The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01262026 City Council Work Session NOTES Joint PZCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOTES (WITH P & Z) Called by: Mayor Sue McClure Time: 5:30pm Date: 01/26/2026 Council Members' Present: Sue McClure, Mike Calhoon, Lori Draper, John Osenga, Julie Crites, Robert Barnwell, Casie Warner Present: Jodi Kurtz, Kris Peck, Danny Meunick, Courtney Bringhurst, Jamie Crocker, Kat Sorensen, P & Z Commissioners Present: Claire Sullivan, Brenan Hornseth, Nathaniel Charbonneau, Vanessa Verhey, June Pemberton, Rhonda Hubbard Purpose: Marijuana Regulations Danny Spoke to the Background • Planning and Zoning held multiple work sessions throughout 2024 to review marijuana code language. • The city's current marijuana ordinance dates to 2016, approximately two years after state legalization. • A joint work session was held one year ago; this meeting served as a follow-up to continuing coordination between bodies. • Staff outlined four possible outcomes from this meeting: 1. Identifying different policy pathways • Legislative and Ordinance changes • Prohibited future Marijuana establishments • Refer marijuana policies to the voters • Current framework 2. Summarize recommendations from the city 3. Organizational structure of Code 4. Generic Framework to guide conversation Code Organization o Title 15 should address land use and zoning (where businesses are located). o Title 8 should address business operations and regulations (how businesses operate). • Avoid regulating operational details through the land use table. • Use state -defined marijuana establishment definitions for clarity and consistency. d • Consider approaches that avoid creating new non -conforming uses, which can carry long-term implications. Planning & Zoning Commission Input • Significant work has been completed; proposed changes do not affect existing businesses. • Draft ordinance was intended to correct gaps and redundancies (land table vs operationally). • Commissioners (Charboneau) acknowledged that endorsements for indoor/outdoor consumption and drive-throughs are better addressed in Title 8 rather than Title 15. • Rhonda Hubbard added concerns that were discussed: o Increasing THC potency and potential public health impacts o Separation distances from sensitive uses o Indoor consumption conflicts with smoke -free laws o Need for updated local regulation due to extensive changes in state law since 2016 City Council Discussion • Broad agreement on maintaining a clear separation between Title 15 (land use) and Title 8 (operations). • Strong interest in exploring: o A cap on the number of marijuana establishments, like liquor license limits (Mike Calhoon will be purposing an ordinance a # of retail outlets in the city) o Prohibiting future drive -through marijuana facilities • Recognition that potency regulation is complex and may require coordination with evolving state standards. (Barnwell questioned) • Desire to be proactive in addressing youth exposure and public health concerns. • Suggestion to invite healthcare and prevention professionals for informational input. • Discussion of requesting a temporary pause on new state licenses while local code updates are underway (with AMCO) (Suggested by Draper) Emerging Consensus & Next Steps • (Warner) Address Title 8 operational regulations first, then finalize Title 15 zoning updates to ensure consistency. — Next Stage — Planning & Zoning vote on this then back to Council • • • • • o Reviewing feasibility of an AMCO licensing - Stay o Scheduling additional work sessions focused on Title 8, first (Council) o Exploring a cap on marijuana establishments o Evaluating drive -through prohibitions Planning and Zoning ordinance revisions may follow once Council policy direction on operations is clarified. Council members expressed broad support for a cap on the number of marijuana retail establishments, viewing it as a first step that addresses many community concerns. The cap was discussed to: o Avoid creating non -conforming uses for existing businesses. o Provide regulatory stability while allowing flexibility to adjust in the future as population or market conditions change. Consensus emerged around: o Proceeding with a numeric cap (initially two establishments) rather than a population -based formula. o Acknowledgment that the cap can be amended later through ordinance if circumstances change. Council noted that code is inherently adaptable and that future councils retain authority to revise regulations. Procedural Guidance & Timeline • Staff outlined the process used previously for liquor -related Title 8 ordinances: 1. Council discussion and direction to proceed 2. Drafting by administration and clerk 3. Ordinance introduction 4. Public hearing 5. Adoption • Proposed timeline: o Introduction: Second Council meeting in February o Enactment: First Council meeting in March • Council provided general direction to move forward with drafting a Title 8 cap ordinance, similar in structure to alcohol license limitations. Relationship Between Title 8 and Title 15 d • It was clarified that: o The cap ordinance would move to the front of the line but does not eliminate or invalidate Planning & Zoning's ongoing Title 15 work. o Title 8 (operations) should be addressed first, followed by final Title 15 (land use) updates. • Planning & Zoning's draft ordinance remains intact and may be refined once Title 8 policy direction is finalized. Discussion of Licensing "Stay" • Council discussed the possibility of requesting a temporary pause on AMCO while local ordinances are finalized. • Staff agreed to research: o Whether a stay requires coordination with AMCO. o Whether it can be implemented informally or requires formal Council action. • Direction was given for staff to explore this option and report back as needed. Public Input Highlights Public commenters strongly supported clearer Title 8 regulations and raised the following themes: • Public Health & Youth Impacts o Increased THC potency compared to past decades. o Rising rates of cannabis -induced psychosis and emergency room visits. o Data showing increased youth cannabis use post -legalization and links to long- term mental health outcomes. • Drive -Through & On -Site Consumption o Calls to prohibit drive -through marijuana sales. o Concerns about on -site and outdoor consumption, particularly in relation to smoke -free laws. o Suggestions for sealed packaging and open -container -style rules if drive-throughs are ever allowed. • Regulatory Gaps o Need for clear Title 8 rules so the public understands where to bring concerns. o Desire for proactive regulation in anticipation of state -level deregulation (delivery, mobile sales, edibles in restaurants). • Future Review o Recommendation for regular (annual or biennial) review of marijuana regulations due to rapid policy changes. Outcome • Council provided clear directions to proceed with drafting a Title 8 ordinance establishing a cap on marijuana retail establishments. • Staff indicated they have sufficient directions to move forward. • The work session concluded with acknowledgment of Planning & Zoning's efforts, appreciation for public participation, and agreement that separating Title 8 and Title 15 responsibilities has clarified the path forward.