BROOKVILLE — Council voted 5-2 to approve the ordinance that designates the location where marijuana can be cultivated, processed and laboratory tested and prohibits the selling of cannabis in the city.

Ordinance 2024-29 permits marijuana cultivators, processors and testing facilities to operate in I-2 (General Industrial District) in the city of Brookville.

The ordinance also continues to prohibit retail dispensaries for adult-use cannabis and medical marijuana from locating in any zoning district in the city of Brookville.

The approval of the ordinance also contains the approval of an amendment that allows council to issue a permit to a company that has expressed interest in setting up marijuana cultivation, processing and testing operations in an empty building located at 325 Carr Drive. The building is located in the I-2 district.

Approving the ordinance were mayor Chuck Letner, vice mayor James Zimmerlin and councilmembers Curt Schreier, JD Fowler and Dennis Piper.

Councilmembers Kim Wilder and Stephen Crane voted against the ordinance.

Council’s approval of the ordinance and the amendment comes on the heels of planning commission’s 5-2 vote against recommending passing the ordinance and the amendment to allow the company to set up marijuana cultivation, processing and testing operations at the Carr Drive location.

Voting against the motion were planning commission chairman Ryan Henderson, councilmember Schreier and planning commission members Ken Claggett, Jeff Wright and Tony Ezerski.

Voting in favor of the motion were mayor Letner and planning commission member Damian Kristof.

The company seeking the permit to locate in Brookville is Paragon Development, a medical marijuana cultivation facility located at 9292 S. state Route 201, in Bethel Township in Miami County.

Planning commission voted against the ordinance and amendment essentially due to the

low amount of income the city would receive if Paragon Development began operating in the building.

According to law director Rod Stephen, the city would receive an estimated $40,000-$60,000 in income tax a year.

City manager Jack Kuntz, who was unable to attend the planning commission meeting, said there was some confusion from planning commission members concerning the revenue the city would receive if Paragon Development located in the city.

“After speaking with some of the planning commission members I think some of that confusion led to some additional questions,” Kuntz told councilmembers.

“I know one of the things brought up was the income tax level that was mentioned at the planning commission meeting in the eyes of some wasn’t adequate enough for the city,” Kuntz said.

Kuntz said finance director Michelle Brandt and city staff took time after the planning commission meeting to conduct additional research on the issue.

Kuntz asked Brandt to elaborate on what Stephan had stated concerning the income tax revenues the city would receive from the company.

“The estimated amount of income tax generated that Rod mentioned is a very conservative number. That figure is basically determined if every employee is making the lowest amount of money the cultivating company suggested,” Brandt said.

“Even with that conservative estimate, the company would still be in the top 25 companies for the city’s income tax withholdings,” Brandt said.

“This $40,000 in income tax does not include the income tax we would receive on the net profits from this company, which is another unknown, but we would assume they plan to be a profitable company,” Brandt continued.

Brandt noted prior to Paragon Development moving in, the city also would receive income tax revenue from the contractors hired to renovate the building.

Planning commission member and resident Tony Ezerski asked council “what consideration did everyone give tonight during their vote to planning commission’s recommendation.”

Kuntz noted council was provided with a draft copy of the minutes of the planning commission meeting.

“I listened to the planning commission meeting and read the materials that were provided to me. That was the basis of my decision,” Zimmerlin said.

“So you did take that into account when you took your vote?” Ezerski asked.

“I did. I can’t speak for the rest of council,” Zimmerlin replied.

Schreier said he also took into account planning commission’s vote.

“I also took into account the discussions at the last planning commission meeting whether there actually was any impact to the potential ethics and I was told there was nothing. That’s why I hesitated on my vote at the planning commission meeting (with) the way that discussion went,” Schreier said.

Piper said he also listened to the planning commission meeting.

“I listened to the planning commission meeting as well, and a lot of the questions that were raised I researched answers. Some of the answers were provided and I felt comfortable with the business, the security of the business and the tax dollars it will bring in because that will bring in a lot more money than a one-person warehouse would bring in,” Piper said.

“That company is willing to make a large investment into that building. All of those things weighed into my decision,” Piper said.

Ezerski said as a citizen he wanted to voice his concerns with council’s decision.

Ezerski stated for the amount of potential money the city will receive he is “worried” (the city) is “opening a can of worms relative to what our neighboring communities have approved so far.”

Ezerski added he also was concerned with how he is going to explain that the city now has a “vape shop” and a marijuana cultivating plant, which go against the values and ethics he is trying to instill in his child.

“I now have a vape shop and a marijuana growth plant and ethically it’s hard for me to explain that even when it appears to bring little or no value to our city,” Ezerski said.

“Not as a planning commission member, but just as a member of the city I ask what do we want the city to look like in the next 10 years and based on city council’s vote tonight, it’s apparent that question was not taken into account,” Ezerski said.

Kuntz noted city staff believes the city will benefit financially with the plant locating at the Carr Drive location.

“As a staff, we feel comfortable with this type of use in the industrial zoning district. In that particular industrial park, if I’m not mistaken, it would be a top five employer,” Kuntz said.

“That is pretty significant when you consider back in 2020 at that site there were 109 jobs and it remains empty, generating no income tax for the city of Brookville,” Kuntz said.

Reach Terry Baver at [email protected].