As Salinas City Council prepares to ban fireworks, a ballot initiative to protect "safe and sane" fireworks ignites.

Tonight at 6pm, members of Salinas City Council and reps from fireworks companies welcome the public to a town hall discussion about the future of fireworks in the city. 

Or non-future, per a July 21 vote by City Council. The council's intention, as determined by a 5-2 vote, is to ban fireworks entirely. (Council is expected to approve the final changes to the fireworks ordinance Aug. 11.)

With that tight time frame, proponents of fireworks are fighting back.  

Earlier today, former City Councilman Sergio Sanchez and Salinas resident Raul Garnica delivered a notice to City Clerk Patricia Barajas of a proposed ballot measure that would preserve existing fireworks sales, with a few changes. 

The proposed ban isn't sitting well with a few constituencies. One is, predictably, fireworks wholesalers, who will speak at tonight's meeting. 

Another is community groups and activists like Sanchez and Garnica, a vice president of Braga Farms. They view the nearly $2 million in annual sales that "safe and sane" sales generate as indispensable to bare-bones community groups, according to the papers filed with the city clerk. 

"Safe and sane is not a problem," Sanchez says. "We disagree that we are the problem. The problem is illegal fireworks."

Sanchez was not planning to attend the Monday night meeting, he says, and instead is looking forward. "The Council has already made up their mind," he says. "I don't think anything is gained [by attending]. I and others have chosen to use the initiative process."

As they gear up for that process, Sanchez says, he's hoping to get fireworks companies to back them:

"We're hoping that either TNT or Phantom (or both of them) will help finance a campaign to be able to do this." 

"Safe and sane" refers to the current model of fireworks sales: The city selects a handful of nonprofits to run fireworks sale booths, a system that's supposed to control the number and type of fireworks sold, as well as generate revenue for the organizations. It's like an exploding version of a lemonade stand. 

Fireworks enforcement has been notoriously challenging from the standpoint of public safety officials, posing a fire hazard and also obscuring the sound of gunshots. 

That's left citizens to attempt to take control themselves. Councilman Steve McShane partnered with the Los Olivos Riker Neighborhood Association last month to monitor July 4 fireworks in the neighborhood using drones, despite concerns that monitoring might've been illegal. 

Enforcement aside, fireworks in Salinas are also a serious nuisance to many residents (and dogs).

The ballot measure Sanchez and Garnica propose would preserve "safe and sane fireworks," with a few changes.

Chiefly, they would expand the role of law enforcement in patrolling for illegal fireworks. 

They proposed tweaking the language that controls how a 7-percent fireworks surcharge can be spent, ensuring it could cover the costs of public outreach on legal vs. illegal fireworks, and law enforcement patrols to crack down on illegal fireworks. 

The proposed measure would also require the Salinas Police Department and Salinas Fire Department to submit a comprehensive fireworks enforcement plan by May 1 each year, well before July 4. 

The amendments would also allow for fines of up to $1,000 on anyone who "knows or should know, who causes, allows, permits, aids or abets any violation [of the city fireworks rules]." In addition, the offender would be responsible for paying the city's enforcement and response costs. 

The proposed initiative was filed Monday with just two signatures, but needs three; that means the city clerk will return the paperwork and give Sanchez and Garnica another shot before the initiative is approved for a signature-gathering phase to get on the ballot.

But even then, they might be off to an inauspicious start if City Council does indeed follow through and ban fireworks next week.  

"I think they have a timing issue because they would be seeking to amend an ordinance that doesn't exist anymore," City Attorney Chris Callihan says. "They may want to wait." 

Sanchez disagrees; while the proposed ordinance is very close to the existing ordinance, modified to include the changes described above, Sanchez believes it would be treated as a new rule put to voters, rather than amending an existing rule. 

Sanchez and Garnica are represented by the Sacramento law firm and registered lobbying firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, which specializes in campaign and election law.