The Wichita City Council met in regular session on the morning of Tuesday, April 14, 2026, with Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock presiding in Mayor Lily Wu’s absence. Six of the seven council members were present — Glasscock, Joseph Shepard, Becky Tuttle, Mike Hoheisel, JV Johnston, and Maggie Ballard — along with City Manager Dennis Marstall and City Attorney Jennifer Magana.
The council’s agenda was one of the most substantive in recent months, touching on issues that residents have debated for years. The centerpiece was a long-contested $9.6 million purchase and lease agreement for a downtown parking garage connected to the riverfront ballpark development — a deal that drew pointed public scrutiny about the city’s track record of managing complex development contracts. Beyond that, the council unanimously updated its ethics ordinance, approved 2027 pension contribution rates for city employees, expanded the rights of renters to receive notice when zoning cases affect their neighborhoods, renewed arts funding partnerships with five legacy cultural institutions, approved affordable housing funding for a new riverfront residential project, and extended a behavioral health co-responder agreement with Sedgwick County.
All seven substantive action items passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The meeting recessed into a 20-minute executive session to receive legal advice on two pending civil lawsuits before adjourning at 12:10 p.m. Assistance from Claude AI.
Proclamations and Recognitions
Before moving to business, the council adopted several proclamations recognizing causes and events of community significance. The council declared a Day of Remembrance in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, a formal civic recognition of one of history’s gravest atrocities and a reminder of the importance of bearing witness to historical truth. National Volunteer Week was proclaimed in recognition of the tens of thousands of Wichitans whose unpaid service sustains nonprofits, civic organizations, and community institutions across the city. Child Abuse Prevention Month was recognized, consistent with Kansas’s statewide awareness campaign and the city’s ongoing investment in child welfare programs. Finally, the council proclaimed City of Wichita Drug Endangered Children’s Awareness Day, highlighting the intersection of substance abuse and child safety.
Public Agenda: A Citizen Raises the Alarm on Flock Safety Cameras
Before the council turned to its official business, resident Zachary Knopp — who lives in the Glasscock-represented district at 2330 South Prescott Street — took to the public podium to deliver what he promised would be the first in a series of monthly appearances focused on the city’s use of Flock Safety cameras.
To understand why this matters, some background is useful. Flock Safety is a private company that sells automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems to law enforcement agencies. These camera networks photograph every vehicle that passes, capture license plate data, and store that information in searchable databases. The Wichita Police Department operates a Flock network that costs the city roughly half a million dollars a year. Proponents say the cameras help solve crimes faster. Critics say they create a mass surveillance infrastructure with inadequate oversight.
Knopp, who works in IT systems for Boeing and NASA-adjacent operations and is studying AI ethics and safety at Wichita State University, framed his critique in explicitly technical terms. He acknowledged the obvious — yes, a system designed to help solve crimes will sometimes help solve crimes — but argued that repeating that fact does not address the system’s documented failure modes. Those failures include technical vulnerabilities that allow unauthorized access, well-documented cases of mistaken identity, and the potential for stalking and harassment through access to tracking data.
His sharpest critique was directed at the WPD’s internal audit process. “There is absolutely no chance that WPD is doing adequate audits,” Knopp said, explaining that the kind of cybersecurity auditing required for a networked camera system — penetration testing, red-teaming, vulnerability scanning — is work done by large specialized firms, not investigative units within a police department. He went further, claiming that the vulnerabilities in the Flock system are serious enough that “any random guy at a gas station” could, in theory, use them to track police officers in real time.
Knopp made clear he is not coming to demand the system be shut down. Rather, he is demanding that the city engage in what he called “real, genuine adult conversations” about improving both the technical security of the system and the public’s confidence in how it is overseen. He announced he will return monthly, with each appearance focusing on a different aspect of the Flock system — next month, he said, he plans to go deeper on auditing and technical vulnerabilities.
No council members responded to Knopp’s comments during the public agenda segment. His remarks were received and he was thanked for his time.
