Officials say work is underway to clarify cannabis licensing barriers and release reinvestment funds
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Committee members pressed DOSM on OSC cannabis licensing and the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund; acting secretary said staff are analyzing barriers (including local injunctions), will refine state vs. local roles with OAG and legislative staff, and that outreach to local areas will be prioritized to expedite distribution.
Legislators asked how the Department of Social and Economic Mobility will handle cannabis licensing administered by the Office of Social Equity (OSC) and how the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund created by the cannabis reform act will be spent locally.
Acting Secretary Walter Simmons said OSC licensing and lottery results will be included in DOSM’s KPIs and reporting. He gave a high‑level, speaker‑described set of application outcomes to illustrate drop‑off in the process: roughly 2,000 applications, 1,900 approved to a point, 17 qualified, about 19 executed — figures he described as raw and not exact — and stated in one remark that "204 is an exact number and the 19 that have gotten there." He also said some applicants who met state requirements could not open because their chosen locations faced local injunctions.
On the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund, Simmons said some local areas have not yet spent dollars and that DOSM staff will work with legislative staff and the Office of the Attorney General to clarify the division of state and local responsibilities so funds can move. He said the department will define the state’s role and the local role, produce clearer parameters for local areas, and try to avoid creating unnecessary constraints while ensuring sound use of the funds.
Simmons said OSC staff briefed DOSM leadership and that further briefings and targeted analyses are scheduled to identify systemic barriers versus individual applicant deficits, with the goal of resolving licensing and distribution hold‑ups.
The committee requested follow‑up on timelines and further detail on how local decisions will interact with state guidance.