[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6247950,"mediaKeyId","3212429-364db0574b521f0afaa50e8b8d55abc2","parentId",3212429,"title","Committee weighs cultivator fee changes, limited showcase-event pilot and excise-tax routing for cannabis regulation fund","audioSeconds",4280,"startMs",2908000,"endMs",7188000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212429-364db0574b521f0afaa50e8b8d55abc2&start=2908&end=7188","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212429-364db0574b521f0afaa50e8b8d55abc2/thumbnail_2908000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6247950/Vermont/Committee-weighs-cultivator-fee-changes-limited-showcase-event-pilot-and-excise-tax-routing-for-cannabis-regulation-fund","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247950-e57c7c2ef2fba253fbc7ee996dd1c11b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771042827&Signature=Cbj2EUPEEnmbqArZOMH5M09kzymbyhT9uqLOa8728jWOatK8maEPTOoDp4BNbomf8xEBNjmcIvNdLvgTR9C2LuMmKrqneJyUohXB9Theq~OthtS1~gU6hMOcZhIsg1H~WyXnub7w58~hL9-zmPaUVkoocYOj6FsmWwYKzSB-ZxVxbO8nR5qjReCBoqN6hH-JnuKG~xOGZsgCRcZ1wxBaIwHk8gzvHtTQ~EIHLmU9~jAennpjyhprpHPJdzESHaj52j9FvbGpq6mBkuQtAN8JdeU7lNdiukx6Yly3nruRKzVkoNs44dLAB-ijJdpQfgZFAqNJOZTPYRRehovYw20k1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T03:32:12Z","article","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee reviewed committee amendment draft 1.2 to the cannabis portion of the bill, discussing three principal areas: a proposed rebalancing of cultivator license fees (raising indoor fees and lowering outdoor fees), a time-limited showcase-event permit pilot to allow regulated sales outside retail premises, and a change to how cannabis excise-tax revenue is routed between the Cannabis Regulation Fund and the general fund for future fiscal years.

Committee staff described the fee proposal as a revenue-neutral effort to reflect relative productivity and operating differences between indoor and outdoor cultivation. James Pepper, chair of the Cannabis Control Board, told the committee the change was a \"crude\" attempt to reflect the higher effective productivity of indoor operations and that the proposed mix would be slightly revenue positive in the board's estimate. \"The directive to me was, to find a revenue neutral proposal that incorporates the kind of relative profitability between the indoors and outdoor cultivators,\" Pepper said.

Several cultivators and retailers told the committee the proposed split did not rest on a sufficiently detailed economic analysis. Joshua Decatur, who said his firm operates mixed cultivation, said overhead and profitability are more complex than a simple harvest-count ratio. \"Indoor cultivation is definitely more overhead, but it is more productive,\" he told the committee; other witnesses said outdoor production can have lower cost-per-pound and more variable cash flow. Several members asked that the proposal be sent to Senate Finance for a fuller review and for indoor and outdoor cultivators to testify to economic data before fee changes are finalized.

The amendment would also create an 18-month showcase-event permit pilot, authorizing up to five events during the pilot period (July 1, 2025 through the end of 2026 in the draft). Licensed retailers in good standing could apply to host events at access-controlled locations for up to 24 hours; events would not permit on-site consumption and would require local approval, security plans, insurance and product-sale tracking. The permit application fee in the draft is $250, split 50/50 between the host municipality and the cannabis regulation fund. Committee counsel summarized key application requirements including geographic distribution, coordination with at least three licensed cultivators, and security and product-sale plans.

The committee also discussed routing of excise-tax revenue. Counsel Kirby Keaton summarized recent budget changes: for fiscal year 2026 the budget directs excise-tax receipts to the general fund with 30% to a substance-misuse prevention special fund; the committee draft would, beginning in fiscal year 2027, route 70% of the cannabis excise tax to the Cannabis Regulation Fund and 30% to the prevention fund, restoring a structure that funds board operations from regulatory receipts while dedicating a fixed share to prevention. Joint Fiscal staff estimated that the proposed cultivator fee change would be roughly revenue neutral (about $44,000 net in the staff estimate) in the context of approximately $1.1 million in cultivator license revenue.

Members and witnesses also discussed the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB) request for a portion of any revenue above forecast to support equity and community reinvestment programs. Committee members asked for more precise forecast and fiscal modeling before finalizing any diversion of excise tax revenues; counsel said the amendment in committee would make any LAOB payment contingent on revenue above forecast rather than a fixed percentage.

No final votes were taken in committee. The chair and staff agreed to circulate revised language and to invite additional testimony from indoor and outdoor cultivators, retailers, and Cannabis Control Board staff before referring fee changes to Senate Finance and before final committee action.

