AN ORDINANCE relating to fireworks regulations; amending Ordinance 3139, Section 601, as amended, and K.C.C. 12.86.500, Ordinance 4461, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.22.040, Ordinance 10870, Section 331, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.040, Ordinance 10870, Section 548, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.110, Ordinance 13332, Section 43, as amended, and K.C.C. 27.10.360 and Ordinance 17682, Section 48, as amended, and K.C.C. 27.10.580, adding a new chapter to K.C.C Title 17, repealing Ordinance 6836, Section 1, and K.C.C. 6.26.010, Ordinance 6836, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.020, Ordinance 6836, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.030, Ordinance 6836, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.040, Ordinance 6836, Section 5, and K.C.C. 6.26.050, Ordinance 6836, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.060, Ordinance 6836, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.070, Ordinance 6836, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.080, Ordinance 6836, Section 9, and K.C.C. 6.26.090, Ordinance 6836, Section 10, and K.C.C. 6.26.100, Ordinance 6836, Section 11, and K.C.C. 6.26.110 and Ordin
And in as I said, we'll put that on consent. So it should be on a larger agenda for for councils is the approval on regular schedule. Thank you so much. And that brings us to item seven. This is this is ordinance 2021, 57 that would establish a new regulations on the use and sale of fireworks in unincorporated King County. You may recall that the council received briefings on the executive executive's proposed fireworks legislation, as well as a conceptual striker in early 2020. The proposed ordinance before us today is a reintroduced version of that fireworks legislation, which includes the conceptual, striking changes that were reached previously. The item is up for discussion today, and I will call on Jake Tracy to give the briefing and then as prime sponsor would make a few comments and we'll take up and then take up discussion. Mr. Tracy, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jake Treacy, council staff. The materials for this item begin on page 15 one five of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 10057 would prohibit the retail sale and discharge of fireworks, as defined in the revised Code of Washington and unincorporated portions of King County, and would establish standards for public displays of fireworks in unincorporated King County. As the chairman mentioned, there were a couple of briefings on this last year under proposed ordinance number 2020 0109. So Washington state law does allow for the retail sale of consumer fireworks with the state license and also allows persons 18 or older to purchase and use consumer fireworks without the need for a permit or license . The handout on page 54 of your packet shows these legal consumer fireworks under state law. Examples of similar fireworks that are legal for sale in Washington state include Roman candles, reloadable mortars, parachutes, wheels, cone fountains and others. Trick and novelty devices such as toy caps, party poppers and snap and pops. Under state law, do not rise to the level of these consumer fireworks and then other fireworks such as bottle rockets skyrockets. Missiles and firecrackers are illegal to sell by state law except on tribal lands. State law does allow for the retail sale of consumer fireworks only from June 28th to July 4th and December 27th to December 31st of each year. And states the consumers may only discharge fireworks from June 28th to July 5th and December 31st to January 1st of each year. Display fireworks of consumer fireworks. Display fireworks, on the other hand, are large fireworks that exceed the requirements in the definition of consumer fireworks. A public display of fireworks, as the name suggests, is the use of display fireworks where the public is or could be allowed to view them. Such displays require a state license and a permit from the local fire marshal. Cities and counties are allowed to adopt more restrictive regulations on what's allowed by state law. But there is a required one year waiting period between adoption of such regulations and the regulations being effective. King County Code currently allows fireworks stands and the Regional Business, Community Business, Neighborhood Business Office and industrial zones for up to 30 days each calendar year without the requirement for a temporary use permit. A temporary use permit would be required in other zones. As previously stated, actual sales of consumer fireworks can only occur during those periods prescribed in state law. The fire marshal is charged with issuing permits and conducting enforcement activities for the storage, retail sale and transfer to fireworks, as well as for the discharge of fireworks that exceed the definition of consumer fireworks. There's currently no limit in the code on the number of public displays of fireworks that can occur on any given property in any given the amount of time. So as I mentioned, this proposed ordinance would prohibit the retail sale and use of consumer fireworks in unimportant incorporated portions of the county. Fireworks could still be sold at wholesale, not direct to consumer in the industrial zone. And this prohibition on discharge and retail sale would not apply to tribal lands. The penalty for violating fireworks regulations would remain a misdemeanor, and the maximum penalty would increase from $250 per day to $1,000 per day. The proposed ordinance would remove existing regulations relating to fireworks, including standards for retail sale, consumer use and public displays from Title six of King County Code. And those regulations for public displays and prescribed penalties would move to a two Chapter 17 of the code, which is the fire code. As is required today, a permit from the fire marshal would be required for any public display or fireworks. Subject to a permit application and review fee. Proposed ordinance would remove detailed guidance on the applications and requirements and instead allow the fire marshal to determine what information should be included in the application. The code would mandate that traffic control and crowd policing plans, crowd control policing plans would be part of that