Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cleveland council workshop weighs adding decibel standards and time limits to noise ordinance
Summary
City staff and the police chief urged the council to consider objective decibel thresholds and time cutoffs to address loud music, vehicle amplifiers and enforcement gaps; staff noted low-frequency 'bass' may not register on meters and will draft ordinance options.
City staff on Wednesday urged Cleveland’s council to consider revising the municipal noise ordinance to include objective decibel thresholds and clearer time limits after residents complained about loud music and vehicle amplifiers late at night. Unidentified Speaker 4, presenting comparative data from nearby cities, said options include adopting decibel standards, retaining subjective disturbance language, or creating event-specific sound permits.
The council heard that the current code relies largely on subjective language such as "disturbing the peace," and that the police department often enforces state penal code provisions in practice. "Our ordinance doesn't specify a time," Unidentified Speaker 4 said when describing existing rules; Chief Proussard added that officers currently respond to calls regardless of hour and that vehicle sound is enforced when an amplifier can be heard from more than 50 feet away between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Residents who contacted council members described loud music late into weekend mornings, sometimes continuing after officers issued warnings. "We will encourage them the first time a warning to reduce the music," Chief Proussard said, adding that repeat incidents can lead to citation and that calibrated decibel meters are available to officers.
Staff noted technical limits to a decibel-only approach: "Bass" or low-frequency vibration — which many residents complain about — may not register on standard meters, so any ordinance relying on decibel readings would need language to address enforcement of bass or vibration impacts objectively, Unidentified Speaker 4 said.
Councilmembers asked for options and examples from comparable cities with 65–70 dB benchmarks and potential time windows (some neighboring jurisdictions use 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. as a reference). Staff said they would prepare draft ordinance language showing side-by-side alternatives for the council and for public feedback.
No formal motion or vote was taken; staff were directed to draft options for future council consideration.
Next steps: staff will return with proposed ordinance language and comparative analyses for council review and public comment.
