City Council Meetings

Please note: These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Minutes 12:00 PM | January 6, 2026 Provo Peak Room Hybrid meeting: 445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 or https://www.youtube.com/provocitycouncil Agenda Roll Call Council Chair Gary Garrett, conducting Council Vice-Chair Rachel Whipple Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Craig Christensen Councilor Jeffery Whitlock Councilor Becky Bogdin Councilor Travis Hoban Mayor Marsha Judkins Business Item 1: Annual Council Governance Review and Priority-Setting Discussion (26-001) 00:00:34 Justin Harrison began the annual council governance review by noting they had scheduled approximately four hours for the meeting, though he hoped it would take less time. He emphasized there would be ample opportunity for questions and discussion of priorities. The agenda included required state trainings for elected officials, ethics training, open and public meetings review, boards and commission assignments, internal council policies, and priority setting for the coming fiscal year. Ethics Training 00:03:28 Brian Jones (City Attorney) provided the required ethics training, explaining the Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act applies specifically to council members. He outlined several prohibitions including: disclosing or improperly using information received in official roles for personal economic gain; using positions to further personal economic interests or secure special privileges; and knowingly receiving or soliciting gifts of substantial value or economic benefit that would improperly influence a reasonable person. Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 1 of 12 Mr. Jones explained the safe harbor rule allows for occasional non-monetary gifts of less than $50, though he noted that with inflation, many dinners now exceed this amount. He clarified that awards publicly presented for public service are excepted from the gift restrictions. He also noted that while it is prohibited to receive compensation for assisting someone in a transaction with the city, this becomes legal if properly disclosed. When asked if this was city code or state code, Mr. Jones confirmed these provisions were all state code, with violations potentially resulting in dismissal from office and criminal charges up to a second-degree felony depending on the value received. Regarding required disclosures, Mr. Jones explained council members must disclose if they receive or agree to receive compensation for assisting someone with a city transaction, writing to the mayor and disclosing in the public meeting where the transaction is discussed. Members must also disclose if they are an officer, director, agent, employee, or owner of a substantial interest in a business located in Provo City or doing business with the city. He emphasized this includes interests held by spouses. There is also a catch-all requirement to disclose any personal interest or investment creating a conflict between personal interests and public duties, which must be made in writing. Mr. Jones noted that if a council member fails to make required disclosures regarding a transaction the city enters into, state law requires their removal from office and allows the city to void the transaction. He explained the comprehensive disclosure form must be filed each January, with failure to file potentially resulting in a $100 civil fine from the city recorder and possible class B misdemeanor charges. The form must be filed between January 1st and January 30th each year. Provo City code requires recusal when the council takes action on matters involving the direct financial interest of a council member or their relatives (defined as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, spouse, stepchildren, and spouses of children). The ordinance requires recusal only when there is an "individualized material effect" different from the general public. Mr. Jones provided an example: "If you own a convenience store and the council is voting on business licensing fees for convenience stores, this does not apply. Because all convenience stores - you're passing something applies to all convenience stores happens to affect you, but it also affects everybody else who has a convenience store." Council members asked several clarifying questions. When Councilor Hoban asked about siblings being included, Mr. Jones confirmed siblings are covered under the recusal requirement. He recalled one instance where a council member's brother was Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 2 of 12 a developer applying for a zone change, requiring recusal. Council members can request an opinion from the city attorney before meetings if they have concerns, and if the city attorney opines that recusal is not necessary based on accurate facts provided, this grants safe harbor. Council members then completed various required forms. Mr. Harrison reminded members that intervention training for municipal officials is required once every four years and offered to resend the link for those who hadn't completed it. Open and Public Meetings Act Training 00:41:25 Kevin Martins (Council Clerk) provided training on the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA), which he summarized as "ensuring lawful and transparent deliberation and decision making under Utah law." He explained that while he handles most OPMA requirements like noticing, publishing, and minutes, council members need to understand requirements for deliberation and decision making. Mr. Martins explained OPMA applies to public bodies of at least two people created by the Utah Constitution or by resolution/ordinance that disperse or receive taxpayer dollars and have authority to make decisions on public business. A meeting