Residents urge council to back proposed engine-noise ordinance as city lawyers, police weigh enforceability

Several neighborhood residents urged the Austin City Council on Feb. 24 to approve an ordinance aimed at curbing extreme engine revving and chronic vehicle racing along Ranch to Market Road 2222 and similar corridors.

Marissa Lipsher, president of the Shepherd Mountain Neighborhood Association, told the council the issue has grown worse over five years and that the current sound code ‘‘has no teeth’’ for engine acceleration and revving; she urged support for item A38 because it reframes extreme engine noise as a traffic-safety problem and would add ‘‘reasonable limits and enforceable tools.’’ Lisa Capps, a Northwest Hills resident, said a petition she started collected more than 1,000 signatures documenting repeated nighttime and early‑morning revving that disturbs sleep and safety. Justin Bragle, vice president of the Cliff Over Lake Austin Homeowners Association, described homes within 20 yards of RM 2222 and said the proposed ordinance would give the Austin Police Department ‘‘another tool in the toolbox’’ without over‑criminalizing responsible drivers.

Council members then questioned city attorneys and police staff about proof requirements and practical enforcement. Chris Coppola of the City Attorney’s Office said the draft ordinance focuses on vehicle engine noise and deliberately sets out a range of culpable mental states ("intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly," and "criminal negligence") rather than imposing strict liability. Coppola noted that Texas Penal Code §42.01 (disorderly conduct) covers unreasonable noise but that disorderly‑conduct prosecutions have required a culpable mental state that makes traffic enforcement difficult in practice.

Bianca Benson, the municipal court prosecutor, told the council that sections of §42.01 require showing a person acted intentionally or knowingly and that such standards are harder to prove for vehicle noise; she said existing traffic‑oriented codes (for mufflers and other equipment) are the more typical enforcement tools and that keeping some lower culpability standards in the ordinance preserves enforceability.

Commander Craig Smith of the Austin Police Department, West Austin, described operational challenges: transient vehicles, the need for on‑scene observation, overtime costs, and previous partnerships with constables and TxDOT (which installed rumble strips). Coppola said the draft includes a presumption that, after an officer warns a driver, noise above 85 decibels would support a violation and lists seven factors officers should weigh (proximity to residences, duration, time of day, etc.) to guide discretion.

Councilmembers signaled differing concerns. Councilmember Segal said he was worried about due‑process and disparate enforcement if the ordinance criminalizes conduct without clear objective standards; he signaled he may propose an amendment tied to culpable mental state. Other members asked about examples from peer cities; Coppola said the office reviewed language from Dallas, El Paso and Myrtle Beach but that the legal landscape is varied.

What’s next: The item was pulled for amendment language and staff said they would post language on the message board and return to the council; it is scheduled for further consideration on the council’s Thursday agenda.