Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fireworks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police, city attorney propose tougher fireworks penalties; council asks for state-aligned definition
Summary
Police and prosecutors proposed an ordinance raising minimum fines for fireworks violations and giving officers seizure authority; council members expressed support for stronger enforcement but asked staff to align the local definition with state statute limits to avoid overly broad prohibitions.
Sergeant Moleski of the Brighton Police Department and city legal staff outlined a proposed revision to the city's fireworks ordinance intended to increase enforcement tools and public safety during the summer months.
The draft concept presented at the study session would make possession, storage, handling, use, explosion or discharge of certain fireworks unlawful in the city and authorize officers to seize fireworks used in violations. The police proposal included mandatory scaled minimum fines for violations: first offense a minimum $1,500 fine (reducible to $500 with 20 hours community service depending on ability to pay), second offense a minimum $2,000 (reducible with more community service), and third offense a minimum $2,500. Presenters said a reduced fine plus community service would be allowed for defendants with limited ability to pay and that courts would impose community service with nonprofit partners if ordered.
The police and the chief urged stronger enforcement tools. Chief Domenico said fireworks produce a large volume of complaints each summer and that making violations a strict-liability offense and providing seizure authority would make enforcement more practical and protect residents and animals. The draft also included language intended to allow citation of property owners or occupants "if appropriate" where visitors set off fireworks and leave before officers arrive.
Council members supported stronger enforcement but raised concerns about definitions and practical enforcement. Several members and the city attorney noted the state statute already distinguishes between aerial/illegal fireworks and lawful ground-based items (sparklers, some fountains) and recommended aligning the municipal definition with the state law so permitted consumer devices would not be unintentionally banned. Council members also asked how the city would communicate changes to residents and discussed operational challenges such as evidence and probable-cause requirements when fireworks are set off in public streets or when multiple households are involved.
City Attorney Alicia Calderon said the staff draft will be revised to use the state statute'aligned definition and return to council for further consideration. No formal ordinance vote was taken at the study session.