requires a quorum (at least four council members) convened by someone with authority (the chair or vice chair) for the purpose of receiving public comment, deliberating, or making decisions on relevant matters. Activities that don't count as meetings include barbecues, riding on Fourth of July floats, or running into each other at Sub Zero. However, Mr. Martins and Mr. Jones emphasized that deliberation should not happen at these gatherings - no discussing how members will vote or what they plan to do. All deliberation and decision making should occur in publicly noticed open meetings. Regarding electronic meetings, the state allows meetings over phone or video if the council sets its own rules, which are contained in Chapter 9-ii-B of the council handbook. Electronic meetings require the same 24-hour notice as regular meetings and must be published on the Utah Public Meeting Notice website, city website, and city hall bulletin board. If everyone is remote, no anchor location is required, but if at least two people meet in person, that location must be published. The council can close meetings for specific topics grouped into three categories: discussing character, professional competence, or physical/mental health of Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 3 of 12 individuals (such as when selecting board appointees); strategy for bargaining, litigation, or real property negotiations where public discussion could disadvantage the city; and protecting sensitive information like cybersecurity upgrades. To close a meeting requires a quorum present with two-thirds voting to close (with seven members present, five must vote yes). The reason for closing and location must be publicly disclosed, along with who voted for and against closing. During closed meetings, the council cannot approve ordinances, resolutions, rules, or handbook changes. They cannot interview prospective individuals to fill elected position vacancies. Most importantly, they cannot take final action or vote in closed meetings. Mr. Martins explained that while discussing board appointments, rather than voting, he might say "I will prepare the resolution for next meeting and I will include these following names which I feel is what's favorable for everyone. Does anyone object?" Mr. Jones added that the law recently changed to prohibit any voting in closed meetings, not just final action, though council members can still state their opinions. Council members expressed confusion about the prohibition on voting, with Councilor Whipple noting it seems like "practically, you should be able to vote, but that vote wouldn't be binding until the vote was done again in an open meeting." Mr. Jones explained this was indeed the previous law, but the legislature changed it, likely because someone somewhere was using it as a loophole. Regarding notice requirements, Class A notices for regular meetings require posting on the city website, state website, and city hall bulletin board. Class B notices affect specific city areas and also require mailed notice to affected populations. Class C notices for citywide matters like truth in taxation will also require newspaper publication. Emergency meetings can be held with practical notice rather than 24 hours, but require agreement from at least a quorum and detailed minutes explaining the emergency justification. Minutes and recordings must be kept for all open meetings (Mr. Martins completes these within 2-3 business days using AI assistance). Recordings must be kept for closed meetings, with optional detailed minutes. Recording can be stopped when discussing character/competency or security matters, requiring a sworn statement from the chair. Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Jones clarified that public comment is only legally required for items requiring public hearings under state or city code - primarily appropriations, budget matters, condemnations, annexations, and ballot measures. The open public comment period is completely voluntary and could be eliminated at any point. He noted they recently discovered they'd been inadvertently asking for public comment on board and commission appointments, which had caused problems in the past, and would be updating the template to exclude these from public comment. GRAMA Training 01:04:10 Heidi Allman (City Recorder) provided training on the Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA), noting that while the council typically doesn't receive many records requests, this year was exceptional due to "hot topic items" that required significant work. She explained GRAMA's purpose is to make public the operations of the city while protecting information that should be protected, such as employee data and confidential police/fire reports governed by HIPAA. Ms. Allman defined records broadly to include books, letters, documents, papers, maps, plans, photos, films, and even magnetic tape cartridges stored in the vault that the city can no longer read. Records do not include personal non-work related communications on employee phones. However, if council members use personal phones for city business, those communications are subject to GRAMA even without city reimbursement. She clarified that text messages to family during meetings about the meeting running long are not public records, but cautioned about perception if texting during meetings. Regarding temporary drafts, Ms. Allman explained that drafts never reaching completion but used for decisions become records, while earlier versions superseded by final versions (like version 1 replaced by version 5) are not considered records. Valid records requests must include the requester's name, mailing address (email acceptable), and phone number. They must describe records with reasonable specificity - Ms. Allman cannot respond to