WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 2649

Relates to proceedings for appointment of a guardian for personal needs or property management

2025 Regular Session Introduced by George Borrello and 6 co-sponsors

Mandates use of the CCC's model host community agreement for all cannabis licenses; lets towns propose amendments; CCC must review, publish changes, and respond within 30 days.

RECOMMIT, ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 2649

Summary — S.2649 (2025): "An Act relative to host community agreements"

Note: The bill text filed as Senate No. 2649 addresses host community agreements for cannabis businesses. Some supplied metadata (title referring to guardianship proceedings, committee referrals to "Mental Health", and the listed sponsors) appears inconsistent with the bill text and Massachusetts legislative context. The summary below reflects the bill language provided.

Purpose / Intent

To make the Cannabis Control Commission’s (CCC) model host community agreement (HCA) template mandatory for cannabis license applicants and existing licensees, establish a process for municipalities to propose amendments to that template, and preserve and clarify the CCC’s authority to review, regulate, enforce, approve, and revise HCAs.

Key provisions

  • Mandatory model agreement: The CCC’s model HCA—drafted under chapter 180 of the Acts of 2022—shall be the mandatory agreement between:
    • any business entity certified and recorded with the Secretary of the Commonwealth applying for a CCC license, and
    • the municipality in which the licensee is located or plans to locate, and also for entities already holding a CCC license.
  • Municipal amendments: A municipality may formally present proposed amendments to the HCA to the CCC and the business entity.
    • The CCC must respond in writing within 30 days of receiving any presented amendments, indicating whether those amendments will be included in the final HCA.
  • CCC authority and transparency: The act explicitly preserves the CCC’s power to review, regulate, enforce, approve, and periodically amend HCAs. Any revisions to the model agreement must be made publicly available online.
  • Preemption clause: The law is written “notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary,” indicating the model agreement requirement would take precedence over conflicting statutes or regulations.

Who is affected

  • Cannabis businesses: Applicants and existing licensees certified/recorded with the Secretary of the Commonwealth must use the CCC model HCA (subject to any CCC-approved amendments).
  • Municipalities: Towns and cities where cannabis businesses locate will be required to use the model HCA as the baseline, though they may propose amendments for CCC consideration.
  • Cannabis Control Commission: Increased responsibility to adjudicate proposed municipal amendments within a 30‑day window, to police compliance, and to post model revisions publicly.
  • Secretary of the Commonwealth: referenced for certification/recording of business entities.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Filed as Senate Docket No. 2883 (filed 5/7/2025); introduced 8/1/2025.
  • Legislative actions (selected): read twice and referred to Committee on Finance (8/1/2025); previously referred to Cannabis Policy and Rules committees; House concurred 10/14/2025. Status entries include “RECOMMIT, ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN.”
  • The 30‑day CCC response deadline applies after a municipality presents amendments.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Standardization and predictability: Mandatory use of a single model HCA may streamline licensing and reduce negotiation time for businesses and municipalities.
  • Reduced municipal leverage: Municipalities may have less ability to secure customized financial, public-safety, zoning, or community benefit terms unless the CCC accepts their amendments.
  • Administrative burden on CCC: The 30‑day response requirement and ongoing obligation to publish revisions could increase regulatory workload.
  • Legal and policy ramifications: The preemption language may raise questions about local control and could prompt legal challenges if municipalities assert home-rule authority or claim inadequate consideration of local impacts.
  • Implementation details not specified: The bill does not specify appeals/dispute resolution if the CCC rejects municipal amendments, nor criteria the CCC must use in accepting amendments.

For confirmation of procedural status, sponsors, and committee history, verify the Massachusetts legislative website or the official bill file, since some supplied metadata appears inconsistent with the bill text.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.