Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VTrans finance division warns vacancy savings alone won’t cover $1M planned cuts
Summary
Vermont Agency of Transportation’s Finance and Administration division told the Senate Transportation Committee that a proposed $1 million reduction would likely require cutting positions beyond routine vacancy savings and that their FY26 budget is built on a 5% agency vacancy assumption.
Jayna Morse, division director for finance and administration at the Vermont Agency of Transportation, told the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb. 19 that the division’s FY26 budget request totals about $26.5 million and includes continued funding for limited-service positions and attorney general support staff.
Morse said the division’s budget “is $26,500,000 estimated, with just a small fraction of that being federal funds and a larger portion being transportation funds.” She told senators the $1.9 million increase (about 8%) in the division’s request is “attributable to the salaries and benefits that are included in the collective bargaining agreement for the employees within this division.”
The nut graf: committee members pressed Morse on whether routine vacancy savings could absorb a proposed $1 million cut in the agency’s requested reversion or reallocation. Morse and senators agreed vacancy savings at current levels would not be sufficient and that deeper personnel reductions or other operational cuts would likely be required if the legislature does not authorize the transfers or revenues the agency expects.
Morse said the division currently has a 5.8% vacancy rate, representing 11 positions, and estimated that vacancy savings equate to about $1.1 million. She also said the agency models a 5% vacancy assumption overall but that Finance and Administration typically contributes about a 2% vacancy allowance to the agency-wide assumption. “The $1,000,000 is not included in the 5 point. So currently, we have 5.8% of our positions vacant,” Morse said, adding that several of those vacancies are actively under recruitment.
Committee members pressed for how the division would choose where to reduce services. Morse said managers assess whether a vacant job should be refilled as-is, reclassified or repurposed; she gave an example of converting a continuous improvement post into a data analyst role. But she warned that many core functions “are in support of drawing down our federal dollars,” and that some positions cannot be cut without jeopardizing federal funding draws.
When asked whether the division would need to eliminate positions to meet a $1 million reduction, Morse said: “It would not be our choice to cut positions. We would seek to do this through vacancy savings and look at other reductions in the operation. So we might be turning in fleet vehicles. We might be doing less training…” She also testified that the agency has returned limited-service positions to the central pool in previous years to reduce headcount.
Senators repeatedly sought more granular detail on which program areas would be scaled back if cuts are required and asked the agency to provide those policy-level tradeoffs rather than leave decisions solely to vacancy timing.
The division provided the committee with a high-level breakdown: about 130 permanent positions, nine limited-service positions, and 90% or more of the division’s spending classified as operational (personal services and service-level agreements). Morse said the budget includes salaries and benefits for six attorney general’s office staff who support the agency.