Consent Agenda: Routine Business Approved Unanimously
The council’s consent agenda grouped twelve items that staff deemed non-controversial and ready for a single bundled vote. These included license applications, preliminary estimates for infrastructure improvements in Oak Tree Addition (District IV) and Arvada Second Addition (District V), a public exigency ratification for a landfill compactor at Brooks Landfill, approval of an alcohol-consumption community event for Central Standard Brewing’s Beer Run in District I, second readings for five ordinances (covering short-term rental licensing, unified zoning code definitions, and three separate zoning classification changes), two planning items (a zone change and two vacation requests), two housing sales in District III (properties at 1508 East Catalina Street and 1602 East Del Mar Street), and an airport planning services contract for Eisenhower National and Jabara airports.
No items were pulled for individual discussion. Council Member Johnston moved to approve the full consent agenda.
Vote: 6–0
Board of Bids and Contracts
Josh Lauber of the Finance Department presented the Board of Bids and Contracts report dated April 13, 2026. The board’s report represents contracts that have gone through the city’s competitive bidding process and are being brought forward for council ratification. No council members raised questions about any specific contract.
Council Member Johnston moved to receive and file the report, approve the contracts, and authorize the necessary signatures.
Vote: 6–0
Unfinished Business
The Downtown Parking Garage: A $9.6 Million Purchase Amid Years of Controversy
The most consequential and contentious item on the April 14 agenda was the approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and subsequent Lease Agreement with WBD, LLC for a parking garage associated with the downtown riverfront ballpark development in District IV. The council approved the purchase of the garage for $9.6 million.
To understand why this transaction is controversial, it is important to understand the context in which it sits.
The backstory of the riverfront development. The ballpark project was one of the most ambitious — and most troubled — economic development initiatives in Wichita’s recent history. It was conceived as a catalyst for downtown riverfront revitalization, with the ballpark surrounded by a mixed-use development that would include a hotel, retail space, and residential units. The project relied on Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a mechanism by which future increases in property tax revenue generated by a development are used to finance the development itself. The theory is that development pays for itself over time without drawing on the general fund.
That theory, however, depends on the development actually getting built.
What went wrong. The original development agreement involved a company called Wichita Riverfront LP, but that entity was allowed out of the contract in August 2023 with no penalties for failing to perform — and was permitted to keep two tracts of public riverfront land with no development requirements attached. EPC, a subsequent developer, took over the project. Then, as public speaker Celeste Racette documented in detail during public comment, EPC in September 2024 quietly assigned its rights and duties to two new entities: WBDH and WBD. In October 2025, the developers asked for yet another extension of hotel completion milestones, pushing the target date to 2028. At no point in the publicly available timeline for this meeting was that assignment mentioned.
Now, the city is being asked to purchase the parking garage itself — the structure that sits at the base of the mixed-use development — for $9.6 million, with a lease arrangement that ties its operation back to the developer.
How TIF financing works here. City staff from the Finance Department explained the financial structure. The TIF district is projected to generate approximately $15 million in revenue over its lifetime, which runs until approximately 2044. Under the development agreement, the first $11 million or so of that TIF revenue will be paid to the developer on a pay-as-you-go basis — meaning the city will not issue debt, eliminating direct financial risk during the payout period. After that obligation is met, the remaining $3.3 million in TIF revenue would be available to the city, and the intent is to use it to retire any debt the city has associated with the parking garage. City Manager Dennis Marstall confirmed that maintenance of the garage will be the city’s responsibility, with costs expected to increase in years three through five as maintenance cycles ramp up.
Council questions. Council Member Hoheisel pressed staff on whether maintenance costs had been formally incorporated into the agreement’s financial projections. The answer, from Gerri Ford of the City Manager’s Office, was that those details were not immediately available — a gap she attributed in part to staffing turnover on the project. Hoheisel acknowledged the problem: “We’ve lost a lot of staff who’ve been working on this project.”
