Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmergency Services Committee Minutes 08.23.2010 MINUTES EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 23, 2010 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Doug Poehls Chuck Dickerson Norm Stamper Emelie Eaton Dick Fritzler Others Present: Chief Musson Mike Penne—Towing Service in Laurel Public Input: There was no public input. Chairman Poehls read the agenda items. Mike Penne Towinix Services in Laurel Mike Penne stated that he is retiring after thirty-one years of owning the towing service in Laurel. He has seen things that need to be reviewed or changed. First, at one time there were four tow trucks on rotation in Laurel and only two had businesses licenses. He thinks that needs to be watched more closely. Second, the tow trucks, as well as the towers that come into town under AAA, the national contracts, GM Warranty and Ford Warranty, should have business licenses. He never bought a business license for Billings because he did not want to go there. Some of the tow trucks did not comply with State law concerning rotation and operating rules. Mike spoke regarding a new insurance regulation called a W-5, which guarantees that towers are complying with the State insurance regulations. When he sells his towing service, he hopes there will be a driver in Laurel. If the driver lives in Billings, he cannot respond within a reasonable amount of time. That would tie up the police officers and firemen longer after an accident while they waited to clear the scene, which would cost the city more. The tow truck should be able to respond within a reasonable amount of time. According to State law on the rotation, anybody can go into a town to be on that rotation, whether they live there or not. Columbus or Red Lodge trucks could come to Laurel or vice versa. Since there is no State law, Mike suggested that the council should review the issue. Another concern is regarding an office and storage yard in the Laurel area subject to the city's approval. There are few places in Laurel to actually store wrecked vehicles, and the storage space might need to be located outside the city limits. Mike spoke regarding vehicles stored in Laurel. When there were four tow trucks in rotation, three trucks would haul vehicles to Billings. Laurel citizens had to go to Billings to get personal items out of their vehicle, and that is not right. If the tow trucks want to work in Laurel, they should be able to keep the wrecked vehicles in Laurel for a reasonable time. After totaled vehicles have been cleaned out, they could be moved to Billings at the expense of the owner or insurance company. Mike stated that access should be allowed Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00, for owners to clean out their vehicles. The towing company should be willing to help the EMS services with training. Mike has hauled a lot of junk vehicles out for training of the fire department and the ambulance crew. County Junk will no longer haul vehicles to Laurel or pick them up after training. The cost will have to come out of the budget or the towing company will have to volunteer to do it and write it off on their taxes, like Mike has done as a donation to the organizations. Mike spoke regarding non-consensual towings, which are private property tows. In Billings, they are towing off of private property and charging $300 cash The price and type of payment can be regulated under Federal law. This has not hit Laurel hard yet, but it has hit Billings really hard. Billings has opted to do nothing about it. Non-consensual in his business refers to private property. Another big thing going on in Billings right now is one rotation per business. He could set up his three tow trucks legally here in Laurel, and the police chief would have no control over it. Mike thinks the city should regulate that so there are not numerous tow trucks on rotation in Laurel. There is no reason to have more than one rotation spot per business. Mike stated that three businesses in Billings are seriously thinking about moving out to Laurel. He does not plan to move out of town, but he needs to get out of the business for health reasons. Update—Medical Director Jan Faught stated that the Billings Clinic doctor that was interested several months ago has been extremely busy and will see what things look like this fall. Jan tried to set up a meeting with the Laurel Clinic again, but was not able to get one scheduled yet. She stated that the State Department of Public Health and Human Services is interviewing to hire a State Medical Director. They are writing a job description and getting protocols and policies in place. Once a State Director is hired, the Laurel Ambulance Service should be under that umbrella. The State Medical Director will be over all the other medical directors. Right now, medical directors have no one to contact for questions or concerns. Ambulance services like Laurel that are having difficulty finding a medical director will be able to go to this director. Billings Fire just signed on a physician, the COM Center is still looking, and Worden is looking again. Jan stated that the State knows it is difficult. Susan Huntoon, 501 Cottonwood, asked why Jan's search was not confined to an ER doctor and why she contacted the clinic. Jan said they would be a temporary measure and she would continue to look for an ER doctor in the meantime. Discussion—Fireworks Doug opened the meeting for some constructive ideas