A significant portion of the meeting focused on the draft cannabis ordinance, which is not expected to issue any licenses until 2025. Commissioners and community members expressed concerns about the timing and clarity of the ordinance, which will allow potential business applicants to plan and secure funding. One of the issues discussed was the number of cannabis retail licenses the county should issue. A proposal to limit registrations to seven, one for each organized township and one for the city, was debated. This proposal aimed to ensure manageable oversight and compliance checks while fostering local business opportunities. However, some argued that this limit might exclude potential applicants from various backgrounds, such as military veterans or emerging farmers.

Concerns were also raised about the implications of establishing a registration limit, particularly in relation to micro and meso businesses that engage in growing or producing cannabis. The discussion pointed to the complexities involved in regulating these operations, with the recognition that state law governs the licensing process. There were calls for caution in establishing a limit on registrations, with some commissioners emphasizing that the landscape is still evolving and future updates to the ordinance may be necessary.

A representative from public health highlighted several provisions in the draft ordinance that focused on establishing buffer zones around schools, daycares, and parks. The necessity of compliance checks was emphasized, with plans to involve staff and young people aged 17 to 20 to ensure businesses adhere to regulations. Data tracking related to the impact of adult-use cannabis legalization was also discussed, with plans to gather information from emergency departments regarding cannabis-related visits, impaired driving incidents, and substance use among high school athletes.

In addition to cannabis regulation, the meeting addressed concerns about the University of Minnesota extension office’s role in the county. Public comments revealed a division in opinions regarding the effectiveness and oversight of the extension office. Carolyn, a community member, expressed concerns about the local extension position’s loyalty to the university, which she believed detracted from addressing the needs of county taxpayers. She cited issues such as the expenditure of $100,000 outside the county and the management of the community orchard, where she argued that the suggestion to remove young fruit trees contradicted the long-term nature of tree growth.

In contrast, Jennifer Victor Larson praised the extension office’s support, particularly highlighting the importance of stewarding local land and creating a robust food production system. This perspective underscored the ongoing dialogue around the extension’s role in the community, with contrasting views on its effectiveness and impact.

The board also discussed a memorandum agreement (MOA) with the University of Minnesota Extension Program, which entails maintaining costs at a constant level until 2025, followed by an increase to $100,000 annually with a 3% cost of living adjustment for the subsequent two years. While some commissioners expressed appreciation for the collaboration with the extension team, others voiced reservations, citing concerns from the community that the university’s involvement felt overbearing. There was a call to delay the decision until more community feedback could be gathered, especially given concerns regarding quorum and vacancies on the board.

Budgetary concerns were also a significant topic, particularly regarding the Soil and Water Conservation District. Olena Hansel presented information about a $122,000 grant intended to support various projects, including inspections of Moon Lake and replacing certain structures. The discussion revealed challenges in securing adequate funding, with Hansel noting that competition for grants is intense and often leaves smaller districts at a disadvantage. She detailed the interplay between budgetary needs and the county’s financial constraints, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning and collaboration.

The board also addressed human resources matters, including the revision of job descriptions and an increase in job grades for two positions within the maintenance department. Additionally, the meeting included a discussion about a court action related to the District 4 commissioner race, due to a mapping error affecting residents’ district assignments following the 2020 census.