[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6270444,"mediaKeyId","3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf","parentId",3034832,"title","Nevada council approves first reading to rezone former Story County Medical Center for 60 apartments amid heated neighborhood debate","audioSeconds",4302,"startMs",74000,"endMs",4376000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf&start=74&end=4376","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf/thumbnail_74000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6270444/Nevada/Story-County/Iowa/Nevada-council-approves-first-reading-to-rezone-former-Story-County-Medical-Center-for-60-apartments-amid-heated-neighborhood-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270444-8592ae144404c2cafc1fb4afd009bf6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436684&Signature=Ry3PdZo3VVUmcz0a7SU~EKbyWn5je3~h6kQn6mR3Z5xyR5vacfzYj9BpAwQESL~~xCcf7o2H2fzwc6KbheWqJT2eKnPFnYW1ldNmMcm35ldvvxyUyuu18H6HKw9v-xgPy3qGbBpShlNgsDnX088KYmrUNBUzEE6hmT13mpHsT4jpBOA~SeZNCDb5arGV3mP55gmftR5h~9bDAPgE5vC~7u~UaCe9iQFlznYfHAUvwONN9rVfLN~gQT4Z3yoUAlSk5pS5MrJZaHj8mVxZ46aGWSlo3~ZnleHqS1I8dT1RN4Gk7co-y9~4ArQRBXKPhaCXjA5ylQfz0bexa-1PqLkotA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada, IA","date","2025-04-17T08:45:48.84Z","article","The Nevada City Council voted to approve on first reading Ordinance 1064, a rezoning measure to change 630 Sixth Street — the former Story County Medical Center north campus — from R‑3 to R‑4 so the property can be redeveloped as a 60‑unit apartment project called Nevada Flats.

The measure cleared its first of three readings after a public hearing that drew more than two hours of testimony from residents, local business owners and project supporters. Mayor Condon opened the hearing and dozens of neighbors spoke for and against the rezoning.

The dispute centers on two competing priorities: the city’s long‑running need for more housing and neighbors’ concerns about density, parking and changes to the character of an established single‑family neighborhood. Sarah Clawson, who lives four blocks away, urged the council to approve the rezoning, citing the city’s slow population growth and the chance to repurpose a large vacant building. “I’m asking you to support ordinance 1064 and rezone the property we’ve all known as the Old Story County Medical Center and allow it to be repurposed for family dwelling,” Clawson said. She told the council Nevada’s population growth trailed nearby towns: “For example, from 2010 to 2020, Huxley grew 28 percent, Gilbert grew 7 percent. Nevada actually had a negative 2 percent growth.”

Business owners and economic development backers also supported the project. Tyler Smith, owner of Anytime Fitness, said a local developer had sought partnerships with businesses and that more housing would help keep employees in Nevada: “We need growth … the increase in property tax, increase in energy, while not gaining growth in the city is getting increasingly hard on small businesses.” Scott Henry, a Nevada Economic Development Council board member, told the council the project aligns with the Vision 2040 strategy and noted prior local approvals and grant awards that underpin the redevelopment effort.

Opponents focused on unit count, parking, traffic and neighborhood character. Tom Richards and multiple neighbors argued 60 units is too many for the block and described the surrounding area as predominantly owner‑occupied single‑family housing. Several residents cited street parking problems and expressed skepticism that proposed off‑site or angled parking would be reliably available to tenants: “A parking lot across the street from us … car alarms going off at any time of the day, revving engines, motorcycles,” Marsha Grama said. Neighbors also raised questions about whether the project’s grant conditions legally required 60 units and whether alternate plans were adequately explored.

Project representatives said they revised the site plan to add angled parking, will use permeable pavers to limit runoff and plan to restrict many units to single‑occupancy leases. Architect Steve Emerson said asbestos abatement bids are in hand and that removal — not encapsulation — is planned for residential safety standards. He said the management company recommended “one parking spot per bedroom” as a lease policy and that the design includes mostly one‑bedroom and studio units aimed at workforce and retiree demand.

