The discussion in the Municipal Council in Burgas regarding the proposal to introduce a monthly pass for pensioners at a price of 1 euro with an unlimited number of trips on public transport lasted for over an hour. The report was not accepted.
The initiative was submitted by councilors from the "Middle European Class" party. According to the proposers, the measure has a social character and aims to alleviate the most vulnerable elderly people, whose income is often spent primarily on medicines and daily necessities. During the debate, it was pointed out that similar concessions exist in other municipalities in the country.
Criticism was heard in the hall that the proposal was not accompanied by specific financial calculations and an implementation mechanism. Representatives of different groups defined the idea as insufficiently justified and raised the question of the effect on the municipal budget. Some of the councilors expressed their willingness to support the measure with clearly defined criteria – including an income threshold and a specific source of funding.
During the meeting, Deputy Mayor Stanimir Apostolov presented data according to which over 46,000 people over 65 years of age live in the municipality, and 8,258 pensioner cards for public transport have been issued. The most frequently used packages are for 35 and 80 trips, and the price of one trip for adults varies between 0.10 and 0.14 euros.
According to the administration's calculations, the introduction of an unlimited card for 1 euro would lead to the need for additional routes, the hiring of new drivers, and the purchase of new buses. The calculations indicate that the monthly subsidy for the carrier could exceed 470,000 euros, or over 5 million euros annually.
The mayor of Burgas, Dimitar Nikolov, pointed out that such a step carries a risk to the financial stability of the municipality, especially in conditions of an extended budget. He emphasized that the phased expansion of preferences in public transport is already planned and called for decisions to be financially secured.
After the vote, the proposal did not gather the necessary majority – 10 councilors voted "for", 9 – "against", and 16 abstained.