City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good night, everyone. Welcome to tonight's uh special city council meeting workshop. Uh the clerk, please take a silent role. We good? All right. Um now the council is going to tonight the council is going to consider um two things. First, we're going to hear from uh some staff and different testimony for a sorry, not testimony, um information regarding a school capacity and development ordinance um that we're looking at. And then the council will consider resolution accepting a bid for the railroad crossing security features. And then we'll move on to item number three, which is establishing a railroad quiet zone. Um there's already been opportunities for public input as far as the railroad bid and quiet zone on the agenda. So we're not going to take any additional comment on that, but we do ask that the public listen respectfully as once again there will not be that option to take comment at tonight's meeting. All right, first up is discussing the school capacity and development ordinance and we'll hear from Cwell Community Development Director Robin Collins. So Miss Collins, would you please come forward? Thank you. I had to try out the chat GBT. I just want you to know on the image. Everybody else was doing it. I had to try it. Um, good evening mayor and council. Robin Collins, community development director. I am here to present to you kind of a highlevel overview of the draft school capacity ordinance. So, the workshop will, like I said, will be very high level. We'll kind of go through the school capacity challenges we're seeing, the purpose and goals of a

school capacity ordinance, the legal framework behind it, some of the contents and how the ordinance would work, um some key considerations and policy decisions that you all as council members would um will have to make and then what the next steps are and then maybe have some time for some questions. So, we'll kind of start off with how did we get here? We all know that Caldwell's school capacity challenges are not created by a single issue. They are a result of rapid population and housing growth, state funding formulas that don't fully cover the needs of schools, and a lack of legal structure to allow local jurisdictions to assess and collect development impact fees for schools. All of that has resulted in enrollment pressures, schools nearing or over capacity, and an overall strain on educational resources. Unfortunately, Idaho, unlike other states, is very limited on the tools that they have to fund new schools, expand schools, or address those school capacity issues. The schools rely heavily on bonds and levies or temporary solutions like portable classrooms. So, when looking at these challenges, I think it's important to understand the dynamics of the school district boundaries. So on the map in front of you, the red is the Caldwell impact area. Everything shaded in gray is Valley View School District and the I guess it's orange gold outlined area is Caldwell School District. So, as you can see, Valley View is very large in comparison to Caldwell School District and it includes students from Caldwell, Nampa, Canyon County, some parts of Green Leaf, and a small small portion of Middleton. So, when we're talking about the legal framework, it's important to recognize that a school capacity ordinance is a

land use regulation. So, it's governed by the land use laws just like any other ordinance that we have for land use. The ordinance will tie or logically connect residential development approvals to school capacity thresholds. This is done through a formal verification letter from the school districts with the goal of balancing or slowing the timing of residential growth in order to allow school districts time to address capacity issues. And that'll be done through financial and capital planning. Of note, this ordinance will not be applicable to already approved land use entitlements or applications submitted prior to the ordinance adoption. So when we start looking at the legal framework again, city codes and state statutes on land use and planning laws govern how these ordinances are written and also how these quasi judicial decisions are made. regulations, decisions and conditions placed on development must pass a rational nexus test, a rough proportionality test. It must avoid development moratorum risk and that's specific to this ordinance. And then of course we have the findings of fact conclusions of law and the reason statement which those have to be based on factual or actual datadriven um evidence. So when we talk about the rational nexus test, it's a legal standard used to ensure that a regulation, decision or condition placed on development is logically connected to the impact that development is causing. So some examples up here we can see that a school capacity ordinance is created due to the growth and the overcrowding that passes the test. The approval criteria provides that the construction of housing in a subdivision can be delayed because the schools serving that development have exceeded the capacity. That passes the test. If you drop down to the bottom

one, if a development is denied due to overcrowding in the school district as a whole and there was no factual data as evidence, that does not pass the test because not all the schools serve that development. And if the data is not there to say why, then it doesn't pass the test. Rough proportionality is the second key legal test. It's used to determine whether a condition placed on development is fair in scale relative to the impact it creates. So even if you establish that first develop first that development impacts capacity and you pass that that rational nexus, you also have to pass this proportionality test. So regulations, decisions or conditions cannot be arbitrary or excessive and they must directly tie to the real impacts that are caused by that development and that can be legally justified and defensible. So if you look at a couple examples, if you had a a 100 home subdivision, you delay their starts because it would push specific schools over capacity, that passes. If you jump down to a small 10 lot subdivision is denied because a school is overcrowded by hundreds of students, that's not going to pass the proportionality because the impacts are very minimal from a 10 lot subdivision. And so that's likely not going to pass. So the school capacity ordinance must be carefully structured to avoid it being looked at as a de facto development moratorum. And so it needs to include things like clear objective standards for approval, defined timelines and regular capacity updates, reasonable mitigation or alternative compliance options where they're legally allowed, and then opportunities for phased or conditional approvals. So really the nexus behind this is that you want to ensure that development is not

indefinitely precluded. That's critical in maintaining the defense that it's not a mortorium. So the ordinance that we're proposing has a phasing. It has a timeline. So it's not like forever. You just get denied. So when you get to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and reasoning statement, it's the same as all the other land use applications. Again, clear standards for approval. Decisions have to be fact-based or data driven. Decisions always have to result in a reasoning statement of why the decision was made. We recently found out that that also includes if you're approving it. If you're approving something, you have to state state why you're approving it. Um, and then applicants must be given feedback and the opportunity to resolve issues in order to potentially get future approval. Okay. So, now we'll go into what our ordinance is proposing. So, when we look at our ordinance, the draft, it has an applicability section. And how it's written right now is it's applicable to residential subdivisions, plan unit developments, multif family developments, mixeduse developments that contain residential units, and any other development that generates new student enrollment unless otherwise exempted. So there is an exemption section. In that section, it talks about things like small developments where the total number of dwelling units is less than five. Infill development where the total lots are 15 or less. Redevelopment projects that do not increase the number of dwelling units. So, think about somebody that has an old home, they want to tear it down, build a new home. We don't want to punish them for building a new house. They're not changing the dwelling units. And there are a couple other exemptions in there as well that council will want to take a look at and make sure that as we move forward that you're okay with those exemptions. There's a terms and definitions section

