Saratoga Springs council adopts administrative code changes, asks staff to refine fee rules
Loading...
Summary
The council unanimously adopted amendments to Title 20 that make certain code‑enforcement actions permissive, clarify reinspection fees and add a fee reduction when vehicle registration proof is provided; members asked staff to return with wording clarifications and a separate fee‑schedule review.
The Saratoga Springs City Council on Feb. 17 unanimously approved changes to Title 20 of the city code, updating the administrative code‑enforcement rules and the corresponding code enforcement manual.
Assistant City Attorney Rulon Hopkins and Code Enforcement Supervisor Brad Davis told the council the amendments clarify who may serve as the ordinance enforcement administrator (city manager or assistant city manager unless designated otherwise), make reinspection fees permissive in some cases rather than mandatory, allow fee reductions when residents provide proof of vehicle registration, and change lien recording from mandatory to permissive in certain circumstances.
Council members pressed staff on wording and implementation details. One member asked that references to “days” explicitly read “calendar days” for clarity; staff agreed to review legislative intent and to adjust the language if appropriate. Council members also discussed how a recorded lien would appear on title reports and whether additional notice methods should be used; staff said recorded liens would surface in title reports and offered to update procedures and the manual.
A council member questioned the proposed 20% per annum interest on unpaid administrative citations and asked staff to consider using Utah’s post‑judgment rate under Utah Code 15‑1‑4 so the council could compare alternatives. Staff said interest is not currently charged but will review the rate language and return with recommendations.
Council members also raised concerns about the fee schedule, noting some first‑offense administrative fines (for example, a $100 citation) feel disproportionate to certain low‑level violations and asked for a separate, more comprehensive fee review. Staff agreed to bring a fee‑schedule amendment back for further consideration, targeting a March meeting for that discussion.
After discussion, a council member moved to adopt the Title 20 changes as presented, with direction for staff to return with clarifying edits and a separate fee‑schedule review; the motion passed by roll call vote, recorded as unanimous.
