City staff to release revised dispensary application with multi-site option, new scoring

Steve Ashworth, deputy city manager, told the Redmond City Council on May 6 that staff will release a revised dispensary application within about a week and send a press release announcing the process.

The revised application reduces the relative weight of the subjective community-benefit score and increases points for the business plan so that applicants who score strongly on business criteria are not automatically eliminated. “You have to have some community value or community benefit to play, but it doesn't have to be a high maximum to get into the discussion,” Ashworth said.

Under the process described by staff, prospective operators will first submit a land‑use property verification for each site they want considered. The council heard that the verification fee was described during the meeting as about $84–$86 per site. Once sites are found eligible, operators will be invited to submit a nonrefundable $1,500 business‑license application for each site they choose to advance.

Ashworth said applicants may submit multiple land‑use verifications and later choose which eligible sites to enter into the paid application round. “They may turn in, they may have five sites that they want to have, and so that's five applications,” Ashworth said. Planning staff will review eligibility without addressing buffer conflicts at that stage; staff intends to notify applicants which sites are eligible by May 30.

On scoring, staff described an 800‑point business‑plan component covering financials, staffing and operations, product sourcing and solvency. The remaining 200 points include a 50‑point “skin in the game” community‑benefit minimum and additional points for past community involvement and contributions to nonprofits (described in meeting discussion as an element measured as a percent of gross sales). Councilors said the 850‑point mark is a practical cutoff that signals having met minimum community‑benefit expectations before ranking applicants.

Council members asked about background checks, disqualification and reviewer selection. Councilor Nielsen asked whether a negative background check would be disqualifying; Ashworth said background and license‑in‑good‑standing checks could disqualify applicants and that staff would exercise some discretion depending on the severity of any negative findings. Ashworth said the review panel will include the deputy city manager, planning staff, a representative from the police department and OLCC scoring, so the same reviewers evaluate each application for consistency.

Councilors pressed staff on how the review team would be vetted and how to avoid perceptions of bias. Ashworth said the city administrator will make staffing decisions for the review team and that the city would report back to council on the number of applications received and any legal issues that arise during the process.

Staff set an initial submission window that closes at the end of day May 23. If multiple applicants and eligible sites advance, staff expects to run scoring and buffer checks and to have selections narrowed by early July; exact dates will depend on the number of submissions and any buffer conflicts. Ashworth cautioned council that buffer rules could create a situation with no eligible sites, in which case staff would return with options.

The council did not take a formal vote on program rules at the May 6 meeting; staff described the timeline and review process and will return with updates as applications proceed.