[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RE: Scheduling the changes to Boulder's marijuana regulations

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Cowles, Macon

Tom, I understand the Home Rule ruling by Judge Klein at p. 143, where he stated this:

It is therefore clear to this Court, and it hereby concludes, that Defendants do have the
delegable authority pursuant to state law to suspend and revoke medical marijuana business
licenses previously issued under their local authority and regulatory scheme.

OK: Home Rule cities have delegable authority to suspend and revoke licenses. But does the procedure for suspending or revoking a license nonetheless have to comply with  the requirement of C.R.S. § 12-43.3-601(1) that local jurisdiction provide, after investigation but before revocation or suspension, “a public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard.”

I gather that the position of the City that no public hearing is required before the license is suspended or revoked—that the power of Home Rule cities is such that not only do Home Rule cities have the power to suspend or revoke, but they do not have to provide any public hearing at all.

Macon Cowles
Boulder City Council Member
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
CowlesM at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:CowlesM at bouldercolorado.gov>
(303) 638-6884

On Nov 9, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Carr, Thomas <CarrT at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:CarrT at bouldercolorado.gov>> wrote:

Macon,

I am a little confused by your question.  The first issue addressed in Judge Klein’s decision was the question whether C.R.S. § 12-43.3-601(1) required a public hearing before revocation.  Judge Klein held that the city’s code expressly conflicted with the state law and as a matter of local concern, the city’s code prevailed.   You can find this discussion at packet pages 141 through 143.

Tom

From: Cowles, Macon
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:56 AM
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>>
Subject: MJ Regs Ordinance No. 8081 - Question re administrative procedure currently in place

On September 29, Council voted to add to the pending ordinance 8081 a de novo review by the Muni Court for revocations and suspensions as well as a de novo review by the court for fines and violations.

The staff memo for November 10 asserts that limiting review for revocations and suspensions to CRCP 106 complies with state law and the requirement for Due Process. Staff cites Judge Klein’s decision in Boulder Kind Care in support of this.

Judge Klein does not, however, discuss whether the current administrative procedure used by Boulder in revocations or suspensions complies with the CRS 12-43.3-601(1) requirement that local jurisdiction provide, after investigation but before revocation or suspension, “a public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard."

The September 29 amendment provides such a public hearing. Please help us understand how the current administrative procedure (without the amendment Council authorized on September 29) offers a public hearing.

Thanks very much.

Macon Cowles
Boulder City Council Member
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
CowlesM at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:CowlesM at bouldercolorado.gov>
(303) 638-6884