On July 30, 2025, the City Council reviewed a draft amendment creating a new city code section to address motor-vehicle noise, adding officer-observation enforcement factors and graduated penalties for repeat violations.

The proposed text would keep much of the existing law but incorporate language modeled on Fort Collins that lets officers rely on observed behavior — for example, revving engines or motorcycles operated in low gear at high RPM — rather than requiring measurement of a modified exhaust system. City Attorney John Brody told the council the draft also pulls into the new section existing state-law provisions the city had previously incorporated by reference and adds a stepped penalty scheme, including higher fines and potential incarceration for third or subsequent violations within 12 months.

Brody said the ordinance is intended to create “a potpourri” of existing and new provisions so officers have discretion to enforce vehicle noise under circumstances where decibel measurement is impractical. “This new section incorporates not only the new ideas or approaches that Fort Collins has put into place. It also effectively recreates . . . a state statute relevant to unreasonable noise and mufflers that we had incorporated through reference in our city code,” Brody said.

Police Chief Francisco and council members discussed practical enforcement issues. Council members noted the city’s current noise thresholds appear to be 80 decibels for general noise and 88 decibels for trucks on truck routes; a council member said she reviewed the city code and read those figures aloud. Chief Francisco said his department does not equip every officer with a sound meter; the department has about 10 decibel meters officers can check out for static-source measurements, but using meters on moving vehicles is “darn near impossible” because of distance and roadway ambient noise. The chief also explained that the department’s speed-monitoring equipment is generally accurate to 2–3 miles per hour and suggested some recorded speed categories likely reflect 4–5 mph over posted limits rather than single‑mile variances.

Council members pressed two recurring points: the usefulness and enforceability of a standards-based (decibel) threshold versus an observations-based standard, and whether the current 80‑decibel threshold is too high for residential areas. Councilman Laybourne said 80 dB is “very, very loud” and urged lowering the numeric threshold and clarifying enforcement procedures; Councilwoman Aldridge asked whether each police vehicle carries a decibel meter — the chief said they do not, and that the meters work best for stationary sources such as a loud generator at a property line.

Brody and Chief Francisco also discussed how fines are set. Brody explained the municipal court’s bond schedule and the distinction between the bond schedule and criminal penalties: state statute limits the maximum penalties for some vehicle-related violations and that constraint shaped the draft’s penalty ranges. He noted municipal court adjudication, not the officer, determines the fine within the statutory range.

No ordinance vote was taken. Council members indicated support for moving the draft forward with edits and advised staff to seek input from the prosecutor and judges; President Rennie and other members suggested the draft should be routed for formal introduction and referred to the appropriate committee (the council discussed whether it should go to Public Services or Finance). The draft remains subject to revision on decibel language, the list of officer-observation factors, and the graduated penalty provisions.

Next steps: staff will continue to consult the prosecutor’s office and judges and return an edited draft for committee referral and formal introduction.