on how to enforce the current fireworks laws. Monty Cherry, 405 Laurmac Lane, stated his concern regarding the possibility of a lawsuit by not stopping illegal fireworks in the city and the city's liability for this. He questioned if the city would be responsible if illegal fireworks kept going on after a citizen called in and the fireworks were not stopped and confiscated. That is a concern because the taxpayers would have to pay for that. He would like the Laurel Police Department to step up the enforcement. He believes that, if the Police Department starts with additional enforcement for the 2011 fireworks, it would help people know that their fireworks will be confiscated and a ticket will be issued for illegal fireworks. Monty stated that all fireworks cannot be stopped,but it could start with the big ones. He suggested that citizens should use the police department's non-emergency line to complain about fireworks, not the 911 line. He asked the council to keep working on the concerns of residents of Laurel. Monty asked if the police department could get any assistance from the County Sherriff's Department on the 0 of July. He does not want to stop the fire department's fireworks display and his concern is to go after the illegal fireworks. Monty asked for further discussion of other ideas at another workshop. Darrell McGillen, 511 West 110, stated that the problems have been identified, and one problem is the excessive use of illegal fireworks. A definition for illegal fireworks is needed, because the State of Montana says fireworks are legal and can be sold in Montana. The levels of fireworks sold in Montana are dictated by the State Fire Marshal. Class C fireworks are small fireworks. Laurel is seeing some of the big fireworks like the fire department sets off. Another problem is that people shoot fireworks off until 3:00 in the morning, so respect of the neighborhood needs to be addressed. Darrell does not want to stop families from going to the local fireworks stands, which are licensed in the State of Montana. He spoke regarding confiscating fireworks and stated that it is not illegal to have fireworks in the State of Montana. It is illegal to shoot them in the City of Laurel. The concern is with the illegal fireworks that are sold in Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and on the reservation. Those places have different laws regarding fireworks than Montana. The main problems in Laurel are the size of the illegal fireworks and shooting off fireworks after hours in disrespect to the neighborhood and community. He does not want to see the Laurel Fire Department's program disbanded, and that would cause a fight if it were suggested. The fireworks have been around too long. He knows that it creates problems for the City of Laurel. The taxpayers pay for the overtime hours to accommodate the 41h of July event. He stated that the fireworks event has won awards for being one of the top 50 events in the northwest. Darrell stated that the wording of the fireworks ordinance needs to be correct and the public needs to be educated about the consequences of shooting illegal fireworks. He suggested that additional security people could be hired and that people who complain about fireworks should be identified. He wants to stay on the committee for further discussion. Darrell does not want his grandkids to lose the right to shoot sparklers and fountains off in his driveway, even though he knows it is against the law. Hazel Storck, 512 7`h Avenue, stated that there is a moratorium in Great Falls. Fireworks can be shot on July 3'd, 4`h, and 56' and to stop at midnight. If caught shooting fireworks at any other time, the fireworks are confiscated and the offender is served with a $500 fine. She thinks that would work in Laurel with at least a $200 fine. She suggested that the firemen start the fireworks program earlier so people could shoot their fireworks off before midnight. Dave Herman, 416 Mountain View, stated that his council member asked for suggestions and recommendations at the last meeting. He wrote his suggestions in a letter to the mayor. If he could be assured that his statements would be entered into the committee record, he would present the letter to the chair for distribution. Doug thanked Dave and stated that copies would be distributed to the committee members and included in the minutes. Lisa Reimer, 1007 4ch Avenue, spoke regarding the lack of manpower for enforcement for the fireworks and what citizens could do to help. Some big communities have the guardian angels and other citizens that are trained to volunteer. As a school teacher, they bring in outside volunteers when help is needed. She suggested doing peer monitoring of the community with some training and given the power to work in teams. She stated that community members need to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem Susan Huntoon, 501 Cottonwood, mentioned that Jean Kerr had suggested that police officers report on the ticket the number of times they went to a house before the offender was cited. Darrell commented regarding having a supervised location for people to shoot off fireworks. He brought that up twenty years ago, but it did not go forward because the city attorney said the city would have to assume liability if it sponsored the event. Gary Colley, Fire Marshal, stated that he proposed changes to the fireworks ordinance after hearing the recent discussions. The proposed changes include: "Exception: Permissible fireworks may be displayed on the following dates and times. July 3'd from six (6) p.m. until twelve (12) midnight; July 4th from six (6) p.m until twelve (12) midnight; December 31st from nine (9) p.m until January 1 one (1) a.m." The proposed penalty for illegal use of fireworks for any person violating would be a minimum of$100 and a maximum of$500. Gary submitted the document to the secretary. Sharon Herman, 416 Mountain View, does not want see the fire department's fireworks discontinued. She has lived in Laurel for fifty years and has enjoyed the fireworks every year. This year was probably the worst 4th of July they have ever experienced. The Freedom Jam in the park across the street went from 1:00 until 9:00 that night. They had a family reunion at their house, but the noise was so loud the walls in their garage vibrated, and they could not even visit. The fireworks started around 10:00 p.m and then their neighbors shot fireworks off very late. She recalled a prior 4th of July when the neighbors set off fireworks that went for half a block, were lit at both ends so they would go quicker, and went off for 25 minutes straight. They informed their neighbors of their intention to get illegal fireworks stopped prior to this meeting. She would like to know what the City of Billings does because they claim they do not have as many calls as they used to. She would like the fine increased so people will pay attention. She asked if the overtime hours could be used to hire additional manpower so there would not be overtime. She mentioned that Darrell McGillen said something about how the event started in Laurel and she questioned if the problem was not just transferred from Red Lodge to Laurel. She again stated that she does not want to see the firemen's fireworks discontinued. Sharon commended the police department and stated that they do a wonderful job, but more help might be needed on those few days. Chief Musson stated that the City of Laurel can be liable for things. He spoke about the lengthy discussion at the last council workshop regarding how to enforce things. The typical lawsuits in law enforcement are due to lack of enforcement, such as when a drunk driver drives away after the cop made contact. Regarding adding two additional cars, the city has to have the vehicles in order to add them He suggested that the city buy more cars and hire more cops. He has been in the city for 28 years and the police department has not grown much in 28 years. It is an age old problem, as there is not enough funding, so the department does the best it can with the manpower given. He stated that people want more but do not want to pay more taxes. Since 1998, taxes cannot be raised without voter approval, and when they try to raise taxes by voter approval, it gets turned down. Voters do not approve mill levies for emergency services mills for fire and police. Chief Musson stated that the fire chief does not want the firefighters out dealing with the people with whom the cops have to deal. He spoke regarding citizen's arrest, explained the process of a citizen's arrest, and stated that he does not advocate citizen's arrest because it is not safe. Regarding talking to neighbors, sometimes that works and sometimes it does not. Chief Musson stated that there are two administrative lines and two 911 lines in the dispatch center. No matter which number is called in dispatch, it will flood the calls, and even two dispatchers cannot keep up on the 0 of July. Chief Musson explained that four deputies from the Sheriff s Office patrolled in the park this year. One issue with Sheriffs officers is that they do not enforce city ordinances. The local police department enforces local ordinances. Since fireworks are illegal in city ordinance, it would be difficult to bring in private security that does not have arrest powers. Regarding Darrell McGillen's comments about the different classes of fireworks, he talked to Ken Bray at the ATF recently. Ken said there are no regulations about the diameter of the fireworks. The simplistic explanation is that the packaging is the difference in the illegal fireworks brought into Montana. Ken says that 95 percent or better of the fireworks that have colored wrapping on them are sold legally in Montana. There are three classes of fireworks. Class C fireworks can be sold across the counter in Montana. Fireworks with brown paper wrapping are Class B fireworks and are illegal. Class A is dynamite. Chief Musson stated that the council and the Emergency Services Committee have previously had numerous discussions regarding fireworks. He is an advocate of legalizing fireworks, as suggested by the fire marshal, because the police officers are put between a rock and a hard spot and look bad when they cannot enforce the current ordinance. If the ordinance is not changed, he only wants to go after the Class B fireworks. He stated that the police department does not enjoy the aftermath of dealing with unhappy citizens and drunken people on the 4"'of July. The police are busy with DUI crashes in the city limits while citizens call in fireworks complaints and then wonder why the cops do not respond. The fire chief does not want to send his firemen out to write fireworks tickets because they are not equipped to deal with drunks. Chief Musson stated that what the city fathers do should be dictated by what the citizens want, as Sgt. Guy talked about at the last council workshop. Sharon Herman suggested requiring a $25 