Burr v. City of Orem, 311 P.3d 1035

Orem City Council adopted Resolution R-2012-0014 on Aug. 15, 2012, raising property tax revenues by $1,700,000 and adopting the FY 2012–13 budget.
A significant portion of Orem’s budgetary pressure stemmed from a $2.8 million UTOPIA debt-guarantee obligation; UTOPIA is a multi-city fiber network with member cities guaranteeing bonds.
Petitioners collected sufficient referendum signatures challenging Section 1 (the tax increase) and triggered a voter referendum under Utah law.
The Orem City Attorney prepared a ballot title statement (<=100 words) describing the tax adjustment as raising $1.7M for “municipal operations,” with illustrative dollar impacts on a $187,000 residence ($50) and business ($90).
Petitioners challenged the ballot title in Utah Supreme Court, arguing it (1) failed to mention UTOPIA, (2) biased voters by using truth-in-taxation figures that minimized business impact, and (3) was otherwise “unsatisfactory” by hiding the causal link to UTOPIA.
The Court considered statutory requirements for ballot titles and applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the content (truth/impartiality), with no deference to timing/word-limit compliance.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	City of Orem's Argument	Held
Whether the ballot title must mention UTOPIA to be a true and impartial statement of purpose	Title is incomplete and misleading because it omits that the tax increase primarily funds UTOPIA obligations	Resolution’s stated purpose is to defray municipal expenses; "municipal operations" accurately summarizes that purpose and UTOPIA is not referenced in the Resolution text	Court: No abuse of discretion — "for municipal operations" is true and impartial; omission of UTOPIA does not render title untrue
Whether including truth-in-taxation example figures creates an argument favoring the measure by minimizing business impact	Use of the $187,000 business example understates business burden and biases voters	Figures were required by truth-in-taxation statute and provide an apples-to-apples comparison; they are factual and permissible	Court: No abuse of discretion — inclusion of the mandated truth-in-taxation language is factual, not argumentative
Whether the statute’s term "unsatisfactory" creates a separate, broader review standard	"Unsatisfactory" implies a free-standing ground to reject titles that obscure causal links (e.g., to UTOPIA)	"Unsatisfactory" must be read in context as noncompliant with statutory content requirements (truth/impartiality, word limit, timing)	Court: No separate standard; "unsatisfactory" means failing statutory requirements, and the title met them

Stavros v. Office of Legislative Research & Gen. Counsel, 15 P.3d 1013 (Utah 2000) (interpreting ballot-title truth/impartiality and drafting instructions)
Walker v. Weber County, 973 P.2d 927 (Utah 1998) (discussing review of ballot titles and drafter capabilities)
Kendell v. N. Ogden City (In re N. Ogden Ballot Title), 84 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2003) (stating court will not tamper with initiative wording absent compelling reason)