08/15/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session Room on Thursday,
August 15, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building,
451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton,
Jill Remington Love, and Dale Lambert.
Absent: Councilmember Dave Buhler
Also in Attendance: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Cindy-Gust-Jenson,
Council Executive Director; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Steven
Allred, Acting City Attorney; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council
Executive Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; and Chris
Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder.
Council Vice Chair Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m.
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
See file M 02-5 for announcement information.
#2. INTERVIEW SOREN SIMONSEN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
Mr. Simonsen said he currently served as the Chair of the Historic Landmark
Commission (HLC) . He said his background was as an Architect and Certified Planner.
He said he had learned how to create better communities and neighborhoods by serving
on the HLC. He said he hoped to evaluate the City' s preservation goals, look at
changes in the historic district or to the underlying zoning. He said this would help
to achieve downtown development and economic viability, along with a preservation
legacy.
#3. INTERVIEW MITCH MILLS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD.
Mr. Mills said he was a native of Salt Lake City and had been in the real estate and
mortgage industry for 11 years. He said he wanted to be involved.
#4 . INTERVIEW CHRISTINE GARDNER-DANIELS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER RE-APPOINTMENT
TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD.
Ms. Gardner-Daniels said the City Council had been supportive of the Capital Improvement
Program Boards recommendations of how to prioritize spending. She said the experience
had been rewarding and was challenging.
#5. INTERVIEW KAREN NICHOLS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE ART
DESIGN BOARD.
Ms. Nichols said she appreciated the administration of the Art Design Board. She said
the collaborative process helped to strengthen Artists visions. She said artists were
involved early on in a project, allowing communication within the project.
#6. INTERVIEW JUSTIN DIGGLE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE ART
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002
DESIGN BOARD.
Mr. Diggle said he was an assistant professor of print making at the University of
Utah. He said he had enjoyed being part of the Art Design Board. He said being involved
early in a project had made a difference. He said he liked being involved.
#7. INTERVIEW MICHAEL POLACEK PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mr. Polacek said he had been in Salt Lake City for 12 years. He said his background
was in Civil Engineering and Municipal Engineering and Construction. He said he had
gone to law school and was now practicing patent trademark and copy-write law. He
said he had worked on the co-housing project in District 2.
#8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE. View
Attachment
Jan Aramaki and Laurie Dillon briefed the Council. Councilmember Jergensen asked what
the changes were. Ms. Dillon explained that certain sections would move from a civil
to a criminal violation. She said issues dealing with the treatment of animals,
animals in vehicles, and animal trespass were being made criminal. Ms. Gust-Jenson
said in amending the ordinance the definition of vicious dog had not changed. She said
that issue would be reviewed at another time. A discussion was held regarding the
vicious dog ordinance. A discussion was held regarding harboring stray animals.
Councilmember Saxton requested staff look at licensing animals at the time of adoption.
A discussion was held regarding licensing. All Council Members present were in favor
of holding a public hearing.
#9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING OBSTRUCTIONS IN SIDE-YARDS. View Attachment
Janice Jardine, Sylvia Jones and Roger Evans briefed the Council. Councilmember
Christensen said the question before the Council was to allow other obstructions in
side-yards. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about the noise cooling and
heating systems made. She said Mr. Evans and Planning Staff would prepare a new draft
of the ordinance for the Council' s consideration which would include some new ideas.
A discussion was held with regard to buildable space in side yards. Councilmember
Saxton said the Salt Lake County Health Department did not enforce noise from cooling
or heating systems. A discussion was held concerning what the zoning ordinance allowed
regarding steps four feet above grade when four feet back from the property line. Mr.
Evans said the ordinance did not allow a landing on stairs. He said the International
Building Code and the Uniform Building Code required a landing at the top of the
stairs, on both sides of the door. He said the recommendation was to remove the words
"above and below grade", and add the words "required landing".
Mr. Evans asked the Council for comments with regard to complaints about evaporated
coolers, refrigerated coolers, window mounts or central air conditioning which created
noise. A discussion was held regarding historical areas where some systems were on
neighbor' s property. Mr. Evans said if the system did not currently comply with the
ordinance and was creating a noise problem it could be enforced upon by the Board of
Health.
Councilmember Jergensen said his concern was with historical areas. Ms. Jardine said
an exception could be addressed by creating a process for those who could not comply
with the ordinance. Council Members Jergensen, Lambert and Love were concerned with
10-foot spacing requirement in side yards. Mr. Evans said he would check with other
cities to see if this issue was enforced. He said the measurement could be reduced to
02 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002
a two-foot distance. Councilmember Saxton said her concern was that a permit was
issued. She asked that a process be created for those who could not comply with the
ordinance.
