City Council - Regular Meeting

Well, good afternoon, everybody. It is Thursday, May 21st, and we're going to kick off our study session today. Today we'll be discussing fireworks regulation review, a safe and sane presentation. And for that, we have our city attorney and our police chief. And Chief Jackson from CCFR joins us today. So Ms. Barker, I'll just turn it over to you and let you take it from here.

All right. I will kick it off. I will start by first saying I am not a fireworks expert. Oh, am I? I need to get closer.

There we go.

OK. So we'll reiterate that. I am not a fireworks expert. I can set off a few fireworks in my driveway. But I don't know that much about the types of fireworks or much detail. So that's why we have other experts in the room that are more knowledgeable than I. But I did plan on walking you through the regulatory framework, both the cities, the states, and then what some other jurisdictions have done, and then walk through maybe what some options are. So we'll lead the discussion and see if we can have some consensus, and then bring something back if that is the council's wish. Next slide is already there. OK. So the framework is governed under state law, under RCW 70.77. And generally, for our purposes, the most significant is that when you make any changes that are more restrictive than state law, there is a one-year effective date delay. So anything that you would want to do to be effective next Fourth of July would need to be in effect or would need to be adopted prior to this Fourth. And then under state law, there is actually some specific things that are already just strictly prohibited. And those are firecrackers, bottle rockets, and then rockets that appear to be on like a sticks or fins. So those are already prohibited under state law and you can't do anything less prohibitive than that. Yeah. Oh, and let me just say, feel free to ask questions. This is supposed to be informal. We can kind of all weigh in as we need.

This may be a terrible question, but I don't know my fireworks. But what is the difference between a firecracker and a firework? What is a firecracker?

I would love for you to speak to the details.

A firecracker specifically is a small exploding device. So essentially it just explodes as a firecracker. And typically the ones on sticks are bottle rockets, things of that nature that are designed to be placed in a tube that's aimed and then launched and shot, which is different than what they refer to as the mortars, which are like the round ones they put in the cardboard tube that launch vertically.

Okay. And we can come back to that. Next slide. So fireworks can be discharged under state law without a permit if they are consumer fireworks. And there is the nice long legal definition in the statute about what consumer fireworks are. And I don't know what any of that means. But the state did put together a nice little pamphlet with some pictures of the different types of things of what is regulated or what is allowed as a consumer firework. under state law. So you can see the mine shells and cakes are those, I think what you were talking about, the things that are in the cardboard. And then there's some reloadable mortars also. And that's important because as we get into what some of the other jurisdictions are doing, some of those are more strictly regulated. But this is a list of the things that are authorized under Washington law. And if you have any questions about what any of those are, we can kind of

Just a quick question. Of the ones we see on the screen, are any of those what I would call aerial?

Yes. I believe that the mine shelves and cakes are aerial. The reloadable mortars are aerial. And some of the helicopters and parachutes are also aerial.

Thank you.

Okay, next slide. Then I just wanted to walk through briefly what other jurisdictions in Clark County have done. You can see at the top there is what the Washington state law says. And then I've got Clark County in each of the jurisdictions. And I've added what they allow. So consumer fireworks, that definition under state law, those are allowed under all the jurisdictions that say consumer. Vancouver does not allow any, as I understand it. And then Camas and Washougal have both adopted similar but not identical regulations where Washougal has said safe and sane only, and then Camas has has allowed it a little more broadly than that. But I think if I'm understanding it correctly, they are still not allowing the mortars and the shell type fireworks. And then you've got all the times there as well. So you can see how it looks like all of the jurisdictions have more narrowly defined the times at which you can discharge the fireworks. So that's just a frame of reference to see where we fit with what other people are doing. OK, next slide. Okay, so Washougal actually did a safe and sane. They prohibited mortar type fireworks. And then this is the best definition. I can't find, safe and sane is not a defined term that I can find that has a common definition. And there might be one at federal law that I don't know about, but I couldn't find one. But this is the language that I've commonly found seen in when describing safe and sane is that they are not, they fly, explode, or travel more than one foot into the air or six feet on the ground. So I think that is a commonly understood, if not a legal definition of safe and sane. And then Washougal also in that particular section goes on to require a particular seal from the California, um, fire marshal's office and so that seal has to be on any fireworks that are sold or another seal of equal, another seal accepted by the local fire marshal. So they have, that's how they've got at what is a common definition of safe and sane. So they're regulating safe and sane and then CAMAS didn't go that route but they did specifically prohibit or say that consumer fireworks did not include aerial shell kits reloadable tube and I've tried everywhere to find a definition of what that is including under those citations and I don't actually know what that is so I'm looking maybe to other folks to to help me define that. The safe and sane. And the chemist just says the aerial shell kit reloadable tubes are provided.

