NORTHFIELD — Following months of talks, multiple votes and thousands of dollars in legal expenses, City Council voted 4-3 against an ordinance that would have allowed cannabis retail shops to operate along Tilton Road.
Municipalities that host the businesses are permitted to impose a tax of 1 percent or 2 percent, depending on the class of license, and the measure was proposed as a revenue-generating move.
The vote Nov. 23 appears to be the final word in the saga, despite a 5-2 vote two weeks earlier to move forward with creation of the ordinance, which was amended from a previous one at the request of Councilman Paul Utts.
The failure of the ordinance is as much the result of timing as it is party politics, with the final vote three Democrats for and four Republicans against.
City Council President Tom Polistina called for a motion on the ordinance and Utts made it, saying legal cannabis will be for sale in Northfield whether it is sold from a storefront in the city or not. The only difference, he said, is whether the city makes revenue on the sale.
Utts argued that City Council’s job is to control costs and provide services, saying the statewide marijuana marketplace offers a rare opportunity to make new revenue.
Utts said the ordinance offers the city an “opportunity to keep the tax rate stable. It could keep us from raising the tax rate for years.”
Earlier in the meeting, Mayor Erland Chau read a statement of his intent to veto the ordinance.
“For months I have listened to comments about the retail sale of cannabis and I commend City Council members for taking time to review the proposal,” Chau said. “I think it’s only fair to say where I stand.”
He said his chief concern was keeping cannabis and other legal drugs out of the hands of children.
“The threat is too great against the projected revenue,” he said, adding that he thinks licensing recreational sales would increase use among youth through an added degree of acceptability.
“My intent is to use my veto power on this ordinance,” Chau said.
That effectively killed the proposal in the eyes of the administration, since a veto would have come after passage of the ordinance, which could not happen until the next meeting Dec. 14, the body’s final meeting of the year.
The timeline means two of the three steadfast supporters — Councilman Frank Perri and Councilwoman Barbara Madden — would not be able to respond to the veto.
When Perri asked if the issue could be addressed by the new City Council, City Clerk Mary Canesi said it’s assumed they would not support the measure.
Polistina said there was not enough time in the year to override the mayor’s expected veto.
Councilman Dave Notaro suggested letting the voters decide by referendum.
Madden suggested the issue was dragged out to prevent the sitting members from casting the determining vote but Polistina said it was one of the most important issues council faced and it was given the proper amount of discussion. Madden then walked out in protest.
