Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.

Raymore council approves road contracts, subdivision and ‘Blue Shield’ designation

Raymore City Council · April 28, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

By unanimous votes the council authorized a $1,018,440 contract for Dean Avenue/Missouri 58 access modifications, a $114,800 crack-seal contract, approved the Eastbrook at Creekmore Fifth subdivision plat and adopted a Blue Shield community resolution under the Safer Missouri initiative.

The Raymore City Council approved several routine but consequential items at its April 27 meeting, including two public-works contracts, a subdivision plat and a community-safety designation.

On the second reading the council authorized the city manager to enter an agreement with J. M. Fahey Construction Company for Dean Avenue/Missouri 58 access modifications (City Project 26-437-201) in the amount of $1,018,440. "So I move that we approve bill 4030," Council member Holman said; the motion was seconded by Council member Barber and carried unanimously, 8–0.

The council also approved Bill 4031 to award a contract to Pavement Management LLC for the crack-seal project (City Project 26-483-202R) in the amount of $114,800; that motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A third ordinance, Bill 4032, approving the Eastbrook at Creekmore Fifth subdivision plat in Cass County, Missouri, also passed on second reading with a unanimous vote.

Under the consent agenda the council adopted Resolution 26-23 establishing Raymore as a Blue Shield community under the Safer Missouri initiative launched by Governor Kehoe. The consent agenda — which included the April 13 meeting minutes and the resolution — passed by voice vote as "motion carries unanimously." The resolution's text and specifics of any implementation steps were included in the packet; council did not expand on implementation at the meeting.

All votes reported in the meeting were unanimous where tallied 8–0. No amendments or budget-table items were raised during the readings; staff said change orders could be approved within established budget constraints where noted in the ordinances.