HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.11.15.MM Commission PacketLansing City Clerk’s Office
Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695
517-483-4131 517-377-0068 FAX
www.lansingmi.gov/clerk city.clerk@lansingmi.gov
City of Lansing
Medical Marihuana Commission
Regular Meeting
Friday, November 15, 2019 2:00 PM
2500 S Washington Avenue
City Clerk’s Training Room
Meeting Agenda
1. Call to Order/Introductions
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes from 10-18-2019
4. Public Comment on Agenda Items
5. Commission Appeal Hearings
• LE Battle Creek – 3208 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
• Weisberger Ventures II – 511 E. Hazel St.
6. New Business & Updates
7. Public Comment
8. Adjournment
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
Timeline
LE Battle Creek
3208 S Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
Lansing, Michigan 48910
June 26, 2019 – Application submitted ................................................................... 3
July 1, 2019 – Department review of applications begins
July 25, 2019 – Distance Map Created .................................................................. 13
August 19, 2019 – Density Maps Created ............................................................. 14
September 24, 2019 – Score & Rank Denial Letter Sent ........................................ 21
October 3, 2019 – Hearing Officer Appeal submitted ........................................... 25
October 8, 2019 – Second Score & Rank Second Denial Letter Sent ................... 127
October 8, 2019 – Commission Hearing Date Letter Sent ................................... 128
October 8, 2019 – Intent to Appeal Letter Received ........................................... 140
November 5, 2019 – Commission Appeal Submitted .......................................... 142
Exhibit Issues:
HO Exhibit #2 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #9 Tangible Capital
Investment – Removed
HO Exhibit #4 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #20 Total COL Jobs
HO Exhibit #3 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #22 Net Worth
HO Exhibit #6 – Not referenced in appeal - Removed
HO Exhibit #3 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #35 Odor Plan
MMC Exhibit #2 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #9 Tangible Capital
Investment – Removed
1
MMC Exhibit #3 - Cannot be considered when reviewing #10 Financial Structure &
Financing
MMC Exhibit #4 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #20 Total COL Jobs
MMC Exhibit #6 – Is not referenced in appeal. Removed
MM Exhibit #3 – Cannot be considered when reviewing #35 Odor Plan
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
September 24, 2019
LE Battle Creek Inc.
c/o Todd Schafer
2145 Crooks Road Suite 230
Troy, Michigan 48084
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
The Lansing City Ordinance section 1300.6 discusses Provisioning Center license application evaluation. Your score
of 75 out of 100 eliminates the possibility of scoring in the top five. Therefore, your application for licensure is denied.
Attached are your sub-scores based on the criteria posted on https://lansingmi.gov/1637/Medical-Marijuana and a brief
summary of determining factors for each sub-score.
You will not be selected to receive a Provisioning Center license in the City of Lansing for the proposed business
at 3208 South Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.
You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure within 14 days of the date of this letter by filing with the City Clerk’s
Office a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal pursuant to Chapter 1300.15(c). Please note that
initial appeals are referred to a hearing officer appointed by the City Clerk who will review the appeal and information
submitted. The hearing officer will consider the information and make a recommendation to the City Clerk, who will make
a decision on the appeal. To encourage efficiency, appeals will be conducted as a paper hearing without oral
presentation. Please ensure that you include all information in your written appeal that you would like the hearing officer
to consider. Appeals are limited to materials provided during the application process. No new application material will
be considered on appeal.
Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be returned.
This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
Lansing City Clerk
CC: City Attorney
Lansing Police Department
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
22
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 9/24/2019 8:44 AM
Total
Possible
Points
LE Battle Creek, Inc-3208 S Martin Luther King
Applicant Address ---
#Category --- Score Location of material Scoring Insights
1 Ownership Structure 1 1 Org Docs, Ownership Struc., 1 pg. Has ownership structure. 7/11/19
2 Organizational Chart 1 1
Org Docs
Org Chart Has org chart. 8/19/19
3 Worker Training Program 1 1
Other Req Docs
Worker Training Plan Vers 1 Has plan. 8/19/19
4 Short and Long Term Goals and
Objectives 1 1 Org Docs, Goals,3 pgs.Has goals. 8/19/19
5 Community Outreach &
Education 1 1
Community Outreach, Outreach&Ed,
9 pgs.Has plan. 8/19/19
6 Marketing, Advertising &
Promotion 3 3
Marketing
MAP Plan
Three solid minor minimization examples. Has budget and sound marketing
plan. 7/9/19
7 Tangible Capital Investment
Dollar Amount 5 5 4 page Investment Plan Calculated allowable TCI from narrative is $8,600,000. 8/15/19
8 Tangible Capital Investment
Own/Lease 3 3 9 pages in Lease with Permission Applicant owns building. 8/15/19
9 Tangible Capital Investment
Supporting Material 3 1 6 pages of Support Documents Most of the stated/calculated TCI is not corroborated by supporting material.
9/12/19
10 Financial Structure & Financing 2 1 Job Creation-Budget 1 page GAAP budget Profit & Loss by Month-1st Year with revenue and expenses. No
startup budget submitted. 8/22/19
11 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
12 Integration with Grows 4 1
Integrate
Integration Plan
& Supp Docs
Has applied for a grow license at 1520 E Cavanaugh. States plan to apply for
additional licenses, but those are speculative. 8/19/19
13 Charitable Plans & Strategies 4 3
Charity
Charitable Plans
& Supp Docs
States will donate at least $75K/year to Lansing area charities. Does not have
signed agreements with or receipts from Lansing charaties. 9/12/19
14 Number of and job descriptions
for PC ONLY 3 3
Job Creation
FTEs More than six (6) FTEs, includes detailed job descriptions. 8/19/19
15 Healthcare 2 2
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide medical, dental and vision insurance. 8/19/19
16 Paid Time Off 1 1
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide PTO. 8/19/19
17 Retirement 1 1
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide 401K Plan. 8/19/19
18 % of employees at $15+/hr 3 3
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will pay 100% of employees $15+/hr. 8/19/19
19 Projected Annual Budget 2 2 Job Creation-Budget 1 page GAAP budget Profit & Loss by Month-1st Year with revenue and expenses.
8/22/19
20 Total COL Jobs 6 2
Job Creation
Lansing Jobs
Will create at least 50 jobs at grow and processor they have applied for. Jobs are
considered feasible. Less than ideal number of jobs, which is 201+. 8/19/19
Total Business Plan &
Job Creation 50 39
21 Financial Litigation History 1 1 Financial Litigation Form Forms completed for all stakeholders. 7/24/19
22 Net Worth 3 2 83 pages of Finance Section
Has bank account in applicant name with $100K.
Has solid proof of net worth.
Since budget and start up costs are not listed there is no way to tell if net worth
is sufficient to carry out applicant plans. 7/24/19
23 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
24 Stakeholder Experience
City of Lansing Businesses 1 0 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Less than five (5) years combined Lansing Business Ownership. 9/12/19
25 Stakeholder Experience
Relevant Businesses 1 0 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Less than five (5) years combined relevant medical, agricultural or retail business
experience. 9/12/19
26 Stakeholder Experience
Medical Marijuana Business 1 1 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Five (5) years MM experience. 9/12/19
123
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 9/24/2019 8:44 AM
Total Financial Stability &
Business Experience 10 7
27
Impact on Neighborhood
Distance Between PC &
Residential Zoning
7 4
https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba
ppviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438b
a55b14c9b19e9f22
PC Property does not abut Residential Zoning, however there is residential
zoning within 1/8 mile. 7/25/19
28 Impact on Neighborhood
Density of PCs 7 2 https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba
ppviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438b
a55b14c9b19e9f22
Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a 1/2 mile radius. #8, #14
Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1 mile radius. None
Lose .5 point for every existing PC within a 1.5 mile radius. #16
Lose .25 point for every existing PC within a 2 mile radius. #2, #11
Lost 5 points. 8/19/19
29 Traffic & Parking 3 1 Public Service Review Tier 3 Poor parking & circulation 9/3/19
30 Security Plan 3 3 LPD Review Tier I - Alarm system, off site storage for surv, vault, equipment specs, vestibule
barrier, guard. 9/3/19
Total - Land Use &
Resident Safety 20 10.00
31 Planned Outreach 1 1
Community Outreach, Outreach&Ed,
9 pgs.Has plan. 8/19/19
32 Improvements to Building 3 3
Building Improvements
& Support Docs
SEV-$223,200
$3,225,000 in Improvements - 494% of SEV
Estimates included from Michael George Construction & Architecture and
Clearview add up to more than total stated. 8/27/19
33 Plan to Minimize Traffic 1 1 Traffic Folder Has a plan. 9/3/19
34 Noise Plan 1 1
Noise & Odor
Noise Plan Has plan. 8/19/19
35 Odor Plan 4 3
Noise & Odor
Odor Plan Has detailed plan with equipment specifications, but no budget. 8/19/19
Total Outreach 10 9
36 Stakeholder History
Proof of LARA Prequal 2 2 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
37 Demo of Regulatory
Compliance 5 5
https://bsaonline.com/SiteSearch/SiteSearc
hDetails?SearchFocus=All+Records&SearchC
ategory=Address&SearchText=3208+s+m+l+k
ing+jr+blvd&uid=384&PageIndex=1&Referen
ceKey=33-01-01-29-451-
062&ReferenceType=0&SortBy=&SearchOrig
in=0&RecordKeyDisplayString=33-01-01-29-
451-062&RecordKey=7%3ddb5ac804-9dac-
4f95-86f8-
9f28013662fb&RecordKeyType=7%3d2
No code violations since application purchased property. No conditional denial
letters. 9/3/19
38 Morals, Good Order & General
Welfare Litigation History 3 3
Demo of Req Has completed form for all stakeholders. 8/19/19
Total Applicant Stakeholder
History 10 10
Total Score 100 75.00
224
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
October 8, 2019
LE Battle Creek, Inc
Todd Schafer
2145 Crooks Rd Suite 230
Troy, MI 48084
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
I have reviewed the report and recommendation of the hearing officer on your appeal of the Scoring and
Ranking denial of your application to operate a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center in the City of Lansing
at 3208 S Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. I have determined that your appeal is denied.
You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure to the Medical Marihuana Commission within thirty (30)
days of the date of this letter by filing a written statement to the Commission with the City Clerk’s Office.
Should you choose to appeal, your Commission Hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, November 15,
2019. Commission Hearings are held at the Clerk’s Marijuana Licensing Unit, 2500 S Washington Ave,
Lansing, MI 48910.
The Medical Marihuana Commission Appeal will become a matter of public record. The Commission’s review
of the appeal shall not be de novo. The Commission shall only overturn, or modify, a decision or finding of
the Clerk if it finds such decision or finding to be arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material,
substantial, and competent facts on the whole record considered by the Clerk in arriving at such decision or
finding.
Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be
returned. This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
City Clerk
cc: Lansing City Attorney, Lansing Chief of Police
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
128
Statement of Facts
LE Battle Creek, Inc – 3208 S MLK
The following exhibits or pages were removed because they were not in the submitted
application – or were included in a different area of the application (see attached copy of
application attestation page – COL Exhibit). Cure on appeal is not permitted.
#9 Tangible Capital Investment Supporting Material – Exhibit 2 was removed because it is from
the Financial Resources Section. Tangible Capital Investment is how you are going to spend the
money you are investing, not how much you have. Tangible Capital is the building and
permanent improvements you make to the property, interior and exterior. It does not include
things like product, packaging, furniture, or other removable items. Supporting material is
defined as quotes/bids/invoices from contractors or suppliers.
#10 Financial Structure and Financing – Exhibit 3 was removed because it is from the Tangible
Capital Investment Plan Section. Also – the budget breakdown included in the narrative is (1)
from the Tangible Capital Investment Plan section, and (2) does not meet the standards for a
GAAP budget.
#12 – Integration with Grows – See scoring insights – Exhibit #4 is allowed here because it is
their Integration Plan and supporting docs.
#13 – See scoring insights
#20 – Total COL Jobs – Exhibit 4 should not be considered because it was from the Integration
Plan. The score and scoring insight reflects the plan submitted under COL Jobs.
#22 – Net Worth – Exhibit 3 was removed because it is from the Tangible Capital Investment
Section.
#27 – Impact on Neighborhoods Distance between PC & Residential Zoning – The measuring
tool used was a Geographic Information System map, a version of which was available for use
by applicants. Because this is not part of buffering, but rather Land Use, the buffering method
outlined was not used. A copy of the map used is included.
#28 – Impact on Neighborhoods Density of PCs – See comment for #27. Graduated maps are
included.
#29 – Traffic & Parking – Google map included was removed from Exhibit 10 as it was not
included in the Traffic Plan submitted by the applicant. Statement that when this location
applied for licensing in round one they did not receive any deductions for parking in phase one
is misleading. This location did receive a point deduction for Traffic Circulation, as they did this
time. See scoring insight.
#35 – Odor Plan – Exhibit 3 was removed because it is from the Tangible Capital Investment
Section. See scoring insights and criteria.
129
NOTE: Exhibit #6 does not appear to be referenced in the appeal.
COL Exhibits
• Application with attestations
• GIS Map of Distance to Residential with 660’ ring around property
• GIS Maps of PC Density for .5 Mile, 1 Mile, 1.5 Mile, 2 Miles, and close-ups of existing
PC #s 11 & 2.
• Map Developers maps showing distance is within 2 Miles for PS #s 11 & 2
130
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF LANSING
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MARIHUANA BUSINESS LICENSE APPEAL
__________________________________
Date: October 7, 2019
LE BATTLE CREEK, INC
Proposed Location:
3208 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Lansing, MI 48910
__________________________________
HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
This decision is remitted to the Clerk of the City of Lansing by Hearing Officer, Hilary M. Barnard,
Esq., having been read and informed on the issues recommends that in regard to LE BATTLE
CREEK, INC and its license application for a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center that the
license application remain denied.
