HomeMy WebLinkAboutA009 - Council Action Form, March 28, 1983 C
9
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
NO. 03-28-83
SUBJECT: Proposed Revision to Noise Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
In January, 1982, Councilperson Mary Atherly was approached by an Ad Hoc group of
citizens who were concerned with the provisions of the existing Noise Ordinance and
were attempting to alter its requirements. This Ad Hoc group was comprised of Doug
Brown, Hubert Church, Charles Sage, Barb Munson, Bruce Munson and Pat Brown.
Prior to submitting their revised Noise Ordinance to the City Council, this group
requested that the City Manager staff conduct a neighborhood liaison meeting in order
to review these proposed changes with citizens in other neighborhoods. This meeting
was held in the spring of 1982. In late August, the Ad Hoc group met with the
University/Student/City Committee in order to explain the proposed revisions and to
solicit the Committee's support prior to bringing the matter to the City Council.
Rather than adopting the proposals outlined by the Ad Hoc group of citizens, the
University/Student/City Committee passed two resolutions on August 27, 1982 which
first encouraged the City Council to direct the City Manager to hold neighborhood
meetings for the purpose of discussing the Noise Ordinance and related issues, and
second to encourage the City Council to require copies of any citations issued for
violations of the Noise Ordinance be sent to the owner of the property at which the
violation occurred.
In October, 1982, the City staff met with representatives of this Ad Hoc group of
citizens to express concerns regarding these proposals. As a result of this discussion
it was agreed that the proposed changes to the Ordinance would be limited to the
following items:
1. In terms of identifying a violation, the sound shall be measured at the edge of
City property (City street or alley) nearest to the source of the noise. This
represents a significant change in the Ordinance, which requires the sound to be
measured at the property line of the complainant.
2. Maximum number of decibels permitted in residential areas without a noise permit
is proposed to be 60 decibels between 7 a.m. and 12 midnight, and 55 decibels
between midnight and 7 a.m. The current Ordinance allows for a maximum of 60
decibels without a noise permit in a residential area throughout the day and night.
3. A maximum of N decibels will be issued with a permit. Currently the maximum
sound levels allowed with a permit is between 'N decibels for a 24-hour period to 105
decibels during a 5-minute period. 90
4. It is proposed that the maximum allowable noise levels for motor vehicles less
than 10,000 gvw, more than 10,000 gvw, and motorcycles be established at the
existing EPA standards. The existing ordinance prescribes a maximum of 84 decibels
for vehicles 10,000 lbs or less, 93 decibels for vehicles more than 10,000 lbs, and 93
decibels for motorcycles.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the recommendations of the Ad Hoc group.
2. Approve the recommendations of the University/Student/City Committee.
3. Approve the recommendations of both the University/Student/City Committee and
the Ad Hoc group of citizens.
4. Reject the recommendations from both groups.
MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The most significant change which is being recommended by the Ad Hoc group of
citizens involves the measuring of the noise at the edge of City property nearest to the
source of the noise, rather than measuring at the property line of the complainant. It
would appear that this revision would lead to more convictions for noise violations.
Currently, when the noise is measured at the property line of the complainant there is
often a question as to where the sound is originating. By taking a measurement at the
source this controversy should be minimized.
COUNCIL ACTION:
617 Sixth Street FILED
Ames, Iowa 50010
March 31 1983
I CUT OF AMES
M _ 81983
Mayor Goodland oirr CLERK
City of Ames '
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Mayor Goodland:
Ames has made progress. in the area of noise control. The rapid
response to muffle the whine of the new turbo—charged Cy—Ride
buses is an example of the large effect the city can make in
noise control.
As spring approaches and windows are opened, three noise
problems will certainly occur again this year. These are
noisy parties, motor vehicle noise, and trains, The first
problem, noisy parties, is already being addressed by other
groups and committees. The second, noisy vehicles, is addressed
in the Ames City code, Chapter 16, Part (3), which states that
11116 person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor
vehicle,.* in a manner that the noise emitted by the
motor vehicle is above that emitted by the vehicles
as originally manufactured."
This, and other parts of Chapter 16, appear to adequately
address the motor vehicle problem. Enforcement of the existing
laws is the problem here, and I hope you will direct the
police to vigorously enforce these laws without waiting for
citizen complaints.
My third, and major, concern is the noise caused bT train horns.
The unnecessarily long and loud sounding of train horns, expecially
in the early morning hours, is a cause of ill will between
the citizens of Ames and the train companies.
The 1981 Code of Iowa, Section 327G.13 does not require
sounding of the horn at street crossings withing the limits,
of cities unless required by city ordinance or resolution of
the council. The Code does, however, require the locomotive
to be equiped with both a horn and a bell and the Code requires
the bell (not the horn) to be rung c,)ntinuously until the
crossing is cleared. A copy of Section 327G.13 is attached.
Greiner 2
Last summer I was routinely awakened by trains that sounded
the horn continuously from one side of Ames to the otter. Two
trains passing in :ernes and sounding their horns at each other
in excess of sixty seconds at 5 a.m. is not the time nor
t .e method I desire to be awakened. I often ran the
central air conditioner so I could keep the windows shut. This.
year, to save money and energy, I sold my central air
conditioner, so the house windows will be opened much of the
time.
I hope you will direct city staff to investigate the possibility
of eliminating train horns in times. I would hope they would
investigate the subject in a very objective manner, since it
is certainly a long established practice and to eliminate
the sounding of train horns would upset some established
traditions. I am so annoyed by the trait, horns that I am
biased and strongly feel that the benefit of not sounding
horns far outweigh the risks.
The primary benefit is a more pleasant environment with less,
stressful noise, expecially during early morning hours. The
decibel level of the horns must be much higher than any
other sounds occurring early in the morning. There is considerable
research indicating that mental and physical disorders are
caused by exposure to noise and disruption of sleep.
The primary disadvantage is the possibility of increased
collisions at crossings. In many European coutries, where
train speeds are higher and trains run more often, the locomo—
tives do not sound horns. I don't know the incidence of
collisions in Europe.
In Ames, most of our train crossings are more clearly marked
and have more signals and controls than the street intersections.
It appears to me that the poorly controlled street intersections
probably present a higher risk than train crossings. Perhaps
we should require motor vehicles to sound horns at every
street intersection. People do, however, illegally drive
around crossing gates. Warning signs would be necessary advising
people that trains in Ames do not sound horns. Strict
enforcement of laws prohibitting crossing tracks against
the signals would also be necessary.
The sounding of horns is a noise that could easily be eliminated-. ,
while many noises, such as around airports, require major
investments of money j&�)t to reduce.
Greiner 3
The train companies have done some things that have reduced
noisev such as continuous track. Unfortunately, they haven't
been successful in controlling train engineers and horn blowing.
Complaints to the company sometimes cause short term reductions
in the duration of the horn blasts, but it seems that
many train engineers enjoy prolonged horn blowing, especially
at night. I think we should seriously consider tl ' actions
needed to eliminate unnecessary sounding of train horns.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. I look forward
to receiving your response.
