[Music] [Music] Good morning, Witchaw, and good  morning to all of you. Welcome to   City Hall. We'll call this meeting to  order. With us this morning is Pastor   Todd Carter of Pathway Church to provide  our invocation. Following that invocation,   we will have the pledge of allegiance,  and we ask that you please stand for both. Well, good morning. Great to see everybody. Uh let  me open just with us with a word of prayer. Well,   Father in heaven, I just uh thank you so much,  God, for the place, the people of Witchah. God,   what a great place you've given us, Lord, to be  able to live and to work and to be able to raise   our families. And Father, we thank you yesterday  just for the opportunity we had to remember Dr.   Martin Luther King and how he reminded us that  hate can't drive out hate, only love can. and   help us, Father, just to continue to love others  always. And Father, I want to especially pray   today as we come together for our mayor and our  city commissioners. I know what it means to carry   the weight of leadership. And I pray that you just  would lighten their load and that you would give   them wisdom and discernment as they discuss the  matters at hand today. And Father, I just thank   you as well that you say that we can come to you  when we're your we are weary and burdened and   you'll give us rest. And father, I pray as well  just uh today for all of our first responders and   the things they do to serve our city. God, keep  them safe. Watch over them. Thank you for their   example of sacrificial service. Uh we love you,  God. We just pray all this in Jesus name. Amen. I aliance to the flag of the United States of  America and to the republic for it stands nationy for all. Thank you, Pastor Carter. Madame clerk,  can you please call the first item? Approve the minutes of changing of the guard  January 12th, 2026, regular meeting January 13,   2026, and special meeting January 14th, 2026.  Council members, any items to be edited? I see   none. I move to approve the minutes of  the changing of the guard January 12th,   2026, regular meeting January 13, 2026, and  special meeting January 14th, 2026. Second.   Motion and a second. Any further discussion? I  see none. Madame clerk, please open the role. I motion passes 70. Madame  clerk, please call the next item. awards and proclamations. Mayor, we only  have one award today for Friends University   football. May I please invite Dr. Amy Brag Kerry  of Friends University and her entire uh team that   she brought with her along with council member for  District 4, Vice Mayor Dalton Glasco to the front. We wanted to give a special recognition to  the French University Falcons football team.   This recognition reads, "In recognition of an  extraordinary and historic football season,   the Friends University Falcons achieved a  program record 12 wins, earned a number four   national ranking, and advanced to the NIA  football championship series quarterfinals   for the first time in program history.  Competing with determination and resilience,   the Falcons concluded their postseason run  following a hard-fought quarterfinal matchup   against Med Benedictine College on December 6  at Adair Austin Stadium. Throughout the season,   the Falcons established themselves among the  nation's elite by setting a new NIA single season   rushing record with 5979 5,979 rushing yards,  leading the NIA in points scored per game at 54.2   and ranking third nationally in points allowed per  game at 13.8. Under the leadership of head coach   Terry Harrison, the student athletes of Friends  University demonstrated exceptional teamwork,   discipline, and sportsmanship, bringing  pride to the university and the Witchah   community while securing a place in program  and NIA history. Congratulations, [Applause] Thank you guys for having us. We um if you  don't know much about Fringe University, man, an   absolutely special place um full of special young  men like this. And we have WT all these young men   or Witchaw area kids. They're here today and man  really do a great job of um man having a program   that honors God based on biblical principles. And  we thank you guys for having us today. [Applause]   We're so proud of our friends Falcons and uh not  only are they excelling on the football field,   but they're excelling in the classroom. And this  season, they had the highest team GPA in about   a decade. So, it's really exciting to see them  excel in many different ways. And uh they're just   wonderful young men of character. Uh if you're  on our campus and you see one of these young men,   they'll probably open the door for you. They'll  say hello. they'll shake your hand. Uh we're   just excited to have these young men here at  Friends University and in our community. Uh they   are leaders. So uh watch them as they continue to  flourish uh not only at Friends University and in   our community. Thanks so much for this recognition  today. Uh we are the only uh college football in   Witchah. So come out and watch us play. It's a  lot of fun. Uh we really have a great time and   we were excited to have uh some of the largest  crowds come to campus and to host uh people from   all over as we hosted uh two of the national  playoff games here in Witchah. So bringing   lots of people to Witchah and we hope to do it  again next season. Thank you so much. [Applause] Again, congratulations to the French University  football team and thank you for being here   at today's city council meeting. Madame  clerk, can you please call the next item? Public agenda. We now come to public agenda. The  public agenda allows for up to five speakers to   have five minutes each to address the council.  Please bear in mind that this is not a period of   dialogue with council or a question and answer  period. This is your opportunity to address   the city council with your concerns. I ask that  you address your remarks to the city council as   a body and not to any individual council member.  No action will be taken relative to items on the   public agenda other than referral to the city  manager for information as necessary. Speakers   will please speak into the microphone. Please  state their name and address for the record. At   time, a time clock will display the speaker's  remaining time to speak. Order and rules of   decorum will be observed. The first speaker Oh,  I'm sorry. We don't have any speakers today. We have five spots for five individuals to  speak to the council. Please state your name   and your address. My name is Dale Jones.  Address 1703 North Walmer Drive, Witchaw,   Kansas. Be very short. Um, just wanted to  address some road improvements the city   of Witchaw. I know they're dealing I've seen you  on TV about um the sidewalks on web road and not   the necessity of it. I have a necessity where  the area I live in. It's 13th Street between a   little bit east of West Street in Ambiden. I've  grew up there my most of my life and there's   a lot of wrecks at St. Paul and Meridian due  to no left turn lanes. I think that needs to   be addressed now. Needs to be widened. That's  all I have. So like that presented. Thank you. We have four more spots for individuals  who would like to address the council.   Council member Ballard, thank you so  much for coming. If you could leave your   contact information with the clerk, um, I'll  follow with you after the meeting. Thank you. I see no one else from the community  who would like to speak. We will   now move to the next item. Madame  Clerk, please call the next item. Consent agenda items 1  through 19. Council members,   are there any items from the consent agenda  that you would like to pull? I see none. I   will go ahead and move to approve consent  agenda items 1 through 19. Second. Motion   and a second. Any further discussion? I see  none. Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes 70. Madame clerk,  please call the next item. Petitions for public improvements. Good morning, mayor, city council members.  Paul Gunsman, public works and utilities.   For the record, I have a few petitions for your  consideration this morning. The signatures on   the petitions represent 100% of the improvement  districts and the petitions are valid per Kansas   statute. Betsson addition located in district two.  The project will provide sidewalk improvements   for a new residential development. Great Plains  Business Park addition located in district one.   The project will provide sewer improvements  required for an existing commercial development.   Monarch Landing commercial addition located  in district 2. The project will provide   water improvements required for a new commercial  development and tall grass east commercial second   edition located in district 2. On September 2nd,  2025, city council approved water improvements   required for an existing commercial development.  Developer has submitted a revised water petition   with a revised budget to reflect current  market conditions. It is recommended city   council approve the new and revised petitions and  budgets, adopt the new and amending resolutions,   and authorize the necessary signatures.  I will stand for questions. Thank you,   Paul. Questions for staff? I see none. I move to  approve the petitions for public improvements. Still getting used to that motion in a second.   Any further discussion? I see none.  Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes. 70. Madame clerk,  please call the next item. Expansion of resolution authorizing possession  and consumption of alcoholic liquor in Deleno   area districts 4 and six. Good morning, Mayor and  City Council. Isaac owner Haskins, Department of   Park and Recreation. Today we'll be presenting the  proposed expansion of the Deleno comet consumption   area. For some background, on August 19th, 2025,  the Witchaw City Council approved a resolution   creating a common consumption area in the Delano  District to be active on Fridays and Saturdays   only from 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. After reviewing  the current operating hours, discussing potential   safety concerns with the Witchaw Police Department  and considering feedback received by one of   the council members from the Delo District, an  expansion of the program is now being requested.   Uh so here's the map of the current consumption  area. The map itself will not be changing. We'll   just be expanding it from two days to seven days a  week. Financial consideration. Staff time will be   required to update some of the signage, but there  is no anticipated financial impact to the city's   budget outside of potential legal liability.  And with that, we recommend to close the public   hearing, adopt the resolution allowing the daily  consumption of alcoholic liquor from 10:00 a.m.   to 10 p.m. in the Deleno area on property not  otherwise subject to a license issued persuant   to the Kansas Liquor Control Act or the Club  and Drinking Establishment Act if approved.   This will go into effect on February 1st. And  with that, I'll stand for questions. Thank you,   Isaac. Questions for staff. Council member  Hohheisle. Thank you, mayor. Uh, does this do   anything to the ballpark? Ballpark's not part of  this, right? Ballpark is actually included. They   are one of these eight uh liquor providers  within the footprint. Oh, so you'll be able   to carry into the ballpark. Uh, I don't think the  ballpark is allowing liquor to come in from other   establishments. They are allowing theirs to go  out and that seems to be pretty typical for most   of the participating establishments. Okay. Thank  you, Council Member Johnston. Thank you, Mayor.   I noticed that uh we couldn't find an insurance  policy to insure this. Is that correct? Correct.   So it'll go to our selfinsured selfinsured. So  we could be at risk for half million dollars   potentially. I'd rather have legal speak to that,  but yes. Okay, that's correct. That's correct,   council member. Okay. When this is presented  to us, it was only going to be a few thousand   dollars for insurance. So, we haven't been able  to find a carrier that would approve it to cover   the liability. Okay. That that concerns me. So,  thank you, Vice Mayor Glasco. Thank you. Could   legals speak to that? I know when we were looking  at other municipalities across the state. That's   common for every municipality that has this type  of program. Morning, Vice Mayor. Um I believe   other cities also um absorb this liability  if they choose to be the holder of the permit   um that comes with the territory. We are legally  responsible for any claims that arise as a result   of holding this. I believe that's how other cities  handle it. I am not aware of insurance policies   held by other cities. Maybe Isaac knows if risk  management looked at that. I'm just not aware.   Thank you. To my knowledge there hasn't been the  majority of cities don't have insurance. In fact,   I'm not We identified a single city that in  Kansas that has general liability insurance.   Council member Ballard. Thank you, Mayor.  Thank you, Isaac. Has there been any issues   to that you know of with none reported? We did  consult with the chief police and they haven't   had any concerns or I don't think they've even  issued a single citation. And thank you. And   do you know how many of the businesses are  participating? Total of eight. Okay. Thank   you. Follow-up question to that. Which eight  providers are currently um part of this program? Have the Monarch Witchah Brewing Company,  Ruben's Mexican Grill, the Vagabond,   Manhattan Brewing Company, Picasso's Pizzeria, um  Good Taps and Spirits, and then uh the ballpark.   And so just so that you can explain the program  for individuals that may just be tuning in, you   have to have um one of these providers. Correct.  So you can't just be your own alcohol. You can't   you can't be YOB or anything by that means. Uh and  so any participating establishment has to file an   application with both the state and as well as  the city. Uh the only exception are going to   be special events like we'll have the Deleno St.  Patty Day parade. uh their caterer is going to be   able to participate in the common consumption  area for that one day along with the other   establishments. That is the follow-up question  I had. I know that Deleno likes to put on this   annual celebration during St. Patrick's Day. Um  these eight providers will be in addition to the   um liquor provider that day. Yes, that's  accurate. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any further   questions for staff? Council member Valet,  sorry, I just thought of something else. Um,   I know this was originally a pilot. So, will this  just continue on from when it first started? It's   not starting over. Correct. Yeah. So, we're not  starting it over this. Uh, I'll just have the   final an addendum with the state. Um, and it'll  still expire on September 4th. We'll have the   renew ahead of that time. Okay. Thank you. I see  no further questions for staff. Thank you, Isaac.   Thank you. We will now open it up for public  comment. I see no one from the public. We'll bring   it back to the bench. This resides in Council  Member Ballard and Vice Mayor Glasco's districts. Vice Mayor Glascock. Thank you, Mayor, and  thanking my colleagues for initiating this   pilot. This has been successful in the area.  What I've heard from businesses is confusion   for what days are uh that common consumption is  available. And so, this was a result of talking   with businesses in the community. I've talked  to the neighbor association and also the Deleno   business association and I've yet to got or yet  to get um negative feedback from this. 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 and  offer uh different amenities than other areas of   our community. I'm also looking at further ways  to create and enhance walkability in the area.   um encouraging and working with the Deleno  Business Association for some potential lighting   options to illuminate Deleno differently. I'm  also working on some traffic calming measures   with public works to make sure that we continue  to encourage um a unique type of experience in   Witchaw. And so seeing there's nobody else  on the board and as a resident of Deleno,   not just as the council person for this area,  I move that the city council close the public   hearing, adopt the resolution authorizing the  designation of a common consumption area and   allowing the the the consumption of alcoholic  liquor sales on the dates at the location during   the time set forth therein and authorized and  necessary signatures. Second or sorry, council   member Ballard. Second motion and a second. Any  further discussion? I see none. Madame clerk,   please open the role. Motion passes 70.  Madame clerk, please call the next item. 2026 city and joint state legislative agendas. Good morning, Mayor, Council, Mr. Shepard. Good  to have you. Uh I'm here uh Jim Joan is here   with the city manager's office to present  on the uh city's uh legislative agenda and   the joint state legislative agenda. Uh  I was going to have Josh Swatty here,   but he's got called into a hearing this  morning. But we do have Captain Rickstraw   is here if you have questions about uh WPD  and some of their legislative uh priorities. Uh as a bit of background, working with the mayor,  council, city leadership, and department heads,   the city's lobbyists in Topeka uh promote  legislative strategies that seek positive outcomes   for the city's priorities and monitor issues of  potential concern to the city's objectives. As   we have done in previous years, the city of  Witchaw will focus on legislative items that   fit within the four key policy priorities that  were identified as the top items of residents   concern in our yearly community surveys, which  uh you all know are public safety and crime   prevention, economic development, affordable  housing and homelessness, infrastructure,   and street repair. Uh this approach allows both  the legislative agenda and our lobbyists to be   nimble in serving the city's best interest. City  leadership will work with the city's lobbyists   on both proactive and defensive items that fall  within the key policy areas. Having this broader   focus also allows flexibility as the city  works with state house leaders and partners   during the session to ensure that key areas of  policy are addressed. uh and our lobbyists will   provide weekly summaries of activity in Topeka  which you all received this morning which were   uh quite helpful on uh helping to understand  where we are in session and those summaries will   include a calendar of upcoming legislation that  we can consider comment and provide testimony if   uh it's needed. Now, uh those may be the  the big buckets of of policy priorities,   but there are some very specific things that we  need to pay attention to. And as you all know,   uh uh uh we're going to work to exempt a  Witchaw food sales tax. That's especially   uh important given what uh the ballot question  in March 3rd. Uh but but also for longer term   uh benefit. Uh we're going to monitor legislation  that would change the utility rightaway standards   or franchise fees, which is becoming a hot issue  in Topeka this session. Uh we'll encourage uh I'm   sorry, we'll uh pursue legislative opportunities  to encourage state support for water reuse   uh which you know has been uh in the news and is  moving forward and Gary's going to be presenting   uh next week uh to committee. Uh we're also seek  uh legislative and regulatory solutions that can   address the need for increased affordable  housing which is very important to all of   us. Uh but I also want to make clear that uh  these are just a few of the items. There have   been a number of folks have approached me have  approached you uh wanted us to pay attention and   make sure that we don't miss anything. Uh so we  we'll have opportunities to discuss things like   uh uh opportunity zones. It's important  to to to Mike that he's pointed out.   uh film tax credits that that uh continue to come  back. Sunflower Summer, which are important to   a number of folks. So, we'll keep an eye on all  these things and provide weekly updates as we go. Uh now, turning to the joint legislative  agenda. Uh this is our opportunity to   partner with like-minded South Central Kansas  leaders to leverage our collective strength   and voice in Topeka. Uh these agenda items  are first discussed and approved by the city   of Witchaw which is what we're going to do  today. Sedick County and the Witchaw Chamber   of Commerce. Uh WSU REAp and the Greater Witchaw  Partnership will then be invited to endorse this   joint agenda and participate in promoting  it to their members and to the delegation.   