FACTS
LE BATTLE CREEK, INC (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Lansing to operate a Medical
Marihuana Provisioning Center within the city limits during Phase 2. This recommendation follows
a timely appeal from Appellant.
By letter dated September 24, 2019, Appellant was informed that its license application was denied
because of its score and rank, having received a score of 75 out of 100. Appellant was informed that
this score eliminated the possibility of scoring in the top five applications received in phase 2 and it
would not be receiving a provisioning center license. Appellant was also informed that it had the
right to appeal the denial within 14 (fourteen) days of the letter’s date by written statement with
grounds for appeal. With the letter, Appellant was provided a copy of the City of Lansing Provisioning
Center Ranking sheet for its business. On the document, Appellant is able to view the total possible
points, its attained points, and scoring insight statements.
Appellant has point deficiencies in several categories.
Appellant’s Position
Appellant seeks appellate review pursuant to the Lansing ordinance. It argues that the original
examiner did not score correctly or overlooked presented materials.
131
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 2 of 7
City Clerk Position
The City Clerk affirms its position on the denial. The City Clerk iterates that additional information
was provided in an attempt to cure on appeal and that information is not to be considered. Further,
the City Clerk clarified that information submitted was submitted in duplicate and should not then
be considered in two sections of the application which warrant different responses and materials.
APPLICABLE LAW & REASONING
The issue in front of this Hearing Officer is whether Appellant’s Provisioning Center License
Application for the City of Lansing was erroneously denied.
In regard to the issuance of licenses and the appellate process for a license:
“The City Council shall provide, by ordinance, a procedure for the issuance of
licenses and permits. The ordinance shall, to the greatest extent possible, place the
responsibility for the issuance of licenses and permits under one official in order that
persons requesting specific licenses and permits will not have to contact more than
one City office.”1
At the denial of a license under City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217, an applicant:
May appeal to the city clerk, who shall appoint a hearing officer to hear and evaluate
the appeal and make a recommendation to the clerk. Such appeal shall be taken by
filing with the city clerk, within 14 days after notice of the action complained of has
been mailed to the applicant’s last known address on the records of the city clerk, a
written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal. The clerk shall review
the report and recommendation of the hearing officer and make a decision on the
matter. The clerk’s decision may be further appealed to the commission if applied
for in writing to the commission no later than thirty (30) days from the clerk’s
decision.2
* * *
[The] [r]eview of an appeal shall not be de novo. The commission shall only overturn,
or modify, a decision or finding of the clerk if it finds such decision or finding to be
arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material, substantial, and competent
facts on the whole record considered by the clerk in arriving at such decision or
finding.3
1 See LANSING CITY CLERK’S OFFICE, City of Lansing City Charter (as amended) at 24 (2015) available at:
https://www.lansingmi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2126/City-Charter?bidId=. In this instance, the license issuance
is handled with the City Clerk’s office.
2 City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.15(C).
3 Id. at 1300.3(E).
132
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 3 of 7
The arbitrary or capricious standard of review is the commission’s review and is adopted by this
Hearing Officer.4 Arbitrary and capricious have generally accepted meanings.5 Arbitrary is "without
adequate determining principle . . . [f]ixed or arrived at through an exercise of will or by caprice,
without consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, . .
. decisive but unreasoned.”6 Capricious is "apt to change suddenly; freakish; whimsical; humorsome.”7
The burden is on the party attacking to affirmatively prove the arbitrary and unreasonable decision.8
This is not to say that a local body may “abrogate constitutional restraints.”9
As to whether an applicant can submit supplemental materials on appeal, the Lansing Ordinance in
Section 1300.5(B) states that “[a] complete application for a license or licenses required by this
chapter shall be made under oath on forms provided by the city clerk and shall contain all of the
following[.]” (emphasis added). The ordinance then enumerates all the documents and information
required for application submission. Per Michigan Court rule, appeals are based on the record
already in place.10 Further, an appellate body will generally not consider issues not raised in or ruled
on by a lower review.11 The appellate review is limited to the record before the lower court at the
time of the relevant decision.
Under the City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Section 1300.5:
(B)(12)(IV) Planned tangible capital investment in the city, including detail related
to the number and nature of applicant’s proposed medical marihuana establishments
in the city and whether the locations of such establishments will be owned or leased;
further, if multiple licenses are proposed, an explanation of the economic benefits to
the city and job creation, if any, to be achieved through the award of such multiple
licenses. Supporting factual data shall be included with the response to this subsection[.]
(emphasis added)
Under the City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Section 1300.6, review of an application will
consider:
(D) In the event that there are more applicants for provisioning center licenses who
meet the minimum requirements set forth in 1300.6(B) than there are licenses
available in either phase one or two, the top scoring twenty (20) applicants in phase
4 There is an inherent binary in license issuance: issued or denied, not a spectrum of decisions. Given that this is a
licensing situation, and that the only prescribed review under Ordinance No. 1217 is arbitrary and capricious, that is
the standard that will be observed here.
5 See Bundo v. Walled Lake, 395 Mich. 679, 703 (1976) (citing United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243 (1946).
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 See e.g., Kropf v. Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 154 (1974) (citing Janesick v. City of Detroit, 337 Mich. 459
(1953)).
9 Id. at 162.
10 See e.g., MCR 7.105(B)(4); (5)(d) (requiring that the appellate court receive a certified copy of a case’s record and
stating review of a trial court’s decision was for legitimate reason based on “arguable support in the record[.]”)
11 See Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 232-35 (1987).
133
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 4 of 7
one and top scoring five (5) applicants in phase two, shall be eligible to receive
provisioning center licenses in accordance with the assessment, evaluation, scoring,
and ranking procedures established in this chapter[.]
An applicant must have included, inter alia, in its application for a provisioning center license:
A copy of the proposed business plan for the establishment, including, but not
limited to the following: . . . (VII) Financial structure and financing of the proposed
medical marihuana establishments. . . . (17) a location area map, as measured
pursuant to section 1300.13(d) of the medical marihuana establishment and
surrounding area that identifies the relative locations and the distances, as measured
pursuant to Section 1300.13 (A).12
The Lansing Ordinance incorporates provisions and definitions of the Medical Marihuana Facilities
Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281 (as amended) (“MMFLA”) so as to:
“not limit an individual’s or entity’s rights under the [Michigan Medical Marihuana
Act (MMMA)], MMA or the [Michigan Tracking Act (MTA)]” and drafters intended
that “these acts supersede [the] ordinance where there is a conflict.”13
A Lansing applicant must then comply with the MMFLA.14 Pursuant to Sec. 402 of the MMFLA, in
evaluating an applicant for licensure, an applicant’s history of “noncompliance with any regulatory
requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction” will be considered.15
Here, this Hearing Officer will decline to review any supplemental materials provided by Appellant
in effort to cure application deficiencies. Per requirements in the Lansing Ordinance in Section
1300.5(B) and general state appellate practice, review on appeal is to the record originally provided
and reviewed. See e.g., Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 232-35 (1987).16 Thus, this review will address
the appeal on Appellant’s first basis and the application as originally provided.
TANGIBLE CAPITAL
Tangible Capital is addressed in Appellant’s appeal. The city defines tangible capital as an asset with
a physical form. Thus, only such assets would count in the calculation. On the scoring sheet it
appears the deduction Appellant received is because the calculations provided in the application
were not supported or corroborated by other materials. Appellant provided 6 pages of supporting
12 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.5(B).
13 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.2(C).
14 Id. at Sec. 1300.2(D).
15 MMFLA, MCL § 333.27402(3)(g).
16 In this case it discusses that an “exception that review is permissible ‘to prevent a miscarriage of justice.’” “Most
jurisdictions recognize the authority of an appellate court to review an issue, even where the issue was not preserved,
when some fundamental error would otherwise result in some egregious result.” However, that “such power of review
is to be exercised quite sparingly. Napier, 429 Mich. at 233. Under the facts presented, there is not a fundamental error
so as to trigger exercising supplementing on appeal.
134
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 5 of 7
documentation for this section. In its appeal letter, Appellant states that Exhibit 2 entitled
“Documented Financial Resources” verified all calculations. The documents provided in Exhibit 2
were those from the Financial Structure and Financing section. Even if Exhibit 2 were to be
considered here, it does not contain any pertinent supplier and contractor quotes, bids, or invoices.
The City considers Tangible Capital Investment to detail how a business is going to invest its money
and assets, not how many of them it has. Also considered in Tangible Capital are building
improvements to the interior and exterior. Not considered are products, packaging, furniture, or
other items that are readily removeable from the establishment. Appellant seems to have confused
this section with the financial resources section, even in its appeal. Based on the information
provided, the deduction made was appropriate.
FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
On appeal, the Appellant has provided Exhibit 3, which pertains to Tangible Capital. Further, the
budget breakdown is not comprised of generally acceptable accounting principles (GAAP) per the
City’s review. Even if Exhibit 3 could also be considered supporting documentation in this section,
Exhibit 3 does not provide in sufficient detail to allow a reviewer, and this this forum, an opportunity
to see allocations. For example, the chart details building acquisition to cost $650,000.00, but that
does not appear to be solely related to a lease/buy/rent agreement. Nor does it demonstrate how
much of that is due on day 1, to whom, and by what means. Thus, there is no basis to award
additional points here.
INTEGRATION WITH GROWS
The Appellant has already applied for a grower license on a nearby street. Provided in Exhibit 4 are
the details regarding a facility in development. While the Hearing Officer notes the integration, plan
lacks detail in its seed-to-sale explanation, in fact it is only a broad and generalized description, there
are several details provided regarding the grow facility.
The speculation here is not the details of the grow facility, rather it is the speculation of whether the
licenses as referred to in Exhibit 4 will fully manifest. Without said licenses, there is no ability for
integration with the provisioning center Appellant is applying for. Between the uncertainty of other
license approval and the insufficiently detailed integration plan, there is no basis to award additional
points to Appellant in this category.
CHARITABLE PLANS
The Appellant lost one point in this category. While the Appellant reiterates that it plans to donate
at least $75,000 annually, there is no documentation or supporting evidence in the application (e.g.,
a receipt, agreement, notice) of this donation. This Hearing Officer notes and commends the
Appellant for past action in another municipality and recognizes that it is likely this information
135
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 6 of 7
that merited the 3-point allocation that Appellant has already received.17 There appears no basis for
additional points being awarded.
TOTAL COL JOBS
The Appellant points to Exhibit 4 but Exhibit 4 was from the Integration With Grows section. The
jobs at issue in this category are those associated with this location. There is no other information
provided in this section. The factfinder is “must give deference to an agency's findings of fact.”18 The
factfinder may not set aside findings just because other facts in the record could have come to a
different conclusion.19 Thus, there is no basis to award additional points here.
NET WORTH
Exhibit 3 again makes an appearance in this section. Exhibit 3 pertained to Tangible Capital. The
Appellant provided no clarifying information as to the startup costs, so the examiner then could not
award full points in this section. As all of the argument here is from Exhibit 3, there is no
information presented by the Appellant that merits another point in this category or better clarifies
why the 1-point deduction was appropriate.
STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCE – MARIHUANA BUSINESS
The bar for point allocation in this category is 5 years of combined industry business experience.
Referenced in Appellant’s letter is the stakeholder’s experience as an attorney. As described, it
appears that the stakeholder is involved in the practice of law, not as a marihuana business
proprietor. However, the Appellant clarifies that he has operated a marihuana facility since 2016.
That is only 3 years ago, not five. Thus, Appellant did not meet the 5-year threshold to merit 1 point
in this category.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD (NUMBERS 27 & 28)
The Appellant utilized a GIS map. The provided documents and maps are those used in Land
Development and related trades. This doesn’t correspond to the buffering guidelines as laid out by
the City. The factfinder will again “give deference to an agency's findings of fact.”20
TRAFFIC & PARKING
Exhibit 10 included a google map that was not part of Appellant’s original application, thus is not
considered on appeal. Appellant argues that it did not lose points in phase 1, but this is not the
complete situation. In phase 1, Appellant lost a point in this category related to traffic circulation,
as it did in phase 2. The deductions were consistent in this regard in both phases. The Appellant
17 Also unclear from the documentation and appeal letter is if the $75,000 donation will begin in year one. There is no
information indicating that the Appellant has budgeted for this donation and will be financially sound in the
proposed location to make a donation equal to that of its pre-existing establishment in Portage.
18 Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd., 293 Mich. App. 333, 341 (2011) (citing THM, Ltd. v Comm'r of Ins.,
176 Mich. App. 772, 776 (1989)).
19 Id.
20 Edw. C. Levy Co., 293 Mich. App. at 341 (citing THM, Ltd. v Comm'r of Ins., 176 Mich. App. 772, 776 (1989)).
136
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 7 of 7
argues that there is no traffic flow other than onto the road it is located on. This is precisely the issue
that cost Appellant points. Thus, there is no basis for point increase here.
ODOR PLAN
Again, Exhibit 3 was part of the Tangible Capital section, and cannot then be used again here. Even
if it could, for the reasons articulated above, it does not provide sufficient detail for a reviewer to
award more points than already given.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Appellant’s application for a provisioning center
license remain denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: October 7, 2019 _______________________________
Hilary M. Barnard, Hearing Officer
137
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 10/8/2019 11:26 AM
Total
Possible
Points
LE Battle Creek, Inc-3208 S Martin Luther King
Applicant Address ---
#Category --- Score Location of material Scoring Insights
1 Ownership Structure 1 1 Org Docs, Ownership Struc., 1 pg. Has ownership structure. 7/11/19
2 Organizational Chart 1 1
Org Docs
Org Chart Has org chart. 8/19/19
3 Worker Training Program 1 1
Other Req Docs
Worker Training Plan Vers 1 Has plan. 8/19/19
4 Short and Long Term Goals and
Objectives 1 1 Org Docs, Goals,3 pgs.Has goals. 8/19/19
5 Community Outreach &
Education 1 1
Community Outreach, Outreach&Ed,
9 pgs.Has plan. 8/19/19
6 Marketing, Advertising &
Promotion 3 3
Marketing
MAP Plan
Three solid minor minimization examples. Has budget and sound marketing
plan. 7/9/19
7 Tangible Capital Investment
Dollar Amount 5 5 4 page Investment Plan Calculated allowable TCI from narrative is $8,600,000. 8/15/19
8 Tangible Capital Investment
Own/Lease 3 3 9 pages in Lease with Permission Applicant owns building. 8/15/19
9 Tangible Capital Investment
Supporting Material 3 1 6 pages of Support Documents Most of the stated/calculated TCI is not corroborated by supporting material.