That's mortars.

And you can reuse the tube, essentially. So there's the firework you put in the tube. You can reuse that tube over several times.

So on sort of that list of allowed fireworks, it's the one that said reloadable mortars or something at the bottom.

And I believe they added that some

Yeah, but I don't think Camus actually said safe and sane. Their statute, their code did not limit it to safe and sane. Washougal's did, but not Camus's. I have a question about the safe

I have a question about safe and sane. Getting the California seal, is that, do we know if that, is that generally just in the production stage something that they do for all the fireworks that meet that definition, or is that requiring an additional step for vendors that are procuring fireworks?

I don't know about all of the vendors, but generally it's at the production stage because California's a large enough market that they can drive.

Yeah, yeah.

So they'll push the labeling, and oftentimes those ones that are sold here that meet that criteria still have it.

They have the seal. That's, I guess, what I'm after is do we have ones that probably already have it because they just put it on a production if it meets the criteria. Okay, thanks.

It might go to California market. That's what I'm thinking, and that Washougal used that because it was close enough proximity that that was a seal that would be most familiar to Washington markets, but I don't know. Okay, next slide. So then what the city does, as I mentioned, we allow right now all consumer fireworks, as that is defined under state law, so that larger list of things on the earlier slide. Sale requires a license, and that's currently more restrictive than the state. We allow the sale from 12 p.m. on July 1st to 11 p.m., and then on the 2nd through the 4th from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. And then the discharge, we allow from 9 a.m. to 12 o'clock midnight on the 4th. And then for things that are bigger than consumer fireworks, for public displays, those are permitted separately.

Do we have a definition? I'm sorry we're giving you all these. That's okay. That's what we're trying to answer. Do we have a definition for what a public display is? So what I'm thinking is I know there are several – Um, people who live in, in the city, uh, I have somebody who lives nearby us and they put on in their cul-de-sac every single year, a pretty good size show and they do it for the neighbors. And I, I mean they're, they spend a lot of money on it. It's kind of cool, but I don't know if that's just something they're just kind of freestyling with or is there something that they've, we consider a public display and they would need a separate license for that.

Give me one second. I will double check. We actually defined a public display of fireworks in our code, so I did not find that.

And I can speak to it on behalf of the agency that does the permitting for that. So for a public display, essentially, is anything that would be outside of the discharge window. So if it's outside of the legal discharge window, say somebody wanted to have fireworks on the 3rd of July or the 5th of February, whatever it be, then that would require a permit to do that as a public display, regardless of the types of fireworks. Beyond that, a public display would be non-consumer grade fireworks. So fireworks that require a pyrotechnician. And the easy way to tell them is the non-consumer grade, the commercial grade fireworks, come in a very plain brown wrapper and are generally much larger, not marketed. They're just very simple, and you have to have a license to even procure those.

Right, okay. Okay. Other questions at this point? And I think that Ms. Parker's looking it up for what the Ridgefield's code is on that.

We lost our code, so give me one second here. Taking me a little longer to track it down than I thought it would. That's because I'm in the wrong title.

And we're currently, right now, this is current city regulation, correct? Correct. Okay, so the boosters, they have their 4th of July stand every year selling the fireworks. So whatever we change, would that impact their sale requiring a license, or how does that work? if hypothetically if we were to change?

As I understand it right now, we do limit the number of stands and we do limit when those stands can sell. So only if you change that would that change. So my understanding is we were mostly talking about discharge times and dates and that wouldn't affect the license date. Right.

So I was going to say it seems like there's two separate, the way the Ridgefield approaches it, we have a sale and discharge. Right. Right.

The high school, I think, or one of the organizations from the high school runs a stand. Yes. Do they sell only safe and sane?

It's not boosters. It's senior class.

If helpful, currently the city allows one fireworks retail sales permit for a stand in the city, and that is done by the high school seniors organization, and they sell legal consumer fireworks. From an enforcement standpoint, I will say it can be challenging if you sell fireworks in the city that cannot be discharged legally in the city. That can be problematic.

So we define public display of fireworks, meaning an entertainment feature where the public is or could be admitted or allowed to view the display or discharge of display fireworks. And then let me just make sure. A display firework as opposed to a consumer firework, I believe this is just paralleling the state law, but it is any small firework device Oh, no, I'm reading the wrong one. Sorry. It means large fireworks designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, deflagration, or detonation, and includes but is not limited to solutes containing more than two grains or 130 milligrams or explosive materials, aerial shells containing more than 40 grams of pyrotechnic compositions, and other display pieces which exceed the limit of explosive materials for consumer fireworks. So they are those large, so under the consumer firework definition, there were some specific milligrams of an amount of explosives. So if you're in display fireworks, you're actually in fireworks above that. And then I think it would also include if you were going to do anything outside of the normal times.

