HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Memo to University/Student/City Commission members - recommendations on proposed noise ordinance emow�
10W-A STA.T E U NIVERSITY
ei Science a • d Tech09109y
OAT• January 24, 1986
TO University/Student/City Commission Members Fd� ;
JAN 2 7 I9jB6
CITY Flom e�cDonnell ITV of ATAES. -
The next University/Student/City Commission meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, January 30 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Cranny
of the Memorial Union. At this meeting we will be discussing the
U/S/C recommendations regarding the proposed noise ordinance
revision. Please review the attached draft of recommendations and
come prepared to discuss this issue. We will also be talking
about the best method to present our recommendations to the City
Council.
As you will note from the attached minutes of recent U/S/C meetings,
we have not had a quorum at our meetings. It is imperative that
we have a quorum for this meeting. If you are unable to attend
please plan to send a substitute in your place. See you on
Thursday, January 30.
cc: City Clerk
enclosure
kj
To: Ames City Council
From: University/Student/City Commission
Re: U/S/C Commission's recommendations regarding Noise Ordinance
Revision
The University/Student/City Commission has reviewed the proposal
by City Staff to revise, the Noise Ordinance. The committee held a public
forum on November 12, 1985 which was televised on local government cable
as a call-in show. Audience participation was well received. In addition to
the public forum, the committee discussed the proposal with their
constituencies. The feedback from these contacts has lead to our conclusions
as follows:
CONCLUSIONS:
A. The option to take a reading from complaining party's property should
be permitted. It is our recommendation that the complaining party should
be willing to sign a confidential form indicating his/her request for a
reading. Noise reading should be taken at location on property where
complainant was disturbed or from public right of way. If complainant
refuses to sign a written complaint, the reading should be taken at the public
right of way.
B. The committee received very little feedback on the proposed revisions
relating to motor vehicles. We therefore suggest a reading of 75 dB(A) at 25
feet.
C. We strongly support the proposal to take "permit" noise level readings
in the same manner as a normal complaint.
RATIONALE:
A. Citizens of Ames should be able to more effectively have noise
problems corrected. By allowing police officers to take a reading at the
complainant's property, inadequacies in the current ordinance will be
eliminated. However, the complainant should be required to sign a
confidential written complaint which will eliminate problems where people
falsify their address, in addition to exemplifying their complaint.
B. Co-incidentally at our forum a bus was parked outside of the council
chambers. A decibel reading taken at 25 feet gave a 75 dB(A) reading.
Using this information we feel this is an acceptable level, to lower this level
any further may be too restrictive.
C. We feel this will eliminate current confusion.
COMMENT: Consideration of vehicle noise levels could take into account
variations in zoning.
Approved by 4 members of U/S/C Commission sub-committee of the total
of 6 members. 2 were absent for the vote. Dated January 22, 1986.
---Sub-committee Draft---
U/S/C COMMISSION--MINUTES
JANUARY 14, 1986 NOON.
Meeting was called to order at 12:05 P.M. by Michael Powell
Those present: Robb Dirks, Alvarita Mac Bride, Kathy Brown_, Dan Robinson,
Judith Leffler, Michael Powell, NOT A QUORUM11
DISCUSSION:
Update on the sub-committee working on the revisions to the Noise
Ordinance. The committee felt that it was a good idea to have complainants
sign a written complaint to verify that they are indeed making the
complaint. Also Mike needed to check with the Police Chief about possible
protection for the complainants so that the written complaints don't become
a part of Public Record.
We also discussed the issue of anonymous phone complaints, however
Robb said that it is usual practice by the police department to not check out
the complaint unless there is a person willing to tell them their name.
DISCUSSION:
We also discussed the Human Relations Ordinance and decided that we
will with-hold our opinion on this ordinance until after the potential
ordinance is in its final format. We also decided that in the future when
voting we will give the results of the vote, rather than saying the U/S/C
Commmission supports this ------
The Subcommittee will meet in the Physical Plant at noon on January 22, to
work up its proposal that it will present to the full committee during the
week of ,January 27-31.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Powell
Secretary
U/S/C COMMISSION--MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1985 6:00 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 6:07 P.M. by Steve McDonnell.
Those present: Steve McDonnell, Michael Powell, ,Judith Leffler, Alvarita Mac
Bride, Kathy Brendeland, Robb Dirks, NOT A QUORUM!!
Sue Weiss was a guest and talked to us about the Human Relations
Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
We discussed the Human Relations Ordinance and the areas of Money,
Sexual Preference, Age, Co-habitation. We were told that the ordinance was
to affect everything--creditors, housing, employment, etc. to equalize all
areas. It is also intended to help unprotected groups. The ordinance is
planned to be presented to the city council in three parts, with the age issue
being presented first, and the remaining two later.
The concern over the elderly is what will be covered in the first
proposal. The intent in this part is to prevent discrimination based on age,
and also with lower income groups.
The committee gave a concensus approval to the age section of the
proposed ordinance. This however is NOT OFFICIAL, because of a lack of
quorum.
DISCUSSION:
We had a short update from the subcommittee on the noise ordinance
revision proposals. We discussed having written verification of complaints
in cases where readings will be taken on private property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Powell
Secretary