which is really important because in that section it will tell not only staff but the school districts how they need to be calculating their uh capacity, how they need to be cap calculating their total service obligation and proposed um student population that's going to be generated by developments. There's also a section for submittal requirements, school district verification letter requirements. It's very specific on there what the school districts will have to provide. It sets a capacity threshold of 110% but only for public schools serving the development and not the district as a whole. It includes language that allows developments to be approved if the school district fails to provide the verification letter with the required data regardless if they are over capacity or not. The reason for that is passing those legal tests. If we don't have factual data to show why we're not going to approve something or that we're going to delay it, if the school district isn't going to provide us with that information, we don't have the legal ability to delay that development. It also includes criteria to allow the approval of a residential development with a three-year delay in building construction starts unless capacity is available sooner. What this means is that city council could approve the development with a condition that they can't record the final plat. And if that final plat's not recorded, they can't submit for building permits. And so they would be delayed for three years. They would still be allowed to do construction drawings, go out and do infrastructure work, but they could not start building for three years or if capacity becomes available, whichever's less. This means that there will have to be a tracking of approved developments, proposed student population from the

development, and timelines and approvals that will expire. Like if a plat expires, they lose their reservation for capacity. So if they have to come back through again, they're at the bottom of the list. Does that make sense so far? Okay. Come on. Switch to the next slide. Here we go. So, how the process works, the development development application is submitted. If the applicant already has an upto-date verification letter from the district on district letterhead, fantastic. If not, city staff will send out requests for public agency comments. and we've created a template that the school districts will have to fill out and put on their letter head and sign it. School district will then review the applications and assess the total service obligation, their current enrollment, the estimated enrollment of students from the development. And they'll have to base that on student generation rates and land use types and they'll return that letter to the city. Staff will then verify that all that required information has been received and update staff reports accordingly. The applications will then proceed to public hearing for the recommending body, then go to public hearing before city council. I think the most important part of this whole process is that both school districts have to be calculating school capacity the same way. They have to be consistent. They have to be using the same numbers to to generate their student population. same methol methodology and that's why we kind of came up with a form letter and put in the definitions how to do that. So when you get to city council decisions the way the ordinance is written now is that if they haven't exceeded a threshold council can approve it as long as it still meets all the other approval criteria for that specific land use application.

If they're exceeding a threshold, council can still approve it, if it meets all the other approval criteria with a condition that final plats cannot be recorded for three years or until capacity is available, whichever occurs first. There is also a section in there for mitigation. Council may also approve a development without a delayed start if the applicant is providing voluntary mitigation acceptable to both the school district and the city. Now the key to this is any type of mitigation has to be voluntary and proposed by the applicant. The reason for approving or denying the application cannot be based on any type of mitigation measures. It's not allowed by Idaho statutes to require that type of stuff. Um, it's simply to remove the condition for the delayed start. We can accept voluntary mitigation. We just can't require it in in this particular instance. We can do it with like traffic impact studies and those types of things. We just we can't have inclusionary zoning. However, an application, any application can still be denied because it's not meeting other approval criteria for the specific land use. So, say it, say the capacity is fine, but it still doesn't meet other approval criteria, you can still deny it based on other approval criteria because there's going to be multiple things they're going to have to meet. So, in conclusion, it'll be up to city council to decide if a school capacity ordinance is in the best interest of the city. Some key considerations might include whether the ordinance aligns with the goals and objectives for implementing a school capacity ordinance, whether the adoption of a school capacity ordinance will balance growth and be effective in reducing school capacity, whether the benefits of adopting a school capacity ordinance outweighs the potential fiscal and economic trade-offs

and other constraints, and whether the text of the ordinance is acceptable and meets the legal framework. work. So, the next steps are this has been published to go before planning and zoning commission on April 8th and then following that it'll be published to come before city council in a public hearing for consideration on May 4th and I will stand for any questions you have.

Thank you for that explanation, Robin. Council, any questions? Councelor Zodic. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Robin, in this this whole ordinance here, uh was there any stipulation or or credit given to the curriculum of the school? Why one is overcrowded and the other one has room for students relative to the education they're getting?

Um, mayor and councelor Stoic, yes. When they're calculating their capacity for the buildings, that will be taken into consideration. For instance, we just had a conversation with Valley View and we used an example of one of their schools where the building itself could hold 800 students, but because of the type of programs they offer, it can actually only hold 700. So, we'll be looking at that too as far as like what's the building occupancy, but then what's the safe occupancy for the programs that you're offering.

Okay. Okay. The reason reason I asked the question is there there was a report that I looked at back in September of last year and I looked at the ratings of all the schools in high schools in the state and uh of 186 high schools was ranked the worst as far as reading writing and math uh Napa was ranked the second worst and Valiv View was the third worst and but they did rank high in diversity and sport. So that's why I say is there any curriculum involved in this ordinance at all or is that something else that we need to deal with?

Um mayor and councelor start it if there's only curriculum involved in the fact that it will help us determine the occupancy for the buildings. We won't get involved in the types of programs that they should or shouldn't be offering. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you councelor Stoddock. Councelor Williams.

Thank you mayor. Um, Robin, I'll be honest. I I haven't had a chance to go through this. We just received it. I don't know. It was middle of last week. Um, in the upper corner, and maybe this is for legal, but it says the draft is still being reviewed by legal counsel. Is that correct? Legal has not had a chance to to review this.

Mr. Mayor, councelor Williams, we haven't been able to do a final review of We've looked at the drafts. Um, we anticipate that there may be changes to the drafts based on workshops and and the results of some of the things the council may want. So, there's not been a final legal review because we haven't finalized the language.

Thank you, Robin. Is it unusual to bring us an ordinance that hasn't been through the whole process or is this okay and normal that we're discussing it before legal has even had a chance to finally sign off on it? Um, Mayor and Councelor Williams, I I think that's determined by cities, how they how they put ordinances through the process. I've seen it done both ways. I've seen it where if you're doing a workshop, you might come out with a draft because then there might be changes, then then legal is going to review those changes. I have never seen it though and and we'll make sure that it doesn't go to public hearing until legals reviewed it finally because we can't take it to public hearing and have it voted on if that's not the final draft. So, for workshop purposes, it's kind of like when we did the zoning ordinances and we came in and we kind of just had conversations about what do we want to see in the ordinances and stuff like that, but none of that had been through legal council review until we were actually kind of finalized with count all of council's wants and desires and visions for those ordinances.

Okay. Um I I've been told that Valley View had issued a statement with regard to this. Have you seen that or are you aware of it or um Mayor and Councelor Williams? I was only made aware of it I think yesterday and it was only because we had reached out to Valley View to try to get some information for this ordinance on student generation rates and stuff and we reminded them that hey there's a workshop. are you guys going to be in attendance? And that's when they said, "We're not going to be in attendance. We've already given our final statement, and here's the letter." Did they say who they gave it to?

