City Council voted by a margin of 6-4 Monday night to reduce the licensing renewal fee for cannabis retail stores from $10,000 to $85

The fee applies to the city’s seven retail cannabis outlets allowed under provincial legislation.

This is a further decrease from the original $500 recommended by city staff, the result of a motion introduced at a committee meeting August 12. It puts the renewal fee that cannabis businesses pay in line with most other types of businesses in the city.

In discussion Monday, Coun. Ann Iwanchuk called the $500 “arbitrary.”

“The vast majority of businesses pay $85 dollars, I feel like this is a way of singling out this one particular business,” she said. “We’re not the moral authority here.”

Concerns from some councillors arose from whether businesses licensing fees would be enough to cover the cost of potential future enforcement activity to combat illegal cannabis operations and in light of regulations making edibles legal coming into force in October.

The $500 fee was previously deemed sufficient by the administration to cover the cost of licensing and ongoing enforcement.

Coun. Zach Jeffries proposed reducing the cost of relocating a cannabis store from the proposed $500 to the $125 paid by any other business, which carried as well.

Coun. Darren Hill proposed setting all licensing fees at $100 and all renewal fees be set at $100 in order to “treat all businesses equally,” a matter that wasn’t looked at due the recommendation pertaining only to the fees for cannabis businesses.

Cannabis retail outlets already pay an initial $20,000 for businesses licenses, as compared to $125 for most other businesses —the result of a 6-5 vote last year.

The standing policy committee on planning, development and community services voted August 12 to drop the fee to $500, although Iwanchuk and Mayor Charlie Clark wanted a further reduction to the $85 fee Iwanchuk proposed.

At that meeting, Iwanchuk argued that she didn’t see any compelling reason to treat the cannabis industry any differently than, for example, the alcohol industry. That vote failed 3-2.

HOW THEY VOTED

FOR: Block, Clark, Loewen, Hill, Iwanchuk, Jeffries

AGAINST: Donauer, Dubois, Gersher, Gough

ABSENT: Davies