---

The popularity of metal shipping containers for personal storage needs, has become yet another item on the list of stuff that people in the countryside complain about.  As the unattractive, intrusive, but useful,  hulking steel boxes proliferate- the Chisago County Board is attempting to draft fees and a fair process for regulating shipping containers.  As disputes arise over numbers of containers, their permanency and placement—the best way to avoid conflict is to control things ahead of time with ground rules.

County staff who oversee the land use permits and regulated activity need to have their time covered hence,  the government collects fees.

In general all of the Chisago County services fees are adopted by the County Board first thing in January and there was informal discussion about the draft fee schedule last week. 

The fee for placement of one container is proposed to be $150, which is what administrative (staff) decisions on a permit cost right now.  

The County Board debated increasing the fee for two or more containers. It was recommended there be a special interim use permit when multiple containers are sought, and for other uses, IUPs cost $900.  Public hearings and  other costs are associated with convening the planning  commission, sending notice, etc.

Plus there have been cases of “after the fact” container permission.  

Should violators who don’t get permits in advance be punished and how much should they pay?  Should the county require proof of need for the container, such as for a home business or farm storage,  or does that matter.

A draft version of a storage container rule and fees did not gain total consensus in recent discussion by the Board. Commissioner Rick Greene said having to get a special permit for multiple containers is a burden, on farmers especially.

Environmental Services Director Kurt Schneider said the county is trying to be accommodating in this draft ordinance.  Previously these types of containers were prohibited in the areas the county regulates.  

He said the draft ordinance landed on what he felt was a compromise to address multiple concerns.  Assessing a fee for “after the fact” is meant to entice container owners to get the appropriate authorizations up-front.

Board Chair Dan Dahlberg suggested taking a “holiday” on the large late fee, at least for 2026.  “Give it a year (new rules) and let’s see what’s out there,” he commented.

And, if the county staff are making multiple visits to verify containers are placed in accordance with wetland protections and setbacks from neighbors, etc. then re-visits could be billed extra, Dahlberg added.

The fee schedule as proposed (minus the after the fact fee and keeping the $900 for an Interim Use Permit for two or more containers) was embraced in the end.  The full Board will still review the issue in regular session before formal fee schedule adoption in January.

One new fee included in the schedule was for “judicial shielding” a new requirement resulting from privacy concerns for judges.  

The county now must “scrub” all records of addresses and names tied to the judiciary. The data  needs to be removed as-is, going back into county documents and kept out of future records.  

---