Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Economic Development Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local business urges Shakopee to revise microbusiness cannabis rule tied to costly cultivation license
Summary
Tom Madden told the council the city—s December 2024 ordinance effectively requires microbusinesses to hold a $70,000 cultivation license, undermining small operators; staff said the ordinance was drafted by the city attorney—s office and will be reviewed.
Tom Madden, a small-business owner developing a cannabis microbusiness at 491 Marshall Street, asked the Shakopee City Council on June 2 to re-evaluate a December 2024 ordinance that he said ties microbusiness retail to a cultivation license requirement.
"The cultivation license requires you to make a non-refundable $70,000 payment just for the opportunity to possibly get the license," Madden said, arguing that the city—s combined requirement transforms a microbusiness concept (analogous to a microbrewery) into an unaffordable model for local operators.
Madden said microbusinesses were presented to him through the state Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) process as a small-scale model allowing a retail outlet and a modest on-site grow. He said the combined local requirement would make opening in Shakopee financially unviable and asked the council to separate the microbusiness retail endorsement from a full cultivation license.
Staff and council members explained zoning and endorsement mechanics. Planning staff noted a microbusiness—s allowed endorsements define activities a licensee may perform, and that retail endorsements can be allowed in the city—s B1 zoning while cultivation endorsements may not be allowed in the same location. Councilmember questions identified the ordinance as drafted by the city attorney—s office; Mr. Kursky said he would check the drafting attorney for the precise rationale.
What happens next: Staff said they would follow up with the city attorney—s office to clarify why the microbusiness and cultivation requirements were combined and whether separate pathways or zoning fixes are appropriate. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting.