Council Member Ballard asked the sharper follow-up: when staff said they didn’t “have” the maintenance cost information, did they mean the information doesn’t exist, or that they just didn’t have it on hand? Ford clarified that the parking fund would serve as the backstop for operating costs, but specific maintenance figures were not available at the moment. City Manager Marstall acknowledged the city’s obligation and noted that lessons from past deferred maintenance failures would shape how the new structure is managed.
Ballard pushed further, asking directly how the public can be assured the city will actually maintain the new garage given its history with other public buildings. Marstall cited the establishment of the parking fund as a disciplined mechanism to balance debt service and maintenance obligations.
Council Member Shepard, the newest member of the council, took a more forward-looking tone, framing the vote as an opportunity to demonstrate that the council has learned from past failures. “I believe that we can honor the past by not staying in it,” Shepard said, expressing hope that the council’s demonstrated commitment to maintaining the new structure would help rebuild public trust.
Public comment: A detailed accounting of what’s gone wrong. Celeste Racette, a longtime civic observer who has spoken on this development since its inception nearly seven years ago, used her five minutes to offer one of the most comprehensive critical analyses of the project heard at the council podium in recent memory. She documented a timeline of missed deadlines, amended agreements, and what she characterized as repeated generosity toward developers who had failed to deliver:
The original developer left the project without penalty and kept public riverfront land. EPC’s rights were transferred to WBD without public disclosure in the meeting’s official timeline. Hotel completion milestones have been extended to 2028. The retail footprint has shrunk from 65,000 square feet to just 10,000 square feet — a reduction Racette highlighted as a significant departure from what was originally promised. She also raised questions about who exactly WBD is and its relationship to EPC, whether the city had received the required assignment agreement between EPC and WBD, and whether the city’s independent analyst had reviewed that assignment. She asked about a $1 million leftover base grant, the absence of a 30-year maintenance budget, and — notably — who is responsible for maintaining a swimming pool on top of the parking garage structure, and what happens if that pool leaks and causes water damage to city-owned property.
She also offered a pointed connection to the failed March 2026 sales tax referendum: “The failed one percent sales tax initiative is a direct result of taxpayers’ mistrust of City decisions.”
EPC’s response. Austin Bradley, Executive Vice President with EPC, participated in the meeting remotely. When Council Member Hoheisel asked directly about the WBD relationship, Bradley explained that WBD and WBDH are simply special purpose entities — a standard real estate practice in which a developer creates separate legal shells for each component of a mixed-use project, with EPC remaining the managing member of both. “The people behind have not changed whatsoever,” Bradley said.
On the swimming pool question — which became one of the meeting’s more memorable exchanges — Bradley said EPC would be responsible for pool maintenance and that any leak-related damage would be handled by EPC staff. However, when Council Member Ballard asked whether that responsibility was explicitly written into the contract, Bradley acknowledged he wasn’t sure whether the pool was specifically mentioned, though he believed the general maintenance division between the city’s property and EPC’s property was clear.
Council Member Johnston pressed further on the engineering specifics, asking whether the pool would be supported by the precast concrete parking structure. Bradley confirmed it would, clarifying that the garage uses a precast structure with a poured-in-place slab at the top that forms a courtyard. The “condominium form of ownership” referenced in the contract — which Racette had flagged as an unresolved question — is a legal mechanism to create a three-dimensional parcel that defines what belongs to the city and what belongs to the developer.
The fiscal reality driving the vote. Council Member Hoheisel, perhaps the most candid voice on the council about the project’s flaws, offered a frank explanation of why the council felt it had no real choice but to move forward. If the development fails entirely and nothing gets built on the riverfront tract, the city would still owe the STAR bond debt associated with the ballpark. To cover that debt from the general fund would require cutting elsewhere — park staff, library staff, firefighters, or police officers. “This might not be an ideal situation,” Hoheisel said, “but this is something that weighs heavy on our mind.”
Council Member Johnston echoed the point, noting that the recent news that the hotel has secured a “flag” — meaning a brand affiliation, which signals that a hotel financing package may be coming together — gave him cautious optimism that the project might actually proceed. “We definitely need it to go or the taxpayers will be on the hook for it,” he said.
