By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
Members of the Glasgow Common Council who voted on Monday evening in favor of prohibiting cannabis businesses that could cultivate, produce, process and/or dispense medical marijuana or act as a safety compliance facility for it within the city limits primarily took the “wait-and-see” stance, complaining that there are too many unanswered procedural and other questions about allowing them to operate here.
The three who voted against the first reading of an ordinance prohibiting such businesses argued primarily that doing so would create an inconvenience for individuals who would be prescribed marijuana for medicinal purposes and would have to travel elsewhere to get the product they need.
Councilman Freddie Norris, a pharmacist who is also a minister, made the initial motion in favor of the ordinance, with Councilman Terry Bunnell providing the second. Almost immediately then, Councilwoman Marna Kirkpatrick asked Kevin Myatt to come to the podium and speak on the subject. Myatt is the planning director for the Joint City-County Planning Commission of Barren County and is among those who had attended a training on the issue.
Kirkpatrick said they had some training as council members, but the next day “some other numbers came down that wasn’t in our training.”
“It’s still a pretty fluid situation,” Myatt said, adding that, as of Thursday, the state changed some of the capacity figures with regard to the amounts that can be prescribed. Ingestibles are the main thing that would be prescribed, he said.
The Kentucky League of Cities had provided some information May 23 from Sam Flynn, executive director of the Kentucky Medical Cannabis Program, he said.
“Since May 23, those numbers have changed,” Myatt said. “I think what [City Attorney Rich Alexander] can also explain to you is that this ordinance as you’re reading it does not prohibit an individual from partaking. It is simply prohibiting the selling and growing of it.”
He said the staff of the planning commission would do whatever is needed of them based on the decision of the local government.
“If you do opt in [to allow the businesses], we’ll have to create some ordinances that go into effect – where this is going to be permitted at,” he said.
It needs to be understood that only a total of 16 cultivators of the product, i.e. growers, 10 processors and 48 dispensaries will be permitted across the 120 counties of the commonwealth, and they would be divided among the regions, so only a total of four will be allowed in the nine-county region that includes Barren County. He emphasized that the location – Barren County or any of its three incorporated cities – if they opt in, would not be licensed, but rather it would be the individual or the business who would be licensed to operate. When that entity applies, they must provide an address and then a lottery drawing is to be held to determine which ones can obtain a license within any given area, he said.
“There is no guarantee that you will get one, [that] an individual will locate one here,” Myatt said. “I just want to reiterate that this does not prohibit an individual from being able to partake in it if they have the medicinal card that’s issued by the state to be able to receive it ….”
That person with the prescription could purchase it at any licensed dispensary in the state, but the product may only be used at that person’s home.
“You cannot use this substance anywhere outside of your residence,” Myatt said. “One other thing, too, that’s very important to note: If you opt out [of allowing the businesses to operate], you can always opt in at any moment. If … you put this on a ballot and it gets voted down …, you can’t bring it back up for three years.”
He said that although they can wait an opt in later, once they opt in, they can never opt back out. He added that the reason it’s being brought to them for consideration now is that the window for applications from the potential businesses to be accepted by the state is July 1 through Aug. 30.
Norris said it seems to be moving very fast with information changing every day, and the federal government is considering changing marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug, which would change the outlook for anyone growing it.
“It seems like we need to take a deep breath and back up a little bit,” he said.
Myatt said he was advocating in either direction.
He also noted that the city would not be collecting any additional or special fees from the distribution of these products.
Bunnell asked whether he or the city’s tax administrator, Nick Hurt, would have an estimate on the cost of administering such a program, and Myatt said he didn’t and he wasn’t sure Hurt would have anything concrete, either. The state does require that all sales be beyond 1,000 feet away from a school or daycare, specifically from property line to property line, not just building to building, Myatt.
Hurt said he doesn’t have a lot of information about administrative costs, like inspections, but the state would be handling a lot of it.
“But as far as from a revenue standpoint,” he said, “we do know this: It will not be like (alcoholic beverage control), where you get a regulatory fee [from] it. Basically, it’ll be run like any other business. They will have a business license for $50; they’ll have a net profit [tax].”
Additionally, if they have employees on a payroll, they would be responsible for that occupational tax, like any other business, he said, and he would do a normal business inspection.
Kirkpatrick asked Myatt whether he was aware of any interest from anyone about having such a business here, and he said he’s heard from a couple of individuals asking about what rules are in place, and he refers them to the state website – kymedcan.ky.gov – regarding medical cannabis for more information.
Alexander said that, essentially, under Kentucky’s new law, KRS 218B.130, which is cited in the proposed ordinance, local governments have three decisions to make:
– Are we going to allow it and, if so, how are we going to regulate it?
– Are we going to prohibit all of the business activity?
– Or are we going to pass a resolution and say we’re not going to make a decision; we’re going to let the residents decide.
Even if the council passes an ordinance prohibiting it, the city attorney said, the state law provides a way for residents to get it on the ballot.
“My opinion for Glasgow is that you all have heard a lot of this stuff, and it is all up in the air. As Councilman Norris said, there’s a lot of things fluctuating. My opinion is that the safest method for going forward, if you opt out and prohibit now, you can always get back in if things turn out to be great for cities. If you jump the gun and you opt in and allow it now, then you’re stuck with it. So, to me the safest route for anything as game changing as this is statewide, to me, would be to prohibit it and then see how it goes,” Alexander said.
