ANALYSIS: WHO ARE THESE INVESTORS? Vermont Is Being Asked to Commit $12 Million in Student Scholarship Funds to a Stalled UVM Sports Complex — Based on Conversations
Compass Vermont first reported on the UVM multipurpose center scholarship fund proposal on April 7, 2026. This story reflects continued reporting on that issue.
When asked at a press conference Thursday to identify the private investors whose multimillion-dollar commitments to a stalled UVM sports complex depend on Vermont committing $12 million in student scholarship funds, Governor Phil Scott declined to answer.
“I think that would be a better question for President Tromp,” Scott said, referring to UVM President Marlene Tromp. “She has all of that information. I don’t know what is preserved and what is not.”
The Governor had included the funding in his state budget proposal. His Secretary of Administration sent a formal letter to the Senate in April endorsing it. He has publicly championed the project for months.
He could not identify a single investor.
What’s at Stake
The $12 million would come directly from Vermont’s Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund — a scholarship fund established by the Legislature in 1999 specifically to provide financial aid to Vermont students. Last year, the fund provided 675 scholarships averaging $1,400 each. Three-quarters of the recipients were first-generation college students.
Redirecting $12 million from the fund’s principal would permanently reduce its annual scholarship payouts by an estimated $750,000 per year — the equivalent of roughly 535 scholarships — every year going forward.
The Vermont Senate passed H.951, the state budget bill, Wednesday, with the $12 million UVM provision included. The House, which had stripped the provision from its own version of the bill, has been notified of the Senate’s amendments and must now decide whether to concur. If the House concurs, the bill goes directly to Governor Scott’s desk.
Neither Committee Received Documentation
Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, confirmed Thursday that her committee never asked for — and never received — documentation of the donor commitments that form the central justification for the expenditure.
“I would certainly be interested to know who the donors are,” she wrote in an email to Compass Vermont.
Scheu went further, raising questions about whether the proposal is even legally permissible. Redirecting the scholarship fund for a construction project “is not currently an allowable use of the Trust Fund,” she wrote. The Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund board was never consulted. Neither was the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation nor Vermont State University — the other parties whose scholarship funding would be reduced if the $12 million is redirected.
“The Administration did not consult with the HEETF Board or the other parties who would be affected by this decision,” Scheu wrote.
She also noted the proposal was routed through the wrong vehicle entirely. “The more appropriate option would have been to put this request in the Capital bill,” she wrote, “which is for construction projects.”
Sen. Andrew Perchlik, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, confirmed the same gap on the Senate side. Tromp mentioned in her testimony that state money could help attract private donations, he said, but donor commitments were not made a condition of the state funding — and no proof of matching funding was required.
“As it wasn’t a condition of the state funding the committee didn’t ask for proof of the matching funding,” Perchlik wrote. “If UVM doesn’t get the matching funding then they won’t have the $ for the project.”
That last sentence carries significant weight. It means Vermont could redirect $12 million in perpetual scholarship funding, the unnamed donors could still fail to materialize, and the project could remain unbuilt — with no legal mechanism to recover the money or hold anyone accountable.
What UVM Actually Told the Legislature
President Tromp told the House Appropriations Committee, according to VTDigger’s coverage of the hearing, that state money would make “major donors who are on the fence more likely to step up.” She did not identify who those donors are, what they have committed, or whether written pledges exist. Governor Scott, who championed the proposal, said Thursday he does not know either.
Compass Vermont asked President Tromp directly: Who are these investors? What dollar amounts have they committed, in writing or otherwise? Do written letters of intent or pledge agreements exist? And if the Legislature approves the $12 million, what specific mechanism ensures those private commitments actually materialize?
UVM Media Relations Director Basil Waugh responded Friday morning on behalf of the university: “Many supporters of the project have made clear that they are encouraged by the state’s support of the project, and the governor’s commitment to it in his budget proposal has activated several new fundraising conversations. The university and the UVM Foundation do not comment on specifics of donor conversations.”
UVM did not identify any investors by name, did not disclose any dollar amounts committed, and did not indicate whether written pledge agreements exist.
The Vermont Legislature is being asked to permanently redirect $12 million from a first-generation student scholarship fund based on conversations.
A Decade of the Same Answer
This is not the first time unnamed donors have been cited to justify moving the project forward.
In February 2016, UVM’s Tom Gustafson told WCAX: “One of the barriers we’ve had to getting donations is having our donors believe it’s actually going to happen.”
That was ten years ago. The project has since changed in size, scope, and location. It broke ground in 2019 — with roughly one-third of the money raised — then stalled during COVID as construction costs soared. The university says it has spent $75 million so far and needs $100 million more to complete it.
The donors are still unidentified. They are still on the fence.
The Process That Was Bypassed
Scheu outlined what the proper process should have looked like: the HEETF board — which issues an annual report to the Legislature every fall — should have been asked to review and make recommendations on expanding the fund’s allowable uses. Based on that recommendation, the Legislature could have taken formal testimony and considered the request in the next budget cycle.
Instead, the proposal was inserted into the state budget by the Governor in January, stripped by the House in March, restored by the Senate this week, and is now headed toward a House concurrence vote — all without the governing board of the fund being consulted, without the affected parties being notified, and without a single documented donor commitment being produced.
“This proposal is putting the cart before the horse,” Scheu wrote.
What Happens Next
The House must now decide whether to concur with the Senate’s version of H.951 or send it to a conference committee. If the House concurs, the bill — including the $12 million UVM provision — goes to Governor Scott, who has already signaled his support.
The investors, whoever they are, remain unidentified.
The conversations continue.
Compass Vermont is reader-supported independent journalism. If this reporting was valuable to you, please consider a free or paid subscription.