Quote Originally Posted by 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.
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?
colagal Reviewed by colagal on . Matt Cook from Dept of Revenue on 1284 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 Rating: 5