51黑料

The court鈥檚 answer will affect more than 70 local jurisdictions statewide, where both city and county governments have been imposing a 3% tax at dispensaries, according to Missouri Department of Revenue data.

The court case focuses on Florissant-based dispensary Robust Missouri 3 LLC, where customers are paying a total sales tax of 20.988%, which includes a 3% sales tax from both the city of Florissant and 51黑料 County.

Robust argues it鈥檚 unconstitutional to have two local governments taxing marijuana customers.

鈥淭here鈥檚 only supposed to be one local government, one boss, one master dictating outcomes and imposing the 3% tax,鈥� said Eric Walter, Robust鈥檚 attorney, at the Tuesday hearing.

51黑料 County and St. Charles County have the authority to pass a 3% tax on unincorporated areas, he said, but not on their entire geographic footprint.

A panel of Missouri appellate judges agreed with Robust in November, ruling that the constitution鈥檚 鈥減lain, unambiguous鈥� language means cities and counties cannot stack marijuana sales taxes.

鈥淥nly one local government is authorized to impose an additional three percent sales tax,鈥� Judge John Torbitzky of the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District wrote in the unanimous opinion.

That decision reversed a lower court鈥檚 ruling last year that allowed both Florissant and 51黑料 County to both impose a 3% sales tax on marijuana products.

51黑料 County Circuit Judge Brian May wrote that if Robust鈥檚 interpretation of the law were accepted, it would lead to 鈥渁bsurd outcomes,鈥� because 鈥渁 municipality or city would essentially be given carte blanche to ignore any county ordinance or regulation, including those related to public health and safety wholly unrelated to the taxing issue.鈥�

May was largely talking about public health regulations 鈥� particularly those that apply to marijuana dispensaries 鈥� because public health in Florissant is regulated by 51黑料 County.

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Russell asked Walter to respond to May鈥檚 ruling that Robust鈥檚 interpretation 鈥渆ffectively nullifies鈥� other county ordinances regarding health and welfare.

鈥淭his is not a county health code case,鈥� Walter said, an argument with which the appellate court agreed.

However, 51黑料 County鈥檚 attorney, Laura Robb said, Tuesday that public health is 鈥渋n the purpose鈥� of the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2022 legalizing recreational marijuana. Florissant relies on 51黑料 County to impose public health ordinances on all its businesses, she said, because it doesn鈥檛 have its own department of public health.

鈥淪o it鈥檚 only logical that portions of the revenue should be captured by the institution with the public health duties,鈥� Robb told judges Tuesday.

Robb agreed with May that it would have an 鈥渁bsurd result to have dispensaries that are essentially not governed by any of the applicable public health ordinances that apply to every other building that鈥檚 in Florissant.鈥�

The constitutional amendment states that 鈥渓ocal government鈥� means, 鈥渋n the case of an incorporated area, a village, town, or city; and, in the case of an unincorporated area, a county.鈥�

At a hearing last year, attorneys for 51黑料 and St. Charles counties argued the word 鈥渁nd鈥� is key in the definition.

Supreme Court Judge Kelly Broniec asked Robb to review the section of the constitutional amendment titled 鈥渓ocal control.鈥� There, it outlines how residents can vote to ban dispensaries in their towns and cities.

Broniec read the question the law states should be submitted to voters: 鈥淪hall (insert name of local government) ban all non-颅medical microbusiness dispensary facilities and comprehensive marijuana dispensary facilities from being located within (insert name of local government and, where applicable, its 鈥榰nincorporated areas鈥�) and forgo any additional related local tax revenue?鈥�

Broniec asked if this provision supports the counties鈥� definition of local government or Robust鈥檚?

鈥淚f one of the local governments disallowed it and one allowed it 鈥� if it was on the same ballot, let鈥檚 say 鈥� whose would control, if both the city and the county are a local government,鈥� Broniec asked.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 know the answer to that question,鈥� Robb said.

Walter later told Broniec that he loved her question.

鈥淚t was very insightful because when you talk about the constitutional authority allowing the local government to outright ban dispensaries, there鈥檚 a particular procedure,鈥� Walter said, 鈥渁nd 鈥� even dictates what the language needs to be when presented to the voters on the question.鈥�

Walter pointed out that the constitution requires that each one of Missouri鈥檚 eight congressional districts have no less than 24 dispensaries. The 2nd Congressional District is comprised almost entirely of 51黑料 County, and if the county were able to impose a ban, there鈥檇 be a few parts of St. Charles and Jefferson counties remaining to 鈥渃ram 24 dispensaries into.鈥�

鈥淭hat would invade the prerogative of all the 90 maybe unique municipalities within the county of St Louis,鈥� Walter said. 鈥淎nd they should be allowed to decide whether or not they want these businesses for their citizens.鈥