Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster delays noise ordinance after hours of debate; study session on noise abatement scheduled
Summary
Council members debated a proposed decibel‑based noise ordinance modeled on state law, raising concerns about enforcement, measurement practicality and equity; council postponed the ordinance indefinitely but unanimously approved a study session to consider broader noise‑abatement options.
After more than three hours of public and council discussion on June 22, the Westminster City Council voted to postpone indefinitely a proposed city noise ordinance that would have incorporated decibel thresholds tied to land use and measurement standards.
The proposal mirrored Colorado statute CRS 25‑12‑103 and would have given municipal code enforcement and police a civil enforcement tool based on objective decibel readings measured 25 feet from property lines. Assistant City Attorney Marsh and Police Chief Norm Hobert described technical barriers — wind limitations, measurement calibration, and practical constraints of testing vehicle noise — and warned enforcement would require equipment, training and prosecutorial preparation.
"If this wasn't enacted as is...it won't necessarily mean a citation must be issued," Police Chief Norm Hobert said during the discussion, adding officers typically use disturbing‑the‑peace statutes and discretionary warnings today. City Attorney comments and staff testimony emphasized the proposed ordinance was intended to fill enforcement gaps that a state‑level statute makes difficult to administer locally.
Councilors were sharply split. Several members raised equity and criminal‑justice concerns and the risk of creating more contact with law enforcement for everyday activities; others argued the city needs a clear "north star" and civil enforcement tools to protect residents' health and rest. Councelor Hot, who introduced the bill for first reading and has been a leading proponent of stronger noise rules, argued the ordinance is a beginning, not an end, and said noise harms residents' health.
The motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely passed 6–1. Immediately after the recess the council unanimously approved a separate motion (7–0) to place a full study session on noise abatement on a near‑term agenda so staff, police and stakeholders can present options and consequences.
Why it matters: The ordinance would have altered enforcement practice and required municipal investment in technical equipment and training; opponents warned it risked creating discretionary enforcement and unintended consequences, while supporters said codifying standards would allow consistent response and better protect residents’ health.
Next steps: City staff will prepare a study‑session briefing that will examine code options, enforcement resources, public‑health implications and potential carve‑outs for city and nonprofit events, with an eye toward clearer policy choices before any ordinance is advanced.
Attribution: Direct attributions drawn from council debate and staff testimony recorded at the June 22 meeting, including Police Chief Norm Hobert and Assistant City Attorney Marsh.
