What is Baltimore’s G Question? This is your chance to put money toward a cannabis tax.

It’s another story about voting in Baltimore.

We know. Just hear us out.

As advocates argue over voting issues that will determine the future of institutions like Harborplace and the Baltimore City Council, it’s easy to forget that there are other referendums on the ballot this cycle.

Among them is the little-discussed Issue G. Sandwiched between hot-button issues F and H, G is intended to prepare the city for the new revenue stream created by the legalization of recreational marijuana (if you need a handy mnemonic, the Banner TikTok guy). Krishna Sharma says G stands for ganja).

Here’s everything you need to know about Question G before you vote.

What would it do?

Question G would create a city fund to collect Baltimore’s share of taxes collected on recreational marijuana.

As with alcohol, Maryland levies a 9% tax on cannabis sales, which generates about $73 million in the first year of sales. About a third of that money will be allocated to a new Community Reinvestment and Recovery Fund designed to help communities with a disproportionate number of cannabis-related arrests.

The law defines a “disproportionately affected area” as an area where cannabis possession fees are more than 150% of the state’s 10-year average, meaning Baltimore qualifies. The money is distributed in proportion to cannabis-related arrests, so Baltimore will receive about 30% of the amount.

A question on the ballot this fall would create a fund into which that money would go.

How is the money spent?

In anticipation of receiving some of those funds (but long before it was clear how much the city would receive), the Baltimore City Council voted in May 2023 to create a 17-member commission tasked with distributing the money in accordance with state law. A commission created by Council President Nick Mosby would oversee the fund if voters create it by approving Question G.

State lawmakers have legislated several regulations on how the money can be spent. None of them can be used for law enforcement or replace existing funding for local programs. A state survey found people’s top priorities for spending money were on mental health and substance abuse services, education and after-school programs, and housing and homelessness prevention.

By law, the commission would include Comptroller Bill Henry or his designee, and the City Council president and 14 other council members could nominate at least one candidate. Candidates are presented to the mayor for approval, and members are elected to four-year terms.

The legislation specifies that at least one member of the commission is a provider of services to inmates and at least one member is a member of a community organization that works with low-income residents.

So far, 11 of the 17 commission members have been appointed.

How did the council get involved?

The state law enacting the fund provided that each Maryland county (or, in this case, city) must create its own commission to oversee spending. The Baltimore City Council, under Mosby’s leadership, became the first local legislature to take on this task.

Mosby said he believes it is important to move quickly on the issue to ensure Baltimore “has the ability to take advantage of this opportunity.”

“We wanted to ensure that … this money would be allocated to complement the work that the city is doing and not replace existing city budget items,” he said.

The move also took away Mayor Brandon Scott’s administration’s ability to determine how the money would be spent, although the mayor and his team offered little opposition to the plan. The city’s finance department initially argued that the city should remain flexible in allocating funds “within the overall context of the city budget” to maximize their impact.

The council approved the charter amendment despite objections, and Scott eventually signed the legislation, sending it to a vote.

It’s not just about cannabis taxes?

Likely. Mosby, who did not win his re-election bid and will leave the council in December, has tried to strengthen the council’s position during his tenure. This was no easy task given the city’s strong mayoral form of government.

Nevertheless, Mosby achieved some success. Additional budgeting powers created by a charter amendment approved by voters before Mosby joined the council were granted to the body during his tenure. Mosby created an additional committee to handle financial issues and insisted that the council be able to control the budget earlier in the budget process.

Other proposed changes were unsuccessful. A proposed charter amendment to restructure the mayor-controlled Board of Estimates ultimately did not receive a hearing, and an attempt to add more council staff was blocked by Scott.

“With a lot of effort, we’ve taken steps in the right direction,” Mosby said. “Do I look back on the past four years and wish we could have done more? Yes. I think there were a lot of intentional obstacles along the way to ensure we didn’t do that, but you have to start somewhere.”