Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, December 4, 2025 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Stephanie Johnson Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Ilka McConnell, Interim Assistant Manager Will Fleenor, Solicitor Austin Jackson, Deputy Chief Attorney Jack Reddick, Building Permits & Inspections Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel, Police Department Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the October 2, 2025 minutes. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: None 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). Ilka McConnell introduced the discussion, and the Committee reviewed a presentation of downtown noise complaint data prepared by the Athens-Clarke County Police Department. Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel explained that staff reviewed noise complaints within the downtown area from January 1, 2024, through October 6, 2025. Using a defined downtown geographic boundary, staff identified approximately 150 noise complaints during that period. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that the data was further categorized to distinguish between non-commercial sources, commercial sources, and vehicle-related complaints. Deputy Chief Daniel noted that roughly two-thirds of the complaints were attributed to non- commercial sources, approximately one-quarter were associated with commercial entities, and the remainder involved vehicle noise. He reviewed a breakdown of call dispositions, explaining the various statuses used to close noise complaint calls, including unfounded complaints, warnings, and citations. The data showed that only two citations were issued during the period reviewed. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification regarding the low number of citations and whether this reflected officer discretion or the structure of the ordinance itself. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that many complaints were determined to be unfounded, because the noise did not meet the legal threshold for enforcement or fell within exemptions. He noted that warnings were frequently used as a first attempt to resolve complaints without formal enforcement.  Solicitor Will Fleenor provided additional context, explaining that most noise citations are payable and do not require court appearance unless marked “court only” by the issuing officer. As a result, many citations are resolved without involvement from prosecutors or judges. He also noted that, under the current ordinance, enforceability is often limited by zoning distinctions, particularly the requirement that certain noise be audible within single-family residential zones. Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Wright raised questions about how zoning classifications affect downtown enforcement, particularly where multi-family residential units or mixed-use areas are involved. Discussion followed regarding the challenge of applying a noise ordinance that relies on zoning designations rather than actual residential use. Staff acknowledged that this issue has contributed to confusion and may result in complaints being categorized as unfounded even when quality-of-life impacts are present. Deputy Chief Daniel explained several disposition categories, including “assignment complete,” noting that this status had previously been used as a general catch-all but is no longer permitted for noise complaints due to its lack of analytical value. He also clarified that “turned over” indicates a call was transferred to another officer or department. The Committee discussed citation amounts and enforcement mechanisms. Staff confirmed that the first violation of the noise ordinance carries a $250 fine, with subsequent violations subject to higher fines. Discussion followed regarding whether graduated penalties, court-only citations for repeat offenders, or other enforcement tools could improve compliance, particularly in cases where fines may be treated as a cost of doing business. The Committee then shifted to a broader policy discussion regarding potential ordinance changes. Senior Attorney Courtney Davis summarized prior research comparing Athens-Clarke County’s ordinance to those in other jurisdictions, including Savannah, Statesboro, Sandy Springs, Greenville (SC), Asheville (NC), and Gainesville (FL). She explained that many Georgia jurisdictions use ordinances modeled closely on Athens’ ordinance due to its having been upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court. Senior Attorney Davis outlined examples from other cities that incorporate hybrid approaches, including plainly audible standards combined with decibel measurements. She emphasized that these examples were provided for discussion purposes only and did not represent a recommendation. Solicitor Fleenor cautioned that incorporating decibel-based standards could complicate enforcement and prosecution, particularly given equipment requirements, training needs, and evidentiary standards. Committee members discussed the difficulty of addressing commercial-to-commercial noise conflicts through ordinance changes and acknowledged that some disputes may be more appropriately addressed through civil remedies. The Committee also discussed non-commercial noise sources, including noise originating from multi-family residential settings and fraternity- related activity. Discussion continued regarding responsibility for noise violations, including whether property owners, business owners, event organizers, or individual actors should be cited. Solicitor Fleenor explained that criminal citations must be issued to individuals rather than entities and that proving owner responsibility requires evidence that the owner knowingly permitted the violation. Comparisons were made to parking enforcement practices, where notice to vehicle owners can result in improved compliance. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 120425  The Committee also discussed enforcement practices, officer training, and coordination among patrol and downtown units. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that officers are being encouraged to review prior call history when responding to repeat locations and to escalate enforcement appropriately when warranted. Additional discussion addressed amplified sound in the public right-of-way and constitutional considerations related to permitting and free speech. Staff cautioned against blanket prohibitions and emphasized the importance of content-neutral permitting processes and time, place, and manner restrictions. The Committee requested the Attorney’s office organize ordinance language and enforcement options for review at the next meeting. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for February 5, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 120425