Uh the buckets uh for the joint legislative  agenda include economic development which   support education, child care, and workforce  development policies that spur job creation and   talent recruitment and retention in South  Central Kansas. Uh supports policies that   enhance economic expansion to boost the economy,  catalyze local and regional economic development   and job opportunities, and enhance the quality  of life for everyone in South Central Kansas.   uh will support policies that ensure Kansas  remains competitive with other states in   attracting and developing national defense  work. That's a new item uh on our agenda   this year. Uh housing will support the adoption of  solutions, resources, and policies that recognize   homelessness as a growing statewide issue. support  policies and tax credit options that can encourage   access and inventory and the development of  housing options for all South Central residents,   including investment in housing affordability. And  finally, in under the infrastructure uh column,   support water policies that promote  responsible stewardship, conservation,   contamination solutions, and an abundant and  healthy water supply. will support policies that   encourage expansion of commercial air service at  Eisenhower National Airport with that's a new item   this year. Uh feasible passenger rail expansion  and proportional IT transportation program funding   that benefits the region. So with that, I'm uh uh  recommending the council approve the 2026 city and   uh joint legislative agendas. And I'll stand for  questions. Thank you, Jim. Questions for staff?   I have one. You mentioned there were a couple  of new items on the joint state legislative   agenda. Can you just highlight again the reason  why those two new additional items in economic   development and infrastructure were added? Yes. Uh  we are as you know uh u such important being the   air capital of the world that uh we have a lot of  opportunity with uh national defense work and It's   a competitive space nationally. There's a lot of  folks going for this work. So, it's something that   we as a uh individually and with our partners, we  need to make sure that we're reaching out as as   uh as much as we can to to attract that work. Uh  as far as uh uh national uh Eisenhower National   Airport, uh that's something mayor that you and I  have talked about and it's so so important to this   region to have quality and abundant air service.  It gives us the opportunity as a group to really   go out there and make sure that we're supporting  all those efforts to bring more and better service   to uh to Eisenhower. Thank you. And last, I'm  just going to ask for an emphasis one more time on   um our Witchita agenda regarding the sales tax  exemption on groceries. Yes. Um, what have you   heard so far regarding uh this proposal? And if  I remember correctly, on Friday, Council Member   Hohheisle mentioned his brother, Representative  Hohheisle, um, bringing up this bill. He did,   and we we thank uh, we thank Mick Hohisel  for doing that. Uh, this is important uh,   legislation. Uh, it's not easy legislation. It's  something that is very important and has broad   support. uh but it's just not going to be acted on  quickly and we're going to try to speed that clock   up as best we can. But there's a multi-state  compact that re uh slows us down from being   able to pass it this year. Uh but we're going to  push ahead. Uh Council Member Glascock has been   uh very uh loud in his support for moving this  forward and it's something that we're going   to look for every avenue to try to uh increase  that speed so we can make that happen quickly. Thank you, Jim. I see no further questions for  you. We will now open it up for public comment.   I see no one from the public who would like to  speak on this item. We'll bring it back to the   bench. Uh with that, Council Member Johnston.  Thank you, Mayor. Uh I want to point out that   I have also been very loud on this too. uh not  having sales tax on on food um it 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. So uh very important issue. I  think the state should act on it. I hope they do   and uh we'll just hope and pray they do. Thank  you. Council member Tuttle. Thank you. Um Jim,   I just want to thank you for all your work on  this. I know it's hard to get seven individuals   to agree on something. So, I know you've gone  through some um robust efforts to try and make   that happen. I just want to point out a few things  that I'm excited about on here. Um I fought really   hard several years ago to get child care added  to our legislative agenda, but also to get it   put in the economic development bucket. And I'll  just make a shameless plug again that child care   is not a woman's issue. It's not a family issue.  It's an economic development and workforce issue.   would thank you to um Senate Majority Leader  Chase Blazy who's been kind of my ally on this   and trying to get things changed at the state  for not only regulation but also legislation.   Um and then I just also want to highlight water  reuse. I'm serve with council member Hullheisle   and the water use task force. Um I have charged  staff with being the first city in the state of   Kansas to obtain direct portable water reuse. I  think we're doing all the right things and making   the right strides and again working on not only  the legislation but also the regulation. So just   thank you to staff who provided input on this  and and thank you Jim for your leadership and I   think it's going to be a really intense and fast  legislative session and look forward to being a   part of it. Vice Mayor Glascock. Thank you, Mayor.  The two things that really excite me on this are   preservation of our water supply and also food  security and releasing uh the sales tax on food.   I also want to say there's again few times that  this bench agrees 7 to 7 to on sales tax of is   uh the primary objective of this council and  I think it should be for residents. It's a   955 issue when I talk to residents that  they believe that we should move forward   on this. I think it's good policy. And so for  everybody listening, whoever is listening today,   HB2456 is the state house bill that's being  presented from the committee on taxation. I   want to thank Representative Nick Hohheisle for  leading on this. And I think what can be really   unique about this conversation is that this  wasn't in the forefront of state legislators   minds until the Witchaw City Council was bringing  it forward and have asked for state legislators   to look at it. And so this is something that we  can lead that will not only benefit the citizens   of Witchah but can benefit the citizens of the  entire state of Kansas. And so I look forward to   more discussions. I look forward to being Topeka  next week to lobby for this and then when this   comes before any committee also reappearing and  um look forward to my colleagues coming up there   and testifying in favor of this as well. So thank  you Jim for all your work on it. with that. Um,   next week on Wednesday, this entire council will  be attending the legislative day in Topeka. Um,   and really appreciate, uh, Jim for coordinating  that. And we look forward to again advocating for   not just the Witchah legislative agenda, but the  joint legislative agenda. So, with that, I will go   ahead and move that the city council approve the  2026 city and joint legislative agendas. Second   motion and a second. Any further discussion? I  see none. Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes. 70. Madame clerk, please call the  next item. Owner site representative OSR phase 3   contract amendment for the Witchah Waterworks WWW  project. Good morning, mayor and council members.   Gary Jansen, public works and utilities. Uh the  item before you this morning is an extension of   the contract for the owner site representative  for which water works. Uh this is primarily due to   delays that we've pre previously discussed related  to the clarifiers as part of the overall facility.   Um some quick background on this contract.  The phase one contract uh for the owner site   representative just under $800,000 was approved  in April of 2019. uh and that was intended to   work through some of the initial phases of the  project uh phase one and the design build again   the design build phase one project and the phase  2 amendment in December of 2019 was just over 16.3   million for a collection of services related to  administrative and general coordinated services   review and evaluation construction management  project representative code inspection uh amongst   other things for a total contract of just over  $17 million. Um, as we talked before, we've had   some issues with solid contact clarifiers. Uh,  in particular, we had mechanical failures. Uh,   starting with one one clarifier November of 2025.  Started to see similar issues through November.   Um, testing at the time was halted. Uh, we have  stopped any work on the plant for now until   the further analysis could be done. Uh we had a  workshop on December 18th. I think it was one of   those days 19th. Uh then Vice Mayor Johnston was  gracious enough to join us and spent that whole   time with us. Council member Tuttle was there for  a period of time too. It's good to have them both.   Um work walked through with the contractor and  their subs uh what the root cause analysis was   um and what the uh proposed correction may be.  And while we don't know a timeline just yet, um,   what this will do with this extension will allow  us to have Garver continue to support us through   all of the efforts that come forward from this.  I won't spend a lot of time on this. This is a a   cut section of the clarifier. Um, the root cause  analysis report shows that the mechanical failures   can likely be traced back to a design issue. Um,  all six clarifiers um have the same issues. Uh,   And there's parts that need to be removed and  replaced here. That's part of the next efforts   moving forward to design, get to fabrication, um  get the necessary parts replaced of the internal   mechanism of the clarifier. Uh and so that we can  move forward. And I might just clarify real quick,   the concrete tanks are fine. There's no issues  with those. Um that's not part of the discussion.   um as we move forward and and and have a more  thorough evaluation of everything that's happening   within them that will include taking a look at  the concrete other associated uh features and   that is actively happening now. Uh Garver will  extend their uh representative uh representation   and provide oversight for additional work  stemming from repairs that includes repairs   for the solid contact clarifiers, functional  testing and performance and acceptance testing.   uh their contract extension uh includes extended  PAT and representative oversight the performance   testing is the PAT extended project administration  for a total of just under $770,000 which would   bring their um aggregate contract to just over  $17.9 million. All of this currently with cost   that is available within the current budget.  City staff are negotiating a settlement claim   with the design build contractor that includes  recovering extended costs for this contract. It   is recommended the city council approve the OSR  phase 3 amendment amendment and authorize the   necessary signatures. And mayor, before you take  action, I might let you know that representatives   of Witchaw Water Partners are here. Uh they would  like to make a presentation and provide an update   on the project. So if if you would like, we could  do that now. Um, and then I could come back to   formalize this action if that sounds okay. I  would like that presentation, please. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Uh, thank you for  having us. My name is Ron Koker. I'm uh senior   vice president with Burns McDonald, also the  project executive for Witchaw Water Partners. Uh   Witchaw Water Partners is a joint venture between  Burns and McDonald and Alberi Constructors. Uh we   were the design builder on the project. So um I'm  going to give you a brief update. I know there's   lots of questions related to change order 4 in  particular and cost. So we'll just jump right into   that. Uh to start we I'll just uh remind you we  are in a claim situation. So, I won't be able to   answer probably every question you have, but I'll  do my best to uh I'll do my best to answer what I   can. Uh and uh and we'll walk through these  issues to help you better understand it. So,   thank you again for the time and we'll get  started. Uh so, this is a picture of the plant,   not the whole plant, but the front end of the  plant. I just wanted to to make sure everybody was   uh looking at the same things and thinking about  the same things. Those six big basins that you see   in the foreground of that picture are your solid  contacts uh solids contact clarifiers. So that's   what we're talking about here. They'll often be  abbreviated. So you hear them called SEC's or just   clarifiers, right? But that's uh that's really  the first process in the plant. And what you're   doing in that process is you're adding chemicals  uh and you're adding lime uh and you're trying to   uh fauculate out in uh solids, right? you're  trying to build up solids and then pull a   lot of those solids out before that water then  passes on to your filters, disinfection basins,   and then ultimately on out into distribution. Uh  so these uh these clarifiers, as you know, this   is a big project. Uh these clarifiers were the  design engineer for these clarifiers were HDR. Um   the the manufacturer is WestTech. So these aren't  designed maybe like you would think about typical   design because these are proprietary uh pieces of  equipment. It's a performance specification that   HDR puts together. In other words, these solids  contact clarifiers have to do this this or this.   Uh then manufacturers propose uh their design  back uh to do just those things. So uh HDR was   the design engineer but really a lot of the design  and then the manufacturing of these uh pieces of   equipment were done by Westech. Uh and then UCI  was the installer of these clarifier mechanisms.   Uh and then there were two sets of repairs  that we're talking about one now, but there   was a previous set of repairs where Witchaw Water  Partners did the repair work uh for Westech or on   these uh under the under uh uh in conjunction with  Westech uh to make sure those repairs were done   correctly. So I guess first question to you all is  everybody understand which part piece of the plant   we're talking about or do you have any questions  related to that before we jump into cost? I have   several council members on the board. Council  member Hohheisel. Okay. Uh this is more for the   contract for later. Okay. Council member Johnston.  Both of them will wait. We'll continue. Okay.   We'll get into that change order. Maybe that'll be  be part of that discussion. Okay. So, here is the   the budget and the cost to date. So, this project  was budgeted as part of a WIFFIA uh application or   loan application. Uh the original budget was $524  million. That's not the total project budget. That   was just the capital portion of the total project  budget. There was about $10 million placeholder in   that number for a new substation. Uh so for just  kind of big number purposes, you can think about   the capital budget was around $514 million uh for  construction of this project. Uh our our pricing   with both phase one, remember this is a design  build contract. So there were two contracts,   a phase one contract where the design and pricing  were developed and then a phase two contract to   finish design and finish construction. Combined,  those contracts were 500 just over $500 million.   Uh so about uh so about $14 million under budget.  But to be fair, there was an element of that   design and that construction that wasn't in that  $500 million and it related to um refurbishing   one of the the 64inch pipelines that run from the  Northwest facility to town. Uh and and there were   a few other things as well that just weren't  known what KDH would require at the time of   the contracting. So some of this change order  mechanism u really is relating to things that   could have been in the original pricing had we  known what that was going to be at the original   time as part of that and I'll try and point that  out uh as we go forward. So there's been four   change orders to date. Uh the first one relatively  small dealt with the additional bathrooms and the   administration facility. Uh change order two uh  was about a million7. uh it related to uh things   like uh additional chem uh systems. This was  part of the uh KDHE review process uh where they   requested some of these things. It dealt with test  water disposal piping and decllorination system.   So when we test the water, we test it all the way  through chlorination, but to discharge the water   back into the river, uh we have to decllorinate  it uh as part of that. Uh and then some   uh a little bit of work on allowances and and  uh the 64 inch conversion change order three uh   the $1.2 million number uh really dealt a lot with  the piping around the HS pump station or your your   existing plant and how the that piping uh will be  reconfigured uh when you bring that plant offline   uh and and also the the configuration of how you  get local wellfield water back to the new plant.   