Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators press to recalibrate outdoor cannabis grower fees; committee to hear Cannabis Control Board
Summary
A group of senators proposed an amendment to reduce fees on outdoor cannabis growers and prioritize delivery permits for small tier-one growers; staff estimated a $100,000–$120,000 revenue impact and the committee scheduled the Cannabis Control Board and a grower to testify.
Senators introduced an amendment to recalibrate fees for outdoor cannabis cultivators, arguing that current fee levels are disproportionate given outdoor growers’ lower yields compared with indoor operations.
A sponsor said the amendment would apply only to fully outdoor growers and not to indoor or mixed cultivators, and that the change reflects a committee-commissioned report from the Cannabis Control Board. The sponsor told the panel the amendment has the support of the five senators on the Senate Economic Development committee and estimated an annual revenue reduction in the range of $100,000 to $120,000 as a result of narrowing the fee base.
Committee members focused on operational details. One senator urged that, if delivery permits are limited (the draft limits the board to issuing 15 delivery permits immediately), priority should be given to small tier-one growers who lack retail outlets rather than to retailers that already have sales channels. Members asked staff to check the bill language to confirm whether prioritization is included and how delivery rules would operate.
The committee discussed scheduling witnesses: staff said the Cannabis Control Board could attend at 3:00 p.m., and a grower from Grand Isle (identified in the transcript as Sam Bellance) had offered testimony to illustrate the practical impact on outdoor growers. The committee agreed to invite the board and interested growers to provide fiscal details, prioritization proposals, and operational clarifications before deciding on the amendment’s next steps.
No formal vote was recorded at the meeting; members requested the board’s report and additional testimony to reconcile revenue assumptions and prioritization language before any committee amendment is filed.