requests for "all records about my house" because the city lacks a centralized database and different departments maintain different records. Requests can be submitted via the city website, email, fax, mail, in person, or through the state website portal. Ms. Allman described the process: upon receiving a request, she responds acknowledging the 10-business day deadline (5 for expedited requests) and can request extensions for large or complex requests. She forwards requests to appropriate departments who compile records. She reviews records for Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 5 of 12 public/private/protected information, redacting as necessary, before release. Development Services handles many of their own requests for permits and plans since they're clearly public records. When discussing specific requests, Councilor Hoban emphasized the importance of consistency. He expressed concern about treating requests differently and wanted standardized procedures. Mr. Jones reinforced this, advising to "answer the request that was made, not the request that you think was intended… read it carefully and look for the things that are actually described." Ms. Allman noted they often receive overly broad requests that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fulfill, prompting her to contact requesters to clarify what they actually want, which is usually something much smaller. She must cite specific code provisions when denying requests or redacting information. Denials can be appealed to the City Attorney and Chief Administrative Officer, then to the local appeals board or directly to the state. The city received over 500 GRAMA requests last fiscal year (excluding police and fire departments), and had already received about 10 in the first six days of the new calendar year. Boards and Commissions Discussion 01:24:36 Mr. Harrison circulated a list of board and commission assignments, noting that only two council members had submitted their preferences. Council members discussed which positions are appointed by the mayor versus the council, with some confusion about bylaws requirements. Mr. Jones clarified that some positions like Utah Lake Authority are mayoral appointments, though historically mayors have appointed themselves. The distinction between voting memberships and liaison roles was discussed, with several members noting that some boards like CDBG only invite council attendance at presentation meetings rather than having council members as voting participants. Discussion arose about changing assignments to prevent both Councilors Garrett and Hoban from terming out of the audit committee simultaneously. Councilor Hoban suggested finding a replacement for continuity, noting the committee meets quarterly to review internal audits, coordinate audit approaches, and monitor the fraud hotline. It was agreed that all members would review the list and submit preferences, with the mayor's office clarifying which positions she plans to appoint. Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 6 of 12 Issue Tracker Update 01:37:25 Melia Dayley (Policy Analyst) presented the annual issue tracker update, showing that council and staff spent the equivalent of 4.5 days (~108 hours) in meetings last year. She emphasized wanting meetings to be effective and useful for council, staff, and the public. Currently 14 issues are open on the tracker, including major projects like solar rates review (which expanded into a complete power department rate study), river trail design standards, electric vehicles, wetland protection, board commission updates, and rental dwelling licenses. Ms. Dayley explained that policy analysts also monitor state legislation aligned with council priorities. Last year they successfully ran a bill helping with civil fines for code enforcement. Tanner Taguchi recently joined from the state and knows the legislature well, making him a valuable resource for tracking bills. The issue request process requires at least two council sponsors. Requests should specify desired outcomes (ordinance, resolution, funding, administrative review, or outside presentation). Analysts distinguish between legislative matters within council purview versus administrative matters better directed to departments. After receiving requests, analysts conduct initial research, meet with sponsors to confirm direction, perform in-depth analysis, present at work meetings (requiring majority support to proceed), then draft ordinances or continue implementation. Issues close when ordinances pass, sponsors decide not to proceed after initial research, administrative staff indicate lack of support, or proposals fail to gain majority support at work meetings. Some issues like utility relief are on pause at sponsors' request pending other priorities. The ten-minute break was called at 2:10 PM. Upon reconvening, Mayor Marsha Judkins introduced Kyle Friant as the new Deputy Mayor. Mr. Friant shared his background as an attorney who spent the last 8-9 years in advocacy and campaigns, working with over 100 local elected officials statewide. He expressed excitement about moving from the "opinion side" to the "implementation side" of municipal governance. Working as a Governing Body 01:53:05 Mr. Harrison led an interactive exercise asking council members to consider who the city council represents. Using a whiteboard, members offered various answers: Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 7 of 12   "All residents" - with Councilor Garrett emphasizing this includes all residents, not just those who voted for them  "All residents present and future" - as decisions must consider future residents  "Workers in Provo" - recognizing obligations to those who work but don't live in the city, including businesses that support the community  "Stakeholders" - acknowledging