Nevada council hears extended discussion of proposed 28E resource-recovery agreement with Ames; no vote

The Nevada City Council spent the largest portion of its meeting discussing a proposed 28E intergovernmental agreement with the City of Ames to join a new regional resource-recovery center and the operational changes that would accompany it.

Staff said the 28E would align Nevada with a new facility that will start construction next spring and is planned to conclude in 2027; under the proposed terms the city’s contract period would run through July 1, 2047 to match debt service. Council member comments flagged a primary operational change: an increase in the per-capita tipping fee that will be passed through to haulers and, ultimately, customers. “That’s about a $20 increase, per capita,” one council member said during discussion.

Commercial haulers raised concerns about costs and governance. Gavin of Pratt Sanitation told the council, “I don’t think it’s as simple as just the 28E agreement because there’s a lot of changes,” and urged Nevada to explore alternatives and press for a seat at the decision-making table. Gavin also noted differences in pricing among potential disposal options, saying Marshalltown’s tipping fee is currently “$62 a ton.”

A City of Ames representative outlined how the new facility will handle recycling and disposal and defended the operational choices. Ames staff said the tipping fee in earlier years was $52.75 and described the facility’s limits and redundancies: “The tipping floor we can only hold 400, 450 tons. The RDF storage bins we can hold 200 tons, which is about 1 day's worth of material.” The Ames representative also said the new facility will include mandated recycling services and described an RFP approach for single-stream curbside collection that member communities could elect to piggyback.

Haulers and residents warned of downstream cost increases and longer hauler routes for some C&D (construction and demolition) waste if material is diverted to Carroll County or other landfills. Council and staff discussed the possibility of seeking more stakeholder representation and exploring other waste-planning options, including Marshall County and Hardin County. The meeting record emphasized that the item was presented for discussion only and not for a vote at this meeting.

Next steps noted in the discussion: staff will return with additional information and the council asked staff to look into alternative landfill partners and governance options. The council did not take formal action on the proposed 28E agreement at this meeting.