Dear Sacramento Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing in regard to the June 23, 2026 City Council agenda item concerning the proposed Business Operating Permit fees for cannabis consumption lounges.
I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider and reduce the proposed annual fees for consumption lounges . While I understand the City’s intent to recover administrative and enforcement costs, these additional charges place an undue financial burden on existing storefront dispensaries—particularly small and legacy operators.
Onsite consumption is not a standalone business model. It is permitted only as an add-on to already licensed storefront cannabis dispensaries. These businesses currently pay approximately $20,000 annually in permit-related fees, which already cover application processing, regulatory oversight, and routine inspections. Much of the information required for the consumption lounge application has already been submitted and vetted through the storefront permitting process, and ongoing compliance inspections are likewise already funded through existing fees.
As such, the proposed consumption lounge fees feel duplicative and excessive. While the Staff Report notes that these fees are intended to recover the City’s reasonable regulatory costs, storefront operators are effectively being asked to pay twice for substantially overlapping administrative and enforcement services. This creates a financial barrier to participation in the pilot program and undermines the City’s stated goals of supporting a diverse, sustainable cannabis marketplace.
Moreover, onsite consumption has the potential to drive increased tourism, stimulate local economic activity, and enhance surrounding businesses. Imposing steep additional fees risks limiting participation to only the largest operators, reducing innovation and accessibility while excluding smaller community-based dispensaries that have already invested heavily in compliance.
I respectfully request that the Council consider a reduced or tiered fee structure, or an adjustment that reflects the significant regulatory costs already borne by existing storefront dispensaries. A more balanced approach would better support equitable participation in the pilot program while still allowing the City to recover legitimate incremental costs.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Cargile
CEO
A Therapeutic Alternative
ceo@atherapeuticalternative.com