McLeod County Board's attempt to get feedback on a cannabis ordinance drew only silence during a Nov. 7 public hearing, as no one showed up to speak at the meeting.
“I was honestly hoping for a lot more of public input,” Chairman Paul Wright said. “This is one where we needed to hear from people, and it was honestly quite silent.”
Wright said city representatives have told him the cannabis ordinance should be the same county wide.
“For law enforcement’s sake, I think that that would be the simplest thing to enforce no matter where the dial would be as far as defining the public place or wherever,” he said. “Keeping the ordinance the same in the county through all the cities would definitely be the easiest thing to do.
According to McLeod County Attorney Ryan Hansch, said the county has four options:
- Do nothing and let state laws govern cannabis use.
- Enact a countywide ordinance that affects all places within the county, cities could add more restrictive regulations but not less.
- Enact a countywide ordinance that automatically applies within the cities, but cities can pass their own regulations which would then preempt the county’s ordinance within their boundaries.
- Allow cities to opt out and create their own regulations.
The current draft of the cannabis ordinance is written as a “middle-ground option.” It allows for countywide regulation but also gives cities the option to create their own regulations regarding the public use of cannabis and cannabis-related products.
This means that if the county's ordinance is passed in its current form, it would automatically take effect within all cities in the county, but cities have the flexibility to pass their own regulations if they choose to do so. If a city enacts its own ordinance, it would supersede the county's ordinance within the city's boundaries, allowing cities to have more or less restrictive regulations as they see fit.
Chairman Joe Nagel expressed his concern for where the jurisdiction would lie on county-owned properties that are located inside cities, if the county decided to enact it.
While the current draft does not address this issue, Hansch suggested language could be modified to clarify those county-owned properties within city limits would still be subject to the county's ordinance.
Because commissioners Doug Krueger and Daryl Luthens were absent the meeting the board voted to table the vote until Nov. 21 meeting. Hansch will provide two different drafts to vote upon as that meeting, the first option is a countywide all-encompassing ordinance that would apply uniformly across all cities. The second option will provide an opt-out approach that would allow individual cities to establish their own regulations, but the county having jurisdiction over county-owned properties.