Council members listened to the testimony and discussed neighborhood outreach and traffic studies. At least one council member explicitly said the neighborhood outreach should have occurred earlier. After discussion the council moved and seconded approval of the zoning ordinance; the motion passed on first reading. The ordinance will require two additional readings before final adoption.

Actions and next steps: Ordinance 1064 passed by the council on first reading; two more readings are required before final adoption. The council and staff signaled plans for further outreach and possible traffic/parking studies regardless of the final vote.

Provenance: Transcript public hearing began (topicintro) at 74.375 with the mayor introducing item 4 and ended (topfinish) at 4369.605 when the ordinance motion was taken and the first reading recorded.

Ending: With the first reading approved, opponents say they will remain engaged for the remaining two readings and pursue changes to parking and unit mix; supporters say the project will reuse a large vacant structure and add housing that local businesses need.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 14, 2025, Nevada City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Nevada City Council voted to approve on first reading Ordinance 1064 to rezone 630 Sixth Street — the former Story County Medical Center north campus — from R‑3 to R‑4 to allow a 60‑unit apartment redevelopment called Nevada Flats.","taxTitle","Nevada, Story County, Iowa","taxId",55657,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6270429,"Council seeks ways to keep annual fireworks show after city fund shortfall; fire department urges different funding model",172,7188000,7360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf&start=7188&end=7360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf/thumbnail_7188000.jpg","/articles/6270429/Nevada/Story-County/Iowa/Council-seeks-ways-to-keep-annual-fireworks-show-after-city-fund-shortfall-fire-department-urges-different-funding-model","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270429-96773772e2769fea6efd906144847818/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436684&Signature=BoRYYqP0KYQvE8gpsnwKvjBUkdTLQ9w2RVZom4vyP4Q3Yj0KHnYL-BHrGT2UDkHQsXOM9j8E7QAm43Std8ChG0u95oXXfALx63bXbFx4GDJdKy8s7MVk2cJR7Wtl--iWDnjErnOpmy8YHB5KvQaFMoWedp-6SOy0AbKHO~O40D3MBLgeJ~o5v8U0pjR91CbrzlZB5uLZq2Gzw1KP1pIHZGnEkAoVij~PPTw8qDg1xNWMzvjNMOhe7AwZ~bFWYOjpMGohJuQSdmu8dGsdrzWwy2e1TwKf0XCA73yrBBEPMC6mArsWAD2rKJ6XCR8106Nt~6yRTwIUkvZpJnxb1IwSFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff and councilors discussed the future of Nevada’s annual fireworks show after staff reported the event account held just over $5,000 while the typical cost of the program is about $10,000.

Ray (identified in the transcript as the city fire representative) told council members the fire department has provided safety and inspection support but would like to step back from fundraising and event management. “We personally would like to get out of the fireworks business,” he said, noting that in past years community volunteers and donors raised roughly $10,000 to fund the show and that those volunteer champions are aging out.

Council members asked staff to explore alternative funding sources, including approaching the Nevada Foundation (or similar community foundations) and soliciting donations or sponsorships from local businesses. Councilmember comments stressed the event’s value as a family tradition and asked staff to return within a week with options, in part so the city can meet contractor timelines if council decides to continue the show this year.

No formal resolution was required at the meeting; staff were directed to pursue funding options and report back promptly. Fire department staff reiterated safety and inspection roles but asked that operating and fundraising responsibilities move to other community groups or the city’s special‑events partners if the show continues to be produced.

Provenance: Discussion begins at approximately 7188.3896 when staff raised the funding shortfall and continues through staff and council comments at 7331.995 when the fire department representative addressed the council.