S`-incere]y,
Thomas H. Greiner
. � � • i
FENCES, SPUR TRACKS AND REVERSION, §327G.13
GA Specifications. All fences shall be not less 327G.9 Failure to fence-general penalty. If the
fifty-four inches high and may be of any of the railroad corporation refuses or neglects to comply
Ing types: with any provision of this chapter relating to the
Not less than five barbed wires, properly fencing of the tracks,such railroad corporation shall,
1. upon conviction, be subject to 1t schedule "two" pen-
Not less than three barbed wires above and not alty and every thirty days' continuance of such re-
.an twenty-four inches of woven wire below. fusal or neglect shall constitute a separate and dis-
Entirely of woven wire, tinct offense, [C97,§2058; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,§8009;
Five boards properly spaced. C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§478.10; C77,
Any other type which the fence viewers of any 79,§327G.9]
hip through which it passes may determine as (397'1,21M,editorially divided
nt as any of the above types. See 1327C.5
n of the above types shall be securely nailed to 327G•10 Killing of stock-interpretative clause.
irnily set, not more than twenty feet apart for Nothing herein contained shall be construed to re-
st three types, nor more than eight feet apart lieve the corporation from liability arising from the r
fpurth. [C97,§2057; 513,§2057; C24,27,31,35, n killing or maiming of livestock o said track or right i
)3;C46,50,54,58,62,66,71,73,75,§478.4; C77, of way by its negligence or that of its employees, nor I
.G.4) shall anything in this chapter interfere with the right
of open or private crossings,or with the right of per-
:.5 Ifog-tight fences. When any person own- sons to such crossings,nor in any way limit or qualify
d abutting on the right of way is maintaining the liability of any corporation or person owning or
ight fence on all sides thereof or any division operating a railway that fails to fence the same
land except along such right of way, the rail- against livestock running at large for any stock in-
,mpany owning such right of way shall, on jured or killed by reason of the want of such fence.
, request of the landowner,make such right of [C97,§2058; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,§8010; C46, 50, 54, 58,
nee along such enclosed land hog-tight by the 62,66,71,73,75,11478.11;C77,79,§327G.101
n of barbed or woven wire or other equally ef-
means. (S13,§2057; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,§8004; 327G.11 Private crossing& When any person
0, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§478.5; C77, owns land on both sides of any railway, or when a
6.51 railway runs parallel with a public highway thereby
separating a farm from such highway, the corpora-
.6 Failure to fence. Any corporation operat- tion owning or operating such railway,on request of
ailway and failing to fence its right of way the owner of such land or farm, shall construct and
liable to the owner of any stock killed or in- maintain a safe and adequate farm crossing or road-
r reason of the want of such fence for the full way across such railway and right of way at such rea-
of the damages sustained by the owner, un- sonable place as the owner of the land may designate. !
as occasioned by the willful act of such owner [R60,§1329; C73,§1268; C97,112022; 513,112022; C24,27,
;lent; and to recover the same it shall only be 31, 35, 39,§8011; C46, 50, 54, .58, 62, 66, 71, 73, Y
ry for him to prove the loss of or injury to his 75,§478.12;C77,79,§327G.11]
y. [C73,§1289; C97,§2055; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, Referred to in 1327G.e1
7.46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§478.6; C77,, 327G.12 Overhead, underground, or more than
Uit 1327D.190 one crossing. Such owner of land may serve upon
such railroad corporation a request in writing for t
1 Double damages. If such corporation fails more than one such private crossing, or for an over- t
l,s to pay such damages within ninety days head or underground crossing,accompanied by a plat
-lice in writing that it loss or injury has oc- of his land designating thereon the location and char-
accompanied by an affidavit thereof, served actor of crossing desired. If the railroad corporation
y officer or station or ticket agent employed refuses or neglects to comply within thirty days of
corporation in the county where such loss or such written request, the owner of the land may
ccurred, such owner shall be entitled to re- make written application to the department to hear
om the corporation double the amount of and determine his rights in said respect. The board,
actually sustained by him. [C73,§1289; after notice to the railroad corporation, shall hear d
5;C24,27,31,35,39,§8006;C46,50,54,58,62, said application and all objections thereto,and make
1,75,§478.7;C77,79,§327G.7] such order as shall be reasonable and just,and if it re-
w in 027D.190 quires the railroad company to construct any crossing
Laws and local regulations not applicable. or roadway, fix the time for compliance with the or-
der. The matter of costs shall be in the discretion of
,f the stale or any local or police regulations
ounly, township or city, relating to the re- the board. [S13,§2022; C24, 27, 31,35, 39,§8012;C46,
50'54,58,62.6t .71`73,75,§478.13;C77,79,§327G.12]
f domestic animals, or in relation to the
• farmers or landowners, shall be applicable 327Gt8 SI 111 'ClUTTMiings. A bell and a
P 1 I1
y rights of way, unless specifically so stated horn shall be laced on euc 1 Iexomt,tivc engine oiler-
aw and regulation. [C73,§1289; C97,112055; aced on any railway, which horn shall be sounded at C�
i1,35,3938007;C46,50,54,58,62,66,71,73, ast one thousand feet before ,t road crossing is
C77,79,§327G.8] reached,and after the sounding of the horn the bell
o in 1327D.190 shall be rung continuously until the crossing is
4
AAi
�-
t; 44
do-
f
{ §327G.13, FENCES,SPAR TRACKS AND REVERSION
17Y
passed; but tit street crossings within the lin,iLs of(.it- agreement. The board may set a hearing (late afte,
o," I ies the sounding of the horn may he omitted, disagreement unless the dis
' 24
required by ordinance or resolution of the council 27, 31, 3Cie3J§R021,tsfiCd 50,been154, 58515, 62,§66,71C73
thereof; and the company shall be liable for all dam- 7 i,§47R.`2`L;C77,79,§327C.16)
j ages which shall be sustained by any I,e•rson by reason +A•rernd t„in 1377G.31
I I of such neglect. 1C97,§2072; C24,27,31,35,39,§80I8;
C46, 50, 54, 59, 62, G(;, 71, 73, 75,§478.19; C77, 3'27G.17 Hearing-order.The board shall hear the
79,§327G.13] evidence of each party to the controversy and shal
' Referred to in i327G.14 make an order which may include, pursuant to the
1 x,72,a.1iL,rin1ly Aivid"i provisions of chapters 471 and 472 authority to coo-
i i demn, resolving the controversy including what pot
327(:.14 Violations. Any officer or employee of
:n 1 any railway corponttion violating any of the srovi- Lion of the expense shall be paid by each party to such
stuns of section 3'27G.13 shall,ulxsri conviction,be sots controversy, In determining what portion of the ex-
T sion to a schedule"two" salt,u (sense shall be paid by each party the board may con-
penalty. (C97,§2072; C24,M, rider the ratio of the benefits accruing Lo the railroad
31, 35, 39,§8019; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, fib, 71, 73,
75,§478.20;C77,79,§3'27G.14) or the governmental unit or troth as it bears to the
,t w.•rer,.•,i to in 1327G.32 general public use and benefit and such benefits may
4•c 13Z7C.5 in the case of construction be consistent with the
standards adopted for similar purlicsses by the federal
327G.15 Railway and highway crossing at grade. highway administration under the federal aid high-
Wherever a railway track crosses or shall hereafter way Act of 1973 as amended to July 1, 1976, [23
cross a highway,street or alley, the railway corpora- U.S.C. §101 et se
lion owning such track and q-)• [SS15,§2017; C24, 27, 31,35,39,
i the department, in the §8022; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§478.23; C77,
';► case of primary highways,the board of sulservisors of 79,§327G.171
the county in which such crossing is Joe Led, in the Rerer,e i to in f327G.31
cage of secondary roads, or the council of the city, in
" 2 the case of streets and alleys located within a city, 327G.38 Railway company to hold in trust. Any may agree upon the location, manner, vacation,phys_ portion of the expense of making such crossing
V ical structure,characteristics and maintenance of the changes and alterations borne by any municipal cor-
crossing,,and flasher lights or gate arm signals at the poration or township, the state or any person, shall
`
!$ crossings and allocation of costs thereof. The depart_ forever be held in trust by such railroad corpowaLion
g' "tent shall becorne:t party to the agreement if grade or its successor's,and no part of such funds shall con-
crossing an cart of the value of its property
crossing; safety funds are to ►,e used. Up Us seventy- Y 1 on which
five percent of the maintenance cost of flasher lights it is entitled to receive a return. [SS15,§2017;C24,27,
i or gate arm signals at the crossing and an unlimited 31, 35, 39,§8023; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73,
portion of the cost of installing flasher lights or gate 75,§478.24;C77,79,§327G.181
arm signals at the cro:sing ntay be laid from the
grade crossing,,safely fund, l 327C:.19 Grade crossing fund.There is hereby ere
ated a fund which shall be known as the highway
Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, grade crossing safety fund and shall be made up of
[;+ mainternance of flasher lights or gate signals installed the amount allocated by the state treasurer from the
Ah.