Councilmember Lambert said he was opposed to a process for non-compliance because
another process would make the problem more complicated. He said he did not want to
create an ordinance where most residents were not in compliance. Mr. Evans said the
ordinance was needed for approval of new subdivisions. Ms. Jardine explained routine
and uncontested matters. She said this was handled administratively unless there were
objections from abutting property owners. She said the issue could then go to the
Board of Adjustment. She said for a routine and uncontested matter, the property owner
got signatures from abutting property owners.
All Council Members present were in favor of advancing the issue to the second week in
September.
#10. ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS PENDING
LITIGATION.
Executive Session was held. See File M 02-2 for confidential tape and Sworn Statement.
The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
cm
02 - 3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 2002
SUBJECT: Animal Services—Penalties and Fees
Proposed revisions amending Section 8.04.500 pertaining
to Violation-Penalty; Section 8.04.510 pertaining to
Issuance of Citations—Notice of Violations; and
Appendix A to Chapter 8.04 regarding Salt Lake City
Animal Services permits and fees
REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki, Constituent Liaison&Policy Analyst
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Sim Gill, Steven Allred, Larry
Spendlove, Scott Fisher, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon, John Moore,
Diana Karrenberg, Annette Daley and Barry Esham
Key Elements:
A. On February 28, 2002,the Council held a public hearing to accept public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance enacting and amending sections of the Salt Lake
City Code relating to dogs (including other animals such as rabbits and cats) and
horse-drawn carriages. The Council made a motion to adopt the horse drawn carriage
portion of the proposed revisions,excluding amendments to Section 8.04.500,
8.04.510 and Appendix A to Chapter 8.04, dog and other animal related revisions.
Council expressed interest to consider these sections at a later date, separately from
the horse drawn carriage amendments. From previous discussions with Friends
Interested in Dogs and Open Space(FIDOS), a citizen group,it was apparent that
additional review and time was needed to address FIDOS' concerns in greater detail
regarding various sections relating to dogs.
At this time, the proposed changes for Council's consideration pertain only to Section
8.04.500, Violation-Penalty, Section 8.04.510, Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations-
Notice of Violations, and Appendix A. As mentioned, other dog(cat,rabbit)related
sections require further review and discussion to address FIDOS' concerns.
B. Regarding the proposed changes to Appendix A, new fees and an increase in fees are
being proposed:
➢ $25 fee for animal disposal,
➢ transportation charge for livestock to increase from$20 to$25, and
➢ $100 disposal fee for livestock.
These proposed fees were part of the public hearing held on February 28, 2002,but
the Council voted not to adopt this section of the proposed amendment at that time.
Council could elect to hold another public hearing following the briefing for this
issue.
Additional Information:
The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed explanation regarding the rationale
for the requested violation changes. Key elements are summarized below.
The Attorney's Office prepared a new ordinance for Council's consideration proposing
revisions to the following sections under Title 8, Animals, Chapter 8.04 Animal Control.
Section 8.04.500 Violation-Penalty
A change was made to indicate that the violations listed in Section 8.04.510 are civil
rather than criminal. This allows the Administrative Court to hear the issues.
Section 8.04.510—Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations—Notice of Violations
This section lists violations to be classified as civil offenses provided they are not charged
in conjunction with another criminal offense and do not constitute a fourth or succeeding
notice of violation within a 24 month period.
1) Section 8.04.130 --commercial permits
2) Section 8.04160--commercial permit display
3) Section 8.04.070--licensing
4) Section 8.04-080--license tag requirements
5) Section 8.04.240--rabies vaccinations
6) Section 8.04.250B --rabies tag requirements
7) Section 8.04.110--harboring stray animals
8) Section 8.04.390-- animals running at large
9) Section 8.04.370-- animal nuisances.
The following subsections under animal nuisances were excluded as
civil offenses:
Subsections B.2: Any animal which is a"vicious animal;"
Subsection B.8: Any animal which attacks people or other domestic
animals whether or not such attack results in actual physical harm to the
person or animal to whom or at which the attack is directed;
Subsection B.9: Any animal which is found at large three (3) or more
times within any twelve (12) month period; and
Subsection B.10; Any animal which is offensive or dangerous to
the public health, safety or welfare by virtue of the number and/or type
of animal kept or harbored.
