There we go.

Sorry.

We we usually start with the invocation and a pledge before we go to formal roll call.

So I've asked Councilman Reynolds to open us in prayer the pledge.

So if you would please stand.

Dear God, thank you for this morning.

Thank you that we all get to be here.

And uh help us in our decisions and our discussion that we have today.

Please give us wisdom.

Um please give us uh the ability to connect with our sister city and be able to have good relationships as we go forward.

Thank you for everything you give us and for everything you do for us.

In Jesus' name we pray, amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thank you.

I think some of you have made your way to the room.

I try to let you all know we have coffee.

Feel free to grab coffee, banana, muffins, uh in the in the room right around the corner.

So that is available.

Um we I'm not necessarily sharing the meaning per se, so I think uh just kind of some ground rules is once we do our respective roll calls, uh BRT has a lot of important information I'm gonna share with us.

So I'd say to Elaine and Steven and stuff, there's no need to have to look if someone has their hand up, there's no need to have to like go through the chair or presiding officer.

Just we want this to be back and forth dialogue.

You have questions, just put your hand up.

Um, so the formalities of having to go through a chair and all that is you know, not necessarily the intent this morning.

We just want good two-way dialogue and this is a workshop, no decisions are being made.

There's not an action item on our respective agendas.

This is informational, however, the information is gonna help inform decisions, so I think our respective cities are um gonna contemplate as we consider what the the role of BRT is in our respective communities.

We're linked, um, in many ways.

So um I'll defer to Mayor Phillips and your clerk maybe calling the roll call uh for your counsel and then we'll follow.

Yeah, thank you.

I just want to start out real quick just saying we really appreciate the opportunity to work together.

Um our council was definitely on board when we reached out and uh thank you, council for being here bright and early.

I know this isn't our normal time, so we'll give it to you guys for having your workshops and such this early.

Uh thank you, Mayor, for arranging all this.

Um it's very important that we work closely together.

We are uh literally next door to each other, so I look forward to not only today, but future opportunities um of working together uh on things like the animal shelter and others.

So thank you for that.

And with that, um, Madam Clerk, will you call the role for Coldwell?

Councilor Tillmont.

Here, Councillor Stadik?

Here, Counselor Register here, Counselor Williams?

Here, Counselor Algood?

Here, Counselor Dittenberg.

Here.

We are all present.

All right, thanks.

Um, our clerk.

Shark.

Yes.

Thanks.

For Nampa City Council Scog.

Here.

Jingula.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Here.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Griffin.

For present to absent.

Thank you.

So we have a quorum, but again, no decisions are being made, but we will know the quorum is present.

So Elaine, were you able to get on okay?

Is the presentation good?

Do you want to test that?

Hopefully.

Um is it showing?

Yep, there we go.

Do you want to introduce the staff that you have present with you and to just kind of hand it over to you and if you're comfortable sitting there, can everyone see Elaine okay?

Can everybody see me and hear me?

Okay.

Well, um, thank you for for being here this morning for doing this.

I'm Elaine Clegg, I'm the CEO of Valley Regional Transit.

I'll let Steven introduce himself.

I'm Stephen Hunt.

I'm the chief development officer of Valley Regional Transit.

I've been here since 2017 and work on service and capital planning.

So a lot of the work that we've done with NAMPA and Caldwell over the last decade or so has been partly work that we that I've done with VRT.

So happy to answer any questions about that or what's going forward.

And with that, we'll um, if it's all right with you guys, we'll just go through the presentation.

And it might be easier to hold questions till the end, but if there's something really pressing, I'm fine with that.

Um so I was gonna say it's great to be together this morning, but it is 7 a.m.

And it looks like maybe uh Sebastian and Natalie would agree with me.

Actually, um I I really am happy to be here.

And uh thanks for your leadership, all of you, both the mayors and the city councils, um bringing the two cities together so that we can discuss uh these important transportation issues for your communities as a group and not separately.

I think um really is true leadership.

It's why I always love serving at the local level.

I think you know, when you serve at the local level, you gotta solve problems.

It can't be about uh making statements, it has to be about making sure that your residents' lives are better, and I think being here this morning shows that.

Um I also know what it's like to be on the campaign trail and be asked a lot of questions and feel like you have to have all the answers.

And um this morning is a chance for you not to have to know uh the answer to the questions, but to be able to ask them.

And we really um encourage you to do that because I think it's important um for all of you.

Many of you know a fair amount about the transit system and how it's worked, and some of you don't know much because you haven't been around very long, and so um I think it's uh really good opportunity for all of us to get on the same page.

And we're we're really excited to answer your questions.

So we gave you a pretty good summary um of our system in Canyon County in the memo that we sent.

We hope you had a chance to review it.

Um this transportation uh this this presentation is going to focus on the high points of that, and then we'll do the QA about a couple of things where VRT has been over the last few years, the things that we've done to improve performance and what we think the partnership path um would be to best serve all of us going forward.

Um we think of this as a shared growth issue, uh not a partner, not uh just a transit issue, but a partnership with all of you and with us to figure out what we need to do to better serve your residents.

We consider ourselves one of your partners, and we're here to help you serve your citizens better, um, despite the challenges of growth.

Uh you know, this growth challenge that we're all facing is is something that is pretty unprecedented around the country if you look.

For 30 years, this region's uh led the country in the top five in growth, and that's a lot of pressure over a lot of time to try and respond.

And uh we share that pressure with you.

So we want to hopefully also share the solutions.

We know that affordability, access to jobs and health care and other services, and quality of life are local government priorities.

There are our priorities as well.

Um, and we hope that this summary will help you understand how we think we can help you with those issues and uh not just be a service on this side.

So growth has been tough on all of us.

I already said that.

Um it's been hard to keep up, it's been hard for you to keep up.

Uh it seems like there are no good answers in a lot of change pla a lot of um ways.

Uh changes in revenue collection have made those pressures even worse.

Um revenue collection structure, we share that.

We have probably, as I talk to my colleagues around the country on the transit side, probably the most difficult revenue collection structure of anyone in the country.

And um it means we can't keep pace.

Uh you know how hard it is for you to keep pace, it's even harder for us.

We've been trying.

Um we've done more with less, because that's our only choice, frankly.

And we've done it by innovating and by being nimble by responding to the things that our local partners request, not being afraid to try new things.

We've found efficiencies to keep your costs and our costs down.

Uh we've improved reliability for the people who use our services, and we're always looking for new ways to better partner with all of you and hopefully bring more resources to the table.

A few years ago, we partnered with the city of Nampa to build a pedestrian uh connection project that had long been on their books and they had not been able to find the funding to do it.

We brought a grant to the table, and I'm happy to report that'll be under construction, I think, this summer.

Is that right?

It's federal funding, so there's always a process to use it, but but we're there, and um that's going to, I think, improve the quality of life for the people who live around the park and the people who use transit in that area.

So thank you for that partnership.

So the highlights section of the memo that we sent lists the headline facts that are kind of the characteristics that we see in Canyon County that I'm sure you see that impact the way that we try to provide services.

Uh, from our perspective, the biggest takeaway is that affordability, especially in the face of growth, um, has a big impact on your residents.

Uh, in light of that, transit demand and economic value can be real and measurable in their lives.

We I think have shown that with our data.

Yet affordability and mobility remain big barriers for your residents and our riders.

Your two cities are interdependent.

Uh the boundaries don't divide you.

They frankly hopefully um help you partner better together because the people who live in both cities live, work, play, uh have services on both sides of that boundary, and they need to travel between it.

Um 38% of the trips on our on-demand system in these two cities are between the two cities, not within or outside to somewhere else.

We believe that transit should not just be thought of as a social service.

I think, especially in County and County, it's been thought of that way.

Uh, our service is paltry enough, frankly, that most of your riders are people who who really have no other choice, and that's how they can get around.

But if you look at the characteristics in Candy County, we think that there are a lot of reasons that if we had better transit, it would help create not just a social service, but a real service to all of your residents.

It would create some independence, uh, maybe for the younger teens, especially for the older adults, especially for your disabled community members.

But beyond that, it creates choices for times when you know you have to drive, you don't really want to because you know it's not going to be terribly pleasant experience, but there's no other way to get there.

You don't really want to because you know it's not going to be terribly pleasant experience, but there's no other way to get there.

We believe that transit in the end can be that if we can figure out a way to really grow it and make it more reliable.

So we have a variety of services.

Frankly, it's necessary, especially when you can't keep up with frequency and service hours like we haven't been able to keep up with here.

Most transit agencies in metro areas our size are able to put a lot more service on the road.

And if we hadn't innovated and created beyond access and rides to wellness, for instance, uh there'd be a lot of people in your two communities who wouldn't be able to live independent productive lives.

And so we think that that innovation shows is an argument that says you need to support us even as much as you can so that we can continue to provide those.

So maybe we should just not try.

We think we've shown that by innovating and serving needs in other ways, um, we've been able to, like I say, do more with less and really demonstrate uh that this is there isn't unet demand for these services in your two communities.

