Isanti staff lays out cannabis zoning, two-tier fees; council directs revisions and return on Dec. 17

City staff walked Isanti City Council through a draft local ordinance to register and regulate cannabis and other cannabinoid products, explaining how state licenses and local zoning will interact and proposing a two‑tier city fee structure.

Staff told the council that adopting local rules before January 1 is important so the city can regulate businesses after the state begins issuing licenses. "Revenues from the retail sales of cannabis products will be divided. 80% going to the general fund of the state, 20% to the local government aid, cannabis aid. Cities will receive 50% of that 20%," staff said, noting that only cities that choose to regulate would receive their share of local aid.

The draft maps where license types would be permitted: cultivation permitted in the industrial park and some residential zones if fully indoors; retailers (dispensaries) in B1, B2, B3 and the Industrial Park/Transitional zone; testing, transporters, wholesalers and manufacturers mainly in industrial zones. Staff said cannabis events would follow statute rules and that the draft adds a 300‑foot school buffer for events.

On fees, staff proposed a two‑tier approach. Non‑intoxicating cannabinoid registrations (CBD, CBG, CBN and other low‑potency hemp products) would be handled through the city fee schedule at $125, in line with the statutory cap that limits local registration fees to half the state license fee for those products. Intoxicating cannabis retailer licenses were proposed at $500 annually and $500 for renewal; staff said businesses that hold both registrations would pay only the higher cannabis fee.

Council members asked how state security and compliance would be enforced; staff said the state requires security and waste‑management plans, and local concerns could be referred to the Office of Cannabis Management for investigation. There was discussion about whether large out‑of‑state corporations could dominate the market and whether local revenue would meaningfully offset policing costs.

Rather than adopt the ordinance immediately, staff said they would make the changes discussed, post the revised draft the following day, and return it to council for possible adoption at the Dec. 17 meeting. No formal motion or vote to adopt was taken at this meeting.