SOUTHWICK — With four applicants vying for the town’s two available retail cannabis permits, Select Board member Diane Gale convinced the board’s two other members, despite their initial misgivings, that they should interview the top three after their applications are scored by the board.
“You’re not going to convince me otherwise,” Gale said.
“It’s still my impression that we should interview all four,” said board member Douglas Moglin. He said that some of the applicants may look good on paper, but there should be other considerations.
“Some of [the applicants] may look weaker, but what if a passionate person comes in and explains their business plan and what they’re trying to do? It could be very convincing,” Moglin said.
Agreeing with Moglin, board Chair Jason Perron said the personal interviews of the applicants “hold weight with me.”
Gale countered that the interviews were only intended to fill gaps if there were questions about the applicants’ written submissions to the town’s request for information.
“The interviews were designed to expand on any incomplete information you’re you might not have understood or need a little bit more on what was submitted,” she said.
When the town began accepting applications in May, the prospective retailers were asked to respond to a series of questions developed by Gale after she researched how other cities and towns picked its applicants.
Their answers are to be scored individually by the board members using a rubric Gale developed during her research. Questions in the request for information covered topics such as:
- An applicant’s knowledge of the cannabis licensing procedures.
- Demonstration of prior experience in commercial cannabis ventures or other relevant experience, and “high quality and well-formulated management and operations plans.”
- A security plan, and a plan to “prevent diversion of marijuana to minors and/or to the illegal market.”
- An “acceptable” development timeline and ability to open the retail operation.
- “Financial commitments and other proposals for positive community impact,” and plans to address potential townwide impacts and propose “acceptable mitigation measures.”
The board also required applicants to identify a proposed location for the operation that is appropriate for the use, and provide estimates of potential parking and traffic concerns.
Arguing in favor of only interviewing the top three, Gale said she didn’t know how the applicant with the lowest score “could rise to the top” as a result of the interview.
“What’s the scoring supposed to do? It’s supposed to rank the strongest candidate,” she said, then adding that “theoretically, the [two top applications] could be so strong there’s no need for an interview.”
Moglin suggested having the interview scored as part of the selection process, not broken out separately as it is now, and referenced only if needed. Gale did not agree.
“This is changing the intent of the entire process, again. The first time was because we didn’t like the outcome,” Gale said.
She was referring to her earlier decision to remove from consideration a fifth application, submitted by town resident James Jaron, the owner of Holyoke Cannabis. Jaron submitted what Gale considered an incomplete application to open The Southwick Dispensary at the former Roma Restaurant on College Highway. She left Jaron out when she presented her fellow Select Board members with a list of four finalists.
Perron and Moglin were both leaning toward including Jaron as a finalist, despite the incomplete application, until Jaron withdrew his application on July 15.
Before the board reached a consensus on interviewing the applicants with the top three scores, Gale made it clear she was standing firm.
“You can’t convince me that the lowest scoring [applicant] was able to submit a qualified, best produced set of documents [and] couldn’t do that on par with [the other applicants],” she said. “Talking to me is not going to convince me they’re good businesspeople.”
Sensing the impasse, Moglin said the board needed to reach a consensus as it has when making other difficult decisions. Gale held firm at interviewing the top three.
“I can live with that,” Moglin said, and Perron agreed.
The board the approved interviewing three.
After the vote, Moglin asked about the social equity applicants, of which there are two, according to Gale. He asked if that means there are two categories of applicants. Gale said yes.
“Then how to you pick three? [Doesn’t] that end up with an imbalance?” Moglin asked.
Gale said that it was possible both top applicants could have social equity consideration. Moglin asked what would happen if the two applicants who don’t have social equity consideration are the top two scorers.
Gale said even if that was to happen, one of the social equity applicants must be offered a retail permit, which would start the process of negotiating the host agreement with the town.
The board members will provide their scores on the applications to Chief Administrative Officer Nicole Parker, who will compile the results. The top three will be announced during the board’s meeting on Aug 5.
The four applicants vying for the three interviews are:
- 681 College Highway Inc., which will do business as the Cannabis Hut at 687 College Highway, across the street from the town’s public works yard.
- Pioneer Valley Trading Co., which was submitted by Southwick’s Michael Paul Albert and Richard Fiore. They are principals at the existing Pioneer Valley Trading Co. retail cannabis operation on Southampton Road in Westfield. They would move into the Southwick Community Episcopal Church at 660 College Highway if chosen to negotiate the agreement.
- Responsible and Compliant Southwick LLC, which would do business as Haven. The application was submitted by Westfield’s Mark S. Dupuis. Its president is Brian Kuchachick, who is a co-owner of Bellefleur, a cannabis grow operation in Blandford. If granted the permit, Haven plans to open in the Family Dollar building on College Highway. Gale has identified Haven as a social equity applicant.
- Sunshine Cannabis Inc., submitted by West Springfield lawyer Kaily Hepburn. Her application didn’t include a location, but Gale has said because she is a social equity applicant, identifying a business location wasn’t required.
Be the first to comment