Cave Creek Council Maintains Fireworks Restrictions Despite $150,000 Annual Economic Impact Claims

Cave Creek Council Stands Firm on Fireworks Restrictions as Business and Safety Advocates Clash Over Fire Risk

The Town of Cave Creek's May 6, 2019 council meeting featured one of the year's most contentious debates: whether to relax the 2017 fireworks ordinance that had cost local businesses an estimated $150,000 in lost revenue and prevented the town's 25-year Independence Day tradition from occurring. After more than two hours of testimony from pyrotechnicians, business owners, fire safety experts, and residents, the Council declined to modify the ordinance, reaffirming that public safety in extreme drought conditions trumps economic arguments.

The ordinance itself is austere. Passed June 19, 2017, it took effect July 1 of that year—after the 4th of July fireworks that season. It limits consumer fireworks (those purchased at stands) to use only in the town core, general commercial, and golf course zones, and only between June 24–July 6 and December 24–January 3. Any display fireworks require a permit and must meet National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA 1123) standards, including a site plan, $1 million general liability and $5 million excess liability insurance, on-site fire department equipment and personnel, and a written emergency plan for misfired mortars. Critically, the ordinance states that permits shall not be issued "in times of fire high fire danger"—and the town uses the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) to determine that level.

Key Speeches

"The current fireworks ordinance limits the use of consumer fireworks…only occurring between June 24th and July 6 and then again December 24th to january 3rd at no other time are you allowed to use consumer fireworks anywhere in the town….permits shall not be issued in times of fire high fire danger." — Mike Baxley, Town Staff

"The ordinance was created in good faith right good intentions but it's flawed it's ambiguous at best…the determining factor was fire danger rating which was never defined to me….I believe you guys should bring back the 25 year tradition and not prohibit traditions like the bloom festival from going through an ambiguous arbitration code." — Danny (Harold's fireworks operator), Applicant

"There's always fire danger as was suggested in the previous comments the issue is the incremental risk that we as a town are deciding to impose on ourselves…what we're talking about is losing our town it's not a game mr. Baxley did an outstanding job he was crucified for doing an outstanding job we need to look at what we're about the safety of our town." — Carrie Smith (policy analyst and former Council advocate for the ordinance), Public Comment

"I believe that's up to your town staff and you folks to figure that out roll Metro does what it can to mitigate an event once it occurs we're there to help we're there to keep the community safe but the way your system works we're not the one that calls the shots." — Chief Kratz, Rural Metro Fire Department

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Mike Baxley outlined the ordinance's permit criteria, the NFDRS system used to determine fire danger (low, moderate, high, very high, extreme), and emphasized that staff relies on Tonto National Forest Cave Creek Ranger District ratings, Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management data (which ranked Cave Creek fifth-highest wildfire risk in Maricopa County out of 400 Arizona communities), and rural Metro consultation to set fire danger levels. Baxley noted that as of May 6, the Tonto National Forest rated conditions as "low," though he acknowledged global chamomile—a highly flammable invasive weed—is "everywhere" in the town and creates extreme fuel load.

• Chief Kratz and Dennis Orman testimony: Chief Kratz (fire department) and Dennis Orman (Rural Metro senior wildland firefighter) acknowledged past small fire starts during fireworks events, frequent brush fires sparked by embers, and the challenge that wildland firefighters cannot predict wind or temperature months in advance. Orman emphasized that pre-treating fuel (brush clearing) only remains effective a few days before an event.

• Danny's application and defense: Dan Nelson (pyrotechnician) and Danny (Harold's location operator) argued that the ordinance is "flawed and ambiguous," citing 25 years of safe displays, downsizing shells from 5- and 6-inch to 2.5-inch shells to reduce fallout radius, planned fuel reduction on and beyond the fallout zone (clear to 175 feet, with neighbor cooperation to extend further), Rural Metro on-site supervision, and test shots before every show. Danny stressed the economic impact: $150,000 in lost business revenue across five businesses, $15,000 in lost wages for approximately 100 employees, and that the last-minute permit denial last year forced cancellation. He argued the ordinance conflates Forest Service guidelines (designed for federal wildlands with low vegetation) with a town core setting with pavement, fire breaks, and active fire department presence. Danny also criticized the "ambiguous" definition of fire danger ratings and argued that a 15 mph wind cap and code-specific criteria could allow safe displays. He presented maps showing the fallout zone, neighboring properties, and routes for fire trucks to position 100+ feet beyond the perimeter.

