Sound of silence?

Airport a factor as Kalispell considers noise ordinance

A proposed noise ordinance got its first airing before the Kalispell City Council on Monday.

It's the city's first comprehensive attempt at defining what excessive noise is - and is not - and how to handle it within city limits. It consolidates police and city attorney efforts to handle noise complaints rather than rely on state and city codes dealing with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace.

It uses a standard of "plainly audible," attempting to remove the subjectivity when an officer makes a decision on whether the noise is too loud.

Although decibel readings would be specific and objective, that approach would take expensive monitoring equipment, training and a fixed source of sound that isn't available with loud stereos in moving cars.

"The problem with noise is, people who don't want to hear it can hear it," Adjutant City Attorney Rich Hickel told the council at its work session. The draft ordinance tries to give police a standard, attorneys a defensible case and citizens an idea of what's OK.

"Now it's up to you," Hickel said. "This is a starting point."

But a provision that excludes the city airport and aircraft landing or taking off there came under fire from several audience members at the council's work session.

"It appears this was drafted to omit the city airport," Scott Davis told the council. "There's something fishy going on and the reasons need to be investigated."

Hickel and Police Chief Roger Nasset said that the ordinance's origin is much more mundane than that.

"It's basically a seasonal issue," Nasset explained. It's summer, he pointed out, and loud stereos in cars with the windows rolled down cause more complaints. Nasset and Hickel worked together on the draft, researching other noise ordinances and what's enforceable under Montana law.

The draft defines "plainly audible" as any sound that can be detected with normal, or "unaided," hearing faculties. With loud music, for example, the bass reverberation alone can be enough to constitute plainly audible sound.

But a provision that it's illegal to generate sound, music or otherwise, from inside one's property than can be heard from the boundary of the residential property next to it didn't make sense to council member Randy Kenyon.

" 'Plainly audible' is so broad," Kenyon protested. "I can be on my deck and hear it when the neighbor's stereo is on How would you enforce that?"

"The officer would determine it by reasonableness," Nasset answered. "And we do that everyday already." He cited the fact that officers generally don't write speeding tickets for drivers doing 26 in a 25 mph zone.

Council members and Hickel eventually agreed the provision needs to be refined, as do several points throughout the draft ordinance.

But bones of contention with the public came in two sections of the draft.

The "Excessive Noise" section lays out limits on sound drifting across property boundaries and coming from the public right of way. But it specifically excludes the Kalispell city airport, the Flathead County fairgrounds and city parks under the control of the city's parks and recreation department. They are identified as "entertainment facilities constructed to provide outdoor entertainment owned or operated by a governmental entity."

A section called "Defenses," specifies cases that will be excused. Those include emergency sirens and vehicles, permitted parades and stadium events, railroad and construction equipment, church bells and lawn maintenance machinery, and "the sound produced by an aircraft, in flight, or in operation at an airport."

That exclusion drew protests.

Steve Eckels, a longtime opponent of the neighborhood disturbance that flights cause, said the city, not the Federal Aviation Administration, has complete control over airport noise. He argued that current laws deal with noise problems better than this ordinance would.

"This proposed ordinance allows more noise," Eckels said. "Citizens are the best monitors. If a citizen thinks it's too loud, it's too loud."

Mary Iverson, tired of planes buzzing over her house, told the council she put her complaint in writing with the police two weeks ago but got no response.

"Now the noise ordinance specifically excludes aircraft," she accused. "How convenient, timely and sneaky."

Davis asked for a revision to include the airport as a regulated noise source.

Jim Pierce, who in January 2008 bought Strand Aviation and runs the flight school at the city airport, said he responded to a spring 2008 complaint from Eckels by posting a city map showing areas for pilots to avoid and by restricting training flights to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Some suggested that he send training flights to Glacier Park International Airport, where the business reportedly would be welcome. But Pierce said student pilots would get only a quarter of the training for the time spent because of turns and other accommodations needed for runways there.

A recurring theme was to encourage neighbors to work out mutually agreeable solutions rather than call police.

"This is a good start at taking care of issues but I wonder if it's not too broad in some places," council member Tim Kluesner said. Neighbors arguing over lawn-mower noise could unnecessarily put the city in the middle, he said.

Hickel earlier had suggested separating the airport issues from a standard health, safety and welfare law regulating noise.

"That would make sense," City Manager Jane Howington said, because air-traffic regulations are harder to enforce. Council member Jim Atkinson agreed.

Hickel will revise the ordinance to encourage a process for neighbors to work it out between themselves, and to pull out airport noise regulations for treatment in a separate document.

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com