When the council met two days later on August 18, some important steps were taken after long discussions. When the sewer question came up a dispute arose over whether the sewering of District 1 should be let in parts or as a whole. Judge Campbell informed the members that separate estimates would be needed for partial contracts, giving small companies a chance to bid. Mulvey had completed his detailed estimates for the entire sewer system which totalled $321,147.27. Most of the councilmen wanted the figures broken down. Further objections were raised over parts of the estimate, including the use of a pump for flushing from the river instead of buying from the water company, which Mulvey said was too expensive at five cents per 1000 gallons, or using the mill race, which Campbell said would be impractical since too many other people needed it. After lengthy debate, the plans, specifications, and sworn estimates of the city engineer for the entire sewer system of District 1 were finally approved and adopted. Now Mulvey was to prepare separate estimates for each main system and for the flushing.

The importance of the sewage system for a growing city like Wichita was not lost on the citizens. Subsequently, the issue had become of great interest to them, developing into a hotly contested, controversial subject. An unsigned letter to the editor appeared in the Eagle on August 19 which once again attacked the council for its handling of the sewerage matters. The author claimed that the Pacific company had not been given a fair chance, while the estimates of the city's plan continued to rise. After defending the company's proposal, the letter turned to the city engineer, claiming he was "in a fog." "Doubts of the city engineer’s ability to advise the council have been expressed," it said, and businessmen had argued that the council was handicapping the engineer, driving him to defend the gravity system against his better judgment. The letter concluded by maintaining that men who had attended the council meetings could see that it "was viciously stubborn in clinging to the gravity system, and no one who has had anything to say on any other system could get a patient hearing." Despite the criticisms, however, the council continued pursuing the course it had set for itself.

Mulvey submitted the cost estimates for the separate sewers on August 22, with each of the mains and the outlet delineated. But more detail was necessary before the bids could be taken. Ordinance 586 was passed on September 10 which officially approved and adopted "the plans, specifications, and detailed estimates of the city engineer for District 1." At the same meeting the city attorney and the Sewer Committee were authorized to employ someone for making the final arrangements on procuring the sewer rights-of-way. A resolution was adopted which told the city clerk to advertise "for the period of 21 days in all the daily newspapers of this city for sealed proposals for the construction of the sewers in Sewer District 1." (City Council Minutes). It passed with all supporting it but Healy, who disagreed with having the entire district contracted out as one plan. A $5,000 bond would have to be submitted with the bids to insure their validity.

Another important ordinance, 590, was passed on September 24, 1888, providing for the sale of improvement bonds to construct the sewer in District 1.

During the next two weeks, last minute attempts were made by Healy to separate or dispense with the pumping plant as part of the proposal; however, action was deferred until after the bids were taken. The Board of Trade encouraged the council to push the sewering of the city forward with all possible speed. Claims on the rights-of-way continued to be filed and contractors were given ten days instead of five to present the bond.

Once the bids were received, the council ordered them sealed on October 8, 1888, until the opening three days later. On October 11, they were opened, and "the siege of Paris", as the Eagle termed it, began. The entire proceedings were described in detail in the Eagle, in what turned out to be a fascinating display of local politics. (Eagle, 10/11/1888).

The council members began arriving at 9 a.m., and the mayor called the meeting to order a half-hour later. Immediately, Buckridge moved to go into executive session. Despite the pleas by Glaze for a public reading of the bids, Buckridge's motion passed with only his dissent. What some of the participants did not know was that the telephone in the council chamber had been left open, connected to another phone across the street where reporters were listening. Consequently, even though the public was excluded from the meeting, they would soon learn the full story. And it was a long one. The session, with only an hour break for dinner, lasted past midnight.

Most of the meeting was spent computing the total cost. Prices per foot and for each piece of work were given, requiring computations by hand. Finally, at 9 p.m., the 14 bids were ready for comparison.

Over two hours of discussion followed, with the bidding representatives answering questions in detail. At one point, English objected to the city engineer’s authority to answer questions about the sewer designs and moved to appoint a committee of three. The motion eventually passed, with all four members of the Sewer Committee voting no.

After the last company left the council chambers, Buckridge immediately moved that Steinmetz and Sullivan, with a low bid of $280,844.85, be awarded the contract for constructing the sewer. Strong debate followed the motion's second. Healy wanted to contact M. Clarkson of Chicago before awarding the contract since his bid used materials not required by the specifications, resulting in a higher estimate than necessary. But Healy received little support. The city attorney then suggested that it was necessary to designate the lowest bidder before dealing specifically with the contract. This prompted Buckridge to change his motion declaring Steinmetz and Sullivan the low bidder, but English disagreed. The motion passed with all but English in favor.

It was after midnight when the meeting adjourned, and although the contractors were still waiting for the results, the councilmen refused to reveal what had happened, saying no decision had been made. The next day the Eagle, describing the entire proceedings, insinuated a decision had indeed been made, and the councilmen began to suspect the truth. As the Eagle described it, "Buckridge, suspicious that the snap was out of the box, in animated language stated that it would not do to publish it." And to this, "He was given assurances," claimed the story in the Eagle which fully described the complete proceedings. (Eagle, 10/11/1888).

When the council met the following morning in executive session, Buckridge, very upset about the news leak, nearly accused his peers of a breach of confidence. Healy protested the accusations, arguing that no one could have remembered the meeting as clearly as it had been reported. And Glaze, who had supported an open meeting, was pleased with the outcome. But Buckridge, unsure of the council's mathematical abilities, desired a closed session. It was Buckridge who finally recognized the culprit and hung his hat over the phone. But the media was one step ahead of Buckridge, who failed to notice a phonograph recording every noise in the room. Again, the meeting was covered in great detail.

After debating the news leak, the council resumed its discussion on contracts and informed Mr. Steinmetz of the results. Then, efforts to cut the overall cost began. In addition to the 32 flush tanks for various laterals and submains, Healy attacked the pumping station, contending that a station run by the city would cost more than water obtained directly from the Water Company. The vote supported Healy's efforts, and the station was eliminated from the plans. Although efforts were made to cut the number of manholes, it remained the same after strong argument from Mulvey. The final contract price was set at $264,521.75, with ten percent refunded to Wichita for engineering expenses. Steinmetz also informed the council that he would employ as much Wichita labor as possible in the construction of the sewer, thus satisfying the members who had wanted that requirement in the specifications. At the next meeting, he would provide bonding and work would commence ten days after its acceptance.

On October 17, the council unanimously passed a resolution approving the bond of Sullivan and Steinmetz for $264,493.49. The contract was signed by the mayor and city clerk on the following day. As work continued on the rights-of-way for the laterals, the city engineer was instructed to make plans for a storm water main on Second Street from Main Street to the river. Healy, George L. Pratt, and Glaze, all members of the Sewer Committee, were appointed to a committee approving changes in the sewer plans. Their appointments were ironic, since they all opposed the new committee.