Vice Mayor Glasscock closed the council discussion by noting, for the record, that the city has invested $10.8 million in Century II improvements since 2020, with an additional $7.8 million in projects currently underway and $12.66 million projected in the Capital Improvement Program over the next decade — context he offered to counter the narrative that the city never maintains its public buildings.
Vote: 6–0
New Council Business
1. Updating the City’s Ethics Ordinance
Kathy Sexton of the city’s Public Policy and Management Consulting office (PPMC) presented a proposed update to Wichita’s ethics ordinance — the framework that governs the conduct of elected officials and the approximately 300 volunteer board and commission members who serve the city. The ordinance was scheduled for a second formal reading on April 21.
What changed and why it matters. The revised ordinance makes several meaningful structural improvements. Most significantly, it moves whistleblower protection language from the back of the document — where Sexton acknowledged it had functioned as “an afterthought” — into the opening section of the actual code of ethics. This is not merely a cosmetic change. By placing the anti-retaliation requirement prominently, the ordinance makes clear that the obligation not to retaliate against complainants, witnesses, or anyone providing evidence is a foundational ethical duty, not a procedural footnote. The protection is also expanded to cover not just people who file complaints but also those who serve as witnesses or provide evidence in an ethics investigation.
The ordinance explicitly carves out what cannot form the basis of a valid complaint: a complainant’s disagreement with a city official’s beliefs, statements, or voting record. This is an important First Amendment protection for elected and appointed officials, though Sexton clarified that unprofessional conduct during public meetings — particularly heated exchanges with members of the public — could potentially fall under a separate provision prohibiting conduct that “reflects adversely on abilities as a City Official.”
Council discussion: Whistleblowers, cultural competency, and retaliation. Council Member Hoheisel raised two substantive concerns. First, he asked whether dismissed or invalid complaints would be subject to permanent retention requirements — Sexton clarified they would not, since documents that don’t rise to the level of formal complaints are not treated as official ethics filings. Second, and more pointedly, he expressed concern that the ordinance’s whistleblower protections lacked “teeth” — that is, that there was no clear enforcement mechanism to guarantee a whistleblower would actually be protected after coming forward. He asked that the topic be brought back for further discussion at a future meeting to explore whether the protections could be strengthened.
Council Member Shepard raised a dimension the council does not often address publicly: the role of cultural competency in ethics adjudication. As a Black man, Shepard said, he is aware that his communication style is sometimes perceived as aggressive when it is not intended that way, and he asked how the ethics process accounts for the difference between intent and impact when evaluating conduct. Sexton’s answer was that the process is behavior-based — complaints must point to a specific conduct provision — and that the person being complained about has the opportunity to provide their side of the story before any investigation proceeds. That sequencing, she suggested, is the appropriate venue for contextualizing cultural differences in communication style.
Shepard also raised a legal question about whether the ordinance’s definition of “retaliation” tracks the legal definition of the term — noting that retaliation can take both direct and passive forms. Sexton and City Attorney Magana did not resolve the question definitively, but Shepard noted he was flagging it for future consideration rather than making it a condition of his vote.
Vote: 6–0
2. Police and Fire Retirement Amendments and Unclaimed Property Ordinance
Sharon Dickgrafe of the Law Department presented two linked legal housekeeping items: an amendment to Charter Ordinance 230 (which governs the Police and Fire Retirement System) and the creation of a new chapter in the City Code governing lost, stolen, mislaid, or unclaimed property.
The connection between these two items is less obvious than it might appear. Under state law, unclaimed property must generally be turned over to the state through a standard process. However, state statutes dating back to 1945 created an alternative path for cities: they can “charter out” of the standard unclaimed property process and instead direct that property to a pension fund. That is precisely what this ordinance does. The city is directing applicable unclaimed property to the Police and Fire Retirement System rather than the general state unclaimed property pool.
