Syracuse council delays permit fine increase, agrees to study exemption for children selling in parks

Syracuse City Council on July 8 approved updates to the city's consolidated fee schedule but removed a proposed increase to the fine for "working without a permit" and agreed to examine whether children selling items in parks should be exempt under state law.

The action followed public comments urging the council to add a de minimis exception for minors running small, intermittent enterprises such as lemonade stands. Mark Jensen and Shauna Packer told the council that state law, which they identified as the Utah Young Entrepreneurial Act (Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 203), bars municipalities from requiring a license, fee or permit for a minor's casual business and that Syracuse's fees should reflect that.

The de minimis issue arose during a public hearing on proposed Resolution R25-31, which would amend downtown noise, park and trail violation fees and the penalty for working without a permit. City staff recommended raising the working-without-permit penalty from $100 to $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offenses to address a pattern of builders starting work without permits. Councilmembers expressed concern that the redlined increase could be overly broad and could inadvertently penalize simple home-improvement work.

"This isn't just about fostering youth entrepreneurship," Mark Jensen said during public comment, describing a recent incident in which a parks employee stopped a child's lemonade stand. "A child's lemonade stand in a park perfectly fits [the state statute's] description [of a casual business]."

Shauna Packer, also speaking during the public-comment period, said parents should be able to allow children to sell in parks without requiring permits or health certificates and called the proposed change contrary to the purpose of the state law.

City staff confirmed the change in the packet that proposed higher penalties was the item in red and that it was added since the last work session. A staff member who answered council questions said the larger fines were aimed primarily at substantial projects, including whole-home construction, that were commencing without permits. Council members asked staff to clarify which kinds of work would trigger a permit requirement and whether warnings should be required before a fine is imposed.

Councilmember motioned to approve Resolution R25-31 but to exclude the proposed working-without-a-permit penalty change (the red text). The motion passed; councilmembers also agreed to discuss commercial activities in parks, permit definitions and the possibility of a de minimis exception at the July work session.

Council members noted that some confusion exists among city employees about enforcement: staff said the city does not currently require a license for a lemonade stand on private property, but enforcement actions at parks had occurred. Council directed staff to return to the work session with clarifications about what requires a permit, whether warnings are required before fines, and whether the rule should distinguish new construction and commercial operators from casual, minor-run enterprises.

The council did not adopt a formal resolution specifically creating a child-exemption at this meeting; instead, it removed the fine increase from the fee schedule vote and set the issue for additional study and discussion.

Votes and next steps: Resolution R25-31 was approved with the working-without-permit penalty excluded. Council asked staff to bring a proposal to the July work session that would (1) define what projects require permits, (2) consider warnings prior to fines, and (3) address a possible de minimis exemption for minors in parks.