Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 1 of 8
Please note: These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion.
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Minutes
1:00 PM | July 14, 2026
Provo Peaks Conference Room (110)
445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601
Roll Call
Council Chair Katrice MacKay, conducting
Council Vice-Chair Craig Christensen
Councilor Gary Garrett (Remote)
Councilor Jeff Whitlock
Councilor Becky Bogdin
Councilor Travis Hoban
Councilor Rachel Whipple
Approval of Minutes
• September 23, 2025 Council Meeting
• December 16, 2025 Council Meeting
• May 26, 2026 Council Meeting
• June 23, 2026 Work Meeting
These Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
Business
1. A presentation regarding the Mountainland Association of Governments
(MAG) (26-055) 00:01:44
LaNiece Davenport, MPO Director; Kevin Feldt, Transportation Planning Manager; and Bob
Allen, Transportation Programming Manager, presented on behalf of the Mountain Land
Association of Governments (MAG). The presentation provided an overview of MAG's
structure, its role as one of Utah's seven associations of governments representing Utah, Summit,
and Wasatch Counties, and the programs it administers including the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Davenport explained that MAG is governed by local elected officials, including all mayors and
county commissioners within Utah County, along with transportation partners such as UDOT,
UTA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). She described MAG's Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), which vets projects before they advance to the MPO board. Provo
City's representative on the TAC is Public Works Director Gordon Haight.

Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 2 of 8
Feldt outlined the RTP, which is a long-range transportation plan updated every four years with a
current horizon year of 2055. The plan encompasses road, transit, and active transportation
projects of regional significance and is governed by fiscal constraint requirements set by the
federal government. Projects are scored and phased into three ten-year periods based on
anticipated revenues and regional need. Feldt noted that projects requiring federal or state
funding must be included in the RTP.
Allen clarified the distinction between the RTP and the TIP, describing the TIP as the short-term
implementation arm of the RTP—similar to a capital improvement plan—listing all regionally
significant projects with real, assigned funding over a four-to-six-year window. He noted the
current TIP reflects approximately $3.6 billion in projects countywide through 2031, of which
approximately $500 million is MAG-administered funding.
Council members raised questions regarding the 820 North corridor project. Allen confirmed the
project is in the current RTP as a Phase 1 need and that modeling indicated Center Street could
absorb approximately 15,000 additional daily trips without the 820 North improvement by 2055.
He noted the next TIP selection cycle would begin in late 2027, with funding decisions finalized
by August 2028 for projects constructed in approximately 2031–2032. Discussion arose
regarding the process for project submission, with Allen confirming that while the mayor is
Provo's representative on the MPO board, other entities such as county commissioners may also
submit projects, ideally with coordination between parties.
Councilor Hoban requested a future follow-up presentation with updated modeling data specific
to the 820 North project to better inform council decision-making. Councilor Whitlock noted
interest in reviewing updated data given the changes in travel behavior since the COVID-19
pandemic. Councilor Christensen expressed support for the planning work and emphasized the
importance of balancing safety, access, and neighborhood concerns.
Council Member Garrett moved to express the Council's support of the current master
transportation plan and the projects currently in common with MAG. Council Member
Christensen seconded the motion. The motion Passed 6-1 (Councilor Whitlock opposed).
2. A presentation regarding an update from Intermountain Health Care (26-059)
00:58:00
Kyle Hansen, Administrator for Intermountain Health Care's Utah Valley Hospital campus,
presented alongside Janet Frank, Community Outreach Leader. Hansen provided an overview of
projected growth in healthcare demand within Utah County, driven primarily by population
growth and an aging demographic. He noted that the fastest-growing cohort in the county is the
population over age 65, which is expected to continue increasing as a percentage over the next
30 years.
Hansen presented projections indicating a roughly 50 percent increase in average daily hospital
census over the next ten years, growing from approximately 210 to 312 inpatient beds needed
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 3 of 8
countywide, with the majority of that growth occurring at Utah Valley Hospital. On the
ambulatory side, the medical group is projected to grow by over 200 providers and 200,000
additional clinic visits within the decade, requiring the equivalent of an additional 250,000
square foot patient tower for clinic space alone. Intermountain currently employs over 4,000
individuals based in Provo, with approximately 3,800 at the hospital campus.
Hansen discussed the hospital's vision for becoming a quasi-academic medical center through a
partnership with BYU's new medical school and expanded residency programs. Phase 1
programs include internal medicine (45 total residents over a three-year program) and psychiatry
(16 total residents over a four-year program). A partnership with Noorda also exists for medical
student training. Hansen also stated that Intermountain intends to pursue Level 1 Trauma Center
designation within the next couple of years, noting that Utah Valley Hospital currently functions
at that level of care despite holding a Level 2 designation.
