Clay County delays enforcement date for tobacco ordinance to June 1 after board debate

The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted 4–1 on Jan. 14 to delay enforcement of a recently adopted tobacco ordinance until June 1 and instructed public health staff to notify affected merchants.

The ordinance had been approved by the board on Dec. 17 and, under the ordinance’s effective-date language, became effective upon publication or summary publication. At the Jan. 14 meeting several commissioners said they had not seen a redline comparison between the prior and revised ordinance, and some asked for an additional public hearing to allow more time for public input and for businesses to adapt. Commissioner Behr asked that the board schedule a public hearing to consider repeal; that motion was proposed but not seconded and did not advance.

Public health staff said the ordinance’s text provides that it took effect on publication; staff initially communicated an April 1 enforcement timeline to the public forum but said their supervisor and the county attorney advised that setting an implementation timeline was an administrative decision. Public health staff told the board they intend to contact affected merchants and that the county estimates about 11 establishments in Clay County could be affected.

After extended discussion about process and business impacts, a commissioner moved that enforcement of the approved tobacco ordinance be delayed until June 1, that public health notify affected merchants, and that staff provide updates as the board continues deliberation about whether to amend or rescind the local provision. The motion was seconded and carried in a roll-call vote: Commissioner Kravanoff — yes; Commissioner Mojo — no; Commissioner Campbell — yes; Commissioner Baer — yes; Commissioner Ebinger — yes.

During the discussion multiple commissioners raised these points: they wanted a redline version showing specific changes from the prior ordinance; some said the matter had been developed at the committee level and had received committee and public input over several months; others said the board should give staff clear direction about implementation timelines so merchants are not left uncertain. The county attorney, Brian Milton, was cited multiple times as advising on procedure but was not present because he was in trial.

The board also discussed next steps: staff and commissioners agreed to schedule a future meeting or work session to consider whether to amend or rescind the local portion of the ordinance. The county will present the current ordinance text and any proposed alternatives at that future hearing. Meanwhile public health will proceed with outreach to affected businesses to explain the June 1 timeline and next steps for the community.