Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board votes 3-2 to cut Sonoma County cultivation tax, sends ordinance to May consent calendar
Summary
After extensive public comment and debate about program sustainability and community impacts, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to lower cannabis cultivation tax rates (equivalent to a 2.5% gross‑receipts crosswalk) and return the revised ordinance for adoption on the May consent calendar.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted in a 3-2 decision on April 15 to reduce the county’s cannabis cultivation tax and asked staff to return the revised ordinance for adoption on the May consent calendar.
The measure follows a staff presentation that said verified cultivation canopy has stabilized near 13 acres and that market prices have fallen sharply, reducing projected tax revenue. McCall Miller, the county’s cannabis program coordinator, told the board HDL Industries’ voluntary survey showed outdoor average saleable prices fell from $277 per pound in 2024 to $143 this year, and that only 13 of 66 operators responded to the questionnaire, limiting the sample.
Supporters of a reduction—including several local cultivators who said the cost of compliant operations has become unsustainable—argued cutting rates would help small farmers remain legal and avoid an expanded black market. “This is medicine,” grower Vince Scholten said during public comment, urging a tax cut and noting many farms are operating close to break‑even.
Opponents, including neighborhood groups, urged caution. Residents raised concerns about environmental impacts, odor and the county’s ability to regulate expanding operations. Several asked that the EIR and setbacks address airborne terpenes such as beta‑myrcene and runoff near watersheds.
After deliberation the board approved reduced cultivation rates by majority vote and directed staff to prepare the ordinance language reflecting the selected option for the board’s consent calendar on May 6. The board’s recorded roll call during the motion showed two dissenting votes; the clerk will publish the final ordinance language and the revised rate schedule before the May hearing.
The board also asked staff to bring a more detailed fiscal and staffing analysis back to the board with the May materials, including projections for program fund balance under the revised rates and a clearer breakdown of positions currently funded by cannabis‑tax revenue.
The item was introduced as an ordinance first reading; no final rate change takes effect until the board adopts the ordinance on the May consent calendar.
