Matt Cook from Dept of Revenue on 1284

[TheReleafCenter]

The obvious highlight of tonight's panel discussion was Matt Cook, who finally released some hard numbers regarding licensing fees and compliance dates.

July 1st: Have approval from your local government for whatever license you want.

For centers, this means complying with existing local regulations.
For commercial growers, this means being properly zoned and having either a plant husbandry permit(maybe license?) or nursery facility. The difference is mostly semantic between localities.
For primary caregivers, there is little to no oversight. The most likely conflict would be a local zoning issue.
For infused manufacturers, you may need your own locally approved OPCL(grow facility) and commercial kitchen. No sharing, no use for anything other than making your own infused products. Matt Cook took personal responsibility for this measure being added at the 11th hour, insisting it wasn't the "Cheesecake Lady."


August 1st: State application fees are due. This is a non-refundable, one time fee that is added to the "cash fund." Cook favors this over a general fund, which is appropriations based, because fees paid in excess of the program's operating cost will be used to reduce the application fee in the next fiscal year. The only problem is that leaves over-charged dispensaries footing the bill for the competition next year.

September 1st: All dispensaries must be compliant with the 70/30 growing requirement, where they will be responsible for wholesaling no more than 30% of their on hand, smokeable inventory.

Fees are:

0-300 Patients: $7500
301-500: $12,500
501+: $18,500


Offstage, he said he expected OPCL's to come in at $500-$1000, which is a modest burden for growers considering the hit dispensaries took.

Cook consistently expressed his dissatisfaction with 1284 and reminded everyone that in January there will be an important opportunity to correct some of those issues on the state level. What I took away from the entire panel was that we should treat 1284 as if it was here to stay and that the more we play ball, the more balls they throw us. A tired refrain.

He stressed the rule making process a great deal as well. He can interpret existing law, but can't get close to a reversal. When talking about state residency, he brought up fishing licenses and how many days you need to be in the state before one can be issued. Residency, to him, is a flexible issue... unless the requirements are spelled out so clearly in the house bill. Moral of the story is that he's open to reasonable interpretations.

At one point he talked about a webcam surveillance system, and how he wouldn't need to send inspectors down there all the time when they could check in remotely. Since when did this turn into HB10-1984? It appears the more transparent you are with the inspectors, the better off you'll have it.

When talking about fees, Cook's analogy was always that they were "building a house" from the ground up. He has no way to predict how many applications they'll receive, so he's rounding up. Generously.

That may be unfair, though. He stayed for at least an extra hour after sitting on the panel for three, answering questions from whoever crowded around him. He handed out business cards like he meant it and several times in the night told people he would contact them, because he needed their point of view.

Like him or not, he's come across to me as the most accessible person in this process. Maybe that comes from years of being schmoozed by the gaming and liquor industries. His resume suggests he's had a zeal for whatever they've tasked him with.

He has another Q&A a week from Thursday, what do we really need to know from him?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not The Releaf Center. I'm a guy named Jake who went to a meeting tonight. I thought I took good notes, but there may be some topics that I misinterpreted. There were a lot of other subjects covered, so if you have a question about any other topic, post it in here and if it was covered, I'll get back to you.

[cowgirl1]

By chance on his business card does he have an email address? If so can you send it to me? Thanks

[COzigzag]

Thanks for the info Jake. Much appreciated!

[CannnaLady]

Is this fee set? Thannnn whooooooooooo!

[colagal]

The obvious highlight of tonight's panel discussion was Matt Cook, who finally released some hard numbers regarding licensing fees and compliance dates.

July 1st: Have approval from your local government for whatever license you want.

For centers, this means complying with existing local regulations.
For commercial growers, this means being properly zoned and having either a plant husbandry permit(maybe license?) or nursery facility. The difference is mostly semantic between localities.
For primary caregivers, there is little to no oversight. The most likely conflict would be a local zoning issue.
For infused manufacturers, you may need your own locally approved OPCL(grow facility) and commercial kitchen. No sharing, no use for anything other than making your own infused products. Matt Cook took personal responsibility for this measure being added at the 11th hour, insisting it wasn't the "Cheesecake Lady."