So we gave you a little ridership performance snapshot.

Um you asked us to do better, we responded.

Um ridership is up 17% overall uh in Canyon County.

That's a big number.

Um we did our service change.

We promised a 20% increase over three years.

We've hit 17% in two years in Canyon County already.

Our service redesign improved outcomes.

I think Route 42 and Route 45 are big examples of that.

Um Councilmember Griffin were here, he would probably want to talk about his experiences on the bus and that it was hard to ride and there weren't very many riders.

And we think that that's a love illustrative, not of a system that doesn't work, but a system that said, hey, you know, you have a point.

We looked at that route, we said we can redesign it, we can do better.

And we did, and ridership is up the most on that particular route, the one he rode.

It still doesn't serve his home very well because we just can't put enough service on the road uh to serve all the places that have grown in Canyon County.

But what we did do is take that route and make it more productive for the people who can use it and use it easily.

So we think that this is really an example of why the system in Canyon County is so important and why it we think it's working as well as it can uh given the constraints that we're gonna use.

No, that's fine.

You might you might get to it.

Um I will take it now, yeah.

You know, sure it would be interesting.

Yeah, thank you.

That's that's a great point.

Yeah.

So lots of it was in the memo, but I know that was long in detail.

So prior to uh the service change, excuse me, there were three intercounty routes in Canyon County.

One was an express from Caldwell that was not performing very well, it was only peak hour, it was irregular hours.

Another was another peak hour route uh in in NAPA that also was intercounty but wasn't express, wasn't always on the freeway.

Um, and again, it was irregular and peak hour only.

Um ridership on the express one was way down after COVID, it never recovered.

Uh ridership on the other one had been steady but not growing.

We combined both of those into one route and made it uh run all day once an hour.

That's not great service, but it's reliable service.

And we extended the hours, and so now people know, gosh, if I need to get there, I can do it.

I know it's gonna come every hour.

If I need to get home in the middle of the day, I know I can.

And we think that that's the reason that particular route really exploded in ridership.

Another of the intercounty routes just didn't have enough service on it, so we took a few more of those service hours and added some peak hour trips, extra peak hour trips to it, uh, so that it could better serve the College of Western Idaho.

And then finally, we combined all of the senior center services into one service that goes between both counties.

Uh used to be five different zones.

You couldn't travel between zones.

There were 12 different phone numbers to call.

Uh it wasn't a coordinated database, and now it is.

And we've also seen ridership on that gain a lot.

The on demand system, frankly, has lost a few riders, but the reason for that is because now that that Route 42 that comes every hour is so reliable that a lot of people that were using on demand are now using it.

Um again, overall ridership is up.

We know that on demand actually has uh unmet demand, and we don't have enough seats available, which is part of the reason ridership is falling now, because now riders are asking for different trips, and the pattern that we were in with the on demand isn't serving them as well.

So we're doing a couple of things.

We're commingling it with our paratransit service.

Um, and we're doing a better job, I think our customer service crew is doing a better job really understanding what how to optimize the trips that we're being asked to provide so that we can make sure that everyone has a seat available at least at some point close to when they need it.

Uh so you know, in general, that's what we've done, and I don't know if you'd have anything to add to that, Stephen, but um we think that the overall data shows that we made the right choices in targeting those improvements.

Um here's a little bit more about that.

The on-demand boundaries were also clarified before they were sort of a cloud, and they didn't they were hard to look at and say, am I in, am I out?

And now it's pretty clear because uh clear cut on roadways.

So I mentioned the commingling.

Um, you guys have asked us to innovate a lot.

Uh, council member Bills at one point ask us, and then and also council members in Caldwell, what could we do to get more rides out of the service we're already providing?

And so one of the things we're doing is that commingling.

Um it's possible because we've really leaned into technology.

We have a database provider that um, like I say, we used to have five different zones and five different databases, they combined those into one.

In doing that, they now have a base that they can add those other services like our paratransit service, which is if if you're disabled and qualifying and you live within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed route, and the Route 42 now qualifies for that, uh, then you are guaranteed by the Americans for Disability Act uh a ride on uh transit system that's door-to-door if you can't otherwise get to the transit system.

Because that zone actually shrunk as we did this service area, um, we have found uh that the drivers, the operators on that system aren't always busy because it's a guaranteed ride.

You have to schedule an operator all day, every day in case somebody needs it.

And so we've taken all those extra hours when they weren't busy and now added them into the on-demand because of the technology being able to say, oh, here's a ride that matches uh the ride that that paratransit needs to make, or here's a ride that's short enough that that paratransit driver can make that trip before they have another paratransit trip.

And um it's only been in place for three weeks at this point.

Um early data shows that it's um successful and people really haven't discovered it yet.

We had about a 13% gap in uh seats available when we started, and we've we've had that.

We only have a six percent gap now, so we think that this is gonna be really helpful.

We're launching a van pool this spring in Canyon County.

There's long been a van pool in Ada County commuter ride that ACHD runs by state statute.

They can't run a van if it doesn't touch Ada County.

And as growth has happened, there's lots and lots of trips from Canyon County to GEM to Payette to Hawaii and so forth that don't touch Ada County, and we've not been able to serve those trips.

We found a private operator who, because of the partnership with us, can make this work.

Us bringing our resources to the table, both federal money and also our outreach team and our contacts and trust within the community organizations and employers, allows them to, with their resources, bring the vans and the drivers to the table and start a van pool program with no cost to any of you.

So we're really excited about that.

It's ready to launch here pretty quickly.

And then finally, supplemental services.

We've been digging into that in Ada County.

We think there's a real opportunity in Canyon County to do some of that.

There's lots of events here.

The Fort Idaho Center has a lot of events.

Canyon County Fairgrounds has a lot.

Downtown Caldwell has been suffering from a lot of congestion and a lack of parking during your winter festival and during the Indian Creek Festival.

We think there's ways that we can help with that.

So we'd love to explore bringing more of that to Canyon County.

We've been able to date, we have very small budget that is the base for this, and to date we've been able to cover the remainder of the budget with advertising and other things because those routes do attract a lot of eyes that advertisers are interested in.

And so we'd like we'd love to explore that with all of you.

So one point I'd like to make is that despite all of the growth that we've seen, despite all the growth in ridership, we really are losing ground in terms of service hours.

Our service hours have declined 6% while population is increased 15%.

That means service hours per capita are down almost 20%.

Like I said, we've we've been operating in a two more with less environment.

We're happy to continue doing that.

We'll do as well as we can, but at some point there's there's a risk of widening service gaps that we'll be having a hard time trying to fill, and just want to make you aware of that.

By the way, um we've been trying to keep up, uh, not by asking for more funding, but by doing these innovations.

Um we think we can do that for a little while longer.

I'll talk about my hope that you'll stay with us while we find a more stable funding source so that we don't lose ground in the meantime.

So we did some outreach in Canyon County a bit ago.

Um, again, at the request of both of these councils, what do our what are our folks think?

And uh we we found that there was a tremendous amount of support for actually expanding transit.

Uh people do understand the funding challenges and they know that that's probably not gonna be a choice that's made soon, but they know that their lives would be better if we could do it.

90% of the folks that we survey said, yes, it's good for all of you to commit public funding to transit in the way that you're doing it today because it makes it really makes a difference in our lives.

Only 5% supported uh service cuts of the people that that we reached.

And we did broad outreach.

We put it out on social media, we put it out on advertising, we had a public event, uh, we interviewed many of the organizations in Canyon County that we work with.

The top themes were frequency hours and reliability, and that's what we've been trying to provide with our innovations.

So I think you all know that if service is lost, it will have an impact on your community.

We thought we'd share with you the things that we heard during that public outreach.

People said that they would miss more work, school, medical visits.

The organizations we work with told us it would create greater pressure on them and on the emergency service systems that you all also support that support many of these folks.

And the disproportionate impact would be on your seniors, on low-income riders, and especially on riders with disabilities who don't qualify for their paratransit system.

The other big thing is that there would be potential economic losses.

We bring eight and a half million dollars to the table in Canyon County today, and without that or without a portion of that, the multipliers that that brings to the table would also be lost.

And we think they're significant.

We know the direct multipliers are three to one, and nationally it shows that they're five to one when you get into the indirects.

So another thing we did to respond to all of this was redo our transit development plan into a transit and development operations plan.

In doing that, we really tried to create a five-year look into the future that allowed us to continue operating the services that we have today without asking for tremendous amounts of more money.

And we also took a good look at the capital needs and took the ones that weren't absolutely necessary off and put them into a contingent area where we could negotiate on them.

And so overall this new plan, a plan that had frankly been controversial with our board in the past because they in part didn't understand it, and in part it wasn't trying to be as economic as maybe we've made it today.

We think that what it does is offer you a look into the future so that as you're trying to figure out how to plan the road, not just this year, you can say, well, this is what VRT is expecting of us.

Can we build that in or can we not?

And if you can't, gives you and us the opportunity to have a discussion about it before it becomes that budget year and really talk about what the uh solutions might be.

