WESTBROOK – With a new state law legalizing fireworks as of Jan. 1, Westbrook city councilors are divided on what sort of municipal laws should be on the books. But there’s one thing they all agree on – the state should not have left it up to local officials to decide.

“What you’re going to have now is a patchwork quilt of communities that sell fireworks, and communities that don’t,” City Councilor John O’Hara said at a meeting of the city’s Public Safety Committee Monday night.

The committee, which comprises the City Council, met to discuss if and how to set up rules regulating the sale and use of fireworks in the city. The committee called for a preliminary ordinance draft that permits sale and use of fireworks, but with strict licensing for sale and noise restrictions on use. Any ordinance, however, must pass the City Council before becoming law.

The Legislature passed a bill in the spring to permit fireworks sale and use in Maine, starting on Jan. 1, 2012. The law, however, allows communities to enact their own ordinances regulating fireworks, setting off a rush by governing bodies to set up local laws before the end of the year.

The city of Portland made headlines recently by banning the sale and use of fireworks, and preliminary discussions in South Portland indicate officials will enact a similar ban there, while officials in Scarborough are leaning toward not banning sale or use of fireworks.

Westbrook City Councilor Victor Chau said Monday night that he put fireworks ordinances on the committee’s agenda after a client came to his real estate business to inquire about local ordinances, and he realized there weren’t any. Because of that business-related connection, Chau recused himself from any votes or decisions made by the committee.

City Administrator Jerre Bryant said Monday that there are no city ordinances since state law would have trumped any local regulations anyway.

“Clearly at the local level, we have nothing, because we wouldn’t regulate something that’s illegal,” he said.

Regarding just what form the new regulations should take, members of the committee were divided. City Councilor Paul Emery suggested following Portland’s lead, and banning them outright. To illustrate his point, Emery recalled a story about a friend who lost his left hand in his youth to an exploding cherry bomb.

“As far as I’m concerned, they don’t belong. They’re not necessary,” he said. “The stuff is by definition dangerous, and should not be put into the hands of individuals.”

Chau, who addressed the committee as a private citizen, cited statistics from the National Fire Prevention Association, which indicated accidents with fireworks caused thousands of fires nationwide in 2009.

O’Hara, who did not support a ban, said banning the sale of fireworks in Westbrook would not stop people from traveling to Scarborough or other communities to buy them. As to use, O’Hara noted that many other states, such as North Carolina, permit use of fireworks, and have not seen a spike in injuries as a result.

“I don’t see stacks of ambulances on the highways (there) dealing with incidents regarding fireworks,” he said.

As Emery voiced silent dissent by pulling his left hand into the sleeve of his jacket, pantomiming an amputee, O’Hara continued speaking out against a ban, charging parents with being more vigilant with their children, especially around fireworks.

“I never let my children play with them, because I educated them as a parent,” he said. “That is up to the parent to police. It’s not up to the council.”

City Council President Brendan Rielly agreed with O’Hara that the state has unfairly burdened local communities with its decision. Rielly called the growing – and varying – collection of local fireworks rules in the area “mind-numbingly stupid,” and said the hours of work city officials now have to go through to iron out new regulations is “a waste of everyone’s time.”

As to whether there should be a ban, Rielly did say that banning fireworks to protect children would not stop children from hurting themselves in other ways, saying, “I have three kids, and the list of things they’ve hurt themselves on is too long.”

Rielly also said any ordinance that does permit fireworks use in the city must address the nuisance factor, to protect residents from being disturbed by other residents who abuse the new regulations.

City Councilor Michael Foley noted that anyone driving past city limits runs the risk of crossing through different zones of fireworks regulation, possibly several times. An unwitting driver who legally purchases fireworks in one community can violate and obey the law in a single road trip, a situation Foley called a “law enforcement nightmare.”

Public Safety Director Michael Pardue told the committee Monday that safety is his primary concern, and acknowledged that permitting the use of fireworks in the city would raise the risk of injury, while a ban would present enforcement problems.

However, Pardue also said fire officials were prepared to step up education as the new rules go into effect, if the city permits their possession and use.

“There’s no reason we can’t hold clinics. There’s no reason we can’t educate adults and children,” he said.

The committee, without taking an official vote, instructed Bryant and other city officials to write a rough draft ordinance that would allow the licensed sale of fireworks in the city. The fees for getting a seller’s license would pay in part for fire prevention education. In addition, the committee recommended the ordinance have language in it to help regulate excessive noise. The City Council will vote on the ordinance at a future meeting.