Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo Municipal Council unanimously amends city election code to align with Utah law
Summary
On Feb. 25 the Provo Municipal Council voted 7-0 to approve an ordinance updating the city's election code to conform with Utah state code, removing an outdated reporting requirement and adjusting internal section references.
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Provo Municipal Council voted unanimously Feb. 25 to approve an ordinance that updates Provo's election code to conform with provisions of the Utah Code.
Deputy City Attorney Gary Millward told the council the ordinance primarily corrects subsection references and adds language that mirrors state law. "Essentially, this is an ordinance by and large to bring our election code into conformity, with Utah state code," Millward said, adding that the update also removes an obsolete reporting requirement that had referred to specific November dates and a "fifth year after" condition.
The ordinance adds language stating certain filings must occur "within 30 days of receipt," language Millward said appears in the Utah Code but not previously in the city code. The changes include adjustments to campaign-finance statement subsections and removal of requirements the staff and council judged unnecessary.
Councilor Christiansen praised the revisions. "I appreciate the good work on this. This success reporting cost the city money. It's not helpful. It doesn't help with transparency," Christiansen said.
The council recorded votes verbally: Councilor Bogdan, Councilor Christiansen, Councilor Garrett, Councilor Hanley, Councilor Hogan, Councilor McKay and Councilor Whipple all voted yes. The motion passed 7-0.
The ordinance was described in the meeting as a housekeeping measure intended to bring municipal code references into alignment with state statutory language; no changes to election dates, eligibility or voting processes were described in the discussion.
The council did not identify a mover or seconder on the record; no amendments to the proposed ordinance were discussed during the public meeting.

