Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leon Valley first‑reads ordinance to ban vaping where smoking is prohibited; council to place on March consent agenda
Summary
Council held a first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 6 (Health and Sanitation), Article 6.05 to include electronic smoking devices (ESDs) in existing smoking prohibitions and agreed to place the item on the March 4 consent agenda after clarifying signage, penalties and food‑service language.
Get email alerts on the Public Health And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented a first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Article 6.05 of the Leon Valley code to add electronic smoking devices — commonly called vapes or e‑cigarettes — to the city’s existing public smoking prohibitions.
Miss Huerta, Planning and Zoning director, said the current local code covers combustible tobacco (cigarettes, cigars) but not ESDs introduced to the market after 2014. The proposed amendment would add a definition of electronic smoking devices, require signage that includes an ESD icon alongside the cigarette icon, and make the ordinance effective 90 days after adoption to allow businesses to update signs.
Huerta and council members discussed enforcement and penalties. The proposed amendment does not change existing penalty language, which Huerta said provides fines in the local ordinance (example ranges provided in the ordinance packet were $25 to $200 for initial violations and higher on repeat offenses). The amendment also omits a local age‑of‑sale provision (the draft removes the local 21‑year reference because state law already sets the age at 21).
Council members raised one substantive drafting point: section language that currently reads that a food service establishment “shall provide areas for both smoking and nonsmoking” could be interpreted to require separate smoking and nonsmoking sections. Members asked staff to clarify whether that requirement should be optional or subject to standards; staff agreed to revise the language. The council indicated consensus to place the amended ordinance on the consent agenda for the March 4 meeting.