Um, it's my understanding that they said they sent it to the mayor's office, but I I don't know. It was actually sent to another employee. Um, I was just informed of that this afternoon. So, I have not received it and I'm going to reach out um and get that letter, but the assistant superintendent had advised that they've taken a neutral uh statement onto that and he's going to forward it to me to make sure I get it too. So, yes,

the Thank you, mayor. The person who made me aware of this statement essentially summarized it as saying Valley View's position is you stay out of our business, we'll stay out of yours. Since I haven't seen it, I don't know. So apparently we have a lot of work to do here still. Um how in your estimation because I mean you know how many approvals we have already coming down the road. How does this actually help Valley View? And I keep focusing on Valley View because I understand Caldwell is down in its population and actually has room for growth. And so really, we're we're talking about Valley View, not Caldwell. And I'm getting a nod, so I I I know I'm not too far a field here, but how does this actually help Valley View?

Um, Mayor and Councelor Williams, I think it depends on how all the cards play out because I think there is a lot of things in play that have to go along with this ordinance. Um, I'll just use an example of we could delay the timing, which would give Valley View time to look at financial and capital planning, but if but if they don't have the funding coming from the state, it's not going to help them. Um, we could we could halt residential growth altogether, but because of the way Valley View is, there's so many different jurisdictions that feed into Valley View that we could halt it, but other jurisdictions are still going to develop and those are still going to feed into Valley View. So that's why I say it that's a tough question to answer because I think there's a lot of advantages and disadvantages to this ordinance, but there's a lot of things that that I feel and please don't shoot me back there because I don't have any like vest on or anything, but I think if you don't have all the cards, it may be more challenging.

Could you back up a slide to the criteria? I think it No, go that one right there. And I I suppose that fairly well summarized it for me. And again, I haven't been able to go through it. I just I just haven't had the time. We've been fairly busy. But I I just don't know that this is number two going to solve the issue for for Valley View because we already have growth coming and we heard from Compass what that growth was going to be and it's it's coming and the other uh entities are still going to be feeding into the school and and I'm not sure it outweighs the potential fiscal economic tradeoffs um that we're already seeing from uh fewer building permits coming in and Now, if we restrict them even further, it's it's going to create more of a of a dilemma for us. And so, those two things right in the middle there uh jumped out at me in your presentation. I may have more questions later, Robin, but right now I'm I'm just trying to digest. So, thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you, Councelor Williams. Council all good. And then I'll go to councelor Tilmont and then councelor Denber after that. Um so so you kind of answered one of the questions I had written down here which me which was if Caldwell restricts itself on growth there's no obligation for any of the other jurisdictions that feed valley view to do the same. That's correct.

That is correct. And then the second thing, and I realize this is down the road a little bit, but if a say a subdivision comes in with 200 homes and they get and the school district provides a letter that says we're 100% 110% of capacity, that starts a three-year clock. Well, if six months later another subdivision comes in and says, "We would like to build." Do they have a three-year clock or do they have a two and a half year clock? Mayor and councelor Olgate, it's three years from the time they received their approval. So this keeps just moving out. So it could go perpetually for many years.

Yeah, it does. The only way somebody would move up in the line is if say that one before the initial subdivision, expired, lost their land use entitlements, and say capacity became available, then somebody could bump up the line. But the way it's written is if it's over 110% capacity for the schools serving that development. So it would also depend on if those two developments are within the same subdivision if they're impacting each other. But they could both move forward, but it's a three-year time frame from the day they get approved.

And Mr. Mayor, good. Um, and if a 200 unit housing development occurred out in the county that fed Valley View, would would they basically jump ahead of a of a developer that was wanting to build inside the city limits?

Um, Mayor and Councelor Algood, from what I understand from the school district, they they base their enroll based on enrollment numbers. So, it's possible that if something was built in the county and then another subdivision came in and say it that county subdivision made the threshold go above the 110% but it's in the county, it's going to impact the development that's in the city. Thank you. I appreciate Robin.

Thank you, councelor. All good. Councelor Tilma. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um Robin, thank you. I'm the one who brought this to you. Um, mine was a lot less detailed than this. Thank you for putting the time in to actually put it out. Um, one of the major differences though compared to what I had written was that this includes high schools and middle schools. Correct. It does. It includes all public schools.

Okay. Yeah. Because mine only had elementary schools because it was more directly affected because of the outside feeders. Um, so that would be still kind of an issue because basically we would be halted while everyone else keeps feeding it. Correct. So, okay. I just wanted to make sure and kind of give that statement that thanking you for of course

doing this. Um, the only other thing would be the I think I'm the one who actually came up with the three-year when I was working with uh Middleton on their ordinance trying to rewrite it a little bit. After thinking about it, I'd probably lower that a little bit, but I'd still want it only to elementary schools because I think that's more targeted. Um, I don't know what your thoughts would be on that. Um, Mayor and Councilman Telmont, after doing a lot of research on school capacity ordinances, it it's not unusual to have a two, threeyear timeline if you're delaying it. Um, and what we have found traditionally that that's why we are proposing that they could still go forward with construction drawings and start the on-site improvements, but they can't they just can't start construction of the housing. And the reason for that is typically when an development gets land use entitlements, it's about 12 to 18 months, maybe even 24 months before they're ready to even start pulling building permits. Now, if we were to propose the ordinance where they can't start anything for three years, that's going to delay them probably five years.

Did that did that answer your question? Yeah. Okay, that's it. Thank you, Councelor Tilmont. Councelor Denber, and then we'll go to councelor Stodd.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Miss Collins, thank you very much for uh putting this presentation together. I have several questions here that I that I hope I can get to. Um, uh, that that makes sense. So, when the first question, when we talk about the mitigations, you talk about uh an amanable solution or an immenable agreement. So the the district agrees that this is a mitigation and the council agrees that this is a mitigation. What is the mitigation? Because I'm concerned about this arbitrary thing, right? Oh, we mitigated $100 per door for this great subdivision and we don't like this subdivision over here development, so we're going to mitigate it $5,000 a door. Where does the arbitrariness or the uh where does where do where is that cleared up in the policy?

Um mayor and councelor Denberg I think that is something still to be determined by council's you know what they want to see. I would agree that it needs to be something that is more objective um like it could be like donation of land. It could be um helping to construct or expand a facility, but it does get a little bit more, and I'll look to Oscar, legally tricky with donations and stuff, especially when those donations are not being put in a restricted fund to be used to alleviate the school capacity pressures. Um, and I realize schools have a lot of maintenance issues. they don't have the funding or whatever, but I think that's some of the concerns from a a staff and I'm going to speak for Oscar and he'll probably throw something at me, but and and I think from legal counsel is to make sure that whatever we put in here is legally defensible. Um, and again, the mitigation could be we could we could probably put something in there that says things like,

okay, this, but any type of mitigation would be ran through legal and it would be ran through the school district and the city council to see if they feel that's an acceptable mitigation op option.