uh as part of that and then change order four  which is I think where a lot of the questions   will lie. Um change order four which extended uh  which extended the contract and we'll talk about   that in more detail as we come. You probably  have two change orders left on this contract   uh just my estimation. You still have some work  in the system. It's about $4.5 million uh on the   piping conversions to do that. You've also got  allowances that you've not spent on this project   that are about $2 and a half million dollars if I  remember. Those will excuse me, those will offset.   And then any settlement, if we reach settlement  before you get to a change order, would come off   that number, too. So, I don't expect that you'll  see uh any significant additions to this contract.   uh pretty um I'm not I know there's lots of  questions related to it but if you just look at   the the delivery of the project and the finances  of the project um a project of this scale and   remember this project was constructed through  co through the greatest probably construction   escalation period of our time uh and then still  into a pretty high inflationary period uh that   we're experiencing now. So the project budgets  done really well uh or the project delivery's   done really well with respect to budget as part of  it and the delivery mechanism or the design build   mechanism really was a key to that because that  put all the risk back on us to deliver and not ask   for escalation versus if you were in a traditional  method uh or a bid method you likely would have   been exposed to escalation through that process.  Okay, change order four. Um, and feel free to stop   me at any point. Uh, so let me give you a little  background of what was happening before we got   to change order 4 that really set up the reason  for change order 4. Uh, in this contract, uh,   construction was substantially complete. Um, not  the the contract term substantially complete, just   the majority of construction was complete uh at  the project, but there was no test water available   to test the project. Um in addition to that the  original uh starbin testing plan really conceived   that we would test 30 in uh 30 MGD or million  gallons a day in the plant. Three scenarios   uh groundwater, surface water and blended  water in that as uh as that testing protocol   developed the city wanted to test additional  um scenarios and additional flow rates. So   the uh city really wanted to increase and do some  testing at 60 million gallons a day, not just 30   million gallons a day. So more test water would be  needed to do that. There's also a very s uh I'll   say extensive uh testing protocol on how the city  wanted to test different clarifiers and different   filters. In addition, they wanted to test at low  flow conditions and high flow conditions um on all   three influent water sources. So, so it extended  the testing duration as well, which also then   increases the amount of test water that you would  have to have related to that. Uh, so test water   would have been required. I said spring 2004.  I actually think it was June 2004 through 200   uh sorry 2024 through fall of 24. Uh, and if you  remember, the city was in a drought at that period   of time. really hard to start up a a large water  plant in a drought because it takes a lot of water   to test. Uh the bigger the plant, the more water  it takes. Uh which really then just exasperates a   lot of the the conditions the public is feeling  when you're in the middle of a drought. So change order four then tried to resolve this  unavailability of water. Um the the risk to the   city in that scenario was if there would if if the  city would have been unable to provide test water   in in relation to the contract, then not only  would there have been a delay claim because we   the design builder would have been extended, but  it really would have opened the city up to delay   delay claims from all subcontractors and all  vendors that were tied to that schedule. there   were 135 approximately that were tied to that. So,  a delay claim would have been fairly significant   uh in that scenario. So, a lot of this change  order was geared towards and focused on let's   get let's get the city and WTO water partners out  of that delay claim uh position so that you don't   expose yourself to those costs. That's part of  it. So, these are the parts of what happened in   change order 4. So, PTA's uh the PTAs or the  the the uh the testing components were moved   from prior to substantial completion to prior  to final completion. Uh it established optional   allowances for extended warranties. I was at that  uh council meeting when you talked about that. I   know Councilman Johnston talked about that a lot  uh at that. You didn't end up spending any of that   money related to those. Uh it allowed substantial  completion to be achieved on September 17th.   And then test water was provided or would be  provided in November of 2024 and then fi it   set the final completion date um from January  20th. It moved it to April 1st. That's the gist   of it. Now part of what's been talked about I  know just recently is well that relieved the   contractor of liquidated damages. That move  from substantial to final then alleviated   that damage clause out of the contract. That's  true. um liquidated damages were to apply to   the substantial completion. Uh they didn't apply  to final completion, but it doesn't mean that uh Oops. Yeah. Uh that doesn't mean that the city  that exposed the city to $5 million of risk as   part of it. It it might have it might have I  suppose depending on the contractor you were   working with, but um really the because the focus  had been on not alleviating those damages but   trying to minimize delay damages to the city.  Um it it's going to play I think to the city's   benefit as we go forward. And I'll try and explain  that. So, the city filed a claim. Didn't just   because you lost the ability to use liquidated  damages didn't mean you don't have ability to   collect damages uh as part of the contract.  City filed a claim on June 27th. WTO Water   Partners subsequently filed a claim as well uh to  Westech for non-conforming work. Um and then we   entered into settlement discussions. So, I can't  tell you the details of settlement discussions,   but what I can tell you is the the settlement  discussions that were had in the fall of 2025   and and the offered resolutions that that Witto  Water Partners has made to date have been in   excess of the liquidate damage schedule. So,  I'll give you an example of that. Uh if you took   the liquidated damages up to today, let's just  say they were still in place, you took them up   to today from April 2nd to to January 20th, they  would be about $2.78 million. The the offers that   the city's received so far have been in excess of  that. And really, I think from our perspective,   we don't see any scenario where the the settlement  offers related to the claim will be less than the   liquidated damages schedule. So, while you  might have been exposed to that $5 million,   the reality is you're not going to realize that  the loss of that $5 million as you go forward. And   um while I can't get into the details  of that or what's included in that   um I think from our perspective and I know it's  maybe it's uh maybe it's unusual or it's hard to   um trust a contractor uh in what you're doing.  But I can tell you uh from Burns McDonald's   perspective, Witchah has been a client of  Burns McDonald for 115 years since 1910.   um and for Alberesi I'm sure for over a quarter  of a century as well and there's no benefit for   us to have a project that you were not happy with  and it is not successful and that's really been   our approach we we notified the city shortly after  we had the first delay um really clarifier saying   don't worry we'll pay for the u we'll pay for  the chemicals and the power as part of that and   then we've escalated that as we've gone forward so  I'm going to stop there that's what I have to talk   about from a cost standpoint and maybe these are  some of your questions related to the contract the   costs. Council member Hohheisel. Thank you, Mayor.  Um, so when we did the substantially complete back   in um when we did the the fourth change order,  September September 24th. Yeah. did that how how   does that affect um any of the the wifia funds  or any of the other funds that we have that we   actually move that to substantially complete that  kick off any timeline as far as payments go? No,   I might I'd like to address that. Thank you for  the question. So, we have been in very close   contact with uh EPA and KDH on the SRF from day  one. Uh, and when we issued substantial completion   in September of 2024, they knew what terms it  was under. They know exactly what the status   of the plant is now. They realize where we're at  with the delays. Um, I had a good discussion with   uh EPA headquarters. In fact, the director of  water for EPA just in the last two weeks about   status of the project. We also had a discussion  with the water director for KDH at that same   period of time. I have absolute confidence that we  are in a great place with both and has no impact   on effectively all the loans are in place. None of  this that we're talking about is going to impact   our ability to pay those loans back. Yeah.  So, we're not in any trouble or disagreement   with We're not there are no issues with it. Uh we  continue to provide them updates on where we were   at moving forward uh with repair plan and bringing  the plan online, but I feel very confident about   where we are with both. Okay. understanding that  we can't necessarily get into all the details of   the settlement language. Um are we talking about  extending warranties as well being part of that?   We are and it's one of the things that Ron's  going to talk about especially related to the   um clarifiers themselves, but as we move forward  uh with the claims negotiations that Ron has   referenced, that is a part of it. Do we have any  idea what the timeline is when that settlement   language will be done? It's going to depend on  when the project wraps up, but I I'll be having a   further discussion with the council um later after  this meeting is over. Ron's going to talk here   um soon about their projected schedule. We  will continue those discussions through that   period of time, but until we know when things  wrap up, um it will take probably through that   period of time. And that's something that will be  brought to council before we wrap any of that up.   Uh will will that cost also are we talking in  the settlement claim about um this additional   cost that we have today on the item before us?  Correct. And that's what I had mentioned with   my item. We are expectation is to recover these  additional costs. Okay. Yeah. Um I might have some   more questions on on this actual item here in a  little bit. Thank you, Council Member Johnston.   Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Ron, couple questions for  you. Um, I'll tell you the background of this,   okay? Is a friend of mine's father-in-law works  for one of your subs. Okay? I won't say which   one. Okay? He said the speck concrete was in short  supply during building those clarifiers because of   a couple other projects, large projects in the  city, including the Amazon warehouse. A spec   concrete was not available. You wanted to keep  them going, the plant being built so you're not   late. and you substituted a lesser grade of  quant of concrete to build those clarifiers. Yeah, that's I might let Kevin talk about uh  concrete more specifically, but uh what I'll   tell you is there were multiple concrete mixes  throughout the duration of the plant. Uh there   there was a change at one point because a fly  ash shortage, right? Fly ash is the material   that comes from coal fire power plants and which  is becoming in shorter and shorter supplies. you   have fewer and fewer of those, but I don't believe  that affected the clarifier concrete. I think we   held that uh separate from uh before that change  occurred. Um there's nothing in the concrete that   um you should recognize that that uh all concrete  cracks even in even in water bearing structures,   concrete cracks. Uh I know there has been some  cracks identified in the clarifier in the concrete   portions of the clarifiers uh that will be part of  a warranty item, but they can't be repaired until   the basins are back full of water. So we paused  that repair uh because the the the fix requires   the the moisture to be present uh as part of that.  So yeah, I Kevin, do you want to add any more to   that? So this is Kevin Williams with Alvareesi  uh as well. Thanks Ron. And um as far as the   uh the mixed designs, I think we had six different  concrete mixed designs on the project. Um early on   in the project, we were notified by the supplier  that there was an industry shortage on the type of   fly ash that we had used in the original mix  design. Um so we did do a revised mix design   um to account if we would have to switch the from  type C to type F fly ash. We did use both mix   designs, but knowing that um the performance  of the mix that we started with, we had our   supplier actually set aside some of the original  type-C fly ash for the clarifier specifically and   uh we went through some records just recently  and we believe I can't don't quote me on this   but I believe that both or the clarifiers were  using the original type-C fly ash because we   were able to set aside enough supply to make that  Regardless, any of the fly ash mix designs that we   submitted perform at the level needed to provide,  you know, the water bearing, structure, strength,   and other characteristics for those um facilities.  So, I don't think there'd be any question and   there's plenty of testing for all of the concrete  that we used on the project that would that would   back that up. But because it it is good question.  I think you're kind of factually correct on the   change in mixed designs for um industry shortage  reasons. But I don't think ultimately the   clarifiers were affected in any way. Okay. I'm  going to push back on that because our Garver   representative told me differently told me that  it was used in the clarifiers. The other concrete   mix was used in clarifiers. So you're telling  me that it the correct number C or whatever was   used. Council member Johnson, if you don't mind,  I'd like to jump in here and help with this. I   This question came to me from the manager and so I  started taking a look at this through Garver. I'm   confident from what I've heard and I haven't had a  chance to talk to you. I think there was probably   a misunderstanding when you talked to Garver, but  but regardless, what I had them do and our staff   uh was to look at back at correspondence. And  so I don't think we need to get caught up in   talking about the the types of fly ash when I  started with the city over 30 years ago and and   I worked in our materials testing lab and worked  overseeing construction projects. Got to know a   lot about concrete mixes. Back then we didn't even  use fly ash. Um it's something that's been used   over time and implemented more uh to offset some  cost savings. Uh but there's various different   uh concrete mix designs. Here's what makes this  work. Uh, I was able to verify through Garver,   our owner's rep, and our staff correspondents, uh,  that approved the revised mix designs regardless   of what the type of fly ash is. I'm confident  it wasn't lesser, and here's why. Uh, it meets   all of the specifications. These include national  specifications. American Concrete Institute, ASM   standards, we talk a lot about as American Society  of Testing and Materials. These are recognized   standards across the industry nationwide that  are used on projects everywhere. Uh the revised   mix design meet all those specifications and  the tests that were done on the concrete also   meet all the strength requirements. So I  am absolutely confident that there's no   issues. I think there's been some confusion in the  messaging because I also talked to Garver myself.   uh whatever came across in the messaging to you I  think probably was a was just a misunderstanding I   feel very comfortable and what we have looked back  on that that we've got no issues with the concrete   mixed designs okay I might disagree with you I  I was very direct in my question to govern well   and with all due respect council member Johnston  I think I would have to say that there had to be   a misunderstanding we have proof that shows the  mixed designs were approved we've got testing   criteria to be met. All of the tests met those  criteria regardless of what was said. Well, there   there's major cracks in in that first clarifier  for sure. And and it was excuse me and and it   happened within the first year because I took  a tour of that and I said, "What's that crack?"   They said, "Oh, that's normal." I took that as  being normal. Um what I understand now is maybe   that is not normal. I would contend that it is to  the point that concrete cracks, I will tell you   um this when we build bridges and we 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. The I can tell you some of the   cracks in the clarifiers have been addressed.  Um I we see this on all projects that we built.   Whether it's structural concrete, whether  it's flat work, whether it's curve and gutter,   we see cracks. Even though we go in and purposely  joint concrete to try to make it crack itself,   it's the nature of concrete. We are continuing to  look at any concerns we might have with cracks.   We've seen them. My staff has seen them. Garver  has seen. 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 of those   have already been addressed. I have no reason to  believe based on all of the information we have,   the process that's in place, Garver as our  expert owner's representative, our staff,   we have licensed professional engineers who  have done this work. We have ways to verify   methods that are in place that the concrete mix  that was used meets all of the specifications. I   stand behind that. I'm comfortable with that. We  will continue to monitor just like we do anything.   