Cannabis regulation emerged as a important topic, highlighting the county’s need to align with state requirements while considering local community preferences. The board discussed the ordinance for cannabis business registration, which mandated at least five cannabis retail registrations in rural areas. This requirement raised questions about how these registrations would interact with those already allocated to municipalities like the City of Winona, which has no limit on cannabis registrations. Despite initial confusion, it was clarified that the county must still provide a minimum of five registrations in rural regions, regardless of municipal numbers.

The conversation delved into the potential for townships to opt out of cannabis business registrations, a point of contention that sparked varying opinions among board members. While some believed townships should have the autonomy to decline registrations, the legal implications were not entirely clear. Concerns were raised about how to comply with state mandates while respecting local governance, especially given the limited commercially zoned areas in rural Winona County. The board recognized the complexities involved in establishing a framework for cannabis business operations that would align with both community standards and state law.

A motion was made to table the discussion on cannabis regulations until more information and feedback from townships and constituents could be gathered. The urgency of having an ordinance in place before state licensing begins was emphasized, with licenses potentially being issued as early as the end of the month.

In addition to cannabis regulation, the board considered a conditional use permit for a dog boarding facility proposed by Greg and Brandy Gaml. Public comments were largely in favor, with one resident representing several neighbors who supported the permit. The board approved the permit with conditions, including vaccination requirements for animals, building adjustments to mitigate noise, and a maximum capacity of 30 dogs.

The meeting also addressed the use of ARPA funds for a pavilion project, which had sparked debate due to escalating costs and limited public support. Initially budgeted at $80,000, with $34,000 already expended, the project faced scrutiny for its financial management and scope. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of the pavilion, with some viewing it as a “nice to have” rather than a “need to have.” The board discussed the necessity of local support and the potential for reallocating funds to prioritize site improvements over the pavilion project itself.

A proposal was made to reject current bids and utilize unallocated ARPA funds for necessary site improvements, highlighting the challenge of balancing immediate needs against future financial commitments. The board acknowledged the need for strategic funding management, considering ongoing maintenance costs and the potential burden on county resources.

Strategic planning was another focal point, with the board approving modifications to the county’s strategic plan to better support rural communities and integrate small businesses and agriculture into the county’s economic vision. The revised plan includes language emphasizing the importance of these sectors, aligning with the board’s broader goals for economic development.

Additionally, the board received a letter from Representative Rinsky, prompting a suggestion to arrange a meeting to discuss the impact of pending state legislation on county services. Acknowledgment was made of Rinsky’s involvement in opposing proposed Medicaid cuts.