Okay. So, let me play devil's advocate. What if a scenario is that uh this development offered property 10 acres, 5 acres, whatever, and the school accepted that and then the next developer comes in six months from now and offers 20 acres, 10 acres, and they go, "Oh, we don't need it. We've already got it. Have we set ourselves up for potential litigation because the school district agreed to take this person's land donation and not this developer's land donation? I'm going to pretend I'm a lawyer here and I'm not. But mayor and council Drittenberg, I think it would probably depend on planning. You'd have to also tie those donations of land with the capital planning for those schools, like where are those schools actually needed. I don't think it can be arbitrary just, hey, we're going to donate land, so we want you to mitigate it. I think it's going to have to be tied to some data and some facts of where those schools are needed and the types of schools and therefore where is that land needed. All right. So, uh, before I get to my next question, unless you I want

No, I I think I'm willing to give Robin an honorary law degree.

So, the uh So, I think, you know, before I get on to my next question, I I I think the fact that Valley View is not here tonight says tremendous amount of stuff. It's like we're going to do surgery on Valley View School District and the patient isn't even in the room to be engaged in the discussion. So, um uh I want to chat about the uh the state law that allows students or parents to take kids anywhere they want to as um we could build the subdivision in Caldwell completely in the Caldwell School District and all 200 of the houses that were approved the parents could choose to take their kids to the Middleton school district if they would or the Valley View School District. So, we really have greater mobility in students than what the ordinance may confine us to. Is that a correct statement?

Um, Mayor and Council Dutenberg, yes, the state does allow for open enrollment and anyone can apply to a school that's not in their district and be accepted into that school.

Okay. Then I want to talk about this priority. Um if uh if a developer comes in and uh wants to build 200 units, that seems to be what we're using as an example. And uh the school says we are we are over capacity. We're just we're over capacity. And the next developer comes in six months from now. And the school through what would be anticipated through this uh this ordinance re-evaluates their situation and now says, "Oh, hey, we can allow it. Since you're only a 100 housing development, we can allow your kids." Does that all of a sudden trigger the people that had 200 unit development to say why don't we let them build 100 units of housing since you have capacity for 100. Why uh would it retroactively uh affect the development?

Um mayor and council Denber not necessarily because the way it's written is that that 200 unit development would could come in and even though it's over capacity, they'd still get approval. they just couldn't start for three years. Their enrollment numbers gets tacked on to the capacity. So then when that 100 subdivision comes in, they're going to include that capacity for the enrollment from that 200 subdivision. So that's going to impact the hundred. So it's almost like a reservation system. First first come first serve. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Denber. Councelor Stodd.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Robin, you and I discussed the capacity issue uh several months ago, and at that time uh you gave me a figure in just ballpark. There's still around 9,000 projects that have been approved, but we haven't uh or the the developers haven't acted upon building homes or whatever. Is that still okay yet? Um Mayor and Councelor Stodd, I would say it's it's probably a little less. And the reason I'll tell you that is a couple things. once we know that some have built since those last data numbers.

We also have seen some plats recently expire and so they're going to have they're going to be coming back around for city council for approval again. Um so once they expire, we take those off the numbers. Um we've also had recently a couple developers come in where they had recent entitlements. they want to come back and they want to reduce the number of dwelling units and and the density that they had. So I think those numbers are going to be less um than what we provided. Um however, keep in mind that again it takes about two years before they start construction and then every phase takes about a year. So if you've got a development with, you know, 10 phases, they're likely 12 years out before full full buildout.

Okay. Uh the thing I'm really interested in is the ratios you gave me. And you know, I don't know if you know that right now, but you gave me 85% residential, 15% commercial industrial. Would that still be in a ballpark, do you think, of the ones that you know of now? Um I think that was building permits. Okay. Um, I'd have to go back and look. We're we're actually down on both commercial submitts and residential submittals right now. Okay. But the point being is we have a lot more residential coming in than commercial. Can we make that statement? We do. We have a lot more residential than commercial and even with the lower commercial, the tax values are higher. Yeah, of course. Right. That's why we need more commercial. Yeah.

To help the property tax burden. But I guess my what I'm trying to get here is that this overcrowding uh problem we have isn't going to be relieved in the years to come because of these projects we still have left to uh uh to build. And you know, like I say, the majority of those are are residential. Uh I I concur with I think it was Mr. Denberg about the Valley View School District, nobody being here. I remember Mr. Palmer when he and the powers to be decided that they have an overcrowding problem about two three years ago he used to show up at every meeting but now he doesn't it's unfortunate but when you look at the curriculum uh again I I think overcrowding is probably the problem we have but when you look at the curriculum and the ratings of these high schools when Cwell's at 159 and Valley View is a little bit at 119 where would you send your school kids to you know the that's that's a problem we have too. So, I would like to see him ranked a lot lower, but that's that's an issue that we have. So, thank you.

All right. Any other Thank you, Councelor Stoic. Any other questions from council? Thank you. Uh, next up, do we have Mr. Murray? Um on online still.

All right. Right. Next up, everyone, we have uh former Middleton city council member Dave Murray uh who helped craft this ordinance and he's available by teams tonight. So, we would just ask that you go ahead with your presentation and we can hear you.

Oh, sorry. Uh good evening everybody. Uh I think most of you know me. Uh I don't think I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Williams or Mr. Algood, but it's good to talk to you tonight. Uh Mike, I'd like to offer one correction. Yes, state code does allow for open enrollment, but only when there is capacity. So, most of of your schools, I don't think would be in danger of getting kids from from other municipalities. Uh, other than that, uh, how do you guys want to do this? Do you want to ask me questions or what would you like me to do?

