Findlay Hears Public Outcry on Dispensaries, Delays Vote.
FINDLAY - Hancock County and City of Findlay residents packed council chambers on March 4, 2025 in anticipation of the third reading for a Findlay ordinance creating two locations for recreational cannabis dispensaries. The ordinance was debated in a work session where citizens had the opportunity to voice their concerns over the measure.
Several individuals spoke during the work session about Findlay’s plans for placement of the cannabis dispensaries. According to City Council, one dispensary location could be near the Liberty Benton School. Though located inside city limits, the location is near the county line. Mike Otley, Superintendent of Liberty Benton Schools, expressed concern that their school buses would regularly pass that area. Otley worried about out of town traffic and gave statistics about marijuana leading to addiction. A business owner and several residents also expressed safety concerns and the impression on children.
One gentleman questioned the process the city went through in deciding to allow dispensaries since it is not required by law. Councilman Bauman explained that the city was trying to set up regulations prior to a cannabis business wanting to locate within the city. Councilman DeArment told the speaker that he was supporting the set up for dispensaries, even though he personally disagreed with recreational cannabis. Mayor Muryn weighed in stating that she could see both sides and supports medical marijuana, however it should be noted the dispensaries in question are not for medicinal purposes.
Council members DeArment and Frische had a short discussion regarding the voting results in the area. Frische’s notes showed that Hancock County did not support the new law. DeArment explained that city of Findlay voters did support the law. Both vote totals were separated by narrow margins.
Voters across the state of Ohio did pass recreational marijuana use, but the law does not mandate cities to allow dispensaries.
Members of council attempted to table the ordinance, however city law director Rob Feighner advised such an action would not be lawful on a third reading. Findlay city council ultimately voted to postpone the vote until the next meeting. Council members felt that the important vote should include two members of city council that were absent.
In other city business, battle lines appear to be being drawn between Auditor Jim Staschiak and Councilman Dan DeArment over reporting of the cities financial investments. Staschiak enclosed a letter in the city council packet cautioning city council members who wish to make city finances a political football. Staschiak has informed the Findlay Administration as well as City Council that his calculations show they will be operating in a large deficit in the near future. It appears that DeArment and Mayor Muryn dispute those numbers and would like Staschiak to provide more information. Staschiak has recently been presented awards from State of Ohio Auditors and the Government Financial Officers Association for his meticulous and accurate record keeping.
ReplyForward |
Council members DeArment and Frische had a short discussion regarding the voting results in the area. Frische’s notes showed that Hancock County did not support the new law. DeArment explained that city of Findlay voters did support the law. Both vote totals were separated by narrow margins.
