Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fiscal court adopts ordinance banning cannabis businesses in unincorporated Gallatin County
Summary
The Gallatin County Fiscal Court adopted Ordinance No. 20241212 on second reading to prohibit cannabis business operations in unincorporated areas, citing KRS 218B local opt-out authority; the measure passed on a 3–2 roll call.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Gallatin County Fiscal Court on Dec. 12 adopted an ordinance prohibiting cannabis business operations in unincorporated Gallatin County.
The ordinance (No. 20241212) was presented for a second reading. The text cites Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218B and related sections authorizing local governments to prohibit cannabis businesses and adopts the statutory definitions referenced in state law.
Magistrate Sheehan moved to approve the ordinance and Magistrate Moore seconded. The court called a roll vote at the request of the presiding officer. The roll produced three votes in favor and two opposed; the court recorded the outcome as 3–2 in favor of adopting the prohibition. Madam Clerk Sullivan voted “no.” Judge Morris, Magistrate Moore and Madam Chair Shingle voted “yes.”
Supporters said the ordinance exercises the county’s statutory authority under KRS 218B to opt out of local cannabis business operations in unincorporated areas. Opponents did not carry the motion; the court adopted the ordinance and the clerk recorded the result.
The ordinance states it takes effect on enactment and publication as required by the county’s rules. The court did not amend the language on second reading.
The court’s action applies only to unincorporated parts of Gallatin County; the ordinance notes that incorporated cities retain their own opt-in or opt-out authority under state law.
The fiscal court moved on to other items after the vote. Any implementation steps, land-use procedures, or licensing consequences will depend on follow-up administrative actions and local procedures that were not detailed in the meeting record.