If you would just explain kind of the totality of why you guys enacted the ordinance, what were the conditions of the time and any conversations just like if you're here presenting? Well, I mean, our motivations were the same or or very similar to yours. Uh, Middleton school districts were extremely overcrowded. One of our elementary schools at one point got up to, I think, 144% capacity and they were holding classrooms and hallways. You know, it was it was really, really bad. And if you're not aware, I don't know how much knowledge you all have about the state constitution, but education is a constantly constitutionally protected right in the state of Idaho under article 9. And so we felt that we not only should act, but were duty bound to act to fix that problem. Now, a lot of you are saying that this won't solve the school's problems right now. You're right. It won't solve them right now, but it will keep them from getting worse. Uh, our ordinance is slightly different than yours. It's, I think, uh, a lot simpler. It seems like you guys have more nuances, which I won't comment on. I'm not a council member anymore, but um, as recently as today, I spoke with Mark G, who's the superintendent of our school district, and he still supports school ordinance. I spoke with the city administrator here in Middleton, and there has not been any harm to the city from our school ordinance. I know there was some bad information given out recently at one of your meetings. Um, it does not affect commercial, does not affect industrial, and once we get a new elementary school built, which should be starting construction later this year, then the ordinance will begin to serve its purpose of keeping our schools under that 110% capacity.

Does anybody have questions they'd like to ask? Uh, thank you for that, council. Any questions? All right. Um, anything else? We'll go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Um, thank you for coming in tonight and speaking. Uh, he was not able to attend in person because he had a family thing. So, with that, if there's no other questions, we'll move on. Thank you, Mr. Murray. All right. Next up, we're going to hear from Ken Burgess, a lobbyist representing the Idaho Home Builders Association. Welcome, Ken. We look forward to your remarks. Mr. Mayor, first of all, thank you for the invitation to have this opportunity tonight. Um, I want to I want to kind of give you a kind of a perspective based on what we have dealt with with Middleton and kind of give you a comparison of what I think the Middleton situation was and is compared to yours. Uh, Robin, is it possible for you to put that map back up that shows the boundaries of the school districts in the city if you would wouldn't mind? Uh first of all, so uh my name is Ken Burgess and I uh I am a partner in a government affairs firm uh called Veraritoss Advisors and one of my clients that I do work for is the Idaho Homebuilders Association and the Snake River Valley BCA. Um we went through this with Middleton and and I I want to help you understand kind of the Middleton situation and I and I told the Middleton city council this when they adopted this and I'm going to tell you this the same thing tonight. The challenge the challenge with uh essentially enacting what amounts to a de facto moratorum is that is that you end up driving the growth out beyond the boundaries of of wherever that challenge is. Right? And so with Middleton it's it

was a fairly simple proposition. You've got the city of Middleton which is right in the middle in right in the middle of the inside of the Middleton school district boundaries. And so what I told the Middleton uh city council at the time was that their challenge was that if they adopted these types of things and the school district went along and you you basically halted development, you're the area is still going to grow and so you're going to end up driving that growth out beyond the boundaries of the city but still within the boundaries of the school district. So in reality, you're not really necessarily solving the school district problem. But as a city, the challenge is then is that you as a city are not be able going to be able to collect development fees, hookup fees, impact fees, and so on and so forth. Those same people are still going to use your roads. Those same people are still going to use your parks, but you're at a disadvantage in terms of not being able to collect the property taxes for that new growth. So in your scenario, while Middleton was fairly simple, yours is a little more complicated because you've got city of Caldwell, you've got the Caldwell School District, which is not growing, and then you've got a small portion of the Valley View School District, which encompasses a small portion of your city. And so I if let's assume for a moment that the Valley View School District uh agrees and goes along with this proposal. If if they were to essentially limit the growth within just the boundaries of Caldwell that sits within the school district, you're as has been said tonight a few times, you're not going to be able to control the other elements uh that feed into Valley View, Nampa, Canyon County, etc. And so and and so I think that's something that you ought to take into consideration at least as it relates to the ability to uh to actually control growth if you will in that regard with this with this resolution.

The other the other thing that uh I want to point out is that in reality if if you pass this resolution as it's written and I've read it once by the way I only read it once but uh is that you're essentially inserting the school district into what is a city responsibility in terms of planning and zoning. And so as a school district, I have to confess I can't imagine that C the Caldwell School District or the Valley View School District would want to dedicate the time, energy, resources, and personnel that would be necessary to review each one of these uh applications in order to do the calculations for a determination to provide a letter. Um, and so I would argue that that responsibility still resides with planning and zone codal planning and zoning and the city council. Uh, and the school district does have the ability in each of those steps through that process to provide you with information in that regard to make an informed decision. And so, uh, just in in a broader picture perspective, I think the challenge is for you all is to kind of understand what your broad your philosophy is. If the goal of of this ordinance is to somehow stop or slow residential growth in the city of Caldwell, first I would argue it does it may not accomplish that goal for you, especially with just that corner of Valley View. Uh secondly, I would say that that responsibility really ultimately lies with you if that's the the position you choose to take. And those types of decisions ought to be made either at planning and zoning or right here in front of in city council. And so, uh, with that, Mr. Mayor, again, I'll I thank you. And by the way, I know that, you know, of course, Valley View just recently built two elementary schools. Uh, one thing I would like to point out, and this is the first time I think this has maybe been noted publicly, is that the Homebuilders

Association actually dedicated quite a bit of resources and time and money into the campaign to help get that Valley View bomb passed. And so, uh, you know, we're trying to be good partners, if you will. And so, um, I'm, uh, but I want it, I want that to be understood. The other thing, I think one of you brought up the issue about donating land. It is not uncommon at all for a developer to donate property to a school district for the purpose of a future elementary school. quite honestly, a a a a close by elementary school is a good amenity that is attractive that for a lot of those developments. The challenge is that if you dedicate 10 acres to a school district who can't get a bomb pass to build an elementary school on that property, it really does you not very much good. And so, um and so, uh you know, we we continue to try to be good partners. And so, um, uh, we would, we're happy to, uh, provide any more information that might be useful for you. And again, mayor, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Yeah. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you being here tonight. Um, questions from counselor. Councelor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Burgess, thank you for being here tonight. I'm not sure if this is a fair question for you, but um, I'm not an attorney either, by the way. He confers degrees. Okay. I I haven't heard anything that would have me do that yet.

Okay. Um, our proposed ordinance allows for a developer to essentially do all the groundwork and then stop for a period of time. Is it is it safe to say that these projects can be anywhere from I I mean it's a big number, but you can put a million dollars in the ground before you ever start building. Is that an exaggeration?