2
,
I
10) Section 8.04.070F -- more than two dogs at a residence
11) Section 8.04.120 -- more than two cats at a residence
12) Section 8.04.120--more than two rabbits at a residence
13) Section 8.04.400 -- staking dogs improperly
14) Section 8.04.380 -- confining female dogs in heat
15) Section 8.04.440B -- giving animals as sales premiums
16) Section 8.04.440A --the sale/premium of baby rabbits and fowl
17) Section 8.04.440C --the sale of pet turtles
In 1999, when civil violations were first implemented, the following violations were
designated as civil. However, due to public safety concerns, the City recognizes that some
of the civil offenses should have remained as criminal. The Administration's memo
provides an explanation as to why the following violations should remain as criminal.
1) animal trespass
2) animal care and maintenance
3) animals in vehicles
Appendix A Proposed Revisions
Fees are proposed for the disposal of dead animals -- $25 for pets and$100 for livestock.
In the past, Animal Services has provided this service at no charge,but currently pays
$.33 per pound for disposal. The proposed fee will offset the charge. Animal Services
provides a list of disposal alternatives acceptable to the City-County Health Department
for pet owners who do not want to pay for the service. Also a list of commercial service
providers is available for the disposal of livestock in lieu of the$100 livestock disposal
fee. In addition, transportation charge for livestock is proposed to increase from$20 to
$25. It is proposed that fees for violations for animal attacks and bites and fierce,
dangerous or vicious animals be deleted because these serious offenses are criminal
violations.
In addition, a change was included to indicate that subsequent offenses after the third
offense within a 24 month period for impound fees, licensing,permits, tags, rabies
vaccination, at large, number of animals, staking, female dogs in heat, harboring stray
animals, animals as sales premiums, sale of baby rabbits, fowl, and pet turtles, animal
nuisance, commercial permit, and permit display, constitute a criminal offense. The
Administration's paperwork states: "This requirement was added at the request of
Animal Services and the City Prosecutor. Their experience is that if someone has that
many episodes of civil violations (an average of more than one instance every 8 months),
there is cause for concern. The offender may not be taking animal ownership seriously
enough and something more than simply paying a fine may be warranted."
3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 2002
TO: Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Jones
Research& Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison
SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-26—Planning Commission—request to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to allow certain types of encroachments within th sid
yard setback areas (Sec.21A.36.020.B)
As requested by Council Member Saxton, Building Services reviewed the current
ordinance and the proposed changes recommended by the Planning Commission in order to
identify potential conflicts in advance of the August 15th Council discussion. Building Services
and Planning staff met with Council Member Saxton on August 8, 2002 to discuss their
comments. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in detail the
recommendations identified by Building Services staff. The issues identified by Building
Services are as follows:
o Evaporative"swamp"coolers which are window units and refrigerated window-mounted air
conditioner units should be allowed in all yards as long as a two-foot setback from property
line is maintained. According to Building Services, there is no discemable difference in
noise levels between these two types of window air-conditioners.
o Central air-conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering
quipment should be allowed within the buildable area of the lot but not in the front yard. At
I ast ten feet must be maintained from the adjoining side and rear property lines. Som lots
have side yards extending 30 to 50 feet from the property line.
During previous Council discussions, the Council specified that central air-conditioning
compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment should be located
only in the rear yard to address noise issues. The recommendation from Administrativ staff
would allow such equipment to be located within the buildable area of the lot. This could
include side yard areas.
In many neighborhoods, most air-conditioning units are largely located in the side yards, du
to the location of the homes'furnace systems. Requiring the 10-foot spacing may have a
financial impact on homeowners. The Council could elect to establish a"routine and
uncontested matters"approach that would allow exceptions in situations where there is no
objection from neighbors.
If the Council chooses to implement the 10 foot spacing or require that air-conditioning units
are located only in rear yards, the Council may wish to encourage the Administration to
notify air-conditioning contractors of this change.
o Building Services allows steps 4 feet above grade to extend to the property line, but they do
not allow steps to extend below grad . Th y also do not allow a landing at the top of the
stairs which is in conflict with the International Building Code. By removing th words
"above and below grade", and adding the words"required landing", Building Services staff
agreed this would remedy their concerns.
❑ The requirement"Subject to meeting Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards"
places the burden of verification on the building inspector. This requires the City to
purchase new equipment for the building and zoning inspectors. This requirement should
be deleted, unless the Council wants the City to accept this responsibility that has heretofore
been a responsibility of Salt Lake County.
