Michigan Seeks Input on Multiple Licenses and Co-Location

Michigan Seeks Input on Multiple Licenses and Co-Location

Michigan Seeks Input on Multiple Licenses and Co-Location

As the State of Michigan moves forward in developing rules to implement the State’s new Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) today reached out for stakeholder input on critical issues—whether and how applicants can seek multiple licenses and co-locate operations under different license classes. Specifically, the Director of LARA, Shelly Edgerton, issued the following statement and request:

Many of you have been made aware during previous meetings or conversations regarding the new Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281, that the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) was considering holding discussions to get feedback from those who have expressed interest in certain related topics or the new law in general. To examine issues that have been brought to LARA’s attention while working to implement the law, LARA is therefore seeking comments from interested parties on the topics of license stacking and co-locations as it relates to the licensed categories.  The purpose of this document is to gather information only and is not meant to interfere with the authority of the Board or Advisory Panel procedures when they are appointed as provided under the Act.

To that end we are asking for your input by responding to the questions below. We are only asking for brief answers, or comments limited to a short paragraph or a few sentences. Please provide your responses by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28th, 2016. After the responses are compiled, a meeting and/or conference call may be scheduled if appropriate to review the responses and receive additional input. Please submit your responses to curtisc8@michigan.gov.

Questions: Topics: License Stacking and Co-locations

    1. Should an entity be permitted to have more than one grow license at a single location?
    2. Should an entity be permitted to have more than one level of grow license at a single location?
    3. Should multiple licenses issued at a single location be restricted to Class C grow licenses only?
    4. Should the licensed growers, processors, and provisioning centers be allowed to apply for multiple licenses? 
    5. Should a demonstrated ability to sell inventory be required as a prerequisite to issuing additional licenses at a single location? If so, what percentage of inventory over how long of a period?
    6. Should different entities operating at the same location be required to have common ownership interests? 
    7. A few other states, such as Colorado, allow growers and processors to operate at the same location and allow license stacking. Should license growers and processors be allowed to operate at the same location?
    8. There has been some mention of possible safety and security concerns if licensed growers, processors, and provisioning centers are all operating at the same location, such as one building. Should growers, processors, and provisioning centers be allowed to operate at the same location?

We can anticipate that LARA will continue to solicit stakeholder input, although LARA’s statement noted that its work on the rules is to be in consultation with the yet-to-be-appointed Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Board and Advisory Panel. Given that the formal roles of advisory panels are fairly limited under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, the new Board and LARA will have some discretion with respect to how deeply they involve the Advisory Panel. While it remains to be seen what opportunities will be provided for public input into the rulemaking process (apart from those required under the APA), LARA’s initial outreach here is a promising first step.

As the rulemaking process in Michigan continues to unfold, check back here to Dykema’s Cannabis Law Blog for further updates.

(Why?)

Published at Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:00:00 +0000