Um we've tried hard to manage growth not just in budgets, but growth in the system, recognizing, as I said, that we're not keeping up with growth in the population of the valley, and at some point we're gonna have to address that if we're gonna have the kind of transit system that I think would serve this valley well.

So, what does it mean?

Um frankly, it means that we've projected for this year that the contributions we'd be asking of all of you are flat, pretty much.

Um actually very flat.

And we've done that uh in, as I said, in a couple of ways.

One was uh keep inflationary pressure under three and a half percent.

Um was in doing that, still maintain the baseline service that we have today.

And then the third was that any expansion or any bigger capital expense that we foresee coming down the road is put into a contingency area, and we'll only do those if uh through negotiation with all of you uh you decide that's uh uh expenditure that is worthwhile making for for your residents.

Uh so this is kind of the starting point.

This is a projection, but we're committed to keeping to this projection unless something major catastrophic would happen, we'd have to come to you and talk about it.

So today our recommended actions are that you confirm that you've seen this baseline, that it's something that you can at least consider and work with.

We hope as you build your budget, if you think you can't make this baseline, that you come to us as soon as possible and tell us why and work with us on what else to do.

But we would uh humbly request that you do try to keep to this baseline so that we can keep service what it has.

Uh Ben serve your residents in the way that they they know makes their lives better.

Uh we're gonna launch the van pool and monitor the adoption.

We think that um that's gonna help employers, especially in Western Canyon County, so Caldwell, because those are the employers that have been hard to where it's been hard to attract workers from the even further western counties.

Uh but there's also a lot of employers in NAMPA who are in that same boat.

Um we're gonna continue to scale the commingled demand response operations.

Uh we think there's um another way to uh actually improve that service as we look at other things that we've got in our our our under our hat.

So we'll continue to look at that and try to expand the seats available on the on-demand service without asking for more money.

Um we'd like to uh develop an event service pilot, probably with each of you, maybe uh multiple ones.

We'd we'd love to work with your staffs on figuring out which of the events we could best serve and how we'd get started.

We have a uh the board has been generous in giving us a $50,000 budget every year as a pot to start from, and uh we have some of that available soon that we could uh pilot some events in your communities.

What that does is let us see if that is an event that attracts writers and whether or not it's an event that we can attract advertisers to, and then we can see if it's uh one that can be sustainable.

Um then we're working to start a quarterly uh performance dashboard.

Uh we'll do one that is uh aimed at Canyon County specifically.

Um our performance reports to date have been pretty generic, uh just an up and down arrow on a list of services that you may or may not know what they mean or what they are.

Uh the new dashboard is gonna have much more robust graphics that will tell you where that ridership uh up or down fits within our targeted goals, um, where it is in terms of uh comparison to other services and those kinds of things.

So we're we're pretty excited about that.

Um so we're asking that that you not only support us doing that, but actually work with us to use it together.

So here's what we know.

We know that um growth requires coordinated mobility options.

I think to date uh in our two counties, uh, especially in Canyon County, uh, that growth has primarily depended on one way to get around.

Um it works for certainly the vast majority of people, but for the people it doesn't work for, it doesn't work.

36% of the residents in the Treasure Valley can't or don't drive.

Um that means that a third of your residents are left to figure out a different way somehow, whether it's asking their neighbor or their relative, whether it's uh parents becoming chauffeur parents or chauffeurs for their parents.

Um we we think that transit can and should play a bigger role in the valley, especially as it grows.

We know that transit can be an affordability mechanism.

We know that in places where transit is a better option that people pay less on average for transportation.

People in this valley pay 22% of their income for transportation in transit rich areas that can be significantly less, um lower than 10% in the most transit rich areas of the country.

I don't predict that we'll get there, but I would hope that we could get to the 15% of income that makes it affordable for most families.

And I believe that we can provide the service that would get us there.

Our data shows that there's demand that we're we're providing value and that your people support it.

Um we're trying to respond by being innovative and efficient.

And our next step is to align uh our commitments uh and your commitments on implementation of some of these things I brought to you today.

And with that, we'd love to have your questions.

Thanks, Elaine.

Appreciate uh the work you're doing.

Uh hopefully this is informative.

I know our cities are linked, as she noted in many ways.

So the hope was uh rather than Elaine having to do the same thing twice for our respective councils, we can consolidate kind of um these education efforts.

I I have a couple questions, Elaine.

I on the numbers for the route uh 40 and 42.

I know that's a pretty big route, a long route.

Those numbers, there's there's a note of change with percent within Nampa and Caldwell, is that because the the ridership originated Nampa and Caldwell?

I just want to make sure that those numbers aren't reflecting people who are getting on the route closer to necessarily, let's say Boise, and it doesn't necessarily reflect ridership where you know it originates or concludes in NAPA or Caldwell.

Yes, we have this.

So if you're looking at the at the chart that's in the packet, and there's a couple columns there.

The the ridership columns in FY23, 4, and 5, those are total ridership.

So that's all boardings on the route.

And then you have the percent change, which is just between 24 and 25.

The percent NAMPA and percent Caldwell is the percent of boardings on that route that occur in NAMPA and in Caldwell.

Okay, that originate within.

Can you can you um I don't know if it's on here?

Can you show us what route 40 and 42 is?

I know I scrolled uh kind of back and forth.

Or do you have that easily accessible?

Um I do.

I would have to I would have to bring up another one.

Let's see.

Uh I don't know.

Is everyone already familiar with Route 40 and 42?

Okay.

Um page 10 and 11 in the packet.

Yes.

You have you have maps of it all in the package.

Um if you have your packets, uh, if you join the meeting, you can it's paying.

I don't think all of us have I mean in our respective council chambers.

I think we have screens where we see stuff, but we don't have that here, so we're really relying on the single screen.

Let me look to bring it up.

I think I've got it here.

Excuse me, Mayor, will that packet be available to all of us then?

Or it is uh available.

Um we got it a couple days ago.

Or is it PDF?

Um as you're looking that up, I so route thanks for answering this far as the that's where the route where the ridership's originating on 4042.

I Route 43 went off.

I I know you're multitasking.

What was Route 43?

Because it looks like that that that's no longer a route.

Yeah, Route 43 was uh was a direct route from Caldwell to downtown Boise.

And it ran I by the time we consolidated it with the Route 40, I think we were down to one or two trips uh a day between Nampa or between Caldwell and Boise, and we rolled both of those all those service hours together into the Route 40.

So you ended up with more service between Caldwell, NAMPA and Boise than you had before.

Okay.

And so it's interesting is like Route 40 is showing an overall two percent uh drop, however, it does show an increase in NAMPA and Caldwell if you were to make that bigger.

So does that reflect I just want to make sure the number I am understanding the numbers right?

So on Route 40 overall pretty stable year over year, however, it's showing a 21% increase in NAMPA and a 14% increase in Caldwell.

Is that reflecting that though it's pretty flat overall on the total route of Route 40, it actually saw an increase in Canyon County ridership.

Okay.

Again, I want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Here's the Route 42.

Okay.

Um you can see that it it uh travels from our Happy Day Transit Center.

One of the things that we've talked to Caldwell about on and off is whether or not we could um move it uh to start from downtown Caldwell and what uh that might cost.

And pull that up a little bit on the on the plus sign to just like focus on the left side of that sheet.

Zoom in.

Uh huh.

Just click on that plus sign on the lower right.

That'll make it larger.

Magnifying glass with the plus there you go.

There we go.

Sorry.

There you go.

Yeah.

Okay.

A little bit of yeah, a little better.

So this route originates at the Happy Day Transit Center.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Today it originates at Happy Day.

And you're talking about maybe moving that to downtown Caldwell.

Um we don't have any specific service change plans for 27 right now.

But this is this was a route that Elaine was talking about where it used to have a midday, it didn't add a gap in the middle of the day.

And uh it's routing through NAMPA was different before this 24 service change.

It used to go out on Cherry and missed downtown because we had different routing.

So we consolidated it to serve the main court or the Nampa Caldwell corridor, and we filled in the midday gap, and so it runs hourly throughout the whole day.

And and this is one that we've seen significant ridership growth on that outpaces the number of hours we put into it.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

Besides running hourly through the whole day during the peak hour before it was inconsistent, whether it was hourly or half hourly, and people just didn't know when it was going to come.

Now they know when it's gonna come.

Okay, and then Route 40 is the one that um Yeah, I'll get there.

There we go.

This is 40.

Okay.

That originates this one originates in Caldwell.

Gotcha.

Uh right by Simplot Stadium, essentially.

And then runs down the boulevard, gets on the freeway, gets off again at Garrity, and then again at 10 mile and then downtown Boise.

So it makes connections between Nampa, sorry, Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, and downtown Boise.

I want to hog all the questions.

I have one one more for now.

Well, actually, I have a subset.

Uh so Route 45, since we're on the routes, 45 saw the biggest increase as far as percentage, other than like the Canyon County Rides to Wellness, which I I have another question about that.

Um I want to just notice like no the major variances, like big jumps.

And so um Route 45 saw big jump, but that's the NAMPA specific.

