St. Helena City Council
May 9, 2023

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 155
The legalized cannabis market also may be reproducing current disparities in access to health care. Medical cannabis patients report relying on the illicit market rather than the legal one because of high costs and lack of insurance coverage for cannabis (Arnsten, 2019; Mercurio et al., 2019). Lack of reliable transportation also impedes poorer people from accessing legal dispensaries (Arnsten, 2019). A recent analysis of medical cannabis patients in Florida found that roughly 83% of patients were white, 7.6% were Latino and just 1.9% were Black (Rosenthal & Pipitone, 2021), even though the state's population is roughly 25% Latino and 16% Black (U.S.

Census, 2020). These imbalances may result from concerns about the federal illegality of cannabis and well-known disproportionate arrest rates for Black and Latino populations (Rosenthal & Pipitone, 2021).

Finally, racial disparities appear in exposure to nuisances associated with cannabis retail:

California neighborhoods with dispensaries have a greater proportion of Black, Latino, and poor people relative to neighborhoods without cannabis retail (Unger et al., 2020).6

TAKE-AWAYS FOR SCHOLARS AND PRACTITIONERS
Research priorities
We need to better understand the effects of cannabis production across multiple sectors and how cannabis consumption impacts individuals and communities (Giannotti, 2017; Martiroysan, 2017). Federal prohibitions on cannabis and related research, plus a thriving illicit market that seeks to avoid monitoring, result in major knowledge deficits. Stigma around cannabis discourages scholars from studying its governance, even though insights from these experts are important to building sound, just, and safe policy regimes.

Assessing the environmental impacts of cannabis production is critical to identifying and promoting best management practices. For instance, most current estimates of cannabis water demand are calculated based on a single static approximation of outdoor cannabis's expected daily use for the entirety of a growing season, rather than using actual water consumption data collected across an entire growing season and under different cultivation approaches (Dillis, 2019; Wartenberg et al., 2021). Estimates of GHG emissions too rely heavily on models and assumptions rather than data (Mills et al., 2022). Little is known about the impacts of noise, light, and odor pollution from cannabis operations. Many estimates of cannabis-linked deforestation and land cover change currently come from case studies and may not be widely generalizable.

Research is needed on appropriate pricing of cannabis products, optimal taxation rates and regimes, and the impacts of cannabis production on local infrastructure, health, traffic, public safety, and quality of life. Scholars may be able to draw inspiration and insights from rural sociology research on how communities are affected by boom-bust cycles in natural resource production (Freudenberg, 1981), i.e., rapid periods of resource-dependent economic growth and societal change followed by periods of economic downturn that often erase previous economic gains.

We encourage scholars to investigate the potentially significant parallels between the economic, societal, and environmental impacts of cannabis production and those of other natural resourcereliant industries, particularly oil and gas.

For example, communities most vulnerable to hydrocarbon boom-bust cycles tend to be rural, isolated, and particularly economically reliant on the industry (Mayer, 2018; Measham et al., 2019); this profile aptly describes locations in northern California's cannabis-producing “Emerald Triangle” or in other heavy-production areas of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

156 |
KAVOUSI et al.

Communities heavily invested in gas and oil production can experience rapid, dramatic changes in fortune, largely beyond their control, when volatile global hydrocarbon prices spike or decline.

Volatile dynamics in the illegal cannabis industry or changes in demand for cannabis more generally, both of which are largely beyond local authorities' reach, can increase or decrease demand experienced by cannabis-producing communities. Underdeveloped economies can easily become reliant upon natural resource-based production, hindering them from pursuing the diversification which could buffer them from boom-bust shocks (Lobao et al., 2016); cannabis-reliant local economies could easily share this precarity. Just as communities reliant on gas, oil, or coal can become stigmatized as “dirty” due to land, air, or water pollution, and thereby stymied from amenity-based economic development, communities stigmatized for cannabis production can be viewed as “dirty”, lawless, and polluted, and deprived of economic development opportunities in consequence (Polson & Peterson-Rockney, 2019). Insights into how to best escape this fate are critically important for natural resource-dependent economics, cannabis, and otherwise.

Scholars should continue investigating whether cannabis legalization improves racial and social equity or entrenches inequalities. Under what conditions are those who purchase legal cannabis more or less demographically or socioeconomically similar to those who use the illicit market? Where are dispensaries located, and what populations do they serve versus exclude? Who are the growers and distributors, are particular groups over or underrepresented, and what does this mean for who benefits from cannabis-fueled economic growth? Subnational policymaking around cannabis offers enormous possibilities for scholars of federalism, the policy process, and policy design and implementation. Some states and local governments have legalized cannabis and others have not; why? Johns (2015) began this exploration by surveying Colorado local government officials about their legalization choices, while Hannah and Mallinson (2018) find that capacity factors, such as citizens being able to leverage direct ballot initiatives, help predict U.S. state decisions about medical legalization (see also Mallinson et al., 2020). Future research could seek to explain varying levels of regulatory rigor among state and local governments and how policies are revised over time, investigating the relative influence of interest group lobbying, resident preferences (including political ideology), and political opportunity structures. Scholars might also investigate how emerging medical evidence about the benefits and risks of cannabis appears to impact policy choices, informing the rich debate on how science is used in the policy process (e.g., Koontz, 2019). Research might inquire whether cannabis policy design and implementation exhibit tendencies of “morality” policymaking, as observed around issues like abortion and gambling (Hannah & Mallinson, 2018), versus being viewed as innovative health policymaking creating a public “good” that could help ease the nation's opioid epidemic. Which interpretation will prevail, when, and why? Scholars of street-level bureaucracy, who know that policy implementers' workaday decisions (e.g., in cannabis permitting or licensing) are substantially shaped by their values, might ask how these officials' policy choices are influenced by their attitudes towards drugs and drug use (Lipsky, 1980). There also are opportunities for scholars to investigate what types of policy narratives are used around cannabis and when, and with what dispositions(see Jones & McBeth, 2010); Motta (2021) beginsthis exploration by finding that, in state policy debates, cannabis legalization opponents rely heavily on moral claims and anecdotal evidence.

Cannabis legalization offers a novel opportunity to examine how perceptions and policies grapple with an illicit industry and product moving into the licit realm. Abortion and physicianassisted suicide have made similar transitions, but solely as medical treatments rather than also consumer goods, and lack the broad market potential of cannabis.The start and end of Prohibition in the United States is perhaps the most comparable policy process but occurred against a very 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 157
different cultural and policy backdrop. Will legalization democratize and decentralize the production and distribution of cannabis, as occurred for alcohol (Levine & Reinerman, 1991), or will it concentrate these high-value operations in the hands of a few? How will the parallel operation of the illicit market impact the legal one?
Recommendations for policymakers
Local government officials should consider carefully whether the benefits of cannabis production and distribution outweigh the costs for their community, and how to best strike a balance between costs and benefits, both for residents and for an industry already beset by regulatory burdens that can inhibit profitability and even business viability The most applicable tools in the local governance toolkit are land use controls, controls that flow from the jurisdiction's police powers, taxation, and programs which direct monies from the cannabis industry to local priorities.

Some localities have used their traditional land use authority to ban cannabis operations (Bodwitch, 2019; Carnevale et al., 2017; Caulkin & Kilborn, 2019; Polson & Petersen-Rockney, 2019), while others use that authority to mitigate the industry's potential adverse impacts by requiring setbacks between cannabis facilities and residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, churches, and recreation facilities, as is common with facilities selling liquor (Caulkins & Kilborn, 2019; Chappell, 2019; Freisthler & Gruenewald, 2014; Guttery & Poe, 2018; Nemeth & Ross, 2014; Zhang et al., 2017). Some use zoning to limit cannabis operations to commercial or industrial areas, impose density limits that cap the number of facilities per jurisdiction or per capita, or cap total local dispensary licenses (Freisthler & Gruenewald, 2014; Nemeth & Ross, 2014; Silver, 2020).

A local jurisdiction's police powers, that is, its authority to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, can be leveraged to similar ends (Priamos, 2013). Some jurisdictions require cannabis operations to register with the city and require safety measures that include single, secured entrances, and cameras, alarm systems, outdoor lighting, signage, security guards, storage safes, and limited hours. They may prohibit on-site consumption, drive-throughs, seating, or delivery (Freisthler & Gruenewald, 2014).

Their responsibility for public welfare should encourage officials to seek out and implement best management practices for cannabis growth and distribution. For example, Mendocino County, California, requires applicants for cultivation permits to undergo a site-specific habitat review process, in addition to meeting requirements associated with theCaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (Bauer et al., 2015). Localities can regulate the size and location of grows so as to reduce forest conversion, habitat fragmentation, and cultivation of ecologically sensitive areas (Wartenberg et al., 2021). They can pursue comprehensive planning for flow management, particularly focusing on sensitive species, engage in more extensive water quality and quantity monitoring, and use enforcement to prevent excess water use and unpermitted forest conversion and grading (Bauer et al., 2015). They should assess the costs and benefits of grow operations that may use rangelands, prime agricultural land, or in sensitive ecosystems, and the trade-offs of indoor versus outdoor grows (Valachovic et al., 2019). Policymakers can consider regulating THC potency, as well as requiring more extensive product labeling and potentially reducing the number of forms in which cannabis can be purchased (Pacula & Sevigny, 2014).

