Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/22/2006 - UNREASONABLE NOISE ORDINANCE DATE: August 22, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Teresa Ablao FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Lt. James Szakmeister Beth Sowder SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Unreasonable Noise Ordinance. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED This work session will focus on recommended changes to the Unreasonable Noise Ordinance from the"Advocates for Noise Ordinance Reform"and staff responses to these recommendations. At this point, staff does not recommend any modification to the current Unreasonable Noise Ordinance. 1. What, if any, changes would Council like made to the Unreasonable Noise Ordinance? BACKGROUND A group of CSU students known as "Advocates for Noise Ordinance Reform" has asked City Council to look into possible changes to the Unreasonable Noise Ordinance. As a result, staff from Neighborhood Services, City Attorney's Office, Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) and the Community Liaison met to discuss these issues. The suggestions brought forth by the Noise Reform group included: 1. A requirement that the Police use a decibel meter when investigating noise complaints. 2. A provision for a warning system for all noise complaints. 3. An option of community service in lieu of fines or in lieu of a criminal misdemeanor summons. 4. An amendment to make the ordinance and enforcement more specific. 5. An option to reclassify noise violations as something other than a criminal misdemeanor. 1. Use of Decibel Meters. A decibel meter is sometimes used by Code Compliance staff to measure the level of industrial noise from a steady source, for example, noise from a mechanical device such as an air conditioner. Decibel meters can be helpful in proving a noise violation from a steady source, but only when utilized under certain conditions. The reliability and accuracy of decibel meters are adversely affected by the presence of environmental factors such as high wind, high and low temperatures, rain, snow, or fog. Further, a decibel meter must be operated by persons trained and certified in the use of the meter to ensure its accuracy and reliability. The meters themselves need to be tested, calibrated and certified on a regular basis. August 22, 2006 Page 2 Staff does not recommend the use of a decibel meter to investigate residential unreasonable noise violations for several reasons.First,noise violations occur in all weather conditions(rain,snow,fog, wind, high and low temperatures). Second, violations involving parties normally do not have a steady/even level such that measurement by a meter can be accurate and reliable. Third, a decibel meter cannot screen or distinguish ambient noise from other sources. Fourth, using a decibel meter would take away from the officer's ability to use discretion and take into account the totality of the circumstances. And finally,the cost to purchase and maintain the meters as well as train and certify operators is not justified given the very limited amount to which the meters could be used. In addition, other communities, such as Boulder, who use decibel meters are moving away from this because of some of the difficulties mentioned above. 2. Implementing a Warning System. The concern that warnings are not issued is a misperception. Fort Collins Police Services' statistics reveal that one in three noise complaints result in enforcement action. When examining noise violations from the Spring Pilot Project, nearly one-third of all noise calls resulted in no finding of probable cause for enforcement. The remaining third resulted in "quiet upon arrival" closure or warnings where probable cause existed but officers used discretion and took no enforcement action per their modified zero tolerance policy. This modified zero tolerance approach enables officers to issue warnings in appropriate circumstances such as when an officer reasonably determines that the noise will likely not continue accompanied with any other extraordinary mitigating circumstances. However,when an officer finds that the noise violation is clear,a citation will usuallybe issued even if it is a first violation for the offender. This has proven to be an effective way to ensure that the noise on the night of the complaint does not continue and repeat noise violations will not occur. Based on the statistics that one in three calls result in action, it can be determined that officers are exhibiting reasonableness in handling these calls. If the City decided to implement a straight "first time warning" system, there would be little to motivate a violator to cease further violations, especially in extraordinary aggravated cases. For example, such a system could result in different persons stepping forward as a responsible party to receive his/her warning, thus potentially resulting in the ability for one violating household of three to receive 3 warnings before a citation is actually issued. The potential that this scenario presents would adversely affect neighborhood quality of life. Further, there is no system for tracking prior warnings. The logistics and cost to implement such a system that is tied with the Court and Police Services is not justified when one-third of noise complaints currently result in warnings. It should further be noted that officers currently have the authority to issue a citation to all of the tenants of a property when a noise violation occurs. However,the general practice of officers is to only ticket one tenant, thus giving them the opportunity to shut down the party and stop the noise before further tickets are issued. Typically,officers issue one ticket to a responsible party. It is only in extreme circumstances when officers issue numerous tickets for a noise violation. 