That's that's CWI to Boise State.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that why NAMPA's, I mean, obviously our cost asked is going to be higher than um Caldwell, but the the gap is bigger than our population proportion.

So I'm guessing part of that is because we have this additional route that's only originating in the APA and and going to Boise State.

And because your population um also demands more of the on-demand.

On the on-demand.

So both both of those makes sense.

Um I would note CWI is also a contributor to the service um on this route.

And um without their service contribution, both of your contributions would require more.

Gotcha.

Okay, that's helpful.

Mayor, I would actually add with for the Route 45, what's happening is it's a partnership between CWI, Boise State, and and Meridian.

The city of Nampa doesn't contribute specifically for the service on this route.

Okay.

But in terms of the share between Nampa and Caldwell, that's driven off of hours of sorry, miles of service.

So we take all of the network that's out there, and we'd say where are those hours being operated, and then like a cookie cutter.

We cut it up between Nampa and Caldwell, and that's that's where the hours are being provided, and that's how we come up with the the cut the share between jurisdictions.

And that's we do that across the region.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Uh it's it's really you're quantifying the usage on the mileage.

So totally get that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Beyond access, that saw a significant increase.

Can you I'm I know I'm on the board, but I'm also asking all these questions to get brought up to speed.

And I know Councilman Reynolds is on the board.

Who's who from Caldwell's on the board?

Yeah.

Is anyone?

Venmer.

Okay, perfect.

Um what is the Canyon County access?

Or well, yeah, that and the beyond sort of the specialized, I know you kind of flew through those, but I think it's really important as is we're mindful of how our constituents are accessing these services.

The beyond access is a big number as far as total usage.

And is what what is the beyond access?

I just want to make sure I understand.

So um previously there were 12 different services, mostly run by nonprofits, some of them senior centers, some of them job centers.

Um as I noted, there are five different zones and 12 different service numbers.

And um while people could could take discrete rides to lunch at the senior center, uh they couldn't uh take ride and maybe a medical trip once a week that they'd combine.

They couldn't take rides across the zones or across the county.

There were also really high administrative costs because there were 12 different administrative um functions happening and 12 different customer service actions happening.

Uh so in combining these into one big service, we did a couple of things.

We lowered the administrative costs considerably.

Um, and we expanded the service area.

So for instance, I had a uh woman last year at the uh outreach that we did here in NAMPA, who is a NAMPA resident who said, you know what, my kids live in Southeast Boise, and that's where all my grandkids are.

And I used to get to see them once a month or maybe once every two months because their lives are so busy, they didn't have time to come pick me up.

Um they had stuff to do, they had places to take the kids.

Now I can go to them.

Now I can go to those places with the kids with them, and I didn't I I wasn't able to do that before this service.

So those are the kinds of trips that this service provides.

It's older adults and disability, uh folks who qualify due to disability who can ride it.

Uh they get a door-to-door ride.

That's not the beyond access.

And it has to be um scheduled.

It's a scheduled ride, and it's not guaranteed.

It's um if there's a seat available, we've been able to make actually more seats available on beyond access in Canyon County than we have on on demand in some ways.

And so that'll be maybe the next commingling.

In Ada County, we don't have seats available on beyond access, so right now we're commingling it with the paratransit to try and provide more rides on the Ada County side.

Uh in the future, I foresee, given the technology, that all of these services can be combined in one, and we you'd have much more efficiency and many more rides available.

Is Beyond Access at least the numbers here, the 27,985?

Is that rides that originate in Canyon County?

Because I see you don't have the NAPA Caldwell specific, or is that throughout the entire valley as a whole?

I believe those are total, so that that's the regional total as opposed to regional total, okay.

And we didn't have the breakout available in the moment of Canyon County versus Ada County on those.

Okay, gotcha.

That's an important distinction.

So I just want to.

I can tell you, and this actually is um something I'm talking to Eagle about because they don't contribute very much.

Um Eagle Punches above its weight in ridership, and part of that is that their seniors are demanding it.

So we've now been working with the senior centers in both NAMPA and Caldwell to help them understand that there are rides out here, you just have to demand them.

Gotcha.

All right, I'm sure there's other questions.

I'll I'll take a pause.

Council Councilman Reynolds and Elaine, uh, one of our workshops that you were at, maybe last budget session somewhere in there.

Councilman Bilson had brought up uh about uh ridership between NAMPA and Caldwell specifically, and I was wondering what um you could talk about for routes being developed because we were talking about less and less uh people are traveling out of Canyon County for work, and uh where Canyon County develops out with more jobs and um what we could do to keep the ridership uh build the ridership between Caldwell and Nampa specifically without traveling to AD County Yeah, thanks, Councilmember Reynolds.

Um the so we were looking at how we could structure the network to provide more service within Canyon County within NAMPA specifically.

Um and the Route 42 was an example of how we were trying to do that, where we have consistent all-day service on the boulevard traveling between Nampa and Call, yeah, between Caldwell and Nampa through the downtown portion of Nampa and out Garity.

Um that's the main transit corridor for the that we've experienced over the last decade in in NAMPA.

And um the way we, as I was mentioning earlier to to the mayor, the way we allocate costs, the fact that the 42 extends to Meridian and Boise, those costs then are carried by Meridian and Boise.

So we we've continued to look at how can we how can we squeeze a little bit more efficiency to be able to put more service on the roads in Nampa and Caldwell?

But it's it's going to be coming from those services that are already in Nampa and Caldwell, if that makes sense.

And so when Elaine's talking about co-mingling and some of the other efficiencies that we brought up already about how we can maybe lower the cost of services that are provided in Napa and Caldwell, but that's the area that we're looking to be able to reallocate some of those resources into fixed route service in or because that's what we were talking about with Councilmember Bills was having more fixed route service on the boulevard within NAMPA.

That's kind of how we're approaching that.

The other idea of serving uh community events is another way that we might be able to step into that a little bit.

If we can't let me let me try and transit is expensive because you do it every single day, right?

Um you run it 255 days a year or whatever uh if you're doing weekday.

But there might be some specific events where we could have additional service uh two or three, four times, even you know, ten times around the the stampede or whatever, and that is a lot more cost, I mean, just less service, so it doesn't cost as much.

So there could be some ways that we could find some efficiencies and and do some of that targeted um service to meet specific community events within the existing budget.

It's tough to find uh efficiencies that you can spread out overall 255 weekdays of the year.

So though that's where we've that's how we've responded to that um initial request from Councilmember Bills was looking at where do we find where could we find some efficiencies and then how could we turn that into some some specific things that we feel like would be really beneficial to the community?

Thank you for that.

And uh the last question I have is uh I see it on your sheet here.

Trade Valley Transit, we see running around Nampa a lot, and I think they're privately funded.

Um but I know they've come to us before and asked for dollars to help them.

And I've I know I've talked to you, Elaine, about how maybe that could be absorbed so we don't have so many different transit services running around.

Um have you gotten anywhere with that or any update on that?

So um for the rest of you who um don't know the the history of Treasure Valley Transit Um and VRT, Treasure Valley Transit was originally the transit provider in Canyon County.

Um they started a small nonprofit to provide um service in Canyon County.

Most of it was not fixed route.

There were a couple of fixed routes, but um it uh has evolved over the years.

So then when Valley Regional Transit was formed by voted the people, um they by state statute were required to procure those services and not just give them to the provider uh that was already providing them.

They went out to procurement and Treasure Valley Transit, frankly, was not a low bidder by considerably um higher than any of the other bidders, and they did not get the Canyon County service.

In the meantime, uh Valley Regional Transit has worked hard with Treasure Valley Transit to support them in a variety of ways.

We helped them get the grant that uh helped them build their new facility.

Uh they are a sub-recipient of ours that provides non-emergency medical transport.

Uh they provide that um most expensive non-emergency medical transport because they provide it uh to folks who otherwise um can't get around uh even on a regular day.

So non-ambulatory uh wheelchair-bound folks, they provide a lot of those rides, and uh they do it very well.

In the meantime, their primary transit service has evolved into one that that serves the rest of District 3, if you know ITD districts.

So the eight counties that are not aid in Canyon County within District 3, for instance, they provide transit service in Mountain Home.

Uh they provide a fixed route service in McCall.

Uh they provide service in Fruitland and Payette.

Um they're looking to provide service in some of the other rural communities uh within that 10 county region.

Uh so their primary service in the Treasure Valley today in in Canyon County specifically is the non-emergency medical transport to Canyon County uh primarily from within Canyon County and and to some degree from uh Owai County.

And like I said, we we support them in that.

We uh appreciate that they move the folks who really can't be moved on the other kinds of non-emergency medical transport that we have available because they're not accessible.

Um but we also support that primarily uh their other services have become in those other eight counties, and I think they do a great job in those.

And we're we're trying uh overall to figure out uh an even better way to work together so that they can expand those services and become less dependent on the service that they provide here so that as we expand the beyond access and the other things we're doing, we can pick up some of that.

And overall, maybe be more efficient, if that makes sense.

