Libby council reviews package of proposed public‑safety ordinances; several items sent back for clarification

The Libby City Council reviewed a package of proposed ordinances from its ordinance committee, including a distracted‑driving ordinance, a public‑urination/defecation prohibition, an aggressive‑solicitation definition, camping/sleeping restrictions in public places, a revised parking‑violation fine schedule and a proposed restriction on loud amplified sound.

Council discussion centered on scope and enforceability. On distracted driving, council members cautioned that the city’s draft should not duplicate existing state statutes and asked whether the measure would be an enhancement tied to crashes. One council member suggested distinguishing between activities that ‘‘impair the ability’’ to safely operate a vehicle (e.g., eating or applying makeup) and cell‑phone use; the draft includes a catch‑all provision intended to address non‑phone distractions.

On loud sound amplification, staff said existing code already prohibits sound that ‘‘disturbs the quiet comfort and repose of any normally sensitive and reasonable person’’ and raised concerns about vague standards (for example, “clearly heard at 50 feet”) and potential enforcement inconsistencies. The police representative emphasized that many enforcement steps remain complaint‑driven and discretionary, and the ordinance group recommended refining thresholds and specific definitions before adoption.

Other items: The draft on aggressive solicitation was framed to target ‘‘in‑your‑face’’ harassment in parking lots while recognizing that ordinary solicitation on private property can be protected speech; the camping draft lists specific public locations where camping would be unlawful; proposed parking changes aim to clarify first/second/third offense fines and the handicap fine standard (the state sets current handicap parking penalty amounts).

Public comment raised two recurring issues: whether the ordinance committee kept legally required minutes (a public commenter asserted some committees have not kept minutes since 2020) and whether the city should add redundant local laws where state law already applies. The council directed staff to review the committee recordkeeping and to return with clarifications on ordinance language and the applicability of state law before any final votes.

Next steps: Councilmembers asked staff to verify whether committee minutes exist (for legal defensibility), to check the necessity of a local distracted‑driving enhancement versus state enforcement, and to propose concrete language and enforcement thresholds for loud‑sound and solicitation measures at a future meeting.