Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Tobacco Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stanton council amends tobacco-retailer registration to ban flavored products, requires minimum compliance checks and fee study
Summary
The Stanton City Council approved amendments to Ordinance 1153 (first reading amended) to strengthen tobacco‑retailer registration, add a definition of flavored products (including menthol), require at least two compliance visits per retailer per year during the ordinance's implementation period, and direct staff to pursue a fee to sustain enforcement after grant funding ends.
The Stanton City Council on Nov. 12 amended and approved the first reading of Ordinance 1153 to strengthen the city's tobacco retailer registration and prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol and other characterizing flavors.
Staff told the council the proposed update expands the definition of "tobacco retailer" to cover any retail establishment that sells tobacco, clarifies the definition of a "flavored tobacco product" to include fruit, menthol, mint and dessert flavors, and expands the definition of tobacco products to capture evolving products. Staff also said Stanton received $199,000 in tobacco‑grant funding for the 2024–25 grant cycle, allocated across three years, to hire a temporary code‑enforcement position to monitor roughly 40 tobacco retailers and conduct retailer education.
Public commenters from the Secondhand Smoke Workgroup urged firmer language on both monitoring frequency and an application fee to sustain enforcement after the grant. "We respectfully propose adding the following language: The department shall inspect each tobacco retailer at least 2 times for 12 month period to ensure compliance," one commenter said, arguing the addition would formalize current practices and guarantee continuity.
Council Member Alice led the discussion pressing staff for specifics about "continuous monitoring." Staff replied that the grant covers about $62,500 per year — roughly half of a fully burdened code‑enforcement officer — and that the city must complete a fee study before implementing a user fee to ensure fees are cost‑justified and the city does not profit from licensing. After debate, Alice proposed amendments to explicitly require at least two compliance visits per year and change the ordinance language from "may establish" a license/application fee to "shall establish."
Council Member Van moved the amended version; Council Member Taylor seconded. A roll‑call vote recorded all present voting in favor and the motion passed. The council set the ordinance for second reading and adoption at a subsequent meeting.
Council direction: staff will return with the ordinance revised to include the monitoring frequency language and the modified fee language, coordinate with the city attorney on enforcement mechanisms, and present the final adoption ordinance at the next meeting.
