The ordinance refers to ambient sound levels, background sound levels,
weather conditions, sound pressure levels, decibel charts and sound
level meter calibrations.

Two councilmen -- Charlie Loeb and Harry Deitzler, both Democrats --
differ on how to enforce the ordinance, which both helped to develop.

Loeb believes it's a matter of training police officers and buying the measuring equipment.

Deitzler says officers already have enough to do and don't need to be saddled with sound level meters.

Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster says it's still too early to tell
how the ordinance will impact the force, but believes sound meters
would be a welcomed tool.

"Right now, the standards are too subjective," Webster said of the
current noise ordinance. "We'll do whatever we can to try it . . .
anything that would help our guys do their job."

Sound level meters will bolster the evidence against offenders.

"Officers' testimony is going to have to mean something," Webster said. "I welcome it. I really don't see any major problems."

Council's ordinance and rules committee will get a presentation on the
bill June 21. Loeb says there will be no action on the bill at that
time. He also says the whole bill could change once it reaches council
for a first reading.

"I think first you've got to find out what the cost is," Loeb said.

Loeb did not have preliminary cost figures for the sound meters. A
search on the Internet showed prices ranging anywhere from $79 to more
than $8,000.

Under the ordinance, police officers would have to be certified in
noise control monitoring in order to use the equipment to write tickets.

"I think over time you would have as many people possible in the force
trained in using the measuring device," Loeb said, adding that the
noise meters may end up being standard equipment in cruisers.

But Deitzler says the meters would be cumbersome.

"What we need is a system so that when a police officer hears noise
that's unreasonable, that police officer can ticket the offender," he
said. "The difficulty is that such procedures (like using a sound
meter) add multiple layers of work to the enforcer.

"I don't think we should throw that onto the officer in the field, because they have better things to do."

Deitzler said an officers' judgment of what's loud and what's not could
certainly be challenged in court. The offender could bring his car or
motorcycle down and rev it up in front of City Hall before the
municipal judge. Someone could use a sound meter then, Deitzler says.

"It's going to be pretty hard to convince (officers) of the importance
of spending an inordinate amount of time with meters," Deitzler said.
"Measuring decibels and property lines just to try to get a noise
ticket. They need to be able to write the ticket and move on."