August 1st: State application fees are due. This is a non-refundable, one time fee that is added to the "cash fund." Cook favors this over a general fund, which is appropriations based, because fees paid in excess of the program's operating cost will be used to reduce the application fee in the next fiscal year. The only problem is that leaves over-charged dispensaries footing the bill for the competition next year.

September 1st: All dispensaries must be compliant with the 70/30 growing requirement, where they will be responsible for wholesaling no more than 30% of their on hand, smokeable inventory.

Fees are:

0-300 Patients: $7500
301-500: $12,500
501+: $18,500


Offstage, he said he expected OPCL's to come in at $500-$1000, which is a modest burden for growers considering the hit dispensaries took.

Cook consistently expressed his dissatisfaction with 1284 and reminded everyone that in January there will be an important opportunity to correct some of those issues on the state level. What I took away from the entire panel was that we should treat 1284 as if it was here to stay and that the more we play ball, the more balls they throw us. A tired refrain.

He stressed the rule making process a great deal as well. He can interpret existing law, but can't get close to a reversal. When talking about state residency, he brought up fishing licenses and how many days you need to be in the state before one can be issued. Residency, to him, is a flexible issue... unless the requirements are spelled out so clearly in the house bill. Moral of the story is that he's open to reasonable interpretations.

At one point he talked about a webcam surveillance system, and how he wouldn't need to send inspectors down there all the time when they could check in remotely. Since when did this turn into HB10-1984? It appears the more transparent you are with the inspectors, the better off you'll have it.

When talking about fees, Cook's analogy was always that they were "building a house" from the ground up. He has no way to predict how many applications they'll receive, so he's rounding up. Generously.

That may be unfair, though. He stayed for at least an extra hour after sitting on the panel for three, answering questions from whoever crowded around him. He handed out business cards like he meant it and several times in the night told people he would contact them, because he needed their point of view.

Like him or not, he's come across to me as the most accessible person in this process. Maybe that comes from years of being schmoozed by the gaming and liquor industries. His resume suggests he's had a zeal for whatever they've tasked him with.

He has another Q&A a week from Thursday, what do we really need to know from him?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not The Releaf Center. I'm a guy named Jake who went to a meeting tonight. I thought I took good notes, but there may be some topics that I misinterpreted. There were a lot of other subjects covered, so if you have a question about any other topic, post it in here and if it was covered, I'll get back to you.

a guy named Jake: Thanks for the update. Do you recall any discussion regarding how many OPCL's can be licensed by a center? There is not an additional licensing requirement for OPCL's? You mentioned something about a plant husbandry permit or license?

I don't understand this 70/30 provision. In order to wholesale up to 30% of a center's product, it appears that it is assumed the remaining 70% will cover 100% of the patient's needs? I would think a center would need all that it can grow, especially given the disruption of supply from home growers, and a probable increase in patients because of the lack of available caregivers. Also, center's grow operations will no doubt be on a large scale where the need to buy from other centers should be limited, given ideal circumstances, i.e., a successful grow. And, given the competition of the centers who do survive, I doubt that there will be a lot of wholesaling (or strain sharing), and that centers will keep their successful strains to themselves.

One last thought: given the license fees mentioned in your notes as well as the increased cost of doing business in order to comply with this legislation, I reckon prices will go up for patients who go to centers? What say you centers?

[TheReleafCenter]

By chance on his business card does he have an email address? If so can you send it to me? Thanks

[email protected]


Is this fee set? Thannnn whooooooooooo!

No, but this is the model that I'd be willing to bet they adopt.


Do you recall any discussion regarding how many OPCL's can be licensed by a center? There is not an additional licensing requirement for OPCL's? You mentioned something about a plant husbandry permit or license?

I don't understand this 70/30 provision. In order to wholesale up to 30% of a center's product, it appears that it is assumed the remaining 70% will cover 100% of the patient's needs? I would think a center would need all that it can grow, especially given the disruption of supply from home growers, and a probable increase in patients because of the lack of available caregivers. Also, center's grow operations will no doubt be on a large scale where the need to buy from other centers should be limited, given ideal circumstances, i.e., a successful grow. And, given the competition of the centers who do survive, I doubt that there will be a lot of wholesaling (or strain sharing), and that centers will keep their successful strains to themselves.

