Painesville City Council reverses course, maintains consumer fireworks ban in 4-2 vote

Jun. 28—At a special meeting on June 27, Painesville City Council voted to maintain the city's existing ban on the sale, possession or discharge of consumer-grade fireworks.

The ordinance was approved in a 4-2 vote. Of the council members present, President Christine Shoop, Vice President Jim Fodor, Paul Hach and Lori DiNallo voted in favor, while Nick Augustine and Derrick Abney voted against.

Shoop cited the fact that the majority of resident feedback was negative in explaining her decision to request the draft amendment and vote in favor of the final, amended legislation.

Abney explained his opposition to the amendment by expressing his concerns with enforcement. He said that he was in favor of allowing fireworks on a limited number of holidays. He added that people already shoot fireworks off, despite the fact that they are illegal, and compared attempts to enforce the fireworks ban to the attempts to enforce Prohibition in the 1920s.

"I was looking at enforcement and the manpower hours that we technically have right now with...our police force," Abney said.

He added, "Do we want officers attending to fireworks calls? Or do we want officers attending to very serious matters that are going to be going on in the city on that (July 4th) holiday weekend."

The approved ordinance was amended from the proposal that council brought to the meeting, which would have allowed the discharge of consumer fireworks at specified times on six holidays: Chinese New Year, Cinco de Mayo, Juneteenth, July 4, Diwali and New Year's Eve. This itself was an amendment from the original proposal, which would have allowed the discharge of consumer fireworks on more holidays and the weekends surrounding some of those holidays.

Shoop asked City Manager Doug Lewis and Law Director Jim Lyons to prepare the amendment in response to resident feedback she received over the weekend.

Three residents spoke on the fireworks issue at the June 27 meeting.

Alan Watson wanted the city to maintain the ban on consumer fireworks, noting that the firework shells available to consumers could reach 3 inches in diameter, larger than a tennis ball. He also said that aerial fireworks could spread over 200 feet wide, larger than the width of his property, and that the state's requirements that spectators be no closer than 150 feet to the fireworks would make launch on properties in the city difficult.

Finally, he cited the potential for injury or property damage, noise, air and water pollution and litter that would be produced.

Jeff Sivyer also asked for the city to maintain its existing ban. He mentioned that despite extensive research, he had not seen articles that discussed why allowing fireworks within a subdivision would be a good idea. He also cited a law enforcement background, saying, "On the street I never once encountered a time in which fireworks was not accompanied with alcohol and did not lead to many problems."

Fellow resident Kevin Bogdanski spoke in favor of the proposed legislation, acknowledging the concerns of other residents but saying that he "believe[d] the proposal put forth by council strikes an equal balance as far as the days and times in which fireworks would be allowed to be shot off."

He said that he likes seeing fireworks on the Fourth of July but added that there was a need for residents to be aware of safety concerns and those with children or pets.

After these residents spoke, Shoop noted that of the 40 emails council had received regarding fireworks proposals, 34 were completely against the use of consumer-grade fireworks in the city, while five desired changes to the existing proposal and one was in favor of allowing fireworks. She added that some individuals sent multiple emails, intended for different council sessions.

Shoop said that all of the emails received for the June 27 meeting had been against fireworks usage.

Police Lt. Toby Burgett discussed how the department currently handles fireworks complaints. He noted by the time an officer arrives at the launch site, the person launching fireworks is often gone. He also said that it can be difficult to identify the person launching the fireworks, and that either the officer has to catch the offender in the act or a witness has to be willing to write a written statement and openly testify in court.

Burgett added that the police are better able to respond to fireworks complaints when callers give more specific details about the reported offender and location of the reported offense.

This legislation comes in response to Ohio House Bill 172, which was passed last fall. The bill allows for the discharge of consumer-grade fireworks at certain times on certain holidays and surrounding days, as long as certain safety requirements are met in accordance with guidance from the State Fire Marshal. Local communities can choose to further restrict the days or times under which consumer-grade fireworks will be allowed, or they can opt-out entirely to maintain the existing ban. The legislation goes into effect July 1.

In Lake County, the city of Painesville joins a large group of communities that have decided to maintain consumer fireworks bans.