9/12/19
10 Financial Structure & Financing 2 1 Job Creation-Budget 1 page GAAP budget Profit & Loss by Month-1st Year with revenue and expenses. No
startup budget submitted. 8/22/19
11 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
12 Integration with Grows 4 1
Integrate
Integration Plan
& Supp Docs
Has applied for a grow license at 1520 E Cavanaugh. States plan to apply for
additional licenses, but those are speculative. 8/19/19
13 Charitable Plans & Strategies 4 3
Charity
Charitable Plans
& Supp Docs
States will donate at least $75K/year to Lansing area charities. Does not have
signed agreements with or receipts from Lansing charaties. 9/12/19
14 Number of and job descriptions
for PC ONLY 3 3
Job Creation
FTEs More than six (6) FTEs, includes detailed job descriptions. 8/19/19
15 Healthcare 2 2
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide medical, dental and vision insurance. 8/19/19
16 Paid Time Off 1 1
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide PTO. 8/19/19
17 Retirement 1 1
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will provide 401K Plan. 8/19/19
18 % of employees at $15+/hr 3 3
Job Creation
Healthcare Employer will pay 100% of employees $15+/hr. 8/19/19
19 Projected Annual Budget 2 2 Job Creation-Budget 1 page GAAP budget Profit & Loss by Month-1st Year with revenue and expenses.
8/22/19
20 Total COL Jobs 6 2
Job Creation
Lansing Jobs
Will create at least 50 jobs at grow and processor they have applied for. Jobs are
considered feasible. Less than ideal number of jobs, which is 201+. 8/19/19
Total Business Plan &
Job Creation 50 39
21 Financial Litigation History 1 1 Financial Litigation Form Forms completed for all stakeholders. 7/24/19
22 Net Worth 3 2 83 pages of Finance Section
Has bank account in applicant name with $100K.
Has solid proof of net worth.
Since budget and start up costs are not listed there is no way to tell if net worth
is sufficient to carry out applicant plans. 7/24/19
23 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
24 Stakeholder Experience
City of Lansing Businesses 1 0 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Less than five (5) years combined Lansing Business Ownership. 9/12/19
25 Stakeholder Experience
Relevant Businesses 1 0 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Less than five (5) years combined relevant medical, agricultural or retail business
experience. 9/12/19
26 Stakeholder Experience
Medical Marijuana Business 1 1 Experience, Resume, Vers 1 Five (5) years MM experience. 9/12/19
1138
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 10/8/2019 11:26 AM
Total Financial Stability &
Business Experience 10 7
27
Impact on Neighborhood
Distance Between PC &
Residential Zoning
7 4
https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba
ppviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438b
a55b14c9b19e9f22
PC Property does not abut Residential Zoning, however there is residential
zoning within 1/8 mile. 7/25/19
28 Impact on Neighborhood
Density of PCs 7 2 https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba
ppviewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438b
a55b14c9b19e9f22
Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a 1/2 mile radius. #8, #14
Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1 mile radius. None
Lose .5 point for every existing PC within a 1.5 mile radius. #16
Lose .25 point for every existing PC within a 2 mile radius. #2, #11
Lost 5 points. 8/19/19
29 Traffic & Parking 3 1 Public Service Review Tier 3 Poor parking & circulation 9/3/19
30 Security Plan 3 3 LPD Review Tier I - Alarm system, off site storage for surv, vault, equipment specs, vestibule
barrier, guard. 9/3/19
Total - Land Use &
Resident Safety 20 10.00
31 Planned Outreach 1 1
Community Outreach, Outreach&Ed,
9 pgs.Has plan. 8/19/19
32 Improvements to Building 3 3
Building Improvements
& Support Docs
SEV-$223,200
$3,225,000 in Improvements - 494% of SEV
Estimates included from Michael George Construction & Architecture and
Clearview add up to more than total stated. 8/27/19
33 Plan to Minimize Traffic 1 1 Traffic Folder Has a plan. 9/3/19
34 Noise Plan 1 1
Noise & Odor
Noise Plan Has plan. 8/19/19
35 Odor Plan 4 3
Noise & Odor
Odor Plan Has detailed plan with equipment specifications, but no budget. 8/19/19
Total Outreach 10 9
36 Stakeholder History
Proof of LARA Prequal 2 2 Demo of Reg Letter dated 12/10/18 for LE Battle Creek Inc. 8/19/19
37 Demo of Regulatory
Compliance 5 5
https://bsaonline.com/SiteSearch/SiteSearc
hDetails?SearchFocus=All+Records&SearchC
ategory=Address&SearchText=3208+s+m+l+k
ing+jr+blvd&uid=384&PageIndex=1&Referen
ceKey=33-01-01-29-451-
062&ReferenceType=0&SortBy=&SearchOrig
in=0&RecordKeyDisplayString=33-01-01-29-
451-062&RecordKey=7%3ddb5ac804-9dac-
4f95-86f8-
9f28013662fb&RecordKeyType=7%3d2
No code violations since application purchased property. No conditional denial
letters. 9/3/19
38 Morals, Good Order & General
Welfare Litigation History 3 3
Demo of Req Has completed form for all stakeholders. 8/19/19
Total Applicant Stakeholder
History 10 10
Total Score 100 75.00
2139
140
141
1
In re: LE Battle Creek, Inc. Applicant ____________________________________/ ADMININSTRATIVE APPEAL TO THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA COMMISSION PURSUANT TO LANSING ORDINANCE 1300.15(C)
ACTION APPEALED FROM
After awarding the first of twenty (20) licenses in Phase 1, the Lansing City Clerk announced it would issue another five (5) licenses in Phase 2. On June 27, 2019, LE Battle Creek Inc., a Michigan corporation (“Applicant”) applied for licensing to operate a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center at 3208 South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Lansing, Michigan 48910. At the
close of the application period, the Lansing City Clerk received a total of fifty-five (55)
applications for those five (5) available licenses. On September 24, 2019, the Lansing City Clerk notified the Applicant that their score of 75 out of 100 eliminated the possibility of scoring in the top five (5) of the fifty-five (55) applications that
were received. The Applicant appeals the scoring of their application. (See Exhibit #1) The Applicant sought a review by the Clerk pursuant to Ordinance Section 1300.15(C). The Clerk appointed a hearing officer (Hillary Barnard) who summarily denied the appeal. A copy of the Hearing Officer’s report is attached. (See Exhibit #11). The denial letter is dated October 8, 2019.
The Applicant now avails their administrative right to have their application scoring reviewed by the Medical Marihuana Commission also pursuant to Ordinance Section 1300.15(C). Their right to a review by the Commission is presented timely because it was filed within 30 days of the October 8, 2019 denial letter.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE FOR REVIEW 1300.15 – LICENSE REVOCATION; BASES FOR REVOCATION; APPEAL OF LICENSE DENIAL.
(C) APPEAL OF DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE: The city clerk shall notify an applicant of the reason(s) for denial of an application for a license or license renewal or for revocation of a license or any adverse decision under this chapter and provide the applicant with the opportunity to be heard. Any applicant aggrieved by the denial or revocation of a license or adverse decision under this chapter may appeal to the city clerk, who
shall appoint a hearing officer to hear and evaluate the appeal and make a recommendation to the clerk. Such appeal shall be taken by filing with the city clerk, within 14 days after notice of the action complained of has been mailed to the applicant’s last known address on the records of the
142
2
city clerk, a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal. The clerk shall review the report and recommendation of the hearing officer and make a decision on the matter. The clerk’s decision may be further appealed to the commission if applied for in writing to the
commission no later than thirty (30) days from the clerk’s decision. The review on appeal of a
denial or revocation or adverse action shall be by the commission pursuant to section 1300.3. Any decision by the commission on an appeal shall be final for purposes of judicial review. The clerk may engage professional experts to assist with the proceedings under this section 1300.15.
REVIEW PROCEDURES
The review of an appeal shall not be de novo (from the beginning). Instead, they may overturn or
modify a decision or finding of the Clerk if it finds the decision to be arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material, substantial, and competent facts on the whole records considered by the Clerk in arriving at such decision. Lansing Ordinance 1300.3(E)).
INTRODUCTION
Our Michigan Supreme Court has defined the term “arbitrary” (as it relates to an administrative ruling) as “without adequate determining principle … Fixed or arrived through an exercise of will or by caprice, without consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances or significance, … decisive but unreasoned”. Bundo v Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679, 703, n17; 238
NW2d 154 (1976) citing the United States Supreme Court decision of United States v Carmack,
329 US 230, 243; 67 S Ct 252; 91 L Ed 209 (1946). The term, “arbitrary” has been defined by Michigan Eastern District Federal Court Judge Laurie Michelson, using Black’s Law Dictionary as “not supported by fair, solid, and substantial cause,
and without reason given. Cerjanec v FCA US LLC, (ED MI 2018) 2018 US Dist LEXIS 131434
(Decided August 6, 2018). The examiners have awarded the Applicant a total score of 75 out of 100 points. The Applicant will address the categories where a reduction from full point value was given. In each instance, the
Applicant will clearly show that the examiner(s) either did not score the category correctly or overlooked the presented materials.
DISCUSSION
The Applicant’s Scoring on the City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking dated October 8, 2019 (Exhibit #1) numerates each scoring category and the presentation of this Statement will follow the same order in the Scoring.
143
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. TANGIBLE CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUPPORTING MATERIALS TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 3
POINTS AWARDED: 1
EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Most of the stated/calculated TCI is not corroborated by supporting material. 9/12/19.
DISCUSSION: The Applicant was deducted two (2) points by the examiner who stated most of
the Applicant’s tangible capital investment (TCI) “was not corroborated by supporting materials”. When reviewing the submitted materials, did the Applicant attach documentation to support their stated tangible capital investment projection? If the Applicant did attach documentation, the examiner would be incorrect, and the Applicant would be entitled to additional
points.
When the Applicant was originally informed their score was insufficient to be qualify in the top five scores, the Applicant appealed that decision to the Clerk pursuant to Ordinance Section 1300.15(C). The request was referred to Hilary M. Barnard for her recommendation. In her report,
she notes the term “Tangible Capital Investment” details how the business is going to invest its money and assets. (Exhibit #11 – Page 5 of 7). Attached to the Application was a Planned Tangible Capital Investment Plan supported by six pages of documentation (Exhibit #3). Within the Tangible Capital Investment Plan, the
Application presented the following:
Building Acquisition $ 650,000.00
Build out costs $3,225,000.00
Security Equipment $ 75,000.00
Legal Expenses $ 50,000.00
Administrative Expenses $ 24,000.00
Sales and Marketing $ 75,000.00 (First year)
$4,099,000.00
To support the building Acquisition of $650,000.00, the Applicant included supporting documentation consisting a copy of a Land Contract with the property owner to purchase the property for the stated amount. (Exhibit #3) A review of the Land Contract clearly discloses the contract price at $650,000 with the sum of $50,000 having been paid as a deposit. Therefore, there is documentation to support the building acquisition cost of $650,000.00.
To support the build out costs for the property, the Applicant included a construction proposal Michael George Construction & Architecture, Inc. in Oakland Township. The proposal, signed by the project manager, provides a bid of $3,224,650 for the buildout work. (Exhibit #3). Therefore, there is documentation of a projected $3,225,000.00 for buildout costs with this construction
proposal.
144
4
To support the costs for the security for property, the Applicant included a proposal from Clearview Inc. in Troy, Michigan. The proposal, authored by the sales representative from Clearview, provides a bid of $32,905.62 for the DVR, cameras, speakers, and alarm system.
(Exhibit #3). Therefore, there is documentation to support a portion of the security costs with the
estimate of Clearview. To support the costs of legal services, the Applicant included a first-year estimate for Profit & Loss by month. In the Profit & Loss Statement, the Applicant projected $38,822.50 of the $50,000.00
total projection. That would also mean the remaining $11,179.50 would be a projected startup
expense. Therefore, there is documentation to support the Applicant’s Legal Expenses. To support the costs of Sales and Marketing, again we look to the projected Profit & Loss Statement. In the Profit & Loss Statement, the Applicant projected $14,498.35. That would also
mean $9,501.35 of the $24,000.00 total projection would be a projected startup expense. Therefore,
there is documentation to support the Applicant’s Sales and Marketing. When reviewing the Applicant’s projected tangible capital investment, the estimate was $4,099,000. With the Land Contract, the General Contractor’s proposal, and the Security proposal,
and the Profit & Loss Statement, the Applicant had provided documentation for $3,981,555.62 of the $4,099,000 projection, or over 97% of the total Tangible Capital Investment. Clearly, the Applicant presented documentation to support their Tangible Capital Investment, yet the Applicant was only awarded one point out of a possible three points. The applicant should
therefore receive the three (3) available points as the Applicant has collaborated their tangible
capital investment projections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. FINANCIAL STRUCTURE & FINANCING TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 2 POINTS AWARDED: 1 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: GAAP budget Profit & Loss by Month – 1st year with revenue and expenses. No startup budget submitted. 8/22/19
DISCUSSION: In this section, two (2) points were available based on financial structure and financing. In her October 7, 2019 Report, the Hearing Officer indicates the budget breakdown is not comprised of generally acceptable accounting principles (GAAP). This statement is inconsistent with the notes from the original examiner who recognized that a Profit and Loss
budget, using a common set of accounting principles (GAAP), was submitted. For this, the
applicant was given one point. The second point, however, was not given to the applicant because the examiner determined there was no start up budget. If the Applicant did include documentation to support startup expenses,
the examiner has overlooked the materials and the Applicant is entitled to the additional point.
