In order for candidates to place their campaign signs on Woodbury property, which includes the corners at 800 North and State Street, 800 South and 800 East, and University Parkway and State Street, a short “Campaign Sign Agreement” needed to be signed by the candidate.

Part of the contract indicates a cost of $10 for the sign to be on the property, a point of political contention with some, and a simple statement, according to Woodbury, asking candidates to sign an agreement that they would support the University Place Community Development Agency as it had been voted in nearly a decade ago.

There are four “recitals” in the campaign sign agreement, the second of which is causing the majority of the concern. It reads: “WHEREAS, University Place is a mixed-use development that is zoned and approved for 700,000 square feet of office space, 1.2 million square feet of retail space, 1,800 housing units, a 140-room hotel, and for other civic and entertainment uses.”

The recitals are statements of fact, much of which has already happened. The 140-room hotel begins construction in 2022. The new Hale Center Theater could do the same.

As far as housing and apartment dwellings, the 133 acres of the University Place campus would allow for up to 1,800 units, according to the CDA, based on retail and office square footage.

The “therefore’s” of the agreement include the following, with Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dealing with location for signs, size requirements and length of durations signs can stay up.

Later in the agreement, candidates wishing to place signs on Woodbury property were asked to agree to various conditions, including:

• “Candidate acknowledges, supports, and agrees with the development propositions set forth above in the Recitals and agrees to support the continued development of University Place in accordance therewith.”
• “If Candidate makes statements that are contrary to the Recitals set forth above, or that are contrary to the acknowledgements, support, and agreements made by Candidate herein, as determined by University Place in its sole discretion, then Candidate shall immediately remove the signs. If Candidate does not immediately remove the signs upon notice from University Place, then University Place may remove and discard the signs and charge Candidate for University’s Place’s time for such removal, which will be a minimum of $100.00.”
• “If placement of the signs in any way damages any property, including, without limitation, the irrigation system and landscaping, University Place may relocate the signs and Candidate shall be responsible for the cost of repairing such damage.”
• “Candidate agrees to indemnify, defend, and save University Place, and its managers, members, employees, and agents, harmless from all liabilities, claims, and costs, including, without limitation, attorney fees and court costs, that are brought against University Place for occurrences arising out of the placement of Candidate’s signs or this Agreement.”

A handful of candidates have signed the agreement but none have paid the $10 and Woodbury has not required nor asked for it.

Taylor Woodbury, chief operating officer, noted that the request of $10 is an old legal idea.

“No money has been taken from any candidate with a sign on our property,” Woodbury said.

“UP does not ask for or collect the $10 and none have ever paid it,” said Amanda Butterfield, spokeswoman for Woodbury. “That portion of the agreement is just a ‘consideration of a contract.'”

When it comes to the CDA issues, Taylor Woodbury said, “We are already approved and have our CDA. University Place is the most successful redevelopment in Utah and mixed-use development in the U.S. We’ve done everything we said we’d do and retail is thriving.”

Those candidates who signed the contract include mayoral candidate Jim Evans and council candidates Nichelle Jensen, Tom Macdonald, Quinn Meacham and Shaunte Zundel. Those who did not sign the contract include mayoral candidate Dave Young and council candidates LaNae Millett and David Spencer.

The fundamental difference between those who signed and those who did not is the interpretation of the agreement. Those who signed see it as support of what has already been agreed upon in the 2013 CDA, while others believe it is an agreement that would require future support of whatever Woodbury might do.

Candidate comment

“Ultimately, signing the recent candidate agreement with Woodbury is only committing to support the development that has either already happened or is in the process of being completed under the terms of the PD-34 zone,” Evans said in an email to the Daily Herald. “The commitment to support the continued development of University Place only related to the recitals and nothing new outside of those recitals — despite any claims to the contrary.”

“I, along with entire community give thanks to the Woodbury Family and the (University Place) and all the included businesses on that property and surrounding areas for the efforts to make this a vibrant and taxproviding entity for our community,” Evans added. “I thank them for carrying out the intent of the PD-34 zone that was approved back in December of 2013. Because of them we are able to keep our property taxes lower and still support our police, fire, parks and all the other Orem City services that we enjoy here in our community.”

Said Young in an email, “When I first received the NEW Woodbury contract I was shocked that University Place would ask candidates running for public office to sign such an agreement. This contract is completely inappropriate for any candidate to sign. It literally commits candidates to future votes in favor of University Place developments. I refused to sign it.”

