The Legislative Review Committee on Oct. 2 reviewed updated police data on downtown noise complaints and discussed possible changes to the city's noise ordinance that would make it easier to address amplified commercial noise in mixed-use areas.

The committee heard from Harrison Daniel, deputy chief of the police department, who presented 2025 year-to-date complaint data. "The average time that the noise complaints are coming in is about 07:29PM," Daniel said. He told the committee the most common complaint window was 8 p.m. to midnight, the average measured distance from a complaint to an alleged source was about 0.7 miles, the top single address in the downtown list (247 Pulaski) had nine complaints, and 33% of dispositions were recorded as verbal warnings while the next-largest category was unfounded complaints.

Sarah (manager's office staff) framed the policy question: the committee has already acted on language extending some rules into agricultural-residential zones and is now focusing on downtown commercial amplification and enforcement. "We have been discussing the noise ordinance here in committee," she said, and staff split the work so the committee could concentrate on commercial downtown issues.

Austin Jackson, deputy chief attorney, urged caution on constitutional grounds and described a key legal constraint. "What we're talking about here is First Amendment constitutional protected speech," Jackson said, noting a 2011 Georgia case that treated music produced by mechanical devices as protected expression and that any local restriction must satisfy time, place and manner scrutiny under state and federal tests. He told the panel that any change must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and leave ample alternatives for expression.

Committee members and staff reviewed ordinances and enforcement approaches from other jurisdictions including Atlanta, Savannah, Sandy Springs, Smyrna, Statesboro and Stonecrest. Staff highlighted a few models: Atlanta's ordinance expands the set of zones into which commercial noise cannot emanate; Savannah's code prohibits amplified sound that is plainly audible beyond premises and provides special protections for "noise-sensitive" sites such as churches, hospitals and nursing homes; and Stonecrest includes decibel thresholds tied to zoning areas. Staff also reported on practical issues with decibel meters: consumer meters range roughly from $100 to $600, devices are classified (type 1 vs. type 2) with different sensitivity and calibration standards, and proper use would require calibration procedures and training.

Committee discussion emphasized two enforcement gaps the data and staff presentations revealed: (1) the majority of documented downtown complaints in the dataset were linked to fraternity houses and apartment complexes rather than commercial establishments; and (2) enforcement is constrained when the noise is produced in the "normal course" of a business located near or adjacent to other commercial uses. Several members said that broadening the ordinance's protected-receiver categories (from "single-family" only to include two-family, multifamily or mixed-use residential areas) could give officers clearer authority to act when amplified noise reaches nearby residences.

Staff proposed next steps and the committee agreed on a set of follow-ups rather than immediate code changes. Committee members directed staff to: (1) re-analyze downtown complaint records to determine what share of complaints involve commercial entities; (2) follow up with Savannah and Statesboro on their enforcement experience with plainly-audible or decibel-based approaches; (3) invite the solicitor's office and the city's prosecuting office to the committee's next meeting to discuss legal and prosecutorial implications of using decibel meters; (4) evaluate whether special-event permitting can better regulate amplified sound at permitted events; and (5) examine whether a geographically defined downtown zone (rather than only by zoning category) would be lawful and practical to enforce.

The committee did not adopt new ordinance language at the Oct. 2 meeting. It approved routine meeting minutes at the start of the session and voted to adjourn at the end of the meeting. The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting for Dec. 4 to receive the requested legal and enforcement briefings.

The discussion flagged practical enforcement concerns: officers often record calls as "unfounded" after responding, residents sometimes stop filing complaints because of perceived lack of enforcement, and decibel-based enforcement raises equipment, calibration and chain-of-evidence questions that may require budget and training commitments. Staff and the attorney's office warned that any decibel standard would need careful drafting (measurement distance, device class and calibration regimen) to survive legal challenge.

Committee members said they want to preserve downtown's nightlife while protecting residents and nonstudent downtown residents the panel identified as a growing group whose quality of life they want to balance against commercial activity. The committee asked staff to collect the additional data and return with enforcement examples and legal guidance before drafting any ordinance amendments.