Thank you.

Councilor Stoddick, could you have a question just a few questions?

I noticed the amount that the county donates.

Uh you would think that they would be donating a lot more because the trips overall in the county is a lot more expensive and and fewer riderships, I would guess.

So why are they so low compared to Nap and Calwell?

It's a great question.

Um, you know, as a as a former city person, I always ask that question as well.

Um Valley Regional Transit was set up, uh there was a decision made, unlike Compass, that the county would only be responsible for service outside city limits.

And so uh back to Steven's um description of how we provide how we uh assess those services or project them uh is based on service miles.

And so in the case of Canyon County, it's whatever service miles uh happen that are not within city limits within Canyon County, and there's frankly not very many of them.

Uh and then a general assessment that's based on population, so that one is a little bit larger, uh, but overall uh the request of them is considerably less than both both cities.

And you know, the only comment I would make to that is that you know they do share in animal shelter and other things fairly regularly and with amounts that are a lot more than this, and I just I just think that really needs to be looked at because I think it should be a lot more than what it is.

So I would agree with you, Councilmember, and I'm happy to have those discussions, but I would tell you to date they've not been very fruitful, and it might be much more um effective if we went to them together with that request, if I could.

Sure.

Okay.

Another question I had is or a comment.

Uh, do you use uh the the uh service on buses that you use from uh from the various uh transportation hubs?

Are you all on natural gas now?

Are you on fossil fuel diesel or what are you on?

Because the reason I asked that and to your consternation, because I was on the advisory board before the you know the the money that was misspent on buses with the batteries, we couldn't get parts, uh one company went out of business.

I mean, that's that's a lot of money to be spent on the excuse me, the woke type of stuff, and I just think we should stick to natural gas and diesel or fossil fuels.

That's you know, uh thank you again for that question, because I I wasn't um able to to talk about the partnership that we've been developing with the city of Napa, and I think Caldwell is interested in uh perhaps uh moving some of their biosolids to NAMPA to be part of this.

So um as uh Councilmember Stoddick said, we stepped into electric bus service in Ada County uh back in the early um 2020s, and as with any new technology, there's disruption.

Um I I'd point out, for instance, that when Valley Regional Transit moved to natural gas from diesel, um three of those buses burned up, one of them exploded.

New technology does that.

You have to um, as those disruptions happen, you have to have support to get through them to figure out how to make them work right.

So, yes, we've had some disruptions with the electrical stuff in Ada County.

We now have our last batch of electric buses in Ada County are amazingly good buses.

They run 17 hours a day on one charge.

Uh our drivers love them, our riders love them.

Um, having said that, as I looked into the energy future, it was clear to me that it was unclear where the United States was going and what was going to be available.

And not to expand our electric bus fleet in Ada County on the large bus side in the meantime.

Because there are great efficiencies in using compressed natural gas buses, both in the cost of the buses, but also because the city of NAMP is exploring taking their methane from their wastewater treatment plant and converting it into natural gas.

And if we can use that, it lowers our carbon footprint on natural gas by half.

And it's already much lower than diesel would be.

So maybe not quite as efficient as electric overall, but awfully darn close.

And as you note, much more reliable at this point in the technology development.

So yes, our next batch of big buses are going to be compressed natural gas.

We just received a grant that's going to allow us to rebuild our natural gas infrastructure in Boise at our base there, and to add natural gas infrastructure in our Canyon County facility.

And in doing that, we have money that we can uh share with NAMPA on their project to uh convert their methane into natural gas.

So uh we're doing everything we can to be a partner in that, and yes, uh you're correct.

Right now, natural gas is a very reliable fuel, and we're leaning back into that for the time being.

Okay, I'm glad to hear that because I think the decision to go to the battery uh operated buses, and we still have a problem, a large problem with disposal of those batteries was more of a political thing than a practical thing, in my opinion.

Having been on the board that your last question I have is or suggestion, I would sure like to see the uh Valley Rapid Transit put together a consortium of private industry, because see private industry in my opinion does a lot better job than most government departments, that's obvious, and get those folks together and just see how you folks could be the hub as far as making sure the schedules are met, uh everything is banned properly, and see what they can do for us rather than you know you haven't the burden of of trying to supply all the service.

Because again, I think some of these private outfits, I think would be glad to come in and show you what they can do and cost and everything else.

I'd I'd sure like to see that in the in the near future.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I would note um our communications chief is also here, and we've been working hard, we've expanded our communications department with a business accountant person who's been working really hard with private industry to understand their needs and how we can better serve them.

So hear you on that.

Thank you.

The only other thing I'd add to that is we do um we do put out our we don't directly operate our services, so we're already contracting all of all of our services with private industry, and and that's a competitive process where we ask for um for bids in order to maintain competitiveness on on price and service.

So some of you ask about the um the options on um supplemental service in Caldwell.

Uh we could run the Route 42 longer into the evening and extend it perhaps into downtown.

We certainly could use the Route 40 to serve the fairgrounds.

Um if we're able to establish the Route 56 at some point, we can um do service into downtown from Happy Day into downtown, uh especially for events in downtown, and um a plaza circulator could could run around that in NAMPA uh again run the 42 longer into the evening.

There's lots of places that that route could hit, particularly uh the Fort Idaho Center.

We've already talked to CWI about that, and they're excited about the possibility.

Um then finally the 42 also goes all the way to Townsquare Mall, which means that we could attract folks who are coming from Boise who now sit on the freeway, sit in traffic, create traffic for all of you, create parking issues for all of you, get them off the road and on a bus.

Um we have some ex uh you know examples of of what that would cost.

Here's the uh service area for the van pool.

Um, and we're excited about that because we we know that there are uh folks in Jam Payette and Hawaii County who are only coming to Canyon County and today can't join a van pool and with this new service they could.

So, Elaine?

So could you give us an idea how much state and federal money you bring to Canyon County?

For what?

State and federal money, the supplements comes into Canyon County.

Sure.

So about um 50 percent of our budget is federal.

Uh it depends year to year on how much is operating, how much is capital?

Uh we have a lower match rate for capital, so when we have a lot of big capital projects, we have more of a federal share.

When we have fewer capital projects, we have a little bit less, but it ranges between 45 and 55 percent.

The state of Idaho is the only state in the United States that doesn't have dedicated funding for transit.

Um I'll repeat that.

The state of Idaho is the only state in the United States that doesn't have any dedicated funding for transit.

So roughly in dollars, how much is that that we're getting from the federal government?

Do you know?

The the amount right now, so right now we spend um between 13 and 14 million in local funds, and for that we spend another 14 or 15 million in federal funds to operate the services.

Okay.

That's system-wide, that's not just in Canyon County.

In Canyon County, uh it's uh total of eight million, I think, um, and about half of that is local.

That includes ridership fares and advertising, it's not just the money from the local governments.

And do you have any expectation on the federal side if that's going to change considering how currently there's actually uh a bit of a challenge on the horizon if and when uh NAMPA and Caldwell become a large urban area, our local match share will go down, will go up on uh operating right now.

We operate at a much lower rate in Canyon County than in 80 County because you're small urban, so we get more federal money and less local uh once we tip over, just like the Boise Airport just tipped into a medium hub status, you get less federal funding.

So um it's not tomorrow, but we're aware of it and we're watching it, it's on the horizon.

We're gonna have to figure out how to deal with it.

Elaine, are you able to provide the threshold to us?

What when we reach that, when is that?

Like what's the population amount?

And is it total population for the county or is it based upon the cities?

Say that again.

I'm sorry.

Threshold, so since we're lower than Canyon County.

Sorry, Ada County.

What at what point will we reach that and when should we expect those cost changes for us?

I don't recall the exact threshold, but it wouldn't, to my knowledge, it wouldn't be triggered until the 2030 census.

Yeah.

Um and that's when there would be a a change in what we're talking about is whether or not the the metropolitan area becomes large or small.

And that that's a determination that would happen with the 2030 census, and then that would change uh federal.

And it would take a two year couple of years to filter through.

So we're we're sort of preparing for that on the horizon.

But I do believe from Compass's projections that they expect that that would happen at the 2030 census.

Yeah.

Whatever the threshold is.

It's it's a right now it's a 200,000 population threshold.

There's some conversation.

I'm involved in uh reauthorization conversations federally.

There's some conversation about increasing that threshold to 250 or some other number.

I don't know that that will happen.

Uh if it if it did, it would help us, frankly.

Any other questions?

I I don't have any additional questions to what everybody has asked, but I just wanted to um thank you for your tenacity.

And I know this is a is a huge passion thing for you, and I feel like you've been kind of beat up over the last few years.

So I just really appreciate all the time and effort you've put into this to give us all this new information and make the changes that you're doing and um all the just working together.

So I just wanted to let you know that um that I think that at least I think everybody in this room is very thankful for that and for being here.

Well, thank you.

That that means a lot.

You know, I like I say, I served at the local level, and I know what it's like to come in and be tasked all of a sudden with understanding a sewer system that you know nothing about, for instance, in my case, and having to learn about it so that you can make a decent decision.