Correct. And they're regulated as a different class of explosives.

Do that make sense? Any other questions on this one?

I think we're good right now.

Okay, next slide. I wanted to walk through just this is just some basic information and I don't have fire calls because I wasn't able to kind of coordinate that for the slide but I know for police calls this is the calls that were related to fireworks whether that be nuisance or or unlawful discharge or whatever the call complaint was it looks like there was about two in 2023, six in 2024, and seven in 2025. So that's just to give you a sense of where we fall.

Chief, could you speak to the, there's a dramatic drop-off from 23 to 24. Is there a reason for that?

Sell window.

Sell window, sure, okay.

Discharge window. Yeah, discharge window, yeah. Because they could, when we sold them before, they could immediately start, I believe it was on the 1st.

Yeah.

And now we're limiting them to putting, discharging them on the 4th, but they can buy them on the 1st. So we have more calls over a longer period of time.

Yeah. And of those six or seven calls in 24 and 25, can you speak to, like, what those calls were? Were they just reporting a disturbance and you responded, or was there actual illegal activity or concerning activity, I guess, that we need to take into consideration from a policy standpoint?

So, yes, I can give you some examples. I have them all broken down here. So, like, in 2024... Some of the calls were just noise, loud, illegal fireworks is quite often. We'll get somebody saying it's illegal fireworks because it's really loud, like it sounds like an M-80 or something going off and it shakes your house. Damage to a neighbor's house. Damage to a neighbor's house is another one of the calls. I think we had a car catch fire one year where somebody shot fireworks under the car accidentally, and that was up, I believe, in Wishing Wells. I'm doing that from memory. A malfunctioning fireworks, yeah, that's the one that caused damage to a Ford Mustang. And then we get a lot of complaints the next day about all the debris everywhere in the streets and the neighbor's yards and people being upset because the neighbor's fireworks got into their yards. Fireworks doesn't sound normal, so it must be illegal. It's too loud, it's not legal during this time. Fireworks is landing in people's backyards. This one says please ban fireworks. This is ridiculous. We have to worry about property damage. These are the nature of the complaints and that's how the officers are getting them. Same kind of things for 2024. Yeah, most of them all are about it's either illegal, it's too loud, it's outside of hours, it's making a mess, it's damaging my property, it's on my roof, it's gonna catch fire. Those are the common themes that I recall from most of the years. And then if you recall, you had a citizen come and talk last year about the amount and what was being done to her house.

Chief Jackson, can you speak to any calls that the department has gone on during that time, whether it be for a fire or another call that maybe were any of those seven adjoint where both the fire department and police department show up?

I don't know specifically on those. I did look at our calls over the last three years, and for us it always stretches, depends on when the 4th of July falls, usually a three- or four-day period surrounding the 4th. So I looked at each year, 2023, 24, and 25, a three-day period, and then those same three or four days one week prior. And with that, our general call volume, including for EMS calls, accounting for fireworks injuries and that, go up between 50% and 100% over that one-week change. 2023, we went up 100%. It was 72% in 2024. 2025, with it not being on a weekend day and it being somewhat inclement weather, it was not as high and dry as normal last year, we went up a 43% increase in call volume. Fire calls specifically go up 10% or about tenfold. So usually in that three- or four-day period the week prior, we had one or two fire calls, and we were running 20 to 27 on that three- to four-day timeframe right around the 4th of July.

Sorry, is that in the city of Ridgefield or in just the district?

That is in the district. And I would say our calls are – We have a higher number in the cities just because of the proximity of folks with neighbor complaints, more so than we do in the unincorporated county, I would say. So there's more calls. Anecdotally, I would say the calls in the unincorporated areas oftentimes result in a wider fire impact, a bigger area, and sometimes more damage. But with the proximity of buildings in our cities, we do run more structure fire calls in the cities than we do in the county.

Gotcha.

OK. You mentioned the day after. do you think there's worthwhile data for us to look at like seven, five? Do you feel like that is a date that we should pay attention to or is that, does it kind of fall off after the fourth?

It falls off after, I'd say generally on the fifth, we're still fairly busy, not as busy on the fourth. And that we haven't seen a huge impact with the timeframes of discharge because I think folks buy the fireworks at a time and oftentimes they get them outside of the city, elsewhere in the county, and then they discharge whenever an enforcement, we have not been engaged in fireworks enforcement, but yeah, there is typically carry over onto the fifth as well for our response volume.

This is the last slide. This is just turning it back to you. There are several options. You can do a no change. You could do a ban. You could limit the firework types or the times, either of sale or discharge. We could look at a Camas Washougal style limitation or some other limitation more tailored. So I'm going to kind of kick it back to you to have a discussion and see if there's any consensus on the direction.