Regarding campus development, Hansen indicated that Intermountain has been acquiring and
clearing aging properties along the Freedom Boulevard corridor in anticipation of new
construction on that parcel, though formal funding approval has not yet been released. He also
confirmed plans to redevelop the clinic site on Canyon Road near Days Market, with a design
application expected to come before the city in the coming months.
Councilor Hoban asked what Provo City could do to support Intermountain's growth. Hansen
cited workforce housing as an emerging focus for the organization and emphasized that
improving access to the hospital campus is the most critical need, noting that the front entrance
of the hospital was intentionally oriented toward 820 North in anticipation of that corridor
becoming a major access route. He expressed strong support for the proposed 820 North
interchange connecting to I-15.
Chair MacKay noted that the hospital and BYU together account for Provo's two largest
employers and indicated interest in forming a collaborative committee with major economic
anchors including Intermountain, BYU, and Noorda to coordinate city support.
3. A resolution amending the HOME-ARP allocation plan (26-025) 01:26:54
Melissa McNalley, RDA Director, presented a proposed amendment to Provo City's HOME-
ARP allocation plan. HOME-ARP funding is a one-time federal allocation from HUD designated
to assist individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The amendment would allow one
recipient, Community Action, to reallocate $260,000 from tenant-based rental assistance to
supportive services, providing greater flexibility in eligible uses. The total funding amount
remains unchanged. Primary uses of the supportive services funds include eviction prevention
and staff salaries directly serving the eligible population, with the administrative cap reduced to
five percent.
Because the reallocation amount triggers the threshold for a substantial amendment, a public
comment period is required. A public hearing on the amendment is scheduled for August 11.
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 4 of 8
4. A resolution approving an interlocal agreement between Provo City and Orem
City regarding funding for Orem 2000 S storm drain project; and authorizing
the mayor to sign that agreement on behalf of the city. (26-056) 01:29:37
Danielle Nixon, Public Works Engineer, presented a proposed interlocal agreement between
Provo City and Orem City for the 2000 North storm drain project on the east side of Geneva
Road. Nixon explained that under an existing boundary agreement, Provo City owns 2000 North
up to the north curb, while Orem City owns the planter strip and sidewalk. Orem City has
already awarded the storm drain construction contract to RV Construction. The project will begin
just east of Geneva Road, near the Holiday gas station, and extend to just south of the UTA rail
tracks.
The agreement establishes a shared facility arrangement. Rather than each city installing separate
storm drain infrastructure, Provo agreed to allow Orem to install a larger combined system, with
Provo accepting responsibility for inlets and laterals connecting to the main, and Orem taking
ownership and maintenance of the main storm drain line. The agreement also includes a limited
discharge provision, restricting connections to only street drainage from the Provo-side road until
Orem completes its Lakeview Parkway extension and establishes a dedicated outfall, at which
point the Orem system will disconnect from Provo's.
Provo City's total cost under the agreement is $16,520.49, covering a connection to an existing
sump, replacement of asphalt, and a proportional share of mobilization, traffic control, and
SWPPP costs. The two inlets to be placed within the project area and taken over by Provo upon
completion are being funded by a private developer under a separate Orem City agreement, at no
cost to Provo.
Councilor Whitlock noted the arrangement appeared favorable to Provo. Councilor Bogdin
inquired about the timeline for Orem's Lakeview Parkway extension, and Nixon indicated she
was not certain but had heard that the new Orem mayor may be working to advance the project.
Bogdin noted the topic would be appropriate to raise at a future joint meeting with Orem.
5. An ordinance vacating a section of 1600 West to deed back to the adjoining
property owners (PLSV20250636) 01:38:13
A city planner presented an ordinance to vacate a portion of right-of-way on 1600 West and deed
it back to the adjoining property owners. The right-of-way was originally dedicated by the
adjacent landowners as part of a subdivision process. Street improvements in that area have since
been completed, leaving approximately a 20-foot strip of excess right-of-way. Under state
statute, upon vacation, the property returns to the original dedicating property owners.
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 5 of 8
Councilor Whipple sought clarification that no compensation to the city was required,
confirming that because the land was dedicated at no cost as a subdivision condition, its return is
consistent with state statute requirements for right-of-way vacations.