4 i or ordered to be installed before July 1, 197:1,shall be road use tax fund. [C62, 66, 71, 73, 75,1478.25; C77,
assumed wholly by the railroad corporation.1 on. 79,§327G.191
Payments from the grade crossing safety fund
• shall be made by the treasurer of slate ulion certifica- 327G.20 Reserved.
tion by the department that the Lerins of the agree-ment have been followed. after Condition after change temporary
The department shall promulgate rules according ways. When a railroad company changes, alters, or
repairs a highway crossing, it shall upon completion
to chapter 17A for processing claims to the grade of the work leave it free from obstructions to travel
crossing safety funds.
JII{ and in good condition. If travel will be obstructed
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the while any alterations or repairs are (wing made, the
repair of the grade crossing surface. (R60,§1321, railroad company shall provide safe and convenient
1s.
1322; C73,§1262, 126:3; C97,§2017, 2019; 13S15,§2017; temporary ways for the public to avoid or pass such
C24, 27, 31, 35, 390020, 8024, 8025; ('46,§478.21 obstructions. [R60,§1321, 1324; C73,§1262, 1264;
478.25, 478,26; C50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§478.21; C97,§2017,2019;SS15,§2017; C24,27,31,35,39,§8026;
I C77,79,§327G.151
tor.-i to in 13VG.16 C46, 0, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, §47827; C77,
79,§327G.211
l 3'27G.16 Disagreement-application-notice.. If
s i c 327G.22 Railway crossings near Mississippi river.
the persons slxcificd in section 327G.15 cannot reach When in the construction of a railway it becomes nec-
in agreement,either party may make written appli- essary to cross another railway near the shore of the
cation to l.he board requesting resolution of the dis- Mississippi river, each shall be so constructed and
agreement.The board shall fix a date for hearingand
give the other part ten days' written ` maintained at the point of crossing that the res sec-
i„ Y y ritten notice by inail Live roadbeds thereof shall be above high-water mark
of such date. The board shall promulgate rules, pur- in such river; but where the crossing occurs within
suant to chapter 17A, for provessingr applications the limits of any city, the council may establish the
:i which are filed with the board prior to it written dis-
crossing grade. [C73,§1290;C97,§2059;C24,27,31,35, '
1603 ewe o1 ,YowLt / 4
• MOTOR VEHICLES AND LAWW
ROAD, §321.344 t
ful for any person except persons wholly or partially shall stop prior to crossing
blind to carry or use on the streets, highways, and portunit the railroad at the first at
Public places of the state any white canes or welkin 1
y at either the clearly marked stop line clear
at
K a View
o near the crossing where the driver has a clear
sticks which are white in color , white,tipped with view of the approaching railroad traffic
reel. IC46,50,54,58,62,flip,71,73,7.5,77,79,§3L1.:3:3L)
r:
tA'rcrnwt t.,in(82L&G,80tp.g 8U6.8 The department,city or county shall be ,#
post the standard Ai required to
:121.333 Duty of drivers.Any driver of a vehicle or uniform traffic-control devices ado
sign its prescribed by the manual on
operator of a motor-driven vehicle who approaches or partme•nl pursuant to section 321 pied b comes in contact with a person wholly or y the de-
blind carrying a cane or walking stick white rpartially
color that he ore at grade
tar in advance at
or while lipped with red,or being led by a guide dog ing. Upon properlycrossing to warn the motorist
a railro
wearing a harness and walking on either side of or ings within its jurisdictistion and u x>n d grade eroera.
K all railroad grade crass.
Slightly in front of said blind person, shall immedi- the standards established in accorclanc implementing with sec '
ately come to a complete stop, and take such precau- 307.26,the department,city, Ion
tions as may be necessary to avoid accident or injury any other affirmative dut or county shall not have
to the person carrying a cane or walking stick white operator approaching or , the railroad have }
in color or white tipped with red or lain led b a in Y tO warn a motor vehicle t
guide dog. [C461 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 77�79(§321 342] .0'l; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, grade cross, ut
79,§321.333] �, 71, 73, 75,
RKNrrd G,in 1601D.8,805.8 aererre 1 to in lo+M.8 �
321.334 Penalties. Y person who shall 321.343 Certain vehicles "hall carry a any motor vehicle carrying P The driver of
cane or walking stick such as prescribed in section any school bus, or of any e moat µtohicle carrying r hire,or of
explosive
;x
321.:332 contrary to the provisions hereof,or who shall substances or flammable liquids or other hazardous
fail to heed the approach of a person lawfully so car- materials as defined by the federal department of
r'in
J K a cane or walking stick white in color or white transportation, 49 Cale of Federal Regulations
tipped with red, or being led by a guide dog, or who tions 170 to section 189 of 1975,as a cargo or part of a
shall fail to immediately some to a complete stop,and sec_
ore
take such precautions against accident or injury to road,osh II slop schveh pile within fifty feet but not
crossing grade any track of a rail-
such person,shall to fined not less than one dollar nor Tess than ten feet from the nearest rail of such not
snore than one hundred dollars for each offense, road and while so stopped shall listen and look in both
I(;46,50,54,58,62,66,71,73,75,77,79,§321.334
directions along such track for any approaching train, f
and for signals indicating the approach of a train,ex
STREETCARS AND SAFETY "LONE;S cept as hereinafter provided, and shall not proceed
321.335 to 321.339 Repealed by 66GA,ch 170,§33. until he can do so safely.
i
e I'lade;it an -mich crsig where it
321.340 Driving through Safety zone. No vehicle police officer or stop need a traff c-control signal di reds traffic p
shall at any time be driven through or within a safely to proceed. (C27,31,3!i,§5105-st;:;. C:39§�i029.03;C4fi, t
zone. [C39,§5028.06;C46,50,54, 58, 62, 66,71, 73,75, 50,54,58,fit, ,71,73,75,?7,75:13;3'l39§5
77,79,§321.340j
aef-MA t.in 18M.8 Referred w in I8o5.A
321.344 Heavy equipment at crossing. No person
SPECIAL STut'8 lo:q 'I)wl) shall operate or move any caterpillar tractor, steam
321 34I Utiedirnce to signet of train. Whenever shovel,
ing derrick, Operating
or any equipment or structure
a"J" IK'rson driving a vehicle approaches a railroad per hour or a vertical body or load clearance of less t
Aerating speed of six or less mites
grade crossing and warning is given by automatic than nine inches shove the level surface of a roadway
signal or crossing gates or a flagman or otherwise of upon or across any tracks at a railroad grade crossing
the immediate approach of a train, the driver of such without first complying with this section.
vehicle shall stop within fifty feet but not less than
ten feet from the nearest track of such railroad and Notice of any such intended crossing shall be given
to a superintendent of such railroad and a reasonable
shall not proceed until he can do so safely.