145
5
In the Applicant’s Planned Tangible Capital Investment Plan (Exhibit #3), the Applicant laid out their projected start-up expenses, including building acquisition and build out costs:
Building Acquisition $ 650,000.00 Build out costs $3,225,000.00 Security Equipment $ 75,000.00 Legal Expenses $ 50,000.00
Administrative Expenses $ 24,000.00 Sales and Marketing $ 75,000.00 (First year) $4,099,000.00
To support their startup cost projections, the Applicant attached proposals for the construction buildout and the security renovations. Included was a construction proposal from George Michael Construction and Architects. The construction proposal (estimated at $3,224,650) outlined in detail the proposed buildout costs. The applicant also provided a Security Estimate from Clearview
containing a proposal in the amount of $32,905.62 for camera system (including the video network
and monitors), the phone and DATA wiring, the speakers (wired in the ceiling), and the alarm system (including the radio, keypad, motion detectors and panic buttons). Additional support for the Applicant’s startup budget can be gleamed from a review of the
Tangible Capital Investment Plan and the Applicant’s projected Profit and Loss Statement. As
detailed in the previous section, the startup costs for Legal Expenses would be approximately $11,000 and the startup costs for Sales and Marketing would be $9,500.00. There are additional startup costs detailed in the Profit & Loss Statement including maintenance and equipment , in the fourth month is an expense for $3,800.00 for maintenance of equipment necessary to start the
applicant’s business.
The report from Hilary Barnard (Exhibit #11) notes the $650,000 Land Contract but indicates the Tangible Capital Investment Plan does not demonstrate “how much of that is due on day 1, to whom, and by what means”. A simple reading of the Land Contract (included in the Applicant’s
original materials) and attached as Exhibit #3 clearly answers Ms. Barnard’s query. On the first
page of the Land Contract, of the $650,000 purchase price, $50,000 has already been paid and $3,000 per month is due with a balloon payment due at the end of three years (May 10, 2022). Therefore, the Applicant has set for their projected start-up expenses and are entitled to two (2)
points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. INTEGRATION WITH GROWS TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 4
POINTS AWARDED: 1
EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Has applied for a grow license at 1520 E. Cavanaugh. States plan to apply for additional licenses, but those are speculative. 8/19/19
146
6
DISCUSSION: The Applicant’s Integration Plan (Exhibit #4) detailed a carefully conceived plan to develop and operate several medical marihuana facilities at the applicant’s 14-acre campus located at 1520 East Cavanaugh. The examiner determined the project was too “speculative”.
A review of Ms. Barnard’s report is the key to this section. On Page 5 of 7, she states, “the speculation here is not the detail of the grow facility, rather it is the speculation of whether the license as referred to in Exhibit 4 will fully manifest.” LE Battle Creek, Inc. has already received pre-approval status from the State of Michigan. Two licenses were already issued by the City for
this location. When the licenses could not be transferred without new applications being filed, two
applications for a marihuana processor and a marihuana grower were submitted. Therefore, there is no speculation whether the license will fully manifest. Project transformation has already begun. A review of the Integration Plan shows the development
of six facilities at the 1520 Cavanaugh location. There are plans for three separate grow facilities,
a processing facility, a research and development facility, and a testing laboratory. If LE Battle Creek Inc. had future ideas for expansion with no plans for location or operation, that might be considered speculation. In the City’s plan, there are no limitations as to the number of
grow or processor facilities the City will license. The City has already awarded a license to 1520
Cavanagh LLC as a grow facility and awarded a license to 1520 Cavanaugh II LLC to operate as a processor facility at the same locations where LE Battle Creek will operate. Attached to the Application was documentation showing that 1520 Cavanaugh LLC and 1520 Cavanaugh II LLC were issued licenses by the City of Lansing. Attached to the Application were the two cover letters
from the Applicant’s legal counsel with the two applications for a Grow and Processor Facility
Licenses. There is no speculation involved here. LE Battle Creek Inc. went to the City of Lansing to have these two licenses transferred. The City instructed LE Battle Creek Inc. to file new applications
for licensing. Two applications have been filed and accepted by the City. There is no speculation
here. Since 1520 Cavanaugh LLC and 1520 Cavanaugh II LLC were awarded licenses, LE Battle Creek Inc. should be awarded licensing to operate a grow and processor facility. Hearing Officer Hilary Barnard notes that the Applicant has already applied for a grower license (Exhibit #11 – Page 5 of 7) She omits the fact that the Applicant applied for a processor license
as well. She indicates “the plan lacks detail in a seed-to-sale explanation”. The Hearing Officer either did not bother to read the Applicant’s Integration Plan, or she has demonstrated bias against the Applicant. As detailed in the Applicant’s Integration Plan (Page 2):
We intend to create a complete vertical integration (seed-to-sale) and captive distribution for marihuana-related products. In conjunction with 1520 Cavanaugh, LLC, a temporarily approved grower facility and 1520 Cavanaugh II, LLC, a temporarily approved processor facility, we can provide a complete seed-to-sale network of clean, safe, and regulated products
to our customers. 1520 Cavanaugh LLC has already filed a license application with the Lansing City Clerk and
has received conditional approval to operate a Medical Marihuana Grower Facility at 1520
East Cavanaugh Road, Lansing, Michigan 48910. LE Battle Creek, Inc. has already received
147
7
prequalification status from LARA-BMR. LE Battle Creek, Inc. will either file a new
application to operate a grow facility at this location or will enter into a lease agreement with 1520 Cavanaugh LLC to operate from this location. 1520 Cavanaugh II LLC has already filed a license application with the Lansing City Clerk and has received conditional approval to operate a Medical Marihuana Processor Facility at the
same location - 1520 East Cavanaugh Road, Lansing, Michigan 48910. . LE Battle Creek, Inc. has already received prequalification status from LARA-BMR. LE Battle Creek, Inc. will either file a new application to operate a processor facility at this location or will enter into a lease agreement with 1520 Cavanaugh LLC to operate from this location.
Using a Secured Transporter that has received state approval from LARA-BMR, and monitored by METRC, it is our integration plan to have our medical marihuana grown by 1520 Cavanaugh LLC and transported to LE Battle Creek Inc. where it would be sold at our provisioning center location.
Again, using a Secured Transporter that has received state approval from LARA-BMR, and monitored by METRC, it is our integration plan to have a portion of the medical marihuana grown by 1520 Cavanaugh LLC extracted, processed and transported to LE Battle Creek Inc.
where it would also be sold at our provisioning center location.
The property has been purchased, the plans have been drafted, and the first two building have been submitted for approval. This plan is far more than general speculation and this applicant deserves the full four (4) point award. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. CHARITABLE PLANS & STRATEGIES TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 4 POINTS AWARDED: 3 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: States will donate at least $75K/Yr. to
Lansing area charities. Does not have signed agreement with or receipts from Lansing charities. 9/12/19 DISCUSSION: The Applicant set forth a plan to donate at least $75,000 annually to Lansing Area charities. The examiner awarded the applicant only three points out of a possible four points
because the applicant “did not have signed agreements with or receipts from Lansing charities”. The applicant does not have an operational medical marihuana provisioning center in Lansing. The applicant does have an operational medical marihuana provisioning center in Portage. For their Portage location, the applicant set for verifiable records to show they contribute at least $75,000
annually to that community (Exhibit #5). In Portage, they contributed:
• $10,000 at Christmas time to sponsor 15 families in need
• $4,500 to Lending Hands
• 12 gift baskets, plus $3,000 to the City of Portage.
• $500 to the American Legion.
148
8
• $8,000 to local VFW.
• $10,000 to Sons and Daughters United
• $8,716.15 to “Adopt a Family”, sponsored by the Portage Community Center
• $3,200 in donations to various cancer drives
• $2,000 to the Loy Norris Football Booster Club.
• Several thousand dollars were donated to the Police and Firefighters Disabled
Members charity.
• $5,650 to the Police & Sheriff’s Association and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge
98.
• $2,495 to the Fire Fighters Yearbook
• Over $100,000 in free medicine was donated to patients with financial issues
that prevented them from being able to afford the medicine they needed.
• Several thousand dollars were donated to the Marine Corps League.
• $1,000 to the New World Flood charity.
• $11,102.69 in donations to Portage Community Center/various local sports
sponsorships for kids/school supplies.
• $3,400 to various feed the homeless organizations
The fact that the applicant does not have signed agreements or receipts from Lansing Charities does not diminish the sincerity, abilities or past track record of this applicant. Considering that Lansing is a larger market than Portage, it is completely reasonable that the applicant will be able
to contribute more than their $75,000 annual projection to Lansing area charities. The Hearing Officer does not attempt to defend the examiner’s comments. Instead the Hearing officer indicates, “there is no documentation or supporting evidence in the application” to justify an annual projection of $75,000. (Exhibit #11 – Page 5 of 7) Again, the Hearing Officer obviously
overlooked the fifteen (15) pages of documentation attached to the applicant’s submission. If we were to review the attached documentation (which the Hearing Officer apparently did not), the documentation supports cash donations of $75,563.84 plus over $100,000.00 in free medicine donated to patients with financial issues.
The applicant is entitled to the full four (4) point award instead of being awarded three (3) points. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. TOTAL COL JOBS
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 6 POINTS AWARDED: 2 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Will create at least 50 jobs at grow and processor they have applied for. Jobs are considered feasible. Less than ideal number of jobs,
which is 201+. 8/19/19
DISCUSSION: For the total number of additional jobs that will be generated in the City of Lansing, the examiner awarded the applicant a total of two (2) points out of six (6) determining
149
9
that the ideal number of jobs is 201+. Therefore, if the Applicant demonstrated they would generate more than 50 jobs, the Applicant would be entitled to additional points.
The applicant set forth an Integration Plan (Exhibit #4) that involved multiple facilities and will
create multiple jobs for the City of Lansing. In the Integration Plan, the applicant has proposed the creation of 240 new jobs for the City of Lansing. The Hearing Officer indicates that the City of Lansing jobs identified would not be generated
exclusively at “this” location. This interpretation departs from the explanation given by the original
examiner and departs from the scoring system itself. In the Examiner’s comments, there is no indication that only the number of jobs generated at 3208 South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. were considered. In fact, the Examiner refers to the number of
jobs “at grow and processor they have applied for”. The grow and processor facilities are not to be
located at 3208 South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. They will be located at 1520 Cavanaugh. The Hearing Officer indicates the “factfinder must give deference to an agency’s findings of fact”. (Exhibit #11 – Page 6 of 7). The “findings of fact” clearly refer to the number of jobs to be created at the grow and processor facilities. The documentation attached to the Applicant’s Integration
Plan clearly identified the number of jobs that would be created at all of the various facilities:
The Hearing Officer artificially created a requirement the total number of additional jobs must be generated at the location of the provisioning center. There is no such a requirement. The Hearing Officer’s interpretation that the Total COL Jobs had to be generated only at the site of the Provisioning Center is a departure from application itself. By its very wording “COL” stands for
City of Lansing – with no limitation to location other than being within the City of Lansing. A
Budget Breakdown- Proposed Master Plan for Medical Marijuana Park
Development & Provisioning Centers
1520 E. Cavanaugh Development Processing & Grow Building (phase 1) (50 New Jobs) currently under construction
Purchase of 1520 Cavanaugh $1,500,000 Construction Improvements Grow & Processing $3,000,000 Total Cost of Current Investment $4,500,000 ▪ 1,500 plant count ▪ Processing License
Grow & Processing Building 60,000 sq. ft. (90 New Jobs) Exterior Construction Cost @ $70 per sq. ft. $4,200,000 Interior Improvements Grow & Processing $6,000,000
Total Cost of Improvements $10,200,000
▪ Add 2 (1,500) plant count Processing Building 14,400 sq. ft. (20 New Jobs) Exterior Construction Cost @ $150 per sq. ft. $2,160,000
Interior Improvements- Equipment $2,000,000 Total Cost of Processing Building $4,160,000 Testing Facility Building 11,800 sq. ft. (15 New Jobs)
Construction Cost @ $200 per sq. ft. $2,360,000 Research & Development Building 18,000 sq. ft. (10 New Jobs) Construction Cost @ $200 per sq. ft. $3, 600,000
Secure Transportation Service Building 20,500 sq. ft. (15 New Jobs) Construction Cost @ $150 per sq. ft. $3,075,000 Total Current & Planned Future Construction $27,895,000
3208 South Martin Luther King Blvd. Provisioning Building (20 Jobs) Purchase of Property $650,000 Construction Improvements $3,225,000 Total Cost for 3208 Investment $3,875,000
Total Capital Investment $31,770,000 (240 New Jobs to Lansing)
150
10
review of the Phase Two Scoring criteria (Exhibit #12) clearly shows no requirement the City of Lansing jobs be created at the site of the provisioning center:
The plain and unambiguous language of the Phase 2 Scoring Criteria indicates the number of jobs “at other medical marijuana facilities types. The applicant has set forth a feasible plan to create 240 new jobs for the City of Lansing. If 201+
jobs is the ideal amount, the applicant is entitled to six (6) points instead of two (2) points. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. NET WORTH TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 3
POINTS AWARDED: 2 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Has bank account in applicant name with $100,000. Has solid proof of net worth. Since budget and startup costs are not listed there is no way to tell if net worth is sufficient to carry out applicant plans. 7/24/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner deducted one (1) point indicating budget and start-up costs were not included. This comment is dated July 24th. Of interest is the fact that there is a comment dated
5/24/2019 12:26 PM – City of Lansing – Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Scoring Criteria – Phase 2 Page 3 of 7
# Criteria Descriptions Maximum
Points
Ordinance
Source
14
Job Creation
Number of and job descriptions for FTE (Full-time Equivalent) jobs at this provisioning center ONLY. 3 1300.5(23)
15 Amount and type of other compensation -
Healthcare 2 1300.5(23)
16 Amount and type of other compensation - PTO
(Paid Time Off) 1 1300.5(23)
17 Amount and type of other compensation -
Retirement 1 1300.5(23)
18 Percent of employees earning over $15 per hour. 3 1300.5(23)
19 Projected annual budget and revenue based upon
(GAAP) generally accepted accounting principles 2 1300.5(23)
20
Number of additional jobs created by your
stakeholders within the City of Lansing at other
medical marijuana facilities types.