Councilor Bogdin raised concern about the narrowness of 1600 West in this area and the volume
of pedestrian traffic, particularly given the proximity of Sunset View Elementary and a nearby
junior high school. Public Works Director Gordon Haight explained that widening the road to the
originally intended width would require acquiring approximately nine homes and relocating
utility infrastructure, making the project financially impractical for the foreseeable future. He
indicated that the preferred approach is to install sidewalks now within the existing right-of-way
that will remain dedicated, and to add no-parking signage. Haight confirmed the right-of-way
being vacated sits behind the planned sidewalk alignment, and that a straight sidewalk alignment
is preferable for safety and drainage management. The parcel to be vacated measures
approximately 0.08 acres.
6. An ordinance requiring members of boards and commissions to be Provo
residents. (26-057) 01:51:29
Council Policy Analyst Tanner Taguchi presented a proposed ordinance to establish a default
residency requirement for members of Provo City boards and commissions. Under current code,
there is no default residency requirement unless a specific board's enabling section expressly
requires it. The proposed amendment would add a residency requirement to the general boards
and commissions chapter, while allowing individual board sections to provide exceptions.
Specific exceptions recommended in the proposal include: allowing the Arts Council to retain up
to three non-resident members given its regional impact through the Covey Center; allowing the
airport's fixed-base operator representative on the Airport Board to be a non-resident; and
exempting the Board of Equalization, which is composed exclusively of city employees.
Language was also included to allow any incumbent non-residents currently serving to complete
their approved terms.
Chief Administrative Officer Scott Henderson raised the question of whether property or
business owners who are not primary residents would qualify. Taguchi and City Attorney Brian
Jones confirmed that absent a specific definition in code, "resident" would revert to the common
understanding of primary residency within the city. Discussion also addressed the Transportation
Management Advisory Committee (TMAC), which includes a seat designated for a business
representative. Taguchi confirmed that Public Works Director Haight had reviewed the proposal
and was comfortable with the change as applied to TMAC. Jones noted that if experience
showed a need for exceptions in specific boards, individual section language could be added
later.
Councilor Bogdin noted that as a college city with a large population of professors, business
owners, and engaged residents, Provo should have sufficient talent to fill its boards. The item
was directed toward a night meeting for formal action.
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 6 of 8
7. A discussion regarding a proposed text amendment to allow tow truck parking
in residential zones. (26-058) 02:02:49
Taguchi presented a discussion item regarding a proposed text amendment to allow tow truck
parking on residential parcels. He clarified that the proposal pertains only to the storage and
parking of tow trucks on a residential parcel where the operator lives, and not on public streets in
residential zones, which would remain prohibited.
Taguchi provided context on how tow trucks operate in Provo, noting that several businesses
serve on a rotation list used by the Provo Police Department and other county law enforcement
agencies, with a functional response-time expectation of 15 minutes. Current code prohibits most
heavy commercial vehicles from being stored on residential lots. Code enforcement records
showed approximately five tow truck citations over the past five years, indicating the issue arises
infrequently, though it has affected at least one resident who brought the matter to the Council's
attention.
The proposal would create a narrow exception to the prohibition on heavy commercial vehicles
in residential zones, applicable only to tow trucks under contract with a government entity. The
proposal also included changing the vehicle weight threshold in the relevant code section from
18,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to 14,000 pounds, which reflects the upper limit of a Class 3
medium truck under Federal Highway Administration classifications.
Council discussion raised concerns about consistency and fairness, with Councilor Whipple
noting that other businesses operating heavy commercial vehicles for the public good—such as
food trucks or audio-visual equipment operators—are not afforded similar exceptions. She also
raised safety concerns related to sight-line obstructions and wear on residential streets and alleys
from heavy vehicles. Councilor Christensen questioned the proportionality of staff time devoted
to the issue given the limited number of affected parties. Chair MacKay and Councilor Bogdin,
who co-sponsored the item, acknowledged the fairness concerns and indicated they were not
strongly committed to the carve-out approach.
Parking Program Manager Sandy Bussio indicated that a weight threshold of 14,000 pounds
would be workable from an enforcement standpoint. Taguchi noted that Vern Keeslar, Traffic
Manager, had also identified the existing weight language as outdated and suggested the 14,000-
pound threshold update be incorporated into a broader code rewrite for consistency rather than
acted upon separately at this time. The Council reached consensus to incorporate the 14,000-
pound weight threshold update into the ongoing code rewrite and to not advance the tow truck-
specific exception.
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 7 of 8
8. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Provo City Code § 14.37.050
related to parking requirement reductions. (PLOTA20260080) 02:23:45
Taguchi presented proposed amendments to the parking requirement reduction provisions of the
zoning code, following discussion at the June 23, 2026 Work Meeting. The existing code allows
the Planning Commission to approve reductions in required parking through two administrative
mechanisms: a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan supported by a parking study,
and an enhanced bicycle parking program. The proposed amendment would remove both of
those mechanisms, leaving the Planning Commission without authority to grant parking
reductions administratively. Any future reduction would require action by the City Council
through a zone change, text amendment, overlay zone, or similar legislative process.