The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stand- time to given to such railroad to provide proper pro-
ing and not traverse such a grade crossing when a tcction at such crossing.
crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman Before makingan
gives or continues to ive x si K g or movin n y such crossing the person oper-
K final of the approach or atin g y such vehicle or equipment shall
Pa of a train• [C39,§5029.01; C46,50,54, 58, 62, first stop the same not less than ten feel nor more
66,71,73,75,77,79,§321.3411 than fifty feet from the nearest rail of such railway
R.1ern�t w in 18m.8 and while so stopped shall listen and look in both di-
rections along such track for any approaching train
311.342-$top at certain railroad crossings__pwst and for signals indicating the approach of it train,and
ing warning.The driver of any vehielc xpl,r„aching a shall not proceed until the crossing can ►e made safe-
ruilroad grade crossing across which traffic is regu- ly.
laded by a stop sign, a railroad sign directing traffic
to stop or s official traffic control signalNo such crossing shall be made when warning is
a flashing red or steady circular re colored light given by automatic signal or crossing gates or a flag-
K man or otherwise of the immediate approach of a
s;
,
t
i
Jf
( ) A sound measured or registered in excess of the maxi- j mum permitted levels according to the following table, is !declared to be excessive and unusually loud and is un-lawful.
Neighborhood Character
Maximum number of decie�ermi to f:�
' Residential
Commercial 6065
Industrial 80
(Ord. No. 2608, Sec. 1 , 6-28-77)
fl
It NOW
shall be unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner fa
cause or permit to be operated within the
Public right-of-way in this
city, any motor vehicle which emits a noise in excess of the dB(A) level
, established in this section.
(1) The maximum allowable noise levels for motor vehicles are
listed in the following table:
Minimum
' Maximum Measurement
gum-be Ilistance
'1 e of Vehicle OF ec bels from ve icle
- --- ---- Permittedfee
- --Z �
Motor vehicles weighing
10,000 pounds or less,
gross vehicle weight 81 dB(A)4' 25
Motor vehicles weighing
more than 10,000 pounds,
i
gross vehicle weight
93 dB(A) 25
Motorcycles 93 dB(A)
25 �
a �HM1
(2) This section applies to the total noise from a motor vehicle
and shall not be construed as ,. I
or recl
enforcement of any other provisions l�oftthfis ordinance ling the
i
(3) No person shall modify the exhaustrsystem of a motor vehicle
or any other noise abatement device of
prate an �� motor vehicle or
operate 1 such vehicle or- device in this city in a manner
that the noise emitted by the motor vc.hic is above m that y
emitted by the vehicles as originally manuf i urecl. Muffler
r. cutouts , b}T-passes, or other devices which increase sound
emitted shall be unlawful.
t s
(4) The sound shall be measured on a sound level meter of stun- � �9 dard design and quality operated on the "A" slow response
weighting scale.
"
(Ord. No. 2608, Sec. 1 , 6-28-77) ' f I
� 16-3
Jfi 4� r
been yielded, the driver or operator may then proceed cautiously and with due care enter said roadway.
!
(Ord. No. 843, Sec. 146; Code 1956, Sec. 25-46; Ord. No. 2630
Sections 1, 2, 11-15-77) [State Law Ref. Iowa Cod
e Sec. 321.353144
Sec. 26.21 . STOP WHEN TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTED.
0
It is unlawful for the driver of a vehicle to enter an intersection
W or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side
of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is oper-
ating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, l�. - notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed.
(Ord. No. 843, Sec. 147; Code 1956, Sec. 25-47)
Sep. 26..22. STOP REQUIRED AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS.
Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade
crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the
driver of such vehicle shall stop within fifty (50) feet but not less than i
ten (10) feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not pro- it
?` ceed until it can be done so safely. The foregoing requirements apply �I
when:
F (1) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives fi
K" warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train ;
kk
(2) A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman
' gm' gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage
railroad train ;
ge o a
,
'k•
(c
(3) A railroad train approaching within approximately
dred (1500) feet of the highway crossing emits a signal aud-
ible from such distance and such railroad train , by reason of
its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate ^� r
hazard.
(Ord. No. 843 Sec. 148• Co� de 1956, Sec. 25-48) [State Law
Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 321.3411
B. TURNING MOVEMENTS. !
I
Sec. 26.23. METHOD OF TURNING AT INTERSECTIONS.
It is unlawful for the driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an
intersection to do so in any manner othei'�Rfiy-as follows:
dy,•�tf t; ,
:1 fig; (1) Both the approach for a right turn and A`right turn shall be
made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of
roadway;
(2) Approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the
` right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and
r,. after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so
as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of
the roadway being entered;
fF
26-11
i=
9 r
fire hose, wire, chain, rope, cable or device used by any public em-
ployee in the performance of the employee's official duty, without con-
s sent'of the person in lawful charge of the same.
(Ord. No. 812, Sec. 82; Code 1956, Sec. 73-82; Ord. No. 843, Sec.
i>x"r 150; Code 1956, Sec. 25-50) [State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 321 .3681
N Sec. 26.53. DRIVING THROUGH PROCESSIONS.
It is unlawful for the driver of a vehicle to drive between the ve-
hicles comprising a funeral or other authorized procession while they
are in motion. This provision does not a 1
y at traffic is controlled by traffic-control signals or police officers. where
(Ord. No. 843, Sec. 151 ; Code 1956, Sec. 25-51)
Sec. 26,54. DUTIES OF DRIVERS IN PROCESSIONS.
Each driver in a funeral or other procession shall drive as near to
a.` the right-hand edge of the roadway as
vehicle ahead as close as is practical and afectical and shall follow the
h � (Ord. No. 843, Sec. 152; Code 1956, Sec. 25-52
r Iowa Code Sec. 321 .236(3)] ) [State Law Ref.
Sec. 26.55 EVADING RAILROAD CROSSING GATES AND BARRIERS.
It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle through , around
5, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing
t� while such gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing is closed or is
being opened or closed.
(Ord. No. 843, Sec. 148. 1 ; Code 1956, Sec, 25-48. 1) (State Law R.
Iowa Code Sec. 321 .3421 Ref.
' 4 Sec. 26.56. DUTY TO REDUCE SPEED OR .STOP WHEN APPROACHING
A SCHOOL BUS.