Vice Mayor Glasscock asked whether this mechanism is separate from the state’s standard unclaimed property process, and Dickgrafe confirmed that the 1945 legislation predates and operates independently of the modern unclaimed property system. Council Member Shepard asked whether the ordinance intersects with civil asset forfeiture law; Dickgrafe confirmed it does not.
This item was placed on first reading, meaning it will return for a second vote before becoming law.
Vote: 6–0
3. 2026 Legacy Cultural Institution Operating Partnership Agreements
Lindsay Benacka of the city’s Arts and Cultural Services division presented the 2026 renewal of operating partnership agreements with five legacy cultural institutions. These agreements represent the city’s direct funding relationship with its most established arts and cultural organizations — institutions that have earned “Legacy” designation through at least 20 years of continuous community service and stewardship of public funds.
How the cultural funding ladder works. The city uses a tiered system to classify cultural organizations for funding purposes. An organization entering the city’s funding ecosystem starts as a “Cultural Partner,” requiring two to three years of operating history. After 10 years, it becomes eligible for “Cultural Anchor” status. After 20 years total, it may qualify for “Cultural Institution” designation — the highest tier, and the one that makes organizations eligible for the Legacy partnership agreements being considered here. Importantly, institutions can be moved down the ladder if performance issues arise, preventing the funding from becoming a permanent entitlement regardless of outcomes.
For 2026, five organizations hold Legacy status and are receiving direct city funding with an associated growth increase tied to assessed valuation growth. The Wichita Art Museum (WAM) receives the largest share of funding, which Benacka explained reflects the city’s substantial ownership interest in the museum — the city owns the entire collection of approximately 10,000 pieces — and the corresponding operational scale of the institution. Looking ahead to 2027, the eligible pool will expand from five to ten organizations, adding MTW Symphony Arts Partners and several others as they reach Legacy status.
Benacka noted that a Cultural Funding Committee, including four representatives from the Arts Council, makes funding recommendations before they come to the council for final approval.
Public comment from the Wichita Art Museum. Molly McPherson, Director and CEO of the Wichita Art Museum, addressed the council to express gratitude for the city’s support and to describe how that funding translates into community impact. She highlighted that 2025 saw the museum’s highest visitor numbers since COVID, and enumerated a range of free programming: free general admission daily, Friday late hours until 9 p.m. with community programming, a bilingual gallery (English and Spanish throughout), a free family interactive space called Play, an art lab with free materials, six free family days annually, and fully reimbursed field trips for K-12 school groups. “Funding from the City of Wichita is crucial for both our ability to care for our collection for generations to come,” McPherson said.
A recusal question resolved. Vice Mayor Glasscock announced he would recuse himself from the vote because he serves as a voting member of both the Arts Council and the Wichita Art Museum board. Council Member Tuttle, who serves on the Arts Council board, asked the City Attorney whether she also needed to recuse. City Attorney Magana clarified that the situation is not a mandatory conflict under state law — since neither council member derives personal income from the relationship — but that it is a “perception matter” left to individual discretion. Benacka added important context: council appointments to boards like these are made as city representatives, not as personal community members, meaning their service on those boards is part of their official role. Magana confirmed the vote was permissible. In the end, Tuttle chose to vote, while Glasscock chose to recuse. Both announced their positions transparently before the vote.
The motion was made by Council Member Tuttle.
Vote: 6–0 (Glasscock recused)
4. HOME Program Funding — Ark River Residences Project ($420,000)
Carmen Hoffine of Housing and Community Services, together with Adam Wehking of Commonwealth Development Corporation of America, presented a request to allocate $420,000 in federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program funding toward the Ark River Residences Project — a new affordable housing development along the Arkansas River.
HOME funds are federal dollars that flow to the city through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). They can be used to support the construction and preservation of affordable housing, and their use is governed by a regulatory agreement that defines affordability requirements, income targets, and compliance obligations. The funding agreement cannot be fully executed until HUD issues an environmental clearance for the project site.
No council members raised questions, and no members of the public spoke on the item.
