This bill amends RCW 69.50.540 to specify annual cannabis-related appropriations and to change how remaining cannabis tax and license revenues are distributed. It lists specific annual dollar appropriations to multiple state agencies, universities, and programs (including the Health Care Authority, Department of Health, Department of Commerce, University of Washington institutes, Washington State University, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Patrol, Department of Ecology, Department of Agriculture, Washington Poison Control Center, community health centers, and others) and requires that the amounts in several subsections be adjusted annually using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for the Seattle area. It also requires a $200,000 annual payment to the Health Care Authority to contract with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to be limited through June 30, 2032, and requires the Washington state healthy youth survey to be conducted at least every two years. The bill prescribes how remaining revenues are allocated among the state basic health plan trust account, the Health Care Authority, local jurisdictions in two categories, and the state general fund, with a phased schedule of percentage changes for fiscal years 2026–2030 and specified percentages thereafter. It requires the administering board to provide the State Treasurer with the annual distribution amount for each county and city by September 15 each year, and directs that distributions to counties, cities, and towns be paid in four installments by the last day of each fiscal quarter. Jurisdictional shares are to be calculated based on each jurisdiction’s proportional share of revenues from taxes collected under RCW 69.50.535 by licensed cannabis retailers physically located in the jurisdiction, with the rule that 100% of a retailer’s proportional amount attributable to a retailer located in a city or town must be distributed to that city or town. The bill also conditions eligibility for certain per-capita distributions on jurisdictions not prohibiting the siting of any state-licensed cannabis producer, processor, or retailer, and requires the Health Care Authority to consult annually with specified University of Washington research groups when choosing programs to fund under certain subsections. This is a statutory amendment focused on fiscal and procedural changes to revenue allocation and reporting; it does not create a new crime or change criminal penalties in the portions shown. Important contextual items are not included in the extracted text: the specific identity or authority of the referenced “board,” the meaning of “this chapter” and the “omnibus appropriations act,” the full texts of cross-referenced statutes (for example RCW 69.50.535, 69.50.550, and RCW 43.330.540), and how listed prior-year dollar amounts interact with the new provisions. These omissions make certain implementation details and connections to existing law unclear from the provided material.

If enacted, the bill locks in specific annual dollar allocations from cannabis revenues to a long list of state agencies and programs, requires those listed amounts to rise each year with the Seattle-area consumer price index, and then prescribes how whatever is left is split among the state health trust, the Health Care Authority, local governments, and the state general fund on a phased schedule (local shares rise to 2–4% or 4–6% depending on the category by FY2030, while the general fund share falls to 27% by FY2030 and thereafter). Practically, this will make funding for the named state agencies and research contracts more predictable and CPI-protected (including a $200,000 annual WSIPP contract limited through June 30, 2032), require the Health Care Authority to consult specific UW research groups at least yearly when choosing programs to fund, and require the board to report county and city distribution amounts to the state treasurer by September 15 each year with payments sent in four quarterly installments. Counties, cities, and towns that host licensed cannabis retailers are most directly affected: they will receive proportional shares of tax revenues tied to where retail sales occur (and 100% of a retailer’s attributed share goes to the city or town where the retailer is physically located), while jurisdictions that ban cannabis businesses risk losing eligibility for certain per-capita distributions, creating a clear financial incentive to allow siting. The measure also shifts administrative duties and timing onto the board, the state treasurer, and the Health Care Authority. Important details are missing from the extract—such as the exact annual dollar amounts for each recipient in the new language and the specific identity/authority of the referenced “board”—so some implementation effects remain uncertain.