Midway council advances major short-term-rental code rewrite; item continued for edits and legal review

Midway City Council opened extensive discussion Nov. 20 on a comprehensive rewrite of the city's short-term rental ordinance (ordinance 2025-17) and instructed staff to return with redlined language and legal analysis at the Dec. 3 meeting.

Staff said the rewrite is driven by experience enforcing the code and by changes in technology and state law that limit enforcement options tied solely to advertising. Key proposed changes reviewed by the council include eliminating the 48-hour minimum-stay rule; requiring the owner or property manager to provide occupant information on request; mandating a local property manager who must respond to complaints within an hour; requiring posted contact information at each licensed unit; requiring proof of tax-payment for license renewal; and creating joint liability for owners and property managers.

The enforcement package discussed by council would allow fines (staff cited up to $1,000 per violation, treated as separate and continuing violations), revoke business licenses after repeat violations (staff proposed two violations in 12 months as the threshold, down from three in the packet), and permit council discretion to impose longer or permanent revocation in egregious cases. Council members debated how to avoid treating fines as a "cost of business," and raised implementation questions about differential penalties for managers who handle many properties versus single-property owners.

Staff also proposed code language to define a transient rental unit as the entire dwelling and property (closing many ADU/lockout loopholes), to require in-unit posted information (rules, maximum occupancy, vehicle limits, emergency shutoffs), and to require updated lists when managers accept new units. The council discussed easing the property-manager physical-location requirement from only Midway to include Wasatch County, provided the manager also obtains a Midway business license, to avoid creating a local monopoly and to keep response times reasonable.

After extended discussion of enforcement, practical staffing, and the legal scope of revocation, the council voted to continue the ordinance to Dec. 3 so staff can prepare final redlines, research permanent-revocation authority, and incorporate council direction on manager-location and revocation timing.

Because the item was continued, no final code changes were adopted on Nov. 20; staff was given direction to present a revised ordinance and supporting enforcement provisions at the next scheduled meeting.