“Orem residents need a Mayor who stands up and advocates for them and protects their interests. Corporations already have a staff of lawyers and lobbyist that represent them,” he added.

“I am definitely not against development. I’m a business guy and an investor. I want to see good policies that promote responsible growth, while still protecting family neighborhoods,” Young said. “In order to do that effectively I cannot swear an oath of allegiance to a developer before I am even elected.”

Young said he will always be against politicians who do not represent the people they were elected to represent and instead side with developers that fund their campaigns.

“In my opinion, this contract committing candidates to side with the developer over the people represents everything that is wrong with politics,” he said. “I would never sign away my ability to protect Orem residents and our city’s future.”

“On September 30th I received an email from Woodbury with a new ‘Campaign Sign Agreement’ replacing the agreement I had signed in June that allowed me to post signs on their property during the Primary and again beginning on October 1st for the General Election,” Millett said of her reasons for not signing the agreement. “The new agreement was very different from the one I had signed in June and appeared to be a potential contract which required me to agree ‘…to support the continued development of University Place in accordance therewith.’ In my judgement, the intent of the Woodbury agreement could be interpreted as a contract where I would be required to commit my future vote on the council to Woodbury projects. Instead of signing it, I chose to place my signs across the street.”

“I shop and dine frequently at the mall and appreciate and support the many renovations Woodbury has made in recent years to beautify and revitalize the area,” she added. “However, it would be a lapse in judgement at the very least, or an ethical violation at worst, for me to sign an agreement with Woodbury committing my future vote to them.”

“If I have the honor of being elected to the City Council by the citizens of Orem, I will approach each issue objectively by carefully researching and considering all of the information presented before making my decision,” Millett said. “I will never commit my future vote in exchange for a sign placement, a donation, to support a past council’s decision, or any other consideration or political favor. I will represent the residents who elected me and their best interests. I will never sign an agreement to commit my future vote.”

Millett said she believes the situation is not about sign placement or supporting the mall, but rather about ethics and good judgement.

“Like any private individual or organization, Woodbury can choose who can place their campaign signs on their property and who cannot,” Macdonald, an incumbent on the council, wrote in an email. “For me this issue became a moral issue, would I agree to honor the commitments that Orem City made prior to my election, or would I try to break commitments made by others.”

“Of course I had legal counsel review this agreement and they concurred that this agreement does NOT commit me, or any others, to any new development agreements, but rather is a restatement of the commitments already made by a prior city council. We are legally and morally bound to uphold contractual agreements already in place,” Macdonald said.

“I am grateful that our mall is a thriving economic center in our city and provides a significant portion of the tax revenues that help to operate Orem,” he added. “I am sorry that there are those who have tried to make this a political issue.”

Fellow incumbent Spencer said he received an email requesting his signature for the new and revised sign agreement several hours prior to him being able to place his campaign signs on the Macey’s and 800 South/800 East properties.

“The new agreement was different from the one I had signed for the Primary Election, a few months earlier, and in other previous elections,” he wrote in an email. “The sentence which states ‘Candidate acknowledges, supports, and agrees with the development propositions set forth above in the recitals and agrees to support the continued development of University Place in accordance therewith’ concerned me.”

“Agreeing with this statement may commit me and any future votes to University Place. Since I do not know what all of the future plans are, I chose not to sign the contract,” Spencer added.

“There is a neighborhood just north of University Place, where residents are very concerned about the future of their homes and properties,” he said. “They are worried University Place will expand their footprint and encroach more upon the neighborhood.”

Spencer said he was not willing to sign a vague and ambiguous binding agreement or contract with no expiration date that may compromise his ability to represent the citizens of Orem and their best interests just to place his campaign signs at certain locations.

“As a Councilman, I represent the citizens of Orem first and I want to maintain the trust of the citizens of Orem who elect me to represent them,” Spencer said.

Council candidate Jensen, in referring to the $10 fee, said that’s not something she paid and has never been concerned about.

“The agreement I signed states I support what has been already agreed upon by the city. So, essentially, I support the development of University Place that council members have already approved,” she wrote in an email to the Daily Herald. “This is not an agreement to support all Woodbury endeavors. An agreement, written or not, like this is not an uncommon condition of a land or business owner whose property is leveraged for personal gain.”