Localities also can use land use authorities and police powers also to address nuisances, such as by requiring growers to mitigate light, noise, and odor from operations by writing mitigation 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

158 |
KAVOUSI et al.
measures (e.g., sound barrier walls, restrictions on light-intense hours) into cannabis cultivation ordinances (e.g., Christensen, 2018). Officials interested in reducing GHGs can specifically require that indoor grows employ management practices that reduce the energy intensity of environmental controls, grow lights, and CO2 application (Bauer et al., 2015).

Some concerns about potential adverse public and safety health impacts of legalization could be addressed by devoting (more) state and local tax revenues and/or impact fees to government programs for reducing substance use disorder and crime, treating mental and physical health, educating people imprisoned for drug crimes and their children so as to reduce recidivism and intergenerational incarceration, improving infrastructure, and building community integration.

A number of state and local regulatory regimes are already considering or using some of these approaches; it will be important to assess the efficacy of these interventions and adaptively and responsively manage them over time.

Part of a city's cost-benefit calculus regarding cannabis should account for the enormous burden the opioid crisis places on localities and emerging evidence that cannabis may help reduce opioid use. From 2015 through 2018, the opioid crisis cost U.S. local governments at least $210 billion (Mulvihill, 2019), and those costs are rising rapidly. U.S. deaths from overdoses are at an all-time high, reaching more than 93,000 people in 2020 (Steenhuysen & Trotta, 2021). Policymakers should seriously consider whether cannabis legalization can help tackle this problem.

Because localities can use tools of governance to condition whether and how cannabis operations occur locally, patchwork regulatory regimes are emerging around the country. This approach may help ensure that the industry reflects local needs and priorities, but could prevent cannabis operators from achieving efficiencies of scale and create administrative burdens that disadvantage less-capacitated operations. Sometimes state and local regulatory regimes conflict, resulting in operator confusion and unintended non-compliance (Bodwitch, 2019; Lux, 2019).

State policymakers should evaluate local regimes and probe whether, in some cases, preempting them with more comprehensive, simpler, state-wide regulation would be desirable for efficiency, equity, and/or public health and safety. They also might consider developing stronger guidance for local regimes and model laws that can help harmonize regulatory expectations vertically and horizontally.

Current market trends appear to favor large, well-financed cannabis operators who may be new entrants, and disadvantage smaller cannabis businesses, including many “legacy” operators from the illicit market. People of color and poorer individuals are being squeezed out of legal cannabis by regulatory hurdles and high costs. If policymakers want the industry to benefit marginalized groups, they must ensure that social equity applicants retain financial and legal control of their operations, avoiding cooptation by predatory investors (see Connley, 2021); they could also consider allowing growers to market products directly to consumers (e.g., at farmer's markets) rather than having to rely on distributors. They can make individuals with previous drug felonies eligible for legal operation (Adinoff & Reiman, 2019); further invest in streamlining regulatory procedures; offer (additional) technical assistance to help equity applicants secure permits and achieve compliance, and provide financial assistance.

This last point is both difficult and critical: cannabis business owners from disadvantaged communities are vulnerable to predation by investors, as well as to dropping out of the permitting process and the legal market, precisely because they typically cannot access federally insured loans or insurance.
15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 159

CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis production, distribution, and usage are increasingly important issues in the United States and globally. Public perception of cannabis has shifted dramatically in recent decades, and many jurisdictions are embracing legalization. Yet policy scholarship on cannabis remains scant and scattered, arguably in part because of stigma associated with decades of criminalization of producers, distributors, and users—a phenomenon that disproportionately harms disadvantaged populations. If scholars continue relegating cannabis to policy backwaters, they entrench this stigma and its consequences, that is, regulatory regimes and outcomes less thoughtful, just, safe, or sustainable than they could be if cannabis were the focus of rigorous scholarship. This is not an acceptable path.

From the available evidence, our judgment is that it ultimately will be difficult to build a thriving legal cannabis market if cannabis remains federally illegal or illegal in many localities and states, and if the illicit market continues to thrive even in places where cannabis is legal. In such circumstances it is rational for some growers and sellers, confronting a complex, heavily regulated market versus the unregulated illicit one, to choose the latter despite its risks (Caulkins et al., 2012). To the extent the illicit market persists, cannabis operations will continue trying to evade detection and regulation, complicating efforts to gain reliable information about how the industry affects the environment, public health, and safety. This lack of information will make it more difficult to develop effective regulatory regimes. Criminal activity, environmental damage, and infrastructure degradation from illegal grows will continue affecting communities.

Persistence of the illicit market will hinder efforts to reduce cannabis stigma and may delegitimize the entire legalization experiment (Bodwitch, 2019).

By contrast, federal legalization of cannabis would reduce the industry's investment risk, allow operators access to financial institutions, insurance, and related services, and potentially shrink the illicit market. As occurs in many other interstate industries, federal regulations could set minimum standards for environmental quality, product safety, and health while still allowing states and localities to adopt more stringent policies. Lacking federal action, state and local officials may be best-served by explicitly focusing on transitioning cannabis operations from the illicit market to the legal one. By helping growers and sellers obtain and maintain licenses and helping consumers access legal, reasonably priced cannabis, policymakers can deprive the illegal market of consumers and make illicit operation less desirable for cannabis businesses.

That said, these suppositions are just that: Hypotheses, based on available evidence. They await testing by scholars who take seriously the charge of rigorously, empirically evaluating how cannabis legalization impacts people, economies, and communities. We hope readers take up this charge.

ENDNOTES
1 Following Wartenberg et al. (2021), we use “cannabis” to refer to the drug type. 2 For perspective: These earnings constitute about 1%–2% of the Colorado and Washington budgets, respectively (Awad, 2018; Santos, 2021).
3 It is important to note, though, that localities which do not independently tax cannabis usually still receive funding from state cannabis taxes or fees.
4 This analysis did not differentiate between legal and illegal grows. 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

160 |
KAVOUSI et al.
5 Note, though, that experts increasingly recognize the value of drug-based therapies in treating opioid addiction, coined as “harm reduction” (e.g., Calceterra et al., 2019). 6 Conversely, this association actually may be desirable on equity grounds to the extent that the dispensaries are owned by community members and/or allow cannabis access to individuals with limited transportation options.

REFERENCES
Adams, M. (2019, April 18). Two reasons to legalize marijuana: Embalming fluid and fentanyl-laced pot on black market. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2019/04/18/two-reasons-to-legalize-marijuanaembalming-fluid-and-fentanyl-laced-pot-on-black-market/ Adinoff, B., & Reiman, A. (2019). Implementing social justice in the transition from illicit to licit cannabis. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 45(6), 673–688.

Amroussia, N., Watanabe, M., & Pearson, J. (2020). Seeking safety: A focus group study of young adults' cannabisrelated attitudes and behavior in a state with legalized recreational cannabis. Harm Reduction Journal, 17(1),

92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00442-8
Anderson, D. M., Hanson, B., & Rees, D. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56, 333–369. https://doi.org/10.1086/668812 Angell, T. (2020, March 23). Coronavirus crisis shows marijuana is ‘essential’ and mainstream. Forbes. https:// www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/03/23/coronavirus-crisis-shows-marijuana-is-essential-and-mains tream/
Arnsten, J. (2019, May 29). Access to medical cannabis: A new health care disparity. STAT NEWS. https://www. statnews.com/2019/05/30/medical-marijuana-health-care-disparity Ashworth, K., & Vizuete, W. (2017). High time to assess the environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation.

Environmental Science & Technology, 51(5), 2531–2533. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06343 Awad, A. M. (2018, October 22). Where does all the marijuana money go? CPR News. https://www.cpr. org/2018/10/22/where-does-all-the-marijuana-money-go-colorados-pot-taxes-explained/ Babich, L. (2021). New study: How legalizing recreational marijuana impacts home values. https://listwithclever. com/research/marijuana-housing-market-study/
Bachhuber, M. A., Saloner, B., Cunningham, C. O., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Medical cannabislaws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999–2010. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(10), 1668–1673. https:// doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4005
Bartlett, J. (2021, May 11). Smokescreen. The Boston Business Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/ news/2021/05/11/smokescreen-a-lack-of-transparency-in-the-money-c.html Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., Van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., & Leppig, G. (2015). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on aquatic habitat in four northwestern California watersheds.

PLoS One, 10(3), e0120016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120016 BDSA. (2021). BDSA reports global cannabis sales exceeded $21 billion in 2020; forecasts $55.9 billion by 2026.

Intrado GlobeNewswire. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/03/02/2185408/0/en/BDSAReports-Global-Cannabis-Sales-Exceeded-21-Billion-in-2020-Forecasts-55-9-Billion-by-2026.html Bhattarai, A. (2021, September 24). Greener pastures: Marijuana jobs are becoming a refuge for retail and restaurant workers. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/09/24/marijuana-dispe nsaries-jobs/
Biron, C. (2020, September 10). ‘Green rush’: Cannabis boom squeezing farmland in North America. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-land-cannabis/green-rush-cannabis-boom-squeezing-farmland-innorth-america-idUSKBN261209 Bodwitch, H., Carah, J., Daane, K., Getz, C., Grantham, T., Hickey, G., & Wilson, H. (2019). Growers say cannabis legalization excludes small growers, supports illicit markets, undermines local economies. California Agriculture, 73(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0018 Bodwitch, H., Polson, M., Biber, E., Hickey, G. M., & Butsic, V. (2021). Why comply? Farmer motivations and barriers in cannabis agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurs tud.2021.05.006
Boesen, U. (2021, January 13). Potential recreational marijuana excise tax revenue by state. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-by-state/ 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 161
Bottorff, J. L., Bissell, L. J., Balneaves, L. G., Oliffe, J. L., Capler, N. R., & Buxton, J. (2013). Perceptions of cannabis as a stigmatized medicine: A qualitative descriptive study. Harm Reduction Journal, 10(1), 1–10.

