Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Green Mountain Transit open to rural transfers but flags employee and union concerns
Loading...
Summary
Green Mountain Transit (GMT) told the Senate Transportation Committee it may transfer rural operations to neighboring providers to reduce costs and focus its urban system, but board and union issues — especially in Franklin County — could complicate any transfer.
Clayton Clark, a representative of Green Mountain Transit, told the Senate Transportation Committee on Oct. 12 that GMT is tentatively open to transferring its rural services to other regional operators but is proceeding cautiously because of employee and union concerns.
Clark said the option emerged after an organizational assessment found GMT “presently has more service than it can effectively manage with the staff that we have,” and that the agency faces a long-term staffing shortfall that includes a 42% reduction in managers over 12 years. He told the committee the board sees potential systemwide benefits from a transfer but worried about the impact on employees’ pay and benefits.
The committee was told the likely transfer map would send Washington County rural routes to Tri-Valley Transit (a union provider) and much of Franklin County service to Rural Community Transportation (RCT), which is nonunion. Clark said Tri-Valley’s executive director has given “very good assurances … staff will be retained” under the existing Teamsters contract where possible, while transfer to a nonunion provider in Franklin County could trigger Teamsters opposition.
Why it matters: GMT serves five counties — Chittenden, Grand Isle, Franklin, Lamoille and Washington — and operates a mix of fixed-route urban service in Chittenden County and on-demand rural services elsewhere. A transfer could change which agency runs those rural rides while shifting GMT’s administrative focus to its urban system and potentially lowering the overall system cost.
Clark emphasized continuity for riders, saying, “the riders are not gonna get left out because there's no service that RCT and TBT can't provide,” and noted that some local contracting relationships — for example, Champlain Islanders Developing Essential Resources (CIDR) providing on-demand service in Grand Isle — are expected to continue under a new provider. He said riders would mainly see a different logo on buses and that the partner agencies “have shown really good community relations.”
Board and staff concerns were a recurring theme. Clark described a leadership crisis that predated his arrival two years ago and said the board held a four-hour retreat with VTrans and other stakeholders before taking a cautious position: GMT will continue working through the transfer process but reserves the right to remain the provider if problems arise in negotiations.
Union issues were singled out as the trickiest element. Clark said the Teamsters are likely to challenge transfers to nonunion providers and that preserving employees’ positions and benefit levels will be central to successful negotiations. He suggested the committee keep partial transfers on the table if full county-by-county transfers prove impractical.
The committee also discussed specific local contractors. Clark said CIDR’s contract for Grand Isle is unlikely to be affected, noting that RCT would probably continue contracting with CIDR rather than replacing those services. He also said Tri-Valley Transit had offered assurances about preserving staff terms under its existing union contract.
The committee did not vote on any transfer proposal; Clark said details remain to be negotiated and that GMT’s final decision will depend on the outcome of those negotiations and any complications that emerge during implementation.