One last thought: given the license fees mentioned in your notes as well as the increased cost of doing business in order to comply with this legislation, I reckon prices will go up for patients who go to centers? What say you centers?

A center can have as many OPCL's as it wants. The key is to have your OPCL's locally approved by the 1st of next month. That meets meaning zoning requirements. An easy way to get proof of "local approval" is a nursery or plant husbandry license. It proves you were in a locality and transparent about what you planned on doing with your building.

When I talked about that very issue with the 70/30, Cook scoffed and said everyone should have extra meds. I still don't understand how a wholesaling model is possible.

One panelist specifically talked about how cheap patients would be able to find meds in the next couple months as people dump meds they can't account for, a point I've made on this board before. Cook said he expects prices to drop across the board as people are growing more of their own. I'm skeptical...

[colagal]

[email protected]



No, but this is the model that I'd be willing to bet they adopt.



A center can have as many OPCL's as it wants. The key is to have your OPCL's locally approved by the 1st of next month. That meets meaning zoning requirements. An easy way to get proof of "local approval" is a nursery or plant husbandry license. It proves you were in a locality and transparent about what you planned on doing with your building.

When I talked about that very issue with the 70/30, Cook scoffed and said everyone should have extra meds. I still don't understand how a wholesaling model is possible.

One panelist specifically talked about how cheap patients would be able to find meds in the next couple months as people dump meds they can't account for, a point I've made on this board before. Cook said he expects prices to drop across the board as people are growing more of their own. I'm skeptical...

That is indeed the key. I believe the majority of dispensaries are scrambling to find approved grow locations by July 1.

You would think that the future former neighborhood grower would drop their prices, but I don't see them coming down as much as one would think.

I wonder who advises Cook? People who run dog and horse tracks? Liquor store moguls? The Bud Fairy? Anyway, I suppose if prices were high enough, patients might be tempted to entertain the thought of growing their own. But I agree with you, I seriously doubt that your average debilitated patient has the wherewithal to grow their own.

[Weekend]

Thanks for the notes Jake.....very much appreciated............what does OPCL stand for?

[HighPopalorum]

Offstage, he said he expected OPCL's to come in at $500-$1000, which is a modest burden for growers considering the hit dispensaries took.


*stirring the pot*

You expect growers to pay the OPCL fees even though the licenses will be in your name? As employer and licensee, that responsibility is yours. Say you go out of business a week after signing up five growers who each put up $500 for your OPCL licenses. Those growers are now out their cash and without legal protection, and must then begin negotiations anew with another MMC who might also charge them for OPCL fees. You should pay those fees, not them.

[TheReleafCenter]

I wonder who advises Cook? People who run dog and horse tracks? Liquor store moguls? The Bud Fairy? Anyway, I suppose if prices were high enough, patients might be tempted to entertain the thought of growing their own. But I agree with you, I seriously doubt that your average debilitated patient has the wherewithal to grow their own.

His experience is traditionally with gaming and alcohol regulation. I don't believe he's being advised, but he is working alongside another gentleman in the Department whose name escapes me.


Thanks for the notes Jake.....very much appreciated............what does OPCL stand for?

You're quite welcome. An OPCL is an optional premises cultivation license.


*stirring the pot*

You expect growers to pay the OPCL fees even though the licenses will be in your name? As employer and licensee, that responsibility is yours. Say you go out of business a week after signing up five growers who each put up $500 for your OPCL licenses. Those growers are now out their cash and without legal protection, and must then begin negotiations anew with another MMC who might also charge them for OPCL fees. You should pay those fees, not them.

No, I don't expect growers to pay those fees. MMC's will ultimately how they want to decide how they want to compensate growers. I'm 99% sure we'll be covering the fees for growers, and I've had some private conversations with people in which I've conveyed that, as well.

[throatstick]

*stirring the pot*

You expect growers to pay the OPCL fees even though the licenses will be in your name? As employer and licensee, that responsibility is yours. Say you go out of business a week after signing up five growers who each put up $500 for your OPCL licenses. Those growers are now out their cash and without legal protection, and must then begin negotiations anew with another MMC who might also charge them for OPCL fees. You should pay those fees, not them.

i have to agree with you on that...

[rightwinger]

Thanks for the info Jake. Much appreciated!

