Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ahtf Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court ruling narrows county cannabis tax base, commissioners warned of hit to affordable-housing trust fund
Summary
St. Louis County staff told commissioners that a recent court ruling limits the county's ability to collect a sales tax on recreational cannabis to unincorporated areas, reducing revenue to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; commissioners requested a legal briefing and directed staff to monitor for state actions or clawbacks.
Get email alerts on the Ahtf Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Louis County commissioners were briefed Jan. 15 on a legal development that is already shrinking marijuana sales tax revenues earmarked for the county’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Robert Smith, the county accounting manager, reported a sharp decline in recent quarterly marijuana sales tax receipts and presented an updated trust-fund balance. County staff and acting director Kevin McKenna said the change is attributable to a court decision — described in the meeting as the Missouri dispensary case — that limits the county’s 3% sales tax levy on recreational cannabis to unincorporated areas only. Revenues collected in municipal, incorporated areas are no longer routed to the county trust fund.
McKenna said county counsel and staff researched whether the ruling could trigger retroactive clawbacks; he reported there was no current indication that the county would have to repay previously distributed funds but said staff would continue to monitor state disbursements and legal implications.
Commissioners asked county legal counsel to provide a briefing at the commission’s next meeting in March. Chair Marcus Adams and other commissioners discussed whether the change in tax geography (only unincorporated areas) should influence the commission’s future investment strategy for trust-fund dollars.
Staff said they will track revenue trends and provide updates; commissioners asked for clear legal guidance and for staff to examine whether the trust-fund ordinance requires any redefinition of eligible geographies given the court’s outcome.