3. Community Service. a. In place of fines. One concern expressed by the student group was the high cost of the fines for noise violations.The Municipal Court Judge has the authority to order community service August 22, 2006 Page 3 in lieu of all or a portion of fines in appropriate circumstances. The court has a set schedule which starts at 8 hours of community service for$25 of the fine up to 120 hours of community service for $500 of the fine. The Court also allows people to make payments over time by use of promissory notes. If a person accepts a plea bargain, the prosecution is authorized to ask the Judge to suspend a portion of the fine for a year on the condition that the person complies with certain conditions such as attending a noise violation class, completing community service and has no other misdemeanor violations during that year. These conditions of a suspended sentence are utilized in order to provide additional motivation to not re-offend. Typically, in non-aggravated cases,if a defendant pleads guilty to a noise violation,the prosecutor recommends payment of$250 to $350 of a$1000 fine, with the remaining amount suspended on the conditions indicated above. b. Community Service in place of charges. Staff understood this suggestion to involve a "diversion-type" program wherein a summons would be dropped prior to court appearance upon completion of the program. Currently, the only diversion programs offered in conjunction with the court are restorative justice programs for primarily juvenile cases. Due to these programs' limited budgets and the restorative justice philosophy, these cases are primarily theft or cases where there is a specified victim who is willing to participate in the program with the offender. Since noise complaints can be made anonymously with no identified victim, noise violations may not be appropriate for restorative justice type of diversion programs. C. Community Service in exchange for sealing convictions. A misdemeanor conviction cannot be sealed unless the case is dismissed. This procedure is done through District Court. The Municipal Judge does not have the authority to offer community service in lieu of, or in exchange for, a dismissal of charges; the prosecution may enter an agreement with the defendant regarding sentencing and conditions of sentences; the judge must either accept or reject the plea bargain. Typically, the prosecution reserves such agreements only in very extraordinary cases due to the cost and time involved to track and monitor to ensure compliance with the various conditions of the agreement. 4. Amend the Noise Ordinance for more clarity. The Unreasonable Noise Ordinance is sufficiently specific to give officers guidance in the use of their discretion, as well as give the public notice as to what is expected of them. Section 20-21 clearly defines unreasonable noise to mean "any sound of such level or duration as to be or tend to be injurious to human health or welfare,or which would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property." Section 20-22(b) provides further guidance allowing an officer and the court to base the unreasonableness determination upon considerations such as: the time of day, size of a gathering of persons creating or contributing to the noise; the presence or absence of noise amplification equipment; and any other factors tending to show the magnitude and/or disruptive effect of the noise. August 22, 2006 Page 4 5. Other Concerns. At a subsequent meeting, the student group raised the issue of"Closure Codes" used by police officers when coding the action or inaction taken on a complaint. These codes are internal codes used by FCPS solely for statistical and tracking purposes. Incorporating these codes into the rP g ordinance is not recommended. In addition, staff can look into options regarding classification or prosecution changes to address concerns regarding criminal classification to address the concern regarding reporting a noise conviction as a criminal misdemeanor on applications for graduate school or employment. In any case, Neighborhood Services and the Community Liaison will provide additional education about what it means to be convicted of a misdemeanor so that students may be more aware that if they are convicted of a noise violation, they will have to disclose that information on any application requesting that information. SUCCESS OF SPRING 2006 PARTY PROJECT In 2004,a pilot project was initiated by Police Services