I'm not going to stand here and just say concrete  cracks, so we're going to walk away. That's not   the point. We're still keeping an eye on these  things. I've got absolutely nothing to point to   uh that shows there was any issues with  the concrete mix designs. Okay? You know,   the west side is mostly sand. My house is built  on sand. In the west side, I have no cracks in   my foundation. That is built on sand. Um, I just  really question whether that is true or not. And   10 years down the line from now, who if there is  a crack, who who pays for it? Just real quick,   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. Um, I would tell you that we've I've seen  cracks in concrete. One of the things that just   by nature that I do as an engineer and what  I've done through the course of my career,   everywhere I walk, everywhere I run, I see  cracks in concrete. I've seen cracks in some   concrete that we've done that's been there for  20 years and nothing has happened with it. It   is something we will keep an eye on. To the  point that council member Hisel talked about,   we're working through what uh warranty coverage  looks like. Uh but you know, we can go out   to our current water treatment plant and see  cracks in different areas of the concrete. So,   we're going to keep a very close eye on it. Uh  keep in mind that this plant and facility is still   under the ownership of Witchaw Water Partners. We  have not taken over the facility. These things are   all considered part of the defect list, the punch  list, uh and would be covered under warranties as   we move forward. But we're not walking away from  this. We haven't stopped looking at this. Uh,   I've got no reason to believe that anything  was compromised by a change in the concrete   mix design. We'll keep a very close eye on it  going forward. Okay. Have you pulled core samples   to test the concrete in? We haven't yet. Uh, if  we feel the need to if if any issues progress,   that is an option. That is something that  we could do. Um, our third party analysis   of the clarifier suggested that same thing  that we just want to watch what's happening.   um especially on the slab, they noticed some  damination there that we're taking a look at   through the course of this evaluation of the work  to be done to to repair the clarifiers. And if so,   that's something we can certainly do uh to have  an understanding that's there. But all of the test   data supports that the concrete mix that was used  um and how it was put in there met all all the   specifications and meets our needs. Okay. Thank  you. I have a question for Ron again. Um, have   we ever gotten clean water out of this plant when  you did the testing? Oh, yeah, we have. I I've got   slides that'll show you that meet KDH standard.  Yes. Okay. Okay. It was told to me differently um   about eight months ago. So, well, if eight months  ago was prior to the second round of PTA testing,   then that was probably true. So, when was the  last testing you got clean water out there? Uh,   November of this past year. November of the  past year. Yeah, I'll I'll show you that whole   schedule. Okay. Yeah, I'll show you that. Good to  hear that. And I'm happy to jump forward now, but   unless there are still questions related to this.  Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I just want to be clear at the   end of that meeting, I do appreciate that meeting.  I I you're talking about the meeting where Westech   presented with Westech. Yeah, I do appreciate  it. Got a lot better understanding of the whole   process and and and what went on and mistakes  were made. Mistakes do get made. I can appreciate   that. Um but in that that meeting I asked and I  just want to be clear that we have been staffing   two plants more than we longer than we should  be and it will be another for another year or   whenever the plant is ready. Mhm. So the cost of  that should be taken into account. Uh we hired a   consulting firm to look over the fixes. You hired  two, we hired one. Um so that incurred cost there.   Uh we extended Garver's contract. That's what  we're doing now. Um and also we have depreciation   on that plant of two plus years probably and  that that should be taken into account. So will   all those things be taken in account when the  final um reconciliation? Yeah. So city is so I   won't be able to to answer that directly obviously  because that's part of the claim. You asked that   same question I believe at that meeting related to  depreciation. I can tell you depreciation is not   typically taken into account often in construction  projects. But all of those things you mentioned,   I'm assuming are things that you will convey to  city staff and that city staff will look at the   contract and you all will have a strategy that  relates what is pushed to us as part of a revised   claim. Uh and and I'm sure all of that will be  discussed as part of that. Okay. Thank you. I will   push back on depreciation because that plant only  has x number of years life and some of those years   are taken off in the front. That should be taken  into account. And I I will direct staff to take   that into account. So, thank you. Yes, absolutely.  That's it for now. Mayor, Council Member Shepard.   Thank you, Mayor and Ron or Gary, one of you can  answer this. It's more a technical question. Um,   one of the things that I've been able to learn  from my colleague, Council Member Tuttle,   is there are people who are often listening and  they don't understand some of the language that   we throw around. Um, and so I'm curious if you can  describe in layman's terms what is a change order.   Sure. It's simply a change to the contract, right?  We signed a contract uh on this project. There   was a contract between the city of Witchah and  Witchah water partners that established a scope   related to the work that would be done and a price  associated with that scope of work or doing that   work. Uh and a change order is simply a change to  that contract, right? That both parties agree to   uh and then modify the contract. It can modify  scope up or down. It can modify cost up or down   uh that relates to it. Does that answer that  well enough? It does. I think the city has   a better answer. I think that was a great great  way to describe it. Thank you. I have a follow-up   to that though. Um, so given your definition,  you uh on the slide it described the cost. Uh,   it it kind of described what's changing. Um, I'm  curious, can you maybe uh share how it affects the   schedule and then in addition to that um who's  responsible for the change in cost if there's   an inflation in cost due to the change? Okay. So  I may have to break that component up. Right. So   when the contract was established, the original  contract amount, any inflationary cost were at   the risk of Witchaw Water Partners. That's why  when we went through that big cost escalation for   uh construction right after uh right after the  pandemic, uh there was no request back to the city   for cost escalation charges. So that was a huge  risk shift to the design builder and uh it right   if you think about that in a typical design bid  build contract you would have still been designing   likely at that period of time. So that escalation  in cost then would have either been caught later   when you bid it or you would have had it depending  on what the contract said the contractor may   have then come back and asked for more cost  escalation as part of it. So in this scenario   uh any cost escalation that occurred that was part  of the original scope was was covered by Witchaw   Water Partners. All right. Now ask the second part  of your question again if you would. You answered   it. Oh okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I have  multiple questions. I'm going to start off with   um you had a quote from just your presentation  where you said it's hard to trust a contractor.   So, I I'm going to ask you directly. I want to  know who exactly took the liquidated damages   verbiage out of the contract. Who took that out?  Yeah, I don't here. Do you want to answer that?   Yeah, if you don't mind. Uh, mayor, I think  I I'll give you just a basic answer on that,   but I'd like to ask to reserve this for our  discussion later. uh for a variety of reasons,   especially because we have ongoing settlement  discussions. Nothing was removed from the   contract. Uh what Ron discussed about earlier from  the very beginning when the phase 2 uh amendment   was put in place in 2019, liquidated damages  applied to substantial completion only. When   we issued substantial completion in September of  2024, the liquidated damages did not carry forward   from that point. that's consistent on projects  of this size. Uh substantial construction was   complete. What we were moving forward was the  testing. Uh our risk was more limited at that   point. The original terms of the contract  were in place. Nothing was removed. Nothing   was changed. But because of where that was,  liquidated damages did not extend past that. I'm very um upset because I'm looking at the  agenda report from September 17, 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 that I would like to know who   exactly failed to put that into this report.  Well, Mayor, you're looking at him. Uh I was   the one that made that presentation. Ultimately is  my responsibility to put that together. Our focus   was on trying to limit the cost going forward. Uh  the city of Witchaw made the request to delay the   testing based on what Ron talked about because of  the impacts of the drought. It was not something   we had in mind in 2019. That was not something  that we planned. Our focus was on like so change   order number four total cost was $5 million and  something. Um that's where our focus was to try   to limit those costs. Uh through our discussions  and our ne we negotiated for almost 18 months with   Witchaw Water Partners uh what this would look  like to extend the testing past um substantial   completion. I know from my experience in in  working with in the industry so long and to what   Ron talked about and trying to minimize the risk  uh and balance the costs uh that it just wasn't   even a discussion we were going to have if we  had contemplated moving those liquidated damages   to the final completion date that change order  number four the cost would have ex escalated to   I don't know how much uh I can't answer to you why  I didn't bring it up at that time our focus again   was on the cost itself self trying to deal with  the issue of moving forward uh on reduction of   retainage and limiting uh the cost for extension  of warranties. Had we moved the full project   forward, just as a reminder, and I think that  might be in there, but if not, if we had looked   at a full delay of moving everything forward,  including the testing, we would have added $3.7   million to that change order at a minimum. And I  remember during our last discussions, I think that   number continued to escalate. Um, we've always had  the ability uh to recover cost through the claims   process, which is exactly what we're working on  now. To Ron's point, the city's in a better place,   going to be in a better place. I'm confident  as opposed if the liquidated damages would have   stayed in place. There's a lot of things that  go with liquidated damages. Um, they can be   challenged. Uh, I've seen that over the course  of time. It's not automatic. There's so many   factors that can impact the discussions related  to liquidated damages. It's just not something   that rose to the top with that report. That's  on me. And I appreciate you taking ownership of   that because 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 and so I just want to  make sure that this is transparent and clear that   this council did not get any information regarding  liquidated damages. So I would like to know what   will we be doing moving forward to ensure that we  have transparency and clarity when major amounts   are being changed in contracts. Well, I'm happy to  discuss that. Um, it was and I'd like to have more   discussion about that here after council's over  and we talk about this a bit more. Um, the, you   know, I was kind of thinking and looking at other  projects. This is not unique to the project. This   situation with this project is obviously unique.  Um, uh, the many of our other major projects,   um, our four mile creek sewer treatment plant,  our first street bridge, um, you know, the the   baseball stadium. Any of these big projects have  very similar uh clauses related liquidated damages   and dispute and claims clauses with them and it  can be a variety of things that happen depending   on but most of those are tied to the substantial  completion date anyway to that point. Um that's   nothing that's not anything I've ever discussed  from the podium. Not trying to hide anything,   not trying to keep it out. I guess we need to talk  about what makes sense. Um, I out of respect to   your time, um, I could stand up here for hours and  talk about, uh, contract terms and stipulations. I   guess we needed to figure out what makes sense.  This is again a very unique situation. No, no   intent to hide anything. Um, our focus again was  really limiting the cost related to extending the   warranties, reducing the retainage, those things  that go with that. 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 uh version of it. And so 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. So maybe   that question is more for the city manager because  at the end of the day, yes, um Gary, you are the   lead for public works and utilities, but it really  is the city manager's office that the buck stops   there. So I'd like to know what standard operating  procedures we will have moving forward when there   are major financial uh considerations that they  will be highlighted to this council and to the   community. Thank you for the question, mayor  and councel. Um, I think a couple things need   to happen. One is maybe in a workshop is as was  just referenced by the director is that we have   standard boiler boilerplate language in all of  our contracts, whether they're roads, water,   sewer, airport, whatever it may be. So, I think  it would be helpful for you to know those key   criteria where we have out clauses, where we have  um, like we said, standard for liquidated damages   or whatever. So I think understanding what I  call the basic components of our contracts and   if we highlight for you all every contract that  we do has 10 standard areas and so we highlight   that then when we get to the actual specific  projects we can highlight if there's some other   in addition or whatever because through contract  negotiations some of those are expanded or changed   or whatever but I think we'll go back and make  sure you understand our fundamental clauses   within a contract and then we can talk about  deviations as the uh process going forward. Now this question is for Ron. I know you talked  about the claim and that will be something again   with attorneys uh being present uh to discuss  but I would like to know especially since we have   something in front of us um that you want us sorry  today's agenda item that you want us to approve   um given that we've had this lack of trust about  what happened on September of 2024. I want to   know that in writing you will say that at the very  least whatever gets approved or dispro hopefully   approved because you need to move forward that we  will recoup those costs. The city of Witchah and   its taxpayers will be able to recoup the costs  that are currently being considered the 700,000   plus. Yeah. So cur the contract with Garver is  a city contract, not something that that we're   asking for approval related to. Um so the approval  piece would be with the city. Uh and really all I   can tell you because of the claim situation is um  that we're going to work together with the city to   reach a mutually agreeable um settlement in the  end. and that 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. Um the details of the cost, the details  of what the city has Garber do are things that   I'm not privy to in total. So I can't make that  statement today, but I certainly believe that   that there will be relevant costs that are  part of that that will be taken into account   uh into in the settlement process. Well, I  don't feel comfortable approving $769,446 without knowing that those specific costs will  be recovered. So, is there a clause that Yes, mayor. I do appreciate that, but I would tell you  um you know the value that Garver brings to us in   our process. The reason why we have an owner rep,  we have owners reps on all of our major projects.   Uh we've got engineering staff, we  got project support staff, project   delivery staff that oversee the majority of our  projects from design perspective, construction   management. These projects are too large. This  is consistent across the industry that agencies   like ours would hire owners representatives.  Um we will be in a very challenging situation   uh and not even sure what we would do to be  able to move forward and monitor the project,   oversee progress, uh analyze plans, approve  plans, um be a part of the per performance   testing without Garver in place. I don't have  the staff. Uh we've already made enough shifts   uh to try to make this work and save as much  cost as possible even before these issues. just   the whole idea of bringing on a new plant. So, we  really need uh the Garver services. We really need   to move forward with this contract amendment  and and we're going to do everything that   we can working through the settlement agreement  process to make sure that we recover these costs. Council member Johnston. Thank you, Mayor Ron. I  appreciate the fact that that you uh really want   to get this right um are going to get it right.  So, largest pro u project in WTO's history. So I   I do appreciate that. So and uh hope hope we can  verify all the things need to be verified to get   there. I do have a question for you and it might  be for Gary. Um exactly how much have we paid   Witchaw Water Partners to today? Well Gary I don't  have the number. Do you have that number? We have   to know it because there's a checkbook somewhere  that's keeping track of Sure. But we have What I   can tell you is uh on the original contract uh  what's still outstanding is around $3 million.   Um that does not include uh what Ron mentioned.  There's about $4.5 million in outstanding change   orders uh that we've expected through time.  Again, Ron talked about these types of things   that we could not have a firm understanding  and clarification on with the original contract   development. Those will all be reconciled with  final cost. Uh but from the original contract,   we still have about $3 million that we have not  paid. How much have we held back as reserve from   that contract? Well, that that is that's that's  the what's still effectively, if you want to look   at it, a retainage, but we also with a lot of the  work related to the $4 and half million dollars in   change orders has already been done. We're holding  all of that until we can work through this. So,   we've got uh collectively right now about $7.5  million that we owe Water Partners that we're   holding. We owe 7.5 million. So, the contract  was Did I was it correct at 514 million? No,   it's the contract was 494 million to begin with.  