As a result of Administrative staff members' vacation schedules, a new ordinance
incorporating the revisions as suggested by Building Services will not be drafted until the first
week of September. Consequently, the Council will need to adopt a motion on August 15th to
refer future side yard discussions to a Work Session in September. (A specific date will be
d termined at a later time.)
BACKGROUND:
A. The Council received a briefing regarding this item on May 21, 2002.
1. Council Members asked if there is an existing size or sound requirement for air-
conditioner units in side yards.
2. Council Members asked whether it is practical to specify where air-conditioner units are
located (side of house versus back of house).
3. Some Council Members expressed concern regarding air-conditioner units being so
close to bedrooms of another neighbor.
4. Some Council Members expressed interest in differentiating between swamp coolers
and central air units and the option of requiring compressors to be placed at the back of
homes.
B. At the June 4, 2002 City Council Public Hearing, the following issues and comments were
discussed. At the end of the Public Hearing, Council Members voted to continue their
discussion on July 9, 2002.
1. Infill construction requirements for side yards versus new construction requirements.
2. With some side yard encroachments, maintenance is an issue.
3. Mandatory breaks are needed for security purposes and to protect those walking in side
yards areas.
4. Air-conditioners and compressors should be placed in rear yards.
5. With basement window grates, there is an urgency to make a decision in order to h Ip
make homes safer.
During Unfinished Business on July 9, 2002, Council Memb rs adopted a motion to
amend S ction 21A.36.020.B of th Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding allowed obstructions
in required yard areas, changing the ordinance to permit window wells in side yards with no
specific reference to the distance from the property line. In addition, the Council referred the
remaining portions of the ordinance to the August 15, 2002 Work Session for discussion. (This
motion addressed the safety issues in reference to window wells. Please refer to attached
minutes for details.)
T jJ'�'`1
ROCKY J. FLU HART SALT Mat GITY CORPORATION:
' � - � -� —.3 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
Jy V\b 1
To: Rocky Fluhart
Chief Administrative Officer
From: Laurie Dillon L=' -
535-7766 � L
Subject: Animal Control Ordinance Changes
Date: April 2, 2002
CC: Jan Aramaki, Steve Fawcett, Scott Fisher, Mary Johnston, Jay Magure,
Ken Miles, Nazar Mohamed, John Moore, Larry Spendlove
Several changes regarding civil/criminal violations and fees are submitted for Council action.
The primary reasons for these changes are to better identify the sections of the ordinance that, if
not followed, could result in civil violations, and the addition of fees for animal disposal and
livestock transportation. The rationale for the change in each section is discussed below.
8.04.500 Violation—Penalty
This section states that violations of the ordinance are misdemeanors, but the changes indicate
that the violations listed in Section 8.04.510 are civil violations, rather than criminal.
8.04.510 Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations—Notice of Violations
B. The initial part of section B (changes are underlined) states, "Where violations of the
following requirements of this Ordinance are committed, and provided they are not charged in
conjunction with another criminal offense and do not constitute a fourth or succeeding notice of
violation within a 24 month period, an animal services officer or authorized agent shall issue a
civil notice of violation to such violatorany person in lieu of a misdemeanor citation;"
These changes do two main things. The first part indicates that if any of the violations listed are
committed along with a criminal violation, all of the violations will then be charged as criminal,
even though in normal circumstances some of them would be civil. This is done to allow all the
violations of a particular incident to be charged together. There is a similar provision in the civil
traffic code.
The second part of the changes indicate that if four or more notices of violations occur within a 2
year period, the fourth (and succeeding) charge will be a criminal, rather than a civil, violation.
This requirement was added at the request of Animal Services and the City Prosecutor. Their
experience is that if someone has that many episodes of civil violations (an average of more than
one instance every 8 months), there is cause for concern. The offender may not be taking animal
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 145, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6399 FAX: 801-535-6663
®RECYCLED PAPER
ownership seriously enough and something more than simply paying a fine may be warranted.
The criminal violation does not indicate a person is guilty; they have an opportunity to appear
before a judge who will make the determination of guilt or innocence. However, the criminal
charge does require that the person account for the situation in a different manner than what is
required for a civil violation. If more than one violation is noted on a single date (e.g. dog off
leash and no license), it counts as one episode, not two. More than three episodes over a two
year period will result in looking at the situation from a different perspective.
