City Council Meetings

Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Minutes 5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 23, 2025 Council Chambers (Room 100) Hybrid meeting: 445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 or https://www.youtube.com/provocitycouncil Roll Call THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT: Councilor Becky Bogdin Councilor Craig Christensen Councilor Gary Garrett Councilor George Handley Councilor Travis Hoban Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Rachel Whipple Mayor Michelle Kaufusi Chief Administrative Officer Scott Henderson City Attorney Brian Jones Council Executive Director Justin Harrison City Recorder Heidi Allman Conducting: Chair Gary Garrett Prayer – Jessie Oiler Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Whipple Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 A recognition of Provo City's Employee of the Month (25-007) 00:01:27 Mayor Kaufusi spoke of the importance of having quality employees. Director of Human Resources Daniel Softley recognized Tami Olsen as Employee of the Month for September 2025. Public Comment Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble and opened the public comment period. Andrew Thompson, Provo resident, said he had a vision of a world where accessibility was not an issue. He gave examples of areas in Provo that needed to be addressed. With no other public comments, Chair Garrett closed the public comment period. Action Agenda 2 A resolution consenting to board and commission appointments (25-031) 00:13:39 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-45, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Mayor Kaufusi recommended the following for appointment: Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 1 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. David Taylor Airport Board Jared Cobia Airport Board Mel Leseberg Airport Board Susan Krueger-Barber Landmarks Commission Jon Lyons Planning Commission Chair Garrett opened the meeting for public comment, and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. Councilor Christensen said he knew the individuals recommended for appointment to the Airport Board were very qualified. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 3 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the area where accessory dwelling units are permitted (PLOTA20250238) 00:16:55 Motion: An implied motion to approve an Ordinance, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. City Planner Jessica Dahneke presented a proposal to add the property at 3080 Bannock Drive (R1.10 Zone) to the area in which accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were allowed. If the proposed text amendment was approved, any future owner of the property would be able to go through the process to apply to have an ADU. The application did not apply to any other properties in the area. Ms. Dahneke said the property owners gathered signatures of support from 66% of their surrounding neighbors. Ms. Dahneke said City Code required owner occupancy on a property for an ADU to be allowed, with owner occupancy defined as occupancy as a primary residence by an owner of 50% or more of the property. One of the two owners on the property title, Christina Gibson, indicated intent to make the property her primary residence; however, required documentation showing income or tax deduction on the property was not provided. Staff recommended denial of the request. At a neighborhood meeting, 24 neighbors indicated they were in favor and 5 were against. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the fact that the property owners had not owned the property long enough to have tax documents to show. Joseph Faucett, husband of applicant Christina Gibson, read aloud a letter from Christina requesting approval of the proposed text amendment, and stating she believed the request aligned with the spirit of the City’s housing goals. She said affordability of the home investment had been based on a long-term plan to rent out the main unit while living in the ADU. The letter stated her intention to remain on the property long-term and eventually move into the main home as her family grew, and said she had no intention of using the property as short-term housing. While she was in the process of purchasing the home, the property was within the area in which ADUs were allowed; however, while the purchase was in escrow, laws and area boundaries changed, and she did not learn of the change until after the sale was complete. Mr. Faucett showed a timeline of the process, and shared that the other individual on the title Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 2 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. was Ms. Gibson’s father, who helped with the purchase of the home. He said the property could comfortably park seven vehicles, and said the home was already set up for a compliant ADU with no construction necessary. Mr. Faucett said they were aware of several unauthorized ADUs in the neighborhood, but wanted to go through the process in good faith to be compliant. Councilor Bogdin asked if the home was currently being rented, and Mr. Faucett said it was. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Rhoda Gaufin, Provo resident, said she was representing Indian Hills. She said she did an informal survey of the neighbors, with more than 70% of respondents in favor. Ms. Gaufin said the property owners were trying to be compliant, and suggested the City consider the application under a special use permit. Jennifer Knapp, Provo resident, said she was the first homeowner to do an overlay zone in Provo and it had been a huge blessing to her family. She spoke in favor of approval. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said she voted against the proposal at the neighborhood meeting. She said she was opposed to spot zoning, and said she did not remember the ability to have ADUs in the neighborhood having been cancelled. Ben Eyre, Provo resident, said he lived in an adjacent neighborhood. He spoke in opposition to spot zoning, and said he hoped the Council would be extremely careful with making exceptions to Code. David Taylor, Provo resident, said he lived in the Oak Hills neighborhood. He asked the Council to carefully consider spot exemptions. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. City Attorney Brian Jones explained previous accessory dwelling unit and supplementary dwelling unit overlays available in Provo, and described changes made as a result of State legislation. Mr. Jones said it was the special use permit option that was eliminated while the applicant was going through the purchase process. He emphasized that if the request was approved, subsequent owners of the property would be eligible for an ADU rental dwelling license if all requirements were met. Mr. Jones said it was his understanding that the current applicants did not meet the owner-occupancy requirements for a rental dwelling license. Councilor Whipple asked if Ms. Gibson would be able to qualify if her father signed a quit-claim deed. Mr. Jones said the suggestion would work as long as doing so did not violate the City’s sham transaction rule. The ownership interest would truly need to be transferred. Councilor Whipple said she knew a lot of young people would not be able to purchase a home without help from parents and the ability to rent out a portion of their property, and said the requirement that all people on title as owners had to occupy the property made the ability impossible. She said it was a policy question for the Council to consider, and said she thought it interesting that neighbors were supportive of the arrangement with the current applicants. Chair Garrett reopened public comment for William Gibson, father of the applicant (participating remotely). Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 3 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. William Gibson, resident of Rohnert Park, California and father of applicant, said the wording of the Code was confusing regarding owner occupancy to qualify for an ADU. He said staff interpreted Code to indicate 100% owner occupancy was required, and asked why the Code said 50% if 100% owner occupancy was required. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor Hoban said the only option available at the moment was permanent, which he felt was not ideal. Responding to a question from Councilor Hoban, Mr. Jones said even if the property were added to the map as having potential for an ADU, the applicant would not qualify for a rental dwelling license because of current owner-occupancy restrictions. Mr. Jones said he suspected the 50% owner occupancy requirement was written in Code, and the subsection with the 100% owner occupancy requirement was added later without removing or changing the 50% language. He said he did not know if the mortgage company would allow Mr. Gibson to quit claim his interest. Councilor MacKay said the sham transaction law was enacted because a lot of investors had found a way around having owner-occupied ADUs. She said the City was in a constant battle to keep housing as affordable as possible. Councilor MacKay emphasized that any decision made by the Council would not be a reflection on the character of the applicants. Councilor Bogdin asked what percentage of Provo was ADU eligible, and staff responded that approximately half of the residential zones were ADU allowable. Councilor Handley said the situation was complicated, and said he had been supportive of allowing Citywide access to ADUs. Councilor Handley said spot zoning was now the only way to address the current situation, and said he believed it was a mistake for the Council to have taken away the special use permit option. He said he felt the Council needed to do more and be more innovative and creative to make ownership for young people as flexible as possible. He expressed the opinion that the issue would not go away. He said he would not be comfortable voting in favor of the application because of spot zoning and because of the current owner occupancy rule. Councilor Hoban said the Council took away the special use permit to be able to review the situations on a case-by-case basis. He said the property had ample parking and neighborhood support, did not seem to be a sham transaction, and seemed to be a good location for an ADU. Motion: Councilor Hoban made a motion to continue the matter until the applicant was able to meet the owner occupancy requirement. The motion was seconded by Councilor Handley. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the substitute motion. Vote: The motion failed 3:4 with Councilors Handley, Hoban, and Whipple in favor, and Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, and MacKay opposed. Councilor Whipple commented that Provo Code currently allowed occupancy of a head of household and all individuals related to them, as well as rental of space to two more related or unrelated persons, all occupying the home as a single unit. She said the option would not work for an external ADU, but could Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 4 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. work for an internal ADU with a connection between the two units. She said a young couple moving into a home would be permitted to bring in a couple of roommates with a rental dwelling license. Chair Garrett said he was impressed with the applicant’s presentation. He said he was in favor of allowing neighborhoods to decide to participate in an overlay zone, instead of spot zoning single properties. Councilor Bogdin said she would be supportive of a neighborhood choosing to participate rather than spot zoning. Councilor Christensen said the issue was not about character, but was very commercial. He said spot zoning the property would change the value of the property, since it would essentially be a duplex instead of a single-family home. He said there were no easy answers to the housing crisis, and said he felt strongly that neighborhoods mattered. Councilor