Section 228 – Administrative hearings and procedures — Penalty for code violation.

• (1) A county may adopt an ordinance establishing an administrative hearing process to review and decide matters relating to the violation, enforcement, or administration of a county civil ordinance, including an ordinance related to the following:
  • (a) a building code;
  • (b) planning and zoning;
  • (c) animal control;
  • (d) licensing;
  • (e) health and safety;
  • (f) county employment; or
  • (g) sanitation.

• (2) An ordinance adopted in accordance with Subsection (1) shall provide appropriate due process protections for a party participating in an administrative hearing.

• (3) An administrative hearing held in accordance with an ordinance described in Subsection (1) may be conducted by an administrative law judge.

• (4) A county may not impose a civil penalty and adjudication for the violation of a county moving traffic ordinance.

• (5)
  • (a) A county may not impose a nonjudicial penalty for a violation of a land use regulation or a nuisance ordinance unless the county provides to the individual who is subject to the penalty written notice that:
    • (i) identifies the relevant regulation or ordinance at issue;
    • (ii) specifies the violation of the relevant regulation or ordinance; and
    • (iii) provides for a reasonable time to cure the violation, taking into account the cost of curing the violation.
  • (b) A county may not collect on a nonjudicial penalty for a violation of a land use regulation or a nuisance ordinance that is outstanding or pending on or after May 14, 2019, unless the county imposed the outstanding or pending penalty in relation to a written notice that:
    • (i) identified the relevant regulation or ordinance at issue;
    • (ii) specified the violation of the relevant regulation or ordinance; and
    • (iii) provided for a reasonable time to cure the violation, taking into account the cost of curing the violation.

Amended by Chapter 278, 2019 General Session