A primary focal point of the meeting was the introduction and examination of ordinances related to cannabis retail businesses, presented by Operations Director Kyle Box. The council explored the constraints of a proposed ordinance, which limits the number of cannabis retail licenses to two, exclusive of medical cannabis businesses. This exclusion aligns with state statutes, allowing medical dispensaries additional operational freedom. The ordinance outlined specific buffer requirements, prohibiting cannabis retail outlets within certain proximities to schools, daycares, and treatment facilities.

The council also addressed technical amendments within the ordinance text, including correcting misreferences and narrowing the regulatory scope by removing certain terminology. Discussions clarified that medical cannabis businesses would not count toward the retail license cap, potentially allowing more businesses to operate under combined licenses. The council was informed that the state’s Office of Cannabis Management does not plan to issue retail licenses until later this year, emphasizing the need for a timely ordinance to facilitate local governance.

Public commentary on the ordinance featured a letter from attorney Susan Burns, representing a client with inquiries about the ordinance’s implications. Burns questioned the exclusivity of the two proposed licenses, raised concerns about the ordinance’s language, and argued against imposing strict liability on business owners for employee actions post-training. Additionally, a comment from Council Member Butterfield, though not present, was read, querying the city’s potential entry into the cannabis market.

City Attorney Robert responded to Burns’ comments, indicating that while some points merited consideration, the ordinance largely mirrored existing licensing regulations for other substances.

In parallel with the cannabis ordinance discussion, the council deliberated on zoning amendments necessary to accommodate cannabis businesses. Proposed zoning changes defined permissible areas for cannabis operations, supported by a map illustrating potential retail districts.

The meeting also introduced Alyssa Gambrell as the new Human Resource Director, selected from fifteen candidates. Gambrell, with experience in the mental health sector, expressed enthusiasm for her role, and the council welcomed her commitment to on-site engagement.

Beyond cannabis-related matters, a significant topic was the council’s open forum policy, particularly rule number five, which limits public comments to non-agenda items. This rule sparked debate among council members about the balance between structured governance and public engagement. Some members supported the rule, emphasizing the importance of informed decision-making post-staff presentations, while others advocated for more flexible public input opportunities.

Members discussed various approaches, such as moving the public forum to the end of meetings to maintain meeting flow or allowing public comments throughout discussions to foster trust and transparency.

Ultimately, a motion was made to remove rule number five, prompting further deliberation on its potential impact. The conversation underscored the importance of public engagement and the role of staff in clarifying misconceptions during forums. The council considered implementing a feedback system for staff to report on public inquiries.