Christensen said ADUs were allowed in half of Provo, and the applicant chose to buy where ADUs were not allowed. He said he did not feel spot zoning was the answer, and did not think spot zoning was the appropriate way to address the particular issue. He said he would not vote in favor. Councilor Hoban said he did not like the idea of large swaths of the City having ADUs, and preferred the idea of the Council having more discretion with the location of ADUs. He said it appeared a majority of the neighborhood was supportive of the application. He said he struggled with the logic of allowing two- thirds of a neighborhood to decide ADUs should be allowed in an entire neighborhood, versus allowing the Council to decide on a case-by-case basis. Councilor Whipple said the General Plan called for gradual infill throughout the City, and the application before the Council, especially with neighborhood support, was exactly that type of gradual increase. She said the application, if approved, would have much less impact on a neighborhood than making an entire neighborhood subject to ADUs. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the implied motion. Vote: The motion failed 2:5 with Councilors Hoban and Whipple in favor, and Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, and MacKay opposed. 4 An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of real property, generally located at 920 S 1020 W from the One-Family Residential (R1.8) and Residential Agricultural (RA) Zones to the One-Family Residential (R1.7) Zone, Sunset (PLRZ20250388) 01:21:47 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-49, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Dahneke presented an application to rezone property located at 920 South 1020 West from R1.8 and RA to R1.7 to allow for creation of one additional lot to develop one additional family dwelling. Chair Garrett opened public comment, and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. With no Council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 5 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chair Garrett moved to item 11 on the agenda. 11 A public hearing for the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) (25-096) 01:24:19 Melissa McNalley, Community Grant Administrator, presented a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for FY2025. She showed overall progress toward five-year plan goals, and answered questions from the Council. Chair Garrett opened a public hearing, and closed the public hearing seeing no one come forward. Ms. McNalley added that comments would be accepted on the website until Sunday, September 28, 2025. Chair Garrett moved back to item 5 on the agenda. 5 An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of real property, generally located at 3200 W Bulldog Lane, from the OSPR and R1.20 Zones to One-Family Residential with Performance Development Overlay (R1.6(PD)) Zone, Lakeview North (PLRZ20250397) 01:29:27 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-50, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Bill Peperone, Director of Development Services, presented the request for rezone to the R1.6(PD) Zone. He explained the Performance Development Overlay allowed housing to be moved off environmentally sensitive areas by clustering housing units. He said the project was a joint venture between Nilson Homes and Provo City to provide workforce housing. Mr. Peperone said helping to enable first responders who worked in Provo to live in Provo would benefit both the City and worker quality of life. Responding to a question from Chair Garrett, Mr. Peperone said 34 of the proposed 68 units would be workforce homes. Chair Garrett said the Council had heard from residents about the need for commercial space in the area. Mr. Peperone said staff were aware of the desire for commercial amenities on the west side. He said the City tried for several years to get a Smith’s at Geneva Road and Center Street. Mr. Peperone said space had been reserved for commercial at 2000 North and Lakeview Parkway. Chair Garrett asked the developer about planned traffic mitigation. Matt Meyer, Engineer with Nilson Homes, said the traffic had been well studied, and said the City Traffic Engineer had indicated the proposed development would not add significantly to area traffic. Mr. Meyer explained planned accesses and site lines. Councilor Christensen asked Mr. Meyer to explain why Nilson Homes was uniquely qualified for the project. Mr. Meyer said the mission of Nilson Homes was to provide single-income homes, and described a previous Nilson Homes project in Weber County with a mix of market-rate homes and starter-home product. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 6 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. David Gail, Provo resident, thanked the Council for considering the workforce housing proposal, and said he supported the goal of creating more affordable housing. He expressed concern with the location, and said the west side was quickly running out of sites that could support everyday neighborhood services in west Provo. He encouraged the Council to amend the plan to reserve space for a small restaurant, café, dance or fitness studio, or hair salon. Mr. Gail emphasized that families needed places to meet daily needs close to home. Adam Borrowman, Provo resident, said he agreed with the goal of affordable housing, but felt there had not been enough effort or investigation into a small business or grocer for the property. Mr. Borrowman said he believed more investigation needed to be done into the desires and needs of the residents of west Provo. Christina Borowman, Provo resident, urged the Council to reconsider the proposal, pause the resolution, and work with residents to find a more balanced plan with both housing and service options for the community. Janice Knuckles, Provo resident, urged the Council to reconsider the proposal. She said she was concerned about the environmental impact, and concerned about how critical Provo workers would be