permit and a $100 bond for people to set off fireworks. The police went to her neighbor's house five times, which is four times more than necessary in her opinion. She questioned why the police would make five trips to one place if there is not enough manpower. If the fine is stiff enough and the fireworks were confiscated, the police would not be called back. Chief Musson stated that there were only fifty fireworks calls this year. Sharon stated that they do not call in anymore because it does not do any good. Chief Musson stated that the low call volume is because people tolerate the fireworks. He explained that law enforcement always prioritizes calls, and fireworks are low priority when it comes to call logs. Doris Hill, 612 7t' Avenue, stated that she would rather have the officers take care of domestic abuse or other cases than worry about the fireworks. One positive thing is that everyone thinks the amount of the fine should be increased, which Jean Kerr said at the last meeting. She suggested that the police should patrol for fireworks more on the perimeter of the city and that fireworks should be allowed on July 3'd, 4'h, and 5'. Alice Schreiner, 706 2"d Avenue, has lived a block from the park since 1964 and loves the fireworks. Her family comes from all over to watch the fireworks. The fireworks only last one day and people should get over it. Norm Stamper stated that people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fireworks and do not care if an officer gives them a $25 fine. One easy step would be to increase the amount of the fine. He remembers discussing the fireworks issue and the ordinance last year. He thinks the ordinance could be changed to allow fireworks on certain days at certain times and it might be easier to enforce. Doug stated that Dave Herman's comments would be entered into the record, the other suggestions would be reviewed, and a recommendation would be put together. Brent Peters stated that a lot of issues were discussed tonight. Gary approached him with the proposed ordinance change right after the 4 h of July, and he agrees with it. He thinks that 99 percent of the people in the community want to do the right thing. If the ordinance is set to safety standards, people will comply and do the right thing. In his years on the fire department, he cannot remember any structure fires that were caused by fireworks. On the 0 of July, other than setting up the largest fireworks show in the Northwest, the firemen respond to fire calls outside the city limits all day long. There were only four calls this year, but there have been as many as twenty-four calls on the 4`h of July because people go outside the city limits to shoot off fireworks and cause grass fires. If the city legalized fireworks and controlled when fireworks could be shot off, it would be safer in the city limits for fire hazards than outside the city limits in tall grass. He stated that the menaces have to be dealt with individually. As far as Rick's comment regarding the firemen, Brent stated that he does not want to put one of his firemen in harm's way without protection like the police department has, such as a can of pepper spray and a taser. Doug again stated that the suggestions would be reviewed and some recommendations should be presented to the committee at the next meeting on September 27`h. The public is welcome to attend the meeting and provide additional input. Doug stated that the workable ideas include raising the fine, allowing fireworks on July 3Td and 4t', identifying the habitual offenders, and when and where to send the police out to address illegal fireworks. Respectfully submitted, Neva Hall Secretary August 23, 2010 Mr. Ken Olson, Mayor, Laurel, MT At the City Council Workshop on August 1 Oth, our police chief made six recommendations for curbing the illegal use of fireworks within our city. According to an article in the August 18th Outlook, they were made "tongue in cheek". I maintain that "tongue in cheek" is a purely subjective opinion held by the author of that article. The police chief, a city official, made those recommendations while in uniform at a public forum and they are now a matter of record. At that same workshop, one of my councilmen asked me to come up with some recommendations as well. I do have some recommendations, they and some associated comments follow. Recommendation number 1. Does a peace-seeking resident of our city really need the Firemen's fireworks display? It attracts untold numbers of persons to our city, many of whom bring their problems with them. Many are just looking for an excuse to get liquored-up and party while the citizens of Laurel present them with the perfect venue for their drinking, and associated rowdiness, and as a bonus, a literally free fireworks display. Mr. McGillen was absolutely right when he said at that same workshop "We [the firemen] are the ones that got us into this mess". So I had to ask myself, "Are there any winners in this mess"? My answer to that query is "Yes". The winners are the bars, casinos, beer merchants, street vendors, and other self-serving entities. Then I ask myself who is paying the price for these few folks putting dollars into their pockets under the guise of allowing us to displaying our patriotism... you guessed it; it is the peace-seeking resident(s) of our city. And who are the buffers between the revelers and the peace-seeking resident(s); you guessed it, our city police. And, yes, again you are right, only a few