B
Blazing Oaks
- 18
- 13
From the Willits News by Kate Maxwell
Supervisor Dan Gjerde pulled the Ad Hoc Marijuana Committee’s report from the Dec. 15 board meeting’s consent calendar for further discussion, stating “there’s been a fair amount of interest in the community and the other supervisors about the work of the committee so i was a little surprised to see it on the consent calendar.” Items on the consent calendar typically are considered routine and non-controversial.
Supervisors debated the importance of making changes to local regulations to comply with the timeline of new state regulations, and heard public comment from county residents and law enforcement.
Many local residents attended to request supervisors seek ways to ensure local cultivators and others seeking to form compliant cannabis businesses be recognized by the county. Such recognition could ensure they would not be delayed from participating in the new commercial medical cannabis market. After a discussion and hearing public comment, supervisors voted unanimously to accept the Committee report and proposed timeline for ordinance revisions.
TIMELINE OF STATE AND COUNTY LAWS
The Ad Hoc Marijuana Committee which reformed in January 2015 is comprised of Supervisors Tom Woodhouse and John McCowen to analyze pending state legislation. The committee was redirected on November to research and recommend changes to Mendocino County’s cannabis policy known as the 9.31 program, including an end-of-year report suggesting local changes to address the new state laws.
The state’s new marijuana regulations, passed this October and known as MMRSA, create a complex framework of regulations to legalize commercial medical marijuana activity. The framework allows significant local control by requiring applicants demonstrate compliance with both state and local laws.
The state laws go into effect January 1, 2016, and counties are required to pass local regulations by March, 2016 or adopt state regulations, although this timeline may change with clean-up legislation.
County residents have asked the supervisors to clarify how they can demonstrate local compliance. Those able demonstrate compliance prior to January 1, 2016 will be given priority for state licenses. Other counties have begun addressomg these issues by either creating county registries or issuing “letters of good standing.”
The ad hoc committee anticipates a new ordinance draft in January, a February meeting with the six “Rural Counties Marijuana Summit,” and a final ordinance draft for a pilot program in March 2016.
“The concerns I’m hearing—the perception of the community is the county is moving kind of slowly compared to the state law,” said Gjerde.
Gjerde said the county was once on the forefront of pushing for decriminalization, both in coordination with other rural counties and in establishing the 9.31 program, and the Board had “for five years at least, in its legislative platform, has advocated for decrimalization and a move in that direction…the concern that I’m hearing from the community is that the county in its own policy, now that it has the authority to move in that direction, is moving fairly slowly.”
Woodhouse agreed that in stakeholder meetings, he heard concern about the state timelines, but that he felt more research and discussion was needed. “There has been a large uptick in comments and concern from the community, and I think they feel under tremendous pressure. I think there’s a lot of fear out there, and people feel like their livelihood and their ability to stay on their land and farm is being threatened, and I know that we take that very seriously.”
However, Woodhouse said he thought the county should wait to see if clean-up legislation was adopted, and the Ad Hoc Committee did not feel “under the gun” to make quick changes. “We have lists of problems with the present three bills that were just rushed through, and we’re not going to overreact because we’re not afraid. We feel very confident that we’re ahead of other counties, they’re looking to us for leadership,” he said, explaining the Committee felt the timeline established by the state protects the county from being forced to adopt state regulations in March.
“I’m talking to people every single day and asking for their written input, and getting some really brilliant input from people. So we are on schedule, we are on time, we’re not going to ram it through by Jan. 1 because there’s absolutely no reason to,” said Woodhouse.
McCowen agreed he thought since the 9.31 program was previously established, the county could revise or alter the ordinance at will without state interference. Referencing the presentation by Paul Smith of the Rural County Representatives of California, McCowan said “There was a lot of comment about we had to make certain deadlines by January 1 or March 1—those proved to be false statements... So I think we’re moving forward at a reasonable pace, at this point I’m not sure how it could be accelerated particularly or how we could particularly gain that much by doing so, id rather take the time to do it right.”
Acting County Counsel Katherine Elliott added she had spoken to other county counsels including one who helped write the MMRSA legislation, and that she thought the 9.31 ordinance allowed the county to revise the ordinance later.
Hamburg also expressed concern about “disadvantaging our local people,” saying “I think we all saw the specter of our local growers soon to be legalized, that they would somehow be at the back of the line, and that would disadvantage our county, and even our taxing authority would be perhaps delayed because we wouldn’t have people who were listened and engaged in the program.”