accommodated by the development. Ms. Knuckles said she did a quick search on the internet and found homes for sale in Provo for under $500,000 with more square footage, more bedrooms, and more bathrooms. She said she did not understand how the proposed project would be affordable housing for a median worker in Provo. Steve Zuckerman, Provo resident, said the Bulldog development had designated wetlands on it. He asked if the required land use permit had been submitted for the portion of the development designated wetlands. Mr. Zuckerman mentioned a study of Utah Lake. Sarah Van Cleve, Executive Director of Utah Community Land Trust, spoke of the importance of land trusts. She emphasized that the cost of the land affected the cost of the home, and removing the cost of the land made buying a home more affordable for first time homebuyers. She said there would be deed restrictions, resale requirements, and income restrictions that would support workforce housing. Deputy Executive Director Jessie Ostler emphasized that the workforce housing would require owner occupancy. Keaka Hanamaikai, Provo resident, said things on the west side like the Provo Airport, Epic Sports Park, and Walmart were not for Provo residents. He said they were used by people from outside Provo. Mr. Hanamaikai said getting to the grocery store for residents on the west side was nuts, and said he shopped in Orem. He expressed the opinion that the City had not done anything for residents on the west side. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor MacKay said the Council knew food services were needed on the west side. She said she received a lot of comments about grocery stores from residents of southeast and southwest Provo. Councilor MacKay said she heard from many that they shopped at Walmart because other stores were too expensive, and said the City had tried hard to get Smith’s to come. She emphasized that a total of 139 acres were slated for commercial use on the west side. Councilor MacKay said the City could not force commercial to come before it was ready, and the proposed development would help by adding rooftops. She said conversations had taken place with the School Board and with Intermountain about land trusts and workforce housing. She said the median income in the County was used to determine if applicants Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 7 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. qualified. Councilor MacKay said the area designated wetlands would remain undeveloped with addition of a boardwalk trail. Councilor Bogdin said west side resident committees had been involved in west side planning, and said there had been a robust public interface. Mr. Peperone described the public process used when developing a plan for the west side, and said great effort was taken with neighborhood meetings and public hearings. Councilor Bogdin said the public input meetings had been well attended. Mr. Peperone said Public Works would make sure all environmental regulations were followed in the next stage of the process. Councilor Bogdin said she had been impressed with the current Council, and said there was a lot for the Council to balance. She said every member of the Council listened to and tried to address each concern they heard, and tried to figure out what was best for every part of the City. Councilor MacKay said Provo City had the lowest income in the State, and about 52% of the City was non- profit and did not pay property taxes, which affected whether a company wanted to locate in Provo. The City had needed to make some of it’s own economic drivers, including the airport and sports complex, to help keep property taxes lower and local businesses stronger. Responding to a question from Chair Garrett, Mr. Peperone said there were 39 City employees on a waiting list wanting to prequalify for the workforce housing opportunity. Councilor Whipple asked about the size of the homes. Mr. Meyer said the workforce homes would be a maximum of 1,500 square feet, and all would have attached garages. The garages would not be included in the square footage calculation. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 6 A resolution accepting an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 2.13 acres of property generally located at 5490 N Canyon Road (PLANEX20240291) 02:19:14 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-46, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Dahneke said the two residential properties addressed with the petition for annexation each had one single-family dwelling, with no further development plans. Councilor Bogdin asked about the motivation for annexation, and Ms. Dahneke said an applicant was in attendance and could answer questions. She said she believed the applicants wanted to be part of the City and have access to first responder services. Councilor Whipple asked if the Public Works Department had any concerns about the proposed annexation, and Ms. Dahneke said Public Works reviewed the petition and had no concerns. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 8 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Sandy White, applicant, said the homes were built in 1974 and had been part of the County since that time. She said surrounding properties were all now in the City, and the applicants chose to petition for annexation instead of waiting for the City to do it. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Scott Smith, Provo resident, said he lived adjacent to the White/Hall properties. He mentioned police response time, and said his property had been annexed two years prior. