Tracking how much cannabis tax revenue comes from Atlantic City’s Tourism District versus its residential neighborhoods is quickly becoming a key question for local officials, operators, and investors. The city has fully opted into New Jersey’s adult-use market and now allows all state license classes within its boundaries, subject to local zoning and licensing rules.

On the tax side, Atlantic City stacks several revenue streams. Recreational cannabis sales are subject to New Jersey’s 6.625% state sales tax, plus the statewide Social Equity Excise Fee (SEEF), which is set at $2.50 per ounce of usable recreational cannabis in 2025. State law also lets municipalities charge up to a 2% local cannabis transfer tax on recreational sales, creating a dedicated local revenue line tied directly to cannabis activity.

Atlantic City has fully exercised that option. Its ordinance imposes a 2% transfer tax on receipts from each sale by cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, delivery services (when the delivery originates in the city), and retailers, and 1% on wholesalers. The city mirrors these rates with a user tax on vertically integrated operators, effectively doubling the local percentage on internal transfers. For finance directors, that means every legal gram sold within city limits can be tagged with a precise local tax obligation.

What makes the Tourism District unique is that it has been intentionally positioned as a cannabis “Green Zone.” The Green Zone Redevelopment Plan covers portions of the CRDA Tourism and Special Improvement Districts along key corridors like Pacific and Atlantic Avenues, where the goal is to leverage recreational cannabis to attract private investment, revitalize commercial corridors, and deepen tourism spending. At the same time, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) is actively updating land-use regulations, including conditional use standards and separation distances for cannabis businesses in the Tourism District.

For tax tracking, that geographic carve-out matters. If most retail and lounge licenses end up clustered inside the Tourism District, the city can use business addresses, zoning overlays, and point-of-sale reporting to segment tax receipts by zone: Tourism District versus other neighborhoods. Over time, this lets policymakers answer critical questions:

• How much of local cannabis tax revenue is truly tourism-driven versus resident-driven?
• Are Green Zone corridors generating enough incremental tax dollars to justify infrastructure, security, and marketing investments?
• Are non-tourism neighborhoods seeing equitable reinvestment from citywide cannabis receipts?

Practically, operators and regulators will need standardized data fields—such as a required “Tourism District/Green Zone” flag on local tax returns—plus regular reporting cycles that reconcile state SEEF collections, local transfer and user taxes, and broader Atlantic City revenue like luxury and tourism promotion fees.

For cannabis businesses, clear tracking can shape strategy. If tourism district sales show a higher average ticket size due to visitors, brands may prioritize flagship stores, lounges, and experiential retail there, while using neighborhood locations to serve medical patients and regular adult-use customers. Conversely, if data shows robust year-round spending outside the Tourism District, operators can justify investing in smaller, community-focused stores away from the casino core.

Ultimately, the ability to accurately track cannabis tax revenue by geography will determine how convincingly Atlantic City can argue that legalization is fueling both tourism and neighborhood revitalization. For city leaders, getting that data architecture right now will pay dividends long after the initial wave of dispensary openings has passed.