A primary focus of the meeting was the establishment of a lottery system for cannabis licenses. The board deliberated on whether to hold one comprehensive lottery or two distinct lotteries to accommodate various business types. The board’s inclination was to conduct two lotteries, one earlier in the summer to expedite the initiation of microbusinesses and medical cannabis combination businesses, recognizing the urgency for these entities to secure locations and commence operations. This proposal aimed to balance the interests of different business types while responding to the high demand for registrations in the microbusiness sector.

The commissioners also engaged in a conversation about the mechanics of the lottery system, including who would oversee the process and how entries would be allocated. They considered allowing retailers drawn first in the lottery to receive multiple entries if they controlled multiple locations, although this raised concerns about limiting competition in less populated areas. The board acknowledged the need for coordination with local zoning authorities to ensure proposed business locations met city ordinances, and discussed the potential for multiple applicants within the same district, especially in townships with limited commercial land.

The contentious issue of ownership structure and background checks for cannabis businesses was another major topic. The board explored how ownership percentages affect control and compliance, particularly concerning health violations and background checks. There was consensus that the principal owner—those with a majority stake or operational control—should be the focal point for background checks, leveraging state requirements that mandate disclosure of all owners, managers, directors, and officers. An expert confirmed that the state already conducts comprehensive checks through third-party services. This proposal aimed to alleviate administrative burdens while ensuring thorough compliance with existing regulations.

In addressing regulatory compliance, the board recognized the complexities of ownership in limited liability companies (LLCs) and the necessity of knowing the identities of all owners for effective enforcement. Concerns were expressed about the need for additional local requirements, given the state’s thorough oversight. The board was divided on whether to rely solely on state checks or implement additional local scrutiny, reflecting differing views on the adequacy of current oversight measures.

The public comment section provided critical insights from local business owners, such as Mitch Daniels and Marin Schroeder, who emphasized the importance of supporting local cannabis microbusinesses to bolster Rochester’s economy. Daniels proposed an early lottery specifically for microbusinesses to ensure they have a fair opportunity in the market. Schroeder, echoing Daniels’ sentiments, appreciated the county’s serious approach to cannabis regulation and expressed optimism for resolutions that would benefit local businesses.