Council Member Hoheisel made the motion, approving both the $420,000 allocation and the authorization to execute the regulatory agreement upon receipt of HUD environmental clearance.
Vote: 6–0
5. Wichita Retirement Systems Actuarial Reports and 2027 Employer Contribution Rates
Mark Manning of the Finance Department and Jake Libauskas of Cheiron, the city’s actuarial consulting firm, presented the annual actuarial valuation reports for the city’s two retirement systems as of December 31, 2025. These reports determine the financial health of the pension funds and set the employer contribution rates the city must budget for the following year.
The two systems. Wichita operates two distinct retirement systems. The Police and Fire Retirement System covers sworn law enforcement and fire personnel, and the Wichita Employees’ Retirement System (WERS) covers civilian city employees. Each system has a different benefit structure and funding ratio, and each requires its own actuarially determined employer contribution rate.
The 2027 rates. Based on the December 31, 2025 valuations, the council approved the following employer contribution rates for the 2027 budget year: 27% for the Police and Fire Retirement System and 15.5% for the Wichita Employees’ Retirement System.
How Wichita compares. Council Member Hoheisel took a moment to offer some comparative context, noting that Wichita’s pension funding stands in the 90th percentile among peer systems nationally. By contrast, the Kansas Public Employees’ Retirement System (KPERS) — the state-level pension fund — is funded at approximately the 75th percentile. Hoheisel made the observation with some pointed humor directed at state legislators: “I think I know a representative who needs to have some goals set out for them.” Vice Mayor Glasscock noted that with the legislature now out of session, council members would have more time to contact their state representatives on the subject.
One procedural question arose: whether the motion needed to separately address a planned contribution to the pension reserve fund. City Attorney Magana confirmed that the reserve fund transfer would be handled administratively as part of the broader approved contribution, making a separate motion unnecessary.
Council Member Johnston made the motion.
Vote: 6–0
6. Zoning Code Amendment: Expanding Public Notification to Renters
Scott Wadle, Planning Director, presented a proposed amendment to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code that would expand who receives official notification when a zoning case is filed affecting properties in their neighborhood. The amendment had received an 8-0 recommendation from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) and would also need to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners to apply county-wide — though the City Council’s adoption would make it effective within city limits.
The problem this solves. Under current state statute and city practice, notification of a pending zoning case goes to the owner of each affected property — defined as the person whose name appears on the ownership record. If you own and live in your house, you receive the notice. If you rent your home from a landlord who lives in Florida, the landlord in Florida receives the notice. The tenant actually living next door to the proposed development gets nothing.
This matters because zoning decisions — whether to allow a new commercial use, a higher-density development, or a change in permitted building types — directly affect the daily lives of renters just as they affect homeowners. Under the existing system, renters are effectively excluded from the earliest stages of the public process.
What the amendment does. The amendment addresses this gap by comparing the ownership record address with the actual property address. When those addresses differ — when the owner is living somewhere other than the property — a second notice would be sent to the physical property address, reaching the tenant living there. The ownership list that applicants are already required to secure from a title company would be updated to include an additional column showing the actual property address, enabling planning staff to identify when owner and tenant addresses diverge.
The cost implications are modest: applicants would pay an additional $5 per property for the expanded ownership list, and each additional mailer costs approximately $2.64 in postage and materials. Staff estimated a median of about 30 notices per case, with about 6 properties on average where the owner and property addresses differ — meaning the practical cost increase per case would typically be in the range of $15 to $20.
What it does not do — and why. The amendment deliberately excludes multi-family apartment complexes from the individual-unit notification requirement. Wadle explained the practical reason: ownership records for apartment buildings do not contain individual unit addresses. To identify and contact individual tenants in a 200-unit apartment complex would require accessing multiple databases that the city does not currently maintain. For multi-family properties, the notice would go to the property address, with the expectation — though not a legal requirement — that the owner or manager would share the information with tenants. Council Member Shepard confirmed with Wadle that there is no legal obligation for a landlord to pass the notice along.