Thanks for the iinfo Jake--very much appreciated. My question is: When is Mr. Cook's statements aka the department of revenue going to put this in writing? Fees--requirements, etc.

I also question the "non-refunable" license fee. I don't believe the state has ever before been able to refuse an applicant a license--yet still keep the money? Were you under the impression that if a license is granted to an applicant--the licensee can't come back later after approval to get their fee back. That would make sense.

Also--you stated that application fees will be due every year. I believe with liquor license and other professional state regulated licenses they are renewed every two years--not every year.

And finally--when is the state going to have these forms? Under 1284 it specifically states:

"Develop such forms, licenses, identification cards, and applications as are necessary or convenient in the discretion of the state licensing authority for the administration of this article or any of the rules promulgated under this article."

It seems to me that they have enacted a deadline of July 1--yet have not produced the form yet--which they are required to do.

[TheReleafCenter]

Thanks for the iinfo Jake--very much appreciated. My question is: When is Mr. Cook's statements aka the department of revenue going to put this in writing? Fees--requirements, etc.

I also question the "non-refunable" license fee. I don't believe the state has ever before been able to refuse an applicant a license--yet still keep the money? Were you under the impression that if a license is granted to an applicant--the licensee can't come back later after approval to get their fee back. That would make sense.

Also--you stated that application fees will be due every year. I believe with liquor license and other professional state regulated licenses they are renewed every two years--not every year.

And finally--when is the state going to have these forms? Under 1284 it specifically states:

"Develop such forms, licenses, identification cards, and applications as are necessary or convenient in the discretion of the state licensing authority for the administration of this article or any of the rules promulgated under this article."

It seems to me that they have enacted a deadline of July 1--yet have not produced the form yet--which they are required to do.

GREAT questions. Cook said that the forms would be available in July, and that they won't be rushing to get them out until he "builds the house." He doesn't want to put them out there, have diligent MMC's turn them right back in and have no capacity to process them. I'm guessing their defense in regards to the deadline is that they're not administering the article on 7/1, but simply asking licensees to be compliant with local law.

I believe he also said it was a one time application fee and then MMC's would just have to renew their licenses every year. The application fee (up to 18.5K) is NOT refundable, but any license fees are (Page 19, final paragraph of HB1284).

[throatstick]

GREAT questions. Cook said that the forms would be available in July, and that they won't be rushing to get them out until he "builds the house." He doesn't want to put them out there, have diligent MMC's turn them right back in and have no capacity to process them. I'm guessing their defense in regards to the deadline is that they're not administering the article on 7/1, but simply asking licensees to be compliant with local law.

I believe he also said it was a one time application fee and then MMC's would just have to renew their licenses every year. The application fee (up to 18.5K) is NOT refundable, but any license fees are (Page 19, final paragraph of HB1284).

then would'nt it have been better to have made a better date for everyone to get their ducks in a row mainly them?i would have asked why such a rush on everything?let me guess they had to push this bs through as fast as they could b4 election day?

[rightwinger]

GREAT questions. Cook said that the forms would be available in July, and that they won't be rushing to get them out until he "builds the house." He doesn't want to put them out there, have diligent MMC's turn them right back in and have no capacity to process them. I'm guessing their defense in regards to the deadline is that they're not administering the article on 7/1, but simply asking licensees to be compliant with local law.

I believe he also said it was a one time application fee and then MMC's would just have to renew their licenses every year. The application fee (up to 18.5K) is NOT refundable, but any license fees are (Page 19, final paragraph of HB1284).

So I guess we can assume that nothing gets done until the Dept. of Revenue comes up with the forms.

The next problem I see--is many of the smaller cities and counties in this state have not adopted ordinances or regulations as yet on dispensories. Many were waiting on the state to pass this bill--and have put off to the future time to study this bill--arrange for zoning ordinances-regulations-fee's etc.

Yet, right there on page one of 1284 it states that: "The state licensing authority grants, refuses, or renews a medical marijana center license "after" the licensee has received "local" approval.

If it's like the county I live in--whom the county commissioners only meets once a month--that's a real problem. Then once they meet--you have to be on their docket for discussion--otherwise it is put on for a future date and then they vote. This puts many dispensories in this state--in the unincorporated areas of counties--currently open-under a major crunch time that they have absolutely no control over. Counties and municipalities would have to enact their own regulations immediately-in order to sign off for an existing dispensory-.