Yeah. Okay. So what will the now council is like? I would love it if we had some discussion on it, know where you're at on it, and we can go around it. the U shape here. And so council of Berkow, we'll start with you.

Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Uh, I'm in favor in what I think is the cameras where there's no aerial shell kits and no reload reloadable tubes. I think that would limit anything going vertical. Am I close?

Uh, yes, yes. Their, their band does limit the aerial fireworks.

I would also be very, very concerned regarding, how dry we would be around that time of the year. It appears to me we could be unusually dry due to what appears to be shortage of moisture. And I don't know whether we can consider that or not.

I will note, I don't think I have the exact language right to hand, but I think our Ordinance does have that if there are unusual environmental conditions that the fire chief has some authority to further limit what would be allowed in any particular year.

Like an emergency action or something like that? It would come from the fire chief or fire marshal or what?

I can look it up.

Okay, that's okay.

Yes, it comes coordinated with the chief, and that's something we usually look at with all three cities. We try to coordinate that closely. It becomes technically the city's rule to enforce, but it would be with our advice.

Yeah, okay. Councillor Favela, do you have anything?

Yeah, I'm interested in the safe and sane. I... You know, I'm not in favor of a total ban. I want to make sure we have a balance of people who are still wanting to participate in a 4th of July that they feel is good for them and their family, but also being responsible of the people who may take it too far. Or for some people who struggle with the 4th of July, I think we should have some parameters in place, but I don't think there should be a total ban.

I share those sentiments. I think that the mayor and I were at a council chat this last weekend, and that was a question that was asked of us, and I think you made a very good point in talking about combat veterans and how that can deeply affect people. So I think it's a conversation that we need to talk about. I would be very interested, and I know that you can't guide us, but I would be very interested in your perspective on this as well as the experts. within this field what you have seen or noticed, and it can be data-driven or whatever it is that keeps it neutral, but obviously you guys are the ones responding to calls, talking to people in the community, so I'm deeply wanting to know what you think.

From our perspective, it certainly is the city's prerogative and decision to make. I think from a public safety standpoint, with fireworks in general, we do see a substantial number of injuries and suffering that go on with that, along with fire loss and property loss from fire. So from a very strictly public safety standpoint, the fire district is not really in favor of consumer fireworks, because it goes contrary to our mission, to what we're trying to accomplish. I think we recognize folks' desire for that and those sorts of things. It is interesting. I mean, historically, fireworks are relatively modern advent. I mean, obviously folks saying that it, it goes back forever. You know, it's like, no, not, not really. Consumer fireworks is a fairly modern, um, advent thing. Um, but so that, that's our, from a peer public safety standpoint, um, we're not in favor of fireworks. Um, I think any restrictions that go with that certainly can help curb that from a suffering, a property loss standpoint. We do increase our staffing on the 4th of July, so there is a cost to the district. We increase staffing because we know of that increased call volume and the need for a timely response. So I think those are pieces that we look at. And the only thing I would urge is if you look at having regulations, is thinking about the ability to enforce them. So recognizing the fireworks with an identified seal, and that makes it a lot easier for folks trying to do enforcement than to look at any individual brand and particular item and trying to decipher what those fireworks are.

I would certainly be in favor of limiting what we're doing. The neighborhood that Matt and I live in, there's a gentleman behind our house that's also probably behind his. And, I mean, they put off this incredibly enormous display of fireworks. I mean, it goes on and on and on and on and on. I mean, huge fireworks. I mean, sometimes it, you know, if they had the whole community here, they would enjoy it because it's that big. And I think that's... should not be allowed on somebody's street. And I also have a lot of empathy for the people whose house was getting ruined last year after all the work that they had put in redoing their house. I don't think that should be allowed. But how do we control it? I mean, how many people do we have on staff that night that can run out and stop people from doing fireworks? I think the other question is, you know, What can we do about it, like you said? But I certainly think that I would want to limit the ones that go anywhere above whatever the feed is, six foot or whatever. I mean, I'm just, you know, that would be my opinion.

That's great. Councillor Wells.

Silence.

Let me help you with that silence.

There. No, that's better. I got my speaker. Yeah. I would probably be in favor of safe and safe. The only thing, I would not restrict the sales because there's all people that do not live maybe in the city and that would hamstring the school's production of sales. I think that they should be instructed to turn around and say this section is allowed in the city, these are not. It's your choice what you buy. and you will suffer the consequences if you're using the wrong ones in the city, potentially. I have a background with fireworks. I was a pyrotechnician license. I had a purchaser's license. I used to set off the fireworks at Planter's Day in Woodland years and years ago. used to the six-inch mortars and the four-inch mortars, the salutes, the big bangs, and all that. But this year, we're not going to be limiting them. I think we need to do some press releases that fireworks will be available. I guess they'll be the same as what they've been in the past, because we can't change them until next year. But also put out with the potential fire danger all fireworks may be curbed. I mean, I think the constituents of the city should turn around and be aware of that, because everybody knows it's dry. And so they would be forewarned. That's my comment. Thank you.

