4e) Discussion and Possible Action Including Acceptance of Update from County Counsel's Office Regarding Status of Updates to Mendocino County Code Chapter 10A.17 Creating an Appeals Process for Cannabis Cultivation Permit Application Denials and Chapter 6.32 Creating a Fallowing Program and Relief from the Minimum Commercial Cannabis Business Tax for Cultivation
(Sponsor: County Counsel)
Thank you for considering appeals & fallowing in furthering a fair & equitable system in the Cannabis Department.
Sincerely, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I support any effort that supports cannabis farmers in Mendocino County. Of course there should be an appeals process, thats how democracy works, accountability and transparency are important. Of course, there should be an easy fallowing program because this year doesn't make sense to grow cannabis -BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION- and why would we pay to not grow? If the state is going to sell canopy licenses with no regard to demand or embracing our legacy region we need escape buttons and any regulatory mechanism to HELP US SURVIVE. Of course, there should be relief on cannabis taxes for cultivation as they were already punitive, flat taxes don't make any sense with a commodity that is highly volatile in prices, and we need tax relief to stay in business. If your farming cannabis, these actions to help farmers survive in the wake of a bungled regulatory rollout for cannabis, a complete free pass on enforcement for black market operators, and the collapse of the cannabis market, make as much sense as the rain, bring it on. Please lord let the regulators make it easier and make it make more sense. Let them spend most of their time and energy on everyone that didn't sign up for Mendocino cannabis program to help better support us.
We are looking forward to hearing about the progress on both Appeals and Fallowing.
Appeals
The vast majority of Mendocino County cannabis applicants are currently in the Portal Resubmission process. Their experience has been revealed to be marked by inconsistencies in how the standards have been applied by MCP Staff; constant mistakes and misunderstandings in communications by and between Staff and applicants; and Staff generated delays in approving applications with very minor and easily repaired deficiencies.
Additionally, issues concerning imperfect technology, un-published standards and guidelines that have been misunderstood or mistakenly reviewed, along with reliance on third party consultants or agencies that may have caused applications to be deemed incomplete will also likely contribute to applications being denied inappropriately.
We strongly support the creation of an appeals process that affords the applicants (some of whom have been in process for up to five years) a reasonable method of contesting the decision to deny them or to restrict their application (for example through the Vegetation Modification process) prior to permanently denying them. Such a process should include a mechanism to retain their status (except in instances of imminent danger, health, or safety violation) of having local authorization, including with the State, until a final determination in accordance with due process procedures has been made.
Fallowing
MCA sincerely hopes that there has been movement on the fallowing conversation, but we are very concerned that the delay in this process will significantly impact those operators who are needing this relief immediately to decide if they can move forward with planting or not. The current NAS and NNOP remove their local authorization, and as such are NOT solutions at this time. We recommend that in the absence of a clear plan to implement full tax relief without a specific fallowing program, the County adopt Hannah Nelson’s redline proposal that has been submitted to the Board to remove current limitations to support farmers' use of fallowing as a means of surviving difficult regulatory and market conditions that have placed them in jeopardy.
Specific Recommendations for Fallowing
1. Remove the limitation of allowing fallowing once in every five years.
2. Remove the limitation that fallowing can only happen at the time of permit renewal.
3. Fallowing should be an option for ANY purpose, similar to other agricultural crops.
4. Treat annual permit holders and applicants equally in their right to fallow.
5. Cultivators who have been granted “Fallowing Status”, and are in the process of application correction, should be able to continue to fallow but have their application returned to the queue for processing after the correction.
6. Continue permit and CEQA processing while fallowing. Allow annual permit holders and applicants to maintain their place in line or elect to pause those processes at applicants’ discretion.
7. Create a streamlined resubmission process if either application or CEQA processing is paused.
8. Create a mechanism for cultivators who fallow to keep genetics alive if they register the specific genetics.
9. Include drying, harvest storage, sales through the State Track and Trace system, and maintenance of genetics as allowable activities while fallowing.
10. Include a specific definition of “cultivation” that excludes the above referenced activities for purposes of the fallowing provisions
11. Cultivators should not be held responsible for the minimum tax for the year/years they are fallowing.
12. Cultivators should not have to submit a tax appeal the year/years fallowing in order to not have to pay the minimum tax.
13. Ensure that while fallowing, cultivators maintain ‘local authorization’ so as not to lose their State Provisional or Annual license.