CONCLUSION AND VOTE
After public comments, Gjerde said he had also heard many proposals from community members in the past few months and thought the county should consider coordination inspections with the regional water board to ensure compliance with county regulations, particularly now cultivation was classified under agriculture under the state laws.
“It makes more sense that we would have people who are experts in their field which would be in consultation with the sheriffs office, and the sheriffs office would always be there in the background if someone’s not complying…but what I’m hearing over and over again are these are people who want to comply with the environmental regulations, who want to be in the open light, and so that’s why I think the doorway we should make open isn’t the Sheriffs’ office as the face of Mendocino County that comes to their door, its the ag department.. for those that want to stick with the program and comply with the rules, that’s all they have to see.”
Supervisor Carre Brown pointed out that “in the historic tradition of agriculture, enforcement license people were coming all the time, and you never knew when to expect them,” to ensure compliance with land use, pesticides, and other kinds of regulations, so she didn’t know if coordinating inspections made sense in traditional agricultural practices.
McCowen concluded the discussion by saying the Committee was committed to ensuring efficient inspections and compliance with the water board regulations as a minimum environmental standard for participation in any new county program. The board voted to adopt the Committee report 5 - 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Many residents requested supervisors seek ways to ensure local cultivators and cannabis businesses seeking to come into compliance could demonstrate they were following county regulations. Several early participants in the county’s 9.31 program expressed support for resurrecting that program. Speakers said it would allow the county to gauge interest from new applicants and establish clear compliance regulations in coordination with the regional waterboard regulations.
“I know with those regulations and inspections, those that want to cultivate cannabis can be held to a higher standard, and I look forward to it,” said one cultivator who applied for a 9.31 license in 2010.
One resident, who thought he might have been the first 9.31 license holder, said, “It brought a lot of people that were in the dark into the light, I felt like it benefited the county, took a lot of worry away from law enforcement because there was a lot of people that did comply, they didn’t have to waste their time and resources…it would help, and save a lot of budget money for people that are out there doing it the wrong way.”
Several said they had heard discussion of licensing caps, and urged the supervisors not to exclude residents seeking compliance, but instead to consider adding a later moratorium if staffing costs and paperwork from applications or other administrative issues became burdensome. They also said licensing caps would contribute to the already established black market, and discourage cultivators from doing business in the county, which would diminish its tax base.
Julia Carrera, of the Small Farmers Association, said as in inspector in the 9.31 program she had seen exponential growth in applications when the program was actively promoted. Carerra said her calculations implied if ten percent of a “low low low estimate” of 15,000 cultivators in the county applied for liscenses at the previous rates of $50/plant and $1,500/license, the county could see $7.4 million in plant tag fees and $9.75 million in license fees added to county coffers.
Other speakers requested added plant counts to remain competitive in the commercial market, as other neighboring counties allow higher amounts. One speaker, who had come to comment on the Williamson Act, pointed out that if plant counts weren’t raised it left room in the market for black market growers or other bad actors. “When people have that option, they want to comply with the program, and they’re eager to meet the requirements for environmental standards or those other things that are meant to be there so we can all pay into the system and benefit everyone else—but if people dont have that, there’s someone else out there who may be in the national forest not abiding by any laws or standards that are set.”
Sherry Glaser, of the Love-in-it Cooperative in Mendocino, asked the county to find a way to recognize previously established cannabis businesses such as dispensaries, who had been operating in a “farm to table” type model and contributing to the county via payroll and other taxes despite lacking certain protections or able to take deductions to due current “grey areas” in the law.
Glaser also requested the county consider “letters of good standing,” as issued by the City of Vallejo, to grandfather in existing businesses, and expunge cannabis-related criminal charges as in Oregon, saying “we need our best and brightest right now.” Glaser also sought exemptions from restrictions on vertical integration to preserve a “farm to pharmacy” model she said was important for small farmers and Mendocino dispensaries and ensure “a bright green future” for the county.
Mendocino County Undersheriff Randy Johnson and former MCSO head of marijuana zip-tie program, spoke in favor of the 9.31 inspections, saying he felt the new laws added “a lot of moving parts” such as distribution and testing, and it was important the supervisors continue evaluating changes. Johnson said he thought most planting began in April and so it was fine to wait until March to unroll changes to the pilot program, and “there was a lot of hard work ahead” and all stakeholders should be included. Johnson added he felt most 9.31 participants had been happy to comply and there wouldn’t be much “pushback.”