The driver of any vehicle when meeting a school bus on which the
amber amber warning lamps are flashing shall reduce the speed of said vehicle
to not more than twenty miles per hour, and shall bring said vehicle to
a complete stop when the school bus stops and the stop signal a g arm is
extended and said vehicle shall remain stopped
r , r until the arm is retract-
ed, after which the driver may proceed with due caution. The driver
of any vehicle overtaking a school bus shall not pass a school bus when
the red or amber warning signal lights are flashing and shall bring said
M 5
vehicle to a complete stop not closer than fifteen feet from the school
bus when it is stopped and shall r6m'5'i7i—` to' topped until the stop arm is
retracted and the school bus resumes motion, or until signaled by the
k: bus driver to Proceed.
�- (Ord. No. 2628) Sec. 1 , 11-1-71 �
321.372(3)] ) (State Lai Ref. Iowa Code Sec.
f Sec. 26.57. DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES; EQUIPMENT, REQUIRED.
It is unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner to
cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any street any ve-
hicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to
i 26-21
endanger any person, or which does not contain t
It all times equipped
condition as re with such lamps and other Bose Parts or is not
required by Chapter 321 Code of Iowa 1979rPment in proper
(Ord. Nod 843, Sec. 183.p
Code 1956, Sec. 25-83. 1)
Sec. 26.58. LIGhi S REQUIRED.
No person shall f ' sunset to sunrise, or at Operate
other
on an
lighten Y street in the city from �.r
g to render clearl y her time, when there is not sufficient
at a distance of five hundr��ed er�ible per and vehicles on the street _.display lighted lamps C500) feet ahead unless such vehicle shall
321 .385 through 321 394 and illuminatin
g devices required by sections
(Ord. No, 843 Code of Iowa 1979.
I ' Ref. Iowa Code Sec. ' Sec. 183.2; Code 1956 Sec.
? I 321 .384, 321 .415) ' 25-83.2) [State Law :
UNNECESSARILY SOUNDING HORN.
It is unlawful for the driver of a motor vehicle
son to sound the horn or of hicle or an o '��
corporate Y other per xi
P limits of the cit her warning device of a vehicle within the
safe operation of the vehicle except when reasonably
Y
y necessar to insure 's
(Code 1956 Sec. 25-83.3 �M
Law Ref.
Iowa Code Sec. 321 .4321 Ord N°' 2020, Sec. 1 , 2-4-64) [State
Sec. 26.60. DUTIES ON APPROACH OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
Upon the
immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle
when the driver is giving an audible signal b
or bell the driver of ever Y siren, exhaust whistle,';;
and shall immediately y other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way,
Possible to, drive to a position parellel to, and as close as
the right-hand edge or curb of the street clear of any in-
tersection and shall stop and remain in such position until
autho-
rized emergency vehicle has the
a passed except
Police officer. pt when otherwise directed by
(Ord. No. 843) Sec. 113; Code 1956, Sec. 25-13
Sec. 26,61 . �
OBEDIENCE TO TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DE-
VICES.
}
No driver of a vehicle shall disobey ,
orar the instructions or require-
ments of any duly authorized tem .;," ' P
urre otherwise directedY by
control device f sign,
unless at the t
peace office a traffic control officer or
[State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 321 .256]
F. DESIGNATION OFTHROUGH STREETS.
Sec. 26.62, THROUGH STREETS.
(1) Whenever a street has been designated a "through
street" a
"STOP" or "YIELD" sign or signal shall be erected and main- i;
tained on each and every street intersecting such street or
26-22
f
177
MARCH 28, 1983 - MINUTES
PAGE 3 OF 7
Mike Keller, representing the Off Campus Students, supported
communication between students and neighbors and that an agreement be
reached regarding noise levels when a party is going to be held. He
felt that the proposed revisions might result in individuals which
live several doors from the source of the noise phoning in complaints
out of spite rather than when they are bothered with a noise
problem. He requested that the existing Ordinance remain in tact.
Margaret Ewing, USC Committee, expressed the need for additional
communication between the parties involved. Also, property owners
need to be made aware of noise complaints involving tenants. Nancy
Klint, Panhellenic Executive Council, supported the existing
Ordinance as the most workable of the two. She felt that in some
cases the complainants' property line would be closer than the
nearest City property (street, alley). Klint also requested that the
student organizations be notified of noise problems before the Police
are contacted. Mark Bruns, Sigma Phi Epsilon, reminded everyone that
Ames is a college town and that the students might be more noisy.
Elaine Clark, Government of the Student Body representative on the
USC Committee, also supported the existing Ordinance and encouraged
more communication between the parties involved.
Hubert Church gave some instances in which he had asked someone to
lower their noise level without a satisfactory response. On occasion
noise that has been bothersome to him has been within the existing
noise levels (this lead him to believe that the levels are presently
too high). Church also believed that some parts of town have an
economic disadvantage due to noise levels.
Doug Brown, 3212 West Street, noted that his neighborhood does not
have fraternities and sororities although they still experience
problems with noise -- students are not the only people who have
difficulties with the Noise Ordinance. Council had also pointed this
out. Many times it is much easier to work with the student groups
than it is to work with individuals on noise problems.
There were generally two points of view of the Council. Council
Members Atherly and Hammer supported the proposed amendments. If the
level of noise permitted without a permit is 60 decibels, then no
other person on other property should helve to experience a greater
decibel level unless they have a permit. The decibel reading which
is authorized by a permit should end at the adjoining property
lines. On the other hand, Council Member Curtis was of the opinion
that any Noise Ordinance is in reality a nuisance ordinance. Any
measurement should be taken from the property of the individual
filing the complaint. What is objectionable noise to one person may
just be sound to another. Also, the Ordinance as proposed would have
no specific distance for a measurement -- it could vary with each
case since the nearest City property would be different
During discussion it was discovered that the Police do in fact
respond to anonymous complaints under the existing Ordinance. When
these occur, the Police measure the noise no less than 25 feet from
the source of the noise. The City Manager did point out that there
might be cases in which there would be a stricter reading of a noise
level under the existing Ordinance rather than under the proposed.
(I.E. If a rear-yard neighbor would make a complaint involving a
back-yard party in the adjoining lot under the existing Ordinance,
the measurement would be taken from the joint property line. Under
the proposed Ordinance the measurement would be taken from the
nearest City property which would probably be the street in front of
the property from which the noise is emitting. The noise level would
more than likely have a higher reading from the joint property line
since there would usually be structures between the source of the
noise and the City street which would help block the sound.)
Council Members Curtis and Hammer were very concerned about the
anonymous complaint processing under the existing Ordinance and
questioned whether or not such complaints should be handled -- the
complainant should be known. However, Council Member Atherly felt
that such a process is needed since there have been acts of
retaliation involving noise complaints. The students were asked for
I
178 •
MARCH 28, 1983 - MINUTES
PAGE 4 OF 7 -
I
their views on the procedure. Mark Bruns felt that it could be
viewed as a compromise to the proposed Ordinance even though the
4 procedure was not that desirable. Elaine Clark indicated that if
anonymous complaints are to be used, the proposed Ordinance might as
! well be adopted.
Motion by HaWer, seconded by Atherly to adopt the recommendation
of the Ad W g oup and instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance as recommended by the group and that the ordinance be
written in such a way that it has to be triggered by a known
complainant other than a Police Officer. - --
i --
j The City Manager provided a clarification that part of the
group recommendation includes a provision that a complaint on
public property (like a City park) would require a measurement
of the noise 25 feet from the source.