that decisions about rivers or lakes impact other cities Discussion explored whether they represent city employees (consensus was the mayor represents employees while council represents their own staff), obligations under oath to the constitution, and various constituencies including students, patients at hospitals, and visitors. Mr. Harrison used this exercise to illustrate that there's no single right answer - each council member brings different perspectives representing the city as a whole. He emphasized the difficulty of governing as a body: "It's not easy to have to lean on at least three other people on this board in order to make a decision. But that is how councils or boards are set up." The council can only give direction to staff, pass laws, and make changes through collaboration as a collective body. Council Priorities Discussion 02:06:10 The council engaged in extensive discussion to establish three main priorities for fiscal year 2027: Priority 1: Home Ownership Councilor Christensen initiated discussion by stating home ownership "continues to be an issue that I feel very strongly about" despite questioning whether the council had been successful with it as a two-year priority. He emphasized: "I still believe in the American dream and a big part of that historically" His motivation focused on not making decisions that continue to benefit developers who own rentals, but rather helping more people achieve homeownership themselves while seeking better balance between rentals and ownership. Councilor Whipple expressed frustration with implementation, citing a project north of the stadium where insistence on for-sale homes resulted in fewer ownership opportunities than if they'd approved townhomes on the edges. She worried the priority cuts the city off from addressing needs of many residents, particularly in her district where homeowners are "the small minority of people." She acknowledged Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 8 of 12 homeownership's importance for building capital but expressed concerns about overlooking the large student population and others who must rent. Councilor MacKay disagreed that the denied project would have provided more for-sale homes, arguing the density was simply too high. She cited successes including reduced setbacks for condos on 500 North, workforce housing, for-sale units in Buckley Draw, and creative solutions like flag lots, smaller square footage, and batch housing. "We've gotten really creative," she emphasized. Councilor Bogdin supported the priority, particularly for Franklin South which has many non-student rentals due to Provo's affordability compared to the rest of the county. She emphasized homeownership's importance for neighborhood stability, especially around mall redevelopment in "the poorest neighborhood in the city." She noted West Provo has many starter homes but lacks 5-6 bedroom houses, causing families with three children to leave the city. "We need something bigger, something where they can move up." Councilor Garrett supported continuing the priority but suggested refining it with better data about actual housing stock percentages and setting concrete milestones. Councilor Hoban agreed, noting homeownership as "the number one way to build wealth in our country" and expressing concern that Provo has shifted from 40% rentals in the 1990s to over 60% now, affecting schools and neighborhood stability. He supported getting creative with solutions like community land trusts and workforce housing while wanting to understand what has and hasn't worked. Councilor Whitlock suggested purchasing datasets like Regrid for preliminary analysis rather than waiting for the RFQ process. Discussion revealed that in the last fiscal year, zero multifamily residential units were entitled compared to 97 single- family homes and 232 condo/townhome units. The current fiscal year shows 681 multifamily units, 26 single-family homes, and 600 townhomes, demonstrating dramatic change. However, members noted a large backlog of entitled but unbuilt multifamily units. Councilor Whipple raised concerns about financing challenges developers face with for-sale requirements, noting "this really messes up their financing… and so then we just don't get projects." She worried about losing opportunities to turn over old housing stock because projects wouldn't be owner-occupied. The insurance issue for condos was discussed extensively, with members explaining that despite Utah changing liability laws, national lenders won't finance condos due to problems in Florida, creating a major bottleneck. Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 9 of 12 Priority 2: Economic Development Councilor MacKay introduced economic development as "definitely a huge issue," expressing need for a comprehensive study: "We talked about RDA a lot this year, but we don't know enough… we don't even know if Walmart is the best solution for our city or not." She wanted analysis of commercial needs citywide - west side, south, east, and downtown - including East Bay revitalization, Center Street downtown vitality, and optimal traffic flow. "Should it be one lane? Should it be no lanes? Should it stay two lanes? I don't know." Councilor Christensen supported focusing deeply on fewer areas rather than broadly, prioritizing downtown as "the heartbeat" and the west side where "the greatest needs are" and "the greatest potential." Councilor Bogdin pushed back on East Bay, citing income levels and location challenges: "I've heard the location there just really is not that great… before we dig into mall redevelopment… let's look at where the best places are for that economic development." The council reached consensus on funding an economic strategic plan examining where to prioritize investment for maximum