Was 494 million and we we still owe them seven   and a half. Seven and a half. So, you know,  we can do some quick math here, you know. So,   we've paid them 4 and 87,000 something like  that is. Sure. Okay. I just people keep asking   that question. How much have we paid them? How  much do we owe them? So, I think I think the   public should know that. So, thank you, Council  Member Tuttle. Thank you. I'm sorry, Ron. Um,   I'm gonna ask Gary in legal a question. So, sorry  about the musical chairs here today. So, Jennifer,   legal, I'm gonna ask you. I I know pending  litigation, all the things. So, I don't want to   ask anything wrong and I'm not an attorney, right,  Gary? I'm not a public works professional. What I   want to know is I heard something on Friday. I'm  hearing the narrative again today. Got lots of   questions from friends and grocery store meetings  over the weekend. Was something removed from the   contract? Nothing was removed from the contract.  The Nothing was removed from the contract. The   terms of the contract uh related to liquidated  damage being applied to substantial completion   only were the same term that remained in the  contract. So once we issued substantial completion   on September 17th, 2024, the liquidated  damages did not carry forward from there.   So, because it wasn't highlighted in a meeting  doesn't mean it was removed. Correct. Correct.   Okay. 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. Jennifer,   can you just confirm to make sure that I'm  understanding this? And if I'm not understanding   it correctly, please feel free to provide the  context so I can understand it better. Council   member, that's correct. I confirm. Okay. So,  nothing was removed from a contract. Thank you. Council member Hohheisle. Thank you, Mayor.  Now, um pertaining to the item that we have in   front of us today, um when does their current  contract end? Well, the reason why we're here   um and that we're continuing to work through  the the settlement agreement, the per contract,   the completion date was April 1st of 2025, which  obviously we've gotten past. Um it's before we   finish here, Ron's got more of his presentation  I'd like for you to see. Uh and he's going to talk   about projected completion dates at some point in  time uh as we get closer to the end. and we will   make for these repairs and we will take ownership  of this plan. We will bring it online. There's no   doubt about that. Uh but as we get further along  and have a better understanding of the timeline.   Um that's all part of the agreement. That would  be part of the next change order where we're   going to reconcile costs. Within that change  order, we will have a final completion date,   but we don't know what that is right now. And  that's going to be tied to also when we take   over the plan and some other things that go along  with that. But right now, we don't know. Ron will   share with you what their projected schedule  looks like here shortly. So their contract   ended in last April and well the contract as it is  they have missed the completion date of April 1st   2025. That is why we issued a notice of claim uh  relative to costs and other things associated with   that contract date being missed. I I'm speaking of  Garver their contract. Oh, I'm sorry. Garver. No,   Garver's Sorry, I missed that. that I thought we  were still talking about this one garbage contract   um is still open uh because we contemplated even  after we had brought the plan online that there   would be some services needed. So what this will  do uh we'll extend it to a point as needed but   I couldn't tell you that exact date original  date. Okay. Um originally did we go out for   an RFP for this or was this part of the We did go  out with an RFP for the owner's rep services. Yes   sir. Okay. Can you just give us a background as  to what they do in this process? Uh, I can. Um,   if I go back to my PowerPoint or Mark Dichek  with Garver is here. If you wouldn't mind,   I might ask Mark, he can probably do a better  job of explaining. I could give you a good   head start, but I might ask Mark to talk about  specifics of what this contract does for us. Uh, good morning. Mark do check with Garver. Uh we  are serving as the over owner's representative. Um   been in that role since 2019. Um primarily our  role is both administrative and technical. Um   we are providing technical reviews, plan specs,  observation during construction. Um we've also   provided an administrative role helping with some  of the paperwork associated with uh the funding   AIS um which is a federal requirement. Uh Davis  Bacon wage requirements. Um we've also supported   in things like uh uh special inspections for  structural reviews um for all the structures. Um   so we're the extension of city staff. you know,  your staff, you guys do not have electrical,   structural, process, mechanical, all the different  engineers. And with a design build project,   um, the designer and the contractor are one  entity working together. And so it's industry   standard to have an owner's representative working  for the city being your eyes and ears throughout   this whole process. Um, and so that is a high  level overview of our role. Um, I'd be happy   to answer any more questions though if you have  any more specifics as to our role. Yeah. Have   you guys found So you you help with oversight  administratively and with inspections and then   also looking at the plans as we come up with them.  Correct. Okay. Have you guys seen anything any red   flags here? Have you reported that? And what is  the process if you do see something that you're   uncomfortable with or that you have concerns  about as um this process goes along? Yeah. So   if there's anything red flags, it just depends on  what type of concern it would be. Is it something   minor technical that we have dozens and thousands  of memos back and forth between us and city staff   and the design build during design that provided  comments um on things that were not of concern   during design. Um if there were items issued  during construction um we would note those try   to work those out. Um, if there was something  that we thought was, you know, in place but   wasn't done perspect, there was a formal process  called a notice of non-conformance that we had   to work with the design builder on to make sure  that those were notified, documented, and um,   addressed accordingly. Um, there's still several  punch list items um, maintaining a punch list of   items to be complete um, as we, you know, move to  final construction. So, it depends on the type of   issue or the type of red flag as you uh, mentioned  that on how we would address it. Okay. Did you um   did you guys have anything on your radar with the  the malfunctions that we have with the clarifiers?   Do you recall if that was ever a concern brought  to light by you guys? Uh no, it was not. Um that   malfunction is uh Mr. uh indicated earlier that  is a proprietary um equipment and so standard   design process you would you know develop the  structure spec the equipment um and make sure that   the manufacturer agrees that they can meet that  specification um those details you know maybe like   simplify it to a pump you know we make sure that  the manufacturer certifies that it's got these   materials it's got you can pump this pressure pump  this uh flow um but we don't necessarily look at   how the pump is built So take that and apply  to clarify it's a similar application. Okay. Um um that's all I got for now. I might have  another question or two here later. Okay.   Council member Ballard. Thank you,  Mayor. Uh this question's probably   for Gary. Sorry. And I'm sorry if  you already addressed this, but Council Member Johnston asked how much money we  still have to pay. Correct. Correct. That isn't   paid until everything is done. Is there like  do you wait like a year or do you just pay it   when we finally take it over? I'm just curious.  At the point of final acceptance, whenever we   whenever we determine that that date is through  continued discussions, uh, and again, we'll   We'll bring that by way. Ultimately, we're going  to have kind of several things going on here, but   with the agreement itself and reconciliation of  costs will be through the next change order. Um,   within that, we'll also have a final completion  date. That'll be the point in time uh that we will   take over the plant, take ownership of the plant.  Um, and except for some outstanding items, Ron   mentioned a couple change orders. So, just so you  know what happens when we take over the plant. Um,   we're going to get into full operations with our  staff fully operating this plant. Uh, working it   through its paces, getting a better understanding  of how we're going to operate the plant from a   process standpoint, the chemicals that we're going  to use. It's going to take us a little bit of time   before we actually go into the system. Uh once  that's done, we have to make some final tieins,   conversions uh to so that we can start taking  water to HS pump station. So there'll still be   a few outstanding costs there that would be in one  final change order most likely, but to your point,   the majority of remaining costs will be released  at that point of final acceptance when we take   over the facility. Thank you. Follow-up question  to that. So just for clarification, 7.5 million is   still owed to Wshaw Water Partners and we are  holding those funds. Correct. That is roughly   about 1.5% of the total $500 million contract. Is  that standard? It's not. I provide a reminder um   that or I'll just come back to it. I don't want to  sound like you you should be able to remember all   that. It's part of change order number four. um at  issuing of substantial completion also included a   reduction of some of the retainage uh and and  I apologize I wouldn't be able to quote what   the retainage was at that point but in the same uh  comparison of carrying forward extended warranties   and the costs associated with that uh that $3.7  million that we could have taken on which I   think was going to grow that included additional  financing on the the what we still owed them. So,   as part of the agreement and this is included in  uh I think it is in that agenda item, it talks   about reduction of retainage. Uh and and I don't  sorry don't quote me on that whether it is or not.   We we did reduce the retainage at that time to  limit our risk or limit to the cost to the change   order on the overall project. So, mayor, to your  point, at this point in time, that would not be   uh standard retainage, but that's also part of  what we negotiated with change order number four,   so we could lessen the overall total cost and  the risk to us. I have a direct question. So,   can the city still recoup damages from Witchaw  Water Partners? That is what we're working on   now through the settlement agreement. Yes, ma'am.  So, the answer is yes. Is that accurate? Okay. In   addition to recovering additional costs, I wanted  to make sure that because liquidated damages that   is not part of this current uh conversation.  I want to make sure that again the amount that   we've been uh increasing since September of 2024  that we will be able to uh justify that we can   recoup those costs. Maybe that's a law question. I  might clarify one part of that real quick. Mayor,   sorry. And I didn't mean to about it on  Jennifer, but ju just so we're clear,   we're we're starting our starting point is April  2nd. substantial completion was at September 17th.   What was supposed to happen between then and the  new final completion date of April 1st was all   of this testing uh which they were not successful  with missed that date. So everything we're talking   about recovery of cost starts at April 2nd. And  I know council member Johnston asked part of   that claim. I think Ron mentioned chemicals  and power. That's going to be part of it.   The other one that I asked was today's uh  item which is the Garver contract. This   additional costs that we're having to bear  because the plant is not ready. In addition,   council member Johnston asked about staff, about  consultants and depreciation. I just want to know   are all those items going to be discussed um with  our attorneys? Uh, mayor, we we are in the process   of gathering all actual damages to present  as part of the claim and the amended claim. Council member Johnston. Thank you,  Mayor. What What happens? I'm going   to give you if if scenario. If damages  are more than seven half million dollars,   do they write us a check or how how that  that's why you have retainage is in case   there are damages, you can just not not pay  them that. Well, it's possible. That's not   an entire reason for retainage, but sure. But  I'll I'll remind you of uh of a recent claim   that we had that we did recover damages on a  previous project uh related to some D design   issues and we got direct payment on that.  So, it can happen. The mechanism is there. Thank you. Currently, there are no council  members that have further questions. So, we'll   continue with Ron's presentation. Okay. So, let's  talk about uh what's occurred since that date,   since that substantial completion date. And and  Councilman Johnson, I think this will get into   some of what you were asking previously. There's  there's essentially been four periods of time   um since then. And uh we've not been in front  of council that whole period of time. So,   um, one thing I would encourage going forward,  if you ever would like us to present, please   ask. We'll come in at any time, uh, to present,  um, plant commissioning and PTA testing, uh,   started in November when test water was supplied,  uh, and and then went through May. We had a,   we had a clarifier issue then, which we'll talk  about here in detail. We did repairs to the gear   boxes between June and July of 25. We restarted  testing. We added confidence testing into that to   make sure that the plant would perform uh the way  we needed it. That carried through November and   really we were preparing to hand over the plant  to the city in December. That's part of the reason   all the claims negotiations were going on uh as we  were wrapping up uh testing and we had a clarifier   uh structural issue uh ident be identified in  November. So I'll get into all of that, but I'm   going to go through these four sections. Um, first  I wanted to go through uh maybe maybe along the   lines of Councilman Shepard's question earlier.  What is a PTA? Uh because we're going to talk a   lot about PTAs. So these are performance tests  and acceptance, right? And the purpose of a PTA   is to demonstrate the treatment process works and  meets acceptance criteria. Um, this project has an   extensive PTA schedule, probably the most testing  that we've ever seen on a treatment plant, uh,   prior to the owner taking it over. Um, that's good  and bad. Uh, right. It's good. You've you've done   a lot of testing. You can see a lot of, uh, the  results. You you have a plant that's very broad   in its nature, right? While while I think the  majority of time you'll be operating off a blend,   there will be periods of time where you may need  to go all to all surface or to all groundwater.   So testing uh was taken into account for all of  that. Uh there's there's testing requirements as I   mentioned earlier that try and simulate minflows,  max flows, different clarifier combinations,   different filter combinations, different run  times, uh flow rates, all of these kinds of   things. So that's all good. The the bad side  of that is that's probably not the way you're   going to operate the plant, right? Water plants,  you don't often make a lot of changes or radical   changes to your operation. They they operate in  a long durations. So you set your your strategy,   your chemical uh optimization strategy and your  your influence source and you run that that   treatment plant for a long period of time and you  make minor changes because you're watching that   change occur over time after you make it. uh and  you get used to how you're going to operate the   plant and then you determine okay now what happens  if we're going to move from our standard blend to   all ground right what will change in the chemicals  what will change in the dosing what will change   uh in the expected results and usually even  those kinds of changes are made over time   or slower there can be uh abrupt changes if you  have a failure occur in a pipeline or something   that might result in an abrupt change uh but you  need that practice and that's the one thing this   project has missed is the city having the  opportunity to practice running this plant   and developing the way they're going to run the  plant, your operators are going to run this plant   and that's going to be really important to the  long-term success of the project. So, uh so just   recognize while while we've done a lot of PTAs  and uh and and they're they provide some benefit,   there's a lot of benefit from your operator  setting in the seats and running the plant.   And that's where we're trying to get you so that  you can uh so that you can do that. Okay. Okay,   so here's what a PTA is. Uh, you transition to  a water source. There's eight defined PTAs. Uh,   you transition to the raw water source that's  being tested. Uh, you have to build solids in the   clarifiers. Right? You're trying to simulate, just  like I said, ongoing operations, not starting from   scratch. Uh, you make appropriate feed changes  and you stabilize the operation of the plant and   you begin the PTA. And all the PTAs are either 48  or 72 hours uh, in time duration. Uh there's what   happens if a piece of equipment breaks in the  middle of the PTA. There's guidelines for that,   right? What happens if a test comes back um  erroneously? There's guidelines for that and   how you do the PTAs as part of it. There's 48  samples taken each day. Um let me just make sure   I don't tell you wrong. Oh, I didn't write it  down. I think I believe that's uh 24 uh on-site   samples. 12 of those samples are sent off-site to  off-site labs for testing. I think 12 are online   uh as part of it. And the off-site testing then  takes two to three weeks. So, we can run a PTA,   we can finish a PTA, we can think we've passed  a PTA, but we don't know we've passed it until   we get that off-site testing back two to  three weeks later, right? And some of those   things they're testing off site, we have no  idea why we're in the middle of the PTA. So,   you you have to run it the way you're going to  run it and then see the results come back to   make sure that you've met it. And if they don't,  then you have to make adjustments, run it again,   wait for the results to come back. as part of it  really drags out the duration of testing uh as   part of it. Okay, so this first period and this is  I think what Councilman Johnston was referring to   when we started the plant up in November uh  we had a variety of issues going on. We had   uh it for one it took much longer to get uh stable  operations in this plant. This is a big plant and   even though we're not using the full plant during  testing uh these clarifiers are big. They're 130   plus feet in diameter. they hold a lot of water.  