Sedgwick County staff outline options for countywide noise rule as commissioners raise enforcement concerns

Assistant County Counselor Armand Shekaif briefed Sedgwick County commissioners on options for a countywide noise resolution, presenting two main approaches — measurable decibel thresholds and a reasonableness standard — and describing enforcement, evidentiary and exemption challenges.

Shekaif told the commissioners the county currently has no blanket prohibition on loud noise in the unincorporated area and relies on targeted provisions in the county code (for example, the animal code for continuous barking) and on disorderly-conduct charges in specific circumstances. "Currently, there's not [a] countywide resolution for the unincorporated area of Sedgwick County that would generally prohibit loud noises," Shekaif said.

The two approaches presented

Shekaif described a decibel-based approach that sets specific thresholds measured at a specified distance (for example, 50, 75 or 100 feet) and requires trained equipment and certified procedures. He said the downside is cost and administrative burden: "It would require training, the equipment, cost of maintenance," and could invite expert testimony and testing requirements similar to other regulated measurement devices.

He contrasted that with a reasonableness standard, which he said most Kansas municipalities use and which the Kansas Supreme Court has upheld when care is taken to include objective factors. Under that approach, an ordinance would prohibit "unusual or loud or excessive noise" that "creates a nuisance or interference" measured against the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable person. Shekaif recommended the reasonableness approach as the better option for Sedgwick County, citing three reasons: it avoids equipment and training costs, it can track language supported by Kansas Supreme Court precedent, and it can be more expeditious to enforce.

Enforcement and evidentiary issues

Commissioners pressed on who would enforce a new rule and how short-duration events — fireworks, isolated gunshots or other ephemeral noises — would be handled. Shekaif said enforcement could fall to either MABCD staff or the sheriff's office, and acknowledged many noise complaints occur on nights and weekends when MABCD is not operating. He warned that under a reasonableness standard complainants or officers would likely need audio/video evidence or contemporaneous officer observations because by the time staff or deputies arrive the noise often has ceased.

Potential exemptions and scope

Shekaif noted jurisdictions typically carve out exceptions for agricultural activities, industrial operations consistent with existing approvals, train and aircraft operations, lawful discharge of firearms and other uses. He also reported a review of other jurisdictions: the City of Wichita and cities such as Topeka use reasonableness-based ordinances (with measurement tools available mainly as a defense), some municipalities combine reasonableness with distance criteria, and only one county he found (Atchison County) had a countywide ordinance.

Commissioners' perspectives and staff direction

Commissioners expressed mixed views. One commissioner said the reasonableness standard felt subjective and hard to apply, noting difficulty in documenting severity for short incidents. Another commissioner said he did not want the county to become the primary enforcer and prefers handling certain cases through existing zoning or civil remedies.

Commissioner-level comments led to two staff follow-ups: several commissioners asked staff to gather data on how many noise complaints the county and sheriff receive ("For that, I would have to defer to MABCD and the sheriff's office ... I can also obtain it and do a follow-up," Shekaif said) and Commissioner Bluebell asked staff to broker small meetings between neighbors and property operators in his district to try to reach local agreements rather than adopt an immediate countywide rule.

No formal vote or ordinance was proposed or adopted at this meeting.

Ending

Shekaif summarized the trade-offs and said he would provide additional information on complaint volumes and enforcement options if the board wished to pursue a countywide resolution. Commissioners left the discussion with differing preferences and asked staff for more data and localized outreach before returning to the issue.