Multilingual notification was considered but not recommended. Wadle noted that planning staff explored whether to send notifications in multiple languages, given that Wichita Public Schools count more than 140 languages spoken among students. The concern that ultimately led staff to recommend against multilingual notices was the risk of mistranslation and the equity concerns that an imperfect translation could create. Council Member Shepard pushed back, arguing that the 140-languages figure demonstrates this is not a future problem but a present one, and that the city should invest in multilingual staff capacity so that cases like this can be handled correctly. He expressed hope the planning department would revisit the language question once that capacity exists.
The Goddard address nuance. Vice Mayor Glasscock raised a district-specific complication: some residents who live within the City of Wichita carry a Goddard mailing address because their postal delivery is associated with a different school district. Wadle confirmed that eligibility for notice is based on whether a property is located within the City of Wichita, not on what city name appears in the postal address — meaning Wichita residents with Goddard addresses would still receive notice, though he acknowledged he would need to verify the precise mechanism.
MAPC override. The council ultimately chose to adopt an alternative motion that included a slight modification to the ordinance language and a formal override of the MAPC. This procedural step — overriding the planning commission rather than simply adopting its recommendation — gives the city more flexibility in setting the implementation timeline, allowing cases already in the pipeline to be processed under the existing rules before the new notification requirements take effect.
Council Member Hoheisel made the motion.
Vote: 6–0
7. Behavioral Health Co-Responder Program: Supplemental Agreement with Sedgwick County
Captain Jason Cooley of the Wichita Police Department presented a supplemental agreement with Sedgwick County — specifically with ComCare, the county’s behavioral health agency — to continue and expand the Integrated Crisis Team (ICT) co-responder program.
What the ICT program does. Rather than sending only uniformed police officers to respond to mental health crises, the ICT program pairs behavioral health workers alongside law enforcement. When someone in crisis calls 911, the responding team includes both a police officer and a trained mental health professional. This model has been shown nationally to reduce use of force, improve outcomes for individuals in crisis, and free up law enforcement resources for situations that actually require an enforcement response.
The program began with a single unit — ICT 1 — that operated weekdays during business hours. The limitation was obvious: mental health crises do not observe a Monday-through-Friday, 8-to-5 schedule. The supplemental agreement before the council expands the program to include ICT units 2, 3, and 5, which work rotating shifts that together provide 24-hour, 7-day coverage. The workers log into the same computer-aided dispatch system used by police officers, making them dispatchable by phone or radio alongside law enforcement.
Council Member Hoheisel asked how units are deployed and whether all units are on standby simultaneously. Captain Cooley clarified that the workers report to their regular shifts on a rotating schedule — not all simultaneously — and that the scheduling model has been refined over time since the program’s 2023 expansion based on actual call volume data at different times of day and week.
Council Member Shepard made the motion.
Vote: 6–0
Council Member Comments and Appointments
Before adjournment, the council approved two board appointments and council members shared several community updates.
Appointments. Council Member Shepard appointed John Williams Bey to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC). Council Member Ballard reappointed Josh Siebenaler to the Community Review Board (CRB). Both appointments passed 6-0.
Budget listening sessions underway. Council Member Hoheisel reported that the council’s community budget listening sessions have begun. His own breakfast event drew approximately 30 attendees and produced useful discussion about budget priorities for the coming year. He encouraged residents to attend the other council members’ listening sessions as they are scheduled.
ICT Trees giveaway. Council Member Ballard highlighted a successful community event: ICT Trees gave away 100 trees on Saturday. Fifty were pre-registered for residents in the 67214 ZIP code, and the remainder were made available to the general public at 3:00 p.m. — at which point a line had already been forming for an hour. Ballard noted the event illustrated strong public interest in urban tree planting while also acknowledging the barrier of cost: established trees large enough to take root and provide shade are often out of reach for residents who want them. She thanked ICT Trees for securing the grant that made the giveaway possible.
