Ephrata council expedites ban on kratom sales, approves escalating fines

The Ephrata City Council voted to expedite Ordinance 26-003, a measure to ban sales of kratom products within city limits and to apply escalating penalties for violations. Councilmembers moved to adopt the penalty schedule recommended by local law enforcement — a C9 for a first offense, a C5 for a second offense and a C1 for a third and subsequent offenses — and approved the motion by voice vote; the transcript does not record the numeric tally.

Health-district officials told the council they support local bans while federal agencies continue rulemaking on synthetic kratom analogs. "The commercial kratom marketplace contains products posing an imminent hazard to public safety," said Alex Brznney, Grand County health officer, arguing that synthetic additives in packaged products make it impossible for consumers or retailers to distinguish safe leaf from adulterated products. Rhese, the county health educator, reported the district had conducted roughly 90–95 retail assessments across neighboring counties and estimated that 70–80% of assessed retailers carried kratom products.

Brznney and the health educator cited national poison-center data to describe the scope of reported harms: "Of about 13,000 poison-center calls in 2025 through July, a large share required medical care," Brznney said, and he cited hospital, ICU and death counts as motivating federal attention. He described a recent federal notice of intent that would set thresholds and could classify certain synthesized kratom chemicals as Schedule I, and explained that federal action may take about 60 days to move through public comment and legal review.

Council discussion focused on enforcement feasibility and penalty design. An attorney advised that the local ordinance would generally be a civil enforcement tool unless federal scheduling makes specific chemicals criminal; officers and the chief raised concerns about the practical difficulty of distinguishing products at point of sale. Chief Cook recommended the C9/C5/C1 penalty progression and noted comparable city ordinances often start around a $250 base for first offenses.

A councilmember said they supported the health district’s safety concerns but hesitated to expedite adoption without more public input and clearer guidance on enforcement. Councilmembers who supported the motion said a local ban would make enforcement simpler for officers and could help pressure state legislators to take action.

The council adopted the motion to expedite Ordinance 26-003 with the stated penalties and instructed staff to proceed; recording indicates the motion passed but does not include a roll-call tally or names associated with each vote. The ordinance now moves forward as adopted per the expedited action and will be incorporated into the city code under the amended penalty schedule.