mixes in the process itself. And ideally what Wichita Water Partners goal is, is to repair it to simulate what the permanent repairs will be so it also gives us all kind of an idea here on a trial basis of how this is going to work.”
The temporary fix serves dual purposes: getting staff operational experience and testing the repair approach before implementing it on all six clarifiers.
Council Member Travel
Item: Approval of Council Member Joseph Shepard’s travel expenses to attend NLC’s Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C., March 15-18, 2026
Purpose: Representing the City of Wichita by meeting with federal officials, consistent with A.R. 3.1
Process: Travel authorization and estimated expenses approved in advance; actual expenses to be reported to Controller’s Office upon return
Action: Mayor Wu moved to approve the travel.
Vote: 7-0
Council Member Appointments and Comments
Food and Farm Council Appointment
Mayor Wu announced the appointment of Sarah Haymaker to the Food and Farm Council, representing Sedgwick County District IV.
Action: Mayor Wu moved to approve the appointment.
Vote: 7-0
Council Member Tuttle – Fire Department Wellness Program Recognition
Council Member Tuttle shared highlights from an event on Saturday, January 18:
Event: Kansas Fire Fighters Association conference presentation
Participants:
- Council Member Becky Tuttle
- Fire Chief Tammy Snow
- Kansas Senator Steve Owens
Topic: Wichita Fire Department wellness initiatives, specifically the cancer screening initiative
Reception: “We went over on time because we were getting so many questions,” Tuttle reported. “Something I think many fire departments across the state are interested in learning about and we have committed to be a resource if anybody wants more information.”
Background – Kansas Health Foundation Grant: The Wichita Fire Department received $150,000 from the Kansas Health Foundation to develop a strategic plan for sustaining the cancer screening program within the department and making it replicable across Kansas.
Significance: “It was just a really good opportunity for the City of Wichita to be highlighted at a state conference,” Tuttle said, thanking Chief Snow and Senator Owens for including her in the presentation.
Council Member Johnston – Remarkable Golf Story
Council Member Johnston shared an extraordinary occurrence:
Event: Golf outing on Sunday afternoon, January 19 Weather: Hats and gloves required Remarkable Achievement: Two hole-in-ones on the same hole by members of Johnston’s group
- Leroy Leep
- Mike McMillan
Statistical Rarity: “There is only a chance of 1 in 17 million for that happening. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning,” Johnston noted.
While acknowledging the story was “very trivial,” Johnston offered congratulations to both golfers for the extraordinary achievement.
Mayor Wu – MLK Weekend Appreciation
Mayor Wu thanked everyone who organized and attended Martin Luther King Jr. events over the past weekend, noting that several council members participated in various commemorative activities throughout the community.
Executive Session
At 11:50 AM, the council recessed into executive session.
Motion: Mayor Wu moved to recess into Executive Session for 30 minutes to receive information on a construction contract, pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4319(B)(2) for legal consultation with the City Attorney which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship, for legal advice.
Purpose: Protect attorney-client privilege and the public interest
Timeline:
- Executive session began: 11:50 AM
- Scheduled end: 12:20 PM
- Actual resumption: Not specified (meeting adjourned at 12:27 PM)
Vote: 7-0
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:27 PM, approximately three hours and 27 minutes after it began.
Motion: Mayor Wu moved to adjourn.
Vote: 4-0 (three members apparently not present for final vote)
Meeting Attendance Summary
Council Members Present (All 7):
- Mayor Lily Wu
- Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock
- Council Member Joseph Shepard
- Council Member Becky Tuttle
- Council Member Mike Hoheisel
- Council Member JV Johnston
- Council Member Maggie Ballard
Staff Present:
- Dennis Marstall, City Manager
- Jennifer Magana, City Attorney
- Jo Hensley, Deputy City Clerk
External Presenters:
- Ron Coker, Wichita Water Partners
- Kevin Williams, Alberici
- Mark Dolechek, Garver
- Isaac Unruh, Parks & Recreation
- Jim Jonas, City Manager’s Office
- Paul Gunzelman, Public Works & Utilities
- Gary Janzen, Director of Public Works & Utilities
Public Speakers:
- Dale Jones, 1703 N Womer Drive (road improvements)
Brief Absences During Meeting:
- Council Member Shepard stepped away briefly during water plant discussion
- Council Member Ballard stepped away briefly during water plant discussion
- Council Member Hoheisel stepped away briefly during water plant discussion
- Vice Mayor Glasscock stepped away briefly during water plant discussion
- Mayor Wu stepped away briefly during water plant discussion
Analysis and Context
The Liquidated Damages Controversy
The revelation about liquidated damages represents a significant breakdown in communication between city staff and the elected council. Several factors contributed to this situation:
Standard Contract Practice vs. Public Accountability: Gary Janzen’s explanation that liquidated damages typically apply only to substantial completion is accurate for large construction projects. The focus on limiting costs through Change Order #4 was financially prudent. However, the political and public accountability dimensions required explicit disclosure to council, regardless of industry standards.
