Kankakee aldermen debate cap, enforcement options for standalone smoke shops; no ordinance adopted
January 10, 2026 | Kankakee City, Kankakee County, Illinois
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Kankakee City aldermen spent the bulk of a short meeting discussing a proposed limit on standalone smoke shops downtown and how the city would define and enforce such a limit.
Alderman Johnson, who led the meeting, said the mayor provided a list showing seven businesses currently designated as standalone smoke shops and told the council he was “okay with 7.” Several aldermen said they preferred a lower cap — as low as five — and raised questions about how the city would distinguish a true smoke shop from a convenience store that also sells tobacco products.
Council members explored several enforcement options. One approach would require businesses to report the percentage of sales derived from tobacco products and use that figure to classify a business objectively. Other ideas included relying on signage or business name, or adopting tiered tobacco licenses (for example, a full tobacco-shop license versus a limited convenience-store tobacco endorsement). Members repeatedly flagged practical questions: who would verify sales percentages, which department would oversee compliance, and whether the comptroller’s office could carry any additional administrative workload.
The council discussed a specific address that appears on the mayor’s list, 195 South Washington, noting construction delays and uncertainty about when the applicant filed for permits and whether moratoria or permit-start rules affect current license status. Members also cited local examples where a single storefront presents multiple uses (restaurant plus tobacco sales) and said any standard should avoid being too subjective.
Rather than adopting an ordinance, aldermen asked staff to pursue follow-up: the chair said he will meet with city attorney Landwehr and city manager Kubel to review prior proposals and confirm what is legally and financially enforceable, and to verify permit timelines for contested locations. The chair asked for firm answers and a report back to the committee at the next meeting.
No motion to change licensing rules or to adopt a cap was offered or voted on during the session.
Alderman Johnson, who led the meeting, said the mayor provided a list showing seven businesses currently designated as standalone smoke shops and told the council he was “okay with 7.” Several aldermen said they preferred a lower cap — as low as five — and raised questions about how the city would distinguish a true smoke shop from a convenience store that also sells tobacco products.
Council members explored several enforcement options. One approach would require businesses to report the percentage of sales derived from tobacco products and use that figure to classify a business objectively. Other ideas included relying on signage or business name, or adopting tiered tobacco licenses (for example, a full tobacco-shop license versus a limited convenience-store tobacco endorsement). Members repeatedly flagged practical questions: who would verify sales percentages, which department would oversee compliance, and whether the comptroller’s office could carry any additional administrative workload.
The council discussed a specific address that appears on the mayor’s list, 195 South Washington, noting construction delays and uncertainty about when the applicant filed for permits and whether moratoria or permit-start rules affect current license status. Members also cited local examples where a single storefront presents multiple uses (restaurant plus tobacco sales) and said any standard should avoid being too subjective.
Rather than adopting an ordinance, aldermen asked staff to pursue follow-up: the chair said he will meet with city attorney Landwehr and city manager Kubel to review prior proposals and confirm what is legally and financially enforceable, and to verify permit timelines for contested locations. The chair asked for firm answers and a report back to the committee at the next meeting.
No motion to change licensing rules or to adopt a cap was offered or voted on during the session.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
