Nampa council weighs VRT microtransit plan after Uber declines to present; public hearing to be scheduled

Council leaders discussed whether to fund a new microtransit-style service after Uber notified the city it would not attend this morning and signaled support for a TNC-led approach. The council heard a presentation from Mark, senior director of development services, who summarized three municipal TNC partnerships and their subsidy models, then from a VRT representative, Elaine, who outlined an integrated microtransit-plus-TNC plan and its cost options.

Mark described examples in Bloomington, Indiana; Tolleson, Arizona; and Kyle, Texas, noting different subsidy structures and per-ride costs (he cited about $8.30, $9.15 and $12.30 per ride in the examples). "This program is supplemental to several fixed routes, micro transit, and paratransit service," Mark said, describing how those agencies structured rider copays and municipal subsidies in each jurisdiction.

Elaine, representing VRT, told the council the agency prefers a model that keeps public management at the core while using TNCs to cover peak demand and edge trips. "We have a vision that probably does, in the end, have TNCs as part of that," she said, while emphasizing that VRT would manage procurement, customer service and driver qualification. VRT presented a microtransit option the city could fund at different levels: roughly $353,600 in one full-service package, or about $218,000 to match current on-demand hours under the new model, plus a $53,000 administrative/management fee.

Council members questioned how ridership projections translate to daily use. Staff clarified that ‘‘boardings’’ count trips, not unique individuals, and that 21,700 projected annual boardings on fixed routes corresponded to about 300 unique Nampa riders under staff methodology. One council member criticized the scale: "If we take even the 27% increase, that's still only 83 individuals boarding a day," she said during the discussion.

Safety and liability concerns were raised about contracting with TNCs. Councilwoman Reynolds cited national figures she said were associated with TNC drivers and urged caution and possible partnership alternatives such as Treasure Valley Transit or other Medicaid-funded nonemergency providers. Elaine responded that a city procurement could include safety and liability requirements and that VRT’s contracts and ICRMP liability coverage offer protections some TNC-only arrangements lack.

The council also discussed federal grant implications. Crystal Craig, director of transportation, said VRT is the FTA grant recipient and the city is a subrecipient; any major service change could trigger FTA review tied to environmental and grant-eligibility requirements. Craig summarized the timeline for FTA environmental clearance and said staff would continue to work with VRT and the FTA to determine whether reducing or changing service would jeopardize existing funding.

No final budget decision was made. The council recorded an intent to place a joint public hearing on the agenda before approving any major change away from the fixed-route system; Elaine asked for a joint hearing so constituents could comment directly before implementation. The meeting ended after a procedural vote to adjourn.