as part of a recommendation to City Council from the Neighborhood Quality of Life committee.The overriding goal of this project was to reduce the amount of party/noise complaints in the city. Comparing statistics gathered from Spring 2006 (March 22—May 6) and the same time period in 2005 indicate that overall noise/party complaints went down from 333 to 191 calls(43%reduction in noise complaints). When compared with Spring 2004,which had 387 calls,the reduction is 49%. This is a significant indicator that this on-going enforcement effort is moving positively towards the intended goal. Additionally, the percentage of citations/reports issued was up 10%. The effectiveness of the Party Project is a result of a variety of collaborative factors. The fine structure,vigorous prosecution by city attorneys, and cooperation of the municipal court all play an important role. One of the most significant factors in the success of this collaborative effort is the support of Colorado State University and especially the work done by the Community Liaison; including programs such as Party Partners,Community Welcome,Moving Off Campus Transitions Program, and other outreach programs that inform and educate students and other citizens of the need to be a good and respectful neighbor. FCPS opposes decriminalizing noise violations or otherwise changing what they believe is already working very well. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 12, 2006 Memorandum to Chief Dennis Harrison re: Results of Spring 2006 Party Project. 2. Powerpoint presentation. ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM To: Dennis Harrison, Chief of Police Thru: Captain Thomas McLellan, Patrol Division From: Lieutenant Jim Szakmeister Reference: Results of Spring 2006 Party Project Date: May 12, 2006 Introduction In 2004 a pilot party project was initiated from Police Services as part of a recommendation to City Council from the Neighborhood Quality of Life committee. The • previous City Council allocated additional funding for the increased party enforcement effort. During the spring and fall of 2004 a baseline was established as to the number of party/noise complaints and various types of call closures codes in order to track police response and actions taken. The overriding goal in this project is to experience a reduction in the amount of party/noise complaints in the city. There were three intended strategies employed in this plan in order to achieve this overall reduction. They were: 1) To increase accuracy in statistical data, 2) To increase enforcement efforts and seek greater citation percentages when appropriate and, 3) To attend to party calls during high call load hours on weekends when timeliness of response is extended due to limited personnel resources. In 2006, funding was appropriated to continue the Party Project enforcement for both Spring and Fall. This is a report of the efforts of Police Services party response during the Spring of 2006 specifically from March 22—May 6 and a comparison to the Spring of 2005. Analysis Comparison statistics gathered from spring of this year and compared to 2005 indicate • that overall noise/party complaints went down from 333 to 191 calls. This is a reduction of 142 party/noise calls and amounts to a reduction of nearly 43% in the total number of • Memorandum to Chief Harrison—Page 3 Spring 2006 Parry Project Conclusion The spring 2006 party project indicates a result that is extremely effective. Overall calls were down significantly and enforcement efforts increased on a percentage basis. QUAs decreased and would indicate that the two officers on overtime are making a rather significant difference. It should he noted that the effectiveness of the P Project is a result of a vane of Party l variety collaborative factors. The increase in the fine structure, vigorous prosecution by city attorneys, and cooperation of the municipal court all play an important role. One of the most significant factors in the success of this collaborative effort is the strong support of President Penley of Colorado State University. His direction and support in CSU's sanctioning of students charged with noise or other violations impacts and influences the student body probably more than we realize. Party Partners and the Community Welcome also provide an educational opportunity to inform and educate students and other citizens of the need to be a good and respectful neighbor. Recommendation • 1 would issue a reminder that only with continuing effort will the effectiveness of this project be successful in the long term. I would lobby for continued funding in the years to come to continue this approach along with the Riot Prevent Plan in order to achieve Fort Collins Police Services' goal of better, more efficient management of party/noise calls. • Unreasonable Noise ® iscussion City of Fort Collins City Council Work Session August 22, 2Q06 Direction Sought What, if any, changes would Council like made to the Unreasonable Noise Ordinance? Advocates for Noise Ordinance Reform CSU students Asked City Council to look into several possible changes to Unreasonable Noise Ordinance, including : - Use