• Public comment: Twelve speakers testified over approximately 90 minutes. Support came from long-time residents and business owners who emphasized the tradition, economic value, safety record, and the fact that other Arizona communities with similar fire danger conducted fireworks simultaneously last year without incident. Opposition came from fire safety advocates, including resident Yolanda Grill (who recalled a 2004 wildfire visible from her home, emotional about the risks to families and structures), and Carrie Smith (who pointed to recent GIS-based fire risk mapping by Arizona Department of Forestry showing very-high-risk vegetation surrounding the fallout zone, and argued that the ordinance reflects modern data unavailable 25 years ago). One speaker—not a resident—suggested the businesses band together to fund a safer, community-wide fireworks event. Another public speaker noted that the Chinese globe chamomile invasive weed problem this year is visibly worse than any prior year, and that cigarette-induced grass fires, welding and dragging chains remain uncontrolled risks around town. Council members expressed sympathy for Danny's 25-year history and the town's western identity, but ultimately sided with public safety.

• Council discussion: Mayor Ernie Bunch, Vice Mayor David Smith, Council Members Kathryn Royer, Susan Clancy, Paul Deffenbaugh, Thomas McGuire, and Robert Morris engaged in subdued but resolute remarks. McGuire stated plainly, "I would be incredibly reluctant to do anything to change the ordinance." Deffenbaugh argued that while every activity carries risk (driving, welding), the ordinance appropriately restricts imposed risk on neighbors and the broader community: "this risk isn't just for one person it's for the community." Robert Morris emphasized that his prior business experience taught him never to prioritize economics over public safety: "economics were never one of them I don't think there's any economic justification given the possible scope of what might happen." Vice Mayor Smith acknowledged the dilemma and expressed hope that future conditions might allow a permit, but declined to modify the ordinance now. Bunch did not signal openness to changes.

• Vote: No motion to modify Ordinance 2017-07 was made or brought to a vote. The Council implicitly reaffirmed the ordinance by declining to direct staff to draft amendments.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 5

Main concerns:

1. Ordinance relies on NFDRS ratings designed for federal wildlands (with lower vegetation density and greater spacing) but applied to town core, which has pavement and fire breaks—misapplication of the metric.
2. Fire danger ratings are inherently subjective and "ambiguous"; the ordinance does not define which specific agency (Tonto National Forest, Arizona Department of Forestry, state hotline, or Rural Metro assessment) is decisive if they disagree.
3. Economic impact: $150,000 in lost retail and restaurant sales across five businesses last year; $15,000 in lost wages for ~100 employees; erosion of summer cash flow and town identity.
4. 25-year safety record without incident (or only minor brush starts quickly controlled by on-site Rural Metro personnel) demonstrates the risk is manageable with proper mitigation.
5. Downsizing to 2.5-inch shells, fuel reduction to 175+ feet, rural Metro on-site supervision with equipment positioned 100+ feet beyond the fallout zone, test shots, and decision to cancel if wind exceeds safe levels represent best-practice mitigation that the ordinance does not acknowledge.
6. Other Arizona communities with similar drought and fire danger conducted fireworks last year without being ordered to cease; the ordinance is overly conservative compared to peer jurisdictions.
7. The ordinance was created in "good faith" but is now causing unintended consequences (business collapse, cultural loss) that warrant reconsideration of the high-danger-rating threshold or definition.

Most compelling arguments: Danny's argument that the ordinance conflates federal wildland standards (Tonto National Forest, 50+ miles north with higher moisture) with a town core setting featuring pavement, fire breaks, and active fire department presence was the most technically forceful claim. The evidence that 25 years of events under larger shells (5–6 inch) with varying mitigation had not caused a destructive fire—only minor brush starts controlled on-scene by Rural Metro—carried weight. However, Chief Kratz acknowledged that those past starts had occurred, and that embers had been blown beyond the intended fallout radius on at least two occasions.

Organized groups: None; opposition was primarily Danny's business (Harold's) and a few sympathetic residents and business owners.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 7

Main concerns:

1. Modern GIS-based wildfire risk mapping (Arizona Department of Forestry portal, accessed during the meeting) shows the Harold's fallout zone and surroundings in "high" and "very high" risk categories for vegetation burn likelihood. This data did not exist 25 years ago and represents a material change in the risk environment.
2. Extreme drought and invasive weeds (particularly Chinese globe chamomile, described as "everywhere" and "like matchsticks") create unprecedented fuel loads this year; a former council member who had advocated for the ordinance in 2017 stated that conditions are worse now than then.
3. The ordinance appropriately prioritizes public interest (safety of the broader community, including residents who do not attend the fireworks and have no say in accepting the risk) over private gain (the business owner's and attendees' benefit).
4. Even small risks, if borne by an entire community, should be avoided when the benefit accrues to a single business or event. This is the core function of fire codes and land-use regulation.
5. Wildland firefighters cannot predict wind, temperature, or humidity months in advance, so any promise of "safe conditions" at a future date is illusory. Cancellations must be made sufficiently in advance so business owners are not out money.
6. The ordinance reflects current best practices from the Arizona League of Cities and Towns and was not "flawed" but rather a sound policy response to the community's wildfire exposure.
7. Other uncontrolled fire risks (cigarettes, welding, dragging chains) remain on the table; the ordinance is one of the few direct-control tools the town has.