Taguchi noted that only eight TDMs have been approved historically, with six currently active,
and that most approved reductions were minor. City Attorney Jones clarified that the change
does not give the Council a proactive mechanism to grant reductions, but rather eliminates the
existing administrative pathway, such that developers would need to approach the Council
through a formal zone-related process if seeking a reduction. Proposed language in the
amendment would preserve existing TDM agreements and their associated monitoring and
mitigation obligations, which Jones confirmed are contained within the individual agreements
themselves rather than solely in the code.
Development Services Director Bill Peperone noted that parking cost and parking ratios are a
significant barrier to development, particularly for student housing. He referenced a pending
application from Park Plaza that would likely not proceed without a parking reduction. Peperone
and Jones discussed the relative merits of overlay zones versus development agreements as
future vehicles for granting reductions, with Jones noting that overlay zones are more durable
while development agreements require careful structuring to ensure restrictions survive beyond
the certificate of occupancy. Peperone suggested that recorded plat language could serve as an
additional safeguard.
Councilor Whipple opposed the change, stating her preference for retaining the administrative
pathway as an incentive mechanism and expressing concern that requiring council action for
every parking reduction would create delays and financial costs for applicants and the city. She
acknowledged, however, that the proposed amendment preserves existing programs and noted
that she would support a broader policy change applicable to all vehicle types uniformly rather
than a selective approach.
Councilor Hoban expressed support for bringing parking reduction decisions to the Council,
stating confidence in the body's ability to handle the expected volume of requests. Councilor
Christensen emphasized the importance of surgical, case-by-case review to protect
neighborhoods from spillover parking impacts. Councilor Whitlock expressed hope that bringing
these decisions to the Council would ultimately produce a better long-term policy framework.
Councilor Bogdin moved to advance the proposed amendment to a Council night meeting.
Council Vice-Chair Christensen seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Councilor
Whipple voting no.
Provo City Municipal Council Work Meeting – July 14, 2026 Page 8 of 8
9. A discussion regarding external accessory dwelling units. (26-038) 02:55:19
Council Policy Analyst Melia Dayley presented a follow-up on the external accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) discussion from the June 9, 2026 Work Meeting. Dayley outlined five proposed code
changes developed in coordination with Development Services and the City Attorney's Office,
incorporating the motions made at the prior meeting as well as updates required by state law.
The first amendment preserves the existing external ADU allowances in the current permitted
map and other specified areas while adding compliance language to also allow external ADUs in
areas mandated by state code. The second amendment, unchanged from June 9, limits combined
parcel coverage of the primary structure and all accessory structures to 40 percent. The third
amendment, also unchanged, provides that utility connections—whether tied to the primary
dwelling or separate—will be determined administratively by Public Works based on what best
serves the city's systems.
The fourth amendment addresses privacy and height concerns raised in prior discussion. For
detached ADUs permitted under the new state mandate, a tiered setback requirement applies: for
every foot the structure exceeds 16 feet in height, an additional foot of setback is required, up to
a maximum of 25 feet and not to exceed the height of the primary dwelling. This requirement
applies only to the new state-mandated ADU allowances; existing areas where external ADUs
are already permitted under Provo code are not subject to these new requirements, preserving
flexibility in pioneer-area and other unique parcels.
The fifth amendment addresses parking, incorporating state code limitations by reference so that
any future state changes automatically apply without requiring a local code update. For detached
ADUs under the state mandate, the parking maximum is two off-street stalls for units 650 square
feet or larger, and one stall for smaller units.
Councilor Whipple expressed appreciation for how the amendments were structured, noting they
addressed the council's privacy concerns while preserving existing rights in already-permitted
areas. She reiterated her general policy position in favor of making it easier to build detached
ADUs throughout the city but acknowledged the structure of the amendment as a reasonable
compromise. Councilor Bogdin noted the code changes must be adopted by October 1 and
requested that staff prepare a plain-language chart summarizing the various ADU types and
requirements for use in community outreach. Dayley confirmed a chart would be developed for
public-facing distribution, though not incorporated directly into the code.
The Council reached consensus to forward the proposed amendments to Development Services
and the City Attorney's Office for incorporation into the ongoing zoning code rewrite, which is
anticipated to go before the Planning Commission the following month and return to the Council
in the fall.
Adjournment