Yeah, I would share the general sentiment about safe and sane, limiting the mortars. I guess I would be interested in what the data has shown for, I mean, just to be able to, I don't know, I guess add more emphasis to our decision making. What was the data when CAMAS went from do what you want to, know safe and sane and what was what would the data show in terms of washougal limiting the mortar sales uh i'd love to know what vancouver data looked like you know going from all everything to technically nothing but certainly they're going to be people that are like i'm just going to do it so um i would love to be able to see that data One thing that's gone through my head, and I'm not entirely sold on it, but I'm going to throw the idea out to see if anybody else maybe, I don't know, wants to take it any further. But our conversation about public display, and then like you shared about your neighbor, and it's like, you know, I've seen those neighbors. I've been part of those types of things where, you know, you show up and most people are having a good time and everything else. And I'm just, I'm like... Is there something within reason, is there a process that somebody that wants to do something like that could go through to be able to still do something like that? Do we have, is there any desire to open that door at all for the people that want to do like an entire cul-de-sac type display, get the, you know, X amount of safety protocols in place, property owners sign off, whatever it is. Do we want to go down that road or not? To me, it was just trying to say, do we want to find a solution for that or not? I don't know. I'm just kind of throwing it out there.

My concern. All right, so we have a situation like you're talking about in your neighborhood. And let's say he is licensed to do what he does. One goes up and comes down on my roof and goes off. I don't care how licensed he is. That's not right.

One of the thoughts I had was, would there be someplace in the city where we could say that people could go and set off fireworks, like at the waterfront, I mean, someplace by the river or Abrams Park, or someplace where there wasn't a lot of fire danger, something like that. And we'd say, if you want to do that, you have to go to this location.

Yeah, and that could be very much part of it, because that went through my mind, too. Would there be places that would sign off that would meet whatever requirements we determined to be reasonable? I don't know. Do we want to direct staff in that way to find that sort of exemption, or do we want to not?

Can we get a public safety aspect from Chief Doriot, maybe too?

With the trying to come up with a permitting process for folks to do their own displays, I think the challenge with that is usually the threshold we have is that you have to be a licensed pyrotechnician, which comes with insurance and that. So if you're going to do a public display, whether it's for a wedding or whether it's for the Fourth of July or Planners Day, whatever it be, then that comes with a certificate of liability insurance. You have to be a licensed pyrotechnician, and you have those pieces. the challenge with anything short of that is how do you contain that if, and if you get someone to permit and you authorize them, then there's, you're assuming some risk and liability there. Also, if you're not, if you're not gauging qualifications and, those sorts of things.

Yeah. I mean, as I said, it was just sort of like kicking it around a, I don't know, just see what the thought was. But, um, I mean, and I would definitely still be talking about the stuff that's like consumer parade, right? Just the kind of the stuff that we are currently limiting or talking about limit limiting.

So anyway, one thing we haven't touched is a lot of our residents do not like the fireworks. Their pets do not like the fireworks. We have to take that into consideration. And I was always the one that said, we need to have fireworks. But this year, I guess we will with our 250th anniversary. It could be our last time of being as open as what we have been.

Yeah, so I've just been jotting some stuff down as I've listened to everybody here, and Councillor Wells, what you're speaking of too, I had, you know, looking at evidence beyond complaint. So if we had last couple of years, 13 total calls that RPD responded to, plus whatever CCFR responded to, none of those seemed like they were substantive. And a lot of the themes that you read off sound, you know, and this is again anecdotally, but the themes were around I don't like this or do something about this, you know, and it's sort of complaint driven, not necessarily about the risk or the damage occurring. And so how much of a consideration do you place on that? And what we've heard before is, you know, there's things like there's the psychological effect of those, you know, and I will say this because I am a combat vet and I remember my first it was New Year's coming home. after being overseas and hearing that and you get so used to hearing the pop of mortars or sound of mortars or you know and psychologically that does trigger something in you and it was something I had to kind of check in that so I do know that that is a real thing. And so the question I guess for this council is how much weight do we place on merely a complaint versus an actual damage or risk of damage that's being done? Um, there's also, as we look at going to a safe and sane, whatever that means, cause it doesn't seem like there's an actual definition for it. I think that we're going to use that. We need to define it if only for ourselves. But looking at a safe and sane policy, the more you add these layers of regulation on top of it, you say you can't do aerials or usable tubes or mortars. Uh, they have to have this seal. You know, we're adding those things and I think of the cost of enforcement probably goes up because it means that we are putting the officers on overtime. Uh, Chief Jackson and his department are going to have to make sure that they have more extra staff in there too. And so that does have an impact too for a cost. And so what is the cost worth it to us for what our community's tax dollars are going into for public safety purposes and ramping that up. Um, that's not weighing in the same either one. It's just kind of exploring that. And then lastly, just thinking about liability. I think that if you were to have something in your cul-de-sac like we've seen and, or we saw last year, they said the roof was, you know, they just remodeled their house and had all its debris on the roof. If let's say they catch somebody's house on fire, does like, that's a personal liability thing. Your homeowner's policy doesn't cover that. Are they just going to be out of pocket on that? And if you do $50,000 worth of damage to somebody's house, are you on the hook for that personally? Is that how that works? Because no insurance coverage is going to cover that, right?