So my goal has been both to help you all understand, but also to respond to the things that you're asking of us in a way that um does uh answer your questions and hopefully use the funding that you so generously contribute to us uh in the most efficient way that we can.

So I I really appreciate hearing that.

That means a lot.

I just have a quick question.

Um since I'm the newbie, can you tell me what year uh the Valley Transit um began, the VRT?

Sure.

So the um state legislature created us uh statute called the Regional Transportation Authority statute in 1994.

In 1998, there was a vote in both Ada County and Canyon County, a separate vote uh on whether or not to form a regional transportation authority.

Uh that vote was positive in Ada County was 69%.

In Canyon County, it was over 70%.

And we've always believed that that's the case because Canyon County residents are actually more dependent on um intercounty travel than Ada County residents are, and so they understood.

Then in 1999, the um formation boards of both of those organizations got together and decided to form one organization rather than two and make it regional rather than county by county because of the efficiencies.

Uh in 2003, uh Valley Regional Transit then called via Trans uh assumed the uh bus service in Boise that Boise had been running called Boise Urban Stages, and then in 2005 we began operating in Canyon County after the procurement here.

That's impressive.

You rattled all that off.

I know, right?

There's no cheese or anything.

Well, I used to I I have 50 credits in history, even though there was no history minor at Boise State.

So Boise Junior College probably so Elaine, just and this is kind of a just a off question.

I don't know if you can answer it.

But right now I get the idea that most of the people that ride our buses are people who need to ride the buses.

How do we transition to where people want to ride the buses?

I want to leave my car in the garage and just get on a bus and save myself the headache.

How do we transition, get that mindset and the availability to where people ride the buses to stay out of traffic, just like you kind of discussed earlier?

Well, within existing resources, I think our our best shot is the supplemental services.

We'll attract people who really don't want to sit in that traffic on the freeway trying to get to an event, don't want to deal with the parking once they get there, and they'll discover that riding the bus maybe isn't as um hard as they thought it was, that maybe is more convenient than they thought it might be.

Uh we've certainly run into that in Ada County.

Um, but to be honest, we won't be able to attract the kind of riders that we're attracting in Ada County until we find a more stable funding source.

And I guess that leads me to the one thing I haven't talked about.

Um our board supported me to uh develop and share a conceptual draft uh discussion legislation.

Um it's it's not a piece of legislation that we expect to be introduced as is.

It's a uh piece of legislation that responds to legislators who've told me, well, I I don't think that I would ever vote to give you sales tax.

I don't think we'd ever establish an income tax.

I can't see a wage tax.

Maybe giving you levy authority like every other political subdivision in the state of Idaho is something I'd at least look at.

So I've heard that repeatedly over the last two or three years.

And uh this legislation is designed to say, okay, here it is, trial balloon, what do you think?

Poke at it, pop it if you want to, uh, tell me what's good, what's bad, uh, what you could support, what you couldn't.

I don't know that that's the answer.

What I do know is that there has to be some kind of dedicated funding if we're ever going to get to the point that you talk about where uh people who don't just have to ride but really um find it more convenient to ride will do that.

City of Spokane Valley, the the Spokane metro area is exactly the same size we are.

I mean, within two percent.

And um it's it's a pretty similar region to ours demographically and even physically.

It's got a river, it's linear, it's got a major city at one end of that metro area.

They do have a dedicated sales tax in their case.

If you look around the country, it's either sales tax, property tax, or a wage tax almost exclusively around the country.

Those are the three ways that transit is paid for.

And they with that provide about three and a half times more service than we do.

We have a plan about what it would look like if we were able to provide that much service.

They have 10 million riders a year.

We have just a few over a million.

We have 1.2 million, I think.

So imagine what this region would be like if there were 9 million cars less on the road.

We know that we could contribute to mitigating congestion.

We know that we could contribute to mitigating the affordability crisis that we have, and we know what it would take, but it doesn't come free.

And so the question will be are people willing to pay more in order to get more of that kind of service.

And that'll be the question we'd have to ask.

But it would be up to voters.

It wouldn't be up to us, wouldn't be up to the legislature.

We're just asking for a chance to ask the constituents like we did in 1998, whether they wanted to form this organization or not, if they're willing to actually pay for it.

So I hope as we uh you know move forward through these next two or three years and we talk about this, um, the business community is starting to get behind it, that all of you will engage in that conversation.

If you don't think that's the right way to go, tell us what is the right way to go.

Uh if you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

Uh but one way or the other, if we want to get to a place like a Spokane, like a Reno, like a Las Vegas, even at this point, um, and the kind of ridership they have, we've we've got to lean in somehow and figure out a way to pay for it.

Yeah, the you know, it the the and this is just my presumption, but the the ridership that we have now is not the people that shows up at council meetings and says, we want more, we need you to do this and this.

But if, you know, we're all politicians unfortunately.

Um if you had if if you had this groundswell of people that are saying we need this service, this service just again saves me a hundred bucks a month in gas or whatever, and you and you start building that that pressure, you know, yeah that you know uh transit is important to us, it's important to our lifestyle.

Then again, we're gonna listen better.

You know what I mean?

And and so anyway, I'm just trying to figure out how we can start moving forward to a more I want this, then this is the only way I'm gonna get to groceries kind of thing.

I I appreciate that, and here's my observation.

I have five kids and 15 grandkids, and as I watch them, um all five of the kids are much more interested in transit than my generation was.

I learned to ride transit.

I grew up in Denver.

Well, I I was born in Idaho, and then we moved to Denver uh for much of my childhood.

And Denver had an incredibly good bus system, and my mother didn't drive.

And I learned how to get around the city using the bus, and it was a great experience.

And so I'm kind of unusual, at least in Idaho, I think, for my generation.

I don't think that experience was uh available to folks.

Uh my kids, on the other hand, I encouraged all of them to go experience the world, and all of them lived in places at one point or another that had really good transit, and they really learned to appreciate it and understand why it was valuable.

They're all now back here, um, and they wish they had it here.

Their kids don't want to get a driver's license.

Their kids don't want to spend their lives driving every day.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I don't know which at this point.

Leadership, political leadership, not just around this table, but at the state house and elsewhere doesn't reflect that demographic yet.

And so you're right, the only way to let them understand how important it is is to organize those folks who are saying, I I want more choices, I want to be able to get around differently to talk to them.

We're trying to do that.

We had a transit day at the Capitol this year.

We had more participation than we had last year.

Uh the chamber, Boise Metro Chamber is forming an alliance called Keep Idaho Moving that I think is going to support us.

Um it would be great if the chambers in this region did that.

We're starting a youth um ride program with the city of Boise uh this summer to make sure that all of the tweens and kids old enough to ride on their own, get a free bus pass and learn how to do it.

Uh we'd love to be able to do the same thing here.

Um I think that groundswell over time will make this happen.

I just hope it happens soon enough that that it can make the difference it needs to in dealing with the growth we're facing.

I'd add maybe just a couple other points.

One is when we did uh Canyon County Transit Day last year, one of the things that was exciting was that we found uh you know you had a lot of different people using the service, a lot of different kind of people using the service.

And in fact, one of our board members went to college only because of the service between Caldwell and and um and Boise to uh Boise State.

And uh but for that transportation, he thought he wouldn't be head headed to college.

So even though the numbers are small, it's not just and not that we need to say just anybody, but it's it you have you do have people that are using the system to live their lives and to you know achieve the the goals that they have every day.

Um the biggest, in my view, maybe the two biggest barriers to wider adoption is the constant threat that it might not be there tomorrow, which gets news when we talk about every year, well, is this gonna get funded?

Is it not gonna get funded?

Um is one thing that makes it difficult.

And and we we try to be responsive to both the community and and the council's wishes, but sometimes that results in you know, lots of tweaking that make it difficult to say, like, yeah, I think this is something that the community supports, and I can because you you're gonna make some pretty big financial decisions to either opt into transit or not.

Like, do I buy a car, do I not buy a car?

And once you buy a car, you've got a sunk cost, and it's just easier to continue to do that, right?

So some of these costs are big, and they require a little bit of trust that what you're gonna be providing over the long term is gonna be there.

So just the the environment that we're in right now doesn't send a lot of strong signals to the general public that transit's gonna be there for the long term and then they can make good financial decisions um to to rely on it.

The second though is just the amount of service we have is is too low.

Um when we talk about the hours per capita, service hours per capita, the the amount of service that we provide to move people uh is what was it?

I think it's like a between a tenth and point one and point two hours per person is all we provide per year, right?

So what is that?

Six minutes, six minutes of transit per person is what we're providing.

And we can't expect that that amount of service is going to provide a substantial amount of traffic um mobility or mobility, not traffic, but the a substantial amount of mobility for the riding public.

So those are the biggest factors in my mind of how do we make that transition.

But we it's stuff that we're we're working on every day to elevate the visibility of of transit, to show that we're here for the people and to have these conversations with you all.

And what Elaine was talking about trying to have some sort of stability when we talk about funding over the long term.

I have a question on on funding.