Brenan, A. (2020). Support for legal marijuana inches up to 68%. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/ support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx
Bridgeman, M. B., & Abazia, D. (2017). Medicinal cannabis: History, pharmacology, and implications for the acute care setting. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 42(3), 180–188.

Bronfein, D. (2016). Maryland State Bank: The responsible solution for fostering the growth of Maryland's medical cannabis program. University of Baltimore Law Forum, 47(1), 28–57.

Burkhardt, J., & Flyr, M. (2019). The effect of marijuana dispensary openings on housing prices. Contemporary Economic Policy, 37(3), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12414 Butsic, V., & Brenner, J. (2016). Cannabis agriculture and the environment: A systematic, spatially-explicit survey and potential impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 044023.

Butsic, V., Carah, J., Baumann, M., Stephens, C., & Brenner, J. (2018). The emergence of cannabis agriculture frontiers as environmental threats. Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), 124017. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaeade
Butsic, V., Schwab, B., Baumann, M., & Brenner, J. (2017). Inside the emerald triangle: Modeling the placement and size of cannabis production in Humboldt County, CA USA. Ecological Economics, 142, 70–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.013
Calcaterra, S. L., Bach, P., Chadi, A., Chadi, N., Kimmel, S. D., Morford, K. L., Roy, P., & Samet, J. H. (2019).

Methadone matters: What the United States can learn from the global effort to treat opioid addiction. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34, 1039–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4801-3 Carnevale, J., Kagan, R., Murphy, P., & Esrick, J. (2017). A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US states. International Journal of Drug Policy, 42, 71–85.

Caulkins, J. (2010). Cost of marijuana prohibition on the California criminal justice system. RAND Drug Policy Research Center, WR-763-RC.

Caulkins, J., & Kilborn, M. (2019). Cannabis legalization, regulation, and control: A review of key challenges for local, state, and provincial officials. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 45(6), 689–697.

Caulkins, J., Kilmer, B., MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., & Reuter, P. (2012). Design considerations for legalizing cannabis. Addiction, 107(5), 865–871.

Cazentre, D. (2021, May 17). New York's marijuana tax may not be the highest. But it may be the most complex. Syracuse.com. https://www.syracuse.com/marijuana/2021/05/new-yorks-marijuana-tax-might-not-bethe-nations-highest-but-it-may-be-the-most-complex.html Chappell, B. (2019, August 23). California says its cannabis revenue has fallen short of estimates, despite gains.

NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753791322/california-says-its-cannabis-revenue-has-fallen-short -of-estimates-despite-gains
Cheng, C., Mayer, W., & Mayer, Y. (2018). The effect of legalizing retain marijuana on housing values. Economic Inquiry, 56, 1585–1601.

Chiu, V., Leung, J., Hall, W., Stjepanović, D., & Degenhardt, L. (2021). Public health impacts to date of the legalisation of medical and recreational cannabis use in the USA. Neuropharmacology, 193, 108610. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108610
Christensen, L. (2018). Why is Cannabis a good neighbor? | Sound mitigation at Cannabis cultivation facilities. https://www.andersonporter.com/sound-mitigation-for-cultivation/ Congressional Research Service (CRS). (2020). The schedule 1 status of marijuana. CRS Insight. https://crsreports. congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204
Conklin, J., Diop, M., & Li, H. (2020). Contact high: The external effects of retail marijuana establishments on house prices. Real Estate Economics, 48(1), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12220 Connealy, N. (2019). The criminogenic effect of marijuana dispensaries in Denver, Colorado. Justice Evaluation Journal, 3(1), 69–93.

Connley, C. (2021, July 1). Cannabis is projected to be a $70 billion market by 2028--yet those hurt most by the war on drugs lack access. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/01/in-billion-dollar-cannabis-market-racia l-inequity-persists-despite-legalization.html
Corroon, J. J., Mischley, L., & Sexton, M. (2017). Cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs. Journal of Pain Research, 10, 989–998.
15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

162 |
KAVOUSI et al.

Crowder, M. (2020, September 22). New appellations would celebrate individual terroir of cannabis strains. San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-appellations-would-celebrate-indiv idual-15587030.php
Daniels, J. (2019, February 12). Colorado legal pot industry sales grew 3 percent in 2018, top $6 billion since recreational use began. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/colorado-pot-industry-sales-top-6-billi on-since-adult-use-began.html
Di Forti, M., Sallis, H., Allegri, F., Trotta, A., Ferraro, L., Stilo, S. A., Marconi, A., La Cascia, C., Reis Marques, T., Pariante, C., Dazzan, P., Mondelli, V., Paparelli, A., Kolliakou, A., Prata, D., Gaughran, F., David, A. S., Morgan, C., Stahl, D., … Murray, R. M. (2014). Daily use, especially of high-potency cannabis, drives the earlier onset of psychosis in cannabis users. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 40(6), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1093/ schbul/sbt181
Dillis, C., Biber, E., Bodwitch, H., Butsic, V., Carah, J., Parker-Shames, P., Polson, M., & Grantham, T. (2021).

Shifting geographies of legal cannabis production in California. Land Use Policy, 105, 105369. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105369
Dillis, C., Grantham, T., McIntee, C., McFadin, B., & Grady, K. (2019). Watering the emerald triangle: Irrigation sources used by cannabis cultivators in Northern California. California Agriculture, 73(3), 146–153. https:// doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0011
Dillis, C., McIntee, C., Butsic, V., Le, L., Grady, K., & Grantham, T. (2020). Water storage and irrigation practices for cannabis driven seasonal patterns of water extraction and use in Northern California. Journal of Environmental Management, 272, 110955.

Dufton, E. (2017). Grass roots. Basic Books.

Elmahrek, A. (2020, June 23). LA ‘social equity’ program for cannabis under scrutiny. Los Angeles Times. https:// www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-23/cannabis-licenses-social-equity-4th-mvmt Everett, Y. (2018). A challenge to socio-ecological resilience: Community-based resource management organizations' perceptions and responses to cannabis cultivation in northern California. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 40, 89–115.

Felix, A. (2018, April 16). The economic effects of the marijuana industry in Colorado. Rocky Mountain Economist. https://www.kansascityfed.org/denver/rocky-mountain-economist/rme-2018q1/ Ferguson, C., McFadden, C., Dong, S., & Schapiro, R. (2019, September 28). Tests show bootleg marijuana vapes tainted with hydrogen cyanide. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/vaping/tests-show-bootleg-marij uana-vapes-tainted-hydrogen-cyanide-n1059356
Fersko, J. (2018, May). The business of marijuana. ACREL News & Notes. https://cdn.ymaws.com/acrel.site-ym. com/resource/resmgr/news_and_notes/May/2018-05_Fersko_-_Cannabis_Ar.pdf Fertig, N. (2019, June 4). How legal weed is killing America's most famous marijuana farmers. Politico. https:// www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/humboldt-county-marijuana-farmers-regulations-227041/ Fetick, J. E. (2018). Does a legal “high” lead to higher rents? An estimation of the effects of cultivation laws on Colorado industrial property values. Miami University. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami 1532786903670889
Firth, C., Davenport, S., Smart, R., & Dilley, J. A. (2020). How high: Differences in the developments of cannabis markets in two legalized states. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 75, 102611. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.102611
Florence, C., Luo, F., Likang, X. U., & Chao, Z. U. (2016). The economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence in the United States. Medical Care, 54(10), 901–906.

Freisthler, B., & Gruenewald, P. (2014). Examining the relationship between the physical availability of medical marijuana and marijuana use across fifty California cities. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 143, 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.07.036
Freudenburg, W. R. (1981). Women and men in an energy boomtown: Adjustment, alienation and adaptation.

Rural Sociology, 46(2), 220–244.

Ganjier. (2021). Become a master of cannabis service: Cannabis sommelier certification. https://www.ganjier.com/ certified-ganjier-cannabis/
Gianotti, A., Short, J. H., Baird, G., & Sepaniak, S. (2017). The quasi- legal challenge: Assessing and governing the environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation in the North Coastal Basin of California. Land Use Policy, 61, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.016 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 163
Gieringer, D. (1999). The forgotten origins of cannabis prohibition in California. Contemporary Drug Problems, 26(2), 237–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099902600204 Gofen, A. (2015). Reconciling policy dissonance: Patterns of governmental response to policy noncompliance.

Policy Sciences, 48, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9202-9 Goldstein, R., & Sumner, D. (2019). California cannabis regulation. California Agriculture, 73(3), 101–102.

Gurewitz, H., Petrillo, M. A., Scott, T., McDonald, B., Weir, A., & Pickman, H. (2019). Mendocino county 2018–2019 economic assessment. EDFC.

Guttery, R., & Poe, S. (2018). Using a cannabis real estate investment trust to capitalize a marijuana business.

Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 24(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2018. 12090018
Hannah, A. L., & Mallison, D.(2018). Defiant innovation:The adoption of medical marijuana lawsin the American States. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12211 Hartman, M. (2021). Cannabis overview. National Conference of State Legislators. https://www.ncsl.org/research/ civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx
Hodgson, M. (2021, April 16). Santa Barbara County supervisors spend cannabis tax funds on expansion requests. Lompoc Record. https://lompocrecord.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/santa-barbara-count y-supervisors-spend-cannabis-tax-funds-on-expansion-requests/article_42d8c7a1-110f-5479-86f7-391e0 a5cbd39.html
Hsu, G., & Kovacs, B. (2021). Association between county level cannabis dispensary counts and opioid related mortality rates in the United States: Panel data study. BMJ, 372, m4957. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj. m4957
Humphreys, K., & Saitz, R. (2019). Should physiciansrecommend replacing opioids with Cannabis? JAMA, 321(7), 639–640. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0077
Ishida, J., Wong, P., Cohen, B., Vali, M., Steigerwald, S., & Keyhani, S. (2019). Substitution of marijuana for opioids in a national survey of U.S. adults. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222577 Johns, T. (2015). Managing a policy experiment: Adopting and implementing recreational marijuana policies in Colorado. State and Local Government Review, 47(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X15 612149
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38, 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x Jorgensen, C., & Harper, A. (2020). Examining the effects of legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington on clearance rates. Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11292- 020-09446-7
Karch, A. (2021). Filling a vacuum: Subnational governance amid national government inaction. State and Local Government Review, 52(4), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X21999585 Kelly, E. C., & Formosa, M. L. (2020). The economic and cultural importance of cannabis production to a rural place. Journal of Rural Studies, 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.02.009 Kepple, N., & Freisthler, B. (2012). Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(4), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.15288/ jsad.2012.73.523
Keul, A., & Eisenhauer, B. (2019). Making the high country: Cannabistourism in Colorado, USA. Annals of Leisure Research, 22(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2018.1435291 Kim, D., O'Connor, S., & Norwood, B. (2020). Retail marijuana deregulation and housing prices. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3537860
Kootz, T. (2019). The science-policy nexus in collaborative governance. Review of Policy Research, 36(6), 708–735.

Kovacevich, N. (2019, February 1). The hidden costs of the cannabis business. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/nickkovacevich/2019/02/01/the-hidden-costs-of-the-cannabis-busi-ness/?sh=6c8e5ac77da3 Krieger, L. (2019, May 25). Where does California's cannabis tax money go? Mercury News. https://www.mercu rynews.com/2019/05/25/where-does-californias-cannabis-tax-money-go/ Kugelman, D. (2021,June 10). Four cannabisstocksfor the summer of 2021. Intrado GlobeNewswire. https://www. globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/06/10/2245064/0/en/Four-Cannabis-Stocks-for-the-Summer-of2021.html 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

164 |
KAVOUSI et al.

LaChance, J. (2019). We can't just be a county that supports inebriants': Voices of the non-cannabis agricultural community. California Agriculture, 73(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0016 Land, D. (2020). Debunking myths in cannabis and hemp. UC Davis Cannabis and Hemp Research Center. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6mc4BZUTFU
Leins, C., & Alas, H. (2021, June 30). States where recreational marijuana is legal. U. S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/where-is-pot-legal Levine, H., & Reinarman, C. (1991). From prohibition to regulation. The Milbank Quarterly, 69(3), 461–494.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

Lobao, L., Zhou, M., Partridge, M., & Betz, M. (2016). Poverty, place, and coal employment across Appalachia and the United States in a new economic era. Rural Sociology, 81(3), 343–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ruso.12098
Long, A. (2020, November 17). Colorado's summer cannabis sales thrive despite collapse of state's tourism industry. MJBizDaily. https://Mjbizdaily.Com/Colorado-Summer-Cannabis-Sales-Thrive-Despite-Tourism-Slowd own/
Lucas, P., Baron, E., & Jikomes, N. (2019). Medical cannabis patterns of use and substitution for opioids and other pharmaceutical drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and illicit substances. Harm Reduction Journal, 16(1), 9.

Lux, T. (2019). The California cannabis industry. Journal of Business Entrepreneurship and Law, 13, 209–244.

Maier, S., Mannes, S., & Koppenhofer, E. (2017). The implications of marijuana decriminalization and legalization on crime in the United States. Contemporary Drug Problems, 44(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914 50917708790
Mair, C., Freisthler, B., Ponicki, W. R., & Gaidus, A. (2015). The impacts of marijuana dispensary density and neighborhood ecology on marijuana abuse and dependence. Drug Alcohol Dependency, 154, 111–116. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.019
Makin, D., Willits, D., Guangzhen, W. U., DuBois, K., Ruibin, L. U., Stohr, M., Koslicki, W., Stanton, D., Hemmens, C., Snyder, J., & Lovrich, N. (2019). Marijuana legalization and crime clearance rates. Police Quarterly, 22(1), 31–55.

Mallinson, D., & Hannah, A. L. (2020). Policy and political learning: The development of medical cannabis policies in the states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(3), 344–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/publi us/pjaa006
Mallinson, D. J., Hannah, A. L., & Cunningham, G. (2020). The consequences of fickle federal policy:

Administrative hurdles for state cannabis policies. State and Local Government Review, 52(4), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X20984540
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). (2021). Overview of the Illinois cannabis regulation and tax act. https://www.mpp. org/states/illinois/overview-of-the-illinois-cannabis-regulation-and-tax-act/ Martiroysan, S. (2017). The decriminalization of recreational cannabis in California. San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review, 27(2), 187–208.

Martyny, J., Serrano, K., Schaeffer, J., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Potential exposures associated with indoor marijuana growing operations. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 10(11), 622–639. https://doi. org/10.1080/15459624.2013.831986
Mayer, A., Olson-Hazboun, S., & Malin, S. (2018). Fracking fortunes: Economic well-being and oil and gas development along the urban-rural continuum. Rural Sociology, 83(3), 532–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ruso.12198
McGinty, E., Samples, H., Bandara, S., Saloner, B., Bachhuber, M., & Barry, C. (2016). The emerging public discourse on state legalization of marijuana for recreational use in the U.S. Preventative Medicine, 90, 114–120.

Measham, T., Walton, A., Graham, P., & Fleming-Munoz, D. (2019). Living with resource booms and busts. Energy Research and Social Sciences, 56, 101221.

Meehan, B., Rusko, C., & Frank Stephenson, E. (2020). (Pot)heads in beds: The effect of marijuana legalization on hotel occupancy in Colorado and Washington. Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy, 50(1), 46–53.

Mehra, A. (2021, January 26). Cannabis testing market worth $1,806 million by 2025. Markets and Markets. https://www.yahoo.com/now/cannabis-testing-market-worth-1-143000998.html 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 165
Mercurio, A., Aston, E., Claborn, K., Waye, K., & Rosen, R. (2019). Marijuana as a substitute for prescription medications. Substance Use & Misuse, 54(11), 1894–1902.

Mills, E., Zeramby, S., Corva, D., & Meisel, J. (2022). Energy use by the indoor cannabis industry. In D. Corva & J.

Meisel (Eds.), Handbook of post-prohibition cannabis research. Routledge.

Miron, J. (2010). The budgetary implications of drug prohibition. Criminal Justice Foundation. https://schol ar.harvard.edu/files/miron/files/budget_2010_final_0.pdf Motta, M. (2021). Diffusion and typology: The invention and early adoption of medicinal marijuana and offshore wind policies. Social Science Quarterly, 102(1), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12893 Mulvihill, G. (2019). New study: Opioid crisis cost U.S. economy $631B over 4 years. AP. https://apnews.com/artic le/business-us-news-health-economy-financial-markets-8a4c97e621af4026a22d6462b425702c Murphy, K. (2019, May 20). Cannabis is becoming a huge job creator. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevin murphy/2019/05/20/cannabis-is-becoming-a-huge-job-creator/ Nadreau, T., & Randall Fortenberry, T. (2020). 2020 contributions of the Washington cannabis sector. Impact Center, Washington State University. http://ses.wsu.edu/impact-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/WA_ Cannabis_Final_v2.pdf
Nemeth, J., & Ross, E. (2014). Planning for marijuana. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 6–20.

Nobile, J. (2020, February 11). Report: Cannabis job growth projected to outpace all other fast-growing industries.

Crain's Cleveland Business. https://www.crainscleveland.com/jeremy-nobile-blog/report-cannabis-job-growt h-projected-outpace-all-other-fast-growing-industries
NORML. (2021). Medical marijuana laws. https://norml.org/laws/medical-laws/ Nunberg, H., Kilmer, B., Pacula, R., & Burgdorf, J. (2011). An analysis of applicants presenting to a medical marijuana specialty practice in California. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 4(1), 1. https://doi. org/10.2202/1941-2851.1017
Office of the Attorney General of California. (2016). Marijuana legalization. Initiative statute. Cali-fornia Proposition 64.

Owens, B. (2019). The professionalization of cannabis growing. Nature, 572(7771), S10–S11. https://doi. org/10.1038/d41586-019-02527-2
Owusu-Bempah, A., & Luscombe, A. (2021). Race, cannabis and the Canadian war on drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 91, 102937.

Pacula, R., & Sevigny, E. (2014). Marijuana liberalization policies: Why we can't learn much from policy still in motion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21726 Pardo, B. (2014). Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(4), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2014.05.010
Payan, D., Brown, P., & Song, A. (2021). County-level recreational marijuana policies and local policy changes in Colorado and Washington State (2012–2019). Milbank Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12535 Plakias, Z., Jodlowski, M., Giamo, T., Kavousi, P., Taylor, K., & (2021). Pot of money: Characterizing agricultural lending and banking in the California cannabis industry. Agricultural Finance Review (under revision).

Polson, M., & Petersen-Rockney, M. (2019). Cannabis farmers or criminals? Enforcement-first approaches fuel disparity and hinder regulation. California Agriculture, 73(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a 0017
Priamos, G. (2013, December 1). California supreme court: Cities may ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

Western City. https://www.westerncity.com/article/california-supreme-court-cities-may-ban-medical-marij uana-dispensaries
Rahwanji, M. (2019). Hashing out inequality in the legal recreational cannabis industry notes. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 39(3), 333–358.

Reiman, A., Welty, M., & Solomon, P. (2017). Cannabis as a substitute for opioid-based pain medication. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 2(1), 160–166.

Reyes, E. (2021, March 20). LA's promise of social equity for marijuana businesses has been painfully slow for entrepreneurs. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-20/la-cannabis-socia l-equity-frustration
15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

166 |
KAVOUSI et al.

Rich, L. N., Mcmillin, S., Baker, A. D., & Chappell, E. (2020). Pesticides in California: Their potential impacts on wildlife resources and their use in permitted cannabis cultivation. California Fish and Game, 106, 31–54.

Risso, C., Boniface, S., Subbaraman, M. S., & Englund, A. (2020). Does cannabis complement or substitute alcohol consumption? Journal of Psychopharmacology, 34(9), 938–954.

Rosario, J. (2021, July 13). City council members agree on even split of Jersey City cannabis tax revenue between schools, social programs. The Jersey Journal. https://www.nj.com/hudson/2021/07/city-council-memberagree-on-even-split-of-jersey-city-cannabis-tax-revenue-between-schools-social-programs.html Rosenthal, M. S., & Pipitone, R. N. (2021). Demographics, perceptions, and use of medical marijuana among patients in Florida. Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids, 4, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512342 Santos, M. (2021, February 22). How $1 billion in pot taxes gets spent in Washington State. Crosscut. https://cross cut.com/news/2021/02/how-1-billion-pot-taxes-gets-spent-washington-state Schroyer, J. (2020, July 22). Divide opens over L.A. cannabis social equity licenses, management contracts.

MJBizDaily. https://mjbizdaily.com/dispute-over-los-angeles-cannabis-social-equity-licenses-management -contracts/
Schulz, L. (2019, April 25). The economic impact of developing the adult-use cannabis industry in New York.

Rockefeller Institute of Government. https://rockinst.org/issue-area/the-economic-impact-of-developing -the-adult-use-cannabis-industry-in-new-york/
Schwab, B., & Butsic, V. (2017). Estimating the impact of cannabis production on rural land prices in Humboldt County, CA. In Standiford, Richard B.; Valachovic, Yana, tech cords. Coast redwood science symposium—2016: Past successes and future direction. Proceedings of a workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-258 (pp. 395–402). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Schwab, B., Wartenberg, A., & Butsic, V. (2019). Characteristics of farms applying for cannabis cultivation permits.

California Agriculture, 73(3), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0019 Settelmeyer, R., & Sedlock, J. (2017, November 3). Living near marijuana grow can be an unhealthy experience.

The Register-Guard. https://www.registerguard.com/article/20171103/opinion/311039944 Shi, Y., Liang, D. I., Bao, Y., An, R., Wallace, M., & Grant, I. (2019). Recreational marijuana legalization and prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 194(1), 13–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.09.016
Silver, L., Naprawa, A., & Padon, A. (2020). Assessment of incorporation of lessonsfrom tobacco control in city and county laws regulating legal marijuana in California. JAMA Network, 3(6), e208393. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2020.8393
Smart, R., Caulkins,J. P., Kilmer, B., Davenport, S., & Midgette, G. (2017).Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market. Addiction, 112(12), 2167–2177.

Smith,J. (2021, April 23). New York's marijuana social equity program eyed as possible game changer. MJ BizDaily. https://mjbizdaily.com/new-yorks-marijuana-social-equity-program-a-possible-game-changer/ Stanton, D., Mei, X., Kim, S., Willits, D., Stohr, M., Hemmens, C., Wu, G., Lu, R., Makin, D., & Lovrich, N. (2020).

The Effect of Marijuana Legalization on Jail Populations in Washington State. The Prison Journal, 100(4), 510–530.

Steenhuysen, J., & Trotta, D. (2021, July 14). U.S. drug overdose deaths rise 30% to record during pandemic. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-drug-overdose-deaths-rise-30-record-durin g-pandemic-2021-07-14/
Summers, H., Sproul, E., & Quinn, J. (2021). The greenhouse gas emissions of indoor cannabis production in the United States. Nature Sustainability, 4, 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00691-w Thomas, D. K., & Tian, L. (2017). Hits from the bong: The impact of recreational marijuana dispensaries on property values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 87(5), 103655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbe co.2021.103655
Thompson, D. (2018). Toxic chemicals found at most illegal California pot farms. AP News. https://apnews.com/ article/6e7d27d687e9428381fa940ccdb0521b
Tyndall, J. (2019). Getting high and low prices: Marijuana dispensaries and home values. Real Estate Economics, 49(4), 1093–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12302 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 167
Unger, J., Vos, R., Jasmine Siyu, W. U., Hardaway, K., Serain, A. L., Soto, D., Rogers, C., & Steinberg, J. (2020).

Locations of licensed and unlicensed cannabis retailers in California. Preventative Medicine Reports, 19, 101165.

United States Census Bureau. (2020). Demographic trends. http://www.census.gov/2010/demo/art987320892 Valachovic, Y., Quinn-Davidson, L., Stackhouse, J., & Butsic, V. (2019). Perceptions of cannabis among Humboldt County timberland and ranchland owners. California Agriculture, 73(3), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.3733/ ca.2019a0010
Valdes-Donoso, P., Sumner, D. A., & Goldstein, R. S. (2019). Costs of mandatory cannabis testing in California.

California Agriculture, 73(3–4), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0014 Vaughan, M. V., Pittman, J., Epp, S., & Caldwell, W. (2021). Cannabis production and land use planning: A literature review. Canadian Planning and Policy/Aménagement et Politique au Canada, 2021, 131–145.

Voelker, R. (2018). States move to substitute opioids with medical marijuana to quell epidemic. Medical News and Perspectives, 320(23), 2408–2410. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.17329 Wagner, L., Bott, M., Carroll, J., Horn, M., & Bonilla, B. (2018, June 25). Small California pot farmers struggle to survive, worry that Central Coast growers are using loophole to skirt size restrictions. NBC. https://www. nbcbayarea.com/news/local/central-coast-pot-growers-exploiting-loophole-to-skirt-size-restrictions-ongrows/186391/ Wakefield, M., & Hassan, A. (2017). A study of the local and social and economic impacts of legal cannabis, since the legalization of rec-reational marijuana, on residents of Pueblo County, Colorado: Economic impact section.

Institute of Cannabis Research. https://mountainscholar.org/handle/10217/192586 Wartenberg, A., Holden, P., Bodwitch, H., Parker-Shames, P., Novotny, T., Harmon, T., Hart, S., Beutel, M., Gilmore, M., Hoh, E., & Butsic, V. (2021). Cannabis and the environment: What science tells us and what we still need to know. Environment and Science Technology Letters, 8(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. estlett.0c00844
White, A., Tubbergen, C., Raymes, B., & Walter, E. S. (2020). Cannabis-infused edible products in Colorado.

American Journal of Public Health, 110(6), 790–795.

Wilson, S., Bodwitch, H., Carah, J., Daane, K., Getz, C., Grantham, T., & Butsic, V. (2019). First known survey of cannabis production practices in California. California Agriculture, 73(3), 119–127.

Wright, A. (2020, November 6). What if I build a cannabis business and no one will insure it? Risk and Insurance. https://riskandinsurance.com/what-if-i-build-a-cannabis-business-and-no-one-will-insure-it/ Wu, G., Wen, M., & Wilson, F. (2021). Impact of recreational marijuana legalization on crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 72, 101742.

Yakowicz, W. (2021, June 29). How marijuana companies are fighting the IRS. Inc. https://www.inc.com/willyakowicz/how-cpas-tax-lawyers-fighting-irs-for-marijuana.html Zhang, K., Saules, S., Wagner, L., & Throupe, R. (2017). A review of the impact of marijuana's legalization on Colorado's industrial warehouse lease rates. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 25(1), 3–29.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Parisa Kavousi is a researcher in the department of Human Ecology at the University of California, Davis. She holds a B.S. in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning and plans to pursue a career in medicine, focusing on preventative care and improving access to resources for mental health. Her personal interests include cooking and gardening. She recently co-authored a related publication, “On the money: Characterizing banking and lending in the California cannabis industry” (Agricultural Finance Review, 2021). 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

168 |
KAVOUSI et al.

Taylor Giamo received her B.S. in International Agricultural Development from the University of California, Davis, with a specialization in crop production. Her major research interests include global and domestic crop and cannabis production, biotechnology, plant disease management, agricultural sustainability, and political economics. She recently coauthored a related publication, “On the money: Characterizing banking and lending in the California cannabis industry” (Agricultural Finance Review, 2021).

Gwen Arnold is an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at University of California, Davis. Her major research interests are local government decision-making, policy entrepreneurship, and the policy process. Her main non-research interest is dogs.

Mateo Alliende is an undergraduate in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis. His major focus is environmental policy analysis, but also has interests in international agricultural development and transportation infrastructure. Recent career experience includes working for the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and as a lead student farmer at the UC Davis Market Garden.

Elisabeth Huynh is an undergraduate fourth-year Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning and Political Science student at the University of California, Davis. Her future professional ambitions include researching public policy and law. Although she has contributed to publications by several other professors and research teams, this is proudly her first publication she has directly written.

Jaclyn Lea earned a B.S. in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning in 2021 from the University of California, Davis. She was awarded the Department of Environmental Science and Policy’s Citation for Outstanding Performance for her academic achievements in her major. Her research interests are in climate change science and policy, sustainable transportation, and environmental justice.