Why it matters: The measures would reshape the regulated cannabis market in Vermont: rebalanced fees could change cultivator economics, showcase events could broaden retail access and market pathways for producers, and changing excise-tax routing would adjust how regulator operations are paid and how much excise revenue is available for general fund priorities and prevention programs.

Speakers quoted or cited in this report:
James Pepper, Chair, Cannabis Control Board (fee rationale and revenue-neutral instruction).
Joshua Decatur (indoor/mixed cultivator) (industry impact concerns).
Michelle (committee staff) and Kirby Keaton (Legislative counsel) (explanations of amendment and excise-tax construct).

Discussion vs. decision
Discussion points: cultivator fee redistribution (indoor vs. outdoor), design and limits of showcase-event pilot, routing of excise-tax revenue and potential LAOB allocation, and administrative capability of the Cannabis Control Board to manage new permits.
Directions: staff to circulate draft language incorporating suggested edits; Senate Economic Development to invite indoor and outdoor cultivators and additional stakeholders to testify on economics and administrative feasibility prior to sending fee changes to Senate Finance.
Decisions: none taken in the session.

Authorities referenced: the committee cited the board's existing regulatory authority and budget constructs in the state budget; several witnesses referred to prior legislative budget actions that set temporary fund routing and to the reported appellate decision Reyes v. Waple's Mobile Home Park as a procedural example in other contexts.

Proper names referenced: Cannabis Control Board; AppFolio (screening platform referenced elsewhere in meeting); Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB); Champlain Housing Trust; H.169; Reyes v. Waple's Mobile Home Park.

Clarifying details extracted from the record: proposed cultivator fee changes would lower outdoor cultivator fees (example: tier 1 outdoor from $750 to $375 in committee draft) and raise several indoor cultivator fees (indoor fees were roughly doubled in the draft presented); product registration would be biannual with $50/year equivalent; showcase event pilot limited to five events over 18 months with $250 application fee split between municipality and regulation fund; fiscal modeling by Joint Fiscal estimated the cultivator-fee proposal was roughly revenue neutral (~+$44,000 in staff estimate).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Economic Development - 2025-05-07-9:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee reviewed an amendment package that would change cannabis cultivator fees, create a limited showcase-event pilot for licensed retailers and cultivators, and adjust how excise-tax receipts are routed between the Cannabis Regulation Fund and the general fund.","taxTitle","Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",37662,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":46,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6247955,"Senate committee debates tenant screening rules after judiciary review of immigrant-status immunity",6996,192000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212429-364db0574b521f0afaa50e8b8d55abc2&start=192&end=7188","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212429-364db0574b521f0afaa50e8b8d55abc2/thumbnail_192000.jpg","/articles/6247955/Vermont/Senate-committee-debates-tenant-screening-rules-after-judiciary-review-of-immigrant-status-immunity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247955-59a021d80aabd73646880bbebaeb0561/orig.mp4?Expires=1771042827&Signature=f-qCi2wnq5HHswYiPlMeG3hY-uftKSjUDSh4MfX3b-Y86Z-wpuZ3YtGylvNY~K-e-URuRADMgUteLD1~sM9Py6fC2pA-oidUMowRpsYwatkiociL4HBtzyPTkrZWYPN147iXjOGuTeJB~bPzCDFLdmkcyVnSDf200hAm-XA1Yu74bFqRFwEqvVdXO-B0P2AMZxshLOGxR-9GYveDURYYnjdwyWCvEBVrEb4n1B4DJ3pgyvH6GBu1A9vdp7Zz2wZek0zrtM18OdqhpNjHOozCtQpZrjOUkWFazptGlgzCaIjIy5UQWG63Hvg~hqF-MX1F8YO37yUpftWMPE~0OXTq4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee continued work on a housing bill that would add protections for renters and restrict how landlords screen applicants, with members debating a provision on immigration status and a separate change that would force landlords to accept one of three forms of identification if an applicant lacks a Social Security number.

Committee members said the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the draft and \"generally supported\" the additions but recommended language to avoid conflicts with federal law. The provision discussed would add two subsections to the bill's unfair housing practices section saying that if federal law requires verification of immigration status or allows taking immigration status into account for credit, doing so would not itself violate state law.