Voting aye: Atherly, Hammer.
! Voting nay: Curtis, Shank, Thurston. (Motion Declared Failed)
i
Council Member Shank explained that she could not support the motion
since Police Officers could not enforce the ordinance if they
encounter a violation if there has been no complaint filed. Council
Member Curtis suggested that rather than having the ordinance address
the matter of anonymous callers, an administrative policy be adopted
that would state that no anonymous complaints will be accepted.
!
Motion by Atherly, seconded by Hammer that the recommendation of
the Ad Hoc group be accepted and the City Attorney instructed to
draft an ordinance along those lines and that information be
provided regarding a triggered vs. non-triggered provision of the
ordinance and on the demographics of previous noise complaints.
Motion by Curtis, seconded by Hamner to split the motion into
two parts (one part being the recommendation of the Ad Hoc
group and one part being the information on the triggered
aspects of the ordinance and the demographics). (Motion
Declared Carried Unanimously)
! Vote on motion to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance as recommended by the Ad Hoc group:
Voting aye: Atherly, Hammer, Shank.
Voting nay: Curtis, Thurston. (Motion Declared Carried)
Vote on motion to request information on a triggered vs.
non-triggered provision of the ordinance and information on
demographics. (Motion Declared Carried Unanimously)
RECESS: A short recess was called at 9:45 p.m.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:
Council had requested that discussion of enforcement procedures take
place prior to the hearings on the proposed revisions to City-wide
zoning classifications. The City Manager explained that the City is
limited to the regulations of the Code. Staff had prepared an
information packet explaining the prohibitions/enforcement
procedures/penalties for complaints involving animals, garbage and
refuse, noise, nuisances, parking, rental housing, weeds and zoning
requirements. The packet will be distributed to neighborhood
associations. He also stressed that anyone with a complaint or
question may contact the Citizen Service Bureau (232-4560) which is
located in the City Manager's office if the individual is not sure
which City Department to contact. The Bureau may also be contacted
if a citizen is not satisfied with a response by a City Department.
Recently all enforcement was relocated to the Fire Department for
better control and uniformity. Fire Chief Ralph Parks reviewed the
following enforcement difficulties with Council, particularly in
connection with the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Inability at times to verify the existance of an alleged
violation. This can be attributed to a large extent in finding
no one at home. On numerous occasions this has necessitated a
large number of callbacks.
March 28 Excerpt - Noise Ordinance (for Mary Atherly)
Discussion prior to this time
Mayor: What are your wishes?
Charlie: Well , the anonymity bothers me. I really don't think that should be part of
our law enforcement process. I think it is open to too much frivolous action
and. . . .
Georgene: Do you want to eliminate it?
Charlie: I can' t eliminate that because eliminating that makes the noise ordinance too
loose if I . . . . . .
Georgene: No, then they just call their Mayor and Council person.
Larry: You call that anonymously, hell , get with the program.
Charlie: So I think that the . .everybody would have better protection if there were
definite limits set, I mean a definite place to be measured from and then no
anonymous complaints. . . . .someone should make a complaint, period, is what I
have gotten out of this conversation that we've had. I 'd like to hear how
the rest of you feel about it.
Larry: I wasn't aware of the anonymous possibility. I always assumed, because it
was a nuisance-oriented ordinance, that it had to have the complaining party
and I guess it surprised me that (can' t hear the rest. )
Mary: It surprises me too because I was not aware of this at all and I helped write
this ordinance.
Steve: Well , we certainly encourage people to give their names, but in cases of all
complaints, and we are talking about zoning complaints or whatever, we respond
to the needs of the citizens even if they are not willing to give their name,
mainly because many of them feel intimidated whether it is justified or not
I 'm not going to say. We felt that it is our obligation to respond to people's
complaints.
Mary: I 'm not objecting to what you are doing, it is just that I was not aware that
this is -- and I think that a lot of people were not aware either -- because
when you call the police department, they will ask for your name. Most people
will hang up.
Steve: I think we prefer to have that and it is my own gut feeling, and maybe the
Chief and the Captain could talk about it, but I think the anonymous complaints
would work to the detriment of the individuals holding parties, because I think
when you ask a person to state their name, more likely it is going to be a
legitimate complaint over than what we will have. . . . . . .
Mary: Well I agree with. . . . . .
Charlie: Yeah, um hum.
Steve: As a general statement there will be more frivilous complaints as Charlie said.
Charlie: Yeah, that is what bothers me about it.
Mary: Yeah, I agree.
Steve: I think that is safe to say that the legitimate complaints are ones that. .
Chief Siedelmann: I think that there are probably times when we assign more priority
to a complaint where the complaintant gives their name, but we would respond
and measure the noise if there were not a name given. We do have a certain
number of those where they do not give their name.
i,Eary: Actually, they would get better service if they did not give their name is
what you are saying. . . . . . .
Charlie: No.
Mary: if they live . . . in terms of where they are measuring from.
. • 2
Charlie: They get more action, they didn't get better service.
Mary: Well , that is true.
Chief Siedelmann: It would mean that we would probably measure closer to the source
than if the complaintant gave their name. Chances are the 25 ft. from the
source would be closer to the than the complaintant.
Lary: We haven't talked much about the 60 and down to 55. Has that been a serious
problem in terms of wanting or needing a decrease?
Chief Siedelmann: When we measure we really respond to a lot of complaints that are
not 60. 55 is low. The measurement. that I was making at the West wall there,
Mary and the rest of them were 55 and you were about 60, Larry, at that distance.
Charlie: Does that instrument measure hot air as well ?
Chief Siedelmann: I won' t respond to that one.
Larry: He' ll get his, I 'll tell you.
Georgene: Well , I guess the whole hang-up is that the Council apparently thought in the
past that we need some sort of control over what is felt to be too much noise,
whether it is physically or emotionally harmful . Now we are dealing with the
problem of which is the easiest way to attain that control . I gather there
is no idea of not having any kind of control , so if we think it's most import-
ant that the Police be easily able to deal with the problem of this excessive
noise, than I would think that the proposal that we've received is probably
the most feasible was of achieving that end.
Charlie: Yeah, I would go along with the present proposal but we have to write into the
ordinance that anonymous complaints don't get followed up or is that just a
question of policy?
John Klaus: I would think so. I think if you adopt the proposal that the measurement
always be made from the street that is a single standard, it will always apply
regardless of complaint. . .whether the complaintant is anonymous or otherwise
or even if the decision to set it (can' t hear a couple of words) is made with-
out complaint. . . . . I don' t believe it is implicit in the Council policy to say
that this ordinance will be enforced only in the event of a complaint.
Charlie: Well , the other spector that I can bring up since I brought up the anonymity
spector, is police cruising by with sound meters out the window and passing
by a party and saying "Ah-Hah, my decible meter has gone off! " and then
charging in and making an arrest. I mean, I don 't want that to happen either.
Georgene: That seems unlikely.
Charlie: That's why the nuisance aspect - I 'd like the ordinance to be triggered. In
other words triggered by a complaint.
John T: (talking in background, but we cannot pick up his words. )
Larry: I 'm going to have to quit talking outside my house, that's all there is to it.