(Grower/Processor)
6 1300.5(12)-V
Total - Business Plan/Job Creation Incomplete plan will get zero points 50
151
11
August 22nd indicating a budget using a common set of accounting principles (GAAP) was submitted to project the first year of revenue and expenses. In addition, the applicant did include their projected start-up costs (Exhibit #3) that included a general contractor proposal and a
proposal for their security systems.
The Hearing Officer acknowledges receipt of documentation rubber-stamped the award of the examiner, not because it wasn’t originally included, because it was included in a different Section.
In total, the Applicant submitted 669 pages of printed materials. It was presented as a complete
application, not 669 individual pages. One point was deducted because no documentation was presented when in fact there were materials presented in the application that identified a budget and start-up costs.
A review of the submitted documentation clearly shows a budget and startup costs were included.
A monthly budget, including projected income and projected expenses were included.
Startup costs are the expenses incurred during the process of creating a new business. Within the Applicant’s Planned Tangible Capital Investment Plan, the Applicant detailed the amounts that the Applicant would have to spend before the business becomes operational:
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Total
Income
Sales of Product Income 5,220.00 35,898.00 66,576.00 97,254.00 127,932.00 158,610.00 201,879.90 268,987.71 299,665.71 348,987.49 379,665.49 457,879.67 390,786.89
Services
Uncategorized Income
Total Income $ 5,220.00 $ 35,898.00 $ 66,576.00 $ 97,254.00 $ 127,932.00 $ 158,610.00 $ 201,879.90 $ 268,987.71 $ 299,665.71 $ 348,987.49 $ 379,665.49 $ 457,879.67 $ 1,990,676.30
Gross Profit $ 5,220.00 $ 35,898.00 $ 66,576.00 $ 97,254.00 $ 127,932.00 $ 158,610.00 $ 201,879.90 $ 268,987.71 $ 299,665.71 $ 348,987.49 $ 379,665.49 $ 457,879.67 $ 1,990,676.30
Expenses
Advertising & Marketing 130.00 203.26 600.00 2,422.39 1,739.68 399.94 1,237.48 1,100.60 2,300.00 1,600.00 2,765.00 3,278.00 14,498.35
Other Fee
DONATIONS 230.00 498.00 568.00 899.00 1,200.00 1,800.00 2,500.00 3,200.00 4,500.00 2,600.00 3,876.00 7,600.00 21,871.00
Insurance 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 439.05 4,829.55
Job Supplies 1,289.00 1,579.00 7,227.00 44,776.19 58,917.02 56,751.51 58,146.08 146,692.94 59,592.25 42,817.51 46,959.08 46,959.08 524,747.58
Legal & Professional Services 15,000.00 8,822.50 15,000.00 23,822.50
Meals & Entertainment 78.48 121.00 413.85 535.00 1,148.33
Office Supplies & Software 18.31 546.39 1,698.65 1,219.45 961.90 1,554.57 368.68 1,632.72 1,440.00 620.00 34.97 34.97 10,095.64
Other Business Expenses 319.17 2,167.49 769.32 88.87 590.54 85.00 266.54 146.29 242.31 128.32 128.32 4,803.85
Payroll Expenses 0.00
Taxes 2,226.93 2,764.32 1,905.18 2,327.32 1,871.50 6,130.84 2,086.69 2,086.69 19,312.78
Wages 7,349.75 9,898.13 15,911.44 19,569.00 14,854.14 19,780.90 16,988.64 18,362.15 21,181.76 21,181.76 143,895.91
Total Payroll Expenses $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,349.75 $ 9,898.13 $ 18,138.37 $ 22,333.32 $ 16,759.32 $ 22,108.22 $ 18,860.14 $ 24,492.99 $ 23,268.45 $ 23,268.45 $ 163,208.69
POSTAGE 50.00 46.70 8.00 20.00 20.00 124.70
Purchases 0.01 0.01
Rent & Lease 2,500.00 10,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 40,000.00
Repairs & Maintenance 3,800.00 400.00 4,200.00
Vendor Fee 1,490.81 7,540.77 10,244.00 19,275.58
Employee Bonus 93.70 3,404.98 5,197.39 5,439.96 6,433.72 6,546.30 7,697.50 5,188.41 5,188.41 40,001.96
Testing 350.00 615.00 1,253.53 6,709.00 415.00 795.00 840.00 1,620.00 1,040.00 13,637.53
Unapplied Cash Bill Payment Expense 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Expenses $ 2,425.53 $ 3,615.70 $ 20,837.13 $ 73,043.85 $ 103,391.28 $ 92,623.89 $ 114,718.95 $ 196,648.87 $ 102,176.93 $ 89,103.86 $ 87,679.28 $ 106,916.28 $ 886,265.27
Net Operating Income $ 2,794.47 $ 32,282.30 $ 45,738.87 $ 24,210.15 $ 24,540.72 $ 65,986.11 $ 87,160.95 $ 72,338.84 $ 197,488.78 $ 259,883.63 $ 291,986.21 $ 350,963.39 $ 1,104,411.03
Net Income $ 2,794.47 $ 32,282.30 $ 45,738.87 $ 24,210.15 $ 24,540.72 $ 65,986.11 $ 87,160.95 $ 72,338.84 $ 197,488.78 $ 259,883.63 $ 291,986.21 $ 350,963.39 $ 1,104,411.03
3208 South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Profit and Loss by Month First Year Estimate
January - December, 2020
152
12
Building Acquisition $ 650,000.00 Build out costs $3,225,000.00
Security Equipment $ 75,000.00 Legal Expenses $ 50,000.00 Administrative Expenses $ 24,000.00 Sales and Marketing $ 75,000.00 (First year) $4,099,000.00
The Applicant went on to include supporting documentation for their projected startup costs. As to the disclosed amounts, all would be due in full before the building could open for business with the exception of the Building Acquisition fee. As disclosed in the Land Contract, also included with the Applicant’s documentation, $50,000 was due (and paid) as a deposit, monthly payments
of $3,000 are required with a balloon due on/before May 2022.
The applicant is therefore entitled to three (3) points instead of two (2) points. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCE – MEDICAL MARIHUANA BUSINESS TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 1 POINTS AWARDED: 0 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Less than five (5) years combined
relevant medical, agricultural or retail business experience. 9/12/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner concluded that Todd Schafer had less than five years combined relevant medical, agricultural or retail business experience. As to Category #25, the instructions are clear and unambiguous:
Mr. Schafer was not awarded the one available point because he did not have experience “owning/operating a relevant medical, agricultural or retail business”. As identified in Mr. Schafer’s resume (Exhibit #7), he is a licensed practicing attorney and has run his law firm for
more than thirteen (13) years. The operation of a law practice is a retail business as the sales of
services are directly to the public. In addition, the focus of his practice is in the area of Medical Marihuana Law and related issues. As to this field, Mr. Schaefer indicated he had “more than 10 years of relevant experience”. Finally, Mr. Schafer has successfully operated a medical marihuana facility for four (4) years since 2016.
153
13
The Hearing Officer noted, “the bar for point allocation in this category is 5 years of combined industry business experience. Since Mr. Schafer has more than ten years of experience, the
applicant is entitled to one (1) point instead of zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD DISTANCE BETWEEN PC & RESIDENTIAL ZOINING
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 7 POINTS AWARDED: 4 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: PC Property does not abut Residential Zoning, however there is residential zoning within 1/8 mile. 7/25/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner determined while the proposed location does not abut residential zoning, there is residential zoning within 1/8 mile. One eighth of a mile translates to 660 feet. Using the measuring tool established to calculate distances (using right angles), the proposed location is 862 feet from the nearest residential address (located on a side street across from the
proposed location). Using a straight-line measurement (www.mapdevelopers.com), a website
program that allows the measurement of a straight line distance between two addresses, the distance is still 755 feet (Exhibit #8). The applicant is therefore entitled to additional points as the subject property is located more than
1/8 mile from the nearest residential-zoned lot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY OF PCs TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 7 POINTS AWARDED: 2
EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a ½ mile radius. #8, #14. Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1-mile radius. None. Lose .5 points for every existing PC within a 1.5-mile radius. #16. Lose .25 point for every existing
PC within a 2-mile radius. #2, #11, Lost 5 points. 8/19/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner determined a total of 5 points should be deducted. The examiner determined the following:
#14 3425 S. Martin Luther King 2 point deduction
#8 2829 S. Martin Luther King 2 point deduction #16 2508 S. Cedar ½ point deduction #2 5025 S. Pennsylvania ¼ point deduction #11 5620 S. Cedar ¼ point deduction
The examiner determined that locations #2 and #11 were within a two-mile radius of the applicant’s proposed location. Using www.mapdevelopers.com, a website program that allows the measurement of a straight line distance between two addresses, the radius distance to location #2
154
14
(5025 South Pennsylvania) is 2.43 miles while the radius distance to location #11 (5620 South Cedar Street) is 3.53 miles. (Exhibit #9) Clearly neither location is within 2 miles of the Applicant’s proposed location.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to an additional ½ point as the Applicant should have been deducted 4.5 instead of 5 points. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. TRAFFIC & PARKING TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 3 POINTS AWARDED: 1 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Tier 3 Poor parking & circulation.
9/3/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner noted poor parking and circulation. One of the concerns for the City was to make sure traffic does not flow onto side streets and into residential developments. The location is on South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and the only means of ingress and egress are onto
South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. There is absolutely no traffic flow other than onto Sough
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Based on a traffic study completed by D&M Site Inc (originally included in the Applicant’s materials), comparing the facility to similar markets, the applicant is able to predict the flow of
traffic into their establishment. They expect the flow of traffic to be the same as any other retail
establishment. As detailed, the building was erected in 1965 and has been used for retail sales since. There have never been any reported issues of insufficient parking or poor traffic flow. Since there were no traffic flow issues in the past, how can the examiner determine there would be poor traffic flow coming from the proposed location?
At the proposed location, there are twenty-one (21) available parking spaces that include four (4) handicap spots. – See Site Plan (Exhibit #10) Under ADA rules, there must be one handicapped parking space when the lot has a total of twenty-five (25) parking spaces or less. This applicant has four times the minimum amount.
A review of the Arial photo shows no impediments either into or out of the applicant’s parking lot (Exhibit #10). In a report from Hearing Officer Hilary M. Barnard, she indicated the Hearing Officer “will decline to review any supplemental materials provided by Appellant in an effort to cure application deficiencies (Exhibit #11 – Page 4 of 7). The Appellant did not include a copy
of the Arial photo in an attempt to cure an alleged deficiency. The Arial photo was included to
point out the comments on the scoring sheet were simply inaccurate. There were no impediments in or out of the parking lot. The Hearing Officer indicates the Appellant lost points because there was no traffic flow other than onto the road it is located on. Again, the traffic study does not indicate a flow problem.
The point of emphasis within the City Ordinance was to keep the flow of traffic away from the neighborhoods. As to the issue of traffic flow, Ordinance Section 1300.6(B)(2) specifically states:
155
15
(2) Whether the proposed establishment will be consistent with land use for the surrounding neighborhood and not have a detrimental effect on traffic patterns and
resident safety.
If an applicant is to be rewarded with additional points for having a secondary exit that will funnel into a residential neighborhood, that would be directly contrary to the intent to prevent this very conduct.
Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to three (3) points instead of one (1) point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35. ODOR PLAN
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS AVAILABLE: 4 POINTS AWARDED: 3 EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR POINTS AWARDED: Has detailed plan with equipment specifications, but no budget. 8/19/19
DISCUSSION: The examiner deducted one (1) point because the examiner indicated no budget was supplied for odor remediation. The Applicant’s odor plan involves using the Heating Ventilation and Cooling System (HVAC) to control odors. Air filtration using activate charcoal and HEPA filters will be used to clean the air and control odors.
The HVAC system is part of the general mechanical system and is included in the construction proposal submitted by Michael George Construction and Architecture (Exhibit #3). Included in the construction quote is $196,800 allocated to the mechanical systems that would include the modifications to the HVAC system for odor control.
Once again, Hearing Officer Barnard disregarded submitted materials, not because it wasn’t originally included, she indicates the exhibit was included in the Tangible Capital Section – not the Traffic and Parking Section. In total, the Applicant submitted 669 pages of printed materials. It was presented as a complete application, not 669 individual pages. The point is the
applicant was deducted points because no budget was presented when in fact there were materials
presented in the application that identified a budget for odor remediation. Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to four (4) points instead of three (3) points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION The Applicant has addressed the categories where reduction from full point value was given. In
each instance, the Applicant has clearly shown that the examiner either did not score the category
correctly or overlooked the materials presented.
156
16
Based on the foregoing, a correction must be made awarding the applicant additional points.