Well the tricky thing is is of course they're going to say it wasn't my fireworks that lit your roof on fire. So that is the challenge and that's the enforcement challenge. I mean you asked a lot of questions there but realistically going back to the I don't have the answer for you either but what I can tell you is even currently enforcement is a challenge. And it is largely responsive to complaints. We do have, we have for the past several years and historically offered up overtime to bring people on to help. But we also have our normal call volume that would be happening regardless of fireworks, right? So our officers are dealing with their normal call volume and then they're getting the fireworks calls on top of that. Ridgefield is one of the few jurisdictions that still tell dispatch, we wanna know about the fireworks complaints. We want our officers to have to review that call and decide how they're gonna respond. There are cities that they just Q4 it, which means they just say, okay, we hear that there's a complaint, put it in the file. So they don't even respond. One of the challenges that we have, and historically my officers have expressed, is they get the call, but by the time they get to the neighborhood, those people have already discharged the big things and now they're back in their house or they're all standing there going, not us and our officers aren't catching them doing it. And they certainly aren't fireworks wizards either officers, right? They don't know just by looking from a distance if that's illegal, not usually the sounds are some kinds of indicators, but it is an enforcement challenge. I think maybe the seals would help where they have something to look at that's more clearly identifiable, that this is safe and sane and that is what we're allowing in our city. That is an option. But it is a challenge for us. I know years and years ago, we would pair officers up with fire marshals to be out on that night so that they could work in a team tandemly. And then between the collective of us and the fire marshals, we did a little bit more effective enforcement. Right now, our officers do have some options with infractions, because that was one of their big things too, is if it was a municipal code and it's criminal, That's tricky, so we did come up with some infraction options for them. I think in all the years with fireworks, we've issued one infraction. And that's not because it's not happening. That's because our officers haven't felt confident that I've gotten here in time to say it was you that set it off. And then back to the damage part. We have had damage. It's just a lot of times it's difficult to prove that it was this neighbor that did that damage. I mean, the Mustang, I think we were able to track that one down because it clearly came from they watched them do it. And so we knew. So it is tricky for enforcement for us.

Yeah, and to your point also, I don't think there's that many, I can't speak for this, this is an assumption I'm making, but I don't think there's a lot of combat veterans that are calling in saying this is really triggering for me, you know what I mean?

Probably close to none.

Right, so the metrics on that are sort of unknown, but what I'm hearing and the feedback that I'm receiving from this is that SEALs and the things that make things very clear and determined seem important, so.

Wouldn't the seals be blown up once you use the fireworks? So can you actually check and see if the seal is there once they blow it up?

Well, once again, once it's been sent up and it's blown up, but when you show up at a house and you see a pallet of fireworks, you can look at that because literally it was a pallet on Fifth Avenue last year that was there.

And I think that's what I look at, too, is that, you know, there's what I would kind of consider normal, right, which is kind of what my family has done and a lot of families in my neighborhood have done. You know, like you have a few... Ground bloom things a little fountains and things like that. You might have a few mortars, but you're not I don't have a pallet of them and then there's those who have literally pallets a Big display and I think that they're probably honestly the outlier as far as what's happening across the city But they're the ones that are I mean They're the reason why we're here today discussing this because if it was just the more normal there'd be like some noise disturbances and stuff like that but to have somebody said enough for hours on end and It I think it becomes problematic and I don't know how we that to me seems more appropriate to regulate I don't know how you do that If it's falling in or what but counselor for Villa Miss Parker, is there any way to get any data to see if any of the current CCN ours and any neighborhoods have a firework?

Exclusion have we looked at that?

all the CCNRs that exist in all the neighborhoods you have. I'm sure planning might have that, but no. And I do review new CCNRs, but not usually to that level of detail. I review it for consistency with some of the planning elements of the code, but I haven't looked in any of those in any detail, so I couldn't answer that.

