Sarasota city commissioners agree to add ‘plainly audible’ standard to revised Sound Ordinance

With unanimous vote, city attorney to schedule new first reading of proposed regulations

The Sarasota City Commission sits in session on Jan. 21 at City Hall. News Leader image

Following nearly 90 minutes of discussion — and comments from City Attorney Robert Fournier, Deputy City Manager Patrick Robinson and seven members of the public — the Sarasota City Commission this week voted unanimously to reschedule the first reading of the revised Sound Ordinance on which Fournier has been working over the past year.

In making the Jan. 21 motion, Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich directed Fournier to meet with city administrative staff and representatives of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) on filling in blanks that he had left in the proposed ordinance. Those generally dealt with hours of day and distances for sound measurements, for enforcement purposes.

A related goal in requesting a delayed first reading, the commissioners agreed, is to invite more public comment on filling in those blanks.

Among the speakers who addressed the proposed ordinance, downtown resident Peter Fanning was the first to ask the commissioners to hold off on the first reading until staff had completed and released a final draft without blanks.

Moreover, Fanning said, “There is some angst and confusion” circulating in the city about the “plainly audible” provision, especially in regard to decibel levels and times of day it will apply.

The commissioners did agree to direct Fournier to include in the document he will bring back to them a specific alternative related to enforcement of a “plainly audible” standard for sound “after a certain specified time and at a specified distance from the sound source,” as Fournier described it. “It creates a rebuttable presumption of a violation,” he told the commissioners.

The “plainly audible” provision, Fournier explained, “would be a supplemental standard that would be in place in addition to the decibel limits and not as a substitute for the decibel limits.”

City Attorney Robert Fournier provides comments on his revision of the Sound Ordinance. News Leader image

As he wrote in the backup agenda materials for the Jan. 21 meeting, “The definition also provides that the detection of the rhythmic [bass] component of music is sufficient to constitute a plainly audible sound.”

As proposed, the “plainly audible” alternative the board members settled on says, “Whether or not the sound exceeds the decibel levels set forth in [a] subsection [of the ordinance] … it shall be unlawful for a person to make, cause, allow, or permit to be made any sound which is plainly audible (as defined by this chapter) at a distance of [Number of feet to be supplied — related to hour] feet or more in any direction from the real property line of the Generating Property between the hours of [Hour to be supplied] p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following morning on Sunday through Thursday nights and between the hours of

[Hour to be supplied] p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following morning on Friday and Saturday nights and on nights before federal holidays, shall constitute a violation of this subsection. This prohibition includes sound emanating from private property, public property, or public right-of-way.”

He modeled the “plainly audible” standard after a law implemented in the City of Miami Beach, which — he noted — had survived a legal challenge that ended up being heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2007, in the case D.A. Mortgage, Inc., v. City of Miami Beach, the federal court ruled in favor of the city law that says sound that is plainly audible between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., 100 feet from its source, is a violation.

“There is a very high likelihood,” Fournier explained on Jan. 21, that if the commissioners modified the City of Sarasota Sound Ordinance to encompass that “plainly audible” standard, the city “would be insulated from any legal challenges …”

Fournier included a list of multiple jurisdictions in Florida that have incorporated the “plainly audible” standard in their sound ordinances. Among them are Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tampa and Tallahassee.

“While [that standard is] not omnipresent in sound ordinances across the state,” Fournier told the commissioners, “it is certainly not uncommon at all.”

He did point out to the commissioners that the second alternative he had provided for their consideration was the more conservative one. He also noted that it was more similar to the City of Miami Beach regulation:

This is the second version of the ‘plainly audible’ standard, which was not adopted. Image courtesy City of Sarasota

During their discussion with him, the board members further consented to his suggestion that if they wanted to change any of the decibel levels in the Sound Ordinance, they should do so only after hiring a consultant with expertise on sound. That could be addressed in the future, Fournier pointed out.

Before the vote on Ohlrich’s motion, Vice Mayor Trice had offered the inclusion of the first alternative for “plainly audible” as a friendly amendment. Ohlrich looked to her other colleagues to ensure overall consensus before responding. Seeing that she had their support, Ohlrich agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch formally seconded the motion.

