Sequim's fireworks show under fire

A movement gains steam while supporters remain unaware

A months-long push to cancel Sequim’s Fourth of July fireworks has been unfolding in secrecy, catching supporters off guard. The issue was never clearly listed on a council agenda, yet opponents were well-organized and mobilized early. With funds already invested and no major legal concerns, why does the council seem set on shutting it down? Is this democracy in action—or backroom politics at play?

For years, the Sequim City Council has proudly hosted a Fourth of July fireworks display, a cherished tradition that brings the community together in celebration of patriotism. This event has been especially valued since the council's decision to ban private fireworks within city limits, offering a safe and festive alternative. However, without prior notice to supporters, a concerted push to eliminate the display has surfaced—marked by a troubling lack of transparency, public input, and an apparent rush toward a predetermined outcome.

The first public mention of opposition to the fireworks came on November 18, 2024, when Councilmember Harmony Rutter noted during the Open Council Discussion part of the agenda that an unnamed community member had approached her with concerns.

“I have had a member of the community reach out to me. They are very, very concerned about the fireworks in Carrie Blake [Park], and I don’t think that they are the only person in our community who feels this way,” she said.

Rutter explained that the fire mitigation during the Fourth of July display hosted by the city involves spraying water into a hedgerow behind the soccer fields, which she describes as “drenching that entire area." Rutter states, "This is a very disruptive practice to the birds that nest in that hedgerow all 364 other days of the year.”

The issue, she suggested, was one the council "owed to the community" to explore. However, at that time, there was no public indication that an organized movement against the fireworks was already underway.

A campaign behind the scenes

The issue resurfaced on February 24, 2025, under the vague agenda item Open Council Discussion rather than being clearly listed for public awareness. This time, five people spoke against the fireworks during public comment, and a previously unseen 43-page document titled Request to Discontinue Fireworks at Carrie Blake Park/Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility was presented.

The document contained a petition with 54 signatures from just 44 households, with most signers concentrated in specific neighborhoods rather than a broad cross-section of the city. The first signature was dated January 9, 2025—months before any public discussion—suggesting an orchestrated effort had been underway while the wider community remained uninformed.

A city council with a preordained agenda?

Despite knowing the fireworks display had already been contracted and partially paid for, council members pushed forward with discussions on cancellation. City Attorney Kristina Nelson Gross has since informed the council that canceling the event will result in a forfeited deposit of $4,750, with a potential loss of up to $9,500 if canceled within 30 days of the event.

Councilmember Vicky Lowe cited the Eagle Protection Act as a possible reason to reconsider fireworks, despite acknowledging that applying it to the show “would be a stretch.” The city’s own staff has noted that the nearest eagle nest is more than double the recommended distance from the fireworks discharge area, making legal concerns questionable at best.

City staff has now informed the council that replacing the fireworks display with a drone show will cost $60,000—more than triple the fireworks budget of $19,000.

Lack of public awareness, lack of participation

Most troubling is how this issue has been handled. The fireworks show had not been a visible agenda item until tomorrow’s March 24, 2025, meeting at 6:00 pm—meaning those who support the fireworks likely had no idea the discussion was even taking place (The Sequim Gazette published an article about fireworks on March 12). Meanwhile, those opposing the fireworks have clearly been mobilized for months, knowing when to attend meetings, when to submit petitions, and how to work within the system to push their agenda.

If this issue were truly about public input, why weren’t Sequim residents given a broader opportunity to participate? Why wasn’t the city council transparent about its deliberations? And why was this opposition campaign allowed to work behind the scenes while supporters were kept in the dark?

As tomorrow’s meeting approaches, the citizens of Sequim must ask themselves: Is this how local government should work? Should policy decisions be made with only select voices heard? If the fireworks display is to be eliminated, shouldn’t that decision come from a well-informed and engaged public, rather than a select few operating in secrecy?

The integrity of the city’s decision-making process is at stake, and if the fireworks display is any indication, the Sequim City Council is content to cut its citizens out of that process entirely.

On tomorrow’s agenda

Independence Day Fireworks is on tomorrow’s Sequim City Council agenda. The meeting will take place on Monday, March 24, at 6 pm at the Civic Center, located at 152 W. Cedar Street. You can find the agenda and guidelines for attending virtually here.

Last week residents were asked if one Conservation District Supervisor’s alleged comments about water and salmon rights aligned with the agency’s mission. Of 129 votes:

• 88% said, “No, they do not align.”

• 6% said, “Yes, they align.”

• 6% were unsure.