[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6568548,"mediaKeyId","3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78","parentId",3194419,"title","Votes at a glance: key actions from the May 5 Cedar Falls City Council meeting","audioSeconds",881,"startMs",7699000,"endMs",8580000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78&start=7699&end=8580","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78/thumbnail_7699000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568548/Cedar-Falls/Black-Hawk-County/Iowa/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-from-the-May-5-Cedar-Falls-City-Council-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568548-2451d0d14d5ae14e9f4428bc3f5a09c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139226&Signature=nJlecRTklcdQzk4d4mx9415jqofpxur14P5ieMWlk6DBa0XGQUbm5fs4eT8wfpYTdHk6DLZ7GpX5LMZCJZouP2DM1m5aBoTexiBWBhsYyfcCpuyp7rS7BMRt15I~TlBhQd40I3HIm8SgKbnclBpolLjxQvJ3~wef0wfn6Qm1aK6QAIv8KFhujr~gvU-45zW3sKwTmRjFGOdfLUhsH-dDJytz13JbK4kviEFLIUNDgtcG00qJAsTgD5~EggZ8MJkp0OWe4hGbZ-izzvcE2ki6w-AdelCPIGyyWOlhfQn5WgEZGEVprDsMfa1JoAwGtYY22hRXFRcJ6aE64FV03Lxcpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cedar Falls","date","2025-05-06T03:43:33.783Z","article","The Cedar Falls City Council took the following formal actions during the May 5 regular meeting. Counts and outcomes are recorded as announced by the city clerk in the meeting transcript. Where specific mover/second information was not given in the record, it is listed as not specified.

- Arbor’s Sixth urban renewal plan (Resolution/Item 2): Adopted (roll call recorded: all members voting aye). Action: designate area for urban renewal and adopt plan.

- Agreement for private development with Midwest Development Co. (Arbor Sixth) (Item 3): Approved (roll call recorded: all members voting aye). Action: approve development agreement; TIF reimbursements limited to 10 years by state statute.

- Agreement for private development with D Squared 2 LLC (402 and 406 Main Street) (Item 4): Approved (roll call recorded: motion carries). Action: 10-year tax rebate on increased valuation; staff estimated project cost ~ $300,000.

- Ordinances and zoning/subdivision items (Items 9–12/ordinance numbers 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109): Passed by roll-call votes as noted on the agenda (clerk announced motions carried for each ordinance upon roll call).

- Ordinance amending Chapter 26 (swimming-pool regulations) (Item 5, first consideration): Passed on first consideration (primary option allowing ASTM-certified automatic pool covers in some cases). Action: ordinance returns for second reading.

- FY25 budget amendments (Item 6): Approved (roll call recorded: motion carries). Action: adopt amendments and file with county auditor by the May 31 deadline.

- Sidewalk assessment schedule — 2024 sidewalk assessment project, Zone 6 (Item 8): Adopted (roll call recorded: all members voting aye). Action: adopt and levy final schedule of assessments; one property payment removed after packet distribution.

- Resolution approving funding agreement with the University of Northern Iowa for Unidome renovation (Item 24): Approved (clerk recorded the motion carried; roll-call tally recorded as six yes, one no). Action: authorize execution of the funding agreement.

- Multiple other resolutions on the consent and resolution calendars (Items 14–34, excluding item 29 which was removed): Approved by single roll-call motion as announced by the clerk; the clerk announced the motion carries for the grouped items.

- Additional ordinance (Item 35; Chapter 10 – garbage/refuse): Passed on first consideration (clerk recorded motion carries).