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. With no Council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 7 A resolution accepting an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 144.98 acres of property generally located at 5078 N Canyon Road (PLANEX20240331) 02:25:35 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-47, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Dahneke said the subject 144.98 acres were located adjacent to the White/Hall properties. She said there was an intention of development, and the applicant would come back with a proposed development plan. Responding to a question from Councilor Bogdin, Ms. Dahneke said Public Works concerns would be addressed with the annexation agreement. She said the applicant had been working with Public Works to mitigate concerns. Councilor Christensen asked about sewer capacity. Zach Hartman with Utah Land Advisors, representing the lender that foreclosed on a big portion of the property, said the development plan would match the City’s plan for the area. He said he was comfortable with the sewer capacity. Councilor Christensen referred to a previous project that ended up having significant sewer problems, and asked how the subject property was different. Ms. Dahneke said the proposed resolution before the Council would accept an annexation petition. The applicant would need to come back with a project plan showing capacity. Councilor Christensen said he was not pushing against the project, but was curious to know what was different about the property. City Recorder Heid Allman emphasized that the proposed resolution was only to accept an annexation petition for further consideration. Councilor Handley asked if the desire to annex into the City would change if the City chose not to pursue development. Mr. Hartman said he was moving through the process in good faith, and wanted to annex into Provo regardless of the treatment. He said he was excited about working with Provo. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 9 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Scott Smith, Provo resident, said his property bordered the subject property for almost a mile. He said there had not been anyone like the applicants looking at the subject property in a long time, and said he liked everything he had heard from them. He said he would like to see homes on the subject property. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said she was curious if the developer had looked at what could be done as part of the County. She said she wanted to keep as much open space in the area as possible. Ginny Smith, Provo resident, said she knew the neighbors wanted a reasonable residential neighborhood that was respectful of the environment. She expressed concerns about access to public trails, and concerns about infrastructure. Ms. Smith encouraged the Council to approve the resolution so the process could move forward. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. With no Council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 6:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor, and Councilor Hoban excused. 8 An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of real property, generally located at 2858 West Center Street, from the Agricultural (A1.1) Zone to the One-Family Residential (R1.7) Zone, Fort Utah neighborhood (PLRZ20250384) 02:46:50 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-51, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Planning Supervisor Aaron Ardmore said the applicants were hoping to rezone the subject property to be able to subdivide. The existing home would remain on Lot 2, with three new building lots for a total of four. He explained proposed access easements, and said the Planning Commission and staff supported the proposed rezone. Councilor Bogdin asked if surrounding property owners had been asked if they wanted to join in the rezone. Kevin Peterson, representing the applicant, said they had not. He said they were not aware such a request would be made. Mr. Peterson said the existing home was currently occupied by the owner/applicant. Rocky Williams, applicant, said he might develop Lot 1 himself, and already had a potential developer for Lots 3 and 4, which he would sell. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With no public comment, he closed public comment and invited Council discussion. Councilor Hoban asked the size of the parcel. Mr. Ardmore said the parcel was 1.04 acres. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 10 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. 9 An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 14 to remove data centers as permitted or conditional uses (PLOTA20250458) 02:52:40 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-52, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. City Planner Hannah Salzl said the Council had reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance at previous meetings. She presented the ordinance, and said it was a cleanup item in preparation for creating a data center overlay zone that would allow for more targeted application. Chair Garrett opened the item for public comment, and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. He invited Council discussion, and seeing none, called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 10 An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 14.34A to create a data center overlay zone (PLOTA20250182) 02:54:37 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-53, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Salzl presented a proposed Data Center Overlay that could be applied only to M1 and PIC Zones. She explained proposed requirements, and presented areas of concern addressed by the overlay. Councilor Bogdin emphasized the Council had gone through the proposed ordinance at length. Councilor Handley said he believed the City should be creative and aggressive in asking for more than offered by potential applicants concerning energy sources. Chair Garrett opened public comment. David Gail, Provo resident, asked how the locations of the zones were determined. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. With no Council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 8:35 pm. Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 11 of 12  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. 14th day of July, 2026 Provo City Council Meeting – September 23, 2025 Page 12 of 12