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 Agenda 5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 21, 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 Gary Garrett Councilor George Handley Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Rachel Whipple Mayor Michelle Kaufusi Chief Administrative Officer Scott Henderson Council Executive Director Justin Harrison Assistant City Attorney Gary Millward City Recorder Heidi Allman Conducting: Chair Gary Garrett Excused: Councilor Craig Christensen and Councilor Travis Hoban Prayer – George Bills Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Rachel Whipple Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 Provo City Employee of the Month - October 2025 (25-007) 00:01:54 Mayor Kaufusi expressed her enthusiasm and shared that this month’s Employee of the Month was a member of the Fire Department. Mayor Kaufusi recognized the individual as someone who exemplifies exceptional service for an exceptional community. She then turned the time over to Fire Chief Headman to present. Chief Headman thanked Mayor Kaufusi and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to recognize Chris Blinzinger, Emergency Services Manager for Provo City, as the Employee of the Month. Chief Headman invited Mr. Blinzinger forward and shared that he has served the city for nearly fifteen years. Chief Headman highlighted Mr. Blinzinger’s degree in Crisis and Emergency Management and his extensive experience and connections throughout the state in the emergency management field. He described Mr. Blinzinger as a dedicated professional who works well with others and continually seeks ways to make Provo a safer and more prepared community. Chief Headman noted that Mr. Blinzinger frequently attends meetings and teaches classes during evenings and weekends and is often among the first to respond to emergencies. In those situations, he ensures affected residents are supported and connected with resources such as the Red Cross. Chief Headman also recognized several of Mr. Blinzinger’s recent accomplishments, including organizing and facilitating a FEMA Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC) this past August, which brought together approximately sixty city employees for a week-long training. He further acknowledged Mr. Blinzinger’s efforts in updating the city’s Emergency Response Plan and his service as a liaison officer during the Willard Peak Fire in Ogden Provo City Council Meeting – October 21, 2025 Page 1 of 5  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. and the Buckley Fire in Provo earlier this year. Chief Headman concluded by commending Mr. Blinzinger as an outstanding employee whose dedication and leadership embody the spirit of service within Provo City. Public Comment Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble and opened the public comment period. Katie Volpe addressed the Council, noting she has lived in Provo for nearly five years and cares deeply about the animals in the community. She asked the City to update its ordinances to align with Utah’s Community Cat Act by ending the impoundment and euthanasia of healthy community cats and adopting a Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (TNVR) approach. Ms. Volpe shared that she became aware of the issue while working as a letter carrier, frequently encountering stray cats and small colonies throughout the city. She expressed disappointment that the Best Friends Animal Society TNVR pilot program was withdrawn due to lack of agreement between the City and Police Department, despite broad community support. She also noted that Utah County remains the only county in the state not to achieve “no-kill” status, with a local cat save rate of about 56%, and urged the City to take action to change that. With no other comments, Chair Garrett closed the public comment period. Action Agenda 2 A resolution consenting to board and commission appointments. (25-031) 00:10:29 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-50, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mayor Kaufusi recommended Florence Hawkinson for the Landmarks Commission and Noah Gordon for the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Councilor Whipple expressed enthusiasm for the appointments and shared her interest in participating in additional tours highlighting Provo’s architecture, noting that one of the appointees could assist with that effort. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 5:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 3 An Ordinance approving the petition to annex approximately 16.67 acres of property located at approximately 4505 North Canyon Road. North Timpview neighborhood. (PLANEX20240291) 00:12:49 Provo City Council Meeting – October 21, 2025 Page 2 of 5  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. Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-59, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Jessica Dahneke, City Planner, presented. She reminded the Council that in August they received the initial petition and passed a resolution to consider it for further review. The current action was to approve the annexation ordinance. Ms. Dahneke explained that the area is identified as Area 7 in the City’s Annexation Policy, noting that approval would remove one of the few remaining unincorporated “islands” within Provo. If approved, the annexed area would be designated as an Agricultural (A1.40) zone rather than Open Space, consistent with the City’s annexation policy and general plan. She emphasized that while no development proposals have been discussed, any property owner wishing to develop in the future would need to apply for a rezone to allow higher density, which would return to the Council for consideration. Councilor MacKay asked how long an annexation