The next changes in 8.04.510 give a clearer explanation of which offenses are civil violations by
listing the various sections of the ordinance associated with each violation. Some violations
previously designated as civil violations have been removed from the list. Civil violations were
first implemented in 1999, and since then the City has recognized that due to public safety
concerns, some of the offenses should have remained criminal violations. Because of the more
severe nature of offenses, the criminal violation is appropriate for inhumane treatment of
animals, animal trespass, vicious dogs not being kept according to the requirements specified,
attacking animals, animals habitually at large, and situations that are dangerous to public health,
safety and welfare due to the number and/or type of animals. Animal trespass (section 8.08.080)
is a dangerous situation for traffic, especially when it involves livestock. When domestic
animals are involved, it will be a more significant issue than simply an animal at large in order to
be charged as animal trespass. A more severe punishment possibility is warranted because these
situations have the possibility to raise the tension in a neighborhood or between neighbors to the
point of physical altercations or resorting to using poison to end the trespassing.
The number of dogs, cats, and rabbits allowed at a residence has not been changed in the
ordinance. Having more of these animals than is specified is a civil violation, with no maximum
number specified. This kind of offense would be cited as a criminal violation if the number of
these animals poses a public health, safety, and/or welfare risk. When animals are hoarded in
large numbers, a criminal charge could be issued under that justification.
The remaining changes clarify what is to be included on the notice of violation, and the
circumstances in which fees may be reduced or imposed.
Appendix A Salt Lake City Animal Services Permits and Fees
Two fees are proposed to be added under Section C. Service and Violation Fees for Pets. The
first is a$25 fee for disposal. This fee would recoup the cost incurred by Animal Services when
they take a deceased animal. Animal Services also lets people know the options they have for
taking care of a dead animal other than paying this fee. The second addition is simply to clarify
that there is a transportation charge of$25 for pets as well as for livestock. Previously the
transportation charge was listed only under the livestock fees (section D) at $20, and this is
proposed to increase to $25. A disposal fee of$100 for livestock has been added to section D.
Fees for violations involving animal attacks and/or bites, and fierce, vicious or dangerous
animals have been deleted because these serious offenses will be charged as criminal violations.
The schedule also notes that the fourth offense in a 24 month period will be a criminal matter,
consistent with the changes proposed in 8.04.510.
2
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Animal Services—_Penalties and Fees)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.04.500, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO VIOLATION—PENALTY; AMENDING SECTION 8.04.510, SALT LAKE
CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS —NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS;
AND AMENDING APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 8.04, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY ANIMAL SERVICES PERMITS AND FEES.
SECTION. That Section 8.04.500, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to violation—penalty
be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
8.04.500 Violation—Penalty
Any person violating the provisions of this Title, either by failing to do those acts
required herein or by doing any act prohibited herein, shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor,
unless otherwise provided in Section 8.04.510. Each day any such-violation under this chapter is
committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as
such. Nothing herein shall be construed to proscribe any act specifically authorized under State
statute.
SECTION. That Section 8.04.510, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to issuance of
citations—notice of violations be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
8.04.510 Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations—Notice of Violations
A. A peace officer and/or animal services officer is authorized to issue a misdemeanor
citation to any person upon a charge of violating any provisions of this Title. The foim of the
misdemeanor citation, and proceedings to be handled upon the basis of the citation, shall
confoiuu to the provisions of the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure, including, but not necessarily
limited to, Sections 77-7-18 through 77-7-22, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, or their
successors.