Jensen noted that what should concern residents are the agreements that will never be seen from the other 100-plus commercial property owners throughout the city allowing candidates to post their signs on their properties.

“As for supporting this development, University Place alone provides 22% of Orem’s sales tax revenue and I definitely support a development that single-handedly prevents Orem City from needing to raise property taxes so often on its residents, and I would bet most candidates support U.P. with their wallets in some way or another in their day to day lives,” Jensen said.

“The agreement I signed was just an agreement, it wasn’t a binding contract,” Jensen said. “It was an agreement I’d support the development as it stands, which is 1,800 units, in order to place a sign there. Since candidates have placed signs there whilst disparaging the company in the past, I’m sure it made no sense for the company to continue to allow campaign signage there that affected them negatively.”

“The agreement is just for me to acknowledge that if I do not support the U.P. development, my sign privilege can be revoked,” Jensen said. “There’s no binding language about other Woodbury endeavors or future decisions of support by a candidate who becomes a council member.”

In speaking about various issues of the campaign, council candidate Meacham had something to say about the sign issues.

“One current issue that needs clarification is that of the Woodbury sign agreement, which some candidates signed and others did not. Woodbury asked candidates putting signs on their properties to sign an agreement this Fall that they would not oppose existing contracts that they have with the city. This has been misinterpreted by some who spuriously suggest that candidates who signed the agreement are in support of ever expanding development in Orem,” he said by email.

Meacham said that he spoke out publicly against the expansion of high-density housing in his neighborhood when Woodbury proposed building apartments adjacent to University Mall.

“The project went through, and I was frustrated at what I perceived was a lack of consideration for resident input in the decision,” he said. “When I was asked to sign Woodbury’s sign agreement this Fall, I read it carefully. While I thought that it was a bit condescending in tone, the essence of the agreement was this: a candidate who put signs on their property simply agreed to support the city acting in good faith on its existing agreements with the company.”

“I want to support the city acting in good faith on its agreements and I take a principled stand on that issue, even if it does not always reflect my development preferences. I signed the agreement because I believe in acting with integrity and honoring agreements that came before me. If, as a city, we cannot be trusted to honor our word, trust in government declines,” Meacham added. “As a public official, I will always remain both independent and conservative when it comes to questions of development. Anyone who suggests otherwise misrepresents my positions either out of ignorance or for political gain.”

Zundel, a lawyer, noted that although she has publicly spoken out against “predatory practices” by Woodbury in the past, she ultimately signed on after reviewing the updated agreement, finding that “this would not prevent me from continuing to advocate for Orem Neighborhoods during this campaign or in the future if I were to be elected,” she wrote in an email to the Daily Herald.

Like some of her rivals, Zundel expressed disappointment at the “misinformation” spread about the Woodbury agreement and lamented that other issues facing the city have not gained equal attention.

“The contract starts by listing facts, outlining what Orem has already agreed to allow Woodbury to build on their University Place property,” she wrote. “The contract then asks candidates to acknowledge that those agreements exist. It does not require the candidate to promise to support any particular future zoning request or contract. In fact, there is nothing in the contract that would prevent a candidate from changing zoning in the future.”

“It has been suggested that Woodbury could use these agreements to force a candidate to vote for them in the future,” Zundel’s email continued. “This is also not true. In fact, the only potential consequence of violating the contract is being asked to remove campaign signs from the property.”

Zundel said that, beyond a matter of ethics or judgement, she believes the greater issue at play is one of visibility.

“Because some of my opponents are spending 10x as much money as me, having the visibility those corners provided was important to me. Although I see no problem with the agreement, I was approached by some of my supporters asking me if I would be willing to move my signs if they could help me find locations with comparable visibility. Because that request was reasonable and did not violate any laws, I agreed to move my signs.”

On Monday, a group of Orem residents filed a “Petition for Ethics Violation” with the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office seeking an investigation into the ethics and legalities of the Woobury Corp. contract and the candidates who signed it.

Mailers were also sent out inviting residents to sign the petition.

Those filing include: Linda and Ken Messmer, Janet Hatch, Elni Wilding, Helena Kleinlein, Deni and Mike Preston, Cathy Owens, Brooke Peterson and Heather Heidem.

Voters have until next Monday to mail in their ballots. Election day is Tuesday, Nov. 2.