Respectfully,
Aaron D. Geyer
Aaron D. Geyer
Attorney for Applicant
Prepared by: AIELLO & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Aaron D. Geyer (P-39889)
Attorney at Law
32411 Mound Road Warren, Michigan 48092 Tel. (586) 303-2211 Fax. (586) 303-1259
aaron@chrisaiello.com
157
EXHIBITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Denial Letter from Lansing City Clerk with Application Scoring (received 03/08/19)
2. Documented Financial Resources (originally submitted)
3. Planned Tangible Capital Investment Plan, Budget for First Year Profit and Loss, Land
Contract, Construction proposal from Michael George Construction and Architects,
Security Proposal from Clearview (all originally submitted)
4. Integration Plan (originally submitted)
5. Charitable Plans and Strategies (originally submitted)
6. Budget Breakdown – Proposed Master Plan for Medical Marihuana Park,
7. Documented Business History of the Applicant and Owner
8. Map and distance calculations using www.mapdevelopers.com, distance calculations
to residential zoning.
9. Distance calculations to licensed medical marihuana provisioning centers approved in
Phase 1.
10. Site plan and Arial view of parking lot.
11. Report from Hearing Officer Hilary M. Barnard dated October 7, 2019
12. Phase 2 Scoring Criteria
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Timeline
Weisberger Ventures
511 E Hazel St
Lansing, Michigan 48910
June 26, 2019 – Application submitted ................................................................... 2
July 1, 2019 – Department review of applications begins
July 25, 2019 – Distance Maps Created ................................................................. 11
September 19, 2019 – Score & Rank Denial Letter Sent ........................................ 13
October 3, 2019 – Hearing Officer Appeal submitted ........................................... 15
October 8, 2019 – Second Score & Rank Second Denial Letter Sent ..................... 76
October 8, 2019 – Commission Hearing Date Letter Sent ..................................... 77
November 7, 2019 – Commission Appeal Submitted ............................................ 89
1
FIR1
11 1
Business Information
Annual License Application Fee: $5000.00
One Year License Term
City Codified Ordinances-Chapter 1300)
https://mi-lansing-ci\Acplus.com/171/Business-Licenses
Establishment/DBA Weisberger Ventures 11, LLC dba Green Buddha
Name*
Establishment 248)330-3037
Phone Number
Establishment 511 E Hazel Street
Address*
City* Lansing State* MI
Zip 48912
Applicant Type* r Individual
r Corporation
r LLC
r LLP
Facility Type* r Provisioning Center
r Secure Transporter
r Safety Compliance
r Processor Facility
r Grower
Please initial) I
have filed our 1PDa4t IZWA-t,'t
organizational
documents with the
State of Michigan. (If
individual I have
proof of registration
to do business in
Michigan.)
M CL333.206(3)(iii)(B)
d)*
Applicant/Corporation/LLC/LLP Information - This needs to be where you can be
reached quickly for questions regarding your application.
2
Applicant/Corp/LLC/LUReisberger Ventures II, LLC
Name
Date of Birth (if
Individual)
Establishment Information
Applicant/Corp 248) 330-3037
Phone Number
Secondary Phone (248)647-9999
Number
Contact email paulweisberger@wildbillstobacco.com
address*
Applicant/Corp/LLC/LLPI00 W Maple Road
Address
City Troy State MI
Zip 48084
3
Attachments
Please review the general instructions,which are available at https://Iansingmi.gov/marijuana, prior to
starting.
Ensure that you attach the correct documents to the following buttons.You may attach multiple documents
to a button
Application Documents 1300.05(b)(1). (2). (3). (7). (24)-Please attach the following:
You may download the Stakeholder Information Page here.
Stakeholder 511 -Stakeholder Information.pdf 373.97KB
Information Page(s)
You may download the Operator/Employee Information page here.
Operator/Employee 511 -Operator and employee information.pdf 257.72KB
Information page(s)
Organizational Documents 1300.05(b)(2).(12)(1).(ii).(viii). 1300.06(b)(11- Please attach the following:
LLC, LLP,or Corp Docs.pdf 356.77KB
Corportion Docs
FEIN Verification Weisberger Ventures II, LLC-EIN.pdf 13.26KB
Letter
Ownership Ownership Structure.pdf 78.72KB
Structure
Organization Chart Organization Chart.pdf 189.19KB
Short&Long Term Short Term and Long Term Goals.pdf 126.47KB
Goals
Criminal History 1300.05(b),( 5).(6);1300.06(b)(4)-Please attach one of each for each stakeholder,operator and
employee.
Criminal History 511 -Criminal History.pdf 346.22KB
Background Check
form(s)
Copy of Photo ID(s) Paul Driver's License.pdf 214.09KB
Patient Education Plan 1300.05(b)(9)-Please attach your Patient Education Plan:
Patient Education Final Patient Education Plan.pdf 619.56KB
Plan ASA brochure_HIVAIDS.pdf 337.96KB
ASA brochure_Arthritis[1].pdf 327.84KB
ASA brochure_Cancer.pdf 385.18KB
ASA brochure_Movement_Disorders.pdf 303.36KB
ASA brochure_Veterans_Conditions.pdf 631.46KB
Drug/Alcohol Awareness Plan 1300.05(bl(10)-Please attach your Drug&Alcohol Awareness Plan:
4
Drug and Alcohol Drug and Alcohol Abuse Plan ADAPP(clean) 12 11
Awareness Plan 1.88MB
17.pdf
Worker Training Plan 1300.05(b)(11):1300.05(b)(12)_(vi)- Please attach your Worker Training Plan:
Worker Training Provisioning Center Employee Training&Education
Plan 323.11 KB
Plan (clean) 12 11 17.pdf
Provisioning Center Employee Handbook(clean) 12 652.86KB
11 17.pdf
Marketing.Advertising&Promotion Plan 1300.05(b)(12)(iii):1300.06( b)(1)-Please attach your Marketing,
Advertising&Promotion Plan:
Marketing Marketing Plan.pdf 161.96KB
Advertising & Green Buddha Marketing Strategy 2019.pdf 3.96MB
Promotion Plan
Improvements Made or Proposed to Building 1300.06(b)(3)-Please attach the following:
Plan Improvement proposed to buildings.pdf 93.31KB
Any Supporting GreenBuddha_LansingComplex 0619.pdf 4.89MB
Materials SITE PLAN- 112717[1j.pdf 15.81MB
Tangible Capital Investment 1300.05(b)(12)_(iv):1300.05(b)(13): 1300.06(b)(1)- Please attach any of the following
which apply:
TCI Plan TCI Plan.pdf 144.06KB
Any Supporting
Materials
Document(s) 511 E Hazel-Lease.pdf 3.55MB
demonstrating Property Owner Consent-511.pdf 126.31 KB
ownership or
exclusive lease of
Provisioning Center
Job Creation -Additional Lansing Jobs(1300.05(b)(12)_(v):1300.06(b)(1)-Please attach documentation showing
the number of additional jobs which will be created in the Lansing area at other medical marijuana facility types. Do NOT
include jobs at this provisioning center.
Job Creation (not Other non-provisioning center facilities.pdf 156.09KB
including
Provisioning
Center)
Job Creation -this Provisioning Center ONLY 1300.05(b)(23)-Please attach a plan and any supporting
documentation which includes the following:
Document(s) Staffing and Employee Compensation Plan.pdf 447.17KB
regarding number
of FTE(full time
equivalent)jobs at
the provisioning
center only
5
Projected annual Projected annual budget and revenue.pdf 122.45KB
budget and revenue
at Provisioning
Center only
Percent of 16 and up Staffing and Employee
Employees earning 96.02KB
Compensation.pdfover$15.00/hr
Other Other employment benefits.pdf 91.6KB
Compensation
Financial Structure &Financing 1300.05(b)(12)_(vii): 1300.06(b)(5)- Provide evidence and explanation of the
financial structure and financing for the proposed establishment(s).
Financial Structure Financing Structure and Financing.pdf 126.6KB
Financing
Supporting Lending Agreement dated 6_19_2019.pdf 700.3KB
Documents Lending Agreement dated 6_26_2019.pdf 494.3KB
Luke Dawn Samona PFS-7-31-18.pdf 102.23KB
Paul Weisberger-AUP 6-19-19.pdf 1.69MB
Activity Statement.pdf 115.63KB
Overall Weisberger Ventures II LLC Bank
538.58KB
Balance.pdf
Plan to integrate with a Grow Facility in Lansing 1300.05(b)(12)_(ix): 1300.06(b)(1)- Please attach the following:
Integration Plan Integration Plan.pdf 198.46KB
Supporting SITE PLAN- 112717[1].pdf 15.81 MB
Documents i.e.licenses for other medical marijuana facilities in Lansing or proof of applicaiton for other medical marijuana
facility licenses in Lansing
Community Outreach&Education Plan 1300.05(b)(12)_(x):1300.06(b)(2)-Please attach your plan and any
supporting materials.
Outreach & Provisioning Center Community Outreach, Patient
Education Plan Education and Community Education Plan (clean) 332.88KB
12 11 17.pdf
Charitable Plans&Strategies 1300.05(b)(12)(xi):1300.06( b)(1)-Please attach your plan and any supporting
documents
Charitable Plans& Charitable Giving and Volunteering Plan(clean) 12
Strategies 102.71 KB
11 17.pdf
Charitable Plans Anthony Pellerito Volunteer Log.pdf 329.47KB
Supporting Docs
Security Plan 1300.05(b)(14): 1300.06(b)( 2)- Please attach your security plan and any supporting documents to
ensure compliance with ordinance.
Security Plan and Provisioning Center Safety, Security and Diversion
Supporting 676.51 KB
Prevention Plan (clean) 12 11 17.pdfDocuments
Clearview equipments(511 E Hazel St).pdf 9.25MB
6
Floor Plans 1300.05(b)(15)-Please attach your facility's floor plans.
Floor Plans Cover page.pdf 2.55MB
Equipment- Floor Plan.pdf 4.77MB
Floor Plan-511 E Hazel Street.pdf 1.02MB
SITE PLAN- 112717.pdf 1.01 MB
Proposed Text&Graphics 1300.05(b)(16)-Please attach your facility's plan for outdoor text and graphics.
Proposed Text& GreenBuddhaLogo.pdf 745.6KB
Graphics
Location Area Map 1300.05(b)(17)- Please attach your location's area map.
Location Area Map 511 a hazel location map.pdf 595.05KB
Sanitation&Waste Disposal Plan 1300.05(b)(18)-Please attach your plan.
Sanitation and Provisioning Center Sanitation,Waste, Product
Waste Disposal Plan 468.63KB
Testing and Recall Plan (clean) 12 11 17.pdf
Patient Recordkeeping 1300.05(b)(19)-Please attach your plan for securing patient records.
Patient Provisioning Center Patient Record Keeping Plan
Recordkeeping 350.85KB
clean) 12 11 17.pdf
InventoryRecord keeping-Summary of HIPPA
365.8KB
Privacy Rule.pdf
Testing Procedures(1300.05(b)(20)-Please attach your plan.
Testing Procedures Product Testing and Recall Plan 060419.pdf 285.62KB
Treasury Form(s) 1300.05(b)(4): 1300.05(b)(21)- Please attach the following for each stakeholder.
Completed City of 511 -Treasury Form.pdf 355.34KB
Lansing Treasury
Office Form
Bank Statement(s) 1300.05(b)(22)- Please attach your bank statement(s)showing$100,000 in liquid assets.
Bank Statement(s) Activity Statement.pdf 115.63KB
Overall Weisberger Ventures II LLC Bank
538.58KB
Balance.pdf
Sufficient Financial Resources 1300.05(b)(22) 1300.06(bl(5)-Please attach the following:
Financial Resources 511 -Financial Resources Litigation History.pdf 297.83KB
Litigation Form
Document(s)which Lending Agreement dated 6_19_2019.pdf 700.3KB
support net worth Lending Agreement dated 6_26_2019.pdf 494.3KB
Luke Dawn Samona PFS-7-31-18.pdf 102.23KB
Paul Weisberger-AUP 6-19-19.pdf 1.69MB
Business Experience 1300.05(b)(8): 1300.06(b)( 5)- Please attach the following:7
Resume for Each Paul Weisberger Resume.pdf 23.45KB
Stakeholder
Applicable Licenses Applicable Licenses.pdf 73.89KB
held by Bangor Township Permit.pdf 470.43KB
Stakeholder(s)
Paul Weisberger Bar License.pdf 150.23KB
Real Estate Broker License.pdf 408.73KB
State Operating License and Sale Tax License.pdf 4.41 MB
such as rredical licenses
Insurance Policy 1300.05(B)(26)- Please attach your entire insurance policy or intent to insure.
Insurance Policy Weisberger 511 Hazel.pdf 95.26KB
Proof of Bond or Escrow 1300.05(b)(27)-Please attach a letter of intent to insure from an insurer qualified to do
business in Michigan, or a letter of intent to bond.
Proof of Bond or License Bond-511.pdf 329.78KB
Escrow Account
Traffic Plan 1300.09(i): 1300.06(b)(2).(3);1300.05(b)(15)-Please attach your plan and any supporting materials
example: parking site plan, quotes,traffic analysis,etc.)
Traffic Plan Traffic Plan-511 E Hazel St.pdf 223.79KB
Noise Plan 1300.06(b)( 3):1300.09(i)- Please attach your plan.
Noise Control Plan Traffic Plan-511 E Hazel St.pdf 223.79KB
Odor Plan 1300.06(b)(3): 1300.09(i)-Please attach your plan for odor control.
Odor Plan Provisioning Center Odor Control Plan (clean) 12 11 203.87KB
17.pdf
Applicant-Stakeholder History 1300.06(b)(1).(4).(5):1300.08(e). MCL 333.27401;MCL 333.27402(3)(a). (b).(c):
MCL 333.27405
SOM Pre- Prequalification Status Letter-ERGA-18-
qualification Letter 64.38KB
001032.pdf
Morals, Good Order 511 -Morals, Good Order, and General Welfare
General Welfare 305.62KB
Litigation.pdf
Litigation History
Form for each
Stakeholder
8
Affirmations
Please affirm each of the following statements by entering your initials in the box for each
statement. (You may select a font or draw your initials.)
