Audit - City and County of Denver

Audit review of 41 sample files showed 13 cases (32 percent) where the last issued Citylicense had expired with no evidence of further renewal. The state rules allow locallicensing authorities to refuse to accept an application for license renewal after the dateof expiration. An exception can be made for licenses that are not more than ninety daysexpired, at which time the licensee can file a late renewal application upon thepayment of a nonrefundable late application fee of $500 to the local licensing authority.In such cases, the rules allow the licensee to continue to operate until both the state andlocal licensing authorities have taken final action to approve or deny the licensee’s laterenewal application. However, even if a business falls into this category—in other words,their license is not more than ninety days expired, they have completed an applicationand paid the late application fee, but no final decision has been made by either thestate or the City—the Department does not follow up with the state regarding a finalrenewal decision.Department staff reported that they are starting to obtain email addresses fromapplicants and would like to use these to send notification via email that renewal is due.However, the Department has not yet begun to do this, nor has it established aprocedure for implementing this process. Delayed renewals result in late fees issued tolicensees, in addition to a requirement that the licensee must start at the beginning ofthe application process if their license is expired for more than ninety days. Sending MMbusinesses email notification of the impending expiration of their MM license would be aninexpensive way to improve customer service. However, the Department should alsodevelop policies and procedures for tracking license expiration dates and following upwith MM businesses that fail to renew their license in a timely manner. This proactiveapproach would help ensure that MM businesses operating in the community have acurrent license.Disparities between City and State Data, Processes, and RulesDiscrepancies Between City and State Data Make it Difficult to Ascertain the Number ofDenver Medical Marijuana Businesses – MM business data maintained by the City andthe state differs and are not compared or reconciled. Specifically, audit review of MMbusiness data generated on April 19, 2013, by combining data from the state MMED andthe Department system showed the following information.• The City’s system contains 739 MMbusiness records while the state’s datacontains records for 676 MM businessesin the City and County of Denver.• The City and the state databases usedifferent conventions for coding MMbusiness types including center, optionalcultivation premises, and medicalDiscrepancies with City datamake it difficult to know howmany MM business operate inthe City and County of Denvermarijuana-infused products manufacturer. Specifically, the state has three typesof MM centers called “Center- Type 1” through “Center- Type 3” whereas the Cityonly uses “MMC” to denote an MM center. Further, the state uses “InfusedCity and County of DenverP a g e 26