With the recent passing of Prop 207 — which legalizes recre­ational marijuana use in Arizona — many questions have yet to be answered, especially when it comes to the legal sale in city limits.

The item came before the Sedona City Council on Tuesday, Nov. 24, during a meeting that lasted more than six hours. The item called for council to decide whether or not to prohibit retail marijuana establishments and testing facili­ties within Sedona.

In the end, council directed staff to gather additional information and bring the item back before council at the Jan. 12 meeting.

One of the areas staff will focus on will be to review the current zoning requirements in the Land Development Code for medical marijuana dispensaries to deter­mine if there would be any poten­tial problems with allowing dual licensees as opposed to prohibiting dual licensees, which was what was being proposed by council at the meeting.

A dual license is a businesses that holds both a medical mari­juana dispensary registration and a marijuana establishment license.

Prop 207 passed handily with more than 60% of Arizona voters in favor of the measure. Even if the city does pass an ordinance prohib­iting retail marijuana sales, it does not prohibit individuals over age 21 from legally possessing mari­juana, using or growing marijuana in private residences — of up to six plants per person over age 21 or a maximum of 12 per household.

Medical marijuana dispensaries will continue to operate as before. Sedona’s only medicinal dispensary, Bloom, can apply for a dual marijuana license beginning Jan. 19 and ending March 9. Councilwoman Holli Ploog said the state will be giving out 156 total licensees for recreational mari­juana — 130 to businesses like Bloom that will offer both recreational and medicinal marijuana, and another 26 licenses for those that are strictly offering recreational sales only.

Edward Judice, the owner of Bloom, said Bloom has had a good relationship with the city since it opened in 2013. He said to ban the retail sale of marijuana will result in the flourishing of black market sales and will greatly impact his business.

“This is a very important and valuable property right that we have that’s been given though Proposition 207,” he said. “We have a very small window to apply. If we do not apply by the March 9 deadline, we lose that right. If this [city] ordinance were to be enacted — and I apologize for being blunt — our law firms in Phoenix have said they will send a notice of claim tomorrow. It is that big of a deal to us.”

Judice said he wants to further discuss the issue with the city and believes that regulating the sale of recreational marijuana is important for Pop 207 to be successful.

The new state law allows limited marijuana possession, use and cultivation. It amends criminal penalties for marijuana possession. However, it bans smoking marijuana in public and imposes a 16% excise tax on marijuana sales to fund public programs such as education. Finally, it authorizes state and local regulation of marijuana licensees and allows the expunging of marijuana offenses from an individual’s criminal records.

The proposed amendment to Sedona City Code states that it prohibits recreational marijuana estab­lishments and testing facilities from operating within Sedona. A city report states the ordinance also prohibits the use, sale, cultivation, manufacturing, production, storage and distribution of marijuana on property that is occupied, owned, controlled, or operated by the city, prohibits smoking and consuming marijuana or marijuana products in open spaces, and prohibits smoking marijuana or mari­juana products in public places.

“The proposed change to the Sedona City Code is intended to prohibit marijuana establishments and marijuana testing facilities, at least until the city can fully evaluate the effects of allowing recreational marijuana sales in the city,” a city report states. “[And] the Arizona Department of Health Services establishes its application and licensing criteria, and questions surrounding the implementation and interpretation of Prop 207 are resolved.”