Taunton council debates marijuana license scoring matrix, background checks and evaluator role

Taunton councilors and city attorneys spent an extended Committee of the Whole session reviewing a draft marijuana license evaluation matrix and related license-application language, discussing how the city should score applicants, who should perform the scoring, and how background checks and manager changes should be handled.

Attorney Bond said the draft matrix is largely the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) sample transposed to Taunton and that it needs more granular scoring guidance so reviewers can objectively assign points. He described the CCC-supplied matrix as giving 7.5 points for several metrics and 25 points for an equity metric, and recommended breaking each 7.5-point item into clearer tiers (for example "highly advantageous," "slightly advantageous," "not advantageous") so different reviewers reach consistent results.

Councilors debated whether the executive branch (the mayor and staff) should evaluate applications or whether the council should vote on score outcomes. Councilor Duarte and others noted many communities delegate the scoring to the chief executive with advice from a smaller advisory team; others said a council subcommittee could perform scoring. Councilor Coit suggested the mayor’s team — with input from subject-matter staff such as the police chief and zoning officer — should do the scoring and recommend to the council, while Councilor Postel and Councilor Sanders urged objective, pre-defined scoring categories that all reviewers can apply consistently.

Several councilors recommended a standing advisory panel: a marijuana advisory board made up of the mayor (or designee), two council members, the city solicitor, city planner, police chief, fire chief and board of health executive director as a starting point. Councilor Coit also proposed that the existing License Commission (which handles liquor licenses) or a new cannabis commission might be better equipped to process manager changes and background checks because those bodies already handle similar licensing workflows.

Attorney Bond and councilors also discussed social equity scoring. Councilor Sanders noted the ordinance reserves one of two new licenses for a social equity applicant and questioned whether social-equity applicants should also compete in the general pool with an additional 25 points, which could effectively prioritize social-equity candidates across the board. Attorney Bond said the city could adopt separate matrices for social-equity and non‑social‑equity applicants to keep comparisons consistent.

Detective McDougall (Taunton Police Department) recommended that local background checks extend beyond owners and managers to include persons with direct or indirect control and close associates. Attorney Bond said current practice in Taunton checks managers and owners, and he proposed adding explicit application language requiring background checks for managers at the time of appointment and for any change of manager. He also said he removed a separate in‑council manager approval step from the draft ordinance, preferring that the detective’s background-check finding and suitability recommendation be incorporated into routine licensing review rather than requiring a short in‑chamber appearance for managers.

Counselors discussed whether the CCC’s background checks could be used to streamline the city’s review. Some councilors said relying solely on CCC notifications could be risky given turnover and delays at the CCC; they preferred applicants provide notice directly to the city in cases of manager changes. Councilor Sanders recommended the city adopt a matrix or grid that maps disqualifying or waivable offenses to timeframes (for example, distinguishing recent charges from older, minor offenses) so the city can apply consistent judgments when background checks return complex records.

Multiple motions were filed during the session. The council approved a motion asking the law department to draft optional language that would allow the executive branch to perform evaluations and the council to serve as approver (that motion passed by voice vote). The council also voted to form a smaller advisory group drawn from council members and subject-matter staff to assist evaluation; members discussed an approach that would include the mayor or designee, two council members (one being the chair of police and license), the city solicitor, the city planner, the police chief, the fire chief and the board of health executive director.

A motion to send a prior policy decision to increase the number of licenses from nine to eleven back to Committee of the Whole for additional discussion failed on a roll-call vote. The roll-call on that motion recorded: Councilor McCall — Yes; Councilor Borges — No; Councilor Pottier — No; Councilor Sanders — No; Councilor Quintel — No; Councilor Postel — Yes; Councilor Duarte — Yes; Councilor Coit — Yes; Councilor Martin — No. The motion did not carry.

Councilors also asked the law department to clarify the procedure by which a previously made policy vote (to increase licenses) is translated into a change in the city ordinance and to provide guidance on timelines and expectations for licensees to become operational; the council passed motions requesting the law department return with proposed guidance and suggested operational benchmarks. Attorney Bond said he would revise the ordinance language, including a proposed 90-day progress report after issuance of an HCA or waiver, and return with redlines.

No final changes to the scoring matrix or to the ordinance were adopted at the meeting; attorneys and staff were asked to return with refined scoring criteria, clearer guidance on evaluator roles, and language on background checks and manager-change documentation.