Clay County Commission

Dan Haglund

The Clay County Board of Commissioners moved the date of their recent flavored tobacco ban to June 1 on Tuesday in Moorhead.
The change comes after Clay County Public Health recently set a preliminary rollout date of April 1.
The additional time will be used to give 11 affected merchants in the county an opportunity to prepare of the changes and to sell on-hand inventories.
On Dec. 17 after a public hearing, the board voted 3-2 to ban within the county the sale of flavored tobacco products, except chewing tobacco and menthol cigarettes, to now take effect April 1 after an original Jan. 1 ban date was changed.
With the strong encouragement of mainly local medical professionals and students, the ban includes flavored vape products and nicotine pouches.
Clay County licenses 11 retail stores, all located in rural areas of the county.
With bans already in place within the cities of Moorhead and Dilworth, the only city in the county allowed to sell the products is Barnesville, which passed its own ordinance previously.
Commissioner Paul Krabbenhoft, Dist. 1, wanted to clarify a portion of the text the board passed on Dec. 17, which read: “No person shall sell or offer any sale of any flavored products.”
Krabbenhoft went on the further explain that when Clay County Public Health made its presentation, they offered the board two options. One with a full ban on tobacco products, and one with the allowance of menthol and chewing tobacco, of which the board opted for the later.
Krabbenhoft also lamented the ban rollout, and what it specifically covers.
“I haven’t heard it from our people. Why are we trying to regulate something we haven’t even heard yet,” Krabbenhoft said.
To offer clarification on the rollout, Jason McCoy, Clay County tobacco prevention coordinator, explained.
“One of the things I’ve learned after a decade of doing tobacco control is that we need to consider the businesses in this,” McCoy said. “We need to consider the product that they have. They’re ordering ahead of time.”
McCoy said while youth and health are always going to be Public Health’s focus, there remains a mindfulness to allow businesses a chance to ease into the changes.
McCoy said giving businesses at least three months to ease into the change before enforcement was a goal.
He said he has heard from concerned businesses regarding implementation dates.
Commissioner Kevin Campbell, Dist. 4, asked McCoy about the April 1 date, inquiring if he had an issue with a June 1 rollout date instead. McCoy said the date was not an issue.
Campbell said he would support a June 1 rollout date as an alternative, with the possibility of a public hearing on the subject in the near future as well.
“Just the timelines that are involved, maybe we’re not going to be ready to even have a public hearing based on what direction we’d want to go,” Campbell said.
Campbell said he would like to see that the 11 businesses affected receive full communication on the rollout, timeline and enforcement.
He said a June 1 rollout would allow all parties involved to “have the proper dialogue about what change, if any, this board wants to see.”
Commissioner David Ebinger, Dist. 5, agreed with Campbell on the June 1 rollout, and made a motion to change the rollout timeline to reflect as such.
Commissioner Jenny Mongeau, Dist. 3, said she is a no on the change, citing that there wasn’t a planned vote on an actionable agenda item. The vote, which did not include budget items, was taken after lengthy discussions, and passed 4-1.