of a decibel meter - Mandatory warning system - Community service option - Make ordinance & enforcement more specific - Concerned about criminal misdemeanor- Use of Decibel Meters Best used for noise from a steady source (industrial noise or an air conditioner) Reliability and accuracy are adversely affected by factors such as wind, high & low temperatures, rain, snow, fog, etc. Must be operated by trained & certified staff The meters must be tested, calibrated, and certified on a regular basis Decibel Meters-cont. Not recommended for use on noise/party complaints Noise violations occur in all weather conditions Noise from parties do not usually have a steady source for accurate and reliable measurement r Cannot distinguish ambient noise from other sources Would take away from officer's ability to use discretion and take totality of circumstances into account Cost to purchase and maintain not justified Other communities are going away from using decibel meters Mandatory Warning System The concern that warnings are not issued is a misperception During Spring Party Project, 1/3 of noise calls resulted in "quiet upon arrival" or warnings where probable cause existed but officers used discretion and issued a warning rather than a ticket Modified zero tolerance approach enables officers to issue warnings when appropriate Warnings-cont. When noise violation is clear, a citation will usually be issued even if it's a first violation for the offender This system has been effective in ensuring the noise does not continue and repeat noise violations will not occur Based on the statistics that one in three calls result in action, officers are exhibiting reasonableness in handling these calls Warnings-cont. Not recommended because it would take away the motivation to cease further violations. — For example, different tenants could step up to take the warnings which could potentially result in one violating household of three to receive 3 warnings: before a citation is issued t� This could adversely affect neighborhood quality of life w No system to track prior warnings & cost to implement one is not justified when one-third of current noise complaints currently result in warnings Officers could issue tickets to all tenants but generally only ticket one tenant Community Service — In place of fines Typically, if defendant pleads guilty to a noise violation, the prosecutor recommends payment of $250 - $350 of a $1,000 fine, with the remaining amount suspended for one year on the following conditions: attend noise class and no further violations J. The court has a set schedule for converting fines into community service - 8 hours for $25 up to 120 hours for $500 fine. The court allows people to make payments over time - promissory notes Community Service — In place of charges Diversion-type program where a summons is dropped prior to court appearance upon completion of the program Currently, the only ones offered in conjunction with the court are Restorative Justice Programs - primarily for juvenile cases Noise complaints can be made anonymously with no identified victim - R.J. programs usually work by putting the victim and violator together Community Service — in exchange for sealing convictions Misdemeanor convictions cannot be sealed unless the case is dismissed (done through District Court) The Municipal Judge does not have authority to offer community service in lieu of, or exchange for, a dismissal of charges. Amend Noise Ordinance for Clarity = Already sufficiently specific <v Section 20-21 clearly defines unreasonable noise to mean "any sound of such level or duration as to be or tend to be injurious to human health or welfare, or which would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property." Amend for Clarity-cont. Section 20-22(b) provides further guidance allowing an officer and the court to base the unreasonableness determination upon considerations such as: the time of day, size of a gathering of persons creating or contributing to the noise, the presence or absence of noise amplification equipment, and any other factors tending to show the magnitude and/or disruptive effect of the noise. Other Concerns Closure Codes - these are internal codes used by FCPS solely for statistical and tracking purposes. Incorporating these into the ordinance is not recommended. Concern of reporting criminal misdemeanor violations - staff can look into options. 2006 Spring Party Project Goal - reduce the amount of party/noise complaints Comparing Spring 2006 (March 22- May 6) with Spring 2005 - 43% reduction in noise complaints (333 in 2005 and 191 in 2006) Indicates that this on-going enforcement effort is moving positively toward intended goal 2006 Party Project Cont. Result of a variety of collaborative efforts: - modified zero-tolerance enforcement - strong fine structure - vigorous prosecution - cooperation of municipal court - support of CSU - Community Liaison programs: Party Partners, Community Welcome, Moving Off Campus Transitions Program, and other outreach programs that provide outreach & education Direction Sought What, if any, changes would Council like made to the Unreasonable Noise Ordinance?