application. The proposed ordinance would remove public displays of fireworks and allow as an allowed use in all zones and state. The temporary use permits cannot be obtained for these displays. So what that means, those two things working together is that the any individual property could have no more than two public displays of fireworks and any 365 day period . And just to give a little context based on data provided from the executive in 2019, for instance, probably the last normal year of fireworks usage, there were six applications for public displays of fireworks, all on separate properties. The proposed ordinance would remove detailed technical language and definitions, instead referencing the requirements and definitions in state code and the International Fire Code. And so that is kind of a brief overview of the ordinance. I can talk a little bit about process or I can pause for questions there. Let's pause there. And at this point, I will offer some as first and comments as prime sponsor, and then we can take up discussion and process conversations. This is this is one of the pieces of legislation we take up and consider as a county council where we're really serving as a local government. Fireworks are currently banned in 25 neighboring cities parks, national forests that surround unincorporated King County. Yet in this occasion, we have the ability to legislate for unincorporated King County, where we are indeed their local government. Unincorporated King County relies on us for their public safety, for health and welfare. This legislation will advance that. We've heard testimony about risk and injury. But let me point out, the United States Consumer Safety Commission says that, quote, On average, 180 people go to the emergency room every day with fireworks related injuries in the month around the 4th of July holiday. And we've seen this tragically in our own communities, though, in the 20 years I've represented fashion in White Center, both in the legislature and in the county council, I've heard repeatedly concerns about fireworks. It was the death of Senate Kennedy in White Center in a house fire started by fireworks that has prompted me to advance this legislation . His widow is one of the correspondents who sent in written testimony. That stuff was emailed us earlier today and people testifying have already mentioned that two houses were completely destroyed and 12 residents were displaced by fire that year. And in addition to injury risks, fireworks can also have a negative impact on health as well. Fireworks caused air pollution in a small amount of time. Maybe medical metal particles, harmful chemicals and smoke in the air for hours and even days. And the smoking particle pollution poses a health risk, particularly to people who already suffer from pulmonary issues, including asthma. We know that while King County has some of the highest outcomes, health outcomes in the county. In the nation. We also have some of the greatest disparities in health outcomes within our county. And in fact, some of the lowest health outcomes come in unincorporated King County in areas in South King County. The overlap to our ability to address these health concerns is correct today. And regarding the environment, in the last few years, we've watched forest fires spread quickly, threatening everything in their path, including homes, wildlife and firefighters. The horrific 2017 Eagle Creek Forest fire in Oregon was caused by safe and sane fireworks. A smoke bomb, according to news reports. The fire burned over 50,000 acres over three months before finally being contained. And then. There's the effect on pets and wildlife as well that PETA's trapping from paws is spoken to. And we have written testimony in our packet from Heidi Wills with PAWS. And I look forward to a conversation with my colleagues today about. Taking this action and how to develop the proposal before us and look forward to advancing it next month to full council where Mr. Tracy will speak to in a moment. I believe a would be more than a month from committee action, given the requirement for a 30 day notice of a hearing in full council. With that. That concludes my remarks and questions of myself for Mr. Tracy at this point in time. So. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are so many aspects to this, and so I'm glad that we're having lots of opportunities to ask questions. So I have a couple questions on page 16. Help me understand the paragraph. It says that state law allows retail sale of consumer fireworks from June 28th to July 4th and then December 27th to July 31st. That consumers may only discharge fireworks from June 28th, July 5th and December 31st to January 1st each year. And unincorporated in Connecticut only allows the discharge of fireworks on July 4th and does not allow retail sale of fireworks during the December period. So you still could let off the fireworks in December for New Year's Eve, but you would have had to have purchased them by July 5th. Is that correct? So my understanding is that the state law allowing for the December period came in after King County had adopted their fireworks code so that the state law supersedes the. The count is interpreted to supersede the county's allowance and that so the county does allow for those December sales. But I would ask Jim Chan of the permitting division to confirm on that. Good morning. Council members to chair. A provision director for for permitting. What Jake just said is correct. That is confirmed. Okay. So let me say that back. I'm sure I got it. So you would have to buy it by July 5th because that's the last day legally. Sara And then keep it until New Year's Eve so you can let it off on New Year's Eve. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So I have a little bit of concern about having fireworks in your garage that long. So, anyway, that was one question I had. And then on the public displays, I, I want to know a little bit more about how much the permit would cost. It sucks in here someplace about the idea that if your application is incomplete more than 20 days before that, you would be dismissed. You know, if you're not used to making applications to government or you don't speak the language very well, you know, you may not make it correctly. So how is that going to work? But, you know, if a application comes in and it isn't made properly, will we get on the phone and have them complete it? Or will we just say, too bad? So is the question, how much would a display fireworks permit cost? And if the application is incorrect, how would they correct it? Okay. So we have a fee ordinance that lays out all of our fees for permits on our website, including fireworks display permits. That information is available and is updated with every fee ordinance so they can look at that and pull that information off if an application comes through and it's incorrect. We will reach out to those individuals and make those corrections, help them guide them through making those corrections before we we process the application. So one of the things that I think is in everybody's best interest is that we have a few days as possible. So. For them to be going on for all the reasons we heard today, from pets to people to fire damage, all of that. So getting the cities to have the large so is important. But as I remember, the permit was fairly expensive. It was like a couple of hundred dollars. Do you remember what the permit cost is? I have that here. I had the application fee for a special event or a fireworks display. Under the current code and this proposal remained the same as a $250 for the application fee. And the inspection fee is $412 per site visit. Okay, so it's $650. And for the little city, so say Skycom is $650 is a lot of money. And I would rather that the city do it and not have, you know, 50 other people doing it. So. I think we need to look at that in light of this to make sure that we are encouraging the cities and not making it more difficult for them to do that. I do want to say that was a little surprised. You know, everything that we've been doing for equity and social justice has been to reduce fines. And then here we're quadrupling it. 100% increase. So I thought that was interesting that the amount proposed that increased fine is so huge, which is the dichotomy of what we're doing and other things. So I'm glad we'll have more time for discussion, but those are my questions. Thank you. Hello. As members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Most of my district is in Seattle, but I do have an unincorporated part of my district in the southern end called Skyway. And I've heard from a ton of residents about their desire to ban fireworks. So I want to thank Councilmember McDermott for bringing this forward. It is a public health issue. It is an environmental health issue. On the other hand, I've also heard from a lot of constituents who are worried about, as Councilmember Lambert mentioned, increasing fines and fees on low income communities. And, you know, when I see $1,000 per day, that's that seems super aggressive. I've also heard from people who are concerned about increasing law enforcement interactions with communities of color. I've heard about ending income streams for churches and nonprofits. I've also heard about, you know, interfering with people's cultural celebrations. And so for a long time, I've been grappling with these competing interests. It's really hard to weigh them against one another because they're so different. And in my attempt to grapple with it, I called up some of the people who I've heard from who were opposed and said, you know what would be something that you would support? And unanimously, everybody's saying that, you know, if we're talking about the big firecrackers, the eighties, the things that make your cars shake, the things that make dogs go wild, those things we're all against, the things that we don't want to ban are, you know, the celebratory ones that don't make that much noise, the roman candle, the sparklers, the wheels. So I was thinking about what would it look like to have that kind of compromise? But then I got confused by Jake's presentation earlier because it sounds like the firecrackers are already illegal everywhere. Is that right, Jake, that those big ones that people hear all the time are already illegal, even in unincorporated Kane County? Yes. Statewide firecrackers, bottle rockets, that sort of thing are illegal except for on tribal lands. They can be sold and used there. Okay. So we are really just talking about the ones that are sounding like grenades. The ones that are sparklers and wheels and and colorful things that aren't super loud. Is that what this ordinance is doing? I couldn't speak to the relative loudness of them, but the the things that are shown on page 15 of the packet that are those are not page 15, I think it was 54 of the packet. Those are the things that are currently legal that would become illegal under this ordinance. You said page 1554. Sorry. Okay. All right. I'll add second page 50. Page 55 shows the ones that are currently illegal for all of Washington state except for tribal lands. Great. So I'll look more into this and do some research. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. That's. Yeah. You know, I want to make sure that we're doing what we want to do with this. I think it would surprise a lot of people in unincorporated King County that I've been hearing from that the ones they're complaining about, at least that they're complaining about to me are already illegal. So that's just the interesting point. Thank you. Council members, council members. And I if I may, part of part of the motivation in a complete ban is to draw a bright line, because enforcement is terribly challenging. If some fireworks are legal and some are illegal, if a neighbor is letting off something that is legal. But maybe if the measure is volume allowing loud but not quite loud enough or is intended to be on the ground that bounces, you know, aerial generally being illegal that it was it's the brightness of legal or illegal that when I was working on this in preparation to introduce last year was a key point, not only in some of the communities that have been disturbed by fireworks, but particularly in law enforcement. One in the bright line and not the ambiguity of what might be discharged. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can. This is Jim Chan, if I can add a couple comments. Mr. CHEN. Yes, just to clarify a couple of points on the penalty. So the ordinance as currently written allows up to $1,000 in maximum fines. That doesn't mean that we have to assess $1,000. We can assess anything up to $1,000 per state law. And in terms of the displays in other cities, our ordinance would not affect the the the cost or the displays that are outside of unincorporated King County. They can continue to permit and do their own display methodologies and permits. And then lastly, on the consumer fireworks to respond to Councilman, bizarrely, the sparklers are one of those consumer fireworks that you can buy off of fireworks fans. And those are one of the most dangerous and types of fireworks that is that you wouldn't necessarily be aware of. They burn up to 2000 degrees. They can melt metal and lots of cases. Those are causes for significant fires. So it's not just the noise, it's also the type of fireworks and the temperature in which they burn. Just wanted to share those comments. That's really helpful, Jim. Thank you. You bet. Cast member Belushi. Yeah. I just. Not a question, just a comment. I signed on to this as a co-sponsor. Primarily because I'm coming from an urban, suburban, incorporated area where this kind of a restriction has been in effect for many years for the reasons that you listed. There are some reasons why unincorporated and rural areas are actually at higher risk because they're harder to respond to if a fire does start and we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. There's a lot of experience in a lot of communities implementing something just like this. And I think that I support taking time to make sure everybody understands what we're doing. There are some deadlines that would be important to meet if we're going to enact this this year, we should enact it prior to the fourth so that it is effective prior to the fourth because of the rules about when it can take effect. And I support getting answers to everyone's questions, but this is not, in my mind controversial or challenging or really all that unusual. We're just an outlier in this regard where we don't regulate the way most incorporated jurisdictions do for safety reasons. And the story that members of the public share that you shared, Mr. Chair, about that family that lost their home and, you know, family member, it's just we should never, ever allow something like that to happen without doing what we can to to regulate as a government. I believe that's within our police powers, which are our obligation to the public safety of the community that we represent. So I feel very strongly about this, and I thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Mr. Tracy, did you have a process to speak to? Yes, if I may, Mr. Chair, please. So the executive has completed a superb review of State Environmental Policy Act review, or the previously proposed Fireworks Prohibition Ordinance, the one that came up in council last year. And that super review considered the potential impacts of all policy changes that are in this proposed ordinance, as well as a number of councilmember amendment concepts that were that came up in discussion. So the executive issued a determination of non significance through the super process on April 15th of last year and the amendment concepts that were provided to the executive in addition to the ones that are in this proposed ordinance. I'm just going to list them off quickly. Those were making changes to the civil and criminal penalties for violation of fireworks regulations to either decrease or delay effectiveness of the penalties, limiting the fireworks prohibition to urban areas and basin Maryland, and continuing to allow fireworks sales and use in rural areas other than downtown Maryland. Requiring that the ordinance not take effect until the executive is signed an agreement with all tribes and city and King County that do sell fireworks, that prohibits the tribes and cities from selling to individuals that live in unincorporated King County and continuing to allow the use of sticks and sparklers in unincorporated King County. And so all of those amendment concepts were considered in the executive analysis. If there were other amendment concepts that came up that come up outside of that. Those may require additional analysis. This legislation does require a 30 day hearing notice before being heard in full council. And so any amendment concepts that I didn't just list would need to be communicated to council central staff no later than the Friday after the committee action in order to be included in that 30 day notice that goes out prior to the public hearing in full council. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Member Council member Lambert. Just to make sure I heard what you just said. Did you just say that one of the potential things that was analyzed was that tribal, that the tribes couldn't tell me what you said about the tribes not being able to do that? Yes. This the amendment concept. That was communicated to staff was that the ordinance could not take effect. This prohibition could not take effect until the executive had signed an agreement with all the tribes and cities and King County that still sell fireworks. And that agreement would say that those tribes and cities could not sell fireworks to people who live in unincorporated King County. Oh, I think that that could be a amazing concept, because that's where they're getting the ads and the things that aren't legal for us to sell. And and I think that that would separate where it's being done. If they said that nobody that doesn't live on tribal land or is a tribal member could buy, would that fit under that amendment? For SIPA. So this I think the scope of this ordinance would only be able to affect. So. I would have to get back to you on that. Okay. Because that makes a huge difference, because the concern that I'm hearing you is that people are saying people from other parts of the county are coming out and making messes and leaving them and, you know, not taking and having the bucket of water in the hose and all the things necessary in case of an emergency. And so if nobody could buy the illegal things, that would make it much easier. So if you check into that, that was interesting when you just said that. Thank you. All right. Here. Nothing further. I want to thank Mr. Tracy and the public for coming to testify and for their comments today as well. And we will list this item for discussion in potential action at our next meeting.