The state should allow for temporary waivers of existing dispensories in this circumstance until these counties and municipalities have their ducks in a row.

As far as my other question the non-refundable license fee: Page 19 of 1284.

"All applications submitted for concurrent review shall be accompanied by all applicable state license and applications fees. Any application that are later denied or withdrawn may allow for a refund of the license fees only. All application fees provided by an applicant shall be retained by the respective licensing authority.

Is there something I am missing here? So where is the definition in this bill for what is the application fee and what is the license fee?

Boy, I tell you my eyes are literally going cross-eyed over this bill--and much of it makes no sense what-so-ever.

[TheReleafCenter]

then would'nt it have been better to have made a better date for everyone to get their ducks in a row mainly them?i would have asked why such a rush on everything?let me guess they had to push this bs through as fast as they could b4 election day?

Cook said there was a big push to get things done before the DEA really started going after growers.

@rightwinger: There should be an exception for set ups in places with moratoriums, but there isn't. They said you pretty much need to move somewhere they want you.

The application fee is the $7500-$18,500, the license fees are the OPCL's, infused products, etc, I believe.

[CannnaLady]

I don't understand having to have a grow facility before july 1st. denver, where i am looking, doesn't have a grow licence available...so why would it matter?
also, everything but the fee/application on august 1st and the 70/30 on sept. 1st goes into effect on july 1st 2011? so dispensaries don't have to change their hours etc. until july 1st of next year?

[TheReleafCenter]

I don't understand having to have a grow facility before july 1st. denver, where i am looking, doesn't have a grow licence available...so why would it matter?
also, everything but the fee/application on august 1st and the 70/30 on sept. 1st goes into effect on july 1st 2011? so dispensaries don't have to change their hours etc. until july 1st of next year?

There isn't a grow license, but you can apply for a plant husbandry license, which (according to Edson) is all you need to prove local approval.

From what I've heard in regards to the second question, you're right. It's unfortunate because a few places changed hours as a reactionary measure.

[rightwinger]

There isn't a grow license, but you can apply for a plant husbandry license, which (according to Edson) is all you need to prove local approval.

From what I've heard in regards to the second question, you're right. It's unfortunate because a few places changed hours as a reactionary measure.

It just seems to me that many are just chasing their tails right now--until a lot of this is settled. Again--the city/county issue--the non-refundable application fee--.

It's like all dispensories are suppose to hurry up and jump too--when the state hasn't even got the forms produced--nor have cities or counties done anything yet for approval or disaproval.

[rightwinger]

There isn't a grow license, but you can apply for a plant husbandry license, which (according to Edson) is all you need to prove local approval.

From what I've heard in regards to the second question, you're right. It's unfortunate because a few places changed hours as a reactionary measure.


I am not certain where your at--but there is no such thing as a plant husbandry license in this county?

[TheReleafCenter]

I am not certain where your at--but there is no such thing as a plant husbandry license in this county?

You're right, some dispensaries are chasing their tails. There are other dispensaries that are completely passive in the process.

I mentioned this in my initial post, but I should have explained more. The husbandry license is only found in some cities, but in most counties it's going to be a nursery. If there isn't a nursery license then I'd ask what kind of agricultural permits are available.

[throatstick]

Cook said there was a big push to get things done before the DEA really started going after growers.

@rightwinger: There should be an exception for set ups in places with moratoriums, but there isn't. They said you pretty much need to move somewhere they want you.

The application fee is the $7500-$18,500, the license fees are the OPCL's, infused products, etc, I believe.

how would rushing this stop dea? dea will come after who ever they want when ever.none of these bills effect what they can do.

[checkedout]

The moratoriums are whats killing me. 3500 square foot of space and a contract with a dispensary and loveland extended there moratorium. Screwed out of the game. Anyone know of space that's right for the job?

[TheReleafCenter]

how would rushing this stop dea? dea will come after who ever they want when ever.none of these bills effect what they can do.

His argument was that tighter state regulations help quell DEA concerns about MMJ. I can buy that from a logic standpoint.