Charlie: Well , Larry we have just determined is in deep trouble with his voice.
Larry: That's right. . .
Charlie: but I 'd rather have the ordinance be triggered by a complaint. That's where
the nuisance aspect comes in.
Larry: Well , I find it hard to believe that you could accept that particular concept--
that it is a nuisance oriented process which needs a complaint--and then not
measure it from where the complaintant is making the complaint.
Georgene: You have to decide where the nuisance level is.
Charlie: Yeah, 65 decibles, in spite of your voice, is a loud noise when it is not just
a single voice.
Larry: Yeah, but I mean that if you are using and you accept what you are telling me,
the nuisance concept, then it is only a nuisance in terms of the person who is
hearing it and at that particular level .
Charlie: Well , then you get into the anonymous. . . . .
Larry: Well , then we eliminate the anonymous calls. We adopt no answering anonymous
calls on sound. That's easy. Arbitrary is the other was. If you are going
to accept the concept which I appreciate you accepting, that it is a nuisance
oriented process - a nuisance oriented ordinance, then to me a nuisance is
where the person is experiencing the nuisance, not where it is eminating in
terms of the source of that particular nuisance.
Mary: That would be fine, but you have to define what is a nuisance. . . . .
Charlie: We will get back into the discussion . . . . .
Mary: I agree with what you are saying. The way it is being done now, Larry, it's
not being effectively handled that was because of the level of the noise and
the permits that are being issued for those levels of noise.
Larry: Well , fortunately I live out in the Campus area also, and I enjoy it immensely
and you remember the summer what - two years ago? - when all of us experienced
the extreme noise coming out of the residence halls in the spring area there
at the Towers. Now if we measured that from the street in front of the towers
at my particular location, we are talking about a considerable distance than
from, say from your location.
Mary: But your street was where all the complaints came from .
Larry: Well , I know.
Charlie: That was Larry talking.
Mary: That was right.
Larry: My point is, and I guess that I feel in terms of uniformity in measurement,
that if one of my neighbors complained, then that's where you ought to go to
make the measurement. If the people that say, live right there on Storm
Street, backing into that area, where the noise had to be greater, were not
complaining - were not bothered by it, and the meter was not registering at
my house, but over at their house it was, it should be measured by where the
noise is at my location, cause I was the one disturbed by it.
Mary: But what level of noise?
Charlie: Let' s face it Larry, if 65 decibels is the only person who is going to complain
is the next-door neighbor.
Larry: Well , this was 90 and I 'm sure . . . . .
Mary: See, I would agree with you. I would really do if you said that the noise was
measured at my property line should be a standard 60-65 and not the value of
a permit issued down the street at 80-85. Then I would agree with you.
Larry: But we have made a conscious decision that we are going to allow - by having
a maximum 90 decibel level - we are going to allow people to make more than
a ordinary noise.
Mary: On a particular piece of property.
Larry: Yes.
Mary: Not on necessarily mine or yours, but somewhere else, and that would ordinarily
follow that the noise as it goes out would not be as much.
Charlie: I would like to move that we adopt the recommendation but that the ordinance
be written in such a way that it has to be triggered by a complaint.
Mayor: Would you move that for the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance.
Charlie: Yes that is what I mean.
Mayor: Say it again now.
Charlie: I move the proposed revisions of the noise ordinance, but that its enforcement
has to be triggered by a complaint
John Klaus: By someone other than a police officer.
Charlie: Yeah.
4
John Klaus: Let me point out that that will be the only ordinance that we have that
will be triggered by complaint only and what you will be saying implicit in
that then will be the provision that the standards do not prescribe conduct
unless there is someone complaining.
Charlie: That' s right - I understand that.
Mary: In other words, if this party, like he was saying is going on . . . . . .
Charlie: If everyone is enjoying all that noise, it' s O.K. with me.
Mary: Then he wouldn' t be affected unless somebody was really. Can you do that,
because that's fine with me because that's the only reason. . . . . . .
Georgene: But you 're concerned with a "known complainer" not an anonymous complainer.
Charlie: Yeah.
Georgene: Well , you 'd better say something.
Charlie: John Doe has to make a complaint.
Mayor: Is there a second?
Mary: Second, if I understand what you are saying.
Charlie: I don't know if you understand.
Mary: I don 't know -- I don't understand sometimes what you are saying.
Mayor: There has to be a "known complaintant".
Mary: Alright.
John Klaus: What you are saying is that whether or not something is unlawful will depend
entirely on whether or not some person decides to complain.
Charlie: No, not entirely, the person complains and the noise level is such.
John Klaus : But it can be any level above that as long as no one complains.
Charlie: That' s right.
Steve: You mean to the City, right?
Charlie: Well if no one complains, then I don't see that there is a problem.
Georgene: Well then are you going to have these levels established in this ordinance?
Charlie: Yeah, I said this is. . . . .
Georgene: and to be acted upon only on complaint.
Charlie: Yeah, it says here 65-60 decibels between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight.
Mayor: As recommended by the Ad-Hoc Committee, that's what you are saying.
Charlie: Yeah.
Georgene: What are your problems with that, John?
John Klaus: The problem that I have is that the law is sort of (can't hear a couple
of words) of an anonymous person. In other words. . . . . .
Charlie: Not entirely.
John Klaus: Not entirely, but . . . .
Charlie: It is complaint oriented like Larry says. Somebody. . . .maybe I enjoyed the
party. Maybe the whole damned neighborhood is in the party.
Larry: That is the point I am trying to make, why you go to where the complaint is
made.
John Klaus: It is artibrarily triggered, as you say, . . . .
Charlie: Not arbitrarily triggered, it is triggered if the noise level is over a certain
amount, not arbitrary.
• 5 •
John Klaus: The standard is sort of triggered. . . .
Charlie: It has got a trigger, that's right, an on and off trigger.
John Klaus: It is legal or illegal , depending upon whether or not . . . .
Charlie: No, its legal if somebody. . . illegal if somebody makes a complaint and the level
is over a certain amount. That is the important part. It is not illegal if
somebody complains.
Georgene: Is that different from what we have now, because the Police don't go around
and slap a warrant or something if nobody has complained.
Steve: Well , they could.
Georgene: Sure they could, but do you?
From the audience: There are a lot of things police officers would rather do than
run around. . . . . .
Charlie: I 'm sure they would.
Georgene: I know it.
Mary: Well , if we go this area, I would like to have the City Attorney give us some
pros and cons about what we are actually doing here and what it is going to
really mean -- the ramifications of it.
John Klaus: I won't know any more next week than I know right now on that subject.
Charlie: He's just not used to a nuisance law, that's all . It's triggered. There is
nothing wrong with a trigger, you know we do a lot of things with a trigger -
make movies.
Mary: Yeah, but I would like to know what I am triggering before I actually vote
in favor of it.
Charlie: You are triggering a noise ordinance.
Larry: Not even I would take away the Police Officers right to do that independently
of the complaining witness, Charlie, but . . . .
John T. Earlier in our discussion Larry asked for some information about the number
of complaints we have had and I would think that those are primarily regarding
the noise. . . . .and from what is said by the people from the student body here,
there seems to be a feeling that things are better. I guess before I want
to do anything, I 'd like to see that report of the distribution -- how many
complaints there have been. . .these are complaints - not convictions or anything
else - to just see how many we are really getting. I have no idea.