The committee heard from Angela Zaykowski, director of the Vermont Landlords Association, who said the proposed immigration-related language still leaves many landlords in a precarious position. \"It creates this conflict between state law and federal law and or federal actions that could have our housing providers caught sort of in the crosshairs,\" Zaykowski said. She warned that landlords, facing uncertainty about federal enforcement, might be reluctant to offer new rental units or ADUs because \"the more uncertainty that is imposed into this relationship ... the less likely people are to make that ADU unit, to put another unit online.\" (Angela Zaykowski, director, Vermont Landlords Association)

The committee also turned to the bill's Section 11, which would address Social Security numbers on rental applications. Under the draft discussed in committee, a landlord could request one of three identifiers to run background or credit checks: a Social Security number, an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), or an unexpired government-issued identification. Committee counsel explained the change was intended so applicants without Social Security numbers would not be automatically excluded from housing applications.

Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Counsel explained the operative approach: \"It would require landlords to take one of three pieces of information ... they couldn't mandate that it'd be a Social Security number.\" He walked members through draft 3.1 and identified the bill's additions at section 14 in that draft. (Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel)

Angela Zaykowski told the committee that, in her experience, credit checks and many screening vendors rely on Social Security numbers or ITINs to produce accurate credit reports. \"The only way to get a accurate credit report is with someone's Social Security number or taxpayer identification number,\" she said, adding that relying on name and address alone often produces inaccurate results.

Representatives of housing providers who testified later said some screening vendors can produce usable reports without a Social Security number, and that landlords often use systems where applicants enter a Social Security number but the landlord receives only a masked identifier and the screening results.

Committee members discussed drafting changes to Section 11 to clarify that if a landlord requires a background or credit check and an applicant does not have a Social Security number, the landlord must accept an ITIN or an unexpired government ID; members also discussed removing a proposed requirement that rental applications explicitly state the three acceptable forms of identification.

No formal vote was taken on the committee floor during the session; staff were directed to draft alternative language for the next version of the bill. The committee chair said a revised draft would be prepared for the committee's next consideration.

Why it matters: The provisions would change landlord screening practices statewide and touch on federal-state tension over immigration law, credit-reporting practices, and housing access for students and people without Social Security numbers. Committee legal staff and stakeholders acknowledged unresolved questions about whether consumer-reporting systems can reliably produce credit reports without a Social Security number and whether ITINs are universally available to all immigration statuses.

What comes next: Committee counsel said he would draft the revised language and bring it back before the committee before finalizing the bill for committee report. The committee also flagged that the bill must be reconciled with other provisions (for example, a project-based tax-increment provision currently in Ways and Means) before final reporting.

Speakers quoted or cited in this report:
Angela Zaykowski, director, Vermont Landlords Association (testimony on landlord screening and immigration-related concerns).
Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel (explanation of draft language and placement in draft 3.1).
Chris Donnelly, Champlain Housing Trust (testimony on practice and experience with screening platforms).

Discussion vs. decision
Discussion points: concerns about federal preemption and landlord liability; practical ability of landlords to run credit checks without Social Security numbers; whether to require a disclosure on application forms.
Direction/assignment: staff counsel to draft revised language clarifying that if a landlord requires a background or credit check and an applicant lacks a Social Security number, the landlord must accept an ITIN or unexpired government-issued identification; committee counsel to prepare revised draft 3.2 for the next meeting.
Decisions: none taken in the session (no formal motions or roll-call votes).

Authorities referenced: federal Fair Housing Act (federal law referenced by multiple speakers); H.169 (bill number referenced as the original House bill); Reyes v. Waple's Mobile Home Park (federal appellate case discussed as recent guidance on asking about immigration status).

Proper names referenced: Vermont Landlords Association; Office of Legislative Counsel; AppFolio (tenant-screening platform); Champlain Housing Trust; H.169; Reyes v. Waple's Mobile Home Park.

Clarifying details extracted from the record: the draft would require landlords to accept one of three identifiers (Social Security number, ITIN, or unexpired government-issued ID) when an applicant lacks a Social Security number; the provision discussing federal preemption was placed in subsections d and e of the unfair housing sections (identified by the committee as section 14 of draft 3.1 in committee paperwork); witnesses reported common landlord practice to run credit/background checks and use masked SSNs in reporting systems; ITIN availability across immigration statuses was reported as unclear by counsel and witnesses; committee counsel agreed to reword subsection B1 so that the alternate identifiers are required only \"if an applicant does not have a Social Security number.\"","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee continued work on a housing bill that would add protections for renters and restrict how landlords screen applicants, with members debating a provision on immigration status and a separate change that would force landlords to accept one of three forms of identification if an applicant lacks a Social Security number.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee weighs cultivator fee changes, limited showcase-event pilot and excise-tax routing for cannabis regulation fund

Senate committee debates tenant screening rules after judiciary review of immigrant-status immunity