We thank you for your consideration of these important items and remain available to work directly with you and MCD to resolve them.
Thank you for considering appeals & fallowing in furthering a fair & equitable system in the Cannabis Department.
Sincerely, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I support any effort that supports cannabis farmers in Mendocino County. Of course there should be an appeals process, thats how democracy works, accountability and transparency are important. Of course, there should be an easy fallowing program because this year doesn't make sense to grow cannabis -BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION- and why would we pay to not grow? If the state is going to sell canopy licenses with no regard to demand or embracing our legacy region we need escape buttons and any regulatory mechanism to HELP US SURVIVE. Of course, there should be relief on cannabis taxes for cultivation as they were already punitive, flat taxes don't make any sense with a commodity that is highly volatile in prices, and we need tax relief to stay in business. If your farming cannabis, these actions to help farmers survive in the wake of a bungled regulatory rollout for cannabis, a complete free pass on enforcement for black market operators, and the collapse of the cannabis market, make as much sense as the rain, bring it on. Please lord let the regulators make it easier and make it make more sense. Let them spend most of their time and energy on everyone that didn't sign up for Mendocino cannabis program to help better support us.
Honorable Supervisors,
We are looking forward to hearing about the progress on both Appeals and Fallowing.
Appeals
The vast majority of Mendocino County cannabis applicants are currently in the Portal Resubmission process. Their experience has been revealed to be marked by inconsistencies in how the standards have been applied by MCP Staff; constant mistakes and misunderstandings in communications by and between Staff and applicants; and Staff generated delays in approving applications with very minor and easily repaired deficiencies.
Additionally, issues concerning imperfect technology, un-published standards and guidelines that have been misunderstood or mistakenly reviewed, along with reliance on third party consultants or agencies that may have caused applications to be deemed incomplete will also likely contribute to applications being denied inappropriately.
We strongly support the creation of an appeals process that affords the applicants (some of whom have been in process for up to five years) a reasonable method of contesting the decision to deny them or to restrict their application (for example through the Vegetation Modification process) prior to permanently denying them. Such a process should include a mechanism to retain their status (except in instances of imminent danger, health, or safety violation) of having local authorization, including with the State, until a final determination in accordance with due process procedures has been made.
Fallowing
MCA sincerely hopes that there has been movement on the fallowing conversation, but we are very concerned that the delay in this process will significantly impact those operators who are needing this relief immediately to decide if they can move forward with planting or not. The current NAS and NNOP remove their local authorization, and as such are NOT solutions at this time. We recommend that in the absence of a clear plan to implement full tax relief without a specific fallowing program, the County adopt Hannah Nelson’s redline proposal that has been submitted to the Board to remove current limitations to support farmers' use of fallowing as a means of surviving difficult regulatory and market conditions that have placed them in jeopardy.
Specific Recommendations for Fallowing
1. Remove the limitation of allowing fallowing once in every five years.
2. Remove the limitation that fallowing can only happen at the time of permit renewal.
3. Fallowing should be an option for ANY purpose, similar to other agricultural crops.
4. Treat annual permit holders and applicants equally in their right to fallow.
5. Cultivators who have been granted “Fallowing Status”, and are in the process of application correction, should be able to continue to fallow but have their application returned to the queue for processing after the correction.
6. Continue permit and CEQA processing while fallowing. Allow annual permit holders and applicants to maintain their place in line or elect to pause those processes at applicants’ discretion.
7. Create a streamlined resubmission process if either application or CEQA processing is paused.
8. Create a mechanism for cultivators who fallow to keep genetics alive if they register the specific genetics.
9. Include drying, harvest storage, sales through the State Track and Trace system, and maintenance of genetics as allowable activities while fallowing.
10. Include a specific definition of “cultivation” that excludes the above referenced activities for purposes of the fallowing provisions
11. Cultivators should not be held responsible for the minimum tax for the year/years they are fallowing.
12. Cultivators should not have to submit a tax appeal the year/years fallowing in order to not have to pay the minimum tax.
13. Ensure that while fallowing, cultivators maintain ‘local authorization’ so as not to lose their State Provisional or Annual license.
We thank you for your consideration of these important items and remain available to work directly with you and MCD to resolve them.
Sincerely,
Mendocino Cannabis Alliance
e: info@mendocannabis.com