Most compelling arguments: Carrie Smith's testimony that modern GIS-based fire risk mapping, which did not exist in 1994 (when the tradition began), now shows the fallout zone and surroundings in high and very-high vegetation risk categories was forceful and tied the ordinance to current, not historical, conditions. The observation that the invasive weed (Chinese globe chamomile) is visibly more prevalent this year than any prior year lent credibility to the claim that conditions have deteriorated. The statement by a fire safety advocate that "we saw flames from that 2004 fire and it was scary" anchored the abstract risk in lived experience. Council Member McGuire's remark that "we're not it's not just me at risk its up we're putting others at risk" articulated the public-health logic: the risk borne by the broader community (residents over the hill, structures outside the fallout zone, fire department resources pulled from other emergencies) outweighs the private benefit.

Organized groups: None; support came from individual residents, some business owners, and the Chief of the Rural Metro Fire Department (though Kratz deliberately did not recommend either a yes or no).

Project Details

• Case/ordinance number: Ordinance 2017-07 (adopted June 19, 2017; effective July 1, 2017)
• Applicant/operator: Danny (Harold's fireworks contractor); Dan Nelson (pyrotechnician)
• Location/address: Harold's location, town of Cave Creek, Arizona (fallout zone approximately 175 feet radius, extending to neighboring properties with permission)
• Current zoning/land use: Town core and general commercial district
• Permit history: 2019 permit application not filed; last permit issued prior to 2018; 2018 permit not issued due to high fire danger rating. Labor Day 2018 permit was issued (outside ordinance window) under a special dispensation discussed in the meeting.
• Fireworks specifications: Shells downsized from 5–6 inch (early years) to 2.5-inch shells (current year), selected to minimize fallout radius per NFPA 1123 standards.
• Fuel mitigation: 75% of fallout zone already cleared of invasive weeds; plans to extend to 175+ feet, with neighbor cooperation to clear an additional 50–100 feet beyond that.

Vote Breakdown

Final: No vote on ordinance modification; Council declined to direct staff to draft amendments.

Implicit outcome: 7-0 Council consensus to maintain Ordinance 2017-07 unchanged. No dissent or request for reconsideration.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Council did not modify the ordinance and did not direct staff to study alternative permit criteria (e.g., raising the fire danger threshold from "high" to "extreme," or applying different standards to the town core versus wildland-adjacent properties). Staff will continue to administer the ordinance as written: permits will be evaluated under the NFDRS system and fire danger ratings from Tonto National Forest, Arizona Department of Forestry, and Rural Metro; permits will not be issued during times of high fire danger or higher.

If conditions improve (drought breaks, invasive weeds decline, NFDRS ratings drop to moderate or low), Danny may reapply for a permit. However, Council Member Deffenbaugh's cautionary remark—"I would be incredibly reluctant to make changes where we sit up here and say detune this a little more risk is acceptable"—suggests that even future requests will face an uphill battle.

No continuance or follow-up discussion was scheduled. The matter is closed absent a new application.

Controversies & Context

The 2017 ordinance emerged from a period when Cave Creek had no fireworks regulations. Before 2017, the town had no say in whether displays occurred; Rural Metro Fire managed on-site safety under its own guidelines. The June 2017 debate (referenced in the transcript but not detailed) was apparently contentious, with a former councilmember noting she was "burned alive at the stake for bringing it forward." The ordinance was modeled on Arizona League of Cities and Towns best practices.

The ordinance's fire danger rating system, based on NFDRS standards and Tonto National Forest assessments, has proven restrictive. In 2018, the permit was not issued; in 2019 (this meeting), no application was filed due to anticipated denial. The Council's refusal to modify the ordinance or adopt alternative criteria (e.g., "extreme" instead of "high" danger, or different thresholds for town core) reflects broader state and local trends toward stricter fire management as climate change lengthens fire seasons and increases fuel loads.

Arizona Senate Bill 1525 (2011), which eliminated general government impact fees as a category for development, was mentioned in the separate development impact fee ordinance discussion but illustrates the state's influence on local land-use and revenue decisions. No similar state preemption on fireworks was discussed.

The meeting also revealed internal governance tension: Staff (Mike Baxley) presented the ordinance as sound and well-reasoned, citing federal standards and peer practices. Danny's assertion that the ordinance is "ambiguous" because it does not specify which agency's fire danger rating is dispositive (Tonto, Arizona Forestry, or Rural Metro) highlighted a potential drafting gap, but the Council did not order a clarification.