Supervisor Dan Gjerde pulled the Ad Hoc Marijuana Committee’s report from the Dec. 15 board meeting’s consent calendar for further discussion, stating “there’s been a fair amount of interest in the community and the other supervisors about the work of the committee so i was a little surprised to see it on the consent calendar.” Items on the consent calendar typically are considered routine and non-controversial.
Supervisors debated the importance of making changes to local regulations to comply with the timeline of new state regulations, and heard public comment from county residents and law enforcement.
Many local residents attended to request supervisors seek ways to ensure local cultivators and others seeking to form compliant cannabis businesses be recognized by the county. Such recognition could ensure they would not be delayed from participating in the new commercial medical cannabis market. After a discussion and hearing public comment, supervisors voted unanimously to accept the Committee report and proposed timeline for ordinance revisions.
TIMELINE OF STATE AND COUNTY LAWS
The Ad Hoc Marijuana Committee which reformed in January 2015 is comprised of Supervisors Tom Woodhouse and John McCowen to analyze pending state legislation. The committee was redirected on November to research and recommend changes to Mendocino County’s cannabis policy known as the 9.31 program, including an end-of-year report suggesting local changes to address the new state laws.
The state’s new marijuana regulations, passed this October and known as MMRSA, create a complex framework of regulations to legalize commercial medical marijuana activity. The framework allows significant local control by requiring applicants demonstrate compliance with both state and local laws.
The state laws go into effect January 1, 2016, and counties are required to pass local regulations by March, 2016 or adopt state regulations, although this timeline may change with clean-up legislation.
County residents have asked the supervisors to clarify how they can demonstrate local compliance. Those able demonstrate compliance prior to January 1, 2016 will be given priority for state licenses. Other counties have begun addressomg these issues by either creating county registries or issuing “letters of good standing.”
The ad hoc committee anticipates a new ordinance draft in January, a February meeting with the six “Rural Counties Marijuana Summit,” and a final ordinance draft for a pilot program in March 2016.
“The concerns I’m hearing—the perception of the community is the county is moving kind of slowly compared to the state law,” said Gjerde.
Gjerde said the county was once on the forefront of pushing for decriminalization, both in coordination with other rural counties and in establishing the 9.31 program, and the Board had “for five years at least, in its legislative platform, has advocated for decrimalization and a move in that direction…the concern that I’m hearing from the community is that the county in its own policy, now that it has the authority to move in that direction, is moving fairly slowly.”
Woodhouse agreed that in stakeholder meetings, he heard concern about the state timelines, but that he felt more research and discussion was needed. “There has been a large uptick in comments and concern from the community, and I think they feel under tremendous pressure. I think there’s a lot of fear out there, and people feel like their livelihood and their ability to stay on their land and farm is being threatened, and I know that we take that very seriously.”
However, Woodhouse said he thought the county should wait to see if clean-up legislation was adopted, and the Ad Hoc Committee did not feel “under the gun” to make quick changes. “We have lists of problems with the present three bills that were just rushed through, and we’re not going to overreact because we’re not afraid. We feel very confident that we’re ahead of other counties, they’re looking to us for leadership,” he said, explaining the Committee felt the timeline established by the state protects the county from being forced to adopt state regulations in March.
“I’m talking to people every single day and asking for their written input, and getting some really brilliant input from people. So we are on schedule, we are on time, we’re not going to ram it through by Jan. 1 because there’s absolutely no reason to,” said Woodhouse.
McCowen agreed he thought since the 9.31 program was previously established, the county could revise or alter the ordinance at will without state interference. Referencing the presentation by Paul Smith of the Rural County Representatives of California, McCowan said “There was a lot of comment about we had to make certain deadlines by January 1 or March 1—those proved to be false statements... So I think we’re moving forward at a reasonable pace, at this point I’m not sure how it could be accelerated particularly or how we could particularly gain that much by doing so, id rather take the time to do it right.”
Acting County Counsel Katherine Elliott added she had spoken to other county counsels including one who helped write the MMRSA legislation, and that she thought the 9.31 ordinance allowed the county to revise the ordinance later.
Hamburg also expressed concern about “disadvantaging our local people,” saying “I think we all saw the specter of our local growers soon to be legalized, that they would somehow be at the back of the line, and that would disadvantage our county, and even our taxing authority would be perhaps delayed because we wouldn’t have people who were listened and engaged in the program.”