Notes: Several items were adopted unanimously as recorded. Item 29 was removed from the resolution calendar by the developer prior to the meeting. For detailed funding amounts, contract language and exact vote-by-name tallies, consult the formal meeting packet, roll-call record and the official clerk minutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cedar Falls City Council Meeting: May 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Quick reference list summarizing formal votes and outcomes recorded at the May 5 council meeting.","taxTitle","Cedar Falls, Black Hawk County, Iowa","taxId",51799,"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},6568554,"Council approves street-connectivity rules after heated debate over block perimeter limits",2705,4596000,7301000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78&start=4596&end=7301","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78/thumbnail_4596000.jpg","/articles/6568554/Cedar-Falls/Black-Hawk-County/Iowa/Council-approves-street-connectivity-rules-after-heated-debate-over-block-perimeter-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568554-830b2772aaf60193a12e68819cf4db8b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139226&Signature=Ef~aeByxF9KQUz83pW0Crr1Ir7Dw8exmJlN~Q0ejHzZ0N5pq72FidDn9LD1Cmn8DrdQXN9MFE8Dl00mHI0nM4GV~vBpvpTFqUQau5tzF8iwH7Kanhq22UP3lnwEBv-kIqRbJa7OZvEShql-gqnOhpYw~TUzwMNocThwrWj5evm3U1BejR6-fT5IMH5s5DwTg9NOzoYu2arx3lGvWSVehC2DJCkcUdz0QewTSXwZYVNXH4oL~Yz1PO1vgn4KS32BDM98~YLdbMLyCTlPQeLn4fN4OOyJECyFCEFO21sDOsxqBL4Zxn2r-iMw5EYbM3ViQs~68F7XtpJLZn6plMdk1KA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council approved amendments to Chapter 20 (Subdivisions) on second consideration after extensive council and public debate over street connectivity, block perimeter limits and developer impacts.

The ordinance updates definitions and establishes new regulations for street connectivity and block size. One contested element was a maximum block-perimeter standard that staff recommended; the draft set a 2,200-foot maximum perimeter. Several council members and members of the public argued the perimeter cap would force additional streets, increase development costs and reduce the number of buildable lots, which they said could raise housing prices. Others — including members of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission and some councilors — argued that tighter block dimensions improve walkability, emergency access and neighborhood connectivity.

Councilor X (recorded debate) moved to remove the 2,200-foot perimeter limit; another councilor proposed instead raising the cap to 3,500 feet. The motion to set a 3,500-foot limit failed on the council floor. After additional discussion, the council voted to adopt the ordinance as drafted on second consideration.

Public commenters offered contrasting views. Several residents and business owners said the proposal would raise development costs and slow housing production; others, including a member of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission, said the change would make the city more walkable and better connected. One resident urged the council to delay final adoption and study the perimeter impacts further before codifying the standard.

The ordinance passed by roll-call vote. Staff and councilors noted that some existing, previously platted subdivisions would be grandfathered and that exceptions exist in the ordinance for unique site constraints. Council members urged staff to monitor impacts and be available to address developer and resident questions as the rules take effect.

Notes: The debate highlighted competing municipal goals — housing affordability and development costs versus connectivity, safety and long-term neighborhood design.","Council passed an ordinance updating subdivision rules and street-connectivity standards; debate focused on a maximum block-perimeter standard (2,200 feet), a failed amendment to lift or raise that cap, and public concerns about housing costs and development feasibility.",{"_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},6568557,"Council approves Arbor Sixth urban renewal plan, development agreements for new residential lots",400,1939000,2339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78&start=1939&end=2339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78/thumbnail_1939000.jpg","/articles/6568557/Cedar-Falls/Black-Hawk-County/Iowa/Council-approves-Arbor-Sixth-urban-renewal-plan-development-agreements-for-new-residential-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568557-524e29fbb16a62358ce792b622464622/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139226&Signature=L8Ga7s3tf3zGzR7S7ZYA2wghOkvI23krd3NlbN0r4rAUeMDh7RszpyfwfTlnFVuanrntn4rrk2nrWNBC12K-hkDfGNZYICpyQyHFkq5HYzv8ZEL1w1DTXCTpCzCHIOCB4wPyBPZ-9odQZpnjWdas4i9x~Gq4Qy7viK6Vb8mx2EaLRB9iaLNDeJqm6hwMh-POkS0pCNV34x52iBmU4VGRwgtU50qDZQWZj7dX3Kgsi5DRDIaIuZwVnH8BZPQ1IEo0TF7MhpJat9MsoZWaVM3Jk8ABVXTFphe9wSQ3FA66ZaCWnR0s2Pj97hWAxzospaSaBBdchDz01Rwm7x3wDjNy0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cedar Falls City Council held a public hearing and adopted The Arbor’s Sixth urban renewal plan on May 5, approving measures intended to stimulate new residential development in the Arbor subdivision. Staff said the plan creates 21 new residential lots and is designed to leverage public involvement to attract private investment.