Um how dependent is the commitment for both of our cities to maintain Route 40 and 42.

It's a good idea.

Gotcha.

We can't spend the federal money unless we have local money to match it.

Yeah.

And the way that we do our funding structures, so if you if you've got a 10 mile route and there's two miles in two miles three miles in Caldwell, four miles in Nampa, I'm shooting, my math is bad.

But you you know, you got a couple miles in each jurisdiction, and one jurisdiction decides to pull out.

I mean you could trim the ends, but if it's a middle jurisdiction, then somebody's got to cover the difference.

And that's an important point because the way the contribution structure works is based on the mileage of routes.

And so when someone's outbound in Caldwell or Nampa going to Boise and back, um that route, Meridian Boise is picking up you know, their cost share of of really the miles of that route, right?

Okay.

Yes.

Um and so we're paying our share based on mile miles of the route.

Yes.

Um I appreciate what you're saying.

There's kind of a qualitative and quantitative measurement on this, and I think it's important.

I know that I think our our council, at least traditionally, and as a former council member is concerned about good use of taxpayer money, and it usually moves straight to a quantitative assessment of how many people are on the bus and what's the subsidy.

Um there should be a qualitative assessment as well as who or who is on the bus and what would be the alternative if this didn't exist.

And I I think it's challenging from a public policy standpoint.

Um I think both need to weigh on on our our decisions and but that qualitative assessment is a challenging one.

But I think we do hear it, we're mindful that there are people who use this that the service wasn't available.

It's easy to say, well, they can jump on an Uber or whatever.

Um the Uber would maybe be the cost prohibitive.

So the subsidy is actually you know serving in one degree as a sort of a social safety net to some degree.

Um the concern I have uh without state funding is that there's also a traffic congestion mitigation element, and there's no tech money, even if there's a cent or something.

I I don't know from TECM.

I think part of the strategy is that if you actually get ridership up, that's fewer people in a car at the red light, fewer people requiring parking lots, and that would affect a lot of our land use decisions when it comes to parking minimums, especially the downtown core where I think Caldwell and NAPA were you know, uh parking garages are very expensive propositions, and and you're really um and we're not generating tax revenue generally off a public uh structure, if that could be um a private multi-use facility that would generate a lot more revenue.

I'm just wondering if there's any other community where there's sort of a density credit on the parking minimums that goes into a transit fund because you're gonna be more transit-dependent, if that makes sense.

Because the convenience of driving into somewhere and finding parking is maybe the deterrent to someone going into that area.

Whereas if you had convenient transit into that area where you can stop, get off the bus, go to the event, enjoy it, and then get back on a bus, even if it's speeding off, maybe not my house, but yeah, another you know, I park somewhere and jump on a route.

So like from a public policy standpoint on state funding, has there been any momentum at all at viewing transit as a congestion mitigation as is one of the things in the portfolio of a strategy because also adding a lane is very expensive too.

But the the m you know we're seeing significant costs.

And expansion of our road network doesn't always deliver the mitigation um of congestion that we think it does, and that becomes a very costly proposition at times as well.

You you bring up uh a ton of really good points.

Um I'll work backwards.

The um congestion mitigation fund is one that I initially did have some conversations around the um policy um atmosphere at the legislature's been pretty difficult the last couple of years because of the budget challenges that they've been facing, and so that hasn't gone anywhere, but I know uh that there's support uh within the business community and the AGC to explore that.

I think it's a good way to do it.

Um on the on the parking, um, I'd say that we're now at a point in the city of Boise where the transit is robust enough in a few places that they are using it uh in land use decisions to reduce parking minimums and do other things.

Um they created a plan called um their transportation action plan in it, they identified three best in class corridors where they wanted the best transit service, and then they began planning around those corridors in terms of land use for um the kinds of uh changes that they could make if they had that best in class service at the same time.

We worked really hard with them to figure out how to provide it.

And I I'm happy to say with that service change that we did in 24, where we changed the routes here, we also changed routes in Boise.

Um, and all three of those corridors now have 15 minute service, which is what we were aiming for for best in class.

We're looking actually to expand it in a couple of places, and it has allowed them to um approve land use with less parking.

And you you see it most in downtown.

Um downtown has the combination of all three routes coming in.

And uh if you see all of the really really high density development in downtown, it's all done with no parking minimum requirement.

All obviously all of them are building some parking based on market, uh, but they know they don't need to build as much.

Um State Street, we're beginning to see the same thing.

And on Fairview, they just had an apartment complex approved that uh got a big parking reduction as a result of the 15 minute service.

Uh VISTA's lagging a little bit behind because the um land use around it is already broadly um established, and so it there hasn't been as much uh building activity.

But the things that have gotten built along VISTA don't have parking um above a very minimum amount.

So um it is working, it can work, uh, but it does require require more.

I'm forgetting your first point.

I worked backwards.

Uh and I know we're we're running short on time.

I I think the the qualitative quantitative assessment.

I know sometimes people generally make the argument from just one angle or the other.

And I'm just being I'm just being open and candid that I as an example, and and certainly I face this as a city council member, so City of Boise made the same decision, same choice.

City of Caldwell a couple of years ago made a choice to spend a lot of money on a swimming pool.

And a swimming pool serves about 150 kids a year uh a day for three months of the year.

And you have to operate it.

You can't just build it, you also have to pay to operate it.

Um the choice was made to do that, both in Caldwell and in Boise because we knew that the quality of life and the service it provided to those kids was really, really important.

And um, so you know, as an example, we think of transit as this separate kind of thing, but it it really is much like many of the other service decisions we make, and you're absolutely right that there's a qualitative component to it.

Is this the kind of community we want to have?

And if it is, then it's it's worth that um not just based on the the quantitative data, but worth it based on the other piece.

Mayor, I might just add if I could real quickly um we've been working hard with both communities to try and show those other qual uh quantitative qualitative values.

In particular, I just want to point out the NAMPA-Caldwell Boulevard TOD study, which is so there obviously is a connection between how we get around and the type of development that we can have in our community.

And those are decisions that we make kind of simultaneously, and we are trying to be able to show the value that transit could bring to the community as you're looking to how to understand how do you accommodate growth and how do you how do you develop in a way that that um you know respects the the place that you are and where you want to be, and that we feel the transit certainly has a role to play in making those kinds of decisions as well.

Well, I it's we don't have to go to nine.

I know we did block out two hours, but I I found this very informative.

Are there other questions from folks?

Yes, Councilman.

I I I'm gonna I'm gonna you're uh is that Sebastian?

Uh Sebastian is there.

Um so let Councilman Robriguez go first.

I apologize.

It's uh it's councilman Bills, but uh yeah, then you'll you'll be up unless councilman Rodriguez here.

You said you're my own business.

Okay, all right.

You'll you're on deck.

Councilman Griffith.

So councilman Bills.

Well, candidly, the the elephant in the room, so to speak, is is that NAMPA carries 66 percent, two-thirds of the transit in Canyon County.

And uh for my side, uh NAMPA subsidizes the West Valley shelter as well.

So the number of uh things that happen, so with the uh great wisdom of our legislature uh changing the funding formula and doing other things to penalize the cities.

I I just feel my expression is is that NAMPA cannot continue to be uh uh the sole carrier of these types of services.

Is that uh it's a difficult circumstance and uh so uh as much as we want to continue to have compassion for those who who need the service, uh my focus was which you've made some changes and I appreciate was taking care of Kenyon County services.

Um I realize there's people a great deal of the number of people still working ADA and uh in the various cities in ADA uh as far as uh employment, but reality is Kenyon's got to have the employment center and less transit uh down I-84 back and forth.

Won't ever go away, but uh that's the need from the side I see in order to support these type of things, but it it's just important to understand that uh it's a tight deal and there's several issues forthcoming.

And uh so please don't look for NAMPA to be uh the continued carrier of everything uh in my mind.

So that's I think councilman Griffin, and then maybe you can do it, Mayor.

Yes.

I have a slight delay, so I apologize if I'm slow on my my comments here.

I'm hearing it right back into my microphone.

Uh thank you, Director Clags for your presentation.

The comments just made about Boise are interesting to me, and I appreciated the perspective.

I think I've been a council member that maybe has raised a few concerns or questions on the issue, not from the perspective of wanting to dog on transit, but trying to be budget minded.

And I I I know we've shared conversations where I said if it's something that the community desires to have routes running up and down every crossroad to be our uh transit source for a lot of people, what would that cost?

And I think the response has been somewhere in the ballpark of five to six million, that might change year after year with inflation and costs coming full circle.

What is the budget that Boise City has allotted to VRT to get the the routes, the high user rates that they currently have?

Great question.

Um so the city of Boise uh remembering that the city of Boise started all of this by funding their own bus system.

So they were fully funding uh a system uh with frankly at that point not very much federal support to begin with.

And um, so they came from a place where that was already built into their budget.

At this point, it is about five percent of their property tax revenue.

That's not their full general fund revenue, but just their property tax revenue, and uh next year it will it will be almost ten times what you guys what the city of NAMPA is being requested.