Rachel Lucine is a third-year undergraduate student in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning at the University of California, Davis. Her major research interests are environmental justice, environmental legislation, and the government policy process.

Alexandria Tillett Miller is an undergraduate at University of California, Davis, pursuing a degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning. Her major research interests are environmental decision-making and community resilience, with a focus on public health.

Alana Webre is a fourth-year Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning major at the University of California, Davis. She is the Office of Sustainability’s Green Workplace Coordinator, the Student Sustainability Career Fair Committee's Chair, and a commissioner of the Environmental Policy and Planning Commission. Alana has a strong interest in California’s water issues and the ongoing search for equity between political, agricultural, and environmental interests.
15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

| CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 169
Aneka Yee is a student at University of California, Davis pursuing a B.S. in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning. Her major interests are cannabis policy and environmental justice, particularly affecting minority communities. This is her first academic publication.

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora is a majoring in Political Science and minoring in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning at University of California, Davis. Her strong interest in sustainability led her to serve as a commissioner on the student-run Environmental Policy and Planning Commission. Her personal interests include rock climbing, baking, and reading.

Keith Taylor is an Assistant Economic Development specialist affiliated with the University California, Davis Cooperative Extension and Department of Human Ecology. He is interested in how communities self-organize for economic development, with particular focus on cooperative enterprises and other voluntary associations. He recently co-authored a related publication, “On the money: Characterizing banking and lending in the California cannabis industry” (Agricultural Finance Review, 2021).

How to cite this article: Kavousi, P., Giamo, Arnold, G., Alliende, M., Huynh, E., Lea, J., Lucine, R., Tillett Miller, A., Webre, A., Yee, A., Champagne-Zamora, A., & Taylor, K. (2022). What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization? Review of Policy Research, 39, 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12460 15411338, 2022, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12460, Wiley Online Library on [29/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL GOALS FOR FY 2023-24.

RECITALS
A. Since 2017, the City Council has developed three-year broad organizational goals and 12-month strategic objectives to accomplish the goals; and B. Council last updated the Goals during the FY 2022 budget cycle; and C. City Council has the responsibility of establishing broad goals and the City's leadership has the responsibility to develop a workplan to achieve them; and D. Following a series of events and Council direction, staff assembled a list of the initial City Council goals and staff workplan; and
E. City executives developed the FY 2023-24 workplan based on identified goals which were presented to City Council on May 9, 2023.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and

2. The City Council hereby adopts the following City Council Goals for FY 2024:
a. Financial Sustainability
b. Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability
c. Water Security
d. Community Information and Engagement
e. Quality of Life
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 9, 2023, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: __________
Councilmember Anna Chouteau: __________
Councilmember Lester Hardy: __________
Councilmember Billy Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.1.

City Council Meeting | May 9, 2023
City of St. Helena
City Council Goals and Staff Workplan

Agenda Item #12.1.

Goals
• City Council – responsible for
establishing broad goals
• Sets strategic direction, priorities,
& allocation of staff resources
Workplan
• City Manager – responsible for
developing workplan to achieve
goals
• Develops plan to achieve City
Council goals

Agenda Item #12.1.

City Council Goals
• Fiscal Sustainability
• Quality of Life
• Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability
• Community Information and Engagement
• Water Security

Agenda Item #12.1.

Other Goals
• Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale
• Organizational Effectiveness
• CIP Projects

Agenda Item #12.1.

Summary of Goals – By Goal
City Council Goals Total
Objectives
Objectives For
FY 2024
Goal 1 Financial Sustainability 9 4
Goal 2 Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability 46 27 Goal 3 Water Security 11 6
Goal 4 Community Information & Engagement 20 14
Goal 5 Quality of Life 44 22
Other Goals
Goal 6 Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale 9 6
Goal 7 Organizational Effectiveness 19 13
Goal 8 CIP Projects 54 15
TOTALS 212 107

Agenda Item #12.1.

Summary of Goals – By Department
Department Total
Objectives
Objectives For
FY 2024
City Manager 38 23
Administrative Services 17 11
Community Development 16 5
Fire 5 3
Police 9 6
Library 3 3
Parks & Recreation 20 13
Public Works 50 28
CIP 54 15
TOTALS 212 107

Agenda Item #12.1.

Final Items
Workplan
• Will continue to revise
• Will provide periodic updates
Cannabis
• Council direction for analysis
• Added as a workplan item
Pay-for-Performance
• Compensation model
• Seeking Council feedback/interest

Agenda Item #12.1.
8 Questions Page 1677 of 1733
Agenda Item #12.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
May 9, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of St Helena FROM: Jennifer La Liberte, Executive Director, Our Town St Helena SUBJECT: Budget Priorities for FY 2023-24 (Agenda Item 12.1) For the third straight year, Our Town St Helena implores the Council to prioritize housing that is affordable in your annual budget priorities and goal setting. We understand how underresourced the City is and the challenges before you. But somehow, year after year, housing gets almost no attention in your budget goal setting and allocations. Meanwhile, waiting lists for limited affordable units in St. Helena are expanding and the gap between supply and demand is rapidly growing.

Your recent citizens’ survey by Godbe Research noted affordable housing as the second most pressing concern among respondents (behind water), followed by cost of living. And yet, in the Council’s goals document, there is only one stated item, Workplan Number 5.100, “Encourage Housing Alternatives to Meet Community’s Interest and Incomes” with no designated lead department and no assigned objectives to accomplish this item, other than the nearly completed Housing Element and upcoming Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance updates.

Aside from these mandated policy documents, what could the Council include in the near term to begin making some progress in the affordable housing arena with limited resources?

1. Create an organized meeting/communication process among the City and local housing experts to keep housing top-of-mind and coordinated with other City activities.

2. Develop and implement an actionable plan with concrete steps and timeframes to unlock the economic potential in City-owned surplus properties, which could provide not only much-needed housing, but new revenues that would support the City’s ongoing operations.

3. Designate a staff member to establish a working group or taskforce to work on a strategic housing plan, which may include #2 above as well as a broader strategy to help the City reach its RHNA goals.

Agenda Item #12.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

4. Truly understand the housing needs in your city. It is possible to obtain assistance through universities and other non-profits to collect and distill data which can supplement and refine data you already have assembled in the Housing Element Update. The Council should be better educated on the need and what it takes to develop new affordable housing so the City can know where it needs to be more proactive.

5. Explore creation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit incentive program. The City of Napa has a program in place that has been operating for several years with success that could be emulated. At a minimum, assign a staff member to work with Napa staff to identify what it would require for the City of St Helena to implement such a program.

6. Related to 5, take advantage of your contract with the Housing Authority. The staff is knowledgeable and potentially can assist the City of St Helena to apply for available federal and state funding and help establish programs like #5 above.

Our Town St Helena is doing much of the heavy lifting in the affordable housing space for the community with a small team and budget. We are hopeful we can work with the City on creating a true housing strategy and help with some of the legwork necessary to move such a strategy forward. While we believe there is more the City should do longer term, like create a staff position for housing and economic development and a standing committee or commission for housing, we also understand the current fiscal constraints. So we hope there could be some type of mutually beneficial progress we could make together in the shorter term that puts less of a demand on the City.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 09 May 2023
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Organizational Effectiveness and Service Delivery Excellence CEQA
Determination:

Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
The City Council has five goals:

1. Financial Sustainability

2. Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability

3. Water Security

4. Community Information and Engagement

5. Quality of Life
In addition to these five goals, the City Manager has identified 2 additional goals including Organizational Effectiveness. This is consistent with the Council's desire to provide efficient and responsive services to the community. This requires periodic review of internal processes and service delivery mechanisms. Staff has therefore been engaged in an effort which has several components, that are designed to improve service delivery to the community. Thus far, this effort included a focus group meeting on October 13, 2022 centered around customer service followed by a more general discussion, exercise on Organizational Effectiveness at the bi-annual All Staff Meeting in December, and several discussion amongst the mid-managers.

DISCUSSION
At the October 13, 2022 meeting, a group of staff members from multiple departments participated in a candid and wide-ranging discussion regarding customer service lead by Agenda Item #12.2.

the City's leadership team. The discussion was prompted by the following set of questions/issues:

1. Areas for customer service enhancement (e.g. what is not working?)

2. Areas requiring better coordination between departments

3. Areas where things are falling through the cracks

4. Reducing employee hardship

5. Common service requests

6. Best methods of delivery

7. Identification of other challenges
The recommendations and actions resulting from the discussion have been combined with the All Staff Meeting topics and are provided as attachments to this staff report as noted below.

On December 1, 2022, the All Staff meeting was attended by 53 full-time City employees (the City was experiencing a 20% vacancy rate at that time and some of the existing employees could not attend due to various reasons such as being on duty, having just worked the night shift, or being ill). Both the customer service discussion and the All Staff Meeting served many purposes including, but not limited to: getting to know each other, learning about the personality and communication styles of each other, convey goals and expectations, identify barriers to providing excellent customer service, and work collaboratively to start the conversation and process to become a more effective organization.

The results of both the October 13th and December 1st meetings were summarized and presented to the Executive Team. Staff is now taking this opportunity to apprise the City Council and the community of common themes discovered during both of these meetings as well as present potential solutions/recommendations made by staff.

Attachment 1 presents common themes & opportunities and Attachment 2 presents potential solutions & recommendations.

