At present, selectboards have option of voting on local pot stores – or not

By VDC staff

Does Vermont have too many marijuana stores, or too few, and are they coming to your town next? This is the question of a new bill introduced January 23rd to the Senate Committee on Government Operations by Senator Rebecca White (D-Windsor). 

Her bill, H.276, aims to bypass municipalities and force a vote in many Vermont towns on whether to allow for retail establishments for cannabis. Many towns have not taken a vote since retail sale was legalized and municipalities were given the option to vote on having stores in their town. This has led to patchwork and inconsistent markets across the state where some towns have many stores and other towns have no stores. Sen. White explained that many retailers have chosen to open stores in towns that allow cannabis retail, even if they live elsewhere, rather than face the hurdle of motivating voters in other towns where they’d prefer to do business. 

Under current law, towns have the option to place the question on the ballot at an annual meeting or a special meeting warned for the purpose of such a vote. 

Senator White’s bill would have the question appear on the November 2026 midterm election ballot instead of ballots at Town Meetings. As she explained to the committee, her goal is to ensure a wide voting base and high voter turnout, and to avoid floor votes on Town Meeting Day. If the bill passes in its current form and is signed into law by Governor Scott, the question that will appear on ballots this year would be, “Shall licensed cannabis retailers be authorized to operate in this municipality?” with options for “Yes” and “No”. 

Data from the Vermont Secretary of State’s office suggests that midterm election years have lower turnout than presidential election years. From 1985 to 2022 there have been eight questions placed on statewide ballots by the legislature—seven passed and one was defeated. 

Prior to the introduction of Senator White’s bill, the committee heard testimony from James Pepper, the Chair of the Cannabis Control Board, and industry advocates on the condition of Vermont’s cannabis industry. These witnesses described an industry oversupply of products and oversaturation of retail establishments. According to Chair Pepper, there are currently 78 licensed cannabis establishments operating in Vermont. 

According to Dave Silberman, an attorney and cannabis store owner who testified before the committee, there is one cannabis store per 5,500 residents of Vermont and our state ranks in the top five most oversaturated states in the country, and Vermont has almost three times as many stores per capita as Massachusetts. He also explained that statewide, he has found that retail sales are down 25% in the past eighteen months. In his testimony, Mr. Silverman urged regulatory stability and improved enforcement. He also proposed policy reform on potency caps to increase the amount of THC in products.

Mr. Silverman filed a lawsuit against Chair James Pepper and the broader control board in December of 2024 over alleged free speech violations pertaining to his business’s ability to advertise its cannabis products. 

Manufactured home bill – A new housing bill was introduced in the Vermont House Committee on General & Housing. On January 23rd, Representative Gayle Pezzo (D-Chittenden 20) introduced her new bill, H.757, which makes several changes to how the state regulates and taxes manufactured housing and specific arrangements of housing cooperatives, known as limited equity cooperatives. 

“Manufactured homes are among the fastest and most effective forms of homeownership to develop, playing an important role in expanding Vermont’s grand list while maintaining long term affordability.” 

The bill also makes changes to municipal zoning by requiring manufactured housing to be allowed under municipal zoning to the same extent as other housing. It also exempts limited equity cooperatives from the 3-acres impervious surfaces rule for stormwater runoff. 

The bill makes changes that clarify the taxation of manufactured homes. According to the legislative attorney handling the bill, manufactured homes are taxed differently depending on whether they are treated as real property or tangible personal property, which depends on how the home was purchased. Homes classified as real property are subject to the standard property transfer tax and property taxes, while those treated as personal property are subject to sales or use tax at a higher rate. This results in unequal tax treatment for buyers for the same home. 

The bill proposes to standardize the tax treatment of all manufactured home purchases. It exempts manufactured homes from sales and use tax and instead subjects all qualifying manufactured homes to the property transfer tax, ensuring consistent taxation regardless of how the home would be classified at purchase. 

The bill would also exempt manufactured home parks from ongoing property taxes if they’re organized together as limited equity cooperatives.