Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local pyrotechnician and county judge disagree over fireworks during burn ban; court hears presentation
Summary
Pyrotechnician Cody Wilson told the court he was told by county staff that fireworks displays were prohibited during the burn ban and said that position cost him business; Judge McKinney responded he was not prohibiting displays but would not be a defense witness if someone lit fireworks and a fire occurred. Wilson said he will file ethics and judicial-conduct complaints regarding the earlier guidance.
Cody Wilson, who operates a professional pyrotechnics business, addressed the Anderson County Commissioners’ Court to challenge prior county guidance that he said had prevented planned school fireworks displays during a recent burn ban. Wilson told the court he had coordinated with school officials and the volunteer fire department but was told by county staff that the county judge had said fireworks were not permitted under the burn ban and that he might face a citation.
Wilson argued there is an important legal distinction between a burn ban and an official fireworks ban or a gubernatorial declaration and that retail-sale rules (permits for vendors) are separate from professional display rules. He told the court the section of county materials he was shown (a retail-sales provision) did not apply to professional display work and that nothing in state law categorically prohibits a professionally permitted display during a burn ban absent a broader local or state fireworks prohibition.
Judge McKinney responded that the burn-ban statute contains limited exemptions (noting firefighter training and certain school-related exceptions), that a burn ban alone does not automatically permit fireworks, and that his position in prior conversations was that he would not provide legal defense for someone who ignored safety concerns. The judge told Wilson he did not issue a blanket prohibition and that some events (a school bonfire conducted as a firefighter training exercise with the fire department present) were authorized under the statute.
The exchange included disagreement over what a prior recorded video indicated and whether county staff or the judge communicated a prohibition to local school officials. Wilson said the guidance had cost him contracts and said he will file a complaint with the appropriate ethics committee and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The court did not take formal action on the topic; commissioners and staff discussed clarifying internal procedures for future fire-ban and display questions and suggested seeking guidance from the State Fire Marshal or TCEQ when issues arise.
Next steps: Wilson said he will file complaints; court staff and emergency management will clarify procedures and points of contact to avoid similar operational confusion in the future.