I wonder if that has been an overlooked item, and if any of the neighborhoods HOAs actually have a firework exclusion that maybe we haven't, you know, the neighborhoods haven't paid attention to, and that could provide extra enforcement in terms of fines or HOA violations.

Mayor, I can... So my neighborhood, Pioneer Canyon, we've had a ban on fireworks for 12 years. Not enforced, but it exists, right? And I think that their challenge comes into you know, I mean, my HOA struggles to find people for, you know, a lot of stuff, right? And so the enforcement piece is what the challenge is. I mean, I definitely, I agree that that should be a tool that we can leverage because, Yeah, I mean, if they have a different sort of burden of proof, you might say, that they can utilize, then maybe that helps. And so working with them, I think, is great. But yeah, I know the mine has it. It's just, it's not enforced. They put out signs the first couple of years, and then there was a leadership change. And I think it just decided to be something they didn't want to deal with.

So I think if we... if we still allow them and just limit them. I also think we should change the time at the end because I think anything after 10 o'clock is just really difficult for people that have to work the next day. And right now that goes till midnight, right? Yeah, I think at the least that we should change it to 10 o'clock or whatever, somewhere around 10 where it's a decent time for people to be able

Yeah, I'd like to see data. If it's dependable data, I mean, right? We're talking about 13 over the last two years, so I'm not sure how much confidence you could put in the timestamps of them. But I agree. Midnight seems a little late, but it doesn't get dark until 9. So that's where you get the challenge. Usually around my area, they don't start till 9.

There are a lot of citizens too that know that it's permitted and so they leave. I mean I have citizens that will tell me we have a hotel reserved in Portland because we're not gonna be here.

Oh yeah. That's another question I have actually is realizing that we're just talking about regulations within our city limits and you do not have to drive far to be county. Right. And we have interlocal agreements and stuff like that. So I guess that's my curiosity is, you know, somebody that is right, you know, they just are like, oh, well, I'm just going to go over here, line them off because I can do what I want over here. Are our resources still probably going to get pulled over to their side?

Well, the challenge is if it's close to our city, they assume it's in our city, right? That's the call we get. Oh, there's fireworks everywhere down here. You guys need to come. And it might be actually out in the county on 289th, and it's not Ridgefield. Our officers kind of assess that, and then they'll say, no, it's clearly not ours. The challenge is that... don't own those properties they're going to unless they're going to a friend's house and they're letting them light them off there so then that's a different kind of complaint right that's people are on my property now setting off fireworks and they don't have a legal right to be here so then that becomes a trespassing property issue but that would be in whatever jurisdiction would deal with that we wouldn't necessarily go enforce that yeah yeah i'm just thinking about kind of especially on the east side that's kind of a jigsaw puzzle right and

So I'd be curious about us pushing stuff just to the outer edge, but then it creates some of those issues.

I see Vancouver's the only jurisdiction on this list that has a total ban on fireworks. I'd actually be curious to know, too, What's that like for Vancouver? What is their call? I'm assuming they still get calls. There's still things that are happening. People are going to be idiots no matter what. You can't legislate idiocracy. But what does Vancouver look like, or even similar jurisdictions in the state that have a total ban? And is it still problematic? Are we still getting a few calls and a few dozen emails a year? Or is it beyond that?

I know, and the fire marshals in Vancouver do engage in enforcement, and obviously a total ban is easier to enforce because fireworks are illegal. Those are fireworks. They're illegal. So I think they have impact. I don't know the statistics. We can try to get that as far as what it has done for their call and fire volume. I know it has had a significant positive impact on their call and fire volume. Obviously, there are still folks that violate the ordinance, and they get complaints on those. But property damage and injuries have been substantially decreased for them. I don't know the specifics on that.

Mr. Mayor, I did reach out to Washougal and I spoke with one of their captains and the chief. I had spoken with him at a different time and I asked him if they could quantify for me what it has been like since they changed to safe and sound. and they really didn't have data for me, I can push that again and ask them, but what they said to me was that it really hasn't been much of a problem for them, and when they do enforcement, it's for those really extreme cases that something has really gone awry. So that was kind of the answer I got, but I can certainly try to get more information from them.

I guess that's interesting to me, Council, as I think about that, and I think that unless we do a total ban, I think we're still gonna get a few emails every year, we're going to get a few public comments every year, we're going to get a few calls every year, kind of what we've been doing. But it's really, because again, the themes I keep hearing are kind of more or less complaints. Like, you know, I don't want to minimize that, but I don't like it, therefore I'm complaining. So, you know, if we went to a safe and sane policy, I'm curious if that would even, if that would even have an impact beyond what we're already seeing? Because it feels like it's sort of, for a city of close to 18,000 people, to have six or seven calls and then a few complaints a year is pretty negligible. I hate to sound brash about that, but it kind of is. So what would we see if we, what would this policy change?