CONCLUSION AND VOTE
After public comments, Gjerde said he had also heard many proposals from community members in the past few months and thought the county should consider coordination inspections with the regional water board to ensure compliance with county regulations, particularly now cultivation was classified under agriculture under the state laws.
“It makes more sense that we would have people who are experts in their field which would be in consultation with the sheriffs office, and the sheriffs office would always be there in the background if someone’s not complying…but what I’m hearing over and over again are these are people who want to comply with the environmental regulations, who want to be in the open light, and so that’s why I think the doorway we should make open isn’t the Sheriffs’ office as the face of Mendocino County that comes to their door, its the ag department.. for those that want to stick with the program and comply with the rules, that’s all they have to see.”
Supervisor Carre Brown pointed out that “in the historic tradition of agriculture, enforcement license people were coming all the time, and you never knew when to expect them,” to ensure compliance with land use, pesticides, and other kinds of regulations, so she didn’t know if coordinating inspections made sense in traditional agricultural practices.
McCowen concluded the discussion by saying the Committee was committed to ensuring efficient inspections and compliance with the water board regulations as a minimum environmental standard for participation in any new county program. The board voted to adopt the Committee report 5 - 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Many residents requested supervisors seek ways to ensure local cultivators and cannabis businesses seeking to come into compliance could demonstrate they were following county regulations. Several early participants in the county’s 9.31 program expressed support for resurrecting that program. Speakers said it would allow the county to gauge interest from new applicants and establish clear compliance regulations in coordination with the regional waterboard regulations.
“I know with those regulations and inspections, those that want to cultivate cannabis can be held to a higher standard, and I look forward to it,” said one cultivator who applied for a 9.31 license in 2010.
One resident, who thought he might have been the first 9.31 license holder, said, “It brought a lot of people that were in the dark into the light, I felt like it benefited the county, took a lot of worry away from law enforcement because there was a lot of people that did comply, they didn’t have to waste their time and resources…it would help, and save a lot of budget money for people that are out there doing it the wrong way.”
Several said they had heard discussion of licensing caps, and urged the supervisors not to exclude residents seeking compliance, but instead to consider adding a later moratorium if staffing costs and paperwork from applications or other administrative issues became burdensome. They also said licensing caps would contribute to the already established black market, and discourage cultivators from doing business in the county, which would diminish its tax base.
Julia Carrera, of the Small Farmers Association, said as in inspector in the 9.31 program she had seen exponential growth in applications when the program was actively promoted. Carerra said her calculations implied if ten percent of a “low low low estimate” of 15,000 cultivators in the county applied for liscenses at the previous rates of $50/plant and $1,500/license, the county could see $7.4 million in plant tag fees and $9.75 million in license fees added to county coffers.
Other speakers requested added plant counts to remain competitive in the commercial market, as other neighboring counties allow higher amounts. One speaker, who had come to comment on the Williamson Act, pointed out that if plant counts weren’t raised it left room in the market for black market growers or other bad actors. “When people have that option, they want to comply with the program, and they’re eager to meet the requirements for environmental standards or those other things that are meant to be there so we can all pay into the system and benefit everyone else—but if people dont have that, there’s someone else out there who may be in the national forest not abiding by any laws or standards that are set.”
Sherry Glaser, of the Love-in-it Cooperative in Mendocino, asked the county to find a way to recognize previously established cannabis businesses such as dispensaries, who had been operating in a “farm to table” type model and contributing to the county via payroll and other taxes despite lacking certain protections or able to take deductions to due current “grey areas” in the law.
Glaser also requested the county consider “letters of good standing,” as issued by the City of Vallejo, to grandfather in existing businesses, and expunge cannabis-related criminal charges as in Oregon, saying “we need our best and brightest right now.” Glaser also sought exemptions from restrictions on vertical integration to preserve a “farm to pharmacy” model she said was important for small farmers and Mendocino dispensaries and ensure “a bright green future” for the county.
Mendocino County Undersheriff Randy Johnson and former MCSO head of marijuana zip-tie program, spoke in favor of the 9.31 inspections, saying he felt the new laws added “a lot of moving parts” such as distribution and testing, and it was important the supervisors continue evaluating changes. Johnson said he thought most planting began in April and so it was fine to wait until March to unroll changes to the pilot program, and “there was a lot of hard work ahead” and all stakeholders should be included. Johnson added he felt most 9.31 participants had been happy to comply and there wouldn’t be much “pushback.”