I affirm that I,the applicant,and each stakeholder and employee is at least 18 years of age and has not been convicted
of or pled guilty or no contest to a disqualifying felony. 1300.05(b)(4)
Initial here:*
I affirm that I,the applicant or operator: 1300(b)(7)
Choose one* r have not had a business license revoked or suspended
r have had a business license revoked or suspended
Initial here*
I acknowledge that I,the applicant, am aware that all matters related to marijuana,growing,cultivation, possession,
dispensing,testing,safety compliance,transporting, distribution,and use are currently subject to State and Federal
Laws, Rules,and Regulations, and that the approval or granting of a license hereunder does not exonerate or
exculpate myself,the applicant,from abiding by the provisions and requirements and penalties associated with those
laws, rules,and regulations or exposure to any penalties associated therewith;and further myself,the applicant,waives
and forever releases any claim,demand, action, legal redress, or recourse against the City of Lansing, its elected and
appointed Officials and its Employees and Agents for any claims, damages, liabilities,causes a result of the violation by
myself,the applicant, its Officials, members, partners,shareholders, employees and agent of those laws, rules,and
regulations and hereby waives and assumes the risk of any such claims and damages,and lack of recourse against the
City of Lansing, its elected and appointed Officials, employees, attorneys,and agents 1300.05(b)(24)
Initial here:*
may
I swear that neither I,the applicant, nor any stakeholder is in default to the City of Lansing for failure to pay any
property taxes,special assessments,fines,fees or other financial obligations to the City 1300.05(b)( 21)
Initial here:*
I agree to report any changes to the information required under Chapter 1300 to the City Clerk within ten (10)business
days 1300.08(d).
Initial here:*
may
By submitting this application for a medical marijuana license, I affirm: (1)that I have read and understand Ordinance
1217 and the instructions for this application, (2)that I have submitted a complete application, and (3)that I have
submitted all documents that will be considered for each section of the application.;A document should be uploaded to
each applicable scoring section;failure to do so may impact the completeness and/or score of your application.
9
Initial here:*
10
11
12
13
September 19, 2019
Weisberger Ventures LLC
Paul Weisberger
211 E Nine Mile Road Unit 313
Ferndale, Michigan 48220
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
The Lansing City Ordinance section 1300.6 discusses Provisioning Center license application evaluation. Your score
of 75.5 out of 100 eliminates the possibility of scoring in the top five. Therefore, your application for licensure is denied.
Attached are your sub-scores based on the criteria posted on https://lansingmi.gov/1637/Medical-Marijuana and a brief
summary of determining factors for each sub-score.
You will not be selected to receive a Provisioning Center license in the City of Lansing for the proposed business
at 511 E Hazel Street.
You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure within 14 days of the date of this letter by filing with the City Clerk’s
Office a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal pursuant to Chapter 1300.15(c). Please note that
initial appeals are referred to a hearing officer appointed by the City Clerk who will review the appeal and information
submitted. The hearing officer will consider the information and make a recommendation to the City Clerk, who will make
a decision on the appeal. To encourage efficiency, appeals will be conducted as a paper hearing without oral
presentation. Please ensure that you include all information in your written appeal that you would like the hearing officer
to consider. Appeals are limited to materials provided during the application process. No new application material will
be considered on appeal.
Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be returned.
This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
Lansing City Clerk
CC: City Attorney
Lansing Police Department
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
October 8, 2019
Weisberger Ventures, LLC
Paul Weisberger
211 E 9 Mile Rd, Unit 313
Ferndale, MI 48220-1968
Dear Provisioning Center Applicant,
I have reviewed the report and recommendation of the hearing officer on your appeal of the Scoring and
Ranking denial of your application to operate a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center in the City of Lansing
at 511 E Hazel St. I have determined that your appeal is denied.
You have the right to appeal this denial of licensure to the Medical Marihuana Commission within thirty (30)
days of the date of this letter by filing a written statement to the Commission with the City Clerk’s Office.
Should you choose to appeal, your Commission Hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, November 15,
2019. Commission Hearings are held at the Clerk’s Marijuana Licensing Unit, 2500 S Washington Ave,
Lansing, MI 48910.
The Medical Marihuana Commission Appeal will become a matter of public record. The Commission’s review
of the appeal shall not be de novo. The Commission shall only overturn, or modify, a decision or finding of
the Clerk if it finds such decision or finding to be arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material,
substantial, and competent facts on the whole record considered by the Clerk in arriving at such decision or
finding.
Chapter 1300 provides that should the applicant not receive a license, one-half the application fee shall be
returned. This refund will be processed after all appeals are exhausted.
Sincerely,
Chris Swope, CMMC/MMC
City Clerk
cc: Lansing City Attorney, Lansing Chief of Police
Chris Swope
Lansing City Clerk
77
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 10/8/2019 12:08 PM
Total
Possible
Points
Weisberger Ventures-511 E Hazel St
---
#Category ---Score Location of material Scoring Insights
1 Ownership Structure 1 1 Org Docs, Ownership Struc., 1 pg.Has ownership structure. 8/23/19
2 Organizational Chart 1 1 Org Docs, Org Chart, 5 pgs.Has org chart. 8/23/19
3 Worker Training Program 1 1 Other Required Documents, Worker Training Plan 40 pgs.Has plan. 8/23/19
4 Short and Long Term Goals and
Objectives 1 1 Org Docs, Goals, 1 pg.Has goals. 8/23/19
5 Community Outreach &
Education 1 1 Community Outreach, Outreach & Education 15 pgs.Has plan. 8/23/19
6 Marketing, Advertising &
Promotion 3 0 Marketing
No examples of minor minimization. Statement that they will not sell to minors with no detail. The
marketing plan appears to have been prepared for a proposed location in Madison Heights. No budget.
9/19/19
7 Tangible Capital Investment
Dollar Amount 5 5 3 page Investment Plan Stated TCI is $5,200,000.00. 9/19/19
8 Tangible Capital Investment
Own/Lease 3 1 9 pages Lease with Permission Lease and landlord permission provided. 8/20/19
9 Tangible Capital Investment
Supporting Material 3 0 Nothing submitted No support documents attached. 8/20/19
10 Financial Structure & Financing 2 0 Nothing submitted No GAAP operating or startup budget attached. 8/23/19
11 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Has prequalification letter dated 12/10/2018 for Weisberger Ventures II, LLC 8/23/19
12 Integration with Grows 4 3 Integrate Has plans to open a grow and processor in Lansing. Applied for 3 Class C grow licenses. 9/19/19
13 Charitable Plans & Strategies 4 3 Charity $30K per year. No receipts or proof in form of signed agreement. 8/23/19
14 Number of and job descriptions
for PC ONLY 3 3 Job Creation More than six (6) jobs. Has detailed job descriptions. 8/23/19
15 Healthcare 2 2 Job Creation Employer will provide healthcare. 8/23/19
16 Paid Time Off 1 1 Job Creation Employer will offer paid time off. 8/23/19
17 Retirement 1 1 Job Creation Employer will offer 401K program. 8/23/19
18 % of employees at $15+/hr 3 3 Job Creation 100% of employees will make $15+/hr.
19 Projected Annual Budget 2 0 Nothing submitted No GAAP operating budget attached. 8/23/19
20 Total COL Jobs 6 5 Job Creation 170 jobs. All but 20 come from grows. Less than ideal number of jobs, which is 201+. 9/19/19
Total Business Plan &
Job Creation 50 35
21 Financial Litigation History 1 1 Financial Litigation Form Has completed form(s) for all stakeholders. 9/19/19
22 Net Worth 3 2 22 Unduplicated pages in Finance Section Has $100K in a bank account in the applicant’s name. Has solid proof of net worth. No budget,
therefore doesn’t have full documentation of initial start-up and operating costs. 9/19/19
23 LARA Pre-Qual 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Has prequalification letter dated 12/10/2018 for Weisberger Ventures II, LLC 8/23/19
24 Stakeholder Experience
City of Lansing Businesses 1 0 Experience No mention of Lansing business ownership. 8/23/19
25 Stakeholder Experience
Relevant Businesses 1 0 Experience No relevant medical, agricultural or retail business experience. 9/19/19
26 Stake Holder Experience
Medical Marijuana Business 1 1 Experience More than five (5) years MM experience. 9/19/19
Total Financial Stability
&
Business Experience
10 7
178
City of Lansing Provisioning Center Ranking 10/8/2019 12:08 PM
27 Impact on Neighborhood
Distance Between PC &
Residential Zoning 7 5
https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webapp
viewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438ba55
b14c9b19e9f22
PC Property does not abut Residential Zoning. However there is residential zoning within 1/4.
7/25/19
28 Impact on Neighborhood
Density of PCs 7 4.5 https://lansing.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webapp
viewer/index.html?id=be0634345255438ba55
b14c9b19e9f22
Lose 2 points for every existing PC within a 1/2 mile radius. None
Lose 1 point for every existing PC within a 1 mile radius. None
Lose .5 point for every existing PC within a 1.5 mile radius. #16, #17, #18, #19
Lose .25 point for every existing PC within a 2 mile radius. #8, #15
Lost 2.5 points. 8/23/19
29 Traffic & Parking 3 3 Public Service Review Tier 1 excellent parking and circulation 9/3/19
30 Security Plan 3 3 LPD Review Tier I - Equip specs, guard, vault, barrier vestibule, off site video storage, alarms with panic button.
9/3/19
Total - Land Use &
Resident Safety 20 15.50
31 Planned Outreach 1 1 Community Outreach, Outreach & Education 15 pgs.Has plan. 8/23/19
32 Improvements to Building 3 2 Proposed Improvements
Improvements Plan
SEV-$71,500
$4,800,000 proposed improvements (includes processor and grower suites).
6713% of SEV
One point deduction for lack of supporting materials. (quotes/bids) 8/29/19
33 Plan to Minimize Traffic 1 1 Traffic
Traffic Plan Has a plan. 8/29/19
34 Noise Plan 1 1 Noise & Odor Has a plan. 8/23/19
35 Odor Plan 4 3 Noise & Odor Has a detailed plan, but no equipment specs or budget/quotes. 8/23/19
Total Outreach 10 8
36 Stakeholder History
Proof of LARA Prequal 2 2 Demo of Reg Compliance Has prequalification letter dated 12/10/2018 for Weisberger Ventures II, LLC 8/23/19
37 Demo of Regulatory
Compliance 5 5
https://bsaonline.com/SiteSearch/SiteSearchD
etails?SearchFocus=All+Records&SearchCateg
ory=Address&SearchText=511+e+hazel&uid=3
84&PageIndex=1&ReferenceKey=33-01-01-21-
231-
032&ReferenceType=0&SortBy=&SearchOrigin
=0&RecordKeyDisplayString=33-01-01-21-231-
032&RecordKey=1%3d33-01-01-21-231-
032%3a%3a4%3d33-01-01-21-231-
032%3a%3a7%3d522ae8b0-e6b2-4804-8e14-
9f28012e8a96&RecordKeyType=1%3d0%3a%3
a4%3d0%3a%3a7%3d2
No code violations. No conditional denial letters. 9/19/19
38 Morals, Good Order & General
Welfare Litigation History 3 3 Demo of Reg Compliance Has completed form(s) for all stakeholders. 9/19/19
Total Applicant
Stakeholder History 10 10
Total Score 100 75.50
279
Statement of Facts
Weisberger Ventures – 511 E Hazel St
1. Argument made on whether all information in application should be considered. The City
Clerk’s Office instructed applicants to attach all relevant materials to each section the applicant
wanted the information to be considered. The applicant signed an attestation indicating they
understood their score would be impacted if they failed to do so. Different examiners worked
on different sections and only considered those items included with the section they were
evaluating. See COL Exhibits – Weisberger Ventures Application with attestations and General
Instructions for Medical Marijuana Applications.
2. Item #6 – Marketing, Advertising and Promotion – Statements are not examples. We are
looking for examples with detailed explanation.
3. Item 9 – Tangible Capital Investment Supporting Documents – Applicant has improperly
labeled this as Dollar Amount. Dollar Amount was considered in Item 7. Applicant refers to
finances, which is not what this category is about. Tangible Capital Investment is how you are
going to spend the money you are investing, not how much you have. Tangible Capital is the
building and permanent improvements you make to the property, interior and exterior. It does
not include things like product, packaging, furniture, or other removable items. Supporting
material is defined as Purchase Agreements for property and quotes/bids/invoices from
contractors or suppliers. Refer to Application and attachments under this section.
4. Item 10 – Financial Structure and Financing. Applicant’s arguments speak to the financial
condition of the stakeholder. That information is included however, without at GAAP Budget
for startup costs there is no way for the reviewer to determine if finances are sufficient to cover
those costs.
5. Item 12 – Integration with Grows – the applicant did apply for three grows, the Clerk does
not dispute this. The score given was appropriate for that number of grow applications.
6. Item 13 – Charitable Plans & Strategies – See scoring insights. Lacks proof in form of signed
agreements with proposed charities – or receipt for amount given to date. The proof of
volunteer work is not in the name of the stakeholder.
7. Item 20 – Total COL Jobs – Provisioning Center Jobs are not counted here, as is made clear in
the public scoring criteria. Therefore the number of jobs is between 100-170 and the scoring
reflects this. Criteria from public sheet: “Number of additional jobs created by your
stakeholders within the City of Lansing at other medical marijuana facilities types.
(Grower/Processor)”
8. Item 25 – Stakeholder Experience Relevant Business – See scoring insights.
80
9. Item 27 – Impact on Neighborhoods – Distance between PC & Residential Zoning – This
category is not buffering, nor is it related to any zoning buffering. Applications which do not
meet basic zoning requirements are denied for that specific reason. Applicant was aware of this
scoring requirement. Public criteria states, “Surrounding Neighborhoods: Distance between
residential zoned areas and applicant's provisioning center. Evaluation is based on whether any
residential property abuts the proposed location, and if not, whether there is residential zoning
within 1/4 mile of the proposed location.” Score was appropriate for a facility with residential
zoning within 1/4 mile.