Uh, I would say it's Mr. Mayor and and Councilman Williams. Uh it is it's probably a a gross underestimate. I I think most people cannot fully appreciate the risk that a developer takes in terms of say buying a 100 acres of property, right? What's what's the what's the cost right now in Canyon County for 100 acres of property? They're borrowing that money. They're paying interest on that money. And so and then the the multi-millions of of dollars that have to go into in putting in the infrastructure, the roads, the water, the sewer lines before and it takes three years, two and a half, three years of all that work before you can ever start construction on a home in that development. And so, um, I I think going back to your question, it is it is from the time of approval to the time of occupancy is arguably sometimes two and a half, three years most likely. Uh and uh and of course if you've got a phase development and that would be one element of the proposed ordinance that I would say is a challenge is if you got a 100 home development th those aren't that's not going to be just all of a sudden all the ch children from that one development coming to the school that's is phased out over years of time in general.

Did I answer your question? I think it does. But I just think it's it's

amusing to me that we who are not putting the millions of dollars in the ground want to expect that a developer who's bringing revenue to our city is going to put that much money in the ground and then basically do nothing with it. I that's that's one of the reasons why my fear is it will end up looking like a moratorum because we're essentially going to stop the development. And I I'm I'm concerned that the result of what we are considering here tonight uh might not be what is intended. And um so I I appreciate your input. I I know you said you spoke with Middleton and I'll be done after this, but when when they put their policy forward, their their current mayor was here at our last meeting and said he would advise us against doing it and basically said they're going to rescend it. in in your estimation, did you see uh ways that the builders were able to work around it or was it really that much of an effort that they just went to Star and Cuna and other cities?

Mr. Mayor and and Councilman Williams, uh first of all, what I called the Middleton approach was a de facto moratorum. Now, the truth is we haven't really seen the effects yet of that because there were two or three thousand homes already in the pipeline that were that had been approved that were coming through and going to Middleton. What we have seen is that since they passed that moratorum, uh the attitude of the of the builders has been that Middleton apparently is not open for business. And so yes, they're now seeking other options in terms of Star or out in Canyon County around that area.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Councelor Williams. Uh, council all good. Yeah, Ken, very good to see you. Good to see you, sir.

So, I don't know whether this falls in your wheelhouse or not, but if it does, I would love your thoughts. Um, as with any city, our desire is to bring more commercial to our community. It pays a better tax base. It creates employment for our residents. What is the alignment with with bringing more commercial and not bringing the residential? If the residential were to slow or halt, what effect would that have on our desire to recruit more of the commercial base that we desire?

Mr. Mayor and and Councilman Algood, if the commercial you're envisioning is the storefront, right, and the restaurants and the walk-in sales type of scenario, the th those commercial developments rely on having the rooftops and the people nearby to be able to come into their places of business, right? And so uh in my opinion I do believe there would be a potentially negative effect down the road in terms of drawing in that type of commercial development uh if in fact Caldwell is not viewed as growing uh from a industrial perspective those same employees who are working in those industrial commercial areas uh certainly would rely on and would hope we would hope and I think the the city's position ought to be that you want those people to live here in um in in Caldwell and so you know so there's that connection as well.

Thank you so much council. All good. Thank you. Any other questions from council? All right. Thank you. Well for that item we'll be um done for this evening. Thank you for your perspective. Thank you for coming in tonight. And with that we're going to take a quick recess before we move on to item number two. We'll take a 10 minute or do you want a five? Five minute.

All right. Can we please be quiet in the room?

You'd like to continue talking, you can step outside, please. All right. Thank you for that. Um, we're back from recess. We just spoke with item number one for those that are just tuning in or got here tonight. Next on the agenda is an action item considering a resolution accepting a bid for installing security features at railroad crossings. Um, do any council members have any questions on the resolution or want to discuss that resolution? Mr. Mayor, uh, councelor Denver.

Mr. Mayor, I go ahead and make a motion that we consider resolution number 095-26 accepting the bid proposal for the railroad quiet zone construction project and in addition to that allocating up to the full $400,000 for the work to be completed. All right, we have a motion and a second. Sorry, do we have a second? Second. All right, motion is a second. Any discussion on that, Mr. Mayor? Council President Register.

Thank you. Um I want to be clear that my following comments are not about staff and the work that they have done. I appreciate the effort that has gone into this, especially Bruce. Um thank you for answering all of my questions. I'm almost certain that every time an email came in from me, you were probably cringing at your desk. And I truly believe you need a vacation without any cell phone service. Um that said, yes, he just approved it. So there you go. Um that said, I do have some concerns with the quiet zone and after doing some research, I've narrowed them down to the following, which are safety, cost, and need. At this time, those concerns have not been fully resolved enough for me to support moving forward. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure our community is safe, that we are responsible stewards of taxpayer money, and that the need for a project like this has been clearly established. As of right now, I am not convinced of the need, and I do not feel that the need for the quiet zone was clearly established when it was brought back forward by Mayor Wagner. If the need is coming from the proposed 2026 Roger Brooks plan, then I feel it would be best to hear that plan in its entirety first before deciding on this. I do want to clear up a couple of things. I have confirmed that more than 10 years ago, the then mayor and council declined to move forward with this and it was not discussed again until Mayor Wagner identified it early in his term as a priority. Outside of budget considerations, this project has not been formally approved by the council through resolution. When I asked the former mayor, Mr. Wagner, about public input for this, he stated that he did not plan to schedule a meeting or an openhouse specifically to discuss the quiet zone and believed it had been properly vetted and

communicated. I disagree. It is well known that communication from city hall at that time was limited and this project was allowed to move forward without the level of transparency and process we expect. In my opinion, that approach was backwards, putting the cart before the horse and we now have an opportunity to do it right in the right order. I am sincerely concerned about the lack of pedestrian safety, including for those with disabilities or mobility challenges. In the original $4 million budget allocation, I believe the cost included both increased vehicle safety gates and pedestrian gates. That money was later reallocated as there was no clear urgency or established need for this project project, excuse me. Fast forward to the project we're looking at today. A significantly reduced cost, but also appearing to lack some important safety features. In addition, the only feasibility study we have is from 2015. Due to the extreme growth we have experienced in the addition of larger commercial buildings, it would seem we should have had an updated one completed before exploring this project again. So using what we have since that's what we have, it is important to note that experts who authored that study stated that if the 21st Avenue crossing could not meet their safety recommendations, it should be excluded from the quiet zone due to potential safety concerns. Again, these concerns about traffic were documented well before our explosive growth over the last few years. So, it is natural to think that there might be an even bigger concern now if studied again. To gain further insight, I spoke with a representative from the FRA about my concerns with the 21st Avenue

