What happens when a city fails to record an administrative hearing as required? West Valley City v. Roberts Explained

In West Valley City v. Roberts, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question about due process in administrative proceedings: what happens when a city fails to properly record a hearing as required by its own ordinances?

Background and Facts

West Valley City cited Roberts and Roberts Roofing for building code violations related to roofing repair work. After an administrative hearing pursuant to city code, the hearing officer found the defendants in violation. However, when Roberts sought to appeal and requested transcripts, they discovered the audio recording equipment had malfunctioned and no record of the hearing existed. The trial court dismissed Roberts’ petition for review, finding there was “no record to review,” and denied their request for a hearing de novo.

Key Legal Issues

The court considered whether the city’s defective recordation violated Roberts’ due process rights and whether the trial court erred in denying a de novo hearing. The case turned on West Valley City Code section 10-2-509(5), which mandatorily required that administrative hearings “shall be recorded by audio tape.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found a due process violation, holding that cities must comply with their own mandatory recording requirements. The court applied a three-part test for when lack of adequate record requires remand: (1) the absence prejudices the appellant; (2) the record cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed; and (3) the appellant timely requested the record. All three elements were satisfied here. The court rejected the city’s argument that “attempting” to record was sufficient compliance, emphasizing that the word “shall” in ordinances is mandatory. However, the court affirmed the denial of de novo review, finding no legal basis for such relief under the circumstances.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores that municipalities cannot escape procedural due process obligations through equipment failures or inadequate preparation. For practitioners, the case highlights the importance of immediately verifying that required recordings were properly made and preserved when challenging administrative decisions. The ruling also clarifies that substantial compliance is insufficient when ordinances use mandatory language, and that meaningful judicial review requires an adequate record of the underlying proceedings.