Councilors introduce resolution to crack down on noise violations

Nov. 13—During a special meeting earlier this year to solicit input on how to spend millions of dollars of cash reserves, a slew of residents turned out to urge the council to do more to address traffic noise and speeding.

Those residents may get their wish if councilors choose to throw their support behind a resolution introduced Wednesday that would increase the first-time penalties for violating the city's noise ordinance.

"If we don't start taking action, nothing is going to change," Councilor Pilar Faulkner, who is co-sponsoring the measure with Councilor Signe Lindell, said in an interview prior to the meeting.

The ordinance would eliminate the distinction between first, second and additional offenses for violating the noise ordinance. Currently, a first violation comes with a $100 fine, a second with a $250 fine and additional offenses with a $500 fine. The ordinance would increase all penalties to $500 and also adds text to the city's traffic code recognizing community service as a potential penalty for all traffic violations, not just noise-related ones.

Loud muffler noise has been a persistent source of frustration for many city residents, including those in the downtown area, who have pointed to it as a potential tourism deterrent.

The council overhauled its noise ordinance violations in January 2023 after lengthy debate, increasing the first-time penalty to $100 from $25. The change appears to have done little to assuage the problem based on resident complaints, which have been brought up repeatedly during public comment at City Council meetings. Until now, the council has not taken further action on the issue.

"This change is offering us an opportunity to do something to meet the needs of our constituents and do the things we've been asked to do," Lindell said at Wednesday's meeting.

Faulkner said noise from loud mufflers is one of the most common complaints she receives from constituents in her district on the city's south side.

At Wednesday's meeting she highlighted the community service option built into the legislation, saying she does not want it to be too punitive for people who are not able to afford a $500 fine. She said she believes community service is a good consequence because it requires people to interact with their neighbors.

"You might learn something about how your actions are impacting the people who are your fellow citizens," Faulkner said.

In a text message prior to the meeting, Lindell wrote muffler noise has been an issue for years.

"It has not improved and we are letting out constituents down to not try something," she wrote.

The ordinance is something the city can do quickly at no additional cost, Lindell said.

"We have talked and talked about it — we can try this immediately instead of a study about noise cameras," she said. "Perhaps we can ultimately move in that direction but the cost will be high."

At least one resident greeted the news with excitement.

"I think this is great and it's a long time in coming," said Joe Schepps, owner of the Inn on the Alameda and a frequent critic of the city's noise enforcement policies.

Schepps said that downtown noise is "worse than it's ever been" and he does not feel like there is much, if any, enforcement.

He said increasing the fines is "a great step" but that noise cameras "are what the answer is, and everybody knows it."

Representatives of the Santa Fe Police Department did not respond to requests for comment on current enforcement of the noise ordinance. A fiscal impact report in Wednesday's council agenda stated the department issued 206 citations between April 2023 and September 2024.

Out of those, the Santa Fe Municipal Court found 114 defendants guilty and imposed a fine in 38 cases. Only one case garnered a fine of $500.

Faulkner said ultimately she would like the city to put up noise cameras that could be moved from spot to spot, which she said would not necessarily need to be staffed by police.

"I would say that what we really need in this city is a code enforcement officer or department that can take care of these nuisance enforcement things, so that the police can do their job, which is protecting the public," she said.

Several councilors have previously spoken about a desire to have a more robust code enforcement office, including District 1 Councilor Alma Castro. Faulkner said having a larger code enforcement office to respond to some nuisance complaints could help assuage frustrations from residents about long response times from police to nonemergency calls, which have come up at numerous town halls and community meetings over the past year.

"The way they're prioritized by dispatch is, if you're on a nuisance call and something more dangerous happens they pull you off the nuisance call, obviously," Faulkner said.

She and fellow District 3 Councilor Lee Garcia are also working on a piece of legislation regarding aggressive driving that has yet to be introduced, she said.

Faulkner noted the recent death of longtime city employee Monique Maes, who was killed in a hit-and-run crash in Santa Fe County which also injured her two children. Mario Mendez is facing felony homicide charges in connection with the crash.

"We lost one of our people at the city to aggressive driving," Faulkner said. "Us not doing anything is dangerous."

The noise ordinance resolution is currently scheduled to go back to the City Council for public comment Dec. 11 and for a final vote Jan. 29, 2025.