Uh it takes every change takes a long time to work   its way through the plant. Uh so so I can tell  you that I think we would have had trouble knowing   what we know now if we knew it back then. Uh the  April 1 date was probably too aggressive to begin   with uh to try and get all the PTAs done between  November and April 1st. That's neither here nor   there. That's what we signed up for. That's our  responsibility to deliver, right? Uh but but we   did have a lot of challenges. We also had some  raw water challenges, right? raw deviations in   the raw water coming into the plant. That affects  what comes out of the plant. Uh and we in general   were having clarifier performance that was not to  our expectations of what the clarifier should be   performing too. So what does that mean? That means  you're not getting um solids out of the water the   way we would expect from those clarifiers. And  we were in daily communications uh with Westech   through that process to try and understand what  was going on with these clarifiers. And what we   became aware of in March um wasn't really a design  defect, but that Westech had installed the wrong   gearbox with these clarifiers. So, I'm going to  show you what a gearbox looks like here in just   a second. Yes, sir. Uh how how were how did you  become aware that they had supplied the wrong   West made us aware of that. So, West supplied  it and then they also let you know after it had   been installed that it was the wrong one. Yeah.  that it was undersized in the gear boxes. And   this this is this is going to be a bad analogy, I  know, but um as big as these clarifiers are, when   you talk about mixing and creating mixing energy  in these clarifiers, um I'll show you a picture   of the mixer in a minute, it it rotates, but it  it rotates maybe a little over three revolutions   per minute, right? It's not fast. It's not like  a blender. So, how how did we miss that the the   wrong I'll show you. It's not something it's not  something we would have seen uh as as part of it,   right? The West should have should have supplied  a clarifier that met the mixing energy criteria   uh because they ordered the wrong gearbox. That  gearbox didn't allow it to to turn fast enough to   create the mixing energy. I the example I'll give  you, not a good one again, is a 10-speed bicycle.   It's been a long time since I've ridden a 10-speed  bicycle, but if you remember a 10-speed bicycle,   as you change gears, there are some gears where  it's really easy to pedal, but you go really slow,   and there are some gears where you it's really  hard to pedal, but you go really fast as part of   it. That's what I'm talking about in this gearbox  is it's just taking the the energy from the motor   into a gearbox that changes the settings and then  it it rotates this mixture around. Um, and this   was after you had started the testing that Yeah,  this was uh this was four months into testing   that. So, did their reps come out and take a look  at it? You alerted them? Yeah, I don't uh we had   the reps out certainly to look at stuff. I don't  know that that's I don't know to tell you the   truth uh personally how they determined that they  had the wrong size gearbox, but it was them that   determined it. Here's let me just advance a slide.  There's the there's the gearbox. I mean, it's of   these gigantic clarifiers. This is really a small  component of these gigantic clarifiers. And it's   and it's not something that you would be able to  tell whether the gearing mechanisms were correct   to generate the right amount of right of energy in  the mixing. And this probably become a little more   clear when I show you uh the picture here coming  up that Gary showed you previously. So, um these   all need to be replaced. So that's part of what  we did in June and July. Remember because because   we're not in an operating plant. If this would  occurred and you were in production, we wouldn't   have shut the plant down and replaced all six  gear boxes. You would have done one at a time. You   would have kept the plant operational. But because  um you had the you had the benefit of an existing   plant and because you were still worried about  using test water because you were in a drought,   um the decision was made, let's just shut it down.  not waste any more water and and uh and change out   these test box uh these cure boxes before we start  the plant up and begin testing again. So that's   what occurred. Westech was on site um during that  clarifier work. Uh we also did a little more work.   We added turnbuckles to the launderers or cross  bracing. The launderers are where the water exits   the clarifier. We were seeing a little bit of  twisting or or flexing in those. Has nothing to   do with the later failure. Uh but it tightened  those up. Again, that not necessarily a design   error. Some West Tech clarifiers have it. Some  West Techch clarifiers don't have it. Um we   believed it was necessary because they need to be  stiffer as part of it. But at this period of time,   Westech was on site, Carver was on site,  Burnz was on site, Witchto Water Partners   was on site. We had no indication that we had  any further clarifier issues related to it.   We simply thought it was a gearbox and a process  change uh and we would start backup testing to   work our way through testing. And that's what we  did. So we started the second round of testing. We   added confidence testing to it. And really what  we were trying to do with confidence testing,   this was not a contract requirement, but we were  trying to run the plant to build confidence that   the plant uh that the plant would deliver uh  on the treatment side before we got into the   PTA. So we were in essence extending oh excuse  me extending the time before the PTA started uh   every time we change a water source. That's part  of it. So uh we also there was a big uh drive to   try and use the test water. So uh we were able to  start sending test water to the east plant uh for   polishing and pushed into production in August.  So, what that means is we fully treated the water   at the Northwest plant, uh, including chlorinated  the water. Um, we decllorinated the water at the   back end of the plant and then pushed it to your  east plant. And your east plant then ran that same   treated water through their filters, recllorinated  it, and pushed it out to system. So, you've been   drinking water from this plant since August of  last year when it's up and operational and we're   pushing to that uh pushing to the east plant.  Um because you're running it through a secondary   treatment plant, you don't have to worry about any  test water challenges or problems. But even then,   the water was uh was drinking water standard uh  as part of it. So, that was a good way, I think,   to alleviate some of the concerns related to  water usage, uh, particularly in a drought,   so that you weren't pushing these big amounts of  water out into the into the, uh, to the river,   uh, and allowed you to do that. So, we finished,  uh, all eight PTAs, uh, all met KDH drinking water   standards. Uh, in total, there were a thousand  just over a thousand samples taken on 21 days   of testing. That's PTA days of testing. Um we  agreed to rerun three PTAs at the end of the eight   um for two reasons. We had 11 samples that  were non-compliant with the project standards,   not KDH drinking water standards. Your project  standards on this project are about three times   more aggressive than KDH standards. Uh so we  can miss a project standard and still be well   within the drinking water limit. Does that make  sense? So we had 11 samples. They were both on   PTAs three and four. uh they related to TTHMs or  trialmethanes or disinfection byproducts. It's a   constituent we can't even see when we're testing.  We have to send it off to a lab. We get results   back three weeks later. Uh it's it's not an issue.  Uh it relates to uh how the chlorine reacts with   some of the organics in the surface water. Uh we  ran a second uh third PTA on surface water. That's   PTA7. We had no issue with TTH. So we don't expect  any issue uh when we re re uh when we retest three   and four. Um and then PTA 7 uh we agreed to rerun  because we had that clarifier failure in the   middle of the PTA and it was one of the clarifiers  that was being tested. Uh and it had one uh   non-compliant sample I think that related to pH  uh as part of that. So ran all eight all eight   met drinking water standards. Um, you can see the  percentages. 12 samples that were non-compliant   out of out of over a thousand samples taken. Plant  makes good water. Um, it's it's safe to drink,   right? You're drinking it or you drank it this  past uh fall as part of it. And it's something   I think it's often lost, right? When we we talk  about these issues and nobody likes these issues,   right? These are challenging. It's emotional. Um,  you paid a lot of money for this. There's a lot of   eyeballs on this project. It's important. Probably  no piece of infrastructure that's more important   to you as a community uh as you go forward than  having abundant and and clean water uh available   to your residents and your rateayers. Uh so we  understand that, right? It's it's hard when you   have issues like this. Uh but often I think  in this process we've lost track of that the   plant has been up and operational. It's not just  sitting there idle and you have no use of it. Uh   every day that plant's running, you're learning  from it. you're starting to understand how the   city's going to operate it and you're gaining  benefit from those uh from those days of testing. So as we were running PTA7 um we had a issue  in clarifier 3. We heard a knocking for lack   of a better term, right? Clarifier started making  noise um full of water. These are big clarifiers.   That picture gives you a good example. That's a  person in the bottom of that clarifier. And that's   not the whole clarifier. That's the mixing zone of  the clarifier. So, it's even bigger than that. Um,   we could see some things that didn't look quite  right. Remember, it's full of water, so a lot   of this stuff isn't visible as part of it. So, we  shut that clarifier down. We switched clarifiers.   We continued PTA testing. Um, we were finishing  PTA 7, I believe that's correct, when clarifier 3,   um, same issue, excuse me, uh, clarifier  one, same issue. Started hearing a knocking.   went and looked, it looked like you could see  something wrong in the structure internal to the   uh the clarifier. So again, because you have an  existing operating plant, it allowed us just to   shut down the plant to drain the clarifiers. It  takes two or three days to drain these clarifiers   and then start doing inspections. Gary showed this  picture. I showed it to you again where that blue   arrow is. Um again, I wouldn't call this a design  error. Um um and I'll tell you why in a second,   but that that C channel that you see bent right  there, the purpose of that C channel is to hold   uh the upper draft tube in place. The upper  draft tube is this kind of the middle section   of what you see on the left. You see a couple  of cables extending to it. Um so you have a   mixer on top that spins. You have an upper draft  tube in the middle that stays still. Um but it's   only connected from the outside holding it still.  And then you have a lower draft tube that turns   slowly the other way that's raking the solids  out of the clarifier. So if we look at um that   same picture that Gary gave you, you see there in  the kind of the tannanish color I'll say that's   the mixer. That's what's turning about three and  a half revolutions per minute or so. Um the blue,   the light blue is the upper draft tube. That's  what we're worried about in this scenario. That   stays still. And then the green, which is you're  only seeing half the green, it's round as well,   is the lower draft tube that turns with  the rake. So it turns opposite the mixer   really slow. So I'll tell you in a clarifier  design that upper draft tube doesn't have to   be nonmoving. The reason it's non-moving is often  you have water that enters the clarifier sideways.   For these clarifiers, the water enters from the  bottom. So there's absolutely no reason that   upper draft tube has to stay still. That's just  part of their typical design. So that's the way   they designed this as well. They hold that upper  draft tube still with those yellow C channels that   extend out to the mixing zone and then they have  cables that connect it. Um all the function of   that upper draft tube is for one and one thing  only. It's to convey water from the lower draft   tube to the mixer. Right? Think of that mixer  as a big pump turning. It's pulling water up,   pushing it out. It mixes with other solids. You  get collisions. You're adding chemicals. You get   collisions. Those particles get bigger. They start  to settle down. The process picks some of them   back up because you always want solids or a sludge  bed in that mixture to cause more collisions. But   the heavy the heaviest solids go to the center  and come out. Then the clean water ultimately   goes outside of that reaction well and into  the launderers which you can see uh the radial   launderers. It's pointing to one on the left side  of that uh of that image. They're just troughs.   Goes into troughs. Clear water goes into troughs  and exits clarifiers and goes onto the filters. So the reason I say it's in my opinion it's  not really a design issue. It's and this is   up for debate, right? the design what the  the the cause uh of the failure we believe   uh Westech believes every uh everybody we've  had looked at believes um to date is that upper   draft tube that light blue was designed to have a  stiffener on the bottom of it or a stiffening ring   around the bottom of it. It's just a hollow piece  of metal, right? It's big in diameter, but it's   just a hollow piece of metal. Um, so think of uh  if you would and the example that was used in the   meeting was think of a think of a a five gallallon  bucket, right? The top of that bucket is open,   but if you push on it, it's very stiff. You can't  deform it because it has a stiffening ring around   that top. If you cut the top of the bucket off  and just put the center, it's really flexible,   right? Without that stiffening ring, it's  really flexible. So, what happened here,   um, according to Westech, that stiffening ring  was in that design. You can see it. That bottom   blue arrow. It's really hard to see. We've tried  to blow it up on the left, but it's still really   hard to see there. There's a little red circle.  That's that's showing you where that stiffening   ring was in the design. But that that ring  didn't get transferred to the drawings that   went to the to the um to the manufacturer. So,  they manufactured it without that stiffing ring   on the bottom of it. Right. Um, and then there was  a second issue. The top blue arrow, the clearance   between the mixer that's turning and that those  yellow C channels was too close. Typical is six   plus inches for them. For some reason, they had  what they gave to the manufacturer was inch and   a half or may have even been less than that when  the when it lifted up as part of it. So what was   happening was they believe as the mixture was  turning it would interfere with that C channel.   I'm sorry I keep doing that. It would interfere  with that C channel and caused that to have forces   that started to twist because that upper draft  tube didn't have a stiffening ring on the bottom.   It allowed that twist to occur and and over time  it just became looser and looser and looser until   at some point the C channel failed. So it didn't  really affect the process necessarily and it right   has nothing to do with the concrete in it. It's  really related to just how they hold that upper   draft tube in place as part of it. That's that's  this is really hard to do just in a drawing and   I know without being able to see it, it's hard to  understand. Does that make sense? Anybody have any   questions on that piece of it? Yes. Yeah. Thank  you, Mayor. Um whose job was it to catch that?   Well, it's that's a that's a good question.  It really I don't think it was anybody's job   to catch it. It was it was Westech's job if you  want to know the truth. They manufactured. They   should have caught that as it was being installed  and and before they signed off on it. Remember,   they signed off on all the installation of this  equipment as that it was in that it was in line   with what they had speced and designed uh as  part of it and and they just missed it. and   they admitted that in the meetings that both we've  had and the meetings that they they uh presented   to the city related to that. And so then whenever  we're we're building this project, whose job was   it to to catch that that the specs weren't being  followed? Yeah. Again, because it was a because   it was a performance spec. There wasn't really a  defined design that you were comparing to. I think   Mark mentioned uh earlier a lot of things that  are designed you're comparing the part of what   we do as an inspection and then what the owner  owner's inspector does as well is you're comparing   drawings to in place making sure everything  was put on place but but this didn't really   have that kind of design because of the nature  of the proprietary uh equipment was part of it.   Their design um they transferred their design to  manufacturing drawings. They WestTech transferred   their design to manufacturing drawings. They sent  those drawings to a manufacturer to be built. That   equipment showed back up on site. They then came  and certified that that equipment matched their   design. And that's what we also based ours off of.  So when we're looking at like Garver for example,   and they're coming in looking, they're looking  at uh West Texas design their specs. I don't   know what you had to look at for West design. My  guess is not much, but I don't know that Mark,   that's probably more of a question for  Garver related to that. But but in the end,   it's right the the fault if you want to if right  if you want to determine fault, the fault lies   with West and West's admitted that fault um in  that they didn't do it. And it's and it's not   something that was I think readily apparent that  it was an issue because when you install these   things and you you put them in and you connect in  those C channels and you tighten all the cables,   they're stiff, right? They don't move as part of  it. But what happened because that stiffening ring   wasn't there and because they had that clearance  issue when it's 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  as part of it until you had the failure. Um it's   it's the reason when the first one failed, we  didn't stop everything, right? Because because we   didn't have any indication there was any problem  with any of the other with any of the other   uh five clarifiers at that point. It was only that  when we had a second one fail and it looked like a   similar issue that we were worried that well maybe  this is a repetitive issue and we need to look at   it because we didn't know at that point whether  we were creating further damage if we kept running   uh or we were could do something to to fix or  repair those uh before further damage was done. So   Westech is where the specs changed specs changed.  