As the regulations change and get settled, Glasgow wouldn’t necessarily be out of the game.
Kirkpatrick asked him what he meant by “great for the cities,” but he never really answered that question, discussing instead how the city’s choice doesn’t affect the end user.
Norris asked about how policing would be affected if people have to go to Bowling Green to get the product and bring it back here.
Councilman Max Marion said that, as only so many businesses would be permitted within a certain area, the option may not truly be there later if all the licenses have gone elsewhere.
“We may be on the outside looking in,” he said, acknowledging that he’s aware there are a lot of unknowns at this point.
“Always waiting to see how it affects someone else isn’t the right thing, guys,” Marion added, using a proposed new facility several years ago for Western Kentucky University and alcohol sales’ being approved in Cave City first as examples.
Responding to Norris’ latest point, he said that if people have to drive to any other county to get it, “You’re supposed to do it at your home. You’re supposed to go the speed limit, too, but we don’t always do that.”
Marion said his fear is that if someone is in pain and the medical cannabis is what is helping them, they may not wait until they get home to consume it.
“We’re talking about people’s health …,” he said. “We already know [medical marijuana’s] going to happen. Again, it’s already passed. We’re just voting on whether it’s going to be convenient for our citizens to obtain, so we really need to think about this one.”
Mayor Henry Royse said this is one more thing that comes down to local jurisdictions to determine.
“They’re putting a whole lot on the locality, and a real short time frame to do it in,” he said.
Councilman Joe Trigg, who a few years ago ran for the office of state agriculture commissioner, read a statement he’d prepared, noting that he’s campaigned across the commonwealth for medical and recreational marijuana to be legalized. He said he’s spoken to various subcommittees and at the national level about helping people about the possible positive impact it could have on health concerns as well as economics for farmers and others.
“Kentucky has imposed the strictest medical marijuana system in the country …,” he said, adding a few specifics.
Essentially, he said, if people can buy it legally, why should they have to go to another county to do so? Trigg said he believed it would be better to opt in to allowing those businesses. He reiterated an earlier point that whether or not they wait, there’s no guarantee there would be one here, but if they wait, there may be no licenses left available.
Bunnell said that opting out would give them the opportunity to see how it’s going to impact various local functions, but if they opt in now and it goes sideways, then they’ve created a system that negatively impacts and perhaps even burdens people.
“If we miss it, I dare say it’ll come back around again …,” he said. “I don’t want to overload our systems right now.”
Meanwhile, if they see how it’s done elsewhere and educate themselves about it, and the opportunity does present itself, the city can be better and more prudent at it.
“That’s all I ask this body is to be prudent with the decision,” Bunnell said.
He said that opting out at this point would still give them choices in the future, and Marion said he felt that waiting would remove a choice from someone who could use it to benefit their health.
Bunnell said they just need to study it more.
“Why are we rushing into it,” he asked.
Marion pointed out that it wouldn’t be the local government operating the business and said they would have six months to get everything in place before the businesses could actually start open.
Councilwoman Chasity Lowery said that if they were entering an agreement where there were going to be 10 rules but only five had been written so far, they would certainly be hesitant.
“I think we need to see what all the rules are going to be before we sign our community up for this,” she said.
Marion called for the vote to be taken, but the mayor said he wanted to point out that Myatt and Hurt had spent time learning about this issue in Frankfort and brought back the information and shared it with the council members, so he thanked them all for the time they had put into it and followed that by asking whether any communities had been guaranteed licenses.
Myatt said that Louisville and Lexington would each get four dispensaries, so that would leave 40 of the 48 for other parts of the state.
He said that if a business applies in a place that opts out of allowing it and is chosen to get a license, that business would have to relocate to someplace that allows it, so although the city technically has until the end of December to make the decision – and if it didn’t, it would be opted in by default – the businesses only have until the end of August to apply for a license, so it would be better to have the decision made so they could know what to expect or whether to bother applying.
Marion also asked questions about the policing of edibles that are already sold that are only allowed to have a certain amount of THC – the active substance in marijuana, and Glasgow Police Department Chief Guy Howie said that new legislation gives law enforcement authority to deal with sales of such items. With that, he pointed out, simultaneously double-checking his accuracy with Myatt, that the dispensaries that would be covered under opting in to allowing such businesses would be allowed to sell only medicinal marijuana to those approved to purchase it.
After roughly 45 minutes of discussion and with Councilman Patrick Gaunce technically considered absent, but hearing at least most of the discussion on his phone, Kirkpatrick, Marion and Trigg voted against the ordinance prohibiting the businesses. Bunnell, Lowery, Norris, Marlin Witcher and James Neal voted to approve the prohibition.
Approval of a second reading of the ordinance is required before it can take effect. The council’s next regular meeting is at 6 p.m. June 24 in Council Chambers on Floor 2 of Glasgow City Hall, 126 E. Public Square.
RELATED CONTENT: Learn about the rest of the council’s actions at Monday’s meeting from this report.
Comments