Nevada’s City Council devoted substantial time to a proposed 28E intergovernmental agreement that would bind the city to a new Resource Recovery Center operated by the City of Ames and its partners.

Staff described a multi-year plan and a proposed agreement that would run from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2047, and noted a notable rise in costs tied to the new facility and mandated recycling. “That agreement is for 20 years,” staff explained when summarizing the proposed term and construction timeline.

Why it matters: the new facility will change how communities in the region pay for waste handling. Staff said the biggest near-term effect will be higher tipping fees for haulers; one staff presentation flagged roughly a $20 per-capita increase in the cost burden tied to the new contract structure and operations. Ames staff also said the prior tipping fee had been $52.75 for many years and that recycling/diversion expectations from the state Department of Natural Resources require planning and reporting to reach roughly a 30% diversion target.

Haulers urged the council to consider other options and to secure stronger governance input. Bob Gavin of Pratt Sanitation told the council he was concerned Nevada historically had “never had a vote” at Ames’ decision-making table and that cost increases and recycling mandates would force haulers to pass additional costs to customers. “We just dealt with the 20% tipping fee increase, and... we're going to look at another 20% in two years,” Gavin said, urging the council to explore alternative waste-planning zones such as Marshalltown or Hardin County.

Ames representatives outlined operational constraints and options. An Ames official explained the new facility’s capacity limits (tipping-floor and RDF bin volumes), the plan for single-stream curbside collection via a forthcoming RFP that member communities could choose to piggyback on, and that the new facility design attempts to preserve diversion rates while also covering higher operating and maintenance costs. Ames told the council it would consider feedback and comments during annual reporting but described the 28E as currently written to give Ames operational control while notifying member communities of fee changes.

Key remaining questions: haulers pressed for a formal advisory or governance seat that would give member cities direct input rather than periodic reports; staff and Ames reps said they were open to comment but did not commit to creating a multi-jurisdictional advisory board in the 28E as presented. Council members also asked staff to investigate alternative disposal or partnership options and to return with additional cost comparisons and governance options before any formal vote.

Next steps: the council did not vote on the 28E that evening; staff said they would return with follow-up information, including exploration of nearby alternatives (Marshalltown, Carroll County) and more detailed cost and representation options for council consideration.