The Information Asymmetry: Council members operate with far less detailed knowledge of contract terms than staff who work with these documents daily. What seems obvious to an experienced public works director may be completely invisible to elected officials who see only summary agenda reports.
Media as Accountability Check: The fact that a newspaper inquiry prompted this discussion highlights the important watchdog role of local journalism in municipal governance.
Mayor Wu’s Public Sphere Argument: The mayor’s insistence on keeping damage recovery discussions in public session rather than executive session reflects a commitment to transparency, even when it might be legally permissible to discuss privately.
The Water Treatment Plant’s Ongoing Saga
Scale of the Problem: The $494 million plant—Wichita’s largest infrastructure project—has now experienced:
- Two clarifier failures
- Discovery of two separate design/manufacturing errors
- Shutdown of all six clarifiers in November 2024
- Repeated delays beyond the April 1, 2025 completion date
- Unknown additional months before permanent repairs complete
The Proprietary Equipment Challenge: The clarifier problems highlight a fundamental tension in design-build delivery for specialized equipment:
- Performance specifications provide flexibility but reduce oversight
- Manufacturers’ self-certification creates conflicts of interest
- Third-party verification is difficult for proprietary internal designs
- Problems may not manifest until the system operates under real-world conditions
Westech’s Accountability: To their credit, Westech:
- Admitted both errors (missing stiffening ring and wrong gearbox)
- Deployed senior leadership to review the entire design
- Identified additional improvements while clarifiers are down
- Met with city staff directly to answer questions
However, questions remain about:
- How two separate errors occurred on the same critical component
- Why the original design team didn’t catch these issues
- Whether similar problems exist in Westech installations elsewhere
- What quality control failures allowed both problems to reach construction
Financial Implications: The city’s leverage position:
- Holding approximately $7.5 million in payments to Wichita Water Partners
- Settlement claims likely to exceed what liquidated damages would have provided
- Extended costs mounting (Garver fees, dual plant operations, staff time, consultants)
- Depreciation on non-operational asset (Johnston’s point about lost useful life)
Silver Linings:
- Plant has demonstrated ability to produce water meeting KDHE standards (November 2025 testing)
- Intensive scrutiny may result in better-than-specified final product
- Temporary repair provides operational training opportunity for city staff
- Multiple third-party reviews increasing confidence in permanent repair approach
Legislative Priorities – The Grocery Tax Campaign
Unanimous Council Position: All seven council members support removing sales tax from groceries—a rare unanimous policy position that crosses typical political divides.
State Legislative Strategy:
- Representative Nick Hoheisel (Council Member Mike Hoheisel’s brother) carrying HB 2456
- Wichita City Council taking credit for elevating the issue to state legislative agenda
- Entire council traveling to Topeka for Legislative Day to lobby personally
- Vice Mayor Glasscock characterizing it as a “95-5 issue” with residents
Implementation Challenges:
- Multi-state compact agreement complicating timeline
- Cannot pass in current legislative session due to compact constraints
- City Manager Jonas committed to “speed that clock up as best we can”
Economic Justice Frame: Council Member Johnston: “It affects the poor directly” Vice Mayor Glasscock: “Primary objective of this Council… should be for residents”
Statewide Impact: Glasscock emphasized this would benefit all Kansas residents, not just Wichita, if successful—positioning Wichita as leading on statewide tax policy reform.
Delano Common Consumption Area – The Insurance Question
Risk Acceptance: The city is self-insuring up to $500,000 in potential liability for the common consumption program because no commercial carrier would provide coverage.
Policy Implications: This raises questions about:
- Whether the economic benefit to Delano businesses justifies this risk
- Why commercial insurers view this risk as unacceptable
- Whether the city’s risk assessment differs from insurance industry analysis
- What claims history exists in other Kansas cities with similar programs
District Representative Support: Vice Mayor Glasscock’s strong advocacy as both district representative and Delano resident provided political cover for the insurance risk, framing it as an investment in neighborhood vitality and walkability.
Lack of Incidents: Police Chief consultation revealed no citations or reported issues with the pilot program, suggesting the theoretical insurance risk hasn’t materialized in practice.
