Council holds first reading on revised noise ordinance; residents urge stronger enforcement

The Columbus Common Council on Jan. 21 held the first reading of an ordinance to repeal and replace the city’s noise ordinance (Chapter 8.28), prompting public comment from neighbors who described years of recurring loud-music disturbances and asked the city to enforce stronger penalties.

Council members said the ordinance update is the product of the city’s ordinance review working group and city staff work to modernize language, align definitions with Indiana law, and make enforcement more actionable for code enforcement and the Columbus Police Department (CPD). The draft raises fines for repeat offenders to $100 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and $1,000 for a third offense, and it incorporates state statute language on disorderly conduct to support enforcement. The draft also references Indiana code governing vehicle mufflers.

Steven Bloomer, a resident of 2831 Conestoga Court, described repeated incidents in which loud music from a neighboring property “got so loud that our windows would shake” and said police and code enforcement had been called many times without lasting resolution. “We actually had 1 police officer told us, well, there’s nothing we can do. He’s just a bad neighbor,” Bloomer said. Michelle Blumer, who gave the same address, said the neighbor has been designated a public nuisance and asked whether the city would move beyond warnings to immediate penalties: “Are we going to give him 1, 2, and 3? Are we going to tell him that we’re warning you and then walk away?”

Fred Barnett, city code enforcement, and CPD representatives explained how the city expects enforcement to work under the proposed ordinance. A police responder summarized typical practice: an initial officer visit often resolves loud-music calls, but recurring incidents are handled by code enforcement building a case using repeated calls and affidavits. City staff repeatedly advised residents to call CPD and code enforcement each time an incident occurs so officials can document frequency and build an enforcement record. Staff said the ordinance includes a repeat-offender provision that applies when a person is found in violation more than three times within 12 months.

Council members and staff said the working group reviewed ordinances from other communities, consulted CPD and code enforcement, and sought statutory language to make the ordinance legally defensible. Staff noted that the draft includes a carve-out permitting construction or other activities outside the normal hours if authorized by the city, and staff discussed benchmarking of allowed hours (weekend construction start time discussed as 8 a.m.). The draft also incorporates Indiana disorderly conduct statute language (cited in discussion as Indiana Code sections 35-45-1 and 35-45-1(3)) to support noise enforcement and cites Indiana Code 9-19-8-3 for vehicle muffler requirements.

Several residents, including Gary Sinovaldi (Tenth Street) and Isaiah (neighbor, last name not given), described other recurring noise sources such as early-morning trash collection routes and loud aftermarket vehicle exhaust. Residents said they had filed multiple affidavits; one resident said she and neighbors submitted “about 10 or 12” affidavits to code enforcement. City legal staff said a declared public nuisance could lead to city-initiated court action, fines, liens and, if a court order were ignored, contempt proceedings; staff noted the new municipal penalties would supplement those remedies.

Staff told the council the ordinance requires two readings; it was on the council’s agenda as a first reading. At the end of the public comment period a council member moved to advance the item for council consideration and a second was recorded; a roll call was begun on the motion during the meeting audio but a final tally was not audible in the provided transcript.

City staff said they would notify properties already designated as public nuisances about the ordinance change if it is adopted and that enforcement will rely on CPD for citations and on code enforcement to document repeat incidents. Staff also said many ordinances become effective upon passage and that the city typically publishes changes and notifies affected parties if necessary. Staff noted the ordinance can be revisited later for further revision if enforcement experience suggests changes are needed.

The council took no final adoption vote on the ordinance during the portion of the audio provided; a second reading and final action are required.