Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses counsel on which state license was revoked and whether renewal forms require attestations
Summary
Councilmembers asked detailed questions about whether Purist's distribution license (not cultivation) was revoked, whether the cultivation license remains active, and whether renewal forms include attestations required by the municipal code; the appellant said cultivation remains active and that renewal forms lack fresh attestations.
Councilmembers questioned appellant counsel and staff about the practical and legal distinctions between state and local licenses and the content of the city's renewal form.
Councilmember Jamie McCormick asked, "Has any one of the owners actually had their privileges of their licenses revoked?" Appellant counsel said the distributor license denial is the subject of the appeal while the cultivation license remained active and searchable on the DCC website. Vice Mayor Campbell likewise asked which license was revoked and why; counsel responded that the revocation reasons were recapped in the presentation and included local-approval and track-and-trace issues.
Council members also sought clarification on the renewal application: whether the city requires a current state statement of information or attestation that owners have no revocations, and whether fees and LLC paperwork were up to date. Appellant counsel said the renewal package included current paperwork and that the renewal form itself does not contain the attestation language of a fresh license application, a point he urged the council to consider.