crossing, specifically the shorter 18t median on the south side and the ability for vehicles to turn left onto Stock Trail. That movement has the potential to create a situation where vehicles could queue onto the tracks, which is a safety concern listed in the feasibility study. The FRA representative understood my concerns, but stated that the project passed due to safety measure credits that are used to determine if a quiet zone qualifies overall, meaning the totality of safety credits for all crossings in the corridor combined. The FRA representative explained that when train horns are removed, the risk of incidents increases by 67.8%. So, safety measures are then added to reduce that increased risk. This can include anything from quad gates to concrete medians, which is what is being proposed tonight. From there, the FRA assigns each intersection a safety credit. I was told that our intersections received the following safety credits. Ustust, Lynen, and 12th each received a 0.80, which is the full safety credit. 9th received a 74. Kimble received a 0.53 and both Fifth and 21st received a 048. The 48 is on the lower end compared to other crossings. And I was told much of that credit on 21st comes from the larger median on the north side because the south side only has an 18 ft median again allowing left turns. That raises the question of how much protection is actually being provided where the concerns exist. It was also explained that crossings with lower scores like 21st can be offset by others that score higher. that may allow the quiet zone to

qualify on paper, but it does not answer whether each individual crossing is safe on its own. Due to the concerns here, I then asked whether 21st could be excluded and was told that because it is located in the middle of the corridor, it cannot be removed by itself. So, other crossings would have to be excluded to make that work. Additionally, requesting a reduction in train speed is not considered a realistic option. We then discussed the role of the train horn itself. Currently, horns are sounded in succession as a train approaches, providing continuous and advancing notice. Without that, the warning becomes dependent on each individual crossing's signal activating independently. While trains can still sound their horn in an emergency, that raises a practical question. Can a train stop in time while moving at a high rate of speed? If a situation develops at a crossing like 21st where the traffic behavior is already a concern, we are relying on a system that allows approval based on overall calculations without being able to clearly assess the realworld safety at specific crossings, particularly one like 21st where known conditions already raise concerns. meaning we can't predict how people are going to drive or the decisions they make. While the cost has been reduced, it should not be overlooked that we are experiencing budget issues and have other projects where the need seems greater right now, such as student safety and other critical needs. It is our it is part of our job to determine wants versus needs. And in this case, at this moment, I do not see the need for a quiet zone. A desire, yes. and need. No, we have heard that this will attract commercial development and help reduce the tax burden on homeowners and by not

doing it, we could miss out on millions of dollars in potential development. However, there is no confirmed development tied to this project. And we have not ha yet had an official presentation of the 2026 Roger Brooks plan, which I understand was only recently completed and is still under review. It makes more sense to me to wait for that whole plan to be officially presented, determine whether we will adopt it, how it will be implemented, and how it will be funded, and then decide whether a quiet zone is necessary and ensure it includes the highest level of safety features. In the meantime, we have already heard from commercial projects including the hotel on 21st that while they support a quiet zone and emphasize the importance of public safety or I'm sorry, pedestrian safety, they also stated during their approval process that train noise was not a concern and that that could be mitigated. We know that in Rogers original plan for Indian Creek Plaza, there was no mention of silencing train horns and the area developed successfully anyway. So, why the urgency? Now, as a reminder, the quiet zone will also remove seven parking spaces, which may not seem like a lot on its own, but adds to the ongoing loss of parking downtown with other development. It begs the question, is commercial downtown being impacted by train horns or limited parking? I also have concerns about situational awareness for first responders who may rely on the sound of the train horn for safety and quicker response times as well as for bus drivers transporting children who are trained to stop, open their doors, and listen for the horn. However, if members of the council choose to move forward before hearing the 2026 Roger Brooks plan, I would ask you to consider the following. Restrict

the quiet zone to the downtown corridor to just the downtown corridor to address the concerns on 21st. Insist on pedestrian crossing gates understanding that they could take this could take up to six months for railroad approval and cost approximately $15,000 per crossing where installed. Consider a hybrid approach where horns are sounded during the day and silenced at night, allowing quieter evenings while maintaining daytime awareness. I mentioned this before, but as a police dispatcher previously, I will never be able to forget the call where a train hit a two and a four-year-old who were playing on the tracks. When I asked the officers what they did when they got there, they told me all they could do was fall to their knees and pray because the children were destroyed. You can blame the kids. You can blame their parents. You can find blame anywhere. But at the end of the day, two children are dead and multiple lives affected because the train did not see them. They did not hear it coming. And there was no barrier from keeping them from being there. I will not be responsible for preventable harm in our community. And I ask that none of you are either because we know that removing the horn increases the risk of incidences by 67.8. 8% with no clear way to confirm that every crossing is fully safe, even with mitigation in place. We need to be as sure as possible that all safety opportunities are utilized for vehicles and pedestrians. I hope you will consider the options as you make your decision tonight and to remember that human life is not worth silencing train horns when we clearly do not need to because the consequences of this decision and getting it wrong are very real.

Thank you, Councelor Register. Councelor Stoic. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to uh bring Mr. Mills up here to address some of those comments, please. Uh Mr. Mills, would you please come up?

John uh album called Don't Shoot Me, I'm Only the Piano Player. Just saying that up front, but anyway. No, sorry. Happy to answer your questions. Not a problem. I'm just wondering, can you address the 21st Street uh issue that uh councelor Register brought up? And then have we overall have we exceeded the uh FRA recommendations uh as far as safety is concerned on the rest of the crossings?

Okay. Um yes, what uh what uh councelor register said is true in the fact that uh it's taking the quiet zone as a whole, running it through their computer program for the various safety improvements at each intersection, and it's giving you an average safety factor for the whole thing, lowering it well below the the risk for with horns that we have today. So, so that it's true in both ways. Uh it's, you know, we're not changing something on 21st, at least at this time. Um

Okay. And then what about the uh equipment that we're going to use on each of those intersections relative to the FRA recommendations? Are we above that, below that, the same or? Yes, they would not have approve given us approval if we did not meet all of their um all of their requirements. And Union Pacific Railroad also reviewed our plans and approved them. Okay. Are we above the recommendations or just right at the recommendations to say I I would as far as well above the recommendation. We meet the recommendations. I don't know that they have a a threshold for for above or below. We've we've met their recommendations. Okay. Thank you.

Um are councelor Algo is next. Give me a second. Were you gonna have any questions for him or can we unrelated? Okay. Council register. I have a question for you real quick. Do you have any concerns about the left turn on 21st onto Stock Trail?

