Provo zoning staff report progress, delays in ADU enforcement; verification remains biggest hurdle

Scott Johnson, Provo City zoning administrator, told the Provo City Council at its February work session that staff made modest progress on ADU enforcement but face persistent verification problems.

Johnson said 42 cases remained open at the end of 2024. As of January, staff show 12 cases still under investigation; notices of violation were sent in at least four cases; seven properties had active ADU license applications; four cases were being worked to bring owners into compliance; four cases were sent to the city attorney for legal review; one owner entered a court-ordered abeyance; and 10 previously outstanding cases were closed or resolved.

The update matters because ADU complaints have been a recurring item for council attention and because enforcement workload drives staffing, legal referrals and potential fines. Johnson said the department has set an internal rule: if an investigation has not produced a notice of violation within three months, staff will regroup to decide new tactics.

At issue is how enforcement teams obtain the threshold evidence that the city needs to pursue formal action. Johnson and councilors discussed door knock attempts that produced no contact for months. Johnson described a case opened in February 2024 where repeated attempts to reach the property produced a verification only in October, when an occupant finally answered and corroborated apparent violations; the owner then cooperated and achieved compliance.

City legal staff and council members questioned whether the city could shift the burden of proof to owners by sending letters that compel a showing of compliance. A city attorney cautioned the council that notices or fines do not itself shift the legal burden: if enforcement reaches court, the city must be prepared to prove the violation. Councilors and staff discussed interim approaches such as sending compliance letters, accruing administrative fines (billed monthly), and, in civil cases, using discovery tools if the matter advances to litigation.

Johnson described operational responses to the verification problem: more persistent observation, using staff vehicles to monitor activity, occasional evening or weekend checks for complaints tied to off-hours conditions (for example, sign brightness), and coordination with police for camera evidence when appropriate. He said January’s intake included 18 new cases; 17 of those stemmed from community complaints and one from a routine rental-license inspection. He also reported the department is cleaning and cross-referencing county data, with the goal of sending a broad compliance notification to owners of properties that appear to be rented without required licenses.

On evidence from neighbors and private cameras, Johnson said the department will accept and evaluate footage or other materials submitted by citizens for potential use in enforcement; however, staff noted witnesses and admissibility can matter if the case proceeds to court. He said in January three cases received attorney letters and one was filed in court.

Councilors pressed staff about work schedules and whether enforcement hours match resident availability; Johnson said most verification occurs during work hours but staff have occasionally worked evenings, Fridays or weekends to check off-hours complaints. He also said the CityView records system now captures complaint source data more reliably, enabling staff to distinguish resident complaints from staff-initiated inspections.

The council did not take a formal vote during the presentation. Johnson said staff will return with ongoing updates.