Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transit staff outlines options for Route 11 amid special‑assessment vote; members press for tax‑impact numbers
Summary
Transit staff presented FY26 assessment options that would determine whether the College Street (Route 11) shuttle remains fare‑free; committee members asked staff to return with explicit tax‑impact figures and discussed possible partnerships (including with the Howard Center) to maintain access to a methadone clinic on San Remo Drive.
A transit presentation reviewed four FY26 options affecting the fare‑free College Street shuttle (Route 11), each tied to whether a regional special assessment passes and whether Burlington continues to subsidize the route. Option 1 (both assessment and fare‑free service) was described as the most expensive; option 4 (assessment fails and no fare‑free service) is the least costly.
Presenter staff said the special assessment carries three principal cost components, including a potential driver buyout, and noted that regional partners (TCRPC) will help with assessment reform. The presenter also said early data shows discount participation is higher than expected on the route and that GMT’s fare revenue assumptions will need more study as additional months of data become available.
Committee member concerns focused on access: a member noted the Howard Center operates a methadone clinic on San Remo Drive that depends on Route 11 for accessibility and suggested the city explore partnership or microtransit options to ensure patients are not left without service if the route is cut or fares are introduced. Transit staff agreed to pursue stronger local match agreements with major employers and providers and said GMT will examine service modifications while exploring employer/provider partnerships.
Committee members asked staff to return with clearer tax‑impact figures (for example, cents added to the tax rate) associated with each option so voters can evaluate direct levy effects. Staff agreed to provide the requested tax‑impact numbers and to return for additional discussion at the next meeting.
