Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, October 2, 2025 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Stephanie Johnson Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Sarah George, Chief of Staff Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspections Austin Jackson, Deputy Chief Attorney Jack Reddick, Building Permits & Inspections Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Laura Cobb, Senior Attorney Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel, Police Department Chinesia Thompson, Recorder Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the September 4, 2025 minutes. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: • David Lynn – Supports noise ordinance that applies to downtown Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Review the existing noise ordinance and discuss prospective updates, particularly in the Agricultural Residential zone, related to non-agricultural sounds, as well as in the Commercial Downtown district relative to amplified noise. The Committee may wish to seek a different measure of noise (using objective measures of volume, for example). Sarah George, attending on behalf of Interim Assistant Manager Ilka McConnell, introduced the primary discussion topic concerning the ongoing review of the county’s noise ordinance. She noted that the Committee had previously considered two components of the ordinance: potential updates for Agricultural Residential (AR) zones, which have already advanced to the Mayor and Commission, and the remaining work regarding amplified sound in the commercial-downtown district. Staff prepared updated data and examples from peer jurisdictions to help inform the Committee’s continued discussion. Deputy Police Chief Harrison Daniel presented the updated 2025 year-to-date noise complaint data for the downtown area. He reported that the majority of complaints occurred between 8:00 p.m. and midnight, with an average call time of 7:29 p.m. For complaints where distance could be calculated, callers were on average approximately 0.69 miles from the noise source, though distances varied. He reviewed call dispositions, clarifying the distinction between verbal warnings and written warnings, both of which are used at the discretion of officers based on the circumstances of each call. He also described the “Top 10” addresses for complaints, noting that many originated from fraternity houses and multifamily residences rather than downtown commercial establishments.  Sarah George added that while complaint data does not reflect extensive commercial-related noise reports, staff and residents regularly experience high levels of amplified sound downtown. Commissioners discussed the possibility that many residents no longer report noise, because they believe the existing ordinance offers limited pathways for enforcement. Members also noted that residents who hear loud noise from downtown cannot always identify the specific source, making it difficult to file actionable reports. Deputy Chief Attorney Austin Jackson provided an overview of the constitutional considerations involved in regulating amplified noise. He explained that amplified music, including mechanically produced sound, is protected speech under both the First Amendment and the Georgia Constitution. Jackson summarized the 2011 Georgia Supreme Court case that upheld Athens- Clarke County’s current ordinance as a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction. He outlined the requirements for modifying such an ordinance, including demonstrating a significant governmental interest, ensuring the regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest, and maintaining adequate alternative channels for expression. He noted that Georgia’s constitutional standards are more restrictive than federal standards, which further underscores the need for careful drafting. Senior Attorney Courtney Davis added that the 2011 Supreme Court decision emphasized that the county’s ordinance had been deliberately crafted in response to specific concerns, which supported its defensibility. She explained that tailoring the ordinance to clearly identified issue and grounding changes in data would remain critical to ensuring that any revisions withstand legal scrutiny. Committee members then discussed enforcement limitations under the current ordinance, especially regarding noise generated by one commercial entity that impacts another. Staff explained that the ordinance does not presently provide a mechanism to address conflicts between commercial neighbors when amplified sound is part of the normal course of business. Commissioners also described concerns raised by residents living near downtown who experience noise late at night but may not fall within single-family residential zones currently protected by ordinance language. The Attorney’s Office presented several examples from other jurisdictions. The City of Atlanta’s ordinance, which extends protections to multifamily, two-family, and mixed-use zones in addition to single-family areas, was identified as a potentially more appropriate model for a dense community with significant downtown residential populations. Savannah and Statesboro ordinances include provisions regarding noise-sensitive areas such as schools or hospitals and special rules for bars and nightclubs where amplified sound is plainly audible beyond the premises. Committee members expressed interest in learning more about the applicability of these provisions but recognized that some elements might require modernization or further evaluation. The Stonecrest ordinance was also reviewed; it includes a plainly-audible interior standard, though the Committee noted that enforcement could be complicated if officers would need access to private residences. Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel then discussed decibel-based systems used in jurisdictions such as Sandy Springs. He described how decibel meters vary in cost and calibration, requiring ongoing maintenance and officer training. He also noted that successfully enforcing decibel limits requires clear standards for how and where measurements must be taken. Deputy Chief Attorney Austin Jackson referred the Committee to review previously shared confidential guidance from the Attorney’s Office outlining legal considerations associated with decibel-based regulations. The Committee agreed that while decibel limits warrant further study, they may be better considered in a later phase after more information and cost analysis is completed. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 100225  As the discussion concluded, the Committee directed staff to continue evaluating several areas. These included exploring an approach similar to Atlanta’s that expands protections to additional residential zoning categories, further reviewing the Savannah and Statesboro models for sound equipment and business impacts, examining how special event permits might delineate when amplified sound is authorized, identifying whether any non–noise ordinance mechanisms could help address commercial-to-commercial conflicts, and working with ACCPD to identify how many noise complaints involve commercial establishments. Staff will also invite the Solicitor’s Office to a future meeting to discuss evidentiary and prosecutorial considerations related to potential ordinance revisions. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 100225