Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, October 13, 2022 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Russell Edwards, Chair Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Carol Myers *Arrived at 1:20 p.m. Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager John Spagna, Building Permits & Inspection Lisa Pappas, Assistant Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel, Police Department Commissioner Edwards called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. A. Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved by unanimous consent. B. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the August 25, 2022 minutes. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with unanimous consent. C. Public Input: No public input was received. Commission Identified Items of Interest: D. Investigate the noise ordinance, specifically machines, vehicles, and amplified noises Assistant Manager Niki Jones introduced the topic. Deputy Chief Daniel summarized past discussion regarding the noise camera that is being used by the City of Knoxville, TN. He explained that they are not currently using the noise camera for enforcement, and, rather, they are simply using it to monitor activity. The camera is set up to monitor a certain decibel level specifically related to muffler noise in their downtown district. Once the decibel level is reached, it triggers the video camera to record the vehicle that is travelling through the area. They are currently just using it to track data. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that the particular camera they are using is on loan from the company, but it would cost around $25,000 - $30,000 per unit. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to whether or not Deputy Chief Daniel had heard anything from the City of Knoxville regarding the noise camera. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that he had not heard back from officials with the City of Knoxville as of yet; however, he could continue to try to reach them. Commissioner Edwards explained that, based on the information provided, he would be curious if we could also obtain a loaner noise camera. Commissioner Thornton shared that she would like some data from them or another source. Niki Jones asked Deputy Chief Daniel to clarify what problem the City of Knoxville was trying to solve with the noise camera.  Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, based on the research he conducted through publically- available sites, it appears that it was specific to loud vehicles and revving engines with loud muffler systems in their downtown corridor. Commissioner Thornton shared that she would support the Chair’s recommendation but inquired about what that would look like to obtain a loaner camera. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that they could reach out to the company directly to learn how we might obtain a loaner noise camera and what conditions would apply. Commissioner Edwards also suggested Assistant Manager Jones might be able to reach out to the management staff with the City of Knoxville, since Deputy Chief Daniel has not been able to obtain a response from the police department. Commissioner Wright explained that surveillance cameras for crimes downtown take a large amount of time to keep working, as well as working from that data; similarly, we have illegal dumping cameras that an additional part-time person had to be hired to support due to the amount of effort and labor it takes to process the information to address littering. She shared that she is less supportive of an open community tracking pilot program that is scanning people’s data based on a behavior that is an annoyance; she explained that she believes it takes away from efforts that might be better spent to address violent crime. She also explained that she would be more likely to support this after another community pilots it, as we have already had pushback from traffic light cameras and license plate scanning. She shared that she is less supportive of this, but she is supportive of continuing to learn from Knoxville. Assistant Manager Jones requested that a couple of meetings be dedicated specifically to discussing the noise camera if the Committee does wish to have staff pursue this further. Commissioner Houle shared that they tend to agree with Commissioner Wright’s sentiments on the camera specifically. They also noted that discussions related to this topic have been happening for almost a year, and they expressed interest in focusing on what the Committee actually wants to get done related to this topic. They explained that the presentations on the agenda for later in the meeting may help inform action that may be taken; however, they are not sure that they support committing to meetings regarding a camera to collect data that may not be able to be used towards enforcement. Assistant Attorney Lisa Pappas inquired as to whether or not the Committee was hoping to use the noise camera as an enforcement tool in the future. Commissioner Edwards shared that it is new technology, and, given that the police department is short-staffed, it would not be a good use of time for the police department to be deployed to measure decibels and pull people over for violations. He explained that the thought is to explore new technology to collect this information and then possibly in the future, based upon that information, determine if there is a policy path to move forward for an enforcement mechanism. Assistant Attorney Pappas explained that research would have to be done to determine if we would actually have the authority to use it as an enforcement tool. She shared that red light cameras are allowed by state law, and there is nothing that has been found so far in state law that would specifically allow for us to install a noise camera. She noted this may be due to the technology being so new. She also advised that the traffic light cameras only provide a civil penalty; this is because you have a right to confront your accuser, and, if your accuser is a camera, you cannot really confront them. She shared that if the Committee did pursue using it for enforcement, it could only be used for a civil penalty. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to whether or not we were pre-empted by state law. Assistant Attorney Pappas advised that more research would need to be done to ensure we are not pre-empted by state law. Commissioner Edwards explained that he would also be interested in knowing if data could be collected without capturing license plate data. Commissioner Houle shared that they would also be interested if a noise camera could capture how much this is happening without collecting data Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 10132022  specific to people in their vehicles; they shared they are having difficulty imagining what we would do with the data being collected. Commissioner Thornton explained that she believes it would depend on if anything could be done with it, which would require more research from the Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Wright explained she would prefer to pass on tracking this, and she shared her priority has been addressing the amplified heckling that happens downtown, which is person-specific, hostile, and unwelcoming. She shared she has heard more about that than she has about a passing car. She explained that she would prefer to spend the two meetings to discuss addressing amplified devices rather than delaying it to focus on the noise camera. Commissioner Edwards explained that he understood Commissioner Wright’s concerns but noted that addressing hecklers using amplified devices is a more challenging issue to address due to first amendment protections that have to be considered; however, he shared that we could certainly regulate time, place, and manner. Commissioner Wright inquired as to whether or not an individual car could be pulled over by the police department due to noise. Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel explained that, based on local ordinances and state law, amplified sound pertains to radio speaker systems and not muffler systems. State law related to the exhaust systems pertain more towards prohibiting exhaust that would obscure the view of other drivers on the roadway. Commissioner Edwards explained that he did not see any harm in the Committee exploring whether or not the noise camera could be accessed by us on loan or free of charge in order to understand what data could be collected. Commissioner Wright suggested that the Committee understand that first and whether or not the device would have to be monitored, as well as what options exist to have the device only capture data and monitor for sound rather than obtaining personal data. Commissioner Houle agreed that it would be helpful to understand if the device could collect how often a nuisance is being produced without taking up staff time to try to monitor it or create a situation where individuals can be essentially tracked. Commissioner Thornton agreed and shared that, while this is not a priority issue for her, she does not have any concerns with the direction as long as it does not take away significantly from staff time. Commissioner Thornton made a motion to request Deputy Chief Daniel contact the company that produces the noise camera to obtain more information on what the criteria would be and if it is possible to obtain a loaner camera as well as continue to reach out to Knoxville to learn more about their program. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Deputy Chief Daniel shared noise complaint data with the Committee. He provided annual noise complaints for houses and vehicles by year from 2015 through August 22, 2022. He also shared a breakdown of complaints by disposition numbers by year, complaints by day of the week, and complaints by time. He noted that the disposition is essentially what occurred once the police received a call. The number of dispositions is larger than the number of calls for service; this is because there are certain times more than one officer is dispatched, and they may clear themselves separately on two dispositions. The majority of complaints come in on the weekends, and a little over half are happening when the 300 feet rule applies on Friday – Saturday between midnight and 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Wright inquired as to how the noise complaints for vehicles typically occurs and if the vehicles are usually moving vehicles. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that generally they receive a very specific or general area where the individual hears the noise coming from; the officer will go to that area and listen and look for anyone who may be engaging in the behavior reported. He noted that they sometimes receive a vehicle description but not always. It would be dependent on the individual case as to what information is provided and what the officer found upon arrival as to what action is taken. Deputy Chief Daniel also explained that the data does not Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 10132022  distinguish between a resident that makes a complaint versus an officer that is patrolling out in the community and observes a violation and initiates contact. Commissioner Houle inquired as to whether or not this data represented the number of complaints or the number of incidents, as there may have been multiple complaints about the same incident. Deputy Chief Daniel explained he would have to follow up with staff to confirm how the data was compiled. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in learning more about whether or not this data represents complaints about anything not currently regulated in the existing ordinance. Deputy Chief Daniel also shared a heat map that shows where the noise complaints are occurring. He also provided a bar graph with the most repeated addresses for noise complaints. He noted some of these are apartment complexes, so it may not be the same individual. Commissioner Thornton expressed interest in learning more about the complaints generated from Commerce Road. She requested clarification on options that may be pursued by ACCGov or residents when you have one entity with multiple noise violations and citations. Assistant Attorney Pappas shared that we might consider whether or not to pursue nuisance abatement; however, she would need to confer with other staff to confirm. She also noted that unless there is something on the citation that specifies the individual must go to court, the individual can continue to just pay the citation. If the officer is aware that this is happening repeatedly, she explained that they have in other situations written “court only” on the citation, which would allow the Municipal Court judge to determine the penalty. Commissioner Thornton expressed interest in the Committee examining the ordinance and determining if something can be done to address repeat noise violators just simply paying the fine and continuing the behavior. Commissioner Edwards asked Deputy Chief Daniel to clarify if the police department is able to put “court only” on the citation. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, based on the volume of calls or the severity or particularly egregious nature of what is observed by the officer, it is up to officer discretion to write “court only” on the citation, and it is something they can certainly look into doing. Commissioner Edwards expressed support for the enforcement measures to compel repeat noise ordinance violators to come to court. Assistant Attorney Lisa Pappas shared that the general penalty for any violation of the code shall not exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 6 months. She also noted that each day any violation of the code should continue would constitute a separate offense. Commissioner Wright expressed interest in continuing to explore examples like the Commerce Road example to understand how repeat noise ordinance violations can be addressed and if there is a tipping point that could be defined to trigger additional enforcement. Commissioner Myers inquired about how many of the complaints ended up with a citation or fine. Assistant Attorney Pappas explained that, after the citation has been issued, the resolution would be handled by Municipal Court, and she shared she could reach out to Municipal Court to inquire about how these were resolved. She noted she is unaware of their recordkeeping system and if data could be pulled for how many citations were paid by the name of the organization or individual. Commissioner Houle cautioned the Committee to define it by number of incidents and not by calls, because there could be multiple calls about the same incident. They also explained that, if there is discretion that the judge can use, it sounds less like an ordinance change and more like a policy change to have officers write “court only” after a certain number of violations. Commissioner Houle also noted that in a past meeting the Committee discussed who received the citations, and they recalled that it was shared the citation is given to an individual at the location; it is possible that a business that received multiple noise ordinance violations may have had different individuals cited. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that it is a little more difficult with fraternity houses, as different people may come out to claim responsibility; however, a business typically has either the owner or a manager present. Commissioner Houle also expressed Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 10132022  interest in learning if there is a way for the citation to be issued to both the person present and the property owner, as it might be a way to curve issues involving rental property. Commissioner Houle requested clarification from Assistant Attorney Pappas as to whether or not having a procedural change for repeat citations to be noted as “court only” and having the citation issued to both the person present as well as the property owner would be addressed through an ordinance or policy. Assistant Attorney Pappas advised that it would be policy; however, she reiterated that she would need to discuss this further with Municipal Court and other staff in her office that handles these cases. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that officers can request a quick query from the dispatchers to ascertain how many times officers have responded to the address for this type of event and perhaps the disposition of those incidents; this may or may not be readily available and would be dependent on how busy the dispatchers are at the time. He shared that he does believe it would be a policy decision to have “court only” written on the citation. In terms of who is cited, Assistant Attorney Pappas explained that she would need to confirm, but she does not believe that the ordinance specifies who is cited. Commissioner Houle asked John Spagna for clarification on how Code Enforcement would address repeat violators for construction noise. John Spagna shared that they mostly do “court only” citations. He noted that, before there is a repeat incident, they will copy the corporation or the registered agent with the citation to the tenant. They have a conversation with the property owner that they will receive the citation next if the behavior is not corrected. Commissioner Houle inquired if this was done by policy or ordinance. John Spagna explained it is done by policy, and the goal is to simply correct the behavior as quickly as possible. The registered agent of the corporation would receive the citation if it had to go as far as court; however, they would be aware of the issue before they received a citation. Commissioner Thornton explained that she noticed that there are section 8 and public housing addresses on the list of top 20 address with repeat noise ordinance complaints; she asked if the section 8 or public housing owners are notified when citations are issued. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that it would depend on the circumstances as to whether or not this is a repeat location or not. He explained that they are not in the practice of notifying the Housing Authority for a single noise ordinance violation; however, if it is a persistent problem, they will work with the Housing Authority to address the issues and determine how they can help with it. Commissioner Wright explained that, from the data provided, the outcome or disposition of the top 20 addresses with noise ordinance complaints is not known. She explained that she would support continuing to explore this further, so we can have stronger enforcement for repeat incidents. Commissioner Myers noted that she could only identify two addresses on the list of the top 20 addresses with noise ordinance complaints that are fraternity houses. She also shared that the addresses with repeated noise problems are noted as also having more serious activity, like gang or violent activity. She inquired about whether or not the Deputy Chief Daniel had any comments of how these may be related. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that he does not have the information in front of him at this time to be able to ascertain what the nexus may be, if any, between violent crime and noise complaints. He also explained that the data representing calls for service pertains to a unique event, so it would not include multiple calls about the same incident. Commissioner Thornton request clarification on what the Committee can expect as far as information the Attorney’s Office would be able to provide related to this discussion. Assistant Attorney Pappas explained that her office would be able to reach out to the Municipal Court to learn what information their case management system currently captures as well as what information, like repeat violations or instances, the prosecutor is aware of when going into court. Commissioner Houle made a motion to request staff bring back to the next meeting a draft of departmental policies for ACCPD and Code Enforcement with regards to noise complaints which Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 10132022  address repeat incidents at residential and commercial properties and which include provisions around both who is cited as well as how they are cited. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Assistant Attorney Pappas requested clarification on whether or not Commissioner Houle was requested currently existing policies or for staff to draft a policy to cover the concerns raised in the meeting. Commissioner Houle explained they intend for it to be both; staff can bring back any existing policies that address this and/or create a new policy that is informed by the information provided by the Attorney’s Office to address these issues. John Spagna explained that, at the last meeting, Director Doug Hansford explained he would get back with the Committee about how many construction noise complaints that have occurred. John Spagna shared that, while they do not track that specifically, there were approximately three in the past year. Of the three, two of these were already approved to start construction at an earlier time. Because most of these are often location permitted, they will send a building inspector to the property to investigate, and they typically come into compliance. He also explained that there is a noise ordinance in solid waste that they deal with, and we received about 12 complaints in the last two years concerning collection too early by haulers. He noted that the haulers tend to be pretty reasonable, and he only recalls one repeat offender in the last couple of years. Commissioner Wright inquired about the hours that are regulated for construction, landscaping, and solid waste noise. Commissioner Houle shared the list of hours from Municode. The ordinance section and general summary are provided below. • 3-5-24 (6)- Noise Generally, landscape  RS 8pm to 8am prohibited  AR 9pm to 7am prohibited • 3-5-24 (7)- Noise Generally, construction  11pm to 6am prohibited • 5-2-30- Solid Waste, collection hours  Residential 7am to 9pm collection allowed  Commercial 7am to 11pm collection allowed • 9-11-5 A(1)- Noise in an industrial setting  Non-residential 80 dB  Residential 7am to 10pm 70 dB  Residential 10pm to 7am 55 dB Commissioner Wright explained that she will bring to the next meeting examples of what they have in terms of littering enforcement, as the Committee might explore having some education for the community that is a more shareable. E. Schedule/Agenda Changes Commissioner Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Myers seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m. The next LRC meeting is scheduled for November 16, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 10132022