Agreed, MOB. MV...my thoughts on this would be that if they were "identical" then DOH may have interpreted that to be that it could be a disguised secondary location for an already licensed producer and they aren't allowing "satellite" offices. Or perhaps all of the board members weren't in place. That has been the biggest obstacle that I have heard....people submit their app without everything/everyone in place and ask for approval and THEN they would get all the patients on the board. Know what I mean? Without seeing the proposals Side by side, it is only speculation on my part. When the app fee was only $100 they received a lot of incomplete applications. Since they didn't have a means by which they could just outright turn them down, they continued to ask for additional information. That is why they instituted a lot of the changes last December. Have you seen how much Arizona wants to charge for their producers? Yikes!!
CFO Reviewed by CFO on . CANNABIS AT COST, CO-OP/PRODUCER APPLICATION, LNPP BYLAWS/ ARTofINC. PATIENT FEEDBACK Here are the current bylaws for a production application I am currently working on, it is quite different from the model that the other LNNPs have implemented. This is geared to be more of a co-op combined with the current producer model where the number one goal of Cannabis At Cost is, to get medicine to patients at the cheapest possible price. Please Please contribute, feel free to add anything to the bylaws that you think would make the business a success, or anything that would Rating: 5