Gun violence in District One. Council Member Shepard delivered a passionate and personal statement on gun violence following a weekend in which he was briefed by the police chief about shootings in his district, with another shooting occurring the morning of the council meeting itself. Shepard was direct: he considers gun violence a public health crisis, and he said plainly that law enforcement alone cannot solve it. Prevention, community trust, and investment in upstream solutions are equally necessary. “If you bring violence in our community, and if you put lives at risk, there will be accountability,” he said, while in the same breath calling on the city to invest in prevention “at the same rate as we invest in other areas of keeping our community safe.” He announced he has begun conversations with community partners to develop a violence prevention strategy that works alongside — but is not dependent solely upon — policing, and he invited his council colleagues to be part of that conversation.
Remembering Wes Gallion. Vice Mayor Glasscock closed the public portion of the meeting by recognizing the passing of Wes Gallion, longtime head of the Wichita Area Builders Association. “An institution and a good man,” Glasscock said, noting his passing over the weekend.
Executive Session
The council voted 6-0 to recess into executive session for 20 minutes to receive legal advice from the City Attorney on two pending civil lawsuits, pursuant to KSA 75-439(B)(2), which authorizes closed sessions for attorney-client privileged consultations. The session began at 11:50 a.m. and concluded at 12:10 p.m.
Adjournment
Vice Mayor Glasscock moved to adjourn at 12:10 p.m. The motion carried 4-0 (two members appear to have been briefly away from the chamber at the time of the final adjournment vote).
Complete Voting Record
| Agenda Item | Glasscock | Shepard | Tuttle | Hoheisel | Johnston | Ballard | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consent Agenda (Items 1–12) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Board of Bids and Contracts | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Parking Garage Purchase/Sale (WBD, LLC) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Ethics Ordinance Update | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Charter Ordinance 230 / Unclaimed Property | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Legacy Cultural Institution Agreements | Recused | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 5–0 |
| HOME Funding – Ark River Residences | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Retirement Actuarial Reports / 2027 Rates | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Zoning Notification Amendment (MAPC Override) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Behavioral Health Co-Responder Agreement | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Board Appointments | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Executive Session | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | 6–0 |
| Adjournment | — | — | — | ✅ | ✅ | — | 4–0 |
Absent: Lily Wu (entire meeting). Glasscock recused on Legacy Cultural Institution item due to voting membership on Wichita Art Museum board.
What to Watch Going Forward
The parking garage development clock is ticking. Council Member Johnston expressed hope for visible construction by July 31, 2026. That is the informal benchmark residents and council members should watch. If construction has not begun on the hotel component by that point, the fiscal pressure on the city’s STAR bond obligations will intensify quickly.
Flock camera oversight. Resident Zachary Knopp has committed to monthly appearances before the council on the Flock Safety camera system. Whether the council engages substantively with his concerns — rather than simply receiving them — will be an important indicator of how seriously the city takes independent oversight of its surveillance infrastructure.
Ethics ordinance whistleblower protections. Council Member Hoheisel explicitly requested that the topic return at a future meeting for discussion about strengthening enforcement mechanisms for whistleblower protections. Watch for that item to be scheduled and whether it results in additional amendments to the newly updated ordinance.
Renter zoning notification implementation. The amended notification process applies within city limits immediately upon adoption but still requires Board of County Commissioners review to apply county-wide. The implementation timeline for in-pipeline cases — the reason the council chose to override the MAPC — will shape how quickly renters begin seeing the change in practice.
Gun violence prevention strategy. Council Member Shepard announced he is developing a community-based violence prevention strategy with partners outside city government. He has invited his council colleagues to participate. Whether this develops into a formal policy initiative with funding attached will be worth following closely.
Budget listening sessions. With the annual budget process beginning to take shape, the community listening sessions currently underway are the public’s primary opportunity to weigh in before line-item decisions are made. Residents are encouraged to check the city’s website for dates and locations for their district’s session.
Voice for Liberty covers Wichita municipal government with the goal of making city decisions accessible and understandable for every resident. The Wichita City Council meets regularly at City Hall, 455 N. Main Street. All meetings are open to the public. Official minutes and meeting materials are available at wichita.gov.