City hears Phase 2 proposal to curb amplified commercial sound; complaint-driven enforcement, fines outlined

City staff on Monday presented Phase 2 of proposed amendments to chapter 46 of the city code to regulate amplified commercial sound citywide, proposing standardized decibel thresholds, a complaint‑driven enforcement model and escalating penalties for repeat offenders.

The proposal, introduced by staff representative Rauch, would set specific dB limits by day and time, require officers to measure sound at the complainant’s property line and establish a tiered civil‑penalty schedule — $100 for a first violation, $500 for a second within one year and $1,000 for third and subsequent violations within the year. Rauch said, “This is a complaint based ordinance,” describing how police would respond and then measure decibel readings at the property line of the complainant.

Why it matters: Council members said amplified music and business‑related noise complaints have risen alongside a growing downtown residential population, and that a clear enforcement path is necessary if the city adopts numeric thresholds. Several members urged clarity on whether fines and penalties would apply to businesses, individuals or both, and asked staff to specify how many decibel meters the police department would need and who would pay for them.

Council exchange: Council member Hall pressed staff on how other cities define a “chronic noise producer,” asking whether the standard would be a fixed number of citations in a defined period. Rauch pointed to language that would allow a progression of penalties and to examples used in peer cities; he confirmed the ordinance text would specify when penalties “shall be assessed.” City attorney and police representatives added that businesses and individuals could both be fined in applicable situations and that the city could pursue mitigation plans for chronic producers.

Sidewalk cafes and crowd noise: Staff noted sidewalk‑cafe permits already include noise provisions (closing times and revocation for violations) and that crowd noise—such as from blocks of people—was not the primary focus of Phase 2. The presentation identified crowd noise as a possible Phase 3 topic that may require different tools such as public‑education programs, targeted enforcement strategies or more costly technology.

Next steps: Staff emphasized this was an information item and will return with draft ordinance language for council action. Council members asked staff to clarify the enforcement timeline, the exact threshold counts that trigger the “chronic” designation, and the fiscal impact of purchasing decibel meters for police use. The city will also examine the interaction between Chapter 46 noise rules and Chapter 74 sidewalk cafe permits.

Ending: The council received the presentation and signaled they expect more detailed draft language and associated enforcement costs before any final vote.