Green Mountain Transit warns of $3 million fiscal cliff; VTrans moves to coordinate rural-service transfer

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Green Mountain Transit (GMT) told the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 25 that it faces a growing budget gap that could force deep service cuts unless state or local revenue is increased or operations are restructured.

GMT General Manager Clayton Clark said GMT supports the administration’s fiscal 2026 budget and thanked the administration for additional funds, but warned of a larger shortfall in fiscal year 2027. “We have a large gap in fiscal year 27 of $3,000,000,” Clark said. He added that losing federal “stick factors” that currently yield about $2 million in extra funding would magnify cuts.

Committee members were shown GMT’s operating and capital picture: an approximate $51,000,000 total budget, roughly $30,000,000 in operating (about $20,000,000 urban and $10,000,000 rural) and about $20,000,000 in capital. GMT reported roughly 2.7 million rides last year, with about 389,000 rural rides. The agency has already approved $700,000 a year in urban service reductions and is projecting a further $500,000 of reductions to take effect in June 2025.

GMT said several changes will begin this spring and summer, including reduced weekday commuter trips (Montpelier link from 11 to seven daily trips) and consolidation of parallel commuter routes between Milton and St. Albans. Clark said GMT will avoid eliminating additional routes with the reduced June target and will instead make schedule and routing adjustments — for example rerouting Route 10 and decreasing the summer schedule when student ridership drops.

The rural-transfer question — whether GMT should transfer its rural operations to regional providers — was a central focus. GMT presented a February report that included consultant Stephen Fauble’s assessment recommending a transfer; GMT’s board and staff said they are still studying the question and that a partial transfer may be preferable to an “all-or-nothing” approach. VTrans staff said they favor an all-or-nothing transfer but will use a consultant-led implementation plan to evaluate options.

“The all-or-nothing approach to rural service makes more sense than partial,” Ross McDonald, public transit program manager at VTrans, told the committee. VTrans announced an award of approximately $35,000 to Steadman Hill (Steve Fauble) for a coordinated implementation assistance plan that McDonald said will outline MOUs, timelines, capital and vehicle transfers, facility plans and other steps needed to move rural service out of GMT if that is the agreed path.

Both GMT and VTrans said labor relations are a key risk in a transfer. Clark noted that transferring Franklin County service to a non‑union provider would create friction with unionized employees and that the change would amount to a large organizational shift for whoever assumes those routes. Clark said GMT drivers receive $30 per hour and that recruitment and retention have been challenging amid a national CDL shortage and local competition (South Burlington recently advertised $34 per hour).

GMT also described other steps it is taking to stabilize operations: returning to fares in May with a new payment system (full fare $2, discount $1), establishing a nonprofit affiliate to pursue grants (501(c)(3) filing pending), pursuing staffing grants (for example expanding planners via a CCRPC grant), and negotiating a new contract with the Teamsters. Clark said fares currently produce about 9.7% of GMT’s revenue, short of a newly adopted board target of 15%.

Committee members asked about data and evaluation. GMT said it uses ride checks and fare data to assess routes and that the state’s annual route performance report informs decisions; Clark said some commuter routes have recovered only about half of pre‑pandemic ridership. VTrans emphasized that administrative overhead differences and indirect‑rate accounting can materially change per‑trip costs between providers and that consolidating rural services under fewer subrecipients could reduce oversight burden and per‑trip costs.

Public‑safety and workforce issues also came up. Clark said transit workers face higher assault rates nationally and reported four GMT employees were assaulted last year — about 5% of the urban workforce — and that a bill, H.255, to add transit workers to a list of protected professionals is headed to the Judiciary Committee. Clark said GMT supports the bill and VTrans indicated it will coordinate with stakeholders on safety and workforce protections.

VTrans outlined a measured timeline: an implementation plan through FY 2026 and, if agreed, a staged transfer with a target of GMT exiting rural operations by July 2026 so GMT can focus on urban service. McDonald said the agency will present proposed statute edits to the committee to enable the flexibility needed for a transfer and that the consultant plan will be used to build MOUs and timetables.

Next steps for the committee and agencies include finishing the coordinated implementation plan, tracking GMT’s contract negotiations with the Teamsters, and considering legislative language to permit the transfer. McDonald said additional federal carbon‑reduction funds and mobility grants are being applied to ease FY 2026 shortfalls, but he cautioned that the region must act to close the FY 2027 gap.

Miles of detail remain unsettled: the size and timing of transfers, final scope of any route reductions, the outcome of union negotiations, and how municipalities, colleges, hospitals and other local partners might increase local match or targeted contributions for routes that serve large employers or essential services. VTrans and GMT officials asked the committee for time and a coordinated plan before major transfers are enacted.

(Quotes used in this article are drawn from testimony recorded Feb. 25, 2025, before the House Transportation Committee.)