The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the first reading of an amended ordinance that adds enforcement measures and clarifies what counts as taxable cannabis cultivation, and advanced the ordinance to the Dec. 9, 2025 meeting for possible adoption.

Treasurer and Tax Collector Patrick Sullivan presented the revised ordinance, saying most additions are enforcement provisions modeled on existing county authority for other taxes. Sullivan said the draft gives the treasurer the ability to place liens, levy bank accounts and garnish wages to collect cultivation-related taxes and that the language mirrors similar provisions in other counties.

The change also narrows the focus of the ordinance to the activity of cultivation rather than relying exclusively on permitting or licensing status. "That if you're cultivating cannabis, you should be receiving a tax bill," Sullivan said, explaining the office intends to tax cultivation activity across medical, commercial and recreational operations so permit differences do not alter tax liability.

Several supervisors raised legal concerns about whether the apportionment language in section 18-60.2 could be read to broaden the tax or increase its amount without voter approval. "We can decrease the scope. We can do, the opposite, but we can't expand it," Supervisor Sabati warned, citing limits on the board's authority to amend voter-approved tax measures.

Legal counsel reviewed relevant county code sections and recommended clarifying or cross-referencing the provisions so the apportionment clause cannot be construed to broaden the cultivation tax. Counsel noted that under Lake County Code the board may repeal or amend the cultivation tax only in a manner that does not result in an increase in the amount or broaden the scope without additional voter approval.

Sullivan and counsel offered options: add an explicit sentence that the apportionment section is not intended to increase the tax or broaden its scope, adopt the business definition from the cannabis business tax ordinance to ensure consistent terminology, and explicitly include a cultivation/activity definition in article 6. Sullivan also proposed, as an alternative, handling apportionment through administrative procedures under the business tax ordinance rather than codifying an apportionment section in the cultivation tax article.

During public comment, Margo Kambara of LakeCap, a local nonprofit, said LakeCap "supports the county treasurer tax collector's efforts to improve collection of cannabis taxes" and encouraged the board to approve the enforcement additions and pursue a financial analysis of cannabis-related revenue and fees.

After discussion the board agreed to remove the contested apportionment language and add clarifying definitions. County counsel moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance as amended to be read in title only; the motion carried 5-0. The board then voted 5-0 to advance the amended draft ordinance to the Board's Dec. 9, 2025 meeting for consideration and possible adoption.

The ordinance amends article 6 of chapter 18 of the Lake County code to include enforcement measures and associated due-process requirements for cannabis cultivation-related taxes; the version advanced to the Dec. 9 meeting includes the agreed clarifications and the removal of the apportionment provision.