Nampa City Council Work Session on Transit Services and Funding - May 21, 2026

On May 21, 2026, the Nampa City Council held a work session to discuss transit services, including a proposed partnership with Uber and a new service model from Valley Regional Transit (VRT). The meeting began with an invocation and pledge of allegiance, followed by roll call (Council members Griffin, Reynolds, Bill Stingula, Scog, and others present). Council President announced that Uber had withdrawn from presenting that morning, citing senior leadership decisions and political pressures. After some debate, the council agreed to hear presentations from city staff on Uber's programs in other cities and from VRT on a revised service model. The discussion centered on budget constraints, ridership numbers, safety concerns, and the city's infrastructure needs.

Discussion Items

• Uber Withdrawal and Council Reaction: Council President expressed disappointment and suspicion about Uber's last-minute withdrawal, speculating it was due to political pressure from VRT or other entities. He apologized for initially trying to cancel VRT's presentation. Council members agreed to hear both presentations despite the curveball.
• Staff Presentation on Uber Partnerships: Mark, from development services, presented data on three U.S. cities using Uber for subsidized transit. Bloomington, Indiana (population 120k, 40k students) spent $250k on Uber for late-night service, with an average cost of $8.30 per ride and 30,000 rides. Tolison, Arizona (10k population, part of Phoenix metro) budgeted $450k for a city-wide Uber/Lyft program, averaging $9.15 per ride and exceeding 50,000 rides. Kyle, Texas (65k population, 32 square miles) spent $800k, with a $12.30 average cost per ride and 65,000 rides. All three cities used Uber as a supplement to fixed routes or other services. Mark noted flexibility, challenges (staffing, smartphone requirements, safety), and provided cost estimates for Nampa: a $15 subsidy could provide 26,000–47,000 rides at a cost of $850k–$1.2M. He also showed average Uber trip costs within Nampa (e.g., $12 from north side to St. Luke's, $20 from south side).
• VRT Presentation on New Service Model: Elaine from VRT presented a proposed new microtransit model using smaller, non-CDL vehicles that can go curb-to-curb, supplemented by TNCs (Uber) for peaks and edges. She offered three options: 1) maintain current fixed route and on-demand with the new model (projected 118% increase in boardings, 30,000+ trips citywide), 2) only microtransit (new on-demand) at a cost of $353k for service plus $53k admin fee, or 3) a reduced microtransit option at $218k without Saturday service and with limited TNC overflow. She emphasized that the new system would be more efficient and user-friendly, with an estimated cost per boarding of $17.83. She noted that cutting fixed route would eliminate service for 300 unique riders who depend on it to get to work, and that a public hearing would be required before major service changes. She also mentioned a new vanpool service for Canyon County funded through federal grants.
• Council Discussion on Ridership and Costs: Council members questioned ridership numbers. Councilman Griffin calculated that current fixed route boardings (21,700 projected after 27% increase) equated to only 83 boardings per day, or 300 unique riders annually. He expressed concern about the low utilization. Councilman Reynolds focused on safety, citing Uber statistics: 36 fatal physical assaults, 153 motor vehicle crash fatalities, 27 serious sexual assault reports, and over 4,000 sexual misconduct complaints over two years. He opposed supplementing a TNC due to liability and safety risks, and suggested partnering with Trazer Valley Transit instead. Councilwoman Scog argued that the city's primary role is public safety and infrastructure, calling transit "necessary fluff." She emphasized $600 million in deferred infrastructure maintenance. Councilman Rodriguez favored a microtransit-only option at $353k, noting it would keep funds local. Councilwoman Scott thanked VRT for the detailed presentation and expressed interest in regional connectivity.
• Budget Context and Priorities: Council President noted that the state legislature's property tax caps have reduced revenue, forcing difficult choices. He stated the city is targeting $400k for transit in the upcoming budget, but some members want to go lower. Councilman Reynolds said he would not fund VRT at all, preferring to use the money for police and infrastructure. Councilman Griffin raised the issue of a $534k federal grant for a sidewalk project in design (70k already spent); if VRT funding is cut, the city might lose that grant and need to repay the 70k. He requested immediate clarity from staff.

Key Outcomes

• The council directed staff to schedule a public hearing in June to hear citizen input on potential changes to VRT funding and service levels, as required by federal law before any major reduction.
• The city will seek clarification from VRT on whether cutting the fixed route would jeopardize the federal sidewalk grant and require repayment of design costs.
• Council members expressed divergent views on funding levels, with a consensus that final budget decisions will be made in upcoming budget meetings, likely in the range of $300,000–$400,000 for transit services.
• Council President apologized for the earlier disruption and reaffirmed a commitment to maintaining a collaborative working relationship with VRT.