Time to brush up on Alexander's fireworks rules for New Year's Eve

If you plan to shoot fireworks in the City of Alexander to celebrate the new year there are some rules you need to know. The fireworks ordinance establishes the following rules.

The use of fireworks:

“No parent, guardian, or custodian of any child under the age of majority shall knowingly permit or consent to the possession or discharge of fireworks by any child under the age of majority without proper supervision.” In other words, you’re responsible for the actions of the child whether you know what they’re doing or not. In Arkansas the age of majority is 18 years old.

Where and When:

The ordinance limits the discharging of fireworks, “on private property of the owner, by the owner and immediate family, when discharge is in a safe and sane manner.” “Safe and sane manner,” is defined as, “actions which do not endanger life, limb, or property of those in the area of the discharge.”

Fireworks may not, “be discharged within the boundaries of or within three hundred feet (300 ft.) of any public park owned or maintained by the city.” Also, fireworks may not be, “discharged upon any public street, alley, road, or right-of-way,” … “under or upon a motor vehicle, whether moving or not, or within three hundred feet (300 ft.) of any gas station, gas, oil, or propane storage facility, or other area which is highly flammable in nature.” Fireworks also may not be discharged if the Fire Chief has issued a burn ban due to drought or other conditions.

The ordinance allows for the discharging of fireworks from 12:00 PM (Noon) on December 31 until 1:00 AM on January 1.

Clean up when finished:

The revelers are also required to clean-up the mess. The ordinance states, “Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association discharging fireworks under this ordinance shall, upon such discharge, be responsible for clean-up of the discharge site, including disposal of all discharged fireworks, all non-discharged or ‘dud’ fireworks, and the associated debris from the area in a safe manner.”

Fireworks defined:

The ordinance provides a definition of fireworks. Besides the legal and technical definition, examples of what constitutes fireworks is provided. The list includes, “sky rockets, roman candles, daygo bombs, blank cartridges, toy cannons, toy canes, or toy guns in which explosives other than toy paper caps are used, the type of balloons which require fire underneath to propel them, firecracker, torpedoes, sparklers, or other fireworks of like construction, any fireworks containing any explosive or flammable compound, or any tablet or other device containing an explosive substance.”

Enforcement and penalties:

Police, fire and code enforcement officers are given the authority to enforce this ordinance. They also have the authority to, “seize, impound, remove, or cause to be removed, at the expense of the owner, all stocks of fireworks offered for sale, sold, or in the possession of any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association in violation of this chapter.”

Penalties start at, “a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or more than five hundred dollars ($500) for a first time offense, a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) or more than five hundred dollars ($500) for a second offense, and a fine of not less than three hundred dollars ($300) or more than five hundred dollars ($500) for a third or subsequent offense. Each day of a violation constitutes a separate offense.”

The ordinance also covers payment for damages and the cost of any services provided. “Any damages caused or injuries sustained as a result of any violation of this chapter shall be ordered paid as restitution as part of any conviction for any violation,” it states. Also, “The court may order the reimbursement of costs of enforcement, investigation, fire suppression services, and overtime related to a violation upon conviction.”

Anyone living under a Home Owners Association or Property Owners Association should consult the organization for any additional requirements above and beyond the city ordinance.

Huck retains seat on Alexander Planning Commission

This article may contain the opinion of its author.

The Alexander City Council, in a five to three vote, decided to not remove Michael Huck from the City Planning Commission. Huck currently serves as Chairman of the commission.

Prior to the vote Council Member Joy Gray first explained since the council appoints members to the planning commission the council can also remove commission members. She then gave her reasons why Huck should be removed from the planning commission.

"And, you know, the last meeting that where Mr. Huck was wildly inappropriate and said sexist comments, cursed, banging on the table, all that, that's recorded and he admitted to it," Gray said. "And after it was brought up in the last meeting, instead of remotely showing any contrition, he walked up to the person he had previously insulted and doubled down and made another further insulting comment after that meeting."

"So after that was brought up, after it was totally, you know, cosigned by everybody else that was there, instead of having the tiniest bit of common sense dignity, anything like that, he went and continued to be rude and inappropriate in a public meeting where he had just been discussed for being rude and inappropriate in other public meetings," she said.

[Editor's Note: Asking if Tonya Prowes's AI can write the minutes faster than three months is now a crime.]

A letter of complaint was sent by Chris Prowse, husband of Planning Commission Member and Secretary Tonya Prowse, and dated October 11, one day after the planning commission's October 10 meeting. According to the planning commission's sign-in sheet Chris Prowse was not at the meeting.

The complaint references a comment made by Huck to Prowse as everyone was leaving the Alexander courtroom after the planning commission meeting had ended. The comment was in reference to her misunderstanding of the proposed location of a cell tower to be built along Brookwood Road, which was the primary agenda item for the October 10 meeting. The property is the location of the Saline County Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Public Facilities Board's sewage treatment plant.

While Huck was summarizing the documents given to commission members before introducing Vertical Bridge representative Tracy Gill, Prowse jumped in and said they would have to access the St. Joseph's Glen sewer plant area by going through the subdivision from Highway 111, not Brookwood Road. Prowse lives in St. Joseph's Glen.

A second argument began, after the meeting, when Prowes accused Huck of referencing the St. Joseph's Glen sewer plant. Huck never mentioned St. Joseph's Glen.

While everyone was leaving the meeting Huck said, "Maybe I'll learn to speak female before the next meeting." This was the only complaint concerning the October meeting mentioned in the letter.

Voting "Yes" to remove Huck were Gray, Angela Griffin and Gina R Thomas-Littlejohn. Voting "No" were Joe Pollard, Mitchell W. Smith, Harold Timmerman, and Juanita Wilson. Tony Staton was absent and counted as a "No" vote.

Will Gray continue to bring this up at every meeting?

"I'm going to bring it up at every meeting for now until I'm no longer a city councilwoman because it is wildly inappropriate that he remains," Gray said.

At the November Council Meeting council members agreed to schedule a work session to discuss this issue further. The work session would have been a public meeting. To our knowledge the work session never occurred. Aside from Tonya Prowse speaking at the end of the November 20 meeting, there has been no public discussion between council members and those involved.

Also during the December 18 council meeting:

Lease agreement for city cottages tabled

Mayor Crystal Herrmann told council members City Attorney Chris Madison has suggested the proposed amendment to the lease agreements be reviewed by a certified public accountant. The amendment involves occupants paying the gas and electric bills. Because they are also city employees, being charged a $1.00 per year lease in exchange for being on-call and guarding the former Human Development Center property, Herrmann says Madison is concerned how this will affect the employees' taxes. The issue was tabled until January.

Attorney ordinance tabled

The second reading of an ordinance that will establish two "city attorney" positions has been tabled until City Attorney Chris Madison can answer concerns expressed by Council Member Juanita Wilson. The two main issues are the number of attorney positions to be established plus why the mayor is being given sole authority to appoint attorneys?

In the past the council was always the final authority in appointing attorneys. As for how many attorneys, the title includes the phrase "OR SEVERAL CITY ATTORNEYS." Wilson wants to know if two positions are being established why does the title say "Several?"

Next Meeting

Due to the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday falling on the third Monday in January, the next meeting of the Alexander City Council is Monday, January 22, 6:00 PM in the courtroom at the Alexander Municipal Complex. The public is invited to attend.