Proposal redirects $15M higher‑education trust fund allocation toward UVM project and McClellan Hall, would use cannabis excise revenue to backfill
Loading...
Summary
Committee members discussed a proposal that would reallocate the governor’s $15 million higher‑education trust fund request—$12 million to a UVM multipurpose project, $2.32 million for Freedom & Unity grants and $600,000 for McClellan Hall—paired with routing 20% of cannabis excise tax revenue into the trust fund to replenish the corpus over time.
A funding reallocation proposed during the FY27 review would change how a $15 million higher‑education trust fund request is distributed and identify a revenue stream to replenish the fund.
One committee member explained that the governor had proposed $15,000,000 from the higher‑education trust fund for a UVM project and then outlined an alternative allocation: $12,000,000 to a multipurpose center at the University of Vermont, $2.32 million for Freedom & Unity grants and $600,000 for the McClellan Hall housing transformation project at Vermont State Colleges. That speaker said the plan would leave about $11,000,000 of the original corpus after the transfer and would use a 20% share of cannabis excise tax revenue to route recurring receipts into the trust fund.
“...it takes the governor's 15,000,000 and allocates it somewhat differently,” the committee member said, adding that the approach is intended to backfill the fund over a few years and to permit both the economic development project and scholarship/grant priorities to proceed. The speaker estimated the 20% cannabis excise allocation would be roughly $4–5 million a year depending on receipts.
Other members raised equity concerns about channeling a large portion of the trust fund to UVM instead of distributing benefits more evenly among the three traditional beneficiaries (UVM, Vermont State Colleges and VSAC). A committee member asked for clearer data on how the redistribution would affect long‑term scholarship flows and whether smaller higher‑education recipients would be disadvantaged.
Staff signaled that more analysis is available in JFO materials and that the proposal would require further conference negotiations with the House. The committee left the language open, requested additional documentation about fund balances and projected annual receipts, and asked JFO to prepare a financial spreadsheet showing funding tradeoffs if multiple proposals were advanced.