Yeah. For the to where what you were saying they   removed the stiffener essentially. Oh yeah. Westec  is aware that they they did not WestTech didn't   send manufactured drawings to the manufacturer  with that stiffening ring included. Okay. West's   aware of that. Yes. Westech did that. Thank you.  All indications that the manufacturer built it to   what West sent him, but we don't know that for  sure. I I think where he's council is going is   Westech did admit it. Uh I think their explanation  was they designed it in 3D and the construction   documents got transferred to construction document  was in 2D and the manufacturing the shop drawings   to the shop drawings to to the manufacturing.  So the construction documents um that Westech   presented and Garver would have looked at were  missing those pieces that stiffener. So Garver   couldn't have caught it because it was missing  from the from the beginning. And they admitted   that that did they did not get those to  the construction documents. Yeah. Is that   correct? Yeah. Well, I I I can't I don't know  that for sure, but they admitted it wasn't on   those drawings. I don't know if Garver saw those  drawings or not. I don't want to speak for Garver   uh as part of that, but Okay. But that's the  point here, right? the the people that the the   the entity that was responsible for checking to  make sure what showed up on site in this case was   West because they're the ones that created the the  the manufacturing drawings, had it manufactured,   brought that material on site. They were on site  through installation. They were on site as we ran   those clarifiers in the dry to balance them to  make sure they were working the way they should   be. Uh and then they were back on site when we  changed the gearbox. Right? We ran, remember, we   ran those clarifiers for about six months before  we shut them down to change the gear boxes. Um,   so they were back on site. Those clarifiers  were rebalanced as part of that effort. Uh,   and it wasn't noticed at that point either,  nor to my knowledge was any indication that   there was an an issue at that point noticed  uh as as part of that repair issue. So,   it's that's super frustrating, right? It's not  just frustrating to you. I think that's super   frustrating to us as well. Uh because rest of your  plants really performing very well. Your filters   uh I think your filters are performing uh  even better than expected and and the rest   of the plants uh uh there's there's lots of  elements of a new water treatment plant that   u that you want to incorporate that this plant  has. And the redundancy uh is one thing too that   this plant has a lot more of than most plants uh  have. And the flexibility on how you operate it   has a lot more of that. But we can't get the  focus on that because we keep having problems   with the very first thing in the process which are  these clarifiers. Okay. So just in this essence of   time let me show you the repair. So this is the  preferred repair. So what West came back with was   um the realization that gosh they really didn't  have to hold that upper draft tube still in this   case because water came through the bottom.  So rather than have these pieces of structure   sticking out in the middle of all this mixing  and churning of water, instead they're just going   to bolt it to the interior truss that runs right  through that upper draft tube. So it's fixed and   has no chance to move uh as part of that. Probably  a better design um truthfully um than the other.   So, I think we're fairly comfortable with the  fix, but we've had people checking their design,   checking their calculations to make sure that  fix all looks uh appropriate uh as part of it.   And uh they would uh we're not going to let  them repair those draft tubes. We feel like   there's been too much damage done to those upper  draft tubes. So, we're making them remanufacture   those upper draft tubes. Uh so, they'll come to  site, they'll come to the site. Probably the only   difference really other than you're supporting  it from the inside is because everything else   is in place. Those draft tubes originally came in  four pieces. Dan, how big are those draft tubes? Yeah. 20 foot in diameter and 4,000 pounds.  Yeah. So, originally they came in four pieces,   but there wasn't anything above them. So, you  could drop those in and put them in. Now, you   have stuff above them and around them. So, they're  going to come in 16 pieces and be fit together   uh uh as well. That'll just make them more stiff.  I I don't think that does anything other than make   it more stiff as you go forward. Uh so, we'll demo  the upper draft tube. There's still elements of   the mixer and the lower draft tube that we haven't  seen because it's inside the draft tube. So,   we'll inspect that as soon as that's done. We'll  complete the repairs wherever that's necessary.   We'll install the new upper draft tube and then  we're talking to Westech right now about extending   the warranty uh on these clarifiers. So, we don't  have that firmed up with Westech, but my guess   is the city's not going to be happy with anything  other than a two-year extension on that warranty,   and we probably won't be happy uh with anything  less than that as well, but that has not been   firmed up yet. Um so the go forward and again this  is going to differ a little bit from maybe what   you've heard or what you've read or what you've  seen. Um Gary had mentioned that uh gosh we may   not it's going to be sometime into next year or  this year now um before we get those clarifiers.   It may be all the way through the year. Uh we  actually believe we can do this much faster   than that but but totally understand the city's  position here. The city's position is you guys   have missed two dates. We're not going to set the  public's expectation on another date and have you   miss it again as part of it. So, I think that's  where that that kind of long date came forward,   but this is our current plan and we're developing  this. This will be submitted to the city for   uh for review here quickly um as we get firm dates  from Westech related to manufacturing of that   upper draft tube. Um our current plan, if we can  make this work, is to do temporary repairs on just   one of the clarifiers and to restart the plant.  And we want to do that for a couple of reasons.   Um the first reason is it's better for that plant  to be running than to setting idle, right? It's   just better for the for for a water treatment  plant to be operational than not. Uh and the   second is we believe that's a great opportunity  for city staff to train running the plant. We'll   still be in control of the plant. We'll still  be in the operations room with them. Uh but   this lets city staff now have uh up to, you know,  two or three months in the chair operating the   plant. It won't have full functionality because  you'll only have one clarifier uh operational,   but it gives them it takes time that you would  have spent anyway later in the project and moves   that forward. So, we're trying to take advantage  of some of this time uh that's being lost while   we're waiting on the manufacturing of the upper  draft tubes. Uh we expect the upper draft tubes   right now to come in pairs. So, the first pair  would be here as early as April, second pair May,   third pair June. Uh we'll start PTA testing again  as soon as the first two are repaired. So as early   as May. Uh and that PTA testing would take I don't  know uh probably four to six weeks. So our hope is   that we're that we're got you in a position to  to come back up. Now the city has not agreed to   only retesting just three PTAs. That's something  we're in discussion with the cities about the city   about. Uh it's our position that the draft tube's  not part of the the process. it's just conveying   water. So, if it tests out on the three PTAs we  have, there's no reason to think it's not going   to test out on the others. And it's more and it's  more beneficial to get you in the chair running it   the way you're going to run it uh as part of  it. We can always see how that performs once   you're running it. Um but the city may say, "No,  we want you to retest all the PTAs before." So,   in that scenario, it would be probably further  than uh June uh as part of it just because of the   time associated with that. But that's but that's  more realistic. Again, just like the gearboxes,   if you were in an operational plant right now, if  you were using this plant, you would not shut it   down for six months and wait for six clarifier  upper draft tubes to be remanufactured and   pushed to the site, right? You would do whatever  temporary fix you needed to do on the first one.   You would be pulling them down one at a time,  doing what fixes you needed, getting them back   into operation so that you could keep operating.  So recognize that this feels really long, but it's   likely not what you would see if you were in an  operational facility as part of it. Part of this   part of this duration is because you're not yet in  an operational facility uh as part of it. And and   in essence, it's the city and us wanting to make  sure that the fixes are done right because you   got to have confidence in this plant to produce  water and we have to have confidence in this plant   that it can produce water for you uh as part of  it. So there's probably a little extra caution   being applied through this process since this is  the second issue we've had with these clarifiers   um as part of it. So that's my presentation. Happy  to answer any questions you have. I know this was   I I don't know if this was uh a surprise or not  that we were going to present, but but I would   also offer happy to do this again if if you want  uh time to think about it or you need a different   audience uh to hear it. Vice Mayor Glascock,  thank you. I have one question. And so we're   at January 20th. We have 11 days until the end  of January. There were temporary repairs on one   clarifier. It says January to February. Do we have  any expectation that that work will be completed   by the end of the month or is it I think it'll be  February. Yeah. What we're trying to do with those   temporary repairs, we've held off on releasing  Westech on the repair until all the third party   reports came in. We just got the city's third  party report late last week. Uh but in that report   I I've not really even read the whole report yet,  but uh in in what I understand of that report so   far is that there's no adversion to the repair.  So the same occurred with our third party folks   looking at it. So we're working with Westech right  now. In fact, I think they're on site today with   the proposed installation contractor on what that  repair looks like and and then we'll release them   on the repair and they'll start they've already  started at risk on the drawings and the design   components of that uh to try and speed that up.  Um the temporary repair because I I want you   all to know the temporary repair will not stay in  service long term. So, when we're talking about a   temporary repair, we're talking about a temporary  fix of one that mimics what's going to happen in   the permanent repairs and lets us get it back up  and running. But at some point, either in April,   May, or June, that temporary repair will come  out and the permanent repair will come into   that clarifier, right? It's it's purely just to  operate the facility uh as part of it. Has Westec   experienced any similar problem at any of the  other development projects across the country?   Well, I won't I I can't speak for Westech. Westech  has not conveyed to me that they've experienced   any similar um issue, nor has HDR conveyed that  they are aware of issues uh similar to this. But   but I would I can't speak definitively because I  just don't know as part of it. This is certainly   time we've experienced this and and listen, I  don't want you to think WestTech is just some   firm that just came up, you know, they started  a year ago and working. Westech's an old firm.   They've been established in the water business a  long time. They they do a lot of clarifiers. Um so   that you know I I is it 80 years? Is that what I  remember? They've been in business for 80 years.   It's something like that, right? Uh they've been  in business for a long time. So, um, why of all   the projects, this project had those two issues  occur on it, I don't know. I can't explain that   to you. But it but it's very frustrating for  sure. Uh, as part of it, um, can I guarantee   that there's never going to be another issue with  these West Claries? No, I can't guarantee that. Uh   but we're doing everything we can to try and look  at all scenarios to minimize that risk to the city   uh as part of it because it's got to be dependable  for you all. Thank you. I'm looking at the West   website. They were founded in 1973 out of Salt  Lake, Utah. Oh, so sorry I was off just a bit   then. Council member Hoheisle. Thank you, Mayor.  Um these are relatively new designs, right? As far   as how these clarifiers operate, you indicated.  No, they're not. This is a pretty 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's more the proprietary focus of each   one of those than not. But no, this is about  as standard of water treatment design as you   could have as far as the clarifiers go and how  they Yeah. Uh, who did the city's third party   report that West Jamie and Associates? I believe.  Okay. Is that something we can get a copy of,   Gary? Okay. Um, and then a couple questions  pertaining to the contract if you would, Gary. Now, we don't have a completed date or a target  date here. So, this contract, does this extend   all through uh December 2026? Well, we don't  have a contract that says anything more beyond   a final completion date of April 1st, 2025. Uh,  and that's what we're working through. If we try   to put anything in place or motion right now to  put a final contract date to it, we just end up   amending it. Again, it's part of our discussions.  It's part of what's allowed within the claims   uh settlement agreement and discussion. Um,  there are some things we do along the way. Uh,   I think Ron mentioned some work change directives  uh to keep us on track and in place that we're   moving forward, but we'll try to get to that as  soon as we can, but until we see the ended site,   we really just can't put a final date on it. So,  what we're being built for here will be hours.   We're just allotting a certain amount of hours  for it. It will be and and I to I'm sure Garber's   estimate is conservative not knowing how far  out we're going to be but uh we keep very close   track of their submittals based on invoices and  it's it's on actual hours only. Okay. Thank you,   Council Member Johnston. Thank you, Mayor Ron.  Thank you for presenting. Um I know it's not   your your best morning. probably what she didn't  want to do this morning. But but thank you for but   it's a necessary morning, right? This is as big  a challenge as this is this is our challenge to   solve for the city and uh that was one of the  reasons we offered to come because there was a   lot of discussion about an issue that was part of  our contract. So we always want to try and address   that directly when we can. So this is just part of  it unfortunately. Yeah, I appreciate that. I know   I've learned a lot during that three-hour meeting  and even more today. So I I appreciate that.   still not an expert at all, but uh it's nice to  at least have a general understanding of it. Um   I think good thing about this is the clarifiers  are being scrutinized to a level they probably   would not be if it went normally. Well, I think  that's certainly true. So I think we we may end up   getting better clarifiers than we ever expected.  So let's hope so. Let's hope so. Yeah, let's hope   so. So again, I appreciate it. I will say that u  just so the public knows our staff um that public   works and Gary hired is very very good. Um they're  very very knowledgeable obviously by the questions   they asked of you and of Westech during that  meeting and uh I I'm really impressed with them   and I think that you'll work well with them and  get Waw good water. So thank you. Yeah, I do as   well and I think we said this at the meeting,  Councilman Johnston, I do appreciate Westech   coming as well. Well, it would have really been it  would have been easy for Westech not to come and   do that meeting with the city and and that meeting  for those of you who weren't in attendance really   was just to let Westech talk directly to the  city rather than through us uh or through another   intermediary as part of it so that the city could  ask questions directly of Westech. And I thought   they did a good job. I think they've we asked  them to look at everything. Don't just look at the   problem. go back and look at your full design uh  and make sure there's nothing else that needs to   be fixed while these clarifiers are down. Uh and  they did that and they did find a couple of other   areas they want to fix. There's some additional  structure they want to put on the rake uh the   rake arm I believe and maybe one other place uh  in the clarifiers as part of it. So uh I thought   they did a good job of explaining that. But  likewise, it's still something you would prefer   not to have to do. It might be noted that it was  a different team than the original team that came.   Yeah. Essentially, Westech, so that when this  repair occurred, pulled together a team of all   their leadership, all their department managers  uh to to go back and look at every element of uh   of uh the design process. At least that's the way  they explained it to us. Yeah, it appeared they   they brought the A team to to the game. So, thank  you. Absolutely. Thank you for coming that day.   I see no further questions from this bench.  