Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hazen City council weighs signage and enforcement as engine‑brake noise complaints mount
Summary
Councilmembers and staff spent the meeting debating whether new signs or a local ordinance could reduce loud unmuffled engine‑brake use, with law enforcement warning narrow local rules could complicate enforcement and members urging coordination with state authorities.
Hazen City council members and staff debated options to address repeated complaints about loud engine‑brake noise, including larger roadside signage, flashing reminders and the limits of local enforcement.
The discussion centered on whether to pursue new signage near trouble spots or seek a local ordinance restricting unmuffled engine‑brake use. A law enforcement officer who spoke to the council (S5) said existing state vehicle and muffler statutes cover much of the problem but cautioned that narrowly worded local rules can make enforcement harder. “As a law enforcement officer, it really can make things more difficult to enforce when the scope is narrowed down too far,” S5 said.
Council members raised practical enforcement concerns: one member observed that low fines may not change behavior when vehicle repairs cost thousands. “Give me the ticket then and don’t do anything about it because it’s a couple thousand dollar repair versus a $50 ticket,” said another participant (S7), who urged the council to consider incentives or enforcement mechanisms that would change driver behavior.
Speakers noted jurisdictional limits where city ordinance authority ends near railroad tracks and on state highways, and several members urged coordination with county or state agencies, including the department of transportation, before adopting enforceable local language. S1, the meeting chair, suggested starting with clearer signage rather than an outright prohibition and asked staff to explore options that would not mislead drivers about penalties.
There was no formal vote to adopt a new ordinance at the meeting. The council discussed a range of next steps — working with the county and state DOT, testing more prominent signs or adding flashing attention devices — and asked city staff to report back with recommended wording and legal review.
The council did not set a timeline for further action; members said they would consider staff recommendations and potential coordination with state agencies at a future meeting.
