Gallatin County fiscal court advances first-reading ordinance to prohibit medical cannabis businesses in unincorporated county

Gallatin County’s fiscal court advanced a first-reading ordinance on Nov. 12 that would prohibit medical cannabis business operations in the county’s unincorporated areas.

The court voted 3–2 to move forward with Ordinance No. 20241212, which the text says relies on the state medical cannabis law passed earlier this year. The ordinance language cites a 2024 House bill and corresponding Kentucky Revised Statutes that, according to the draft ordinance read into the record, authorize local governments to prohibit cannabis business operations within their territory.

The issue had broad discussion before the vote. Court members were presented with three options: take no action (in which case state rules would govern dispensaries by default), adopt an ordinance allowing local cannabis businesses, or adopt an ordinance to prohibit such operations in unincorporated Gallatin County.

Speaker 1 summarized the default scenario: “If you do nothing by January 1, you’re in,” meaning county rules would fall to state guidance absent local action. Questions from magistrates and attendees focused on zoning, whether a county could impose a consumption tax, traffic impacts, and potential access for minors.

After an initial vote on permissive language failed, Magistrate Moore moved, and Magistrate Shingle seconded, a motion to prohibit cannabis business operations. The clerk recorded votes including a ‘No’ from Magistrate Sullivan and ‘Yes’ votes from Magistrate Shingle, Magistrate Moore and Judge Morris; the chair announced the tally as three yeses and two noes.

The ordinance’s first-reading text, as read to the court, references the state enactment (described in the draft as “2024 House Bill 829” and specific KRS sections) and states that “all cannabis businesses are hereby prohibited from operating within unincorporated [Gallatin] County limits.” Court staff said the ordinance will receive a second reading in December and will be published according to statutory notice requirements.

Court members who opposed immediate prohibition said they wanted more information about local zoning rules, tax implications and potential economic impacts before deciding. Supporters said local prohibition was an exercise of authority granted by the legislature and provided a means to control the presence of dispensaries in unincorporated areas.

The vote advances the ordinance to a second reading; no final local prohibition is effective until any required subsequent readings and publication are completed.