Pubdate: Fri, 12 Jul 2013
Source: Estes Park Trail-Gazette, The (CO)
Copyright: 2013 The Estes Park Trail-Gazette
Contact:  http://www.eptrail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1259
Author: Juley Harvey

ESTES PARK TRUSTEES TO ADDRESS MARIJUANA ISSUE

If marijuana growers, sellers or users thought they would have an 
easy time establishing roots in Estes Park after the statewide 
passage of Amendment 64 legalizing the use of recreational marijuana, 
they may have a surprise in store. At Tuesday's study session of the 
town board, trustees gave a clear indication of where they are headed 
- - and it's not toward a bong shop; rather, it's toward an opt-out 
decision and perhaps a moratorium.

The confusing issue that pits state, federal and local jurisdictions 
against each other, with no clear direction as to how to proceed, 
will be on the town board's agenda for their Aug. 13 meeting.

Town attorney Greg White explained the situation to trustees on 
Tuesday. Amendment 64 legalized the possession of 1 ounce or less of 
marijuana by any adult age 21 or older. If those individuals are not 
violating any other laws, they would be free of any criminal charges, 
municipal ordinances or state laws. However, White said, the 
amendment didn't address the federal issue. Under federal law, 
marijuana is "still illegal," he said.

Additionally, Amendment 64 says that four kinds of marijuana 
establishments are okay: facilities for retail; cultivation; 
manufacturing; and testing. The legislature established deadlines for 
the passage of rules and regulations regarding licensing - July 1, 
Oct. 1 for applications and Jan. 1, 2014, for licensing for retail 
establishments.

There are provisions for taxation - retail sales and excise taxes.

An important item for municipalities is the opt-out provision, he 
told the trustees. Trustees may decide to opt out of inclusion - 
essentially, what they did on the medical marijuana issue, he added - 
but they must make that decision before Oct. 1. Should they decide to 
opt out, there would be no licensing requirements and no discussion 
of licensing would be necessary, he said. Estes Park would not be a 
part of the system.

Another option would be to direct the town clerk to be the local 
licensing authority, while allowing the state to take care of the 
licensing, thus minimizing any additional staff time here, White said.

A further option would allow the town to do its own licensing and be 
more restrictive, regarding amending the land use code and distances 
from schools where the marijuana establishments could be located.

White told the trustees there would be no gap in regulations, because 
the trustees passed a moratorium on medical marijuana establishments 
in February; and they must have something in place regarding 
recreational usage by Oct. 1. It could be a simple ordinance such as 
in the medical marijuana case, he said.

"It's not difficult, if you want to do (it)," he added.

The town board could also refer the question to the electorate, White 
said. However, that vote couldn't take place until November of 2014, 
and he said the town would have to be in the "licensing business" 
until then. The citizens could also petition to initiate an ordinance 
to opt out, but that also would have to wait for a 2014 vote.

So, the problem becomes the period of time between Oct. 1 and 
November 2014, White said.

"What do you do?" he asked. "You could try a moratorium (with the 
intention to vote in 2014.)"

He was unsure, however, if that course would be legally sustainable. 
Trustees expressed concern about what happens outside the borders of 
Estes Park, but within the county. White said they could work with 
the Estes Valley Planning Commission and see what happens at the 
county level. Perhaps commissioners could limit the zoning on 
marijuana establishments to high industrial or commercial, but 
restrict it in residential areas.

Trustee Mark Elrod asked, jokingly, whether White was suggesting a 
"joint meeting." Others could see everything "going up in smoke."

Trustee Eric Blackhurst said he liked the "opt-in" idea, and if Estes 
Park citizens wanted to do an initiative, they could.

"Estes Park citizens (are) probably overwhelmingly against Amendment 
64," he said.

Other trustees wanted to know for sure, though, and the board 
directed town administrator Frank Lancaster to obtain the statistics 
on how Estes Park citizens voted on the issue from the county. 
Lancaster said he would provide that data. Elrod said he believed 
that 51 percent of county residents were in favor of the measure.

Trustees also talked about the potential impacts of the marijuana 
issue on tourism and taxes. They expressed concern about losing the 
"family-oriented" premiere mountain destination designation.

Blackhurst emphasized that "we're a national destination, based upon 
attractions for families. That's how we're marketing ourselves."

That doesn't include marijuana establishments, he added. Trustee 
Wendy Koenig pointed out visitors can "get their Rocky Mountain High 
without marijuana."

Police chief Wes Kufeld said the image issue is a definite concern 
and we should be careful about "sacrificing" that image. He admitted 
to having "pretty strong feelings" on the subject of marijuana, and 
he sees a pattern similar to the medical marijuana issue developing. 
He was nervous then, he said, because there were many people 
establishing medical marijuana facilities in the county. Estes Park 
kept holding off on the issue and then the board jumped on 
establishing a moratorium, which he called "very nice."

Kufeld said his colleagues in Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont had 
problems controlling the establishments that cropped up there. He 
doesn't want to see an increase in driving under the influence of 
drugs here, or Estes Park become the home of tourists buying "rubber 
tomahawks, t-shirts and marijuana."

On the enforcement side, Kufeld said the marijuana issue is 
"difficult and frustrating." The district attorney's office hasn't 
wanted to prosecute such cases, and law enforcement has backed off 
until there is "concrete," definitive enforcement guidelines, he 
said. Statewide, those are lacking, he added.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom