Caldwell — The Caldwell City Council voted 5–1 on Nov. 3 to continue consideration of Resolution 3392‑25, which would forward the proposed Caldwell Central Urban renewal Project Area Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a consistency review. Councilor Register made the motion to continue the matter to the council’s Nov. 17 meeting; Councilor Stadeck seconded. Councilor Dittmer voted no.

The resolution as drafted would not itself form an urban renewal area but would start the statutory steps required for adoption, Morgan Hilty told the council: "This is not a final approval of a new urban renewal area," he said, adding that the next steps include review by Planning and Zoning and a subsequent public hearing and ordinance if the council wishes to proceed.

Supporters of moving the plan forward have argued the proposal targets infrastructure deficiencies in the Central North Caldwell area — roughly bounded by I‑84 and the Union Pacific tracks between Tenth and Centennial — with projects focused on streets, water and sewer, street lighting, ADA pedestrian access and several park or recreational projects. Jim Porter, chairman of the Urban Renewal Agency, and other advocates cited poor sidewalks, dark streets and a lack of recreational opportunities as motivating factors for the plan.

But multiple council members and members of the public said they needed more time to review the full packet. David Moore, an Urban Renewal committee member, said the feasibility packet and background materials were provided to committee members less than 24 hours before that body met and urged more time: "We're giving this much information less than 24 hours to make a decision," he said, listing sections where he wanted clarifications, including displacement, property management, financial liability and impacts on taxing districts.

Councilors raised a split over process. Some members, including Councilor Kimber, urged the council to send the plan to Planning and Zoning now so the commission could weigh in, while others, including Councilor Stoddick and Councilor Dittmer, said more workshops and committee review were warranted. Several councilors asked staff to schedule an educational workshop so commissioners and council members could have questions answered before final action.

Staff and consultants also warned of a fiscal consequence if the council pushed formal adoption into the next calendar year. Raelynn (staff) told the council that because base tax assessments are established as of Jan. 1, delaying adoption into 2026 would require substantial additional work and essentially restarting the financial feasibility analysis: "The entire financial portion of the feasibility study would have to be redone," she said, citing timing for county assessment reports.

Because of those timing constraints and the council’s decision to continue the item to Nov. 17, the plan will not be forwarded to Planning and Zoning this week. If the council ultimately directs further processing after additional review, that would be followed by the Planning and Zoning review of consistency with the comprehensive plan and then a public hearing and ordinance for final adoption, per the statutory sequence described by staff.

Councilors and staff said they expect to schedule workshops and to allow the Urban Renewal Agency and planning staff to answer outstanding questions before the next council hearing.

What’s next: the council will revisit the item on Nov. 17; Planning and Zoning review is currently scheduled for Dec. 12 if the council forwards the plan at that time. Staff cautioned the council that postponing final action past year‑end would likely require redoing parts of the feasibility work because assessment rolls and base tax calculations change with the calendar year.