impact. Councilor Whitlock strongly supported this approach based on his McKinsey experience conducting similar studies: "When I started getting involved with Provo, I was a bit surprised we didn't have a guiding document like that. We have a land use map with our general plan, but it's not the same as a strategic plan." He noted such studies typically take 6-12 weeks with steering committee reviews every 2-3 weeks. Councilor Bogdin emphasized the changing retail landscape: "Retail is not what it once was… a lot of people shop Amazon, a lot of people shop online… I shop differently now than I did five years ago." The study would examine whether traditional retail even fits Provo given industry changes. Councilor Hoban expressed strong support for the strategic approach and learning what recommendations emerge. Priority 3: Zoning/Code Enforcement Councilor Garrett asked about enforcement progress from the past year. Councilor Whipple noted it's "hit and miss" with some agents doing well but needs "more clearly defined processes and follow-up," especially for properties that cure violations but aren't rechecked in six months, leading to repeat problems. She emphasized needing clear workflow and follow-up procedures even after resolution. Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 10 of 12 Councilor Christensen expressed frustration about slow progress on reimagining enforcement using technology: "It's just so easy to avoid us. You just don't answer the phone or answer the door… that can't be that way." While acknowledging staff have been working and planning, he felt little actual progress occurred beyond the Pleasant View neighborhood blitz. Councilor MacKay noted progress including daily fines and body cameras to prevent failed enforcement attempts, but agreed processes need improvement: "Maybe we need to get into the nitty gritty," though she hoped not, seeing it as administration's role. Discussion about measuring success included Councilor Hoban noting he receives fewer complaints than others: "For some reason in my district, I don't get some of the complaints that you guys get." However, Councilors Christensen and MacKay reported enforcement remains a major concern, with Councilor Christensen noting "Every third door, someone says 'that house right there…'" Councilor MacKay added residents have given up reporting because "the city does nothing." Mr. Harrison noted the department consistently says they have adequate resources and work reactively rather than proactively. Council discussed whether to explicitly request transition to proactive enforcement. Councilor Whipple cited progress with rental dwelling licenses (RDLs) revealing illegal duplexes that had operated for decades, though this reduces housing units when enforced. Mr. Jones suggested being more specific about expectations, comparing the challenge to asking UHP to prevent all speeding on I-15. He recommended concrete goals like: "What do you need to do to be able to have the resources to do six month follow-ups on every closed case?" or "What resources do you need to reduce the timeframe before it goes to court?" Council members agreed to continue this priority with refined expectations about data scraping implementation, specific enforcement goals, and measurable outcomes. Additional Priorities and Concerns Council members raised numerous additional priorities to monitor: Councilor Bogdin requested restrooms at Lakewood Park for public safety and functionality, emphasizing children need proper facilities "and not out in the open." Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 11 of 12 She also prioritized public safety staffing for police and fire, particularly the nine positions on grants being "pushed back and pushed back." Councilor MacKay requested a police report on crime trends, noting "there seems to be more crime than I'm used to than unusual" and wanting data on whether it's escalating. Councilor Hoban supported this, sharing a text from someone saying "when I go to my warehouse, which is in East Bay, I have to bring my gun." He wanted understanding of crime patterns and causes in different areas. Councilor Whitlock advocated for parks and open space, specifically following up Vineyard Connector success with action on Slate Canyon and river trail development. Councilor Hoban supported river and delta development as economic drivers, sharing his experience finding dead fish at the delta despite beautiful pictures. He envisioned making these destinations for the county with easier access and more amenities. Councilor Whipple presented a detailed list including:  Parks & Recreation master plan update (last done 2021)  Transportation master plan (2020) and bicycle master plan (2013) updates  Downtown master plan update (2015)  One-stop permitting/concierge service for development applications, citing Lehi's model of gathering all departments in one room  Additional fleet mechanic certified for fire equipment (currently only one for all vehicles, creating "shell game" of patches)  Bathrooms at all playgrounds  Christmas lights on Center Street trees between University and 500 West as economic development driver Councilor Christensen supported public safety, west side parks with bathrooms, and conservation efforts including river development. The meeting concluded with Mayor Judkins offering to begin work immediately on priorities not requiring formal budget designation. Councilor Christensen emphasized wanting "quicker little steps" with communication every 48 hours rather than waiting a month for presentations. Staff agreed to send draft priorities with specific questions by Thursday for feedback over the weekend, with goal of finalizing at the January 27th meeting. Adjournment Provo City Municipal Council Budget Priorities Meeting – January 6, 2026 Page 12 of 12