CHICO CITY COUNCIL MAKING PROGRESS ON POT; DISPENSARIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO

CHICO -- After more than a year of discussion, the Chico City Council
still has yet to place an ordinance regulating the cultivation,
processing and distribution of medical marijuana by collectives and
cooperatives on the books.

But after Tuesday night's council meeting, the city is one step closer
to its potential adoption.

Since 2009, the council has attempted to address collectives and
cooperatives in the city and has been vetting a potential ordinance
for several months. City staff estimated the ordinance has cost the
city at least $20,000 in staff time.

The ordinance was not approved by the council Tuesday night, but
progress continued, as the council added a limit on the number of
dispensaries that would be allowed in the city and defined the permit
process dispensaries must follow.

The council decided to limit the number of dispensaries to two and
decided that the City Council will determine the applicants who will
receive permits to operate.

With most of the work on the ordinance completed and the language of
it well-vetted, the ordinance is now expected to come up for potential
adoption within the next few months.

Though that adoption was supported by several speakers Tuesday night,
including former Sacramento City Councilor Robbie Waters, Butte County
District Attorney Mike Ramsey argued that the ordinance was not necessary.

Ramsey said the city's municipal code already prohibits collectives
and cooperatives and that the problems mitigated by ordinances in
other cities are not present in Chico.

"You don't need to reign in something that isn't here," Ramsey said.
"Currently you cannot have dispensaries in the city of Chico. Your
code enforcement is taking care of that right now."

Still, the council continued moving forward on the ordinance Tuesday,
and is expected to ultimately make a final decision on it by this summer.

In addition to the medical marijuana ordinance, the Chico City Council
Tuesday night considered a ballot initiative that aims to move the
city's general municipal election from November to June.

The initiative, which will require an amendment to the city's charter,
was recently verified by the Butte County Clerk's Office to have the
number of signatures required to be put to a vote. The petitioners
needed 6,623 to place the measure on the ballot and the county
projected that 7,760 valid signatures were collected.

Tuesday night, the council was asked to determine when to hold an
election on the initiative and whether to hold a precinct election or
strictly vote-by-mail election.

Chico City Clerk Debbie Presson noted that the council could not
simply adopt the measure as a charter amendment, because the petition
called for a special election.

She emphasized that the council had no choice on whether the matter
would go to a vote of Chico citizens, and could only determine how
that election would be conducted.

Despite that, several members of the council, as well as members of
the public, took time Tuesday to express their dissatisfaction with
the merits of the initiative.

Councilor Jim Walker said he disagreed with the manner in which the
signatures were collected, saying he felt as though signature
collectors misrepresented the purpose of the initiative.

He said he was disappointed that an election will be held on the
initiative.

"I really can't tell you how angry I've been that this moved forward,"
Walker said. "It seems to be a travesty of democracy."

Still, as Chico resident Bob Kromer pointed out, enough Chico voters
have expressed support for holding an election on the matter and
Kromer said the city should allow the election to go forward.

Ultimately, by a unanimous vote, the council decided to hold the
election on June 7, should a statewide election be held on that date.
If a statewide election is called for a later date in June, the city
will have the ability to hold the election on that date. If no
election is called, the city of Chico will hold a standalone election.

The council also unanimously voted to hold an election that includes
precincts.

A vote-by-mail election is estimated to cost the city $95,000, and a
precinct election is estimated to cost $151,000. The funding would
come out of the city's general fund.

Walker said he understood the higher cost of a precinct election, but
said he supported a method of voting that would increase voter turnout
and offer the most opportunity for voter participation.

The council also unanimously designated Scott Gruendl as the author of
the argument against the ballot initiative. The elections code allows
a legislative body to submit an argument in opposition to a measure
placed on the ballot by petition.