Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Revenue topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Mayors of Tarrytown and Hastings ask Greenberg to let villages keep local cannabis tax revenue

Town Board of the Town of Greenberg · May 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Mayors Karen Brown (Tarrytown) and visiting Hastings officials asked Greenberg’s town board to negotiate distribution so villages retain revenue from dispensaries located in village boundaries; board agreed to research precedents (Croton cited) and put the item on the June 10 work session agenda.

Karen Brown, mayor of the Village of Tarrytown, told the Town of Greenberg board on May 13 that Tarrytown and Hastings — the two Greenberg villages that opted into the state cannabis law — want a distribution agreement that returns all locally generated cannabis revenue to the municipality in which sales occur. "We believe that a 100% of the revenue that comes from the cannabis sales should go to the municipality that it was earned in," Brown said.

Brown said villages have borne the permitting, inspection and local-service responsibilities for the retail sites and argued that directing revenue to the villages would be simpler and faster than routing funds through town accounting. She estimated a rough retail-sales figure for the Tarrytown store (about $2,000,000 annually) and said that at typical statutory percentages the town’s share would be modest; the board’s discussion recorded varied, approximate arithmetic and the exact budget impact was not resolved in the meeting.

Board members asked for examples of arrangements elsewhere. Members cited Croton as a precedent for an 80/20 split and noted that the default distribution can be 50/50 when parties do not negotiate. Several board members and the visiting mayors agreed more research was needed on how counties remit cannabis revenues — whether the county sends funds directly to each municipality or routes them through the town — and on whether receipts would be booked to townwide (A) or designated (B) budget lines.

The visiting officials asked the town to treat the request as a negotiation opening and to research both statutory text and local examples. The board set a procedural follow-up: staff will research precedents and distribution mechanics and the topic will be placed on the second June work session agenda (target date: June 10) for the board to consider options.

The mayors also asked Greenberg to consider whether current zoning — which limits dispensaries to industrial/light-industrial zones with setbacks from churches, parks and residences — effectively prevents siting in commercial areas and thus affects which municipality benefits. Brown said the villages may also seek zoning adjustments to broaden sites available for dispensaries.

The visiting delegation closed by thanking the board and inviting members to local Memorial Day events; the board did not adopt any formal distribution agreement at the meeting and deferred the policy decision pending staff research and legal review.

The town board placed the item on the June work session agenda and requested staff deliver examples and any relevant statutory interpretations in advance of that meeting.