Ending: Councilors signaled they want to preserve the fireworks tradition and asked staff to find matching funds or outside sponsors; the fire department will remain as safety standby but seek to reduce reliance on department donations and fundraising.","Councilors discussed whether to continue Nevada’s July fireworks show after staff reported the program account has roughly $5,000 while the event typically costs about $10,000. The fire department said it would prefer not to rely on donations and recommended another funding approach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6270434,"Council approves amendment to city administrator’s contract after heated debate over pay and retention",2245,7115000,9360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf&start=7115&end=9360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf/thumbnail_7115000.jpg","/articles/6270434/Nevada/Story-County/Iowa/Council-approves-amendment-to-city-administrators-contract-after-heated-debate-over-pay-and-retention","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270434-fb690c2239d4a76daa4a18915019752d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436684&Signature=GhflBgBpcr1GLRl4ZM4IRdmCbAGD4cKt0tawKQtqW7FjK1Ig9BX~08PZX5oKbOLehl1HobAQZ4Gr4iNexzTraIUK5IiR8srhUYrniq-JQlwdKh6ciMnqz8L~SwfF5GAEgn16Ht2i4eXuBjD9Ey4r8F1QnR4WSQf-NBFauZRq3FNeqK5gVlwyqG8JukciEBj8oYkZirG4qJBu3q1V9UslGSBTpHOkvIHyAi7NPd7CzBXSjvzyxAOhEbOzrv~dMxhWYCtfYchavlRXM9-ijbqkEL5l1ONS7dSrgudmyuM17fjEz4rzgli5j-Y7N9bGL2ftdokIA8RxObnEvfu33tEBZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada City Council voted to approve Resolution 83, which amends City Administrator Jordan Cook’s employment agreement, after extended debate among council members and dozens of public comments during the meeting’s public forum.

Council discussion was sharply divided. Opponents said the proposed increase — described in the packet and debate as roughly a 15 percent adjustment as structured in the agreement — was too large to approve now given other municipal priorities and recent budget constraints. Councilmember Luke Spence argued the administrator has received larger percentage increases than other department heads since 2020 and quoted aggregated figures: “We’ve been giving more than double the percent increase of wage to our city administrator than we have to anybody else,” Spence said during debate, noting approximately $39,087 in cumulative raises to date for the administrator over 2020–2024 in his dataset.

Keith (last name not given in the transcript) presented a comparative wage analysis for department heads and said the proposed amendment represents a larger percentage change than most other staff increases over the same period. Councilmember Andy Kelly urged caution and suggested tying any additional compensation to completion and warranty resolution on the city’s wastewater project, saying he would “not fight the administrator getting…a raise” but preferred it be “contingent on meeting the benchmarks that we’ve laid out.”

Supporters argued retention of an experienced administrator was in the city’s interest given ongoing capital projects and that recruiting and training a replacement would be costly and disruptive. Business and community members told the council the administrator’s leadership matters to project continuity. Resident and former official Rick Martinez said keeping experienced leadership in place was important for the city’s projects: “If you think we’re suffering now under his leadership, what’s it gonna be like when you don’t have a leader?”

Councilmembers acknowledged the tension between fiscal optics and staff retention. The transcript records that an amount had been requested by the administrator during closed session; the packeted agreement filed for public action was smaller than the original request, council members said. The council voted to approve Resolution 83; the transcript records the motion passed.

The resolution amends the employment agreement and sets the new compensation and related terms as negotiated. Beyond the vote, several council members and residents said they expect close monitoring of major projects (notably the wastewater system) and encouraged reporting on milestones and costs.

Provenance: Debate and public forum remarks about the employment agreement and pay appear in the public‑forum section beginning at about 5401.985 and the formal resolution appears at agenda item with Resolution 83 (approx. 7415.325 onward).

