As the legalization of recreational cannabis grows larger on the 2018 horizon, Yolo County is once again taking a close look at how local policy will take shape.
Tuesday’s supervisors’ meeting will in part address Yolo County’s interim cannabis policy, making some final alterations before hanging it up to dry. Supervisors — not all of which openly support current practices — will hear policy updates, license and fee results and public comment before setting further course.
That said, supervisors will also discuss successes and failures of the young policy; by law, they have the authority to trim or even snip all existing regulations, should they vote so.
A complete ban of cannabis cultivation in Yolo proves unlikely, but the “next step” taken on Tuesday will affect local growing operations. The meeting starts at 9 a.m. in supervisorial chambers on Court Street. The nuggets and the numbers So far, most of the existing growers for medical cannabis have been able to adhere to new regulations, ordinances and testing. According to the agenda item prepared by Assistant County Administrator Mindi Nunes, the county has taken measures to guide local growers through the complexities of the up-and-coming industry.
Nunes states the following, which will act as focal points in Tuesday’s meeting:
• Of all license applications, 64 have been granted and six have been denied.
• The county has conducted 57 scheduled site visits, 15 unannounced task force site visits, and four unannounced weekend enforcement visits.
• 288 growers, owners and/or employees have been “Live Scanned” for contaminants.
• 80 people involved with growing have been trained in on the Track & Trace program, which now follows an estimated 54,000 plants in Yolo County.
• 83 plants have been tested for pesticides, all have come back negative. These numbers show that most medical marijuana operations have been able to stay within legal boundaries of the county’s interim policy.
Granted, the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act passed by Gov. Jerry Brown this past Thursday will call for additional parameters. The MAUCRSA deconstructs previous acts regarding medical and adult use and combines them into one document that will also encompass recreational use. Most of regulations within the MAUCRSA pertain to licensure, as well as how product will make the journey from the growing site to the market and eventually, the consumer.
Testing will occur at nearly every step the plant takes toward an end product. That end product must leave with customers completely unopened by a dispensary. All things considered, supervisors will be decide to either continue the existing ordinance with modifications, expand it to envelop further cannabis operations (nurseries, trimming facilities) or phase out the existing ordinance to adopt the state’s template. The county’s Cannabis Steering Committee has urged the first option, adding a few “immediate modifications.”
Those modifications ask the county add language stating that licenses can be revoked, should growers violate policy. Moreover, the committee asked that grow sites be further removed — from 75 to 1,000 feet — from residential structures, and also suggest growers be given options to move cultivation sites into areas of less “community impact.” That said, the steering committee’s findings will only nudge the Board into that direction. Their Tuesday votes could also curtail existing policy.
Based on a public letter on the matter, District 2 supervisor Don Saylor will likely vote to continue the existing policy. In his letter, he described that policy favors legal grow sites that will hopefully triumph over the black market. The other supervisors have shown less intention since cannabis talks began, but the history of those talks would suggest that Jim Provenza of District 4 will favor medical cannabis over recreational, while Matt Rexroad and Duane Chamberlain of Districts 3 and 5 appear less gung-ho on existing policy and would rather see cannabis growers subject to the same market as farmers. In the past, District 1 supervisor Oscar Villegas has leaned one way or another per specific issue, but has been adamant that the county have a kill-switch, should the industry get out of hand. The Yolo Cannabis Coalition has caught wind of this spread of opinion; several members including CEO Eric Gudz will likely attend the meeting with a formulated argument.
In a past seminar, members agreed to a July 30 meeting that would address the published agenda and rebut on behalf of growers. On Nov. 22, supervisors approved five fees that would help fund efforts to govern the cultivation industry.
All expenses considered, those fees covered expenditures and personnel costs needed to govern the cultivation process and implement new policy — with about $31,000 to spare. Should supervisors opt to continue current policy, those fees will only go toward the governance of local growers. Taxes, on the other hand, could still be implemented by supervisors. The agenda states that either a special tax or a general tax could bring anywhere between $6 million and $7.2 million in revenue that would also fund cannabis policy and enforcement.
In a Friday interview with The Democrat, Rexroad said the Tuesday meeting could be a “train wreck.” He went on to explain that with the floor open to public comment, the regular board meeting — which has stuffed 31 items into the consent agenda — will likely be governed by the cannabis issue. It’s an issue he feels doesn’t deserve this much attention. “The regulatory process has been back and forth,” he said, referring to the ebb and flow of policy in past months.
“I’m ready to let the market work … I’ve had more meetings on marijuana than anything else.” Rexroad said he has some issues with the existing policy he would rather see changed, but most of those preferences don’t target the plant itself, but rather the red tape surrounding the growers. “There’s an irrational fear in plant growing,” he said.
He also said he’d rather see cooperative efforts between growers, saying that policy surrounding a string of small farms isn’t worth the effort to govern. He said he would “rather see a 1,000-acre plot than 1,000 one-acre plots.” With that land use in mind, he said policy should treat growers as farmers, subject to the same land use environmental concerns. Rexroad cannot speak for his four counterparts, but he assured that “everything’s on the table for Tuesday.” He also assured that he would be going on vacation directly after the meeting.
(1204)
Leave A Reply