Committee debates decibel-meter limits and tasks staff to study pilot options

The committee debated at length whether to add objective decibel limits assessed with sound-level meters to the city's noise ordinance. Staff presented draft language borrowed from other municipalities and noted the draft references workplace noise thresholds (OSHA) and includes duration-based caps (for example, higher levels allowed for shorter durations).

City counsel and staff warned of enforceability and constitutional issues: Harrison, the managing attorney, said seizing speakers or equipment “would be construed as a regulation on speech” and would trigger strict scrutiny, and staff flagged logistical hurdles such as device calibration, chain-of-custody records, officer training, and how to attribute a reading to a single source when multiple sounds occur.

Committee members suggested piloting decibel testing before adopting equipment-based enforcement. Several members recommended partnering with the University of Georgia’s speech-and-hearing clinic to test devices and gather representative readings at local events (for example, Porchfest or university games) to assess feasibility and cost. The committee directed staff to collect preliminary cost estimates and pilot options and to return in roughly a year with findings.

Although the committee acknowledged decibel limits could add an objective tool in narrow cases, many members said they expected to default to the plainly audible standard for most home-neighborhood situations; staff emphasized decibel readings would be an additional but technically demanding enforcement pathway.