In response to a Sarasota News Leader inquiry on Jan. 22, regarding when the new first reading might be scheduled, Fournier wrote in an email, “I already know what I would recommend to ‘fill in the blanks’ so to speak, that were deliberately left in the first draft of the ordinance, so it is just a matter of finding the time to initially discuss with the City Manager and Deputy City Manager and getting feedback input from [the Sarasota Police Department] as well. Conceivably, the ordinance could be brought back as soon as the second meeting in February (although there is a possibility there may already be too many items slated for that meeting) or at one of the meetings in March. It will not be the first meeting in February though.”

The enforcement issue

The primary impetus for the proposed changes in the city’s Sound Ordinance, Fournier pointed out at the outset of the hearing, were complaints from the Police Department that a reorganization of its sections would “make it easier to enforce.”

For example, Fournier said, the proposed draft eliminated a separate regulation of amplified sound “that’s not in a completely enclosed building.” He saw no reason to keep that section, he added. “Sound is sound.”

Further, he noted, he had removed the distinction between continuous source sound and impulsive source sound. Fournier said he did not believe that the city ever had had citations issued in regard to impulsive sound. “I think that’s sort of like a gunshot,” he said. “It’s done and it’s over with.”

In place of the distinctions between those types of sounds, Fournier said, he felt it would be better to distinguish between sound from an outside source and sound from an inside source. Steps can be taken to mitigate sound from an interior space, he pointed out.

Further he told the commissioners, the regulation in the current ordinance for the city-owned Lemon Avenue Mall allows for louder sound to continue later into the night. “I think the time has come,” he said, “that we need to have a uniform standard citywide.”

Information he included in the backup agenda materials put it this way: “[T]here would be one time when all ‘outside source sound’ would have to comply with lower decibel limits.”

These documents show the current outline of the Sound Ordinance and the revised outline that the commissioners considered on Jan. 21. Image courtesy City of Sarasota

The special events issue and other questions

In response to speakers’ concerns that day related to higher sound levels allowed during special events, Fournier noted that, before his October 2024 retirement, former City Manager Marlon Brown had tasked the city’s director of governmental relations, Jennifer Jorgensen, with conducting public outreach on revised city regulations regarding the issuance of permits for those events.

Her work, Fournier said, is “coming along.” He added that she has been keeping him updated on her progress.

After the City Commission has approved new regulations regarding special events, he continued, the corresponding section of the Sound Ordinance would be revised.

In regard to other speakers’ comments about where sound levels should be measured following complaints to the Police Department, Fournier pointed to the section of the draft ordinance that says, “Measurements shall be made at or beyond the real property line of the Generating Property approximately five (5) feet above ground. If an officer cannot obtain a measurement from the real property line of the Generating Property because the real property line is not accessible or discernable, or because a measurement from the real property line would endanger the safety of the Officer or because the use of the real property line would result in an enhancement or diminution of the measured sound, then the Officer shall take a measurement from the real property line of a Receiving Property.”

Yet another speaker argued that people should not be able to make anonymous complaints about violations.

Deputy City Manager Patrick Robinson. Image courtesy City of Sarasota

Deputy City Manager Robinson, who served more than 20 years with the Police Department before former City Manager Brown named him deputy manager in December 2020, explained, “Noise ordinance violations can be done anonymously,” since the Police Department handles the complaints, and many of those come in at night.

When Commissioner Ohlrich asked whether the commissioners could eliminate the provision for anonymity, Robinson told her that if that is an allowance in the criminal code, it cannot be changed. He would look into the issue, he added.

At one point, when Commissioner Kyle Battie, too, voiced concerns about anonymous complaints, Robinson pointed out that when he was deputy police chief, the department mandated that no anonymous complaints would be allowed. “I can tell you,” he added, “that was not well received.”

Ohlrich also inquired of Fournier about the removal of the section of the ordinance regarding noise specifically from motorcycles. She asked whether motorcycles would be covered under the definition of motor vehicles.

Fournier said that they would. He did not find any references to them elsewhere in the current ordinance, he added, except for the definition.

The definition of “motor vehicle” says, “Motor vehicle means any vehicle which is, or is designed to be, self-propelled or is designed or used for transporting persons or property, including off-road vehicles being operated for recreational purposes.”

“That makes sense to me,” Ohlrich responded to Fournier.

Leave a Comment