Interlake Sporting Association members urge Redmond council to reconsider proposed hours cut in noise ordinance

Members of the Interlake Sporting Association urged the Redmond City Council on July 7 to slow the city’s proposed revisions to the noise ordinance and to consider engineering sound mitigation rather than sharply reducing operating hours. Nathan Gibbs, the association’s president, said earlier drafts allowed more weekend hours and that the current proposal — which he described as cutting Saturday hours to a 10 a.m.–2 p.m. window — lacks justification and would make training and classes impractical.

"There is no legitimate justification for these reductions from when the changes were first proposed," Gibbs said, adding that ISA has sought to work with the city toward a ‘‘common-sense solution.’’ Casey Gilliam, an ISA member, described the club’s safety and membership process — sponsorship, online training, written tests and background checks — as evidence of an exemplary safety record.

Nathan Parker, another member, told the council the association has completed sound studies, engaged engineering and construction firms and prepared mitigation plans. "The engineering solutions already exist," he said, urging the council to support permitting or funding that would allow ISA to build berms and other physical measures that reduce sound rather than compressing hours into a noise-intensive window.

Pedro Lopez, who said the association predates surrounding homes, asked the council to "slow down before you vote on a final resolution" and suggested alternative restrictions such as paper-target-only hours, smaller-caliber periods, subsonic-only hours or suppressed-firearm periods as ways to reduce noise while preserving access for working members.

Other speakers echoed the theme that limiting hours would compress usage and raise peak noise levels. One commenter who identified as a parent and ISA member said hour cuts would be "a practical way to cut noise impact while preserving access to members," while another community member cautioned that neighbors who moved next to a longstanding range bear some awareness of the facility’s presence.

Council President Stewart told members the council had received notice that the noise-ordinance item is now quasi-judicial, and reminded members to follow appearance-of-fairness rules; the council did not take a final vote on the ordinance during the July 7 business meeting. No formal staff recommendation or vote on the ordinance was recorded in the meeting minutes.

The public-comment record on July 7 indicates broad community concern about both residential impacts and preserving an established recreational resource; several speakers asked the city to pursue engineering mitigation, additional analysis, and negotiated solutions rather than immediate, blanket closures. The item remains under consideration and council leadership signaled future discussion when the topic returns to council work sessions.