My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
55D - RESO - MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGULATION
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
06/17/2014
>
55D - RESO - MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGULATION
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2015 9:36:40 AM
Creation date
6/12/2014 4:53:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
City Attorney's Office
Item #
55D
Date
6/17/2014
Destruction Year
2019
Document Relationships
55D - RESO - MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGULATION
(Related to)
Path:
\Agenda Packets / Staff Reports\City Council (2004 - Present)\2014\07/01/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative <br />June 17, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />Update the Business License Tax Code (Chapter 21) to require a 5% gross receipts <br />cannabis tax, as well as initial registration fees and annual regulatory fees to account for <br />the costs associated with regulating these businesses. <br />Require a Conditional Use Permit which will include public noticing and a hearing before <br />the Planning Commission with confirmation by the City Council. <br />• Background checks on all managers, employees and volunteers working at a medical <br />marijuana collective /000perative. <br />At the meeting on June 3, 2014, the City Council expressed interest in options regarding the <br />separation distance between medical marijuana collectives /cooperatives. The proposed 1,000 <br />foot requirement is intended to prevent the overconcentration of medical marijuana <br />collectives /cooperatives in a given area. <br />Should the City Council decide to reduce this requirement to 700 -800 feet, one potential result <br />will be to increase the overall number of facilities that may be located in a given area. The <br />resulting increase in the number of collectives /cooperatives that a reduction would create <br />depends on where a facility is located in relation to other collectives /cooperatives. <br />Fiscal implications of Proposed City Initiative <br />The method proposed as part of the Santa Ana Medical Marijuana Regulation and Limitation <br />Initiative is to charge collectives a 5% gross receipts Business License Tax, with provisions to <br />allow the City Council to raise this rate by ordinance to as high as 10 %. In addition to the gross <br />receipts tax, a $2,000 minimum base tax, regulatory fees for the required conditional use permit <br />and annual compliance inspection and state sales tax will also be required. The revenue <br />generated by these fees /taxes will be used to cover the costs associated with the enforcement of <br />the proposed ordinance as well as to address the secondary and tertiary effects of medical <br />marijuana businesses. A complete list of the proposed changes to the Business License Tax <br />Code (Chapter 21) is provided as exhibit 2. <br />The proposed revisions to the Business License Tax Code (Chapter 21) are consistent with the <br />definitions, rates and taxing methods utilized by other cities in California that currently regulate <br />medical marijuana collectives /cooperatives. Based on the proposed taxing and regulatory <br />methods described in exhibit 2, the projected annual revenue from medical marijuana <br />collectives /cooperatives would be approximately $1,248,396 per year (Exhibit 3). This estimate <br />assumes a total of twelve collectives /cooperatives, each with annual gross sales of $1.5 million <br />dollars. Should there be less than the maximum of twelve collectives, or should gross sales not <br />reach the estimated $1.5 million dollars, the revenue received will be less than projected. <br />California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Analysis <br />The California Resources Code states that voter initiatives not sponsored by a public agency do <br />not constitute a "project" pursuant to CEQA and, as such, they are exempt from environmental <br />review (Public Resources Code Section 15378(b)(3)). The collective- backed voter initiative, <br />55D -3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.