Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public raises concerns about missing cannabis ordinance draft and county cannabis fund transfers

Lake County Board of Supervisors · February 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A cannabis farmer said no draft cannabis ordinance was available despite a statutory timing expectation and alleged department misconduct; a separate commenter urged an independent audit after identifying multi‑million‑dollar transfers from a cannabis reserve.

Two public commenters told supervisors they are concerned about county cannabis governance and finance, saying missing written rules and unexplained transfers undermine public accountability.

Sky Lily Wong (Hillsbury Family Farms) said the long‑awaited cannabis ordinance had not been released as a draft for public review despite an expectation that it would be presented by January. Wong alleged that since Aug. 12, 2022, cannabis operators in the county have been regulated by shifting, informal directives rather than clear, adopted ordinance language and said that department leadership has disclosed protected personal information in public proceedings.

"When the government invents processes that are not written into law, that is not flexibility. It is power without accountability," Wong said, and urged the board to confront misconduct and hold leadership accountable.

Separately, Tom Lasik reviewed an auditors' report and flagged a fund that had "lost over half $1,000,000" and a transfer out of more than $3,000,000 identified as negative revenue. He alleged Community Development Department activity had effectively subsidized cannabis reserve funds, described apparent double‑charging (salary transfers and subsequent service charges), and called for an independent audit rather than an internal review by involved departments.

No departmental reply to these specific allegations appears in the public comment record. Speakers referenced the California Department of Cannabis Control when describing expected regulatory processes and asked for written ordinances and financial transparency to restore public confidence.