Senate Transportation hears provider plans, timeline for replacing some Green Mountain Transit services

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Members of the Senate Transportation Committee on Jan. 23 heard from regional and local transit providers about a proposed reallocation of services now operated by Green Mountain Transit in Franklin and Washington counties.

Caleb Grant, executive director of Rural Community Transportation (RCT), told the committee RCT had studied the operations and demographics and did not expect riders to be left behind if RCT took on the services under discussion. "We don't wanna leave anybody behind," Grant said, adding that RCT has seen "20% increases in rides for the past 2 years" after efficiency changes and was in a position to assist the state if asked.

The nut of the discussion was capacity and timing: providers said they can take on more service but emphasized the complexity of transitions that involve union contracts, Medicaid-funded programs and on-demand (OND) service rules. "Taking on another service area is a very major effort. It takes a lot of work, and it takes a lot of resources," the executive director of Tri Valley Transit told the committee, noting Tri Valley's prior experience absorbing Stagecoach services in Orange and northern Windsor counties and negotiating multiple union contracts.

Consultant Steven Falvo of Stedman Hill and Clayton Clark, general manager of GMT, relayed the study's recommended timeline. Clark said the Stedman Hill report contemplates moving the Stowe seasonal service to RCT in the 2025–26 season, with most remaining changes planned for July 1, 2026, but he described that schedule as flexible.

Providers flagged specific operational constraints. Grant said some Medicaid and OND program rules effectively tie funding to riders and that applying a different, higher union wage package across an RCT-style model could require cutting on-demand trips. He described a study estimate that extending GMT's contract terms to RCT's broader on-demand model could force a reduction on the order of "11,000 on-demand trips," because OND funding limits trips per rider (the study cited a structure of two grocery trips and four medical trips per month under current OND rules).

Jordan Posner, executive director of Champlain Islands Developing Essential Resources (CIDER), said his Grand Isle County provider has grown rapidly — "We've grown 200% in our demand since 2022" — and wants a seat at planning conversations but was open to working directly with VTrans or RCT.

Speakers urged careful, phased planning and clear communications so existing riders and staff at providers taking on new routes are not harmed. A Tri Valley Transit representative and another speaker named Jim (no last name given in the transcript) repeatedly urged prudence: "If we try to rush it ... my by far, my biggest concern ... is that we move so quickly that the reaction or the result is that we start to degrade what Tri Valley Transit is doing already," Jim said, noting the risk of diverting attention and staff from current services.

Committee members asked about the legal trigger for change. A speaker from the panel said there is legislative language that designates Green Mountain Transit as the provider for Franklin and Washington counties and that budget and legislative actions will surface during the appropriation process. Committee chair Westman and Senator Harrison (both referenced in the meeting) pressed for clarity on timing and municipal priorities; the providers recommended more direct meetings with municipalities, unions and subrecipients before any formal transfer.

The discussion did not include a committee vote but produced a consensus among presenters that a phased, well-communicated transition with written due diligence would reduce risk. The Stedman Hill report's timeline — Stowe seasonal service in 2025–26, bulk changes July 1, 2026 — was presented as the consultant's recommendation rather than a binding schedule.

The committee heard repeated assurances that providers would seek to avoid leaving riders or employees behind, but also heard specific cautions about union contract carryover and the operational effects of funding rules on on-demand services. Committee members asked providers to continue direct discussions with municipalities, unions and VTrans and to return with more detailed plans as legislative and budget items are shaped.

Looking ahead, committee members and providers signaled they will use the budget and legislative process to set any effective date for changes and urged continued, transparent coordination among GMT, RCT, Tri Valley Transit, CIDER, VTrans and affected municipalities.