Somers Point Council splits vote on measure to allow the businesses
SOMERS POINT — Uncertainty fueled increased opposition to permitting cannabis businesses in Somers Point, but City Council voted 5-2 to take another step toward that goal July 27.
Before the vote, solicitor Tom Smith added language to the ordinance recommending the city issue no more conditional approvals than the number of licenses it wishes to issue, raising questions about whether the city would ultimately be able to choose who receives a license.
Councilman Howard Dill joined Councilman Sean McGuigan in voting against introduction of ordinance 19-2023, which would allow for a cannabis retailer and distributor to open in the city and designates where they could operate and other details.
Dill long has questioned the revenue projections — less than $400,000 annually based on an economist’s study — and whether the state would continue providing the tax or keep it for its own budget.
“What are we really gaining other than putting a cannabis store in town and hope that we get the revenue?” Dill said. “I’ve said it before and I will say it again: I don’t trust the state that they are going to give us that 2 percent.”
The main motivator for allowing the businesses is that Somers Point would be able to collect a 2 percent tax on retail sales and 1 percent tax on distribution sales.
Dill also questioned how City Council could continue considering the proposal after receiving a letter from Police Chief Robert Somers laying out his reasons for opposing it.
“I don’t know how we can sit here and look at this ordinance and say, ‘Well chief, we really don’t care what you think. We are going to pass this because the revenue is the most important thing,’” he said.
McGuigan noted he was promised information that was not provided, such as the opinion of the Economic Development Advisory Commission and the Somers Point Business Association.
Council President Janice Johnston said EDAC studied the issue for nine months and provided its recommendation — noting the SPBA is represented on the board — and that an economist delivered a thorough report on projected revenue.
McGuigan noted, and was backed up by EDAC Chairman Charlie Haberkorn, that EDAC recommended further study but did not vote on whether the city should license businesses.
Conditional approval
Amendments Smith made to the ordinance, and City Council approved before the vote, included adding the line: “The governing body may decline to grant more conditional approvals than the number of local licenses issued.”
He said he has spoken with solicitors in neighboring communities that have licensed cannabis businesses and found that the state is providing conditional approval to more businesses than the municipalities plan to license.
“Even though we may issue five conditional approvals for one license, the state could grant five licenses,” Smith said. “We should not issue more conditional approvals than the number of licenses that we are offering.”
He said the city must create criteria for license approval in a way that is objective to avoid litigation because many people are interested and some already hold a conditional license and are awaiting only municipal approval to secure a location and apply for an annual license, which would allow operation.
That raised further questions about how the city would decide who gets the single license for retail and single license for distribution.
Methods under consideration are first-come, first-served and a raffle, which would be the most objective, as well as a city checklist and interview process.
“As soon as you pass this ordinance you will be getting applications,” Smith said. “Once we start issuing conditional approvals, I think that we are required to approve whoever comes in with a license as soon as we do that.”
Smith said the state requires applicants have only a business location, an affidavit from zoning officials noting the location is compliant and a municipal resolution indicating a cannabis business is approved for the location.
Councilman Rich DePamphilis said all of the details can be worked out before the second reading of the ordinance, which could be as soon as Aug. 24 but possibly carry over into September. The Planning Board, which meets Aug. 16, has 35 days to respond with its recommendations.
“We have another two months after we pass this tonight before we’re going to have a second reading. In the meantime, you can determine whether we have a say or not. If we don’t have a say, that changes everything. I’m not accepting the first guy that comes through the door. I want to know who he is, where he’s from and do a background check.”
Smith said the state Cannabis Regulatory Committee does all of the vetting.
“If the state is going to decide, then I don’t want to do it. In the meantime, I want to pass this and get started,” DePamphillis said
Johnston suggested a requirement that the business owner own property in the city to ensure they have a vested interest.
Smith said he would have to look into the legality of that, suggesting the city create a list of criterion so that anyone applying would know in advance.
“Once you pass this, there is no going back. Pandora’s Box has been opened. That buyer’s remorse you just got … ”
McGuigan motioned to table the ordinance and Dill provided a second, but the vote failed 5-2.
“Before we vote on this, we need to have some clarification. I’m not going to vote on something I don’t have any clarification on,” Dill said.
Is this really what you want?
McGuigan asked members of the Cannabis Committee — DePamphilis, Councilwoman Karen Bruno and Councilman Joe McCarrie — if the ordinance was “exactly the way you want it.”
“I think this ordinance is very well-written. It covers just about every single thing you could imagine happening. It’s great,” DePamphilis said.
Bruno explained she was initially against allowing cannabis businesses and had wanted to limit it to medical sales but learned the city could not do so.
“We are a medical community and I want it to be there for people,” she said.
She said after careful study, she has changed her mind.
“We have learned a lot and I really feel this is good, it is what I want,” Bruno said.
McCarrie said it is important to provide a place where people can get marijuana in a controlled environment, free from additives such as fentanyl that have been killing today’s youth.
“If we don’t provide them with a safe place to buy marijuana, we run the risk of having more deaths from fentanyl,” he said. “This is a health decision as well as a business decision. If we don’t make the business decision, we cannot make the health decision.”
McGuigan warned the decision should not be taken lightly.
“This is a situation and a vote in front of us that has far-reaching ramifications; we are not going to be able to turn it back,” he said. “If we put somebody in business here, we are not going to be able to turn it off. This is a bad idea for this community.”
“This is probably one of the most important ordinances this council will every pass because it dictates in the future what we are going to be able to do and not be able to do regarding cannabis,” Dill said. “This is probably the most important vote I will ever make, from the past and into the future.”
Somers objects
The ordinance lays out area where cannabis businesses would be permitted. Areas include:
— Route 9 from the ShopRite Plaza to Chapman Boulevard, Groveland Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue and south of Somers Point-Mays Landing Road on the west side.
— MacArthur Boulevard from Braddock Drive to the intersection of Shore Road and Somers Point-Mays Landing Road.
— Somers Point-Mays Landing Road west of Route 9 on the northbound side.
Smith noted that ShopRite Plaza and Acme Plaza are included in the area even though federal law regarding some leases prevents such businesses.
At the beginning of the meeting, Johnston read a letter submitted by Somers stating his opposition.
Somers stated the potential for an increase in impaired driving that would place an additional burden on law enforcement. He noted the state attorney general has not finalized guidance on the quantitive level of consumption to prove impairment.
He said the establishments could become targets of crime since they contain large amounts of money and drugs, attracting a criminal element to the city and putting further burden on law enforcement.
Having such a business in the city would require additional training for law enforcement to monitor and enforce compliance of the new laws, putting further constraints on the department.
Somers said it may expose youth to marijuana and normalize its use, leading to increased use among minors.
He said the issue is polarizing and can lead to divisions among the public and business community.
“It is essential to carefully consider this as it may have far-reaching social consequences,” Somers said. “Placing a cannabis facility in the center of the Route 9 business district, which backs up to residential neighborhoods, should be reconsidered.”
By CRAIG D. SCHENCK/Sentinel staff