We'll continue with Gary's presentation. Can I go back to the other PowerPoint? Well,  mayor and council, thank you which I want to   thank which water partners for being here. Thank  you for bearing with us on that. I appreciate the   questions. Um I heard some things that maybe we  can talk about further um um here going forward   because they're all very good questions. Council  member Hallisle to good questions. I appreciate   that. You're not the only one that asks those  and so um we can help clarify and I think to   the manager's point if we have the opportunity  through workshop to talk about uh contract terms   and stipulations. I think I can kind of hit on  some of those things you talked about as far as   responsibilities. Also, one of the things I might  mention just real quick and then I'll come back to   this is I I wanted to just talk real quick about  the value of this being a design build project. Um   because ultimately what that does then is it puts  the responsibility no matter where the issues are   uh it puts it back on the entire team to work that  out. I can tell you over the course of time and   not projects this big but when we have an issue  where we traditional design bid build and you have   an issue on a project and we're not sure if it's  design or construction there's some significant   fingerpointing that happens and boy it becomes  really hard to resolve. um tremendous value for   this being a progressive design build that all of  it is under one umbrella, same team, their issue   ultimately to work it out. That's what we hired  them for. So, having said all that, I would come   back to um where we were um and and based on my  the things I discussed with this particular item,   staff recommends city council approve the OSR  phase three amendment and authorize the necessary   signatures. and I'd certainly be happy to stand  for any more questions. Questions for staff? Um,   I do have just one. U, this is more a direction  to the city manager and since the offer was given   by Ron with Wshaw Water Partners, I think it's  prudent that we have monthly reports regarding   this water treatment plant. Given that there will  be a temporary fix to the clarifiers between now   and February, um the next report being in  February and then moving forward, I think   the community wants to have clear and consistent  uh 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 Witchah. So, um I would like to have monthly  uh if that would be appropriate for our workshop   at the beginning of the workshop having um that  report. I think that that would be appropriate.   Council members, Council Member Ho Heisel. Thank  you, Mayor. Um so, just want to be clear on a   few things. Um, as far as working out um, who  covers what, the cost recovered and whatnot,   do we have any sort of timeline as far as that  settlement language? Do we think here in a couple   months? Are we waiting until after the project is  done? I'll I'll jump in if I can and Gary, correct   me. We are in the process of gathering all all  claims of actual damages, making a list of every   damage we have. Um, and in submitting that into  an amended claim, there is a process then that   goes through I don't have a timeline, but I can  get you a better timeline on that soon. I don't   know if Gary's heard any more about a timeline,  but I think it's going to be I would say months.   I mean months in and short answer is months. And  the way the process works, which I'll discuss in   more detail with you here in just a little bit,  is it's kind of hard to predict the time. We're   going to keep everything moving forward as we  can and get the terms in place. Uh, ultimate any   final number. We won't know until we're done. U so  there's no way to get to that point. It's getting   the right terms in place and getting those agreed  to the to we'll protect ourselves the best through   the end. Okay. And it sounds like they're willing  to uh take ownership of that. Um so what we are   in talks about and it seems like we're in a pretty  good spot with is uh the cost overruns to date. um   this contract in particular. Uh what else did we  talk about today that we were wanting to make sure   is part of the settlement claims? Um warranties  as well. Um that's being part of the that's part   of the discussions as well as warranty extensions.  We are currently identifying all uh costs that we   feel are associated with the delay. Um I've got  a little bit more information to share with you.   I've got some stuff I put together. Um I think  as we get that further developed, uh especially   probably in the next 30 days, be able to provide  some more detail to you of what that looks like   and specifically what our requests are. Uh but  so there'll be more to come on that. I I really   I don't know that I can go through the entire list  off the top of my head right now, but we'll make   sure you're comfortable with what all is rolled  into that request before we move forward. Okay.   If this contract doesn't pass today, what happens?  Does that mean we simply don't have any oversight?   Does the project come to a standstill until we do  identify one? Well, the project will need to move   forward. I've got to figure out another way to  fill in the gaps for the services that Garver are   providing. I I don't know how we would do that. I  don't have the staff to do that. Um because we're   trying to effectively manage two treatment plants.  You know, I talked about this before. We've got   staff from the very beginning that we have moved  from other positions and other parts of our   utility to save costs to help manage this uh over  a period of time. We have no way to I don't have   staff. We have no way to manage that. I honestly  don't know what we would do. That's the reason   why we hired the owners rep to begin with and  certainly don't want to put any of us including   all of you in a bad spot. But it's necessary that  we continue this contract or we're going to be in   a bad spot as far as making sure everything gets  done right going forward. Okay. And they're going   to be out there checking everything along the way  as far as the the stiffeners go. Make sure that   they're installed. Um I just want to rest assured  that they're they're that other set of eyes that's   going to be on they are all the identified issues  that we've had with this plan so far. Correct.   And I'll just put a quick finer point on that.  Ultimately, the responsibility is still with the   design build team uh and the joint venture. It's  their responsibility to design a repair uh to make   the plan operational. Uh we feel comfortable so  far with what we've seen including in the workshop   that we had with them. Um I feel better knowing  what the issue was, as unfortunate as it is, that   there is a fix going forward. Ultimately, it's not  Garver's responsibility, nor is it our staffs to   fully certify that that's the right design.  That's their responsibility. What we can do,   uh, is make sure that they're going to do  what they say they're going to do. That's   ultimately what it's there for, and that that  there are no major acceptance. That exceptions,   that's the role of our owners rep. That's the role  of our staff. um licensed professional engineers,   whether it's through Westech or anybody else as  part of the joint venture, it's ultimately their   responsibility for that final design and make sure  it performs as it's intended to. Okay. Thank you,   Council Member Tuttle. Thank you. Just to clarify  and thank you to um everyone involved today and   for all the great information going back to the  purpose of this agenda item. It was to the for   the contract with Garver and you mentioned this I  don't know a long time ago when we started talking   about this topic today. Is it industry standard to  have an owner's rep on a project such as this? It   is. I'm not aware of of probably even regardless  of the size of municipality. Um I think you would   see this everywhere. And we have owners rep on  other projects we have under underway right now   too. Yeah. And we've used Garver before,  such as the baseball stadium back in 2019   2020. They're also the owner's rep for the work  that'll eventually move forward with the current   water treatment plant. Yeah. And when using an  owner's rep, have we seen savings on projects? Um,   I can't tell you right off the top of my  head that we've been able to necessarily   um show that specifically. Uh but but sure I think  we could dig in in multiple areas. Um there's uh   you know Mark mentioned there's there's thousands  of documents more than that over the course of a   project like this where um if we really dug in  and and pulled those things out we could show   that there were cost savings as a result of their  expertise and being a part of the project and   everything that comes with that. Yeah. and I think  a s savings of time and treasure, right, which are   both equally important to us. Thank you, Gary.  Appreciate all your work on this today. Mayor,   I might add one quick clarification. This is  something you heard. I want to make sure we're   on the same page. Um the plan is only to fix one  clarifier, the temporary fix. I just want to make   sure everybody knew knew that. Um, as we start  getting our folks involved with operations and   understanding how the plant works, there will be  some value in them uh, operating that clarifier,   kind of see how some things work with some  chemical mis mixes in the process itself and   and ideally what which saw what our partner's 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. So just I just and I may I just want to  make sure everybody was clear. It was just the one   one clarifier keep moving forward to try to get  the rest of them you know headed towards repair   and replacement. And can I get clarification that  uh Witchaw water partners can do a monthly update   regarding the water treatment plant with the  first one being in February once the temporary   uh fix to one clarifier clarifier will be  completed. We got confirmation um of these   monthly reports so that again the council is aware  and community is aware where we're at with a new   water treatment plant. Um I do have a question  for law regarding this uh proposal before us.   This is regarding Garver. Um, I wanted to know  because in our report it specifically states city   staff are negotiating a settlement claim with the  design build contractor that includes recovering   extended OSR costs. And the OSR costs currently  that we're asked to uh consider is $769,446. In my motion, may I um how can  I word it so that the $769,446 is part of the laundry list of  damages that we will be seeking from   um the design build contractor? Mayor, that's an interesting question. I mean,  I I would say that today's motion is just to   approve the extension of this contract. I think  you can give us direction in other ways at other   times that this be included in damages.  Um just direction from the bench. I just   don't know that that would necessarily tie it to  this motion. That's my thought. Um if you want,   you can just make a a motion or comment  to for staff to pursue all damages. I want   to make sure that that is something that is  on record that we want to seek the $769,446 but in the motion. So that the motion as I  mentioned I want to make sure that this council   is being held to account that we will be asking  those specific dollars in addition to many other   damages but these in particular since again city  staff is still negotiating with the contractor.   I think then mayor you can make a motion that  you know follows the recommended motion and   say and direct staff to pursue this extended  cost as part of the city's claim for damages because I will not be comfortable moving  this motion as is unless there is a specific   um clause that says that we will specifically be  asking for the 769449 in addition to many other   damages. Yeah, I think you could just  add that language into the motion then   um and direct staff or request staff um to add  this amount into the city's um claims for damages.   Thank you. I see no further questions from this  bench. We will now open it up for public comment. I see no one from the public who would like to   address this topic. We will  bring it back to the bench. With that, I will move that  the city council approve the   OSR phase 3 contract amendment and  authorize the necessary signatures   and direct staff to pursue these  specific dollars, which is $769,449 uh in claims in damages in addition to others  um that we will be adding to the claim. Mayor, can you repeat the motion again? It's the same motion, but the addition of  directing staff to pursue the additional $769,449 specifically in the claim. Clarification  before I would second something. If staff,   let's say, could not add it to  the settlement of the claim,   would this nullify the agreement  that we would enter into? We'd come back and visit with you about that,  council, if that's the case. So, you come visit   us about the latter part that the mayor added,  not the parent contract. Correct. Then I would   feel comfortable seconding that second motion and  a second. Council member Tuttle, just to clarify,   can you, Vice Mayor, can you please repeat what  you recommended or the action that we're actually   voting on because I agree. I think the contract  with Garver is different than seeking the other   funds. And my understanding from legal would be  that the mayor the mayor's motion would allow us   to continue to enter the agreement with Garver  even if it wasn't added to the motion. It just   directs staff to negotiate it. That's what  I was going to ask. Is it, and I'm sorry,   I'm trying to keep up, but 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? I  don't want that. I want it in the motion, but the   contract with Garver is different than this. It's  kind of adding apples and oranges in one bucket.   We could still direct staff and it would this is  a public meeting so it absolutely goes on record   and it would be in the minutes. But I think it's  just a little unsettling for me for a contract   with Garver to have something woven into it that  has nothing to do with Garver. It's completely out   of your control. Then we'd have to come back here  and renegotiate the contract again. If we did it   as two separate items, you'd get the same outcome,  but it would be much much less cumbersome. But   tell me if I'm wrong, Jennifer, please. Well, I  mean, you could do it either way. I think to the   vice mayor's question, I think we can come back if  there is an issue where we can't or there's some   issue to raise. We'll we'll just we'll visit with  you and it wouldn't affect the Garver contract.   That's my take on this at this time. That's your  take. I'll stand with the second. Okay. I just   want to make completely sure that we're not  like I said weaving one problem into another.   I want that in particular because I want it  to stay in the public sphere for conversation,   not in executive session, but rather that 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. So I have   a motion and a second. Any further discussion?  I see none. Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes 70. Madame clerk,  please call the next item. approved that pursuant to section 2.04.090,  090 Council Member Shephard's travel expenses   as estimated on the travel authorization and  expense form to attend NLC's Congressional City   Conference in Washington DC March 15 through  the 18th, 2026 for the purpose of representing   the city of Witchah by meeting with federal  officials consistent with AR 3.1 be approved.   I move to approve that item.  Second motion and a second.   Any further discussion? I see none.  Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes. 70. Madame clerk,  please call the next item. Council member appointments and comments.  Council members, I did not send you the email,   but I wanted to let you know that I will  be appointing someone from Cedric County's   um motion or appointment. Uh Cedric County  District 4 appointed Sarah Haymaker to the   Food and Farm Council. So, I move to approve that motion and a second. Any further discussion? I  see none. Madame Clerk, please open the role. Motion passes 70. Council members comments. I see none. Oh, I see council member Tuttle.  Thank you. I just wanted to um give a shout   out. I was quite honored on Saturday. I had the  opportunity to tra to travel with Witchah to fire   fire department Chief Snow and we met um uh Kansas  Senator Steven Owens and we did a presentation   at the Kansas Firefighters Association on our  wellness initiatives, specifically the cancer   screening initiative. Um had we went over on  time because we were getting so many questions.   um just something that um I think many fire  departments across the state were interested   in learning about and we have committed to be a  resource if anybody wants more information. Just   a reminder to my colleagues and to the community  who may be watching. We received the W city of   Witchaw fire department received $150,000 from  the Kansas Health Foundation and that money is   to develop a strategic plan to help us sustain  this project within the city of Witchaw fire   department but then also make it replicable  across the state. Um so it was just a really   good opportunity for the city of Witchaw to be  highlighted at state conference and thank you to   Chief Snow and to Senator Owens for letting me be  a part of it. Council member Johnston. Thank you,   Mayor. This is very trivial trivial. However, I  played golf Sunday afternoon, hats and gloves,   and uh I was in a group that had two hole in  ones on one hole. It's only one in 17 million   chance that happens. You have a bet. No, I was  not. Although I did birdie it. I did birdie it   and took third on that hole. But, uh, it's  extremely rare. you have a better chance of   getting hit by lightning than that happening. So,  uh, probably should have bought a lottery ticket,   but uh, congratulations to Leroy Leap and, uh,  and Mike McMillan who both had a hole in one. Very nice. Congratulations to your teammates. Um,   and I just wanted to just say thank you to all  who organized MLK events over the past weekend.   Uh several council members were in attendance  in these events and I just wanted to say thank   you to community members for organizing those in  memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. With that I   will move to Oh no uh we have executive  session. I cannot adjourn this meeting. I request um I actually sorry I move that  the city council recess into executive   session for 40 minutes to receive information on  a construction contract pursuant to KSA75-4319B2 for legal consultation with the city attorney  which would be deemed privilege in the attorney   client relationship for legal advice. The  executive session is required to protect   attorney client privilege and the public interest.  This executive session will begin at 11:50 a.m.   um and conclude at 12:30. Is that right? Uh  mayor, I might suggest if we want to shorten   that to 30 minutes given some of the previous  conversation. Shorten it to 30 minutes. Yeah,   30 minutes. Council members, are you guys okay  with 30 minutes instead of 40 minutes? With that,   I will say the executive session will  begin at 11:50 a.m. and end at 12:20   p.m. The meeting will resume in  council chambers. Second motion   second. Further discussion? None.  Madame clerk, please open the role. Motion passes 70. We'll see you in four minutes.