Finance subcommittee retains bill allowing some medical cannabis centers to operate for-profit; $13,000 software cost flagged

HB54, which would permit some medical cannabis alternative treatment centers (ATCs) the option to operate for profit, was retained by Finance – Division 3 so that its budget impact can be handled through HB 2, the committee chair said.

The bill “basically allows the alternative treatment centers, which is our distribution methodology for medical cannabis, to allow the option, not to mandate the option, but to allow the option for some ATCs to operate for a profit,” the chair said. The fiscal note attached to the bill says a one‑time $13,000 state expenditure would be needed to develop software to accommodate the change; that cost was described as a Division 1 item. Division 3 staff and witnesses said DHHS reported no fiscal impact.

Why it matters: rather than move the bill administratively from Division 3 to Division 1, committee members agreed to retain HB54 and convert it to an HB 2 item so Division 1 would be responsible for justifying and presenting the appropriation in the full finance process. The chair described the approach as “an efficient way to get us to where we’re probably gonna go anyways.”

Committee discussion focused on notifying Division 1 staff and the prime sponsor so the receiving division understands the policy and fiscal questions. One member urged outreach to Division 1 to ensure the item is reviewed “in a bipartisan effort.” The prime sponsor asked to confirm that the committee’s retain motion matched his understanding of the retain process; the chair and staff explained that retain keeps the bill active for the finance/budget process rather than killing it with an ITL (inexpedient to legislate).

Members also probed the fiscal note’s funding source. One member asked whether the $13,000 would be paid from general funds or a non‑general fund; staff said the secretary of state’s office listed “non general funds” but did not identify the specific source. A staff member present said he could not explain why the fiscal note listed non‑general funds rather than general funds.

Action taken: the division’s members gave a show of hands and the chair recorded the decision to retain HB54 and move it into the HB 2 budget process, with Division 1 taking lead on the appropriation.

Looking ahead: committee staff and the bill sponsor were encouraged to coordinate with Division 1 so the receiving division’s LBA and staff understand the policy, the limited fiscal impact identified in the fiscal note, and the plan to treat the appropriation through HB 2.