ATHOL — Aggravated. Miffed. Disappointed. Frustrated. These adjectives — and more — just begin to describe Athol Town Manager Shaun Suhoski’s reaction to approval by the Massachusetts House of sweeping legislation relative to the cannabis industry. The bill was approved on Wednesday, May 18, by an overwhelming margin of 153-2.
Prior to the vote, Suhoski sent email correspondence to House Speaker Ronald Mariano expressing support for an amendment to H4791 which would lock in place any host community agreements in effect prior to passage of the bill, and which would exempt such HCAs from state Cannabis Control Commission review at any point during the duration of the agreements.
Athol’s town manager also supported streamlining of “documentation requirements” relative to HCAs.
Suhoski argued that without the proposed amendments, existing host community agreements, many of which include requirements that cannabis businesses pay a community impact fee of up to 3 percent of gross annual revenues, would become null and void. He said the municipalities across the Commonwealth had bargained with cannabis retailers, cultivators, and manufacturers in good faith “while embracing a new industry as host communities.”
“These pioneering communities,” Suhoski argued in his correspondence to Mariano, “certainly sought a financial benefit for the citizenry in exchange for their willingness to be on the forefront of a new industry that was previously deemed illegal and for which latent impacts may not be known. Substantial time, effort and money was expended to create local bylaws, ordinances and zoning reforms necessary to allow these new enterprises.”
Without mentioning former New Bedford Mayor Jasiel Correia by name, Suhoski told the Athol Daily News, “Some bad actors on the municipal side may have created undo and unwarranted attention on the host community agreements. There’s a reason that impact fees and these agreements were created, and it was — and this is just my opinion — it was to incentivize communities that might be on the fence about accepting this new industry, which was previously illegal.”
Correia was found guilty on state and federal charges that included extorting cannabis vendors in connection with host community agreements.
“I can tell you — and I won’t name specific selectmen — but more than one that I’m aware of, the benefits to the community weighed on their decision whether to embrace or approve these agreements,” said Suhoki.
Regarding the host community agreements Athol has signed with several cannabis businesses, Suhoski said the revenues that could be generated “could do some really good things for the town.”
Suhoski believes the attitude of the legislative leadership played a role in passage of legislation which, if ultimately agreed to by the Senate, could be damaging to the more than 150 municipalities that have inked host community agreements. An amendment to the bill to memorialize existing HCAs, filed by Rep. Michael Kushmerek of Fitchburg and co-sponsored by Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol, was ultimately withdrawn “without discussion.”
“My sense is the leadership on Beacon Hill is not really receptive to (protecting existing HCAs),” said Suhoski. “They just really wanted to be done with this, and the host community agreements — too bad. We’re going to have a very convoluted, detailed accounting process that can be questioned and litigated.
“I think there are going to be some mayors and selectboards and city and town administrators waking up to say, ‘What? What’s happening?’”
Suhoski called the House action “hypocritical.” He said the Legislature is the body that originally brought up the concept of host community agreements. Cities and towns, he said, scrambled to enact zoning bylaws based upon what was seen as a promise by the Legislature that they could count on not only revenues from sales taxes, but also on an additional payment of community impact fees.
“We scrambled to get zoning in place,” he said. “We rolled out the welcome mat. The industry in Athol pretty much said ‘yes’ (to community impact fees). It wasn’t that anyone was being held hostage. It was viewed as the cost of doing business … along with the 17 percent that goes to the state.
“Now, the legislation they passed the other day has no protections for cities and towns with existing agreements. The new regulatory scheme is based upon actual documented costs that can be contested and reviewed, and the CCC is going to have their fingers in everything. It’s just a bureaucracy that was unnecessary, creating unnecessary confusion, frustration, potential litigation. They should have just said, ‘If 3 percent is too high, we’re going to make it 1 percent.’ Or they never should have brought it up in the first place.”
Suhoski called the House action amending the original cannabis legislation a “bait-and-switch.”
While the House vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the changes, nothing changes — for now. The bill now goes to a House-Senate conference committee to hammer out differences between the House bill and similar legislation being considered by the state Senate.
“It’s just unfortunate that host community agreements — if they’re going to be so over-regulated by the state — we should never have had them in the first place,” Suhoski concluded. “That’s what bothers me the most — it feels like a bait-and-switch. I don’t mean by intent; I know that our rep and senator weren’t thinking that. But when you look at the leadership not even looking at any protections for the existing contracts — well, it’s just not right.”
Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com