As a next step the City will begin a Service Excellence Initiative which will involve staff at every level of the organization and will be based on initial feedback received. This Initiative is focused on excellent customer service and organizational effectiveness and may include, but is not limited to:

1. Implementation of software tools to automate service - transition to online/paperless processes

2. Redesign the website

3. Training and written service protocols for all staff

4. Community education on how to access services

5. Increase service levels through appropriate staffing levels and training Agenda Item #12.2.

It is to be noted that this change will not occur overnight and identification of these important issues is a starting point. This work will continue as we improve processes with the goal of delivering high quality and efficient services to the community.

At the upcoming bi-annual All Staff Meeting, staff will be provided training on updated customer service procedures, review of technological improvements, and focused training on Disaster Response protocols.

In the next few months, staff will have additional focus group meetings which will bring together cross-sections of the City organization and potentially utilize software tools to automate processes. These efforts are even more important as we fine tune our processes at our new location at the Napa Valley College. For example, if we have begun to change our business practices to be paperless, and thus eliminated the need to move documents and cabinets saving storage space at the new City Hall.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the presentation of this report. Costs for individual initiatives have not been identified, but will be included in subsequent budget considerations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and File.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Common Themes, Opportunities, and Observations Attachment 2 - Potential Solutions and Recommendations
Agenda Item #12.2.

Attachment 1
Common Themes, Opportunities, and Observations
Themes Opportunities & Observations

1. Interdepartmental
Cooperation
Working as a team
Citywide focus on common goals
Better and faster communication between departments
Share creative ideas/collaboration
Work to address issues and not pass along
Some people are working on the same item and not connecting

2. Staffing
Reduce employee workload
Staff overwhelmed
Staffing shortages
Time off not being granted due to staffing shortages
Higher priority items make daily duties fall short
Increase staff retention
Reassessment of duties
Improve commute conditions/situation
Small/lean staff numbers makes it difficult when staff are out Resources to be proactive vs. reactive
Understanding of job responsibilities

3. Communication
More transparency (positive and negative)
Communicating with other departments
Provide updates to the community on activities

4. Technology Utilization of technology for efficiency

5. Trustworthy Have systems of accountability
Follow-through on work

6. Customer Service
Find a way to simplify/automate common service requests Customers call multiple times if their call is not answered Customers call dispatch when they cannot reach City Hall Difficult to deliver good customer services if not trained Difficult when responsible for phone calls and walk in customers Agenda Item #12.2.

Attachment 2
Potential Solutions and Recommendations
Interdepartmental Cooperation
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Focus on internal customer service to reduce department segregation Increase communication between departments by monthly meetings with representatives from each department (beyond the executive level)
Ability to attack a plan as a team
Individuals to not be afraid to collaborate or say something when noticing something is wrong
Own it, even if it is not your job to assist a resident - attempt to provide a resolution Use of technology to share ideas between departments
Incentivize suggestions that save time and money
Conduct open forums/roundtables for collaboration
Staffing
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Offer more web-based opportunities for the public to create efficiencies and reduce workload
Hire more staff to relieve stress and individual staff burden Increase pay
Directing complaints up and not out - Having a reliable/safe way for staff to direct complaints/concerns to their supervisor. This will allow the supervisor to hear the issue instead of staff just complaining to others without resolution.

Offer premium for those who must be at the City daily and/or provide housing With the current vacancies and turnover - it is a good time to restructure workload and provide training for new responsibilities
Review operations and develop cross-training opportunities More, "boots on the ground" staff
Inclusion of mid-managers and supervisors in evaluation and all-staff decision making Agenda Item #12.2.

Attachment 2
Communication
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Find out the best way someone receives information (internal and external) Create workflows/consistent naming conventions/protocols (internal) Conduct weekly department meetings with director updates (internal) Notification of new hires and notification when staff leave (internal) Create a reliable and consistent channel of communication (internal and external) Create an environment where staff can feel comfortable to go to their supervisor with any concerns (positive and negative) and know that you will be heard (internal) Develop partner communications with stakeholders (external) Provide website engagement for education on operations (external) Simplified list of who is available when issues arise (internal) Technology
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Identify funding for technology and ensure technology needs are accurately budgeted Collaborate with other cities to find out their best solutions Evaluate different software programs to meet the needs of the department - create less errors, more seamless
Identify opportunities for shared technology contracts
Agenda Item #12.2.

Attachment 2
Trustworthy
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Have accountability across the organization
Develop a clear organizational chart and responsibilities which is dynamic and easily editable Provide on-time evaluations and provide ongoing opportunities to give staff feedback Doing what is right when no one is looking
Following through on work
Customer Service
Potential Solutions/Recommendations
Instead of forwarding an email, do a full hand-off and explain what needs to happen to help the customer
Coordinate between departments when it is expected to be an increase in phone calls/emails - e.g. new utility rates, water penalties, community meetings, special events, mass letters, etc.

Implement "one-stop shopping" service where practical
Have a standard email for each department (e.g. encroachmentpermit@) instead of individual emails on the website
Have a generic phone number for each department and/or phone tree for customer ease Better on-boarding process for employees including training by hiring department Departments sharing information so everyone is aware of what is happening Develop a more robust website so customers can self-help when appropriate Have a rotating cell phone that will go between staff who are on-call for water issues (1 number that is on the website)
Agenda Item #12.2.

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 09 May 2023
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Department Head Updates and Department Budget
Presentations
CEQA
Determination:

Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
St. Helena Municipal Code Section 2.12.060.B.9, states the City Council is required to adopt estimates of revenues and expenditures on a Fiscal Year basis. Staff is preparing to transition to a two-year budget, and preparation of the FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 budget began in January 2023 and includes a culmination of input from the City Council, Department Heads, and City staff.

DISCUSSION
During the annual budget process, a balanced budget has been prepared and presented to City Council for adoption. Over the years the City has made it a priority to be fiscally prudent and to live within its means; however, presenting a balanced budget has not presented a true picture of the underfunding of City assets, infrastructure, and staffing.

Over the last several years, the City Council, recognizing the deterioration of the City's assets, set in motion a series of studies, working committees, and reports to categorize assets, provide cost estimates for replacement/repair, and develop funding strategies.

Combined, there is an estimated $155 million in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects identified over the next 30-years. Similar to the infrastructure, there has been underfunding over several years as it relates to City staffing which has resulted in reduced staffing and compensation being below market. The reduced level of staffing has resulted in delays in responding to customer calls/service requests, the inability of staff to complete Agenda Item #12.3.

projects in a timely fashion, high employee turnover, and low staff morale. Even when there has been sufficient funding for capital projects, inadequate staffing has impacted the completion of the projects. The February 2023 Baker Tilly report noted that there is a $6.5 million annual revenue shortfall to provide market wages, have optimal staffing levels, maintain City parks and facilities, and fund infrastructure projects to meet community expectations.

As noted in the FY 2021-22 audited financials, the City has a healthy General Fund balance and the City is not "broke"; however, as shown in the Long Range Financial Forecast presented by Baker Tillly, the healthy fund balance will be exhausted in FY 2023- 24 if the City addresses all its unfunded/underfunded needs.

Knowing the current budget constraints, Department Heads submitted budget worksheets and requests to the Finance Division in mid-March 2023. During the last week in March, meetings were set with the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and individual Department Heads to review budget requests and to verify budget requests align with City Goals.

Department presentations tonight will provide the following:
• Share noteworthy accomplishments
• Specify current departmental priorities
• List known challenges
• Identify opportunities
• New budget and staffing requests (not all requests will be funded) The goal of this presentation is to enable the City Council and the community to better understand the accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities at a departmental level.

While the presentations will identify various departmental needs and other challenges, the budget that will be presented on May 23rd will not be able to fund all the requested needs due to a lack of sufficient on-going revenues to meet all department requests.

Additionally, on May 9, 2023, the City Council will receive a report on staff’s plan to achieve the City Council’s five (5) goals and the vast number of subordinate priorities that are part of the staff work plan. In a subsequent meeting, staff will also present City Council with revenue options to fill the gap between current City resources/staff capacity and community expectations.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and File.

ATTACHMENTS
Agenda Item #12.3.

050923 DH Budget Presentation to CC
Agenda Item #12.3.

City of St. Helena
May 9, 2023
Department Budget Presentations

Agenda Item #12.3.

Department Head Updates and
Department Budget Presentations
• Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities
• Current Department Priorities
• Department Challenges
• Department Opportunities
• Funding Requests
• Non-Funded Requests
• Staffing Requests Page 1693 of 1733
Agenda Item #12.3.

Administrative Services
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. GFOA Awards for Budget, Audited Financials, and PAFR

2. Multiple grant awards (CDBG and HMGP)
Current Department Priorities

1. Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study

2. Annual Audit and Financial Statement preparation

3. User Fee Study and Impact Fee Study

Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Recruiting and Staffing

2. Funding
Administrative Services
Opportunities

1. Realignment of department

2. Additional grant funding for infrastructure

3. Identifying efficiencies

Agenda Item #12.3.

Budget Requests
Requests Amount
Online AP Software $15,000
UNFUNDED:

OpenGov Interactive Budgeting $60,000 (first year)
Administrative Services

Agenda Item #12.3.

Administrative Services
Staffing Requests
Position Notes FTE
HR Manager 1.0
Grant/Contract Coordinator Split with Community Development 0.5 Administrative Services Technician 1.0
TOTAL 2.5

Agenda Item #12.3.

