Redmond — Dozens of residents and members of the Interlake Sporting Association told the Redmond City Council on Jan. 6 that a draft noise ordinance under consideration could unintentionally increase neighborhood noise if it restricts operating hours.

Nathan Gibbs, who identified himself as a member of the Interlake Sporting Association, said shortening hours would concentrate activity and increase peak noise levels. "Shortening our hours is unlikely to have the desired effect... A better alternative ... is sound abatement technology," Gibbs said, listing berm enlargement, additional walls and overhead sound screens as possible measures.

Other speakers from the range echoed that view. John Duncan said the club runs community programs for Scouts and domestic-violence self-defense, described the range’s membership as broad and urged "reasonable discussion on sound mitigation." Becca Silva and Casey Gillum argued that hour limits would reduce access for working adults, caregivers and members of religious communities who rely on evening and weekend hours for training.

Peter Jarvis told the council the draft ordinance was "seriously flawed" and read from a sound consultant, saying, "In acoustics, sound is additive... There's a 5 decibel increase per participant," and warning that compressing activity into a shorter window could raise overall decibel levels. Jarvis asked the council to add a stakeholder discussion item and work with neighbors and HOAs on technical solutions.

Council staff did not respond during the public-comment period; the meeting record shows the draft remains in discussion and presenters asked for additional stakeholder engagement rather than immediate adoption of strict hour limits. The presiding officer reminded commenters that public comment rules prohibit statements in favor of or opposed to ballot measures under state law and gave a count of 15 in-person and 2 online speakers for the night.

What happened next: Council moved from public comment to the consent agenda and later to new-business votes; no ordinance amendment was adopted at this meeting.

Why it matters: The debate pits residents seeking quiet at particular times against an established community facility that argues restricted hours will concentrate use and worsen peak noise. Sound-abatement investments would have cost and design implications and may require coordination with neighboring homeowners' associations.

What’s missing: The draft ordinance's specific hour limits were not read into the public record during these comments, and no staff presentation or technical analysis of projected decibel changes was offered at this meeting. Council follow-up—either a staff technical memo or a stakeholder process—was requested by commenters.

Next steps: Commenters requested the city reopen stakeholder conversations and consider engineering solutions instead of fixed hours; council discussion and any staff responses are expected at a future meeting.