Public and supervisors press for clarity on cannabis discretionary revenue, reporting discrepancies

County residents and board members pressed administration for clearer answers on how cannabis tax and grant dollars have been recorded and spent, with callers urging outside review and supervisors flagging mismatches in the county’s reports.

"It's time that we have the federal government to step in and take a serious look at the fiscal management of our county," an online commenter identifying as Kylie of Pillsbury Family Farms said during public comment, urging federal review of grants, audits and communications around cannabis funding. Supervisors and staff then debated the mechanics of the county’s cannabis 'discretionary' revenue and the 30/30/30/10 allocation model, with staff explaining that some discretionary transfers roll into board-controlled funding and others are distributed to departments.

Supervisors also pointed to inconsistent reporting: one supervisor highlighted a roughly $1.7 million difference in 2425 appropriations between the Schedule 9 report submitted to the state and the board's internal 'blue' budget report. County staff acknowledged encoding problems in earlier reports and said they would work to reconcile errors as the county transitions to Workday.

The board did not take a formal vote on policy changes to cannabis allocations but agreed to additional analysis and to return with reconciled numbers and clearer explanations for how discretionary cannabis dollars will be treated in contingency and departmental allocations.