Clay County delays enforcement of tobacco ordinance to June 1 after commissioners raise process and outreach concerns

The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted Jan. 14 to delay enforcement of a recently adopted tobacco ordinance until June 1 and asked public health staff to contact affected merchants about the revised timeline.

The action came after more than an hour of discussion during which several commissioners said they wanted more time to review the ordinance language, to see a redline comparison with the prior code and to allow county staff to notify local businesses after an earlier implementation date had circulated in local media.

Commissioner Baer, who asked that the item be returned to the board for discussion, said he was uneasy about how the ordinance came before the full board and the timing of the Dec. 17 vote. "I guess I have questions pertaining to this on how it all came to the board," Baer said during the meeting, and he asked whether the board had received a redline version showing the changes. Baer also said he had heard staff had set an April 1 implementation date and that businesses needed more certainty.

Public health staff told the board the ordinance text includes an "effective date" clause (section 14) that makes an adopted ordinance effective on publication; operational enforcement timelines, however, are typically set by staff. "If you look at the very back page on effective date section 14, it does state immediately that the ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication or upon the publication of a summary of the ordinance," the public health presenter said. The presenter said internal discussion had led staff to propose a short enforcement window to allow retailers time to sell through inventory; staff initially provided an April 1 implementation date to media but told commissioners they had no objection to moving that to June 1.

Commissioner Mogel and others said the governing body has a responsibility to ensure adequate public notice and that affected businesses — which public health staff said number 11 in the county — receive direct contact from county staff. "If the merchants still have not been reached out by staff saying an implementation date or what's happening… I'd like to see just another public hearing on this matter," Commissioner Bair said earlier in the discussion (motion later withdrawn).

After debate over procedure and whether to schedule a new public hearing to consider repeal or amendment of the local provision that restricts flavored tobacco sales, a motion to set June 1 as the county's enforcement start date for the adopted ordinance passed on a roll-call vote: Commissioner Kravanoff — yes; Commissioner Mojo — no; Chair Campbell — yes; Commissioner Baer — yes; Commissioner Eppinger — yes. The motion directs public health to notify affected merchants and to coordinate public communication about any future board actions related to the ordinance.

County staff and several commissioners stressed that county enforcement would emphasize education at first. Public health staff said implementation plans were intended to balance community health goals with fairness to small businesses and that the county attorney had advised that setting an implementation timeline is an administrative (staff) decision; the board nevertheless voted to establish the June 1 timeline by motion.

The board also discussed how the ordinance had been drafted and reviewed in committee over several months, and several commissioners asked that future materials include a redline version showing changes from the prior ordinance. Commissioners said they may schedule a work session or another public hearing later this winter to consider whether to amend or repeal the local portion of the ordinance. Any such hearing would require a separate board action to set the date and to publish notice per state law.

Officials also noted limitations on local authority: speakers pointed out that flavored vaping products remain available through online retailers and in neighboring jurisdictions, and that Clay County can control only sales within its own jurisdiction.

No repeal or amendment occurred on Jan. 14; rather, the board left the ordinance in effect and postponed enforcement actions until June 1 pending further outreach and any future board decisions.