The Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on an unspecified date in October reviewed a new draft amendment that would preserve the annual clearing of the Cannabis Regulation Fund to the general fund, create or direct one‑time FY2027 transfers to a cannabis business development fund and a community reinvestment fund, and call for prioritizing social‑equity retailers when awarding up to five showcase event permits.

The draft, presented by Legislative Counsel Kirby Keaton, keeps the existing flow that directs 30% of cannabis revenue to prevention programs and the remainder to the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) for regulation and administration, then returns leftover balances to the general fund. "At the end of each fiscal year, the balance in the cannabis regulation, which shall be transferred to general fund," Keaton said while describing language JFO requested for housekeeping of special funds.

Why it matters: the amendment would lock in how revenue flows from the newly regulated cannabis market are handled, add targeted one‑time spending in FY2027 and explicitly call out prioritization for social‑equity applicants for certain permits. Those budgeting and priority choices affect how much state money is available for community reinvestment and business support and which applicants receive earlier processing for special event permits.

Most of the committee discussion centered on three linked pieces in the draft: the annual treatment of the Cannabis Regulation Fund, a proposal to allocate one‑time FY2027 transfers, and a separate fee and permit regime for showcase events. Keaton said the one‑time proposal discussed would direct $500,000 to the cannabis business development fund and $500,000 to a land‑access/community reinvestment account for FY2027, with the remainder going to the general fund; Keaton noted the cannabis business development fund already held about $616,000.

Committee members agreed the one‑time allocation language should be developed further in Finance and Appropriations. "I would suggest we take this out of this and that we add it to an amendment that will then go to finance and appropriations," one committee member said, and the group agreed to pull that funding allocation into a package for Finance. Keaton confirmed the committee would retain the migrant‑justice board member language in the current amendment but move the broader funding package for separate consideration.

On permit and fee questions, the draft allows up to five showcase event permits and would assess a $250 application fee to the retailer who holds the permit; the draft designates half the fee to the host’s hospitality and half to the indicated fund. Keaton and others described the $250 as a placeholder modeled on alcohol special‑event fees and said Finance would revisit the amount and any further fee structure.

Committee members sought to ensure social‑equity applicants are prioritized for the showcase permits. Julie, a staff member, reminded the committee that "under existing law, we have to prioritize social equity applicants in all processes. That's just underlying statute." Paul, speaking for the Laborers Association, offered a quick check of current licensees: "there's 19 social equity retailers and 25, I believe, economic empowerment retailers," which committee members used as context when discussing prioritization language.

The draft also adds a reporting requirement: an interim report and a final retail‑sales report, with a final report due January 15, 2027, included in the amendment text as discussed.

Next steps noted by the committee included preparing a clean copy that pulls the FY2027 funding allocations into a Finance/Appropriations amendment, adding explicit prioritization language for social‑equity retailers in the showcase permit subsection, and having Finance and JFO review the placeholder fee and the proposed one‑time transfers. Members indicated a goal to vote the remaining parts of the amendment out of committee shortly after the revisions, but no formal vote on the full amendment appears in the provided transcript.

The transcript did not specify the meeting date or the full names or titles of several participants; the article uses only names and titles stated in the record.