Yeah, I mean, I think we would probably see a bit of improvement, because I think those safe and sane ones, for one, they're not going to be as loud. And I think for two, if they're not going aerial, you're not dealing with nearly as much of the debris going into people's property on the roofs or anything like that. And so I think from a volume and a litter slash chances of something else catching on fire perspective, it's probably greatly minimized. That's my guess at least.

I would just again like to say I think no aerial shell kits, period. I think that would eliminate a significant number of problems. The ones on the ground, I don't know, Chief, are they as dangerous or potential as those going up?

There is less risk, and most of my comments are pretty much anecdotal on that. But, yeah, when it goes in the air, there is a bigger fire risk just because it's outside of oftentimes even where they're standing or where they can see. It lands behind the house, smolders, lands in bark, smolders. We get to call it two or three in the morning. You get more of that with there's certainly a greater risk with the aerial shells. And even from an injury standpoint, because the things that make them aerial is a higher volume of explosive material in there, which is also when they don't go aerial and they explode on the ground or in someone's hand, those are more substantial injuries. We have, I know there was, we had an injury, it was two years ago that was a, uh, substantial loss of limb, uh, from an aerial firework that discharged. And it was a gentleman that law essentially lost a hand and his lower arm from the fireworks. That was the most, probably the most consequential injury that I recall directly. Uh, but we do, we certainly do have some every year.

I can speak to that incident because I know the individual that happened to, but it was a homemade. piece of apparatus. It was put on top of a fence post and it was quick match. Quick match burns at like 500 feet a second. That's what they use in the aerial ones. When you set them off in the motors, you don't get away. You use your fuze, you touch it and you turn your head because it's gone. But that was that and that projectile was on the top of a fence post And he seen the match going fast and tried to knock it off. And he lost his hand and arm, I mean, off of his. And that's what's happened up in the lay center. Chief? Up in the lay center?

There was one in, it was a Ridgefield address towards Battleground that we had. Two or three years ago. We've had a few, and I don't recall, I did not bring a comprehensive list of injuries, but we've had a few.

I mean, a good friend of mine is a hand surgeon in Longview, and this is like what keeps the lights on, right? I mean, it keeps him busy around the 4th of July.

Okay, so... Good discussion here. Does anybody have anything more they want to weigh in with at this point?

I think if we look at the number of calls, I think it was 23 when the council enacted some enhanced fireworks controls and obviously they worked because what the calls went from, how many? I don't recall 22 to six to seven. So I think rules help, but if there are no rules, then you're at risk.

I've got one other comment. I would like to see the number of citations on the ones that have rules, how many people were cited, like in the county or in Vancouver, just if that could be brought forward. It doesn't do any good to have rules and not turn around and enforce them.

Well, I see Chief and Jeanine scribbling away. They've been doing that the whole time. Thank you for capturing our input on this. Going around, it sounds like everyone would like to see something come to us. This would have to come to us, our first meeting in June. It's, you know, two readings. So for first reading would be the June 6th, I think, meeting we'd have. It sounds like we're amenable to... considering that and then it would be more of a safe and sane type of policy is what I'm gathering from, okay.

Yeah, more discussion of that than any other option.

And then in return I think coming back with the data gaps I think that we presently have to be able to answer some of those questions so we don't rehash those. But is there anything beyond that? Do we want a contingent total ban policy or do we just want to only look at safe and sane? I guess a total ban policy would just be like total ban. It's nothing to prepare.

I'm not in favor of a total ban. I'm in favor of safe and sane. But as I look at safe and sane, there are aerial projectiles there.

I think the safe and sane, it can't go more than one foot in the air or six feet. So even some of the little parachuting things would be prohibited.

Yeah, and I think Portland's done that since I was a kid. Right. Yeah.

Chief, we do know the outliers. So, like, historically, do we have hot spots where we're like, oh, we can guarantee these neighborhoods or these neighbors are going to really go for it?

We've done some mapping on that. And there is some, I mean, there's some definite ones that are more consistent than others. But As we've grown as a community, those have changed as well, and as different residential neighborhoods have been developed. There was a time, and I'd have to really go back, but we actually had Bellwood Heights would put on a huge fireworks display. And I believe the person that did that actually got a pyrotechnic license. But once again, if you're putting off a display inside of a neighborhood, where is that going? And you're on a city street. You're probably on a sidewalk. Yeah.

We've got to remember, we've got two donut holes in the city of Ridgefield. It's under county jurisdiction.

Okay. Thank you to staff. Thank you, Chief, for coming out today. This is really helpful information. I think we have something to come back with in a couple of weeks. But thank you, Council, for everything. If there's nothing else, we're going to adjourn the study session. Thank you.