The board’s primary concern was the proposed ordinance governing cannabis cultivation, retail, and licensing within the county. The ordinance aims to establish guidelines on the appropriate locations and operational hours for cannabis-related businesses. Chris Pence, the environmental services manager, and Stephanie Shook, the assistant county attorney, presented the draft ordinance. The regulation is part of a broader land-use framework intended to control where and how cannabis activities can take place in the county.

A significant aspect of the ordinance involves zoning classifications for cannabis businesses. The proposal includes specific zoning districts indicating where each type of business could operate. One board member raised concerns about aligning cannabis regulations with existing liquor licensing laws, particularly whether cannabis retailers would be permitted to sell snack foods. It was clarified that while cannabis businesses might be located in similar zones as liquor stores, they would operate under distinct regulations.

The ordinance also proposes a cap on the number of retail cannabis businesses, allowing one business per 12,500 residents, with a maximum of six licenses countywide. Concerns were voiced about outside individuals or businesses obtaining these licenses, potentially leading to less local control. The licensing process involves a pre-approval stage at the state level before local review, which limits the county’s authority over who can acquire licenses.

Enforcement mechanisms for the ordinance were a point of discussion, with the Sheriff’s Office and Land Services expected to monitor compliance. Questions were raised about how to handle existing cannabis-related activities that do not conform to the proposed zoning. The ordinance aims to create a structured framework for future cannabis business applications.

In a separate, detailed presentation, Tony Hansen from the University of Minnesota Extension, along with members of the Crow Wing County Extension team, highlighted the achievements of the Master Gardener program. The program, which has seen significant expansion since its inception, focuses on community projects aimed at addressing food insecurity and enhancing local food systems.

Dan Lee, a member of the state Advisory Board for the Master Gardener program, discussed the Community Giving Project, which started during the pandemic as a giving garden. This initiative has led to the donation of fresh food to organizations such as the Salvation Army and local food shelves. The project has grown to include nearly 2,000 bedding plants for community projects and over 700 patio gardens for individuals with limited gardening space.

Jennifer, another member of the Master Gardener team, elaborated on the success of the giving garden, which has donated 1,185 pounds of food to date. The program tracks food donations to ensure proper recognition and transparency. Britney, the coordinator for the Master Gardener volunteers, emphasized the dedication of the 71 volunteers involved in 28 different projects. She noted that the community giving project is the primary focus, with over 80% of volunteers participating.

The board also discussed the activities of the Food Shelf Coalition, acknowledging the volunteers’ efforts to alleviate food insecurity. The coalition’s gardening initiatives have distributed approximately 11,000 pounds of produce over three years, helping local families manage their food budgets.

Another important topic was the new processes related to the sale of tax-forfeited properties. The board focused on the categorization of properties based on forfeiture dates and the implementation of a “good faith effort” sale process for properties forfeited between 2016 and 2023. The county is required to make annual attempts to sell these properties at their estimated market value until June 30, 2029.

The handling of tax-forfeited properties also included notifying the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) within 30 days of forfeiture, allowing the DNR to withdraw properties from sale. If not withdrawn, the county must inform all interested parties of the mineral interests sold to the state for a nominal fee, a change from previous practices.

The board also addressed a Supreme Court ruling that impacts the county’s role in managing tax-forfeited properties. The ruling, which arose from a case involving a condominium owner who lost her property due to unpaid taxes, requires the county to ensure previous owners receive any surplus proceeds from property sales. This new requirement has led to discussions about potentially applying a seller’s fee on surplus claims to cover administrative costs.

Finally, the board considered an easement issue involving properties B and C, which had undergone several changes since 1996. The discussion focused on updating the easement to run with the property rather than the individual owner to prevent future complications. The landowner would bear the costs related to this update, and the board deliberated on the potential for future complications arising from easements tied to individuals.