Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Hazen council to ban unmuffled engine brakes; police and staff flag enforcement limits
Summary
Residents told the council that loud unmuffled engine brakes are waking shift workers and nearby households and urged a 'No unmuffled engine brakes' sign and county/DOT coordination. Police said state law already requires mufflers but noted municipal enforcement limits outside city limits; council asked staff to survey other towns and explore signage options.
Residents told the Hazen City Council on Nov. 4 that unmuffled heavy‑truck engine brakes are creating a persistent noise nuisance and urged the city to install clearer signage or seek county and state help to reduce the disturbance.
"When I could hear the engine breaks over top my hearing protection and the mower I'm driving, seemed a little loud," said Catherine (speaker who introduced herself to the meeting), one of several residents who described sleep disruption for shift workers and families living near Highway 200 and Buffalo Hill.
Speakers asked the council to replace the existing vague noise sign with a specific notice—"No unmuffled engine brakes"—at city limits so drivers see expectations when they approach Hazen. They also described hearing loud, modified rigs near the tracks and in residential areas and urged more visible enforcement.
Law enforcement speakers acknowledged the local complaints but cautioned about jurisdictional limits. A deputy sheriff present said municipal ordinances generally apply only inside city limits and noted municipal officers may have limited reach outside that boundary; he also cited state vehicle equipment requirements that require mufflers and prohibit "excessive or unusual noise." The city’s police representatives explained that while citations can be issued for unapproved vehicle modifications, proving an unmuffled engine brake during traffic stops can be operationally difficult.
Council discussion focused on practical steps: staff were asked to reach out to other communities to see what signage and enforcement language they use, to consult the county and DOT about placing or replacing signage at approaches, and to consider a limited pilot (signage plus targeted enforcement at safe pull‑off areas). No new ordinance was adopted at the meeting, and councilors stressed that a sign alone may be unenforceable without coordination and clear statutory backing.
Council members and police also discussed options to reduce noise through signage, targeted patrols and coordinated county action. One law enforcement speaker described past enforcement challenges—time spent on traffic stops, difficulties documenting modifications and limited downstream resources—but supported the residents’ call for clearer signage and county cooperation as a pragmatic first step.
The council did not take a formal vote on new regulation that night; staff were asked to report back with examples from other towns and recommended language for signage and potential county/DOT approvals.
