Isanti County, cities prepare rules and public hearing on legalized cannabis; sheriff raises security concerns

Isanti County officials, city representatives and the county sheriff discussed local regulation of newly legalized adult‑use cannabis and scheduled a county public hearing for March 4 to gather public input.

Sheriff Wayne told the county board he is concerned about open‑use events and public safety. “If we have any event where marijuana use is open and allowed, I am worried that there may be people who deliberately confront law enforcement to say, ‘look what I can do now,’” he said, adding that some events likely will require contracted licensed security. He noted the county can decline to staff every requested event and said that law enforcement will often respond to incidents using road officers if contracted security is unavailable.

Cities reported different approaches. Josie, a City of Isanti official, said the city approved an ordinance regulating cannabis and did not limit the number of retail licenses available under statute. The city adopted statutory operating hours and set a 300‑foot distance restriction from schools; it also will require special‑event permits for cannabis events and an inspection by law enforcement before registration. “They have … registered and we set those fees,” Josie said, adding the city’s ordinance follows state guidance for licensing and registration.

By contrast, Evan Vogel, Cambridge’s city administrator, described a more restrictive local approach. Cambridge will retain local jurisdiction, allow retail by interim use permit in business districts, limit hours to 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. for retail, ban public consumption in parks and set larger setbacks (1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from daycare playgrounds and athletic fields). Cambridge is initially allowing one retail license in the city. “We are taking a little more restrictive view,” Vogel said.

County staff reviewed other counties’ ordinances and options the board could adopt within state law. County Attorney Edlund advised that Minnesota statutes (cited in the meeting as sections 3 42.09, 3 42.13 and 3 42.39) authorize regulated on‑site consumption and cannabis events and that a plain reading of the statutes suggests a local unit of government may not prohibit activities the chapter authorizes. Edlund also noted counties may adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that do not prohibit establishments.

Commissioners discussed limiting the hours of operation and whether the county should prohibit events or limit them to lower‑potency hemp edible gatherings. Several townships have delegated licensing authority to the county, though Athens Township said it will retain zoning authority. The board confirmed a public hearing on March 4 and reviewed a draft letter to state lawmakers asking for clearer guidance and to preserve local control where possible. The board agreed to add a sentence to the letter expressing frustration: “This legislative decision, devoid of any proper foresight, was extremely irresponsible.” Commissioners also proposed sending the letter to local senators and representatives, AMCs and county law‑enforcement groups and CCing cities.

Next steps: the board will hold the March 4 public hearing, consider ordinance language covering hours, setbacks and event restrictions, and send the letter to state lawmakers and associations as discussed.