Shane Graham (planning staff) described the legal process: the city notified affected taxing entities (Black Hawk County and Cedar Falls School District), held a consultation meeting, and obtained a unanimous Planning & Zoning recommendation for the plan. Graham said residential Tax Increment Financing (TIF) reimbursements are limited by state law to a 10-year reimbursement period; staff said the city will reimburse up to 50% of public infrastructure costs for improvements the city will own, and that tax-increment payments flow to the general fund after the TIF period ends.

A public commenter said he wanted more transparency about when and why the city subsidizes development and questioned whether the incentives make housing more affordable. Craig Fairbanks asked whether the public will be reimbursed and whether the program includes pricing limits for lots. Staff replied that the initiative followed a housing needs assessment and multiple public work sessions and said staff was available to meet with residents for additional explanation.

Council voted to adopt the urban renewal plan and to approve a development agreement for The Arbor’s Sixth. The council also separately approved an agreement for private development with the developer (Mid Mesk/Midwest Development Co.) that spells out reimbursement limits and a 10-year TIF period for eligible costs. The council later approved a separate development agreement with D Squared 2 LLC for renovation and improvement of 402 and 406 Main Street; staff said that project is expected to cost about $300,000 and that the agreement contemplates a 10-year tax rebate on the increased valuation created by the work.

Staff reiterated that residential TIF for these projects is limited to 10 years by state statute and that collections return to the general fund after the period expires. Council approved the plans and agreements by roll call votes.

Notes: Staff included consultation minutes with local taxing authorities in the council packet; the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended the matters prior to council action.","Council adopted an urban renewal plan to create 21 residential lots and approved related private development agreements that allow limited TIF reimbursement and 10-year reimbursement terms required by state code.",{"_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},6568561,"Council adopts first-reading changes to pool rules allowing certified automatic covers as fence alternative",1144,2725000,3869000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78&start=2725&end=3869","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78/thumbnail_2725000.jpg","/articles/6568561/Cedar-Falls/Black-Hawk-County/Iowa/Council-adopts-first-reading-changes-to-pool-rules-allowing-certified-automatic-covers-as-fence-alternative","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568561-f656d960ce1fbbee0e3f58f022ee19b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139226&Signature=Ufp8K6jRBKlNyLoHGYwOTudgzEbeD5Qh~2etuUnfGNEh-5EYus3BI~ogeu-faTClbNF333n9J7acGuYN3h1f0SViX3l0jMiKDwbiSNoNjTiGjXmcYwjwJtJZSVlSDsf40roapzG2qMq8~RpwY0pzeUK3FLu0ZxpgpbCzJGpauS-oUbEm11V0ZwGEdN-JIN0IxOQbxbwbxjx7NH9fHjMrqzrLPcluCgXmTxS2W9N4Ta0FIa85HAv3txzSIK09xte0w2zH9BGsJ6lzyEMH7YsKZAVFNJst5HOLuSX2Gpa6EpulbieR8vYxtiY2gfTmlx5pAHA1M9JuFCbHJIabR4OkkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cedar Falls City Council voted on the first consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 26 (zoning) to update swimming-pool standards, approving a primary proposal that would allow a certified automatic pool cover that meets ASTM safety standards to substitute for a physical fence in some cases.

Chris (planning/building staff) told the council the change responds to an application from a pool contractor and to inconsistencies in the current code. Staff proposed reducing the required barrier height from 5 feet to 4 feet, clarifying setbacks and definitions, and offering an exception for pools in rear yards that front on arterial streets. The primary option brought forward would permit an ASTM-certified, lockable automatic pool cover to satisfy the barrier requirement in lieu of a fence; a secondary option omits the cover exception but keeps the other updates.

The code change drew detailed technical discussion from councilors about safety tradeoffs. Some councilors and staff said automatic covers meeting ASTM standards can be safer than a fence because a cover cannot be left open as easily as a gate; others cited the human-error risk that a cover could be left open after use. Planning & Zoning recommended the primary option by a 5–2 vote; it recommended the alternate option unanimously.

Two members of the public with experience in cover installations and easement constraints spoke in favor of the cover option. Ryan Borgward described a lot with a drainage easement that made a perimeter fence impractical and said lockable covers are recognized by pediatric safety experts and by other Iowa jurisdictions as an acceptable barrier alternative.