Standard Operating Procedures – The Deeper Issue
City Manager Marstall’s Proposed Solution: The workshop approach to educating council on standard contract boilerplate addresses the immediate problem but raises larger questions:
- How much contract detail should council receive in routine agenda reports?
- What threshold defines “major red flags” requiring special disclosure?
- Should legal staff review all agenda reports for undisclosed material terms?
- How can staff balance comprehensive disclosure with information overload?
Trust and Verification: Mayor Wu’s statement that “this Council has now been blamed for something that was not highlighted to any of us” reflects the political vulnerability elected officials face when information gaps emerge publicly. Council members need sufficient information to defend their votes, even when staff believe certain details are standard industry practice.
Meeting Length and Complexity
At nearly 3.5 hours, this meeting exemplifies the challenge of municipal governance:
- Highly technical infrastructure projects require extensive explanation
- Legal complexities (settlement negotiations, contract terms) limit public discussion
- Democratic accountability demands public transparency
- Expert knowledge (engineering, law, finance) concentrates in staff, not elected officials
- Time constraints pressure both thorough deliberation and efficient government
What Happens Next
February 2026:
- First monthly water treatment plant progress report to council
- Completion of temporary repair to one clarifier
- Continued settlement claim negotiations
March 2026:
- Council Member Shepard attends NLC Congressional City Conference (March 15-18)
- Legislative session continues on grocery tax exemption bill (HB 2456)
April-June 2026:
- Temporary repair replaced with permanent repair on first clarifier
- Permanent repairs proceed on remaining five clarifiers
Through December 2026:
- Garver contract extension covers continued oversight (actual hours basis)
- Monthly progress reports continue
- Settlement claim negotiations aim for resolution
Unknown Timeline:
- Final completion date for water treatment plant
- Final change order reconciling all costs
- City acceptance and takeover of plant operations
- Full integration into Wichita water system
Key Quotes
Mayor Lily Wu on transparency: “I’m very upset because I’m looking at the agenda report from September 17th, 2024 and nowhere does it say anything regarding liquidated damages. So that was not pointed out to this Council, it was not pointed out to the Community. That is a problem.”
Gary Janzen accepting responsibility: “Mayor, you’re looking at him. I was the one that made that presentation. Ultimately it’s my responsibility to put that together.”
Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock on grocery tax: “This is something that we can lead that will not only benefit the citizens of Wichita but can benefit the citizens of the entire state of Kansas.”
Council Member JV Johnston on equity: “Not having sales tax on food affects the poor directly and I don’t think it should be on the county sales tax either.”
Ron Coker on clarifier frustration: “That’s super frustrating, right? It’s not just frustrating to you. I think that’s super frustrating to us as well because the rest of your plant’s really performing very well.”
Council Member Becky Tuttle on childcare: “Childcare is not a woman’s issue, it’s not a family issue, it’s an economic development and workforce issue.”
Council Member Johnston on staff expertise: “Our staff that Public Works and Gary hired is very, very good. They’re very, very knowledgeable… I’m really impressed with them.”
Mayor Wu on public accountability: “I want to make sure that this remains in the public sphere so that there can be public engagement on it.”
Documents and Resolutions
Resolutions Adopted:
- Resolution 26-041: Water improvements – Monarch Landing Commercial Addition
- Resolution 26-039: Sidewalk improvements – Betzen Addition
- Resolution 26-040: Sanitary sewer – Great Plains Business Park 3rd Addition
- Resolution 26-042: Water improvements – Tallgrass East Commercial 2nd Addition
- Resolution 26-043: Common Consumption Area – Delano expansion
- Resolution 26-044: IRB Purchase Option – Bombardier Learjet
- Resolution 26-045: IRB Purchase Option – Capps Manufacturing
- Resolution 26-046: IRB Purchase Option – Shannon No. 2, LLC
- Resolution 26-047: Order of Succession
- Resolution 26-048: Eminent Domain – 143rd Street
Ordinances Adopted:
- Ordinance 52-885: Emergency Communications Advisory Board amendments (second reading)
- Ordinance 52-886: Emergency Communications Advisory Board amendments (second reading)
- Ordinance 52-889: Zone change – 29th Street North and North Oliver Avenue (second reading)
- Ordinance 52-890: Eminent Domain – 143rd Street
Contracts and Agreements:
- Garver OSR Phase 3 Amendment: $769,446
- Developer’s Agreement: The Ranch 3rd Addition
- Supplemental Design Agreement: Courtyards at Jacobs Farm Addition
- Ailevon Pacific Aviation Consulting Supplemental Agreement No. 1