Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Transit Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasure Valley Transit requests 3% boost; council backs increase and asks for marketing partnership language
Summary
Treasure Valley Transit director sought a 3% increase in McCall funding and discussed ridership, fleet and grant timing. Council expressed support for a 3% increase, asked staff to negotiate partnership and marketing language in the contract, and discussed payment timing tied to local option tax receipts.
Terry Lisonbee, director of Treasure Valley Transit (operator of Mountain Community Transit), asked McCall councilors for a 3% increase in the city contribution and reviewed system ridership and operational pressures during a budget work session. Terry said total ridership across Mountain Community Transit was 47,748 riders last year, noted high usage by seniors and youth on the system's routes, and described technology and fleet challenges, including delayed bus deliveries from a CARES Act award and problems with automatic passenger counters and a planned app deployment.
Terry described local funding arrangements: some routes (the blue and gold lines) are fully funded by partners (Brundage, New Meadows) while the green line serves McCall, Cascade and Donnelly and generates cross‑jurisdiction travel. Terry said Cascade historically contributed only about $3,000 per year and that Valley County has been the largest single source of intakes in the shelter system; she said she had requested increased funding from Valley County and other partners. She requested a modest 3% increase over last year’s city support and invited the city to include contract language requiring TVT to work with city staff on marketing, advertising and revenue development.
Council members pressed TVT on staffing, grant timing and local matching requirements. Several councilors and staff suggested options for increasing local match revenue, including advertising on buses and collaborative marketing with city staff. Council members said they would expect staff to negotiate partnership accountability language as part of the contract and explore options to smooth money timing where local option tax (LOT) receipts cause cash‑flow gaps for TVT’s matching obligations.
Outcome: Council indicated consensus support for the 3% increase and asked staff to prepare contract language that would require TVT to coordinate with city staff on marketing and to pursue advertising revenues. Councilors also asked city finance staff to examine payout timing so TVT can meet federal/state match deadlines; no separate formal appropriation vote for TVT was recorded at the work session beyond the budget direction to include the increase in FY26 planning materials.
Ending: Staff was directed to include the 3% increase in FY26 budget materials, to work with TVT on partnership language for the contract and to examine mechanisms (including drawing from LOT priorities or short‑term city cash flows) to smooth TVT match timing if needed.
