Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business owners urge council to reject proposed cannabis fee increases; council accepts public comment
Summary
Dozens of speakers — including social equity licensees and small business owners — urged the council to reject fee increases from the Department of Cannabis Regulation and to pursue independent study and targeted relief; the council took public comment and later approved a package of routine agenda items that included item 13.
Dozens of business owners and social equity licensees told the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday that proposed fee increases from the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) would threaten already fragile licensed cannabis businesses and favor illicit operators.
Speakers during the public comment period described a range of operational problems they said made the fee increase untimely. Tiffany Wright, who identified herself as a 17-year cannabis industry veteran, urged the council to “reject this increase” and called on the city to provide relief for social equity applicants, saying DCR charges more than the state and that social equity licensees have been “indebted and vampirized by a DCR that does the exact same job that the state department of cannabis control does and then charges us exponentially more.”
Owners described specific fee and administration burdens they said were harmful. One speaker said the city required a $4,000 renewal fee and an $8,000 annual application fee in 2025; another said DCR charged more than $500 to file a simple DBA; others described lengthy delays in disbursements tied to social equity funding, including a reported 10-month wait for pro rata disbursement. Daniel Sosa, who said he owns four dispensaries in the city, told the council many licensed storefronts are more than $1 million in debt and that the licensed market competes with an illicit market that pays no taxes.
Advocates and industry groups urged several policy responses: reject the current fee proposal until an independent third-party fee study with public input can be completed; increase enforcement against illegal operators; adopt tiered fee or tax structures modeled on other California cities; and provide direct financial relief or grants to social equity licensees.
Speakers included representatives of the United Cannabis Business Association and social equity owners who said cumulative city and state fees and taxes are driving businesses to close. “We cannot afford higher fees in such a hostile business environment,” Daniel Sosa said during public comment.
The council took public comment on item 13 as part of its broader public-comment period. After public comment concluded, the council voted on a slate of items (items 1, 3–13 and 19–29) by roll call, recording 14 ayes on the package that included item 13.
Multiple speakers asked the council to delay or reject the department’s fee increase and to pursue an independent study; some requested specific relief and a tiered structure to support small and social equity operators. Councilmembers did not immediately announce a change in direction on item 13 during Tuesday’s meeting beyond allowing public comment and including it in the roll-call package.
