North St. Paul City Council — Transcript
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Cannabis Ordinance Development
Revenue Options for the City
Votes (2)
Cannabis Ordinance Discussion
Dissent: Council members expressed mixed views on Conditional Use Permits initially, but the general consensus provided direction for staff to draft the ordinance. Council Member Swe expressed specific dissent on the 500ft distance between cannabis operations, with the council agreeing to scratch that requirement.
The council reviewed staff recommendations for a cannabis ordinance. Key points included: allowing cannabis businesses in MU2 and MU3 zones but prohibiting them in the MU1 historic downtown core; debate on requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with staff favoring it initially due to unknowns and the city attorney advising against it due to limited local control and administrative burden; setting minimum distances of 750 feet from schools and 500 feet from daycares, residential treatment, and park amenities; hours of operation mirroring liquor stores (Mon-Sat 10 am-10 pm, Sun 10 am-9 pm); capping the number of adult-use retail registrations at two (excluding potential city-run stores); adopting specific definitions for home-grow requirements; and prohibiting outdoor seating/smoking. The council ultimately voted against a 500-foot minimum distance between cannabis operations.
Discussion of Revenue Options for the City
Dissent: Council Member Swe expressed reservations about special assessments and the snow removal fee due to concerns about business impact. A nuisance service call fee was eliminated from further consideration.
The Finance Director presented several revenue options for the city, including: a Central Business District sidewalk snow removal fee (council agreed to explore and send to EDA for recommendation); a local option sales tax (explore but pause until state recommendations are clearer, inquire about UMN Extension analysis cost); a municipal liquor store (council interested, pursue coalition of similar-sized cities for legislative change); special assessments (council interested in exploring a 5% assessment, noting past resolution and legal challenges); a municipal cannabis store (council interested); a rental unit fee ($5/month/unit, council interested in pursuing); and a fire certificate of compliance inspection fee (council interested in pursuing). A nuisance service call fee was dismissed due to low potential revenue. Stormwater utility fees based on parking lot square footage are already in place.
Notable Quotes (11)
cities will retain a limited role in dictating available locations within each mun municipality where cannabis sales Productions Etc can operate particularly in land use area
our feeling is that it potentially creates more administrative hassle for the city than it creates meaningful control over these businesses
I don't necessarily think that it would be worth with Jack administr it sounds like an administrative nightmare however to be sure that we're compliant and we're following proper protocol especially with us all being brand new as of next year I can't see why we can't do it for a short period of time
if you restrict it to specific zones and then start placing some of those bubbles which is part of the maps that you have in your packet this evening it further restricts it and and defines where these businesses can operate to so it's it it continues to shrink as you add more layers onto it which could be challengeable if you make it too restrictive
I'm of I'm of the mindset of you know Crow before you walk walk before you run so a few a few guard rails to me aren't the worst things in the world they can always be removed
I don't know that I'm in favor of having the 500 foot distance between the two to me there might be value of having them next to each other
this isn't all exhaustive it's just a number of items that have kind of been thrown up by staff and uh some that city council has mentioned in the past
three and a half points of our Levy now is roads so again that was a big chunk of that was covered off off of Assessments I just think it's it's unfortunate that the council members elect aren't here I hope you go through this with them when they come on board but it's unfortunate but think it's time the city take a long hard look at at some of some of the things that the city has been paying for for for several years that may need to be reversed
my initial thought on it is I'm not in favor of because we have a hard enough time attracting businesses to the downtown area however I if if it was just me up here giving staff Direction my direction would be put it before the Eda and I would want a recommendation from the Eda on what way they want us to go before I would want to make a move on this
special assessments one of the key things that we have to remember is we can't go on and off and on and off and on and off because that creates an inequity for property owners across the city has
10% might be steep M even at even at 5% it's more it's 5% more more than we had I think year 2026 was $375,000 of generated income at 10% right even even half of that is 2% of a levy I'm in favor of it
Ordinances & Resolutions (8)
State legislation legalizing adult use cannabis and outlining city roles.
Document from the city attorney's office outlining considerations for a new cannabis ordinance.
Visual aid used to discuss proposed cannabis business locations.
Future document to be created based on council direction for cannabis regulations.
City plan (2025-2034) used for estimating potential special assessment revenue.
City resolution passed in 2019 to do away with special assessments.
Legislative proposal concerning local option sales taxes and regional projects.
Report on Minnesota Municipal Liquor Stores, detailing their financial performance.