Eat Your Weedies
Member
Maybe THEY do the math using the floor plan and lighting plan you give them and if your watts per sq ft, plants per sq ft and/or grams produced per sq ft do not fall within their parameters, out you go!
The I-502 Application Process and Operating plan
- Thread starter Two Year Old Sasquatch
- Start date
SunJ
Member
It's probably more sinister than that. If you're not connected to the right people behind the curtain, they will reject you for any given reason ensuring the people with money keep their money. I've been scratching my head the entire way through as to why they were putting so many ridiculous "rules" in place. Looking at what they're doing elsewhere with legislation, the answer became clear. They made a system so convoluted that they can cause a fault anywhere they want for any reason and deny your license. And now, they've identified their location to assist in the elimination of potential competition in the future!
Eat Your Weedies
Member
I hate to be a wet blanket but because of that 2 million sq ft canopy limit, how can they issue any licenses until all the applications have been sorted through and actual floor plans sent in. They issue 2 million sq ft to the first 100 Tier 3 applicants processed and passed and that's it? Tough luck everybody else?Or they issue you a license and come back later and say hey wait a minute you have to reduce your canopy drastically? Nah they are gonna wait. No doubt they are thinking over a lottery as well. So a June start is likely for you as well
Eat Your Weedies
Member
Can someone explain why they used personal names for business names instead of the name they chose. -- mine included. Must be hundreds in the same boat. I e -mailed them and they said they would change it but never did
Got a flier in the mail for Cannarisk selling general liability insurance-- I was just going to go with Farmers claiming I am a wholesale nursery. Should be about $500 a year. I think I will first pick an insurance company at random, tell them I am growing pot and see what the reaction is. If it is drastic, I just tell the next guy I am growing basil
Got a flier in the mail for Cannarisk selling general liability insurance-- I was just going to go with Farmers claiming I am a wholesale nursery. Should be about $500 a year. I think I will first pick an insurance company at random, tell them I am growing pot and see what the reaction is. If it is drastic, I just tell the next guy I am growing basil
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
I plan on using Analytics360 and mailing samples to them.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
They won't make reductions for a year or so. They have to go off the actual canopy and they won't know what that is until at least the first season has been completed and those businesses that fail are gone.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
Is there news on this I can read?
SunJ
Member
It is my understanding that after the first year, they will assess what they have vs what they need. If they determine the 2 million sq ft to be adequate, they will instruct all producers to reduce canopy by the % needed to acquire the targeted limit. So for the sake of easy math... if they have 4 million and want 2 million, they will instruct all producers to reduce production at their facility by 50%.
Hopefully, they realize once they see some actual numbers that their limit is not only ridiculously low, but completely unsustainable.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
Exactly! and they will see 2mil won't be enough.
freeflow
Member
Has anyone had any luck locating a reasonable seed to sale tracking program? I have found programs for $300-500 a month, which just seems a little steep for me. I am looking into just designing an excel spreadsheet that will track the info for me. I don’t know exactly to what degree they want other than, a plant id, date plant id started, watering schedule per id, nutrients added to watering and amount watered per batch of nutrients, weight of clippings removed to be disposed during an id’s life cycle, disease (if any listed disease and how treated) per id, date plant id was harvested, weight of usable product per plant id and weight of unusable product to be destroyed per plant id.
I believe that would basically cover what they want and only cost me the time to design the needed spreadsheets. Inserting data won’t be done via a scanner like the $300-500 programs but instead will need to be manually entered as you go but that shaves another expense as well. I have looked over other known seed to sale programs and yes they do go into great detail and help with scheduling but ultimately I feel it is a waste of my money that can be used better elsewhere.
Any thought on this? Positive or negative would be appreciated. If you think there is other critical information they have requested that I let slip for tracking please let me know. I believe in the Linux system: “Open Source”
Another topic I was wondering about was the testing requirements. I am located around the Spokane area and as of yet I have not seen any labs that have opened their doors for new business owners. I am however suppose to list how I am planning on complying with testing and other than stating that I plan on sending off product to be tested, I have no way of naming a business at this time. Has anyone else located around the Spokane area found a testing company that I have overlooked?
