Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Clemens adopts revised marijuana business ordinance after debate, 3–2
Summary
The Mount Clemens City Commission approved a revised marijuana business ordinance on second reading by a 3–2 vote after debating readiness for a June 15 rollout and clarifying that eligible parcels must lie entirely within city limits.
The Mount Clemens City Commission voted 3–2 to approve the revised marijuana business ordinance on second reading, moving the city closer to accepting applications for marijuana business operations.
City manager Mike Johnson, who presented the ordinance and the attorney’s revisions, said the packet incorporated the changes commissioners requested and emphasized the item’s importance. “I did put this on the regular agenda…because this is too important to be on the consent agenda,” Johnson said during the discussion.
The ordinance was amended to define “permitted property” as real property located entirely within the city limits, a change staff said was added to clarify eligibility after questions about parcels that straddle the municipal boundary. Staff also outlined a short application window: applications are expected to be accepted starting June 15, with a processing period through June 30; city staff indicated selection will operate on a first-come, first-served basis for properties that meet standards.
Commissioners debated whether the city was prepared for that schedule and whether to delay the start date so administrative procedures could be finalized. One commissioner asked if the city was ready for a June 15 launch; staff and the clerk said application materials and procedures had been developed and that they did not think an additional two-week delay was necessary.
The ordinance passed on a roll-call vote: Hammond — yes; Crop — yes; Forier — yes; Mener — no; Campbell — no.
Opponents at the meeting and in public comment raised concerns about placement, equity and past procedural issues; one public speaker asked the commission to wait until all members, including two absentees, could be present. Supporters argued the revisions reflected months of review and were prepared for a timely application process.
Next steps listed by staff included finalizing application materials and publishing the application period; the ordinance was set for implementation steps beginning mid-June. The commission did not record a named mover or second in the transcript for the motion to adopt the ordinance.
(Reporting note: direct quotes and roll-call tallies are taken from the meeting transcript.)