Ending: The amended agreement is effective per the resolution; staff and council directed increased attention to major capital projects and asked for milestone reporting while opponents signaled close scrutiny of future compensation requests.","After lengthy public comment and council discussion, Nevada’s council approved Resolution 83 to amend City Administrator Jordan Cook’s employment agreement. The vote followed debate about pay increases, retention risk, and whether raises should be contingent on project milestones.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6270439,"Votes at a glance: Nevada council approves budget, multiple infrastructure contracts and ordinance first reading",166,5126000,5292000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf&start=5126&end=5292","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3034832-6dc6e69d266294c1f2c47216267adfbf/thumbnail_5126000.jpg","/articles/6270439/Nevada/Story-County/Iowa/Votes-at-a-glance-Nevada-council-approves-budget-multiple-infrastructure-contracts-and-ordinance-first-reading","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270439-f3124aa532d89fe4e9f7197da03dab2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436684&Signature=DniPjsg5yJusuZeT9ndLxx~UzI8VHDlyV0fOQ~kQYaEUMuGD~~v-Zd9R~YjzfhkWonZJReqdP8UJAS2OF9QhjKZlUdbAUmkRpDOtxpaj04t3jMnCCsVUFQn8sBocE8vN841M0NGxF2yYQTq80IrSpP7uH~zgWP81EYhmM4pvCtf1C8BghW2kewF5jS-RvVKr4I0IYO1U811LRFD40hsDzgERxuL7pvBXi8zSAC4G6hrV7kk41SY~J7PmIo~JqdNrFQiKJGwMYaZbzkm9rRjqb0wYHKi9aoKq9t9SHMsKlzUNVHKy0fID-0MYwTdI2d1L6GI87iOjx59Lzn8qLryStg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada City Council acted on a slate of routine and project resolutions at its April meeting, approving the annual budget and awarding construction contracts while also taking the first reading on a contested rezoning.

Key formal actions recorded in the meeting transcript:

- Resolution No. 75 — Adopt FY2025–26 annual budget: Motion passed (vote recorded as approved; transcript does not list a roll‑call tally).

- Ordinance No. 1064 — Rezoning 630 Sixth Street (first reading): Motion passed on first reading (further readings required before final adoption).

- West Indian Creek project (Project A)
• Resolution No. 76 — Final approval of plans, specs and form of contract: Approved.
• Resolution No. 77 — Award contract for West Indian Creek project: Council approved award to RW Excavating Solutions (recommended low bidder); motion passed.

- Tributary to West Indian Creek (Project B)
• Resolution No. 78 — Final approval of plans, specs and form of contract: Approved.
• Resolution No. 79 — Lending contract / consideration of bids: Approved.

- Wastewater improvements (Phase 4)
• Approval of pay request No. 35: Approved.
• Change Order No. 3 (On‑track construction) in the amount of $13,970: Approved.

- Personnel/administration
• Resolution No. 81 — Allow paid leave conversion to health insurance premiums upon retirement: Approved.
• Resolution No. 82 — Notice of hearing on proposed amendments to the Nevada Urban Revitalization Area: Approved (set hearing date as required).
• Resolution No. 83 — Amendment of City Administrator Cook’s employment agreement: Approved (see separate coverage for debate and context).

- Alcohol licenses and special events: The council approved several five‑day Class C/special event alcohol licenses for local businesses and festivals, including approvals for Downtown Farmers Market dates and other short events.

For most agenda motions the meeting video/transcript records “motion passes” without publishing a roll‑call vote tally in the transcript excerpt provided. Where contract awards were discussed, the recommended low bidder (RW Excavating Solutions for the West Indian Creek project award) was explicitly named.

Provenance: The votes and motions appear throughout the transcript from roughly 4369.605 through 5179.435, including the budget hearing and multiple resolutions.

Ending: Several capital projects and the budget now proceed to implementation; the rezoning ordinance and the administrator employment agreement will have follow‑up steps and (for the ordinance) additional readings.","At the April city council meeting, members approved the FY25‑26 budget, awarded contracts for West Indian Creek projects, approved wastewater pay requests and change orders, and advanced Ordinance 1064 (rezone of 630 Sixth Street) on first reading.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Nevada council approves first reading to rezone former Story County Medical Center for 60 apartments amid heated neighborhood debate

Council seeks ways to keep annual fireworks show after city fund shortfall; fire department urges different funding model

Council approves amendment to city administrator’s contract after heated debate over pay and retention

Votes at a glance: Nevada council approves budget, multiple infrastructure contracts and ordinance first reading