Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate transit role, CityLink limits and possible city cost-sharing
Summary
At the town-hall, residents and commissioners debated whether Kootenai County should run transit, whether to expand CityLink or connect with Spokane, and whether cities should bear more of the cost; alternatives such as Uber-style on-demand services were suggested.
Kootenai County residents and commissioners discussed the scope and funding of transit services at the April 30 town-hall, focusing on whether the county should continue operating CityLink and whether regional connections with Spokane are desirable.
Several residents and commissioners said the transit system currently serves primarily city riders and asked why county taxpayers fund it. A county official said the system "does not serve the unincorporated county" in any meaningful way and that "the city should take over" responsibility for transit. One commissioner said Kootenai County appears to be the only Idaho county running a bus system and questioned the county's role.
CityLink and regional connections: A resident asked about a Spokane-Spokane Valley plan to run transit into Coeur d'Alene; one commissioner replied bluntly, "Do not connect with Spokane ever, ever, ever," citing concerns about losing local control and the community's character. Others said Spokane's existing transit problems counsel caution.
Funding and equity: Commissioners and residents discussed grant-shuffling and whether cities should share more of the operating cost. Commissioners described a subcommittee formed at a recent mayors' meeting to study a more equitable cost allocation so cities would shoulder more of the burden. Speakers also noted that some vulnerable residents (veterans, people with disabilities) rely on transit.
Alternatives suggested: Commissioners and residents proposed on-demand, Uber-style services for targeted use (handicap-accessible vehicles for riders who cannot use fixed-route buses) as a possible lower-cost, more flexible model, but noted existing grant structures may not yet accommodate that approach.
Next steps: Commissioners said they are exploring options including city cost-sharing, subcommittee recommendations from mayors, and potential reorganization or transfer of transit responsibilities to cities.
Ending: The board encouraged continued public input as the county evaluates transit's structure and funding.
