Dickinson council reviews draft changes to city fireworks ordinance

At a Dickinson City Council workshop, members discussed two draft amendments to Chapter 7, section 7-60, of the city code that would change the city’s ban on sale, possession and use of fireworks.

The council heard public comment, reviewed two staff-drafted options and agreed to return with revised language. One draft would allow possession and use during larger windows around July 4 and New Year’s Day; the other would permit sales but with a narrower window for discharge. No formal vote was taken at the workshop.

Why it matters: the discussion follows a recent nonbinding referendum on fireworks and would determine whether sales and limited use inside Dickinson city limits generate local sales tax and permit activities that currently occur in unincorporated Galveston County.

During public comment, resident David Lehman told the council, “Nobody needs to be popping anything after 01:00 o'clock in the morning,” and urged limits on late-night discharge. Staff member Nam told council members that two different drafts were prepared at the direction of two council members; one draft opens use for July 4 and New Year’s holidays, and the other opens sales but for a shorter discharge window.

Council members discussed aligning the ordinance with state law for sale start dates and the practical limitations of allowing temporary sales structures (for example, conex boxes or temporary wooden stands) inside city limits. Several members said they want standards in place before permitting sales: proposed requirements included a temporary-use permit, a business registration in Dickinson, a point-of-sale inside the city and inventory/sales reporting so sales tax is captured. Council members also raised zoning and safety concerns, noting the city lacks a current code for temporary commercial structures and expressing uncertainty about liability and neighborhood impacts if temporary sales are placed next to restaurants or other businesses.

Council discussion included differing views on how broad discharge windows should be; one speaker favored a limited evening window (for example, 6 p.m. to 1 a.m.) while others preferred following the dates allowed under state law. Several members said they would prefer to permit discharge under a limited timeline but either prohibit sales inside the city until clear standards are adopted or require strict permit conditions for sales operations.

Outcome: the item remained discussion-only. Council members indicated they would adjust the draft language to align sale dates with state law and to clarify whether and how possession, storage and sale provisions would be included together or handled separately. The workshop adjourned without a formal motion on the ordinance.

Next steps: staff was asked to revise the drafts to reflect council direction and state sale-date requirements and to bring updated language to a future meeting for formal consideration.