SALEM — The question of placing the issue of whether to permit a marijuana dispensary on the ballot in November for voter consideration will remain unresolved for the time being.

A resolution which would place the question on the ballot in November was first brought to council by Councilman Ron Zellers in their June 10 meeting. At that time the resolution was referred to the committee of the whole so that the members of city council, who Councilman and Committee of the Whole Chairman Andrew Null said only received the resolution that day, could research the issue further and discuss it at the committee level.

Tuesday Zellers told the committee of the whole that he presented the resolution to put the question in the hand of Salem’s residents.

“I think it’s too big of an issue for [the city] council to decide. I think it should be up to the voters,” said Zellers.

Councilman Jake Gano asked City Law Director Brooke Zellers what the Ohio Revised Code said with respect to the potential ballot issue, and Zellers confirmed that ORC gives the city council the authorization to put issues on the ballot for a public vote. However, he said that due to how recent the legalization of marijuana is in the state that no municipality has done so thus far. He also said that as there is a standing moratorium on the issuance of permits for a dispensary in the city by council action, a ballot issue led by council would be “the cleanest way forward” to let voters decide the issue; and that should the question be put to voters and approved that ORC still permits the city to set any additional requirements or restrictions on a potential dispensary within city limits.

Councilman Jeff Stockman asked if those limits could be determined and set before the issue was placed on the ballot so that residents have a clear picture of the potential results, noting that potential restrictions might impact how residents voted.

“Can we do these rules and regulations on the dispensaries prior to [the ballot initiative] going on the ballot, so we know what we’re dealing with, and the citizens know what they’re dealing with, rather than waiting for what is voted on one way or another? Meaning that I’d rather know what the rules were before I said yes or no to it if I was in the ballot box,” said Stockman.

Brooke Zellers confirmed that the city could set those restrictions in advance, noting that he felt it “would be smart to have any additional regulations figured out ahead of time just in case and so voters know what they’re looking at.” He also said that if the issue was placed on the ballot and approved in November, the city would still have 90 days to impose any additional restrictions it felt were necessary.

“Everybody would have to understand that at the very minimum it’s going to be all the requirements of the state, you can’t go less than that. If it’s going to be additional things you’re going to add like having only one, or local ownership, or additional security things that might matter to the voters on whether they say yes or no and you might want to hash those things out,” said Brooke Zellers.

Councilman Evan Newman asked if the kinds of restrictions the city could impose included geographic restrictions, noting that several residents have told him that if the question was placed on the ballot and granted approval, they wouldn’t want the dispensary to be in the city’s downtown area. Brooke Zellers said that under ORC a municipality can impose “reasonable business restrictions,” and that this would include designating places where a business cannot be built but that the existing state law only restricts a dispensary from being too close to certain structures like churches or schools.

Stockman reiterated that he felt any potential restrictions should be determined and publicized prior to placing the issue on the ballot and asked Brooke Zellers if the issue could be deferred for inclusion on the May ballot instead. Zellers said that at this time he would not currently recommend deferring the issue to a May election as some issues can only be placed on the ballot in a general election, and that since this has never been done before it is currently unclear if it could be placed on the ballot in May.

It was ultimately agreed that there were still too many unanswered questions which needed to be resolved before the city council could make an informed decision and ensure that all of the details were clear for voters before a potential issue. No formal committee action was taken with the members of the city council agreeing to further study the existing state law to determine any additional restrictions that the city would impose and reconvene for further discussion.

“I’m speaking to the citizens of Salem right know who think council is waffling a lot on this issue, you can right now we don’t have answers to a lot of things because there’s just huge unknowns and I don’t like stepping into unknowns because they come back and bite you. We want to make sure we know full well what we’re getting into before we put anything out there,” said Null.

mahart@mojonews.com