Isanti County schedules public hearing on cannabis rules as sheriff, cities outline enforcement and zoning concerns

Isanti County commissioners set a public hearing for March 4 to take public comment on county-level cannabis regulations after hearing testimony from the county sheriff and officials from the cities of Isanti and Cambridge about enforcement, hours and zoning.

Sheriff Wayne told the board he is concerned about public-safety and staffing implications if open-use events become common. “If we have any event where now marijuana use is open and allowed, I am worried that there may be people who deliberately confront law enforcement to say, 'hey, look what I can do now. What are you gonna do about it?'” he said, urging caution and noting the county will need to respond if security is not present at problem events.

Cities presented differing local approaches. City of Isanti officials said the city adopted an ordinance that does not limit the number of retail licenses allowed by statute, follows statutory operating hours and requires special-event permits for events (no fee). The city said it adopted a 300-foot buffer from schools but did not add additional limits around daycare or treatment facilities at this time. City of Cambridge said it is retaining significant local control: Cambridge will allow retail by interim use permit in business districts, limit hours (Cambridge said it expects to allow 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. for shops) and adopt larger setback distances (1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from daycares, playgrounds and athletic fields). Cambridge also said it will not permit smoking or vaping in city parks or public properties and plans to limit marketing aimed at younger audiences.

County staff and the county attorney reviewed statutory constraints. Attorney Edlund told the board that Minnesota law (statutes cited in meeting discussion) authorizes cannabis events and on-premises consumption at licensed establishments and events, and that local units of government may not prohibit activities expressly allowed by statute. Staff presented a range of policy options for time, place and manner restrictions that comply with state law (for example, restricting events to lower-potency products or defining allowable zoning districts), and noted some other counties had taken divergent approaches: a few counties prohibit events entirely, while others impose narrower restrictions.

The board also reviewed a draft letter staff prepared to send to state lawmakers, seeking clearer guidance and an opportunity for counties to opt out or receive additional funding to administer the new cannabis program. Commissioners asked Amanda to circulate the draft and to identify a list of legislators and association contacts (AMC, Minnesota Sheriffs Association) to copy. The sheriff and several commissioners urged the board to highlight enforcement costs and the public-safety unknowns in correspondence.

Ending: The board will hold a public hearing on March 4 and will accept public comment before considering ordinance language; staff will refine draft county language, circulate it to cities and township partners and send the letter to state lawmakers as directed by the board.