Kalispell Council puts noise ordinance work on hold

Kalispell’s proposed noise ordinance is on hold until a parallel law regulating the municipal airport can be drafted and considered simultaneously.

When the City Council first saw the proposed draft for a comprehensive noise ordinance in August, it was looking at the city staff’s attempt to collect scattered references in Kalispell City Code on how police handle complaints — from disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct to other noise-related issues — into one ordinance.

Adjutant City Attorney Rich Hickel said that draft was drawn from issues brought to the city’s attention through citizen calls. It addressed where the complaints had been generated and proposed ways to deal with them.

“The current disorderly conduct [clause] hasn’t worked too well for us,” Hickel said. When a loud stereo disturbs apartment dwellers three units away at 1 a.m., that’s a clear-cut case and citations can be issued. But when a booming car stereo rolls down the street, it’s a different issue that the new comprehensive ordinance aims to address.

But the council was concerned that it specifically exempted Kalispell City Airport from regulation or enforcement.

So Hickel brought back a revised draft to Monday night’s council work session, eliminating all language about an airport exemption. He also said that by the end of the month he should be finished with his research of airport-noise ordinances from across the nation, and should be well into a draft for Kalispell.

Kalispell Police Chief Roger Nasset said he’s pleased with the outcome of the general noise ordinance because it’s sound and legally defensible.

“We are able to take action under this ordinance, whereas we couldn’t before,” Nasset said.

It uses a standard of “plainly audible” in describing noise that can be labeled a problem and warrant enforcement action.

That standard is “much easier to work with,” City Manager Jane Howington said. Systems that rely on decibel-measuring equipment can fail when the equipment malfunctions.

“This is defensible across the country,” she said.

But it cannot be applied readily to airport noise, she said. The Federal Aviation Administration enforces noise abatement across the country, she said, through measures such as restricting time of day for takeoffs and landings.

Howington suggested a citizen task force could be put in place to help track down aerial offenders.

She also suggested adopting two separate measures — finalizing the general noise ordinance first and then crafting the airport noise ordinance next. The council later could vote to join the two into one piece of legislation.

Council member Bob Hafferman pointed out possible problems in the draft: The ordinance exempts “mass gatherings” permitted by the city, but doesn’t define them. It forbids noise between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. but doesn’t provide for people using a snow blower so they can be at work before then.

Construction work could be hampered, too. He also talked about barking dogs, which are not addressed here, and revving engines, which are. He wanted to simplify the proposed law and get rid of the permit process.

“We’re trying to be too inclusive of everything,” Hafferman said. “It will come back to haunt us for something we omit.”

Wayne Saverud asked about complaint enforcement for barking dogs and learned this noise ordinance doesn’t affect the current law, which is enforced routinely. Nasset also told him that police frequently address problems with big gatherings.

But Saverud and Kari Gabriel agreed that allowances must be made for construction work hours.

Hickel said it could be dealt with on a special-circumstance basis, such as early-morning concrete pouring, or by issuing conditional-use permits or other tools.

Jim Atkinson called for a return to neighborliness, encouraging people to talk with their neighbors who are causing a problem and work out a solution that doesn’t involve police if possible.

City Attorney Charlie Harball said 98 percent of people here already do that, “but we have some who just don’t get along with each other.” And police hear from them repeatedly, he said.

In the end, council members agreed with Howington’s suggestion to bring both the general and the airport noise ordinances back for consideration at the same time.

They asked for revisions in the general ordinance to clarify what is and is not allowed without being so specific that it will have to come back for constant revisions.

They want a better way to address time restrictions on noise. They asked for a way to incorporate common sense into the law.

Howington said she will bring the ordinance back with a draft airport noise ordinance within four to eight weeks, or ask for council direction if it takes longer.

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