Orange County youth council urges local adoption of HB 947 protections for schools

Autumn Barganti, chair of the Orange County Youth Council, told the Board of Supervisors that the council’s research found local vaping is widespread and that many retail outlets selling tobacco or vape products sit close to schools and childcare centers. “My name is Autumn Barganti, and I’m the chairman of the Orange County Youth Council,” Barganti said, and then cited survey and local‑enforcement figures. She said 35.6% of the high‑school students sampled reported using electronic vaping devices within the 30 days prior to the 2019 youth risk behavior survey, compared with 15.1% in 2017, and that 27.8% of eighth graders reported vaping in 2019.

Barganti described conversations with school resource officers that yielded “approximately 40 to 50 vape pens” confiscated in the 2023–24 school year and noted the number is likely conservative. She walked the board through maps measuring distances from six public schools to nearby retail locations and said several were well within half a mile and that several retail sites lie within 1,000 linear feet of school buildings or childcare centers when measured to parcel property lines. “From the tobacco and vape shop property line … they cannot be within 1,000 linear feet of a school or childcare center,” Barganti said, describing the protections enacted by House Bill 947.

Barganti asked the board to enact a local ordinance that aligns with the state code so that “the entirety of Orange County will be protected from new tobacco and vape retail establishments.” She emphasized that the proposed local action would not affect existing stores but would prevent new establishments from opening within the defined buffer. Several board members thanked the youth council for their work and voiced support for pursuing a local ordinance that mirrors the state law; questions from the board focused on whether the state text prevents a school or childcare facility from being built near an existing retail site and on enforcement responsibilities. One supervisor said that question “would depend on how you, as the board, decided to write the ordinance.”

The meeting record shows the youth council delivered its presentation and answered board questions; no formal motion or vote on a county ordinance was recorded at this meeting. The council distributed informational stickers for its anti‑vape outreach before leaving the dais. The board suggested staff verify legal details and implications — including whether the state language would preclude new schools or childcare centers in proximity to existing retailers — before any drafting of local ordinance language.