Um I how do I put it? It would it would certainly be safer if uh if there wasn't a left in there. Um, I did ask for data for the number of accidents that have happened out there on Chicago and 21st and Stock Trail and Cleveland and Arthur and Stock Trail actually had the least amount of accidents of those four intersections for whatever that's worth. Um, I I think comprehensively we need to look at that intersection and say in the future, should there be a different um should there be a different access way in and out of the fairgrounds, especially given the fact that the railroad right now is telling us we're going to have to spend a certain amount of money. We don't know what that is yet, but it could be significant to lease the land that Ktock Trail is on railroad rightway. Do you um is it possible then to exclude I guess 21st and Ustick and just or just include the downtown core whatever those streets are?

That that is an option. Uh I I think if you exclude them, we still have to go back through a process um to to delete them out of the quiet zone,

right? Because when I spoke to the FRA, that was one of their um suggestions was that you could exclude because when I talked to the FRA, it sounded like when they looked they looked at the map, they were while we were on the phone and I think that they kind of they didn't say it, but it certainly sounded like there might be some concern there because of the way that uh the median is and then cues up back or could queue back up on the tracks. And the way that it was explained to me was kind of like if you have like a group that's working together in school and two people get an A and one person gets a B and then a couple get an F, everybody still passes. I'm not saying that that's an F, but it's taken as a totality like that, right? So it's not

Yes. They rate their quiet zones in a totality. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And just to clarify, Mr. bills. Would your recommendation be to extend the shorter section of 21st um to make it safer if we do this? I especially if we've approved the $400,000 budget and may have it available.

Yeah, I think that uh it should be looked at a little bit more holistically. How does that affect the fairgrounds and the night rodeo? Uh and be and determine if we do close it off, should it should other improvements be made elsewhere? or should we go down to Arthur intersection, widen it out, and allow it to have a dedicated left turn lane there. I I think it should be looked at a little more holistically, I guess. Thank you for that. And just to clarify, it's $55,000 a year we're currently looking at for that stock trail lease, but we're trying to get it reduced potentially. Um, anything else for Mr. Mills? Going once, going twice. Councelor, all good.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to express some frustration. This this vote has taken way too long to happen. Uh council has been asking to take this vote for a long time and it took the very courageous effort of councelor Tilmont to actually get us to a point where we could vote on it. Um, and because this is delayed and because we've had so much social media and so many send us emails and and get us signatures, it has, my opinion, it has divided our city by a bunch of very angry people that I don't blame them for being angry. And unfortunately, I've been a politician a long time. And angry people are great for politicians because you can really you can plate them. You can you can drum up the vote with angry people, but it's not good for your city. And the fact that this has drawn out and drawn out and keeps getting pushed back and and and uh uh you know, whatever excuse made, it has it has created a vision in this wonderful city that saddens me. I I I hate to see that this would happen. I can tell you as a council member and my fellow council members, the amount of vitrial and and just terrible emails and accusations of wrongdoing over something that we would never consider. I I would I would stand with any council member on this on this stage. We wouldn't do that kind of thing. But this has taken way too long. And I I thank Councelor Tilmont for for stepping up. I'm glad it's on the agenda. I'm not going to speculate on how it goes, but it should not have happened this way. We should have a vote. We should be done and we should move on whatever the next

priority is in this great city. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. And and also, Mr. Mayor, just as a sideline, I would agree. I would love to see Mr. Mills work on stop trail 21st. I think that's a priority. Yeah. Thank you for that. All right. Thank you, councelor Allgood. Councelor Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll keep my comments brief, but it has been a challenge, but I just want to say this. The data that we received from Mr. Mills, from other professionals and engineers whose personal liability is brought to bear when they use that stamp. The data, the facts that we were given are that quiet zones improve safety. Contrary to what might be being said, I have a choice of accepting the data from the experts or accepting somebody else's opinion. And I choose to accept the data. And so one of the reasons I'm for this is because I'm being told this will improve safety, that this is something that will help resolve accidents. Accidents will still happen. They're unfortunate. They're tragic. We pray they don't. Uh in addition to that, I think this is a quality of living thing, and I do appreciate the fact that this is a holistic approach to continuing to improve our great city. Mr. Mayor.

Uh, thank you for that, Council Williams. Council Register. Very quickly, I just want to make sure it's clear that the numbers that I have came from the FRA, and I'm curious, did anybody else on the council call the FRA and speak to them to the representative there that's been working with Bruce? No. Okay. Okay. I just want to make it clear that the percentages that I have came straight from the FRA, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Councelor Register, Councelor Williams. Bruce, you spoke with the FRA, right? Yes. I trust you, Bruce, and I trust that the FRA and Union Pacific signed off on this as meeting those standards.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Williams. And just to clarify, council all good. I know it took longer, but there was constantly things that were coming up. Um, we went out and looked at the crossings. That's why I brought up to you guys specifically a request to at least consider if you're going to force it through because once again this was not brought by me. This was brought by the prior administration. I wanted to make sure if we're going to do it, we do it right. So if this is approved tonight, the ask would be to consider if we bring forth um additional safety measures that you guys take that in consideration at future dates. So when I take the time to do that, it's not with nefarious intent is to go out and actually look, photograph, video, study, and have other conversations, verify some information, make sure that we get it right since you guys had already planned on moving it forward. So that was the intent behind it. Um, and in the future, if we need to do that, I would be glad to do it again, right? And I understand it was divisive, but I went out, I took photos, videos, and such. So with that, if there's nothing further, um, we can You're still agreeing,

Mr. Mayor. This isn't forcing it through. With all due respect, this is how government works. I understand that, but it was a legislative push. So, I'm going to move forward with the vote if we're ready.

All right. With that, um, has been moved to, uh, approve the resolution authorizing accept bid installing security features at Robo Crossing. The council members can now cast their votes electronically. All right. Uh, the motion passes with the 5 to1 vote. Council register voting in opposition. All other councilors voting in favor. With that, we're going to move on to item number three. Next on the agenda is an action item considering a resolution to establish railroad quiet zones. Do council members have any questions on the resolution or want to discuss?

Mr. Mayor, in the interest of uh moving this along, I'd go ahead and make a motion that we consider resolution 096-26 approving and authorizing the implementation of the railroad quiet zone. And I would want to make the caveat with this motion that it is uh contingent upon approval and uh and recommendation by uh Mr. Mills that it has been built to standards and specifications. Second. All right. Motion in a second. Thank you, Councelor Denber. Is there any discussion on that?

All right. Seeing none, has been moved to approve the resolution establishing a railroad quiet zone here in Caldwell. The um intersections have been listed um in the information provided to council. And now council members may cast their votes electronically. All right, the motion passes. We have five in favor and one member, Miss Register, council register voting in opposition. With that, um, thanks for joining tonight's workshop. And do we need an official vote to end or can we just end? All right, with that, we're done.