Medical-Marijuana Operator Challenges Pot License Fee Hike
The fee increase came after Gov. Ron DeSantis said medical-marijuana operators, whose licenses have sold for upward of $50 million until recently, need to pay more for the opportunity to do business in Florida.
November 06, 2023 at 01:37 PM
4 minute read
Health CareArguing that a $1.33 million price tag is unjustified, a medical-marijuana operator is challenging a license-renewal fee boost that came after Gov. Ron DeSantis said pot companies aren't paying enough to conduct business in Florida.
The state Department of Health in December adopted a rule creating a formula that set the license-renewal fee for medical-marijuana operators at $1.33 million every two years — more than 22 times the $60,000 biennial fee operators had been paying since the program started six years ago.
The formula is based on the number of licensed operators and the cost to regulate the medical-marijuana program. But the fee does not take into account tens of millions of dollars collected by the agency from patients and caregivers who pay $75 a year for identification cards to participate in the program.
The revised license-renewal fee is "an exponential increase" from the previous amount, lawyers for Sanctuary Cannabis, whose license is due for renewal in January, argued in a challenge filed last week.
Sanctuary's petition for an administrative hearing relied heavily on a budget request the health department submitted to the Legislature for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, which will begin in July.
The request showed that the Department of Health collected $14.9 million in application and renewal fees for licenses and nearly $65 million from patients and caregivers during the 2022-2023 fiscal year, which ended in June. Currently, more than 854,000 patients are qualified for the program.
The agency, which also gets money from testing labs and fines, collected a total of roughly $84 million that year, anticipates collecting the same amount this year and projects receiving $114 million in 2024-2025, according to the budget request.
The agency also reported having a $16.3 million surplus during the 2022-2023 fiscal year and projected surpluses of nearly $4 million this year and $61 million in 2024-2025.
Setting the renewal-fee amount "without accounting for significant and undisputed streams of fee revenue is wholly without logic or reason," Sanctuary's lawyers argued in the petition filed at the state Division of Administrative Hearings.
"The petitioners [Sanctuary] take no issue with the department running a surplus or otherwise receiving any fee, fine, or cost that is necessary to support its operation. However, in light of the department's own income and projections, the department cannot reasonably assert that this exponential renewal fee increase is necessary to keep its operations afloat," attorneys Will Hall and Daniel Russell of the Dean Mead firm wrote in the Oct. 26 petition.
The biennial $1,332,124.42 fee "imposes inappropriately high regulatory costs" on operators, "rendering the challenged rules invalid," the lawyers argued.
Florida voters in 2016 approved a constitutional amendment authorizing medical marijuana for a broad swath of patients. A 2017 law setting up the framework for the medical-marijuana industry gave the health department the authority to set license application and renewal fees "sufficient to cover the costs of implementing and administering" the program, as well as public education and research about cannabis.
The fee increase came after DeSantis said medical-marijuana operators, whose licenses have sold for upward of $50 million until recently, need to pay more for the opportunity to do business in Florida.
The state "should charge these people more," DeSantis told reporters in August 2022.
"I mean, these are very valuable licenses," the governor told reporters. "I would charge them an arm and a leg. I mean, everybody wants these licenses."
Many operators in Florida and the rest of the country, however, have struggled with finances because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which creates banking hurdles and forces companies to pay higher corporate-income taxes.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250