Festus council tables ordinance to build police outdoor firing range after residents raise noise and environmental concerns

The Festus City Council on May 20 heard extended public comment and staff testimony on a proposed outdoor police firing range near Kreitz Park and surrounding neighborhoods, then declined to approve land-clearing work and voted to table an ordinance that would have authorized construction.

Residents said the proposed site is too close to homes, a park and wetlands and urged the council to study noise and environmental impacts before proceeding.

The debate matters because the council must weigh the police department’s need for controlled local training against potential effects on residential quality of life, nearby park facilities and wildlife habitat.

At the public-comment portion, Michael Chelly, a resident, said he supports the police but questioned building a new range instead of using nearby facilities. “I wonder about the cost benefit analysis of the building an entire range for our police department,” Chelly said, noting officers already use the DeSoto range. He asked whether an annual membership would be more cost‑effective than construction and whether the city plans to use the site for other agencies.

Gwen Mercer, who identified herself as a Festus resident and “a police wife,” said the location would conflict with community development near Kreitz Park and reduce residents’ quality of life. “The impact of hearing rapid regular gunfire in our yard would have a significant decrease in our quality of life,” Mercer said, and cited property‑value and animal‑welfare concerns for nearby shelter animals.

Joe (Joseph) Schneider, another nearby resident, said his primary concern was noise and its effect on wildlife and the neighborhood. “My total concern here is just noise and how it's gonna affect the wildlife, and it's just so peaceful down there that I'm concerned that that's gonna change,” Schneider said.

Police staff described the site, noise testing and training needs. Chief Doug (identified in the meeting transcript as Doug) told council members the proposed site is on the westernmost city limits on city‑owned property and that the city had solicited bids for land clearing and berm construction. Staff said bids ranged from $21,950 to $299,000 and recommended Ultra Excavating at $21,950; they also offered a surface danger‑zone analysis as an optional add‑on for up to $23,440.

Doug described a small test in which officers fired three pistol rounds while staff recorded sound at three neighborhood locations. He said with vehicle windows up the officers who recorded could not hear the shots and that the highest measured decibel level at one location was 53 decibels with windows down (he contrasted that with typical conversation at 58–60 dB). He said typical range days would involve about 10–14 officers, divided into platoons, on roughly six to eight range days per year, with a maximum of about 15 people shooting on a given day.

Council members and staff acknowledged that indoor range construction is impractical at the site because of flood‑plain and topography constraints and that existing outside ranges (for example, Arnold Rifle and Pistol Club and DeSoto) are either far, limited by membership or have scheduling conflicts; staff said DeSoto currently provides free access but is heavily used by other agencies.

After discussion, council did not move to approve the $21,950 land‑clearing bid to Ultra Excavating; the mayor announced the request was “dead for lack of motion.” Later in the meeting, a motion to table Bill 48‑16 — the ordinance to enter an agreement with Ultra Excavating for shooting‑range construction — was made, seconded and carried; City Clerk recorded that “Bill 48 16 will be tabled.” No construction contract was approved.

Council members asked staff to return with a fuller presentation that would address the community’s questions: larger sound demonstrations (including rifle/shotgun sound profiles and multiple shooters), an environmental/surface danger‑zone assessment, comparisons of membership costs at nearby ranges and options for joint use with other agencies.

The council’s decision to table leaves the proposal open for further study and a future vote.

Notes: staff presented the option to add a surface‑danger‑zone analysis for up to $23,440; bids for land clearing ranged from $21,950 (Ultra Excavating) up to $299,000; staff said the city had previously set aside funds for related planning elsewhere but the firing‑range capital funding source was not detailed on the record.