Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends vehicle noise pilot (CB83), accepts executive edits and holds bill after public and police discussion
Summary
CB83 would pilot noise‑abatement monitoring systems to enforce vehicle noise limits. The committee accepted draft‑2 technical amendments, heard public testimony supporting the pilot, discussed deployment, an 85‑decibel threshold and fines use, and voted to hold the bill for further work; CB91 was withdrawn and permanently tabled.
The committee reviewed CB83, a proposal to establish a pilot program using noise‑abatement monitoring systems to enforce motor‑vehicle noise limits, accepted a set of technical amendments and then voted to hold further action while administration, police and sponsors refine operational language.
Legislative counsel outlined draft‑2 changes including definitions for "noise abatement monitoring system" and operators, and edits to citation and fine language. County police representatives said the department needs operational flexibility, asking language to permit "up to three" deployed units rather than a mandatory three, and asked for a clear "use of funds" section mirroring state law to specify how collected fines may be used. Legislative staff confirmed draft financial estimates drawn from a state template and Montgomery County examples.
A Fort Washington resident, Ron Weiss, urged passage and argued loud vehicles create public‑safety hazards: "By passing this bill, we can better enforce the law and hold people accountable for dangerous behavior that puts us all at risk," he told the committee. Police officials explained pilot deployment would be driven by community complaints and feasibility (fixed sites or mobile trailers) and that an 85‑decibel enforcement threshold (5 dB above the posted limit) was described in the state language the bill mirrors. Committee members asked technical questions about evidence for appeals (camera footage, audio, directional sensor arrays) and whether the pilot targets modified exhaust systems associated with drag racing. The committee accepted the draft‑2 amendments by roll call (5–0) but then voted to hold CB83 for additional work (5–0). The County Executive requested withdrawal of CB91 because its language will be incorporated into CB83; the committee accepted that withdrawal and permanently tabled CB91 (5–0).
