Laserfiche WebLink
Citv Council Minutes <br />Octobei 16, 2023 <br />Page 7 <br />Mr. Carlton discussed retail operation locations and suggested mirroring it like the current tobacco <br />ordinance. <br />Mr. Pormer stated the State Office of Cannabis i�lanagement will oversee and manage cannabis <br />licensing, but the city can restrict where licensees can be located along `vith the number of licenses <br />that can be issued. He noted a minimum of t�vo licenses would be Yequired in Elk RiveY (one license <br />per 12,500 population). He stated it's currentlyr unknown how the licenses are going to be distributed <br />by the state, but the law outlines that applications must be prioritized toward people who are <br />considered social equinT applicants (which includes people who were convicted of possessing or <br />selling cannabis; famil�T members of someone convicted of possessing or selling cannabis; service- <br />disabled veterans, current or former members of the national guard, or anyT militaryT veteran or current <br />or former member of the national guard who lost honoYable status due to an offense involving the <br />possession or sale of cannabis; residents for at least five years of a neighboYhood that experienced a <br />disproportionatelyT large amount of cannabis enforcement; emerging farmers; and residents of at least <br />five yTears of census tracts `vith high povertyT rates). He further discussed the issues with cannabis not <br />being legal fedeYallyr and that credit caYd sales aYe not allowed. He noted the municipal liquor stores <br />could app1�T for licensing as well, but it would need to be separated from the liquor sales in the <br />building. <br />AttorneyT Brooksbank stated it's not known ho`v applicants will be selected yet but a scenario being <br />discussed is there could be a scoring process with bonus points given for social equityT applicants. <br />MayTor Dietz stated he likes the idea of the cityT keeping the t�vo licenses at the liquor stores but is <br />concerned about communit�r pushback. <br />Mr. Pormer stated it's beneficial for the following reasons: <br />■ cit�T can control the sale of cannabis. <br />■ proceeds would be reinvested back into the communityT versus the unknown `vith a private <br />owner. <br />■ securityT concerns with a higher cash ttrpe business. <br />Mr. PoYtneY stated the moYe licenses issued, the moYe excise tax the cityr would Yeceive from the state. <br />The cit�r could start `vith a limited number of licenses and open it up to more in the future once any <br />issues are ironed out. <br />Councilmember Westgaard expressed concerns about not setting anyT limit and how that could affect <br />the makeup of the communityT. He stated the revenue stream from the state could be minimal <br />compared to impacts in the communityT. He'd like to start with a limit on the number of licenses. He <br />is not sure he is interested in the cit�T becoming a cannabis dealer. <br />Councilmember Beyer stated he liked to see a limit of two. MayTor Dietz stated he would not like to <br />see more than four. <br />Chief Nierenhausen stated it's best to start slow and be conservative, especiallyT since the la�us are so <br />new. He stated any�thing more could create concerns with open and competing markets `vith increased <br />crime and otheY ancillaryr issues. He stated the gYeatest value that could come fYom the sales proceeds, <br />rowEnEo er <br />��►�u�� <br />