Columbus holds heated second reading on fireworks ordinance amid business, animal and enforcement concerns

Columbus City Council held a second reading June 2 of ordinance 25‑o8, which would amend city code sections 133.03 through 133.05 to change allowed fireworks sale and discharge dates, times and required signage; the council did not vote and scheduled a third reading for June 16.

The ordinance drew a large public turnout with two broad camps: animal‑welfare and noise‑concerned residents urging shorter discharge periods, and longtime fireworks vendors and community organizations warning of lost income and lost local fundraising if sale days are cut from the current 10 days to seven. "I'm not asking to take it away… we're just asking for three days less," said Deb Potter, a Columbus resident who cited shelter pickup statistics and animals harmed or frightened by fireworks.

Vendors described tight margins and year‑ahead purchasing obligations. "I've already purchased my fireworks for New Year's when I purchased for the July 4," said Robert Faldas, a vendor who asked the council to delay any effective date so existing December sales commitments would not be disrupted. Vendor Daryl Teeling, who said his family has sold fireworks in Columbus for decades, argued the current 10‑day window is already effectively shortened by weather and that many community groups rely on revenue from sales: "If you cut this down to seven days, if we have two days of rain, we'll have like five days. We've got a lot of money invested in this stuff."

Several speakers described the ordinance as a cultural issue. "It's a tradition for everybody to come for the July 4," said Karina Garcia, who said extended sale dates make visiting family logistics easier. Sarah Apeler, who volunteers at an animal shelter, urged the council to consider animal welfare and veterans with PTSD while also noting many in her community favor keeping the current schedule.

Multiple speakers asked for stronger enforcement rather than shortened sale periods. Jason Tealy, a vendor, said simply reducing dates "doesn't change anything" without improved enforcement. The newly introduced police chief told the council that enforcement is difficult on high‑volume summer nights because officers are responding to higher‑priority calls across a growing city. He said one possible approach would be a targeted enforcement detail with doubled fines and no warnings: "We're gonna write everyone up… the fines could be doubled, just to spread the word that this is what's been passed, and this is what we're going to enforce."

A city communications/dispatch official confirmed fireworks complaints are logged and prioritized among emergency calls; many calls are disposed as "unable to locate" because by the time officers arrive the activity has stopped.

Vendors and supporters proposed collaborative solutions: vendor education, stronger on‑site customer direction, and partnership with police and community groups. Vendors also warned of lost municipal sales tax and local fundraising revenue if customers shift purchases to neighboring towns. Several vendors said the council had already been advised not to make changes effective this year because of purchases made well in advance.

Council discussion late in the meeting focused on timing and process. Council members debated whether to amend the ordinance to expressly preserve December sales for vendors or to let the ordinance proceed to a third reading where they could choose to table, amend, or allow it to die. The council left the item to proceed to a third reading June 16 and invited further public input and councilmember contact in the interim.

No formal vote on ordinance 25‑o8 occurred at the June 2 meeting; the council specifically scheduled additional consideration for the June 16 meeting.