Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses local support for Otherside Dispensary consumption area amid tax and closure concerns
Summary
Council staff presented a resolution to provide local support for Otherside Dispensary’s request to operate a cannabis consumption area at 36 Congress Street. Staff said the business is closed, not current on several quarters of cannabis tax and is seeking investors; councilmembers questioned enforcement options and were told annual license renewal and lien authority are limited when the operator does not own the property.
Director Woodson of the Department of Commerce introduced resolution 26-300, asking the council to provide local support for Otherside Dispensary LLC to operate a cannabis consumption area at 36 Congress Street.
“This is a resolution providing local support for the Otherside Dispensary LLC to operate a consumption area using their class 5 retail cannabis license,” Director Woodson said, and later added, “They’re actually closed … they have not paid the last three quarters of taxes.”
Councilmembers pressed staff on the city's enforcement tools. One councilmember asked whether the taxes owed were cannabis taxes or property taxes; staff and Woodson confirmed the outstanding amounts were cannabis taxes assessed at 2 percent and based on reported sales, and that the city lacks a direct enforcement mechanism against an operator that does not own the property. Woodson said the ordinance allows the city to lien property if the property owner is the taxpayer, but not when the licensed operator rents.
Legal and commerce staff told the caucus the business has represented it is seeking investors or a purchaser and that the administration expects to proceed with a vote on the resolution at the upcoming meeting. Woodson offered to confer with councilmembers ahead of the formal vote if they wished to discuss whether to support the local‑support resolution.
The council did not record a formal vote during the caucus; staff indicated the item will appear for consideration at the regular meeting, and councilmembers reserved the option to discuss the matter further before Wednesday’s meeting.
