Skip to main content
Yonkers New York Header
File #: TMP-0630    Version: 2
Type: Resolution Status: Referred
File created: 1/30/2026 In control: City Council of Yonkers Stated Meeting
On agenda: 2/10/2026 Final action:
Title: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING NEW YORK STATE PERMIT MUNICIPALITIES TO ENTER INTO HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENTS WITH ADULT USE CANNABIS BUSINESSES
RESOLUTION

BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT COLLINS-BELLAMY, MAJORITY LEADER RUBBO, MAJORITY WHIP ROBINSON, MINORITY LEADER BREEN, COUNCILMEMBERS PINEDA-ISAAC, DIAZ, AND HODGES:

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING NEW YORK STATE PERMIT MUNICIPALITIES TO ENTER INTO HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENTS WITH ADULT USE CANNABIS BUSINESSES

WHEREAS, The State of New York legalized adult-use cannabis with the intent of creating a well-regulated market that advances public health, safety, equity, and economic opportunity; and

WHEREAS, the current New York State cannabis law authorizes a local excise tax of up to four percent (4%) on adult-use cannabis retail sales, of which only a part remains with the host city, town, or village; and

WHEREAS, municipalities that host adult-use cannabis retailers incur direct and ongoing costs related to zoning and land-use review, permitting, inspections, code enforcement, public safety coordination, traffic and parking management, and community outreach; and

WHEREAS, current New York law prohibits municipalities from imposing host community fees or negotiated impact payments on adult-use cannabis retailers, limiting local governments' ability to recover the actual costs associated with hosting such businesses; and

WHEREAS, this limitation has discouraged some municipalities from opting in to adult-use cannabis retail, thereby restricting legal access, slowing market development, and undermining statewide policy goals; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts permits municipalities to enter into Host Community Agreements with cannabis businesses that may include a Community Impact Fee of up to three percent (3%) of gross annual sales, provided such fees are reasonably related to the costs imposed on the municipality; and

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts model includes safeguards such as fee caps, time limitations, and an emphasis on cost recovery rather than unrestricted revenue generation, offering a ...

Click here for full text