Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parker council workshops revisions to noise ordinance, debates scope for human voice and truck idling
Summary
Council reviewed edits to harmonize two noise ordinance sections, debated whether human conversation could be captured by a 'plainly audible' standard, and questioned a 10,000-pound truck idling threshold; staff agreed to add clearer examples and consistency edits before the next meeting.
Parker 'The City Council spent the first hour of its Jan. 6 meeting in a workshop reviewing proposed language changes to the city's noise ordinance intended to harmonize two prior provisions and clarify enforcement.
Catherine, a city staff attorney, presented a revised draft that would change a presumption tied to vehicle-related noise from "within 30 feet" to "beyond 30 feet," replace circular references by using the term "prohibited noise" in section 1.31.05 and refer enforcement criteria back to section 1.31.04, and add a cross-reference to the maximum permissible sound level section. She said a typographical repetition had been removed and a corrected version would be posted ahead of the next council meeting.
Mayor pro tem Pilgrim and other council members pressed staff on how the two sections would work together. Pilgrim suggested inserting objective language into 1.31.05'such as "volume, intensity, or repetitive duration" and "that would unreasonably annoy or distress a reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities"'to prevent ordinary conversation from being treated as a violation. Catherine responded that those words are already in 1.31.04 and the draft was intended to avoid needless repetition; she agreed to consider wording changes to improve clarity.
Council Member Short asked why the ordinance retained a "plainly audible" benchmark for enforcement and probed the meaning of "allows" (for example, whether a resident could be held responsible for a screaming toddler). An attorney advising the meeting explained that officer discretion and prosecutorial screening would limit unnecessary citations. He said officers can consider available affirmative defenses on scene and prosecutors can dismiss cases they view as unreasonable, and he noted state law contains similar audibility presumptions.
Council Member Bogdan asked why the draft calls out a 10,000-pound truck threshold for idling; staff said that language was a carryover and could be simplified to cover "any idling vehicle," noting diesel trucks are typically louder than gasoline engines.
Council members asked staff to bring a revised draft with consistent terminology (for example, "repetitive" versus "frequent"), clarified examples (late-night blasting music, loud aftermarket vehicle engines, and other concrete scenarios), and an explanation of how maximum permissible sound levels might function as a defense.
The workshop closed with staff agreeing to post a corrected draft and include examples and consistency edits for the council's next meeting.
