One item on the agenda was the adoption of a new cannabis zoning ordinance. This ordinance was designed to align with state regulations while incorporating local zoning considerations. The ordinance aims to regulate where cannabis businesses can operate, defining specific zoning districts and prohibiting home occupation cannabis businesses. This move followed a public hearing and received unanimous support from the Planning Commission. However, concerns were raised about potential overlaps between the county and city regulations, particularly with the City of Winona. The ordinance limits the number of cannabis businesses to 125, leading to questions about how this interacts with city rules.

Security measures for cannabis processing facilities were another focus, with recognition that while state requirements exist, the county would impose additional conditions if necessary through interim or conditional use permits. There was consensus that existing businesses selling lower potency hemp products should not face disruption due to the new ordinance.

The board emphasized the urgency of adopting the ordinance to ensure local regulations are in place as the state’s moratorium expires. This urgency reflects the need for clear guidelines for potential investors and operators, as well as the desire to avoid businesses operating without county oversight. The ordinance’s approval marked a step forward in local regulatory processes for cannabis, with the understanding that further adjustments would be made as more information becomes available from the state.

Parallel to the discussion on cannabis zoning, the board tackled the contentious issue of funding a plan update, mandated by state statutes every ten years. The debate centered around whether to engage in a full review or opt for smaller, incremental updates. The proposed update, with a budget of up to $150,000, faced scrutiny over its necessity given the county’s historical context and the lack of public demand for such an expenditure.

Commissioners debated the merits of a comprehensive rewrite versus targeted revisions, with some suggesting that previous plans had not been fully implemented or needed. The analogy of replacing an engine with significant mileage left was used to question the timing and need for a new plan. Despite acknowledging the lack of internal resources for a large-scale project, there was concern about spending taxpayer money without clear public demand or demonstrated need.

The comprehensive plan update was seen as essential for aligning with zoning ordinances and supporting legal defensibility in land use decisions. Nonetheless, the absence of specific issues driving the investment spurred calls for more public engagement and clarity on the plan’s goals. The board recognized the challenges of balancing residential needs with commercial and industrial developments, particularly in rural areas.

Beyond these major topics, the meeting also addressed various committee appointments, including the Parks and Environment Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Health and Human Services Advisory Committee. Each discussion highlighted the importance of geographic diversity and expertise, particularly in ensuring rural representation and addressing public health needs.

The board also approved a federal grant for a fiber optic project aimed at enhancing internet access for over 2,200 residents and businesses. This initiative underscores the growing demand for reliable internet services in rural settings, reflecting broader infrastructure needs alongside traditional utilities like electricity and water.

Commissioner comments acknowledged the importance of continued promotion and monitoring of these initiatives, with plans for future updates on testing demand.