of these peace-seeking residents came to the meeting to offer comment. I believe that the rest continue to suffer in silence, knowing that if they complained — tried to fight city hall —that,just as in the last 40 years, the city would turn a deaf ear to the complaints, and just as in the last 40 years, the illegal activities went away in a few days, no one got run-over, injured, burned-up, burned-down, or killed. Once again the few money seekers were able to dupe the city by having their will forced upon the peace-seeking resident(s), and once again city hall won. In Mr. McGillen's explanation of how we got into this "mess", he said that some of our city's prior residents [mostly firemen] of 50 years ago felt that too much money was leaving Laurel and going to Red Lodge and that a fireworks display might be a good way to keep those folks, and their money, in town. Well, how has keeping that money in town worked out for us where is the pay- off? The traffic problem is no longer between Red Lodge and Laurel, the majority of it is in Laurel. The idiot drivers, aggressive drivers, and drunks are still there, they are just using different roads. The innocent motoring public is still at risk from these irresponsible drivers. All that the firemen, the mayors, and our city councils did was to relocate the problem. Recommendation number 2. Rid ourselves of the July P street dance. Here a self-serving entity, under the guise of promoting Laurel and allowing us to display our patriotism, organized a city- permitted street dance. Same question, who is attracted to such an event? Is it the peace-seeking resident(s) of our city, or just a handful of revelers looking for an excuse to get drunk, to get rowdy, and to engage in a public display of their machoism, at no less than a city sanctioned party? Again, who are the winners? Did the city put any money into its treasury, or did these self- serving entities use this event and our city's resources to put the money into their pockets. For every winner, there is a looser, and, in this case, who might that looser be? I have yet to hear one peace-seeking resident talking about how much they enjoyed the dance or how much they enjoyed the show of patriotism that was displayed at the event. No, once again the few got their egos stroked at the expense of the peace-seeking resident(s). Oh yes, who was once again the buffer between the party-goers and the peace-seeking resident(s), you guessed it, our police department. If these two types of events are "permitted" by the city to allow its residents and guests a venue in which they can display their patriotism and spend their money so a select few can put these dollars into their pockets, then I think it is time to for us to examine why we have a city and the role of self-serving entities in our city. Was our city founded by citizens looking for a safe and peaceful place to live, grow, and prosper, or was it founded so self- serving entities could milk the city of its resources and its citizens of their money, so they could prosper? I submit to you that it was intended to be a balance of the two, a symbiotic relationship, where all can live in safety and peace to grow and prosper together. However, somewhere along the way, some crafty self- serving entities found that through associations, money, and influence they could have their will by manipulating city government and tipping the scales away from the peace-seeking resident(s). When this happened, a monumental "mess" was created, this "mess" was of their own making, and now, it is a mess of the city's continuation. That is exactly where I see us today. Recommendation number 3. . After posting a notice in the Outlook that the use of fireworks, without a permit, within our city limits is illegal, fair warning was given. I can see no reason, excuse, or justification for repeat warnings. Since many of the violators are juveniles and they acquired their fireworks from an adult, then that adult should be located and cited for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Recommendation number 4. The whole USA has courts that use sentencing guidelines. I can see no reason or excuse for not doing the same thing in our court. Since the violators used their resources, time, and enthusiasm to violate the law, I see no reason why the court can not include some "public service" in its sentencing, so the violator can again use some of their resources, time, and enthusiasm to help clean-up the mess that they just made. Recommendation number 5. The confiscation of the fireworks from violators. The law allows for taking into evidence the instruments or fruits of a crime that are within the immediate area of control of that offender at the time of the offender's arrest. A Notice-To-Appear is a form of an arrest and the offender is therefore subject to a search and the instruments of that crime, their remaining fireworks, can be seized. Then comes the problem of violators that have a stash of additional fireworks out of the area of their immediate control. If there was ever a time for allowing prosecutorial discretion, this would be one of those times. The violator, after being advised of his "rights" and of the fine likely associated with his offense, could be offered a chance to admit in writing (a prepared form) that they are in violation of the ordinance, and in lieu of a portion of the expected fine, they agree to a voluntary search of their vehicle(s) and adjacent premises and do willingly authorize