Council reviews ordinance to ban after-hours alcohol in nonresidential common areas and create nuisance enforcement process

Salt Lake City staff on Sept. 9 presented a proposed ordinance that would (1) prohibit alcohol consumption in publicly accessible common areas of commercial and other nonresidential properties between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and (2) establish an administrative nuisance-abatement process with civil penalties and potential business-license consequences for repeat violations.

City policy staff said the proposal would impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 per offense for business operators and $500 per offense for individual drinkers. The draft ordinance defines “nuisance” through a combination of thresholds: at least three separate instances of nuisance or violent behavior at a property within 180 days; nuisance behavior continuing for 30 days in a row; or five or more police calls for nuisance issues in a single month. Staff said the list of nuisance behaviors in the legislative draft is illustrative and not exhaustive.

City attorneys and business-license staff described the ordinance as closing an enforcement gap the city has encountered where private after-hours events at commercial premises have produced violent incidents and could not readily be addressed by existing alcohol regulation, which generally applies until 2 a.m. Jason Oldroyd of the city attorney’s office and Art Garcia of finance operations explained that the administrative process would include notice, an abatement plan option, an appeals process within 10 days and an administrative appeals officer to oversee hearings.

Council members asked for clarity on enforcement thresholds and evidentiary standards for proving consumption in common areas. Staff said enforcement would hinge on “substantial evidence” such as visible containers, witnesses or other corroborating facts and would be limited to publicly accessible common areas (not private hotel rooms or private residences). Council member Pui raised questions about tying nuisance enforcement to business-license actions and asked staff to provide additional details about resource implications and how the ordinance would be applied equitably across neighborhoods.

Staff described the ordinance as targeting repeated commercial offenders that impose public-safety burdens; they said responsible businesses would generally see little to no impact while the city would gain administrative tools to reduce repeated nuisance behavior and relieve pressure on public safety resources. The council did not take a final vote during the work session.