Sonoma County supervisors slash cannabis tax as growers warn of collapse, neighbors raise alarms

“The reality is we tried something and honestly what I’m seeing is that it’s not really working,” said board chair Lynda Hopkins.

5 minute read

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a significant cut to the county’s cannabis cultivation tax, sending the county further down a path toward eliminating the tax altogether.

The move, in a 3-2 vote, comes even though the tax revenue used to run the county’s cannabis program has fallen short of covering operational costs.

Board Chair Lynda Hopkins, Vice Chair Rebecca Hermosillo and Supervisor James Gore voted to continue assessing cultivators based on their square footage and what type of growing operation they have. The new rates, however, will amount to roughly 2.5% of a grower’s gross receipts, or a 45% reduction, according to McCall Miller, the county’s cannabis program coordinator.

Supervisor Chris Coursey voted against the proposal, preferring instead a 25% reduction proposed by staff. Supervisor David Rabbitt, also voted no and said he would rather keep the rates the same.

The new rates will take effect July 1 pending a second, final vote by the board in May.

Under the change, the cultivation tax will be reduced from $0.69 per square foot to $0.36 per square foot for outdoor cultivation, $2.51 per square foot to $1.15 per square foot for mixed light cultivation and $7.58 per square foot to $3 for indoor cultivation.

It is the fourth rate change the board has passed — including a temporary reduction in 2022 — since first establishing rates in 2017, a year after California voters legalized cannabis for nonmedical adult use.

Stabilizing the industry

County officials have for years grappled with how to balance the needs of local growers who say the local industry is collapsing under burdensome regulations and fees, with the county’s operational costs, concerns from neighbors who want stronger oversight and the now-squashed expectations that the local industry would prove lucrative enough to support county services.

In March 2017 a majority of Sonoma County voters ― 71% ― approved a framework for the county’s Cannabis Business Tax.

But the industry has struggled to retain a foothold. The number of cultivators has dropped significantly, from 155 cultivators in May 2023 to 66 active cultivators in the county’s most recent count.

According to Miller, the county cannabis coordinator, outdoor cultivation has “held pretty steady” compared to last year and totals just over 13 acres in unincorporated Sonoma County. The steady rate shows the tax program changes and reductions have worked, she said.

“When this all started the taxes were way too high. They continue to be too high, we’ve reduced them, we continue to see this industry get reduced and reduced,” said Vince Scholten, owner of NorCal Growers.

If the tax burden on cannabis cultivators is not relieved, Scholten said, the county would likely see cultivation turn to the black market where the county would get nothing.

Staff projections showed that tax revenue under the 2.5% gross receipts revision would bring in $704,843. The county would have to tap about $1 million from the cannabis business tax fund’s balance to cover the remaining operational costs.

Tuesday’s tax cut is intended to help stabilize the industry and keep the county’s cannabis tax fund solvent through fiscal year 2026-2027, Miller said.

The rate reduction recommendation was based on an annual report produced by a HdLCompanies, a Brea-based consultant hired by the county to analyze the local industry, particularly the tax rate.

The report found the average price per pound for indoor cannabis salable product decreased from $606 in 2024 to $240, and the average price for outdoor cannabis products has also decreased from $277 to $143.

But the findings rely on businesses’ voluntary responses to HdL’s survey, which amounts to about 20% of the 66 licensed growers in the county. The answers provided by the businesses are not verified, Miller told The Press Democrat, and the report also doesn’t take the county’s operational needs into account.

Hopkins on Tuesday said it did not make sense to continue a tax that is not able to cover the cost of its own collection.

“The reality is we tried something and honestly what I’m seeing is that it’s not really working,” Hopkins said.

The tax program funds about eight employees across five county departments and pays other costs, including legal and contract services.

The number of employees is expected to drop to about seven, though County Administrator Christina River indicated all program positions would be eliminated if the tax program ends. If that were to happen, Rivera said some employees may be moved to other areas or laid off.

Drafting a new ordinance

Tuesday’s discussion offered a preview of upcoming ordinance discussions.

A draft of the county’s long-awaited environmental impact study is set to be released next month and will guide the development of a revised cannabis ordinance.

Options on the table may include a proposal to define cannabis as “controlled agriculture,” which would be subject to specific regulations. It would be the only crop in Sonoma County defined as “controlled agriculture,” said Scott Orr, deputy director for the county’s permitting department.

The ordinance will also look at setbacks, zoning, events and permitting, among other regulations.

County officials will be tasked with balancing needs of the local growers and retailers, with residents who say the county needs to tighten its regulation of the scope and location of cannabis farms. Water supply, odor, traffic and security are among the concerns that neighbors have raised.

Though the local industry’s footprint in the county has shrunk since the board kicked off the review process in 2021, the sentiments on both sides of the issue seem to have largely remained the same.

“The industry just wants to make sure that they have the ability to stay in business and grow, folks that are on the other side of the issue want to make sure that they feel comfortable with where they’re living,” Orr said. “And we’re trying to reconcile the conflict between those two sides.”

Those tensions were on display Tuesday as cannabis growers and residents lined up to address the board.

“I feel super disappointed I feel like our input has been very ignored and every concession has been made bending over backward to the industry,” said Rebecca Bass, a Bennett Ridge resident.

Some residents said they felt like “canaries in the coal mine,” worried that their neighborhoods would be hurt by nearby cannabis farms and any resulting impacts to traffic, safety, the environment and home values.

Scholten said many of those concerns raised were not based on scientific fact.

“There is a whole lot of fearmongering going on here that’s just all false,” he said.

Toward the end of the hourslong cannabis discussion, Rabbitt was among the county leaders to remind the public that the ordinance still needed to be drafted.

“Don’t get too excited about what’s in and what’s out yet because it hasn’t fully been hatched,” he said.

The Planning Commission will hold public hearings over the summer before a proposed ordinance reaches the board later this year.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify what funds the county uses to cover operational costs of its cannabis program.

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.