Laserfiche WebLink
regulations, which will impact regulations at the local level. He also said that the State Senate <br />and House both have proposals on the floor that will also address some of these issues. <br />He explained that in simple terms, the major change proposed by these ordinances would be to <br />have the regulations already established for medical marijuana facilities also apply to future adult <br />use or combo adult use/medical use facilities, thereby only having one license for legal <br />marijuana facilities. He said it will be up for discussion by this committee if they want to pursue <br />that route or develop separate licenses for adult use and medical use. He also mentioned that the <br />City currently has a prohibition on cultivation and processing, but now might be a good time to <br />re-evaluate if there is an interest in allowing cultivation and processing to happen in the city in a <br />way that would not be a nuisance to the community. <br />In response to a question from Chairman Bullock, Councilmember Shachner confirmed that the <br />Division of Cannabis Control is a regulatory agency and not law enforcement. <br />In response to another question from Chairman Bullock, there was a discussion around what <br />discretionary decisions regarding adult use marijuana the City can make under the structure of <br />the state law. <br />Councilmember Baker commented that when the Planning Commission was developing the <br />provisions for medical use, they had to take into consideration that people using the facilities <br />would have serious medical issues. Therefore, things such as site access, accessibility and <br />handicap parking were extremely important. He challenged the Council and Administration to <br />think creatively since adult use will be different in that respect, as users will not require the same <br />high level of accommodation. <br />Law Director Vargo then spoke to the Administration’s position on the proposed ordinances. He <br />explained one issue is that the Ordinance as written calls for the City to impose a fee to operate, <br />however the Ohio statue currently puts significant limitations on the City’s ability to impose such <br />a fee. He went into detail about potential issues that could arise if they do not carefully draft the <br />Ordinance in a way that ensures there is a substantive basis for a fee. <br />In response to a question from Councilmember Shachner, Director Vargo confirmed that <br />marijuana is still illegalat the federal leveland therefore it is a cash-based business. It was <br />discussed how this could put additional strain on public safety forces, which could be a potential <br />basis for the City’s fee structure. <br />Director Vargo stated that the legal counsel for the medical dispensaries have historically rejected <br />any local fees and have made successful legal arguments against such fees. He said the City will <br />need to think carefully about how to impose a fee and it will be most prudent to wait until the <br />Division of Cannabis Control defines the fee structure, to better inform the City’s approach. <br />In response to a question from Chairman Bullock, Councilmember Shachner said that the State’s <br />th <br />deadline to determine the fee structure is set for September 27. <br />Assistant Law Director Swallow explained that the second substantial issue identified is that the <br />Division of Cannabis Control has released a draft set of regulations that delineates between adult <br />2 <br /> <br />