typically takes for the applicant. Ms. Dahneke explained that the process varies depending on required notices and certifications. It begins with pre-noticing, followed by county notification and certification, then Council consideration through a resolution. After a mandatory 31-day waiting period, the ordinance returns for final approval before being certified by the state. She noted that annexations generally take around six months to complete, barring unusual circumstances. Chair Garrett referred to the staff report and noted that the annexation includes a portion of Foothill Drive, which he found surprising as he believed all city roads were owned by Provo City. He recalled that the property had originally been acquired through eminent domain for the road and asked for clarification on ownership and maintenance. Ms. Dahneke confirmed that a portion of Foothill Drive had remained county property, though the City maintained the roadway. She explained that the annexation would incorporate that section into the City, ensuring all portions of Foothill Drive within the area are included. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Sharron Memmott, of Provo, reported on the neighborhood meeting where the annexation proposal had been presented. She thanked Ms. Dahneke for clarifying the zoning designation and expressed appreciation that any future request for increased density would still be required to go through the standard review process. Chair Garrett closed public comment. With no other council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 5:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 4 An ordinance amending Provo City Code 14.06.020 regarding the definition of owner occupant. (PLOTA20250503) 00:18:19 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-58, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Provo City Council Meeting – October 21, 2025 Page 3 of 5  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. Melia Dayley, Council Policy Analyst, presented. She reviewed the proposed amendment to the definition of “owner occupancy.” She explained that the issue arose during the Bannock Drive ADU discussion, prompting a staff and legal review to determine whether any conflicting language or loopholes existed. The review found none, though some portions of the code caused confusion. Ms. Dayley noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment on September 24 and recommended denial (7–1), citing the need to further study the definition and the effect of ADUs on housing affordability. She stated that a zoning code rewrite is underway to address definitions for clarity and that, while the language can be confusing in parts, it is sound when read as a whole. Councilor Handley stated that he found the amendment somewhat difficult to follow and sought clarification on why the Planning Commission voted against it. He asked staff whether removing the language would make the code clearer or create challenges for applicants in situations similar to the couple involved in the other case. Ms. Dayley responded that the amendment does not change City policy but simply clarifies the wording to prevent confusion. She explained that when read together, the existing clauses do not create a loophole related to tax documentation, but the language has been difficult for both staff and applicants to interpret. Removing the section is intended to simplify the code, consistent with the goals of the ongoing zoning rewrite. She added that the Planning Commission’s denial appeared to stem partly from broader concerns about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and housing affordability, as referenced in the General Plan, and from discomfort with the existing wording of the definition. Chair Garrett confirmed with staff that Development Services is in the process of a zoning code rewrite and asked how soon the Council might see these types of clarifications addressed through that effort compared to acting now. Ms. Dayley responded that she was unsure of the exact timeline for the zoning code rewrite but offered to find out and provide an update to the Council by email. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he invited a council discussion. Bill Peperone, Director of Development Services, clarified that the zoning code rewrite referenced by Ms. Dayley is part of a comprehensive review of the City’s code. He stated that staff had hoped to bring it to the Council by the end of the year but that it will likely be ready in the first quarter of next year. Councilor Whipple stated that she supported revisiting the amendment because the existing language had caused confusion by allowing an owner to claim status without being an occupant. She explained that the code appeared to have been written to allow multiple owners, requiring only one to reside on the property for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), consistent with related language in the City Code. She noted, however, that in practice the City has long interpreted the ordinance to require all owners to occupy the property in order to qualify for an ADU. Councilor Whipple said that while she personally understood the Planning Commission’s concerns about housing affordability and would favor allowing one owner to occupy the property, she recognized that there was not broad support for that approach. Therefore, she supported removing the confusing section to ensure the code is clear and consistent with current enforcement. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Provo City Council Meeting – October 21, 2025 Page 4 of 5  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. Vote: The motion passed 5:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 6:01 PM. 11th day of November, 2025 Provo City Council Meeting – October 21, 2025 Page 5 of 5