Charlie: Before an ordinance is adopted, it would have to have three hearings so
presumably we would have such a report.
John T. Well . . . . .
Mary: Well , if we could have that too, John, I would still like to have John see
what he could find out more about the. . . . .
John T. I would like to have that report before we ask the City Attorney to spend his
time to write up an ordinance that we might not pass.
Mayor: We have a motion on the floor, or you can do what you want to.
Charlie: We pay him anyway. He's not going to reduce his salary if we don't do that.
Georgene: Well , it' s a thought, fewer ordinances he prepares. . . . . . . . .
Mayor: The motion on the floor to have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance as
presented by the Ad-Hoc Committee and Steve, you wanted to add something
else.
Steve: Just a clarification for some members of the Ad Hoc Group. We talked about
when a noise violation or a reading was required on public property such as
a park, I think currently it is 25 feet from the source. Is that right? I
didn' t have that in the proposal that we retain that. Right. Let's say that
right now in the ordinance, if you have a complaint in a piece of public pro-
perty, we would go from 25 ft from the source on public property. 0" K. I
didn' t specify that. I am assuming that they are recommending that this is
retained from the existing ordinance.
r
• 6
Ad Hoc Member:
kxrtXB: Is that State property?
Steve: No that would be City - public property. State property we have no jurisdiction
over. We are talking about City property now.
Mary: Are you leaving that at 80 or 90 decibels on #3?
More discussion on decibel level . . . . . .
. . . . . . . on University property or State property. . . . .
Mayor: Ready to vote?
TO: Honorable F. Paul Goodland, Mayor,
and Members of Ames City Council ,
and Mr. John Klaus, City Attorney
FROM: E. Douglas Brown PUJOVIC',
3212 West Street No
My subject, as you might expect, is the noise ordinance and the
two motions now before the Council to amend it Please indul
my reading this, for I 'm hoping you' ll find what w more
I say no ge
thoughtful than the little nip I took the other
night at re
^communication, " the hand that feeds me I '
opinion, and I support all constructive value diversity of
differences into understanding I knowapproaches to melding
^
as a result of public comments' but let me r�a� votes seldom change
issues I consider important forthe fu , get on the record some
I don' t think it ' s simply rhetorical to begin with the
fundamental question: Does Ames want a noise ordinance at all?
As John Klaus stated in his March 31st memo, " Ideally, the City
should have no ordinances for which it is not ' y
the resources of personnel and equipment neededprepared to commit
regular program of evenhanded routine d �o establish a
Councilman Curtis' s opinion ( ' s I d an unbiased enforcement, "
subject for private remedies
a understand it) that noise is a
If the Council see eme es is therefore clearly appropriate,
a program on behalf s no compelling need to commit the City to such
of the noise ordinance it should take t
to remove the ordinance from the books That alternative is ePs
^
clear. On the other hand' if the Council '' s
law on the subject of noise, it must agrees to make public
which it can enforce uniformly, offering
on objective standards
citizens, erzng equal protection for all
That critical point is so obvious you may wonder why I both t mention it. Let me elucidate. bother o
Mr. Klaus, in his memorandum, gives clear treatment to the legal
implications of the motion to make the ordinance a "complaints
only" regulation. I won' t repeat it. However I think I
safely draw a useful analogy with another well -known
times
can
equally irritating local ordinance--the "le l ' sometimes
ash
Some years ago, an Ames City Council took taw^ for dogs^
committing the City to enforcing an ordinancethe giant step of
canine behavior, taking over matters that against unseemly
subject only to private solutions A previously had been
^ s we all know, enforcement
officials now consider it prudent and
the most docile wandering pooch f evenhanded to carry even
Pooches
the capture is prompted by a citizen o+ to the pound whether or not
violation, rzzen complaint. A violation is a
Further, a private citizen knows that enforcement of the "leash
law" is appropriate wherever (outside the boundaries of the dog-
owner' s property) a violation occurs--not just in a complainant' s
own house or yard but in the public streets and parks as l
We may sometimes dislike the consequences of evenhanded well .
enforcement (My old beagle, that only a heartless ogre would rat
on, made a couple of friendly, voluntary, twenty-dollar strolls
right into the dog-catcher' s arms) but ' ro s
consequences because we believe in' thu ordinance.
with those
= , u '/ance.
' -------
Let me carry the analogy over to the ------ --- ---------
Council ^ When the City committed itself
other motion before the
it committed itself to assuring Private to the noise ordinance,
by enforcing the ordinance wherever«aze citizens equal protection
According to the present languageaa «iolation occurs'
access to enforcement against a violator who
citizen is allowed
following method only: the complainant� cor who has no permit by the
level reading at the line of his
must request a noise
it, the language gives no sor her own proPerty^ As I read
90db blast while passing a c Protection to the shopper who meets a
user who encounters excessi ommercial establishment, to the park
dwelling, nor to the casual «e noise from an adjacent PRIVATE
unpleasant but it is undeniable:e«ening stroller. The point may be
at all , it protects a citizen
if an ordinance is enforceable
Therefore a citizen i wherever he or she might be
(beginning with the level
to access to enforcement ^
Perceives it_ not e el reading) at the place he or she
- merely in his or her own front
porch or barricaded basement, but along the liyard or back
This s not yet Fortress Ames, puu c way as well ,
i
Up to now, anonymous complainers and no one else have h d
`" such protection, a fact that makes abundantl l a access
inadequate the present language of the ordi y c ear how
lawyer ' s opinion, the City is vulnerablenance is. In my non-
side-stePped trouble up to now through on this point and has
oug
evenhanded enforcement officers who the wise indulgence of
common sense for guidance and walked up
relied on their own
up close to the source to
take their measurement.
We' d better be sure the objective standard
because the requirement that they be evenhandedly
are what we want,
matter for speculation; it ' s a fact Ien an�edly enforced is no
standards we' re required to enforce^ � we don' t like the
them or return the issue comple uniformly, we must change
remedies, tely to the pphere of private
Naturally, you' ll be astounded to hear tha t I
there are compelling reasons for having t personally believe
the n
committee of drafters thought so several noise ordinance, A
Years ago or they
wouldn' t have submitted it; a previousC
wouldn ' t have passed it; a large numberCouncil thought so or they
last year or they wouldn ' t havemade o+ citizens thought so
the Planning and Zoning area hearings; numerous
a common topic during
still think so or they wouldn, t gs; numerous other citizens
the police department, continue to call complaints in to
~ �
I personally regret that the i ------
Public sector,was
h I issue had to be brought into the
amplifiers it inegitabsense that in the era of million watt
e.
So I 'm pleased that the present noise ordin
ance offers one
compromise not matched in the leash law: It allows a hopeful
noise maker actually to get a permit to turn his "animal " loose.
I endorse this compromising provision , ~
which ought to provide
excellent opportunities for neighbors to talk together before a
bef
sound spectacular takes place and reach an understanding (if
only: ''We' re having a Noise Night for Muscular Dystrophy
on
Saturday. You're invited to help out. " "No, thanks but since
you' ve mentioned it ahead of time I can make plans to visit
inlaws in Boone that night. " ) , If the standards my
rs
clear, they' ll have something objective to dicss.
are uniform and
Thank you very much for your time.
- --'
'
`