confiscation of the remainder of their fireworks. One snag here is for the juvenile violator that may have a fireworks stash elsewhere. In most cases, a juvenile can not waive their "rights" without parental consent or legal council. Check with the city attorney on this matter. Recommendation number 6. Making use of the police reserve. Reserve officers, when called to duty, have the same authority as a regular officer. They could be deployed as a separate fireworks patrol and assigned patrol zones. They can also be a ready back-up should the need arise. Along these same lines, it is my contention that an offender who has been arrested and is to be booked into the YCDF does not have to be taken there immediately. The arrestee can be restrained in a holding area until a second arrestee can be taken in the same vehicle, a transport officer becomes available, or the time allowed in that holding area is due to expire. Recommendation number 7. Establish a written policy regarding this matter. With a written policy in place, everyone involved has no doubt as to how a violator is to be processed. This eliminates the officer's on-scene decision making and/or options. The officers would no longer have to explain their actions to the violator or to their supervisor(s), unless, of course, they conduct themselves outside that policy. Making this policy publicly known also puts the potential violator on notice. Now you have everyone on the same page. I also have suggestions regarding the system that the city uses to authorize these "permitted activities". These suggestions are directly related to this matter, but are not what my councilman asked of me. They can be yours for the asking. All of the problems created by, and associated with, numbers 1 and 2, above, are of the city's own making and continuation. That being the case, I can see no justification in the city's claim that using city resources to deal with the problems (1) that it created, (2) that it has allowed to escalate, (3) and that it has the means to bring to an end, can be used as an excuse for failing in its duty to protect the city's residents and guests from an onslaught of other violations. At this writing, I do not believe that the council has the fortitude to deal with my above numbered 1 and 2 recommendations. However, remember what Mr. McGillen said about this being a "mess"? If a mess is going to get cleaned-up, someone has to start somewhere and something has to be done. David Herman 416 Mountain View Lane Illegal Fire works Laurel City Council works shop My conseren can the city of Laurel be responsible for lawsuit if they don ' t stop the illegal fire work because of it city ordinance . I would like to see if Laurel police dept . step up enforcement of the city ordinance with the addition of one or two patrol vehicles with a total of two officers per patrol car . I believe that if the police dept . started with 2011 fouth of july fire works with it addition enforcement this way people will know that there fire works will be take away and a ticket issued for illega fire works . I know we can ' t stop all of fire works but can start with big illegal ones . we all so need to have joint communications with people in asking those who call to complain about fire works with in city limit to use its non-emergency number so that it dose not tie up the 911 emergecy number . That ' s is the different than doing nothing , so I ' am asking council to keep working the concern with residents of Laurel thank you . That ' s is the different than doing nothing , so I ' am asking council to keep working the concern with residents of Laurel thank you . Is there be chance that the are Local County Chief Dept . could be call to help with fire works in the City Limit as option . Page 1 / � � /41 9 U tit LAUREL FIRE DEPARTMENT 215 west Is'street Brent Peters—Fire Chief Lamrel,Montana 59044 Gary Colley—Fire Marshal (406)629-4911 July 15, 2010 TO: Brent Peters,Fire Chief Rick Musson, Police Chief FROM: Gary Colley, Fire Marshal RE: Changes to Fireworks Ordinance Guys lets try and get something done. Look through this and we can make changes if you want before we present it to the council. I picked the dates and times which are subject to change. j Chapter 8.16 Fireworks Sections: 8.16.10 Prohibited except in certain areas 8.16.20 Time period allowed to sell 8.16.010 Prohibited except in certain areas The discharge, firing or use of firecrackers, rockets,torpedoes,roman candles, or other fireworks or substances designed or intended for pyrotechnic display or demonstration within the city is prohibited; provided, that the mayor may at any time permit a public display or fireworks under such conditions as he/she may prescribe. lotion: A Permissable fireworks maybe displayed on the following dates and times. Jul P from six(6)pm until twelve(12)midnight. July 4`h from six(6)pm until twelve(12) midnight. December 31 from nine(9)pm until January 1 one(1)am 8.16.010 Time period allowed to sell It is unlawful for any person to offer for sale, expose for sale, or sell at retail or wholesale, within the corporate limits of the city, any fireworks of any nature whatsoever. 8 16 030 Penalty for illegal use for fireworks AU person violating a provision of this chapter for which another penalty has not been specifically provided shall, upon conviction thereof be punished by fine of not less than one hundred dollars($100 00)nor more than five hundred dollars($500.00. "Serving Laurel Since 1909"