Notably, Dennis Orman's remark that pre-treating fuel only remains effective a few days before an event undercut Danny's argument that the mitigation plan was comprehensive. The unpredictability of wind and weather on the actual event date—a core concern raised by both Chief Kratz and Council members—cannot be overcome by advance planning, and the ordinance treats that irreducible uncertainty by prohibiting permits during high fire danger.

The economic argument ($150,000 in lost sales, ~100 jobs affected, 25-year tradition) did not sway Council, consistent with the principle articulated by Council Member McGuire: the risk is borne by the broader community, not just the business owner.

Duration

• Fireworks ordinance discussion (Item 6): Approximately 2 hours (staff presentation ~15 min, Chief Kratz and Dennis Orman ~10 min, Danny ~20 min, public comment ~70 min, Council discussion ~30 min, no vote).
• Total meeting: Approximately 4 hours.

Other Notable Items

1. Cave Creek Museum Grant Approval (7-0 vote) The Council approved a $10,000 community grant to the Cave Creek Museum for operations, education programs, and archival repository expansion. Carrie Quarter Race, Executive Director, reported 8,353 volunteer hours in FY 2018-19 (valued at $217,000+), 10,000+ annual visitors, a 15–16% increase in attendance since 2016, and achievement of the museum's 50th anniversary (2020). The museum has expanded its mission to include preservation of the northern Sonoran Desert's natural and cultural heritage (not just the local mining district). Future expansion of the facility as an archival and archaeological repository for the communities was discussed by Council members. The grant passed unanimously with little discussion, reflecting strong community support.

2. Cave Creek Rodeo Days Report (Informational; no vote required) Beth Cornell (President) and the rodeo committee presented results of the 2019 rodeo (March 22–24). Ticket sales: 5,321; net proceeds returned to town: $15,963. Donations to local nonprofits: $15,000 (to Outdoor Experience for All, YMCA, Bella Vista Academy, Foothills Wranglers 4-H, Foothills Food Bank, and Chrysalis domestic violence center—$1 per Saturday ticket). The event generated significant economic impact for local businesses and volunteer engagement. The committee also presented checks to the Cave Creek Museum ($1,000) and the Chief (100 Club, $100). Council members praised the rodeo as a core part of Cave Creek's western identity and a major community asset.

3. Development Impact Fees Ordinance 2019-03 (7-0 vote on first reading) The Council approved first reading of a new development impact fees ordinance that eliminates the parks and trails and general government development impact fees (which generated less than $30,000 since August 2014 but cost more to administer and renew than the revenue). The ordinance maintains the town's ability to reinstate fees if future infrastructure studies justify them. Attorney Andrew McGuire (Gus Rosenfeld firm) explained that state law (Senate Bill 1525, 2011) restricts general government impact fees to debt service, which is nearing completion on the municipal building and annex. Water infrastructure can still be funded via development impact fees but the town currently uses capacity fees (via rate studies) instead, which are simpler to administer. Public commenter Carrie Smith urged the Council to study retaining general government development impact fees as a revenue tool and mechanism to guide development, citing research from Brookings Institution and Lincoln Land Institute. The Council deferred further discussion but did not commit to a future study.

4. Quarterly Financial Report (Informational; no vote) Finance Director Robert Wedick reported that through March 31, 2019, the town had collected 84% of budgeted governmental revenues (75% of the fiscal year expired) and spent 43% of budgeted expenditures. Revenue is ahead of prior year, especially sales tax (94% of budget, due in part to heightened construction activity). Enterprise fund (water/wastewater) operations are slightly ahead. Cash reserves stood at ~$21.5 million, with ~$7 million allocated for annual debt service. The town remains on track to meet budget.

5. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Contract Amendment (7-0 vote) The Council approved Resolution 2019-05 to amend the law enforcement contract with Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The contract increased from $265,000 to ~$530,000 annually (a ~$265,000 increase) due to: (1) addition of Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area patrol coverage (previously in a separate contract); (2) staffing changes required by a consent decree (1 sergeant now supervises 8 deputies instead of 9); (3) ammunition costs now based on 4-year average (historical actual) rather than prior year; (4) iPhone and body camera technology costs passed through; (5) revised indirect cost recovery (3% administrative fee). The coverage level increased from 0.41 to 0.61 FTE, less than the County's initial request of 1.1 FTE. Town Attorney Simms requested a motion contingent on inclusion of a workers' compensation immunity clause (standard in inter-agency agreements), which the County had apparently omitted as an oversight. The Council approved the resolution with that caveat.

6. Open Meeting Law Disclosure Town Attorney Simms disclosed an unintentional Open Meeting Law violation: the Town Manager had replied-all to a constituent email (regarding the fireworks ordinance) sent to all Council members, inadvertently creating a discussion by a quorum that should have been public. The town disclosed the violation and ratified it in the public record per Arizona Attorney General guidelines. The reply-all feature was subsequently removed from the town's email system.