As I have searched around for a security system that will be compliant for a tier 2, I find that in all practicality, it is not going to be very helpful for an outdoor producer. Yah sure, I can be compliant with placing cameras around my planned area to capture video up to 20' but what good is it going to be when my location has just been publicly announced to every Joe blow out there and to circumvent my security system detecting who they are, they simply just put on a $5 ski mask. (This in itself is enough for a thread of its own)
My real question is this: Have any of you been able to locate a system that will handle a tier 2? Just a little insight, I plan on having an area that is roughly 130' x 35' and by my calculations I would need 16 cameras to cover my area. 8 Cameras to cover inside the fence line and 8 cameras to cover outside of perimeter. Now I am not all that tech savvy when it comes to video systems but I know for 16 cameras to record 24hrs a day and be stored on the device for 45 days, these devices are going to use up a lot of memory. Most systems I have seen are capable of either a 2 or 3 TB hard drive installed. Is that really enough memory for 8 cameras? I plan on having 2 systems, 1 system for the 8 outside facing cameras, 1 system for inside the fence line. Any input would be helpful either by systems you have found or hard drive storage amounts you have calculated to be adequate would be appreciated.
Overall I think they have crammed in so many rules and regulations to try and regulate everything that they border on failing all together.
I believe that would basically cover what they want and only cost me the time to design the needed spreadsheets. Inserting data won’t be done via a scanner like the $300-500 programs but instead will need to be manually entered as you go but that shaves another expense as well. I have looked over other known seed to sale programs and yes they do go into great detail and help with scheduling but ultimately I feel it is a waste of my money that can be used better elsewhere.
Any thought on this? Positive or negative would be appreciated. If you think there is other critical information they have requested that I let slip for tracking please let me know. I believe in the Linux system: “Open Source”
Another topic I was wondering about was the testing requirements. I am located around the Spokane area and as of yet I have not seen any labs that have opened their doors for new business owners. I am however suppose to list how I am planning on complying with testing and other than stating that I plan on sending off product to be tested, I have no way of naming a business at this time. Has anyone else located around the Spokane area found a testing company that I have overlooked?
As I have searched around for a security system that will be compliant for a tier 2, I find that in all practicality, it is not going to be very helpful for an outdoor producer. Yah sure, I can be compliant with placing cameras around my planned area to capture video up to 20' but what good is it going to be when my location has just been publicly announced to every Joe blow out there and to circumvent my security system detecting who they are, they simply just put on a $5 ski mask. (This in itself is enough for a thread of its own)
My real question is this: Have any of you been able to locate a system that will handle a tier 2? Just a little insight, I plan on having an area that is roughly 130' x 35' and by my calculations I would need 16 cameras to cover my area. 8 Cameras to cover inside the fence line and 8 cameras to cover outside of perimeter. Now I am not all that tech savvy when it comes to video systems but I know for 16 cameras to record 24hrs a day and be stored on the device for 45 days, these devices are going to use up a lot of memory. Most systems I have seen are capable of either a 2 or 3 TB hard drive installed. Is that really enough memory for 8 cameras? I plan on having 2 systems, 1 system for the 8 outside facing cameras, 1 system for inside the fence line. Any input would be helpful either by systems you have found or hard drive storage amounts you have calculated to be adequate would be appreciated.
Overall I think they have crammed in so many rules and regulations to try and regulate everything that they border on failing all together.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
We negotiated with Biotrack THC and got the costs down a bit. Check out the Q-see camera systems. You can always add a slave unit to increase memory. The problem with taking shortcuts is getting the state's approval but as long as your in compliance you should be good.
SunJ
Member
Yep. This is exactly what I was saying. And you're seeing on top of that the 'hidden costs' of doing business that they tucked in there to insure failure of the smaller upstarts.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
You will be OK with an unattached building.
Two Year Old Sasquatch
Well-Known Member
DAMN! Good thing I only built one facility!!!!
Eat Your Weedies
Member
How exactly will they work that out- will they reduce the TIER maximum by 30% or will they require each and every grower to reduce their output by 30%. If they do that why not over estimate the amount I think I will produce by 30%.Then when they hit me with a 30% cut, I'll be back to my original estimate
As for the tracking plan, I thought we just downloaded the software shown on the LCB website, set up a secure account and logged on to record data? No?
I am a Tier 1 and plan to produce only about 1000 ounces a year. My facility will only hold 100 plants at any given time an easy one man operation and the operation cost is only 15 k a year
Still haven't heard a thing from the LCB
Eat Your Weedies
Member
What kinds of questions can I expect when they finally give me a phone interview.Will they ask about costs,the amount I think I can produce, the type of lighting- just how specific do they get on the operating plan. Been working on one and refining it for a year now!
