Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Shelter topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Nevada council hears roughly $1 million estimate to fix animal shelter flood problems

City Council of Nevada, Missouri · January 27, 2026
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

At a Jan. 27 special session, Nevada city staff and consultants described plans to replace a culvert and raise the animal shelter building; consultants said bids for the culvert were sent to 16 contractors with responses due Feb. 5 and preliminary estimates put combined costs at about $1 million.

At a Jan. 27 special session, the Nevada City Council reviewed plans and preliminary cost estimates to correct flood‑plan problems at the city animal shelter.

City Manager Gary Edwards told the council consultants completed plans for culvert replacement and had sent bid packets to 16 contractors, with bids due Feb. 5, 2026. Dr. Charles Patterson, a hydrologist with Allgeier, Martin & Associates, said the culvert design is finished and ready for contractor pricing. Representatives from Groundworks Commercial Company — Justin Bryant and Paul Winder — presented options to raise the shelter building one foot and said the raising work is a separate, sizable cost.

Groundworks’ Justin Bryant estimated that elevating the building could cost in the range of $450,000 to $500,000, while Paul Winder said additional subsurface testing is required to refine that figure. Council was told the city solicited bids from six firms to lift the building and received three proposals. City Manager Edwards said completing both the culvert replacement and building elevation would likely total about $1 million; that total is an approximate combined estimate provided at the meeting.

City Finance Director Michael Fields outlined three financing options for council consideration; no financing decision was made at the session and staff were directed to return with more detailed debt‑service projections.

The council did not take formal action on the projects during the session; staff will return with refined cost estimates, testing results and financing details for further consideration.