Tucumcari City Council members on an unspecified date heard public testimony and business presentations about loosening local restrictions on cannabis businesses, including extending retail hours to midnight, permitting on‑site consumption lounges and allowing drive‑through and delivery services.

The proposals drew support from local cannabis operators who said later hours and consumption areas would increase revenue and accessibility; they also prompted questions from council members and the police chief about public safety, zoning and regulatory language. Several council members asked city staff to research legal alignment with state rules and return with recommendations in about 60–90 days.

City business owners and industry representatives told the council extending hours could substantially boost tax revenue and foot traffic. An industry representative said, "It's gonna bring in more revenue, all around." The group presented a written projection estimating an additional $443,000 in tax revenue from extending hours alone during the town's slow season (estimate provided by presenters; the council did not independently verify it).

Jason, owner of Dank of the West, said the business initially planned a drive‑through to serve customers who have mobility challenges. "I initially wanted to make my dispense a drive through," he said, and described systems used elsewhere that verify ID electronically before completing a curbside or drive‑through sale.

Speakers and some council members emphasized that much of the regulatory framework is set at the state level. An industry speaker referenced the local‑control provision in state law (cited in testimony as section 26‑2C‑12 of the Cannabis Regulation Act) and quoted New Mexico administrative rules regarding licensed consumption areas, saying those rules require consumption that is "not visible from outside its licensed premises" and outdoor consumption areas to be surrounded by a privacy barrier.

Law enforcement said dispensaries have not produced major policing issues to date. The police chief told the council that calls to dispensaries historically concerned foot traffic or disturbances near the premises rather than business operations, adding, "They've been very easy to deal with it. Very minimal impact on my agents." He cautioned, however, that impaired‑driving enforcement for cannabis differs from alcohol enforcement: toxicology for cannabis requires a blood sample sent to the state lab and expert testimony, and local police cannot reliably measure impairment on roadside breath tests as they can for alcohol.

On consumption lounges, business representatives proposed a token‑based system (similar to a bar model) and said the state requires ventilation and other controls. One operator described two customer flows for a lounge: normal retail purchases for off‑site consumption and tokenized on‑site consumption with staff training and service limits. Industry speakers also noted practical rules such as a two‑hour window after the last served item before customers are considered no longer consuming on site (per their reading of state guidance) and that licensed consumption areas cannot display consumption visible from public space.

Council discussion focused on where consumption and production should be sited inside city zoning districts. Several council members suggested concentrating growing and processing in industrial or agricultural zones rather than in C‑1/C‑2 commercial districts that currently include residences. A council member proposed creating a new zoning designation to separate consumption and production uses from mixed‑use commercial/residential corridors.

Wastewater and processing methods came up in public testimony. A speaker summarized wastewater staff concerns about solvent‑based processing (class 3 activities) and said rosin presses (described by a presenter as a heat‑and‑pressure process) do not use solvents. Growers said irrigation runoff would be minimal and could be reused for landscaping; one presenter estimated "2 to 3 gallons of water a week" for certain operations and suggested captured runoff could be a byproduct rather than a contaminant.

No formal ordinance changes or council votes were recorded in the meeting transcript provided. Several council members asked that city staff, including the city manager (referred to in discussion) and legal counsel, review the relevant state statutes and administrative rules and return with proposed ordinance language and zoning options. One council member suggested a 60–90 day timeframe for staff to report back and for the council to collect additional public input.

The council also discussed licensing and fee structures in general terms. Testimony referenced local license fee discussions (one speaker said a local figure of $2,000 had been discussed while another mentioned smaller numbers) and noted that the state issues final licenses and conducts inspections.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: council members asked staff to research the legal language needed to align the local ordinance with state rules (including identification/verification for drive‑through or delivery, site screening for visibility and required ventilation/filtration for indoor consumption areas), gather zoning options for siting cultivation and consumption, and return to the council with recommendations and proposed ordinance wording for public review and comment.