Caldwell Mayor's Veto on Quiet Zone Proposal Deemed 'Not Legally Binding'

City attorney says mayor lacks authority to veto council resolutions on the project.

Apr. 6, 2026 at 8:50pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A serene, cinematic painting of an empty railroad crossing at dusk, with warm sunlight casting long shadows across the pavement and surrounding buildings. The scene conveys a sense of contemplation and unease, reflecting the political tensions surrounding the quiet zone proposal.The quiet zone project moves forward despite the mayor's veto, exposing the complex dynamics between local government leaders.Caldwell Today

The mayor of Caldwell, Idaho, Eric Phillips, had vetoed the city council's decision to move forward with a railroad quiet zone project, citing safety and financial concerns. However, the city attorney has now determined that the mayor's veto is not legally binding, as the council's actions were resolutions rather than ordinances. As a result, the quiet zone project will proceed without the need for the council to override the veto.

Why it matters

This decision highlights the complex dynamics between the mayor and city council in Caldwell, as well as the legal nuances around the mayor's veto power. It also raises questions about the community's concerns over the quiet zone project, particularly around safety and costs, which the mayor had sought to address through the veto.

The details

In March, the Caldwell City Council voted 5-1 to approve the construction bid and implementation of a railroad quiet zone project. A week later, Mayor Eric Phillips issued a veto, citing safety and financial concerns, including the absence of pedestrian protections and potential additional costs. However, the city attorney, Oskar Klaas, has now determined that the mayor's veto is not legally binding because the council's actions were resolutions rather than ordinances. As a result, the quiet zone project will move forward without the need for the council to override the veto.

  • In March, the Caldwell City Council voted 5-1 to approve the quiet zone project.
  • A week later, Mayor Eric Phillips issued a veto of the council's decision.
  • On April 6, 2026, the city council was originally scheduled to consider two veto resolutions related to the quiet zone project.
  • City attorney Oskar Klaas concluded that the mayor's veto was neither legal nor binding, as the council's actions were resolutions rather than ordinances.

The players

Eric Phillips

The mayor of Caldwell, Idaho, who had vetoed the city council's decision to move forward with a railroad quiet zone project, citing safety and financial concerns.

Oskar Klaas

The city attorney of Caldwell, who determined that the mayor's veto was not legally binding because the council's actions were resolutions rather than ordinances.

Scot Tilmant

A Caldwell city councilor who requested a legal opinion from the city attorney regarding the mayor's veto.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Based upon my review and interpretation of the applicable state law and city code which define the veto power of a mayor, a mayor does not have the legal authority to veto council resolutions in general, and the Quiet Zone Resolutions in particular.”

— Oskar Klaas, City Attorney

“Based on the City Attorney's opinion, the veto is a moot point. Therefore, those items will no longer appear on the agenda for a vote or discussion.”

— Eric Phillips, Mayor

“Community safety remains my top priority. It is the right thing to do.”

— Eric Phillips, Mayor

What’s next

The quiet zone project will now move forward without the need for the city council to override the mayor's veto, as the city attorney has determined the veto is not legally binding. The mayor has stated that he will continue to advocate for proper pedestrian protections and responsible financial stewardship of the project.

The takeaway

This situation in Caldwell highlights the complex relationship between the mayor and city council, as well as the legal nuances around the mayor's veto power. It also underscores the community's concerns over the quiet zone project, which the mayor had sought to address through the veto, but which will now proceed without that intervention.