Are people being screened out based on the phone interview alone?
Are people being screened out based on the phone interview alone?
colonuggs
Well-Known Member
Washington cuts size, number of legal pot grows
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Published: Feb 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM PST Last Updated: Feb 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM PST l
SEATTLE (AP) — Washington state is dealing with a glut of would-be legal marijuana growers by cutting back on the number of licenses it issues and the maximum size of pot farms — a decision that upset some applicants who have been working to secure leases or build out warehouses with dreams of larger operations.
The state Liquor Control Board received more than 2,800 applications from people hoping to grow the weed that will supply Washington's recreational marijuana stores when they open later this year. In all, the applications would have covered 36 million square feet of marijuana plants, vastly more than the 2 million the board wanted produced initially.
To solve the problem, the three-member board voted unanimously Wednesday to limit applicants to one license apiece, rather than three. And it decided to allow growers to produce 70 percent of the maximum growing space they applied for. For example, those who applied for three of the largest licenses — up to 90,000 square feet total — will be limited to just one license enabling them to grow 21,000 square feet, at least at first.
"Everybody recognized we had too many applicants and too much canopy," board director Rick Garza said afterward.
The state is in uncharted territory as it tries to allow enough marijuana to be grown so that the prices will compete with the black market, but not so much that excess pot finds its way out of state — a concern the U.S. Justice Department cited when it said it would allow the legalization experiments in Washington and Colorado to go forward. In Colorado, where taxed, legal pot sales began on Jan. 1, officials licensed existing medical marijuana shops to sell weed for recreational use. There is no cap on production.
Washington expects to issue its first pot-growing licenses on March 1, Garza said.
Most of the applicants were not planning to use the full amount of space they applied for, Garza said, and so limiting the size of their growing operations or the number of their licenses didn't much faze them. If the state turns out to need more weed, the board could boost the growers up to the full amount of a single license — 30,000 square feet instead of 21,000, for the largest grows — or eventually start issuing multiple licenses.
But the board's decision Wednesday upset some prospective growers who applied for multiple licenses with plans of growing up to 90,000 square feet of cannabis, said Hilary Bricken, a Seattle marijuana business attorney whose clients include about 10 such growers. They have been securing leases and preparing their business plans based on the idea that they would be able to produce that much, she said.
"They are not happy," Bricken said.
The board's decision created whiplash for applicants: They were supposed to identify a location for their marijuana business that complied with state law on buffer zones around schools and playgrounds, and many struggled to secure lease agreements or purchase such properties. Now, some have discovered their efforts were at least partially for naught.
Dan Anglin, a spokesman for a Seattle group that is under contract to buy the 180,000-square-foot former K2 Sports building on Vashon Island, said he was stunned. The group has applied for three 30,000-square-foot licenses, and it was prepared to spend $5 million purchasing the building and preparing it for their legal marijuana and packaging operations.
Their contract is conditioned on a zoning issued being resolved. If it is, they'll likely find themselves with a big, expensive building they can only partially use, Anglin said.
"We found what we thought was a perfect building based on the 90,000 square feet that we were planning on growing," Anglin said. "We have to take a hard look at this."
Jeremy Moberg, who was hoping to grow 90,000 square feet outdoors in Okanogan County, said he had spent $350,000 on security fencing and other preparations.
He suggested that Washington is in for some marijuana shortages, not to mention a big carbon footprint, because the board hasn't given priority to the most competent growers or outdoor operations capable of producing the most marijuana with the least electricity.
Garza noted that the board always reserved the right to limit grow sizes if total production exceeded 2 million square feet.
Alison Holcomb, the Seattle lawyer who drafted the legal pot law, said pot growers needed to be prepared for such changes.
"The reality of the situation is that this is and has been a high-risk industry," Holcomb said. "All along the way, the LCB has been very transparent about what its goals have been. If you did the math, you knew weeks ago we were talking about having at least 10 times as much square footage as the Liquor Control Board wanted to allow."
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Published: Feb 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM PST Last Updated: Feb 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM PST l
SEATTLE (AP) — Washington state is dealing with a glut of would-be legal marijuana growers by cutting back on the number of licenses it issues and the maximum size of pot farms — a decision that upset some applicants who have been working to secure leases or build out warehouses with dreams of larger operations.