Fire
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Association Lobster Feed Fundraiser raised $310,000 for engine replacement and equipment fund

2. Fire inspections of the West side of Main St. have been completed

3. Water extinguisher giveaway program proved successful with 2 confirmed fires contained using water extinguishers
Current Department Priorities

1. Weed abatement enforcement & implementation of fire prevention program

2. Research replacement of 2002 ladder truck (approximately $1.6M)

3. Relocate community notification siren Page 1698 of 1733 Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Maintaining 3-0 staffing structure with a part-time firefighter while minimizing overtime

2. Maintaining the fleet of 11 apparatus and utility vehicles

3. Keeping up with industry service and technology standards

4. Managing expiratory equipment according to industry standards Fire
Opportunities

1. FEMA Mitigation Grant to mitigate dead and burned vegetation from Glass Fire

2. VFA Grant for wildfire and structure equipment – matching $20,000

3. Implement "Tablet Command" program for real-time updated incident information and resource management

Agenda Item #12.3.

Fire
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
Increase to field supplies budget to keep up with service standards $12,500 Fire Service technology and reporting software (ImageTrend, Peraton, Zoll, Active911) $25,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

City Clerk
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Smooth Elections processes - June 7, 2022 Primary election with Measure G (failed) and Measure H (passed).

Current Department Priorities

1. Update Laserfiche to reflect the recent updated retention policy.

2. Migrate to Laserfiche cloud.

3. Create a disposition/retention policy. Page 1701 of 1733 Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Implementing and migrating the City’s
records repository to the cloud
City Clerk
Opportunities

1. Develop a policy to transition to a paperless records system

Agenda Item #12.3.

City Clerk
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
None
UNFUNDED:

Complete scanning of all City Records $50,000-$100,000
Laserfiche Contract Management System $20,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

Library
Accomplishments

1. New ILS (library software system)

2. Now also lending puzzles, binoculars, park passes along with WIFI hotspots & Chromebooks

3. Visitors Jan-March - 14,433 a 9% increase or 1,200 visitors a month Current Department Priorities

1. Increase community engagement (promoting
services, outreach and programming)

2. Supporting community (generator, cooling
center, community hub)

Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Increase in visitors and programming with current staff Opportunities

1. Enhance outreach with new ILS System

2. Promote online tutoring, State Parks Passes, online career training

3. Cross-promotion with other agencies

4. Rebuild connections with retiree community

5. Outreach to Latino community
Library

Agenda Item #12.3.

Library
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
RFID (hardware and software) $20,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

Library
Staffing Requests
Position FTE
Librarian I 1.0
Library Associate II 1.0
TOTAL 2.0

Agenda Item #12.3.

Parks & Recreation
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Full schedule of programs and events for first time since FY 20

2. 30% increase in youth sports programs from FY 21-22
Current Department Priorities

1. Understand community interests and service gaps

2. Move parks CIP projects and long-term planning
initiatives forward

3. Enhance communication and streamline customer
processes

4. Deliver summer programs and events

Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Lack of program and event space

2. Dated facilities and infrastructure

3. Loss of institutional staffing knowledge
Parks & Recreation
Opportunities

1. Increase partnerships & community engagement

2. Introduce new programs/events

3. Increase service areas and reach all demographics in our community Page 1709 of 1733 Agenda Item #12.3.

Parks & Recreation
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
Increase PT staff salaries to meet demand of increased programming and events $35,000 Expansion of special events and summer concert series $35,000 Funding for new Recreation registration software $16,000 Transportation for senior excursions (partnership with Rianda House) $12,000 City-wide communications support $20,000
UNFUNDED:

Vehicle replacement: Passenger van with electric pickup truck $75,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

Parks & Recreation
Staffing Requests
Position FTE
Recreation Coordinator 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.0
TOTAL 2.0
Agenda Item #12.3.

Police
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Installed first two License Plate Readers

2. Conducted Active Shooter Drills with SHUSD
Current Department Priorities

1. Expand Current Community Liaison Officer Program

2. Co-locate St. Helena Dispatch with Calistoga Dispatch

3. Complete state mandated radio encryption project

4. Establish Officer Wellness Program

5. Prepare Public Safety Presentation on Firearms Safety, laws, and City Ordinances

Agenda Item #12.3.

Police
Challenges

1. Current model creates staff fatigue and generates overtime

2. PD and Dispatch relocation

3. Fulfilling community demands

4. Recruitment for vacant positions
Opportunities

1. Grants

2. Additional Training

3. Succession Planning

Agenda Item #12.3.

Police Department
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
BWC Grant Match $51,000
COPS Officer Grant 125,000 on 3-year grant, Cost to City approx. 250,00 over 3 years $250,000 UNFUNDED:

First Responder Resiliency Conference $30,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

Police
Staffing Requests
Position FTE
Police Officer 3.0
Admin Analyst 1.0
TOTAL 4.0

Agenda Item #12.3.

Community Development
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)

2. Public draft release of both Housing Element and Safety Element

3. Zoning Code Update Draft Code completed

4. Hunter Tentative Map and Final EIR Planning Commission Public Hearing process completed
Current Department Priorities

1. Economic Development strategy formulation

2. Hunter Subdivision Tentative Map and Final EIR to City Council

3. Zoning Code Update Adoption

4. Housing and Safety Elements and adoption in May 2023

5. Initiation of Surplus properties Act process Page 1716 of 1733 Agenda Item #12.3.

Challenges

1. Economic development progress slow due to lack of staff

2. Lack of capacity to process new large development is limited

3. Meeting our RHNA 256 units in 8 years
Community Development
Opportunities

1. A unified plan for the Downtown that notes future development sites

2. Redevelopment of surplus properties

3. Online cloud based and GIS permitting software

4. Urban Land Institute Report to help city realize placemaking

5. Realize economic development goals with ED staff focus Page 1717 of 1733 Agenda Item #12.3.

Community Development
Budget Requests
Requests Amount
Online permitting software $125,000
Downtown Specific Plan and EIR $500,000
Kosmont –Surplus Properties Support $80,000
General Plan Amendments/Zoning Map Amendments + CEQA for Housing sites $70,000 UNFUNDED:

Façade Grant Program $30,000

Agenda Item #12.3.

Community Development
Staffing Requests
Position Notes FTE
Senior Planner 1.0
Housing/Economic Grant Coordinator Share with Administrative Services 0.5 Code Compliance Share with Public Works 0.5
TOTAL 2.0

Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Works
Recent Noteworthy Accomplishments/Activities

1. Managed MULTIPLE Atmospheric River Events

2. Nearly completed Year 2 of Measure T Pavement Rehabilitation Project

3. Construction of new Wastewater Treatment Facility is underway

4. Effectuated significant emergency pipeline repairs at Pope St./College Ave. and Main St./Charter Oak Ave.

5. Implemented FOGBMP, a cloud-based Fats, Oils & Grease monitoring and Page 1720 of 1733 training program for Food Service Establishments
Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Works
Current Department Priorities

1. Development and Delivery of CIP projects

2. Execution of Professional Service Agreements for
consultants to perform a variety of CIP-related
projects/studies

3. Finalize permitting process for Downtown Main Street Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project Phase 1a

Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Works
Challenges

1. Staff Recruitment/Retention/Vacancies

2. Workload Management & Public Communication
Opportunities

1. Creatively solve service delivery options

2. Communication of Departmental Services/Priorities on community platform

3. Enhancing the use of technology department-wide

Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Works

Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Works
Staffing Requests
Position Notes FTE
Administrative Analyst 1.0
Public Works Technician 1.0
Code Compliance Share with Community Development 0.5
Junior Engineer 1.0
Maintenance Worker I – Buildings & Streets 1.0
Maintenance Worker I – Buildings & Streets 1.0
Mechanic – Water and Wastewater 1.0
Administrative Assistant – Water and Wastewater 1.0
TOTALS 7.5

Agenda Item #12.3.

Budget Summary

Agenda Item #12.3.

Budget Summary

DEPARTMENT AMOUNT
Administrative Services $ 15,000
Fire $ 37,500
Library $ 20,000
Parks & Recreation $ 118,000
Police $ 301,000
Community Development $ 775,000
Public Works – General Fund $ 934,000
Public Works – Water Fund $ 924,500
Public Works – Wastewater Fund $ 746,000
Total Additional Requests FY 24 $3,871,000
Budget Requests – Excluding Staffing

Agenda Item #12.3.

Requested Staffing Estimated Costs
@ Market
ITEM # OF POSITIONS Est. Annual Cost
Positions 20 $3,135,432
Bring Current Staff to Market $2,521,167
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS $5,656,599

Agenda Item #12.3.

Staffing Summary

Agenda Item #12.3.

Staffing

1. Dedicated Employees, great City Council, and effective Executive Team

2. Committed to improving the Quality of Life for residents

3. Working hard on a number of initiatives
Challenges

1. Ambitious 5-year Workplan

2. $80 million in Capital Improvement Projects over 5-years

3. Staff Recruitment/Retention/Vacancies

4. Under Resourced

5. Lack of Competitive Compensation

Agenda Item #12.3.

Compensation Market Analysis
Bargaining Group % +/- Median % +/-
75th Percentile
SHEA -12.2% -19.2%
POA -21.0% -30.1%
Mid-Managers/Executive -12.4% -19.4%

Agenda Item #12.3.

Next Steps

Agenda Item #12.3.

Next Steps

1. May 2023 – Financial Policy Amendments to Council

2. May 23, 2023 – Budget Study Session #1 & Revenue Options

3. May 31, 2023 – Community Budget Open House

4. June 13, 2023 – Budget Study Session #2

5. June 27, 2023 – Budget Adoption by City Council

Agenda Item #12.3.

QUESTIONS?

Agenda Item #12.3.