Cannabis Sale Is Legal In Plainfield, Board Decides With 4-2 Vote

PLAINFIELD, IL — The Village Board ushered in a new era for Plainfield Monday night when trustees and Mayor Argoudelis voted 4-2 to legalize recreational cannabis sales in Plainfield.

After half an hour of discussion, during which Board members shared their reasons for voting, trustees Margie Bonuchi, Tom Ruane and Richard Kiefer, along with the mayor, voted in favor, while Cally Larson and Patricia Kalkanis voted in opposition. Trustee Brian Wojowski was not in attendance.

The Board approved two items regarding cannabis: one approving new amendments to the village's zoning ordinance and a second instituting an occupation tax of 3 percent.

The zoning amendment officially permits the legal sale of recreational weed within Plainfield by repealing and replacing an existing code that was implemented four years ago to ban recreational dispensaries from opening in the village.

Only two licenses will be allowed in Plainfield: one north of Lockport Street and one south of Lockport Street, and they will need to be 1,500 feet apart. The dispensaries will be required to charge a 3 percent tax on top of state sales tax and Plainfield's home rule sales tax.

RELATED: Could Plainfield Allow Cannabis Sales After All? Board Mulls Amendment

The tax will be implemented on July 1, 2024, and the village will begin receiving distributions after the following October, according to documents.

"This tax money coming into the village is a very important thing right now for us and to be able to provide a lot more services," Bonuchi said.

Argoudelis echoed her sentiments, saying the tax revenue "would be, some estimates conservatively, at $1 million, even more so perhaps based on what we're approving. We are approving two dispensaries ... and that money will go directly into our capital fund, which is for our roadways and other amenities in town, nuts and bolts. We don't use this money for paying our police or our operations or things like that."

Kalkanis, in explaining her opposing vote, said as a criminal defense attorney, she sees "nothing but negative effects, especially with minors ... with marijuana issues."

"We are really making a decision here that I think is going to negatively affect and impact this community," she said. "And again, we're putting money ahead of everything, as always. ... This is a very bad decision to proceed with and move forward with because of what I've seen."

Argoudelis concurred that the decision is based on money, saying, "We're leaving money on the table [if the sale of cannabis isn't legalized]."

"I don't think that our having two dispensaries will change anybody's habits," the mayor said. "Anybody using marijuana or cannabis products will continue to do so whether we have it in Plainfield or not. As Trustee Kiefer did point out, we might actually gain some residents from other towns who spend their money in Plainfield."

Legalization occurred eight months after April's consolidated election, when Plainfield residents voted in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in the village. The non-binding referendum passed by a slim margin: 1,558 residents were in favor and 1,527 were against.

"It was not an overwhelming majority," Larson said of the vote. "Unfortunately, the referendum was on the back of the ballot, so if you didn't flip, you may not have seen it, so I don't truly think it's a true polling factor of the general community. ... I think the data is skewed; I don't think it's accurate."

RELATED: Plainfield Cannabis Referendum Narrowly Passes

Kiefer, on the other hand, said legalization "puts us on equal footing with neighboring communities."

"Any perceived problems you see with legal cannabis, they're already here," he said. "We're talking about adult use, so no laws are changing. Minors are not supposed to have access to this. No one is supposed to be driving under the influence of it or use it while they're driving."

Ruane, who has previously been on the fence about legalization, explained he went with his gut feeling in how he voted.

"From what I see, there's more benefits from this than negative aspects because the way I see it, time will tell, and in the future, I hardly see this even becoming a federal issue anymore," Ruane said. "It's all going to get handed down to the state, and I'd rather have ... a zoning ordinance in place addressing it now than trying to figure something out later."