B. Where violations of the following requirements of this Ordinance are committed, and
provided they are not charged in conjunction with another criminal offense and do not constitute
a fourth or succeeding notice of violation within a 24 month period, an animal services officer or
authorized agent shall issue a civil notice of violation to such violatorany person in lieu of a
misdemeanor citation; violations regarding: 1) commercial peiniits [Section 8.04.130], 2)
commercial peiniit display [Section 8.04.1601inspections and reports, 23) licensing, [Section
8.04.070], 3_4) license tag requirements [Section 8.04.080], 5) rabies vaccinations, [Section
8.04.240], 6) rabies tag requirements F8.04.250B1,47)harboring stray animals, [Section
8.04.110], 58) animals running at large, [Section 8.04.390], 69) animal nuisances,{Section
8.04.370, except for Subsections B.2, B.8, B.9, and B.10],710) more than two dogs(2) animals at
a residence [Section 8.04.070F], 11) more than two cats at a residence [Section 8.04.120], 12)
more than two rabbits at a residencelSection 8.04.120],8) animal trespass, 913) staking dogs
improperly, [Section 8.04.400], 1014) confining female dogs in heat, [Section 8.04.380], 11)
animal care and maintenance, 12) animals in vehicles, 1415) giving animals as sales premiums,
[Section 8.04.440B], 1416) the sale/premium of baby rabbits and fowl, [Section 8.04.440A], or
117) the sale of pet turtles [Section 8.04.440C]. The notice of violation shall state, with
reference to the pertinent sections of this Title, the violation which must be remedied by the
person charged and mayshall set forth a compliance date by which the violator must comply with
the remedial requirements. The notice of violation shall also-include a list of the fees as
applicable to this violation as the amount of an ad in strwti.,e and processing fee try be paid by
Ni�,vv.�vua�iva �v�-�uxcr-vim'
2
set forth in
Appendix A of this Chapter for minimum citation penalties. This fee amount may be reduced or
waived for first offenses,provided the pet owner satisfactorily completes a class on responsible
pet ownership, which is approved by the Office of Animal Services. Compliance with all
remedial requirements referred to in the notice of violation by the compliance date shown
thereon shall result in a$25.00 reduction in the penalty. Refusal armor non„a ,, ent of the
»iinistratiye .,,,,a nroces
7 failure to comply with anythe remedial requirements
referred to in the notice of violation by the deadline set as the compliance date,_may result in the
imposition of the full penalty and any additional administrative fees which may be
applicableissttance-ef-a-eitatien-te-the-persen-eharged.
SECTION . That Appendix A to Chapter 8.04, Salt Lake City Code, regarding Salt
Lake City Animal Services Permits and Fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
APPENDIX A
SALT LAKE CITY ANIMAL SERVICES
PERMITS AND FEES
A. Permit Fees
Commercial operations up to 30 animals $ 75.00
Commercial operations over 30 animals $150.00
Riding stables $ 40.00
Business selling only tropical or freshwater fish $ 50.00
Pet rescue peiinit $ 25.00
If issued at shelter's request $ 0.00
Late fee (in addition to regular fee) $ 25.00
3
B. Pet License Fees
One Year Two Year Three Year Lifetime
Unsterlized $25.00 $45.00 $60.00 N/A
Sterilized $5.00 $9.00 $12.00 N/A
Senior Citizen (Age 60 and Older):
Unsterilized $20.00 $36.00 $48.00 N/A
Sterlized $15.00
Transfer fee: $3.00
Replacement tag: $3.00
C. Service and Violation Fees for Pets
Board fees per day for pets $ 8.00
Adoption fee (includes microchip
and adoption packet) $25.00
Rabies deposit $25.00
Pet disposal fee $25.00
Pet pickup and transportation fee $25.00
Sterilization deposit:
Dog $50.00
Cat $25.00
Rabies deposit $25.00
Pe sposal-fee $2s 00
Pet pickup and transportation fee $25.00
Notice of violation fee (per
violation) 25.00
4
Where indicated, fees for second, third, and subsequent violations are for those occurring
within a 2412-month period.
Subse-
First Second Third quent
Offense Offense Offense Offenses
$200.00
Impound Fees $25.00 $50.00 $100.00 Criminal
Minimum notice of violation citation Subse-
penalties: First Second Third quent
Offense Offense Offense Offenses
Licensing, permits, tags, rabies vaccination,
at large, number of animals, staking,
female dogs in heat,harboring stray
animals, animals as sales premiums, sale
of baby rabbits, fowl, and pet turtles $25.00 $50.00 $100.00 Criminal
Animal nuisance, commercial permit,
peiuiit display $50.00 $100.00 $200.00 Criminal
Animal attacks and bites 100.00 200.00
Fierce, dangerous or vicious animals 300.00
D. Service Fees For Livestock:
Impound fees:
Large livestock $ 60.00
Small livestock $ 30.00
Board fees per day:
Large livestock $ 10.00
Small livestock $ 8.00
Transportation fees $ 25.00
Livestock disposal fee $ 100.00
Purchase price for unclaimed livestock is based on costs incurred by Animal Services during
impound and recommendations made by the State Brand Inspector.
G\Ordina0l\Animal Services and Horse-drawn Carriage amendments-4-02-02 di aft
5
Purchase price for unclaimed livestock is based on costs incurred by Animal Services during
impound and recommendations made by the State Brand Inspector.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of ,
2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake Ci Attorneys Otflas
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Date s acs z---
(SEAL) Rv_
Bill No. of 2002.
Published: .
G\Oldina0Pvinimal Services Permits&Fees amendments-4-02-02 clean doc
5