My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-30-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
03-30-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2020 3:43:17 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 2:52:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 9, 2020 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Crosby said he is not sure what Mr. Erickson is trying to resolve, because the other fireworks would not <br />be coming under regulation, anyway. <br />Walsh agreed with Crosby. <br />Barnhart said his understanding from the Council was to keep the language more broad. In the previous <br />version, a specific Minnesota statute was referenced. He believes that Mr. Erickson thinks the smaller <br />fireworks don't have as much of a reach as the large ones and does not want to bring the City in on some <br />of the smaller events. The City is looking at what the Fire Code identifies as fireworks to make sure a fire <br />hazard is not being created. <br />Seals asked if the language matches the Minnesota State Fire Code, or as close as possible, which is the <br />goal. <br />Barnhart said he thinks it does. <br />Walsh said they do not want to set a standard that is not attached to the Fire Code. If the City finds it is <br />too overzealous it can be amended later, but he would rather err on the side of caution to start with. <br />Crosby stated he does not see authorities coming after people with sparklers or other minor items. He <br />agreed with Walsh as far as matching the State Fire Code language. <br />Mr. Erickson said that is why he used the 1.3G designation as part of the Minnesota State Fire Code. He <br />stated the 1.4G are the small fireworks, both legal and illegal. He noted you need to hire a licensed <br />operator for the 1.3G fireworks in addition to having a permit. During the Work Session, the Chief of <br />Police mentioned no one would interfere if somebody had a sparkler because they are legal. The police <br />are aware that bottle rockets, the next step up, are illegal and they can intervene at any time. There is <br />adequate state law forbidding those, so it does not need to be included. He noted the section that has been <br />agreed upon includes a required vote by the City Council based on the Fire Chief's recommendation, <br />which guarantees adequate notice being sent to neighbors, etc. He is trying to limit the scope of what the <br />problem is and they seem to be getting close, and he wants to get it to the final step to move it forward. <br />Walsh indicated he understood Mr. Erickson's point and appreciated his time. <br />Seals said she would like the language to match what the State Fire Chief says, in case it changes. <br />Walsh noted that was the same direction as in the Work Session. <br />Johnson stated his understanding of Mr. Erickson's concern: the City Council is reinforcing something <br />that is already illegal and it is unnecessary. <br />Barnhart stated the smaller fireworks are referred to as consumer fireworks. Minnesota does not allow <br />consumer fireworks to fly, such as bottle rockets. The proposal is, anything under the larger umbrella of a <br />firework, as defined by the Fire Code, requires a Special Events Permit. The Fire Chief would review the <br />application, confirm the launch location, and the City Council review and approve the permit. <br />Johnson asked if that was the 1.4 scenario. <br />Page 3of18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.