Megan Navarro
DRIPPING SPRINGS — Dripping Springs City Council approved an ordinance with a 3-2 vote at its July 15 meeting that prohibits the use of fireworks in the city’s historic districts.
The ordinance will prohibit the use, possession and discharge of consumer fireworks within the historic districts at Mercer Street, Old Fitzhugh Road and Hays Street, as they are designated areas of cultural, historical and architectural landmarks with buildings over 100 years old — many constructed from wood or other flammable materials — according to agenda documents.
In recent years, residents, property owners and the local fire department have raised concerns related to fireworks in the area, leading the ordinance to go to the Emergency Management Committee and then, to council.
These concerns include the following, according to city attorney Laura Mueller in a presentation to council:
Fire risk: Increased danger of fire due to aging wooden structures and dense building placement.
Public safety: Fireworks can cause injury to bystanders and residents, especially in crowded or confined areas.
Noise and nuisance: Fireworks disturb local wildlife, residents and visitors, particularly those with sensory sensitivities or pets.
Property damage: Reports of scorch marks, debris and broken windows from unauthorized firework use.
Potential for public panic: Loud and sudden fireworks during festivals and events can be mistaken for gunfire or explosions, leading to confusion, fear and possible crowd surges or injuries in a densely populated area.
While the city could not find a “good definition” of fireworks in state or federal law, Mueller said Dripping Springs looked at what other cities were doing, as well as what “made sense for what we are trying to accomplish.”
According to the city of Dripping Springs, fireworks include: any firecracker, cannon cracker, skyrocket, torpedo, Roman candle, sparkler, squib, fire balloon, star shell, gerb or any article or substance used to produce a visible or audible pyrotechnic display, including novelty or trick noisemakers, unless explicitly exempted.
The ban would prohibit the use of fireworks, whether purposeful or unintentional, and create an offense. If violated, a fine of up to $2,000 could be issued. However, it would not apply to a public fireworks display, if the city were to hold one in those historic districts, and it does not apply to pyrotechnics used by law enforcement.
Leading into discussion across the dais, council member Geoffrey Tahuahua, who also serves on the city’s Emergency Management Committee, said that there are some structures in the historic districts, specifically Old Fitzhugh Road, that are a “hodgepodge of both historic and non-historic structures.” He questioned if it should be included.
He added that there could be an ordinance that is specific to events, using Founders Day as an example, rather than a full ban altogether in the historic districts.
Mueller said that when the ordinance was initially proposed, it was just for Mercer Street, but then, Old Fitzhugh Road and Hays Street were also included per the Emergency Management Committee’s recommendation: “There were some on the committee that wanted to expand it further, but we were trying to keep it narrow for now … There wasn’t a discussion, currently, that [Old Fitzhugh] was different enough from the other historic districts to not include it, but keep in mind that we can update it if anything else were to change.”
While many cities have regulations where fireworks are not permitted within city limits, Dripping Springs does not have any bans other than people are not allowed to use them during a burn ban. Mueller said that banning them throughout the entire city was discussed, but it would be challenging to regulate.
“One issue with that is that we don’t have a police department and everything is complaint-based, so one of the reasons why we discussed having it in a smaller place to begin with is to kind of see how that goes and then spread out from there, but still following what we were really concerned about, which was having it in those downtown areas,” she explained.
Council member Travis Crow said that if council is going to enact this ordinance due to concerns, then it should apply to the entire city.
“There’s a lot of structures further down on Creek Road that are old that can catch on fire, but they’re not historic, but this applies to the whole city instead of just the historic district,” Crow said. “If we are doing this because of the concerns, it could apply to the whole city. Just to label one area historic while the other areas were probably built back a long time ago, but they are not historic because of where they are located, that’s just my concern. These concerns, I think, we are trying to justify what we are doing when these concerns are citywide concerns.”
He, and Tahuahua, also shared concerns about enforcing firework regulations, due to not having a city police department.
The ordinance was passed 3-2, with Tahuahua and Crow voting against.
“I have concerns about applying it to anything this wide. I still think, if we did something like this, I’d rather consolidate it … Mercer, that one, is the one that makes the most sense, especially considering that it’s mostly commercial structures, lots of businesses [and] it’s a very well-traversed street in our city,” Tahuahua said. “You can make the argument for Hays, but I still have a lot of concerns. I certainly couldn’t support this in its current form.”
Dripping Springs City Council meets next at 6 p.m. Aug. 5.