COL Exhibits
1. Statement of Facts from Clerk
2. Application with attestations
3. Appeal from Weisberger Ventures
4. GIS Distance Map Showing Residential Zoning
5. Score Sheet with Scoring Insights
81
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF LANSING
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MARIHUANA BUSINESS LICENSE APPEAL
__________________________________
Date: October 8, 2019
WEISBERGER VENTURES II, LLC
Proposed Location:
511 E. Hazel St.
Lansing, MI 48912
__________________________________
HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
This decision is remitted to the Clerk of the City of Lansing by Hearing Officer, Hilary M. Barnard,
Esq., having been read and informed on the issues recommends that in regard to WEISBERGER
VENTURES II, LLC and its license application for a Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center that
the license application remain denied.
FACTS
WEISBERGER VENTURES II, LLC (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Lansing to operate a
Medical Marihuana Provisioning Center within the city limits during Phase 2. This recommendation
follows a timely appeal from Appellant.
By letter dated September 20, 2019, Appellant was informed that its license application was denied
because of its score and rank, having received a score of 75.5 out of 100. Appellant was informed
that this score eliminated the possibility of scoring in the top five applications received in phase 2
and it would not be receiving a provisioning center license. Appellant was also informed that it had
the right to appeal the denial within 14 (fourteen) days of the letter’s date by written statement with
grounds for appeal. With the letter, Appellant was provided a copy of the City of Lansing Provisioning
Center Ranking sheet for its business. On the document, Appellant is able to view the total possible
points, its attained points, and scoring insight statements.
Appellant has point deficiencies in several categories.
Appellant’s Position
Appellant seeks appellate review pursuant to the Lansing ordinance. It argues that its application
was not accurately scored and requests immediate rescoring of its Phase 2 application results.
82
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 2 of 7
City Clerk Position
The City Clerk affirms its position on the denial. The City Clerk iterates that application
instructions told applicants to attach all relevant materials to each section that the applicant wanted
considered. Additionally, the City argues that the Appellant signed an attestation indicating that it
understood the score would be impacted if it failed to include such materials.
APPLICABLE LAW & REASONING
The issue in front of this Hearing Officer is whether Appellant’s Provisioning Center License
Application for the City of Lansing was erroneously denied.
In regard to the issuance of licenses and the appellate process for a license:
“The City Council shall provide, by ordinance, a procedure for the issuance of
licenses and permits. The ordinance shall, to the greatest extent possible, place the
responsibility for the issuance of licenses and permits under one official in order that
persons requesting specific licenses and permits will not have to contact more than
one City office.”1
At the denial of a license under City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217, an applicant:
May appeal to the city clerk, who shall appoint a hearing officer to hear and evaluate
the appeal and make a recommendation to the clerk. Such appeal shall be taken by
filing with the city clerk, within 14 days after notice of the action complained of has
been mailed to the applicant’s last known address on the records of the city clerk, a
written statement setting forth fully the grounds for the appeal. The clerk shall review
the report and recommendation of the hearing officer and make a decision on the
matter. The clerk’s decision may be further appealed to the commission if applied
for in writing to the commission no later than thirty (30) days from the clerk’s
decision.2
* * *
[The] [r]eview of an appeal shall not be de novo. The commission shall only overturn,
or modify, a decision or finding of the clerk if it finds such decision or finding to be
arbitrary or capricious and not supported by material, substantial, and competent
facts on the whole record considered by the clerk in arriving at such decision or
finding.3
1 See LANSING CITY CLERK’S OFFICE, City of Lansing City Charter (as amended) at 24 (2015) available at:
https://www.lansingmi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2126/City-Charter?bidId=. In this instance, the license issuance
is handled with the City Clerk’s office.
2 City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.15(C).
3 Id. at 1300.3(E).
83
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 3 of 7
The arbitrary or capricious standard of review is the commission’s review and is adopted by this
Hearing Officer.4 Arbitrary and capricious have generally accepted meanings.5 Arbitrary is "without
adequate determining principle . . . [f]ixed or arrived at through an exercise of will or by caprice,
without consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, . .
. decisive but unreasoned.”6 Capricious is "apt to change suddenly; freakish; whimsical; humorsome.”7
The burden is on the party attacking to affirmatively prove the arbitrary and unreasonable decision.8
This is not to say that a local body may “abrogate constitutional restraints.”9
As to whether an applicant can submit supplemental materials on appeal, the Lansing Ordinance in
Section 1300.5(B) states that “[a] complete application for a license or licenses required by this
chapter shall be made under oath on forms provided by the city clerk and shall contain all of the
following[.]” (emphasis added). The ordinance then enumerates all the documents and information
required for application submission. Per Michigan Court rule, appeals are based on the record
already in place.10 Further, an appellate body will generally not consider issues not raised in or ruled
on by a lower review.11 The appellate review is limited to the record before the lower court at the
time of the relevant decision.
Under the City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Section 1300.5:
(B)(12)(IV) Planned tangible capital investment in the city, including detail related
to the number and nature of applicant’s proposed medical marihuana establishments
in the city and whether the locations of such establishments will be owned or leased;
further, if multiple licenses are proposed, an explanation of the economic benefits to
the city and job creation, if any, to be achieved through the award of such multiple
licenses. Supporting factual data shall be included with the response to this subsection[.]
(emphasis added)
Under the City of Lansing Ordinance No. 1217 Section 1300.6, review of an application will
consider:
(D) In the event that there are more applicants for provisioning center licenses who
meet the minimum requirements set forth in 1300.6(B) than there are licenses
available in either phase one or two, the top scoring twenty (20) applicants in phase
4 There is an inherent binary in license issuance: issued or denied, not a spectrum of decisions. Given that this is a
licensing situation, and that the only prescribed review under Ordinance No. 1217 is arbitrary and capricious, that is
the standard that will be observed here.
5 See Bundo v. Walled Lake, 395 Mich. 679, 703 (1976) (citing United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243 (1946).
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 See e.g., Kropf v. Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 154 (1974) (citing Janesick v. City of Detroit, 337 Mich. 459
(1953)).
9 Id. at 162.
10 See e.g., MCR 7.105(B)(4); (5)(d) (requiring that the appellate court receive a certified copy of a case’s record and
stating review of a trial court’s decision was for legitimate reason based on “arguable support in the record[.]”)
11 See Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 232-35 (1987).
84
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 4 of 7
one and top scoring five (5) applicants in phase two, shall be eligible to receive
provisioning center licenses in accordance with the assessment, evaluation, scoring,
and ranking procedures established in this chapter[.]
An applicant must have included, inter alia, in its application for a provisioning center license:
A copy of the proposed business plan for the establishment, including, but not
limited to the following: . . . (VII) Financial structure and financing of the proposed
medical marihuana establishments. . . . (17) a location area map, as measured
pursuant to section 1300.13(d) of the medical marihuana establishment and
surrounding area that identifies the relative locations and the distances, as measured
pursuant to Section 1300.13 (A).12
The Lansing Ordinance incorporates provisions and definitions of the Medical Marihuana Facilities
Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281 (as amended) (“MMFLA”) so as to:
“not limit an individual’s or entity’s rights under the [Michigan Medical Marihuana
Act (MMMA)], MMA or the [Michigan Tracking Act (MTA)]” and drafters intended
that “these acts supersede [the] ordinance where there is a conflict.”13
A Lansing applicant must then comply with the MMFLA.14 Pursuant to Sec. 402 of the MMFLA, in
evaluating an applicant for licensure, an applicant’s history of “noncompliance with any regulatory
requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction” will be considered.15 Pursuant to Section 409, a
licensure does not “create or vest any right, title, ,franchise, or other property interest.”
Here, this Hearing Officer will decline to review any supplemental materials provided by Appellant
in effort to cure application deficiencies. Per requirements in the Lansing Ordinance in Section
1300.5(B) and general state appellate practice, review on appeal is to the record originally provided
and reviewed. See e.g., Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 232-35 (1987).16 Thus, this review will address
the appeal on Appellant’s first basis and the application as originally provided.
MARKETING, ADVERTISING & PROMOTION
Appellant Argues that its marketing plan stated the type and included samples of signage that would
be used in the proposed location. The Appellant provides further statements that amount to “we
will comply” in its letter but does not show how/when this will occur. Exhibit A appears to be a
12 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.5(B).
13 City of Lansing, Michigan Ordinance No. 1217 Sec. 1300.2(C).
14 Id. at Sec. 1300.2(D).
15 MMFLA, MCL § 333.27402(3)(g).
16 In this case it discusses that an “exception that review is permissible ‘to prevent a miscarriage of justice.’” “Most
jurisdictions recognize the authority of an appellate court to review an issue, even where the issue was not preserved,
when some fundamental error would otherwise result in some egregious result.” However, that “such power of review
is to be exercised quite sparingly. Napier, 429 Mich. at 233. Under the facts presented, there is not a fundamental error
so as to trigger exercising supplementing on appeal.
85
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 5 of 7
PowerPoint in which Appellant details its social media plans and signs via coupons and billboards.
These are examples of possibilities, not an explanation or a documented plan of implementation.
An examiner, and thus this Hearing Officer, is unable to discern the details of Appellant’s marketing
plan because of its vague nature. There is no basis to award further points in this category.
TANGIBLE CAPITAL
The City defines tangible capital as an asset with a physical form. Thus, only such assets would count
in the calculation. The City considers Tangible Capital Investment to detail how a business is going
to invest its money and assets, not how many of them it has. Also considered in Tangible Capital
are building improvements to the interior and exterior. Not considered are products, packaging,
furniture, or other items that are readily removeable from the establishment. Appellant seems to
have confused this section with the financial resources section, even in its appeal. With its
application, Appellant included “TCI Plan.pdf” when it submitted its application. This pdf is
troubling, because the math does not add up in the cubes for each section. From this documentation
it would be impossible for the examiner to determine what the costs are respectively associated with.
For example, facility construction costs allegedly total $5.2 million, but when the numbers are added
from the box, it results in $2.2 million. What are the additional costs here? It is not the position of
an examiner or this Hearing Officer to explain incorrect math calculations and guess what should
be attributed where.
Further, Appellant argues resources in its argument for Tangible Capital. This is not the section for
which Appellant needs to demonstrate means. Rather, it is a section to demonstrate method and
how the means are allocated. Based on the information received, the initial score was appropriate.
FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
Appellant argues the means and credentials and means of the stakeholder. There appears to be no
information provided to correspond with generally acceptable accounting principles (GAAP). Even
considering the stakeholders means, there is no breakdown of how these means will be allocated.
Nor do Appellant’s materials demonstrate how much of that is due on day 1, to whom, and by what
means for startup. Thus, there is no basis to award additional points here.
INTEGRATION WITH GROWS
It is undisputed between the City and Appellant that Appellant has applied for 3 other locations.
This score is consistent with the City’s standard for this category. A factfinder must give deference
to an agency's findings of fact.”17 The factfinder may not set aside findings just because other facts
in the record could have come to a different conclusion.18 Thus, there is no basis to award additional
points here.
17 Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd., 293 Mich. App. 333, 341 (2011) (citing THM, Ltd. v Comm'r of Ins.,
176 Mich. App. 772, 776 (1989)).
18 Id.
86
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 6 of 7
CHARITABLE PLANS
Here, Appellant argues that a person on behalf of Appellant volunteered many hours on behalf of
the business and that Appellant will done $30,000 per year per facility it operates. Appellant is
lacking any documentation or proof of such arrangements or past practices of the business. Further,
this Hearing Officer is unable to reconcile who the person referenced in Appellant’s letter is. It does
not appear to be the stakeholder, and no nexus was provided. Thus, there is no merit to Appellant’s
argument here.
TOTAL COL JOBS
Appellant argues that it intends to employ up to 220 employees at all of its facilities. It appears,
however, from Appellant’s chart that 15 to 25 jobs will result from this facility. From the City’s
scoring criteria, these jobs are subtracted from the total. From that leaves 100 to 170 jobs being
generated by Appellant’s businesses. The score provided to Appellant reflects this calculation, and
there is no means to revise the score previously received.
STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCE – MARIHUANA BUSINESS
The bar for point allocation in this category is 5 years of combined industry business experience.
Referenced in Appellant’s letter is the stakeholder’s experience as an attorney. As described, it
appears that the stakeholder is involved in the practice of law, not as a marihuana business
proprietor. This category does not ask about tobacco experience, which Appellant highlights in its
argument. Appellant also fails to clarify or explain about its Bangor Township business but provides
a statement about it. There is no argument from Appellant showing marihuana business experience
at all. There is no basis for point allocation in this category.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD (NUMBER 27)
In this category, this Hearing Officer will “give deference to an agency's findings of fact.”19 This
section is not intended to relate to the buffering standards. The City relies on land use
demographics, which find that the property is within ¼ mile of residential zoning. In the scoring
criteria it was explained that this is “[d]istance between residential zoned areas and applicant’s
provisioning center. Evaluation is based on whether any residential property abuts the proposed
location, and if not, whether there is residential zoning within ¼ mile of the proposed location.”20
The argument that Appellant was not aware of this is without merit.
19 Edw. C. Levy Co., 293 Mich. App. at 341 (citing THM, Ltd. v Comm'r of Ins., 176 Mich. App. 772, 776 (1989)).
20 See FINAL Medical Marijuana Provisioning Centers Scoring Criteria,
https://lansingmi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7907/Final-Phase-2-Criteria---June-14-2019?bidId=. This document
has been readily available on the City’s website: https://lansingmi.gov/1674/Medical-Marijuana-Application-
Informatio.
87
Hilary M. Barnard
Attorney at Law
Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Appellant’s application for a provisioning center
license remain denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: October 8, 2019 _______________________________
Hilary M. Barnard, Hearing Officer
88
89