Senate adopts special fund to channel cannabis sales tax to after‑school programs after heated debate

The Vermont Senate adopted an Appropriations Committee amendment to H 839 that creates a special fund to hold and distribute cannabis sales‑tax revenues for after‑school and summer programs, the chamber decided after more than four hours of floor debate and a series of roll‑call votes.

The amendment, reported by the Senator from Caledonia, restores language the sponsor said had been intended when the legislature enacted cannabis tax and regulation: to dedicate a portion of sales tax revenue for grants to after‑school and summer programs administered through a statewide process and advised by an existing advisory committee. "We created the advisory committee to the secretary of education," the Senator from Caledonia said during floor remarks, describing the proposal as a fiscal vehicle to protect dedicated prevention funding and to allow nonprofits and LEAs to access grants.

Supporters said the special fund is a standard budgeting tool that will protect a fixed pot of prevention money and allow applications from community organizations in places where local school districts lack capacity to administer grants. "There are places where there are no after‑school programs; we want to open new slots," a sponsor of the amendment said, arguing a centralized grant process would reach underserved rural communities.

Opponents — including the Senator from Chittenden Central, the Senator from Windsor and others — said the change effectively shifts decision‑making away from local school districts and risks diverting taxpayer dollars from the Education Fund. Concerns focused on whether nonprofits that receive grants would be subject to federal and state special‑education and public‑accommodations laws and whether the amendment represented a policy change rather than a technical budgeting fix. "This amendment seems like an answer to a problem that does not exist," the Senator from Chittenden Central said, adding that local control and existing LEA partnerships should be preserved.

Floor debate repeatedly returned to legal compliance: senators asked whether grant recipients would have to meet Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirements. The amendment adds language intended to require grantees to comply with public‑accommodation nondiscrimination rules, but several senators said they had preferred a fuller vetting by the Attorney General or Human Rights Commission on enforcement details.

The Senate first voted on adopting the Appropriations report as amended (recorded result announced as 18 yeas, 10 nays). Later roll‑call action to amend the bill as offered by the committee was reported as 21 yeas and 8 nays; following that result the Senate ordered third reading of H 839.

The floor record shows the Appropriations sponsor explaining several budgetary items connected to the bill, including a debt‑service transfer the sponsor described as freeing approximately $3,500,000 for the FY2025 base and language addressing flood‑related municipal payments and a $1,000,000 allocation for emergency motel housing. The sponsor also signaled intent to offer an amendment on emergency housing prior to third reading.

What’s next: The Senate ordered H 839 to third reading after the amendment passed; further amendments (including the housing amendment the sponsor mentioned) were signaled for consideration before the bill’s final passage.

Votes at a glance: The Senate recorded votes on the committee amendment and on amending the bill itself; the chamber announced counts of 18–10 (first recorded vote on adopting the committee report as amended) and 21–8 (final roll call reported for amending the bill).