Councilors voted to pass the ordinance on first consideration with the cover exception (the primary option). Staff said the amendment applies only to pools more than 24 inches deep and does not change building-code barrier requirements that are state-mandated.

The ordinance will return for a second reading before final adoption. If the primary option fails on later consideration, staff said the alternative option (which removes the cover exception but retains other zoning updates) remains available without returning to Planning & Zoning.

Notes: The change clarifies setbacks (pool deck vs pool edge), addresses double-fronting rear yards on arterials, and sets a 24-inch depth threshold for applicability.","Staff proposed and council approved on first consideration a zoning text amendment that would let ASTM-compliant automatic pool covers substitute for a 4-foot barrier in many cases; Planning & Zoning and residents debated safety and accessibility issues.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":46,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568566,"Cedar Falls approves contribution to UNI Unidome renovation after council debate",1659,6921000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78&start=6921&end=8580","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3194419-5c9d1e3ca1924f6faa96e8e2be2b8e78/thumbnail_6921000.jpg","/articles/6568566/Cedar-Falls/Black-Hawk-County/Iowa/Cedar-Falls-approves-contribution-to-UNI-Unidome-renovation-after-council-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568566-0e1150b052ff97a22aa50e4f314ac83c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139226&Signature=QpBJ4UEfj0Rh1RYcVE1n-H5QLyTsXTOgE7H3NQjXd70yMseBLlPX5p~qQyZNuzm-CBl76Y2bj~XoCRbIjAP71OIOKXRm5kmeDOzFHTwsLX-Hj8HLF03-80i4RYtNp6FbseOzMt01J~OSmPf7E3xJUCSdV0IX1inrp6nUVgIlnTxN76AumsNgxEWteM-9Sk5ycnfyGvq5-uRpLp5c2IXCxx4qRS9Rg2veC4Bkqjf8fkyJFb27pZF8Q~H9RiIhDsT5UibjBuCslCi1v4QBuYk9L7GbCfKDqLGII91jhX~mhEg4xi8okH3CanjsqM4VH5o84bNRoW8SeFMuO5E9xcMRvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cedar Falls City Council voted to approve a funding agreement with the University of Northern Iowa for renovations to the Unidome, acting on a contract the council had before it on May 5. The measure passed in a roll-call vote; the council clerk recorded the motion as carrying following council discussion.

The item drew both support and opposition during the meeting. Supporters said the Unidome drives hotel, restaurant and event revenue that benefits the local economy. Mark Nook, identified in the meeting as President Mark Nook of the University of Northern Iowa, addressed the council during the public forum and thanked the council for its consideration and work on the project.

Opponents — including at least one council member who said constituents had urged rejection — argued that using city tax dollars to subsidize a university project raised fairness concerns. One council member told the chamber they would vote no because constituents questioned a taxing entity giving money to another taxing entity. Several public commenters also urged caution, saying they did not see a direct financial return to all taxpayers.

City leaders and council members defending the vote pointed to anticipated economic returns tied to events at the Unidome. Supporters said the city benefits from visitors who stay in local hotels and eat at local restaurants when events draw regional attendees. Council discussion referenced prior reductions to the city contribution (commenters and councilors mentioned the original request was larger and had been reduced), and several council members said the final amount reflected compromises reached during negotiations.

The council approved the agreement by roll call; the clerk announced the motion carried. Council discussion made clear the vote was not unanimous and that at least one member planned to oppose the measure. The administration said it would continue coordinating with UNI on partnerships and follow-up matters after the agreement is executed.

The item will be implemented under the terms of the funding agreement approved by the council; the agreement itself — and the university’s broader fundraising program — remains under the control of UNI. The council vote does not change any separate contracts or admission policies at the university.

Notes: Council debate focused on the appropriate use of municipal funds for a university facility, the economic benefits of events hosted at the Unidome, and the city’s relationship with UNI going forward.","The City Council approved a one-time contribution to the University of Northern Iowa’s Unidome renovation after council discussion and public comment. Councilors and residents differed on whether city funds should support a university facility.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key actions from the May 5 Cedar Falls City Council meeting

Council approves street-connectivity rules after heated debate over block perimeter limits

Council approves Arbor Sixth urban renewal plan, development agreements for new residential lots

Council adopts first-reading changes to pool rules allowing certified automatic covers as fence alternative

Cedar Falls approves contribution to UNI Unidome renovation after council debate