The state Liquor Control Board received more than 2,800 applications from people hoping to grow the weed that will supply Washington's recreational marijuana stores when they open later this year. In all, the applications would have covered 36 million square feet of marijuana plants, vastly more than the 2 million the board wanted produced initially.
To solve the problem, the three-member board voted unanimously Wednesday to limit applicants to one license apiece, rather than three. And it decided to allow growers to produce 70 percent of the maximum growing space they applied for. For example, those who applied for three of the largest licenses — up to 90,000 square feet total — will be limited to just one license enabling them to grow 21,000 square feet, at least at first.
"Everybody recognized we had too many applicants and too much canopy," board director Rick Garza said afterward.
The state is in uncharted territory as it tries to allow enough marijuana to be grown so that the prices will compete with the black market, but not so much that excess pot finds its way out of state — a concern the U.S. Justice Department cited when it said it would allow the legalization experiments in Washington and Colorado to go forward. In Colorado, where taxed, legal pot sales began on Jan. 1, officials licensed existing medical marijuana shops to sell weed for recreational use. There is no cap on production.
Washington expects to issue its first pot-growing licenses on March 1, Garza said.
Most of the applicants were not planning to use the full amount of space they applied for, Garza said, and so limiting the size of their growing operations or the number of their licenses didn't much faze them. If the state turns out to need more weed, the board could boost the growers up to the full amount of a single license — 30,000 square feet instead of 21,000, for the largest grows — or eventually start issuing multiple licenses.
But the board's decision Wednesday upset some prospective growers who applied for multiple licenses with plans of growing up to 90,000 square feet of cannabis, said Hilary Bricken, a Seattle marijuana business attorney whose clients include about 10 such growers. They have been securing leases and preparing their business plans based on the idea that they would be able to produce that much, she said.
"They are not happy," Bricken said.
The board's decision created whiplash for applicants: They were supposed to identify a location for their marijuana business that complied with state law on buffer zones around schools and playgrounds, and many struggled to secure lease agreements or purchase such properties. Now, some have discovered their efforts were at least partially for naught.
Dan Anglin, a spokesman for a Seattle group that is under contract to buy the 180,000-square-foot former K2 Sports building on Vashon Island, said he was stunned. The group has applied for three 30,000-square-foot licenses, and it was prepared to spend $5 million purchasing the building and preparing it for their legal marijuana and packaging operations.
Their contract is conditioned on a zoning issued being resolved. If it is, they'll likely find themselves with a big, expensive building they can only partially use, Anglin said.
"We found what we thought was a perfect building based on the 90,000 square feet that we were planning on growing," Anglin said. "We have to take a hard look at this."
Jeremy Moberg, who was hoping to grow 90,000 square feet outdoors in Okanogan County, said he had spent $350,000 on security fencing and other preparations.
He suggested that Washington is in for some marijuana shortages, not to mention a big carbon footprint, because the board hasn't given priority to the most competent growers or outdoor operations capable of producing the most marijuana with the least electricity.
Garza noted that the board always reserved the right to limit grow sizes if total production exceeded 2 million square feet.
Alison Holcomb, the Seattle lawyer who drafted the legal pot law, said pot growers needed to be prepared for such changes.
"The reality of the situation is that this is and has been a high-risk industry," Holcomb said. "All along the way, the LCB has been very transparent about what its goals have been. If you did the math, you knew weeks ago we were talking about having at least 10 times as much square footage as the Liquor Control Board wanted to allow."
Eat Your Weedies
Member
What I read from the story is that a tier one will have the maximum amount of canopy reduced to 1400 sq feet from 2000--- NOT if I applied for 1000 sq feet, I now only get 700. So if I was going to use less than 1400 sq ft anyway I will not be affected?
SunJ
Member
As small of an operation as you are describing, I think you will be okay. My question to you is; did you apply as a T1 with just 1000 ft of canopy, or did you go for the full 1999?
I'm curious as to who all the big time mega-corp investors were that were "not happy" when their plans were reduced? I had some interactions with Bricken, but never pulled the trigger on retaining. My facility was only going to be operating at 1/4 capacity while keeping under 99 plants on site. 4200 total square feet was my goal, right about center of T2.