So with a a dollar amount, I don't know what their their property tax uh levy brings in.

Can you tell me what the dollar amount is?

A little over 10 million.

Thank you.

And to and once again, I don't I don't ask that question as a gotcha.

I ask it just to have a full perspective of if this is what we believe is crucial and important for NAMPA because we can make the argument and helps with mitigating traffic, and I I apologize Caldwell as well.

We have to be looking at it with our eyes open.

Obviously, it's slow bites away from 10 million dollars, but if our goal and perspective is we want to have a system like Boise's, we need to have a dollar amount and a perspective of if this is the investment we want to do, let's slowly move forward, or let's find an alternative.

And I know those are pretty dramatic differences, but as somebody who's ridden the system, found it to be very, very efficient when writing it, it's just difficult to make the argument when I have to drive in my car 3.3 miles to get to the closest bus station.

And if I and that's with a car, I'm rolling up in my Toyota RAV 4, parking it there all day just to get on the bus.

The people that were looking and hoping to serve don't have the same luxury and opportunity.

So it is difficult.

There's no perfect answer golden bullet that we're looking for.

But I I've just had a difficult time with the ridership numbers.

I know those have uh ticked up, but when you look at ticking up from two to four or two to three individuals on a bus at a time, spread across the day to four, uh, it it's just difficult, especially in the the budget climate that we're all experiencing, not just the legislature.

I appreciate the example, Councilmember Sebastian, but it is more than two to four per day.

I think it's important to point out.

And you know, Sebastian, I don't know if you were on yet, Councilmember Griffin, sorry, um, when I talked about it, but uh to your point when you rode that bus, um uh it was the old route and the old timing of it, and um partly as a result of your experience and also our own analysis, we changed that route, and it's got significantly more ridership today.

I also pointed out that it's still three and a half miles from your house because we don't have enough funding to provide the kind of service that we get it closer to your house, as you point out.

I'm not suggesting that any of you make a decision out of your current budgets to increase funding in the way uh that it would require to provide that kind of service.

I don't think in today's atmosphere, given the revenue restrictions that have been um put on cities uh by the legislature that that makes any sense, frankly, if I were sitting in your seat.

On the other hand, I am suggesting if you'll stick with us while we do as good as we can with what we have and provide as much service as we can and provide that service for those people who are most dependent on it at this point.

We'll work hard with the legislature and with your residents and with the business community to make the case uh that we should have the opportunity to ask people if they're willing to pay more.

Um it's not gonna happen within the existing tax revenue.

It's just it's it's not possible, and I understand that.

But it could happen if the people in this valley make their own choice as voters to say, yeah, I think that's worth that much more to me for what I would get, and I'm willing to vote yes uh to pay that.

But we can't get there if we have nothing to begin with.

That's that's my biggest fear.

We won't be able to make that case.

I I feel the way I do because of the experiences I had as a child riding in Denver.

We can't make the case to people if they never have an opportunity to just see a system and how it works.

And so if you'll stick with us while we figure out how to get to the funding level we need um to to provide that kind of service, or not.

If the citizens say no, we don't want it, then game on.

I don't think they're gonna say that.

I think they'll say yes, and I'm willing to take that chance.

But it's really hard to do if we're starting from nothing.

Mayor.

Yes.

I apologize.

Everybody was so excited to be able to leave 24 minutes early.

So uh if anybody wants to, they do not have to listen to me go back and forth.

Uh I don't know who made the comment if it was Mark or not.

And and I apologize I didn't clarify when I say two to three people, that was two to three people on the bus at the time for one specific route going from Nampa to Boise.

But the door's been cracked open.

Can you tell me what the average ridership is on the 40 or 42 originating in Napa or Caldwell, not Meridian or Boise, to Boise, obviously the 4042 is a day.

What are those numbers daily?

Daily counts.

Councilmember Griffin, this is Stephen, and yes, we can provide those information.

I don't have them off the top of my head now, but we could provide that.

And it just to clarify, you're asking for the average boardings in NAMPA or Caldwell on routes 40 and 42 per day.

So this will be more this will be the sum of all the trips on a route on those two routes at the 40 to 2.

Okay.

Yeah.

If you could if you could separate them, and I I know it's a difficult task, but for us, I'm not looking to cut it down to zero.

I'm looking to see where do we have the most amount of ridership to have the best return on investment.

And I know that's a horrible analogy that you use because this isn't a business decision.

It's what we need to provide for our community.

So we shouldn't be looking at the bottom line and cutting what we can because it's not an investment to us.

I think we can go rounds and rounds on that argument.

What I do know is that we have an uh uh shelter budget increase that's guaranteed.

I know in NAPA we had a pipe burst that cost us a significant amount of money, not necessarily that it comes out of our general gov dollars.

But the uh the reality is NAMPA is facing some very, very, very difficult budgeting decisions, is holding off on doing a lot of things in a lot of departments just to be able to hold our breath for another year and pray for a change in our our budgeting and dollar allocation from the legislature.

So even if we are maintaining the same dollar amount that we had previously, it's just difficult to say that that works again this year because even in the last 12 months, nine months that we had this last conversation, Tampa's had to expend a significant amount of money because of increases across the board, because of uh aging deferred maintenance that's finally given out, and uh it's a it's a tough decision.

So I say it's uh with directness not to be offensive or a bully, but the reality is as David Bills, council president bills loves to say, we can't be everything for everyone all the time.

Just got quoted.

Thank you for reminding everybody we cannot be all things all people.

Excellent.

Um and I think councilwoman registers also, I think asking for the same data.

And um, I know you have the percentage within the increases that we're in hamper call specific, but I think there's another data point in order to reverse math that uh, but I'm sure obviously there's data that you have that's informing those percentage increases.

So um I think that would be helpful.

And Councilman Griffin, you you bring up good points.

Our cities, as you've noted, uh, Elaine, we're the only state that does not contribute funding.

And so the cities are being asked to pick up more than I think a lot of cities and other states where there is a state component.

And as you've noted, the legislature's also not really done us much favors to be very discretionary with how um our our revenues can be allocated, and we're stirring down lots of challenges.

And I appreciate you being mindful of that.

I think we're no one's arguing against that point that we're collectively facing challenges of how do you provide the services to our citizens with uh scarcity of uh resources and and not a lot of help from the state when it comes to any direct funding.

So I um Mayor Caldwell, any any final questions or comments from from your part?

So I think Councilman Griffin, to your point, the data request is heard loud and clear, and we look forward to receiving that.

So and then the challenges we face are also heard loud and clear.

We're all uh very much aware of that.

Any final comments or questions for our time together?

No, just want to say one last if I could, Mayor.

Yes.

Uh uh Elaine, I'll go out on a limb here.

Uh Director Clegg, I apologize.

If you let me know when you would like to propose a levy, I'll be the very first one to vote yes on allowing it to come onto the ballot.

As long as it's coming on a May primary or a general election ballot, I would be happy to support having that put on there.

If you can come up with the dollar amount and the vision for it, uh I'm always for allowing the people to have that say.

Uh I think a lot of cities are considering that right now for public safety and other uh issues.

So if if it's something that discuss or tack on or as a separate measure, I I'd be happy to support you in that.

I will be in touch.

We can quote them on it.

Uh I just want to say thank you for coming here today.

I actually took the opportunity to go tour um facilities there on the boulevard.

If you haven't, I would highly recommend it.

Um I also uh in my military time and other times I've traveled who had the opportunity to use transit, so I do appreciate um its usefulness and do understand that it does come at a cost, especially if we're subsidizing a lot of it from taxpayer dollars because of the ridership amounts.

So I do appreciate um its usefulness and do understand that it does come at a cost, especially if we're subsidizing a lot of it from taxpayer dollars because of the ridership amounts.

But um I think it's important to know as we're looking ahead uh what it's gonna look like in 2030 and beyond, uh what the cost is, especially talking about the potential levy and such, that um you know we start taking a deep dive into planning for the future on that instead of just getting by year for year.

Um but yeah, thank you for today, and thank you, Mayor, for arranging this.

This is good information.

It's good to be able to ask questions collectively because if one of us does uh reduce or pull funding, obviously it'd have a detrimental effect to the totality of what you're doing here in Canyon County.

But um, other than that, yeah, I think we have nothing further.

Mayors.

In addition to the ridership re information that we'll be sending, we do have some videos that we'd like to share from our Canyon County Transit Day and other places.

We'll we'll provide that as follow-up to this meeting so you can hear from the public on what we've what we've been seeing.

And and if you'll allow me, I I'd like to thank you again.

Um these are the kind of conversations we need to have, and it's really hard to do in a budget hearing.

Um having the ability to ask and answer questions, I think uh makes all the difference, and especially doing it together.

So again, thanks for your leadership on that.

Thank you.

Um do we need a motion to adjourn or just know that we're adjourned.

Do we have a second for Papa?

That would be really fun.

So okay.

I thank you, Director Clegg.

Uh thank you, Callball, for coming our way.

We look forward to coming your way next time.

So that's