Residents press council for public records disclosure and urgent action on cannabis licensing delays

During the public‑comment period dozens of residents urged the council to enforce public‑records law and to act on perceived irregularities connected to a proposed "public health nuisance" project.

Speakers including several neighborhood residents, a members of a community coalition and at least one former mayoral associate alleged city staff and the mayor's office had not produced requested documents (calendars, emails and texts) showing meetings and communications tied to the project and its proponents. Multiple speakers said they have filed or supported a lawsuit seeking records; several urged an independent investigation and temporary administrative leave for staff involved until records are produced.

"We are asking the council to do an independent investigation and to produce the unvarnished records that are required by law," several speakers said during back‑to‑back comments. Speakers named specific email dates and said irregularities appeared in an interim report they provided to the council.

Separately, cannabis business applicants — who have been waiting up to two years for city action on retail licenses — told the council they need a firm timeline, clarity about local owner validation and assurance the city will enforce conditions and prevent alleged fraud. Applicants said an opaque process delays job creation and local tax revenue that could help close a budget gap.

Council response: Mayor Alicia Morrison and staff said they had searched city systems and turned over records they could find; the mayor said some kinds of information (cell‑phone content, for example) can be limited by records availability and that staff had produced what was on city systems. Some council members urged caution and requested staff and legal counsel coordinate with outside counsel and bring a plan for independent review or investigation back to the council.

Why it matters: The public comments described a dispute that overlaps litigation, public‑records obligations and planning decisions; council members said staff will need to confirm what exists on city servers and may need to pursue additional review steps to reduce legal exposure.

Next steps: Councilmembers discussed placing a related item on a future agenda for either open or closed‑session discussion and asked staff to work with city attorney and external counsel on a follow‑up. Public commenters said they will monitor the record and expect transparency.