The certification of petitions to put the proposed Stimson Avenue retirement community on the November ballot will have little effect on planning for the construction process, a spokesman for the developer said yesterday.
We're progressing with plans
said spokesman Patrick Higgins of National Church Residences, the Columbus-based, nonprofit group developing the project. We feel confident that the referendum will ultimately pass in our favor.
Higgins said the biggest effect of the referendum will be delaying the ground-breaking for the new facility, which was originally scheduled for August, until November or later. That delay might result in extra costs because of colder weather, he said.
The local board of elections, which will determine the wording of the issue on the ballot, and city Auditor Kathy Hecht verified 446 of the 608 signatures on the petitions last week. The petitioners needed 412 signatures to force the referendum.
Hecht said an advisory board for the board of elections also must verify the signatures before it reaches the ballot, adding nothing jumps out showing a reason it wouldn't go on (the ballot) now. The advisory board likely will review the information during the summer, she said.
The petitioners are questioning an ordinance passed at the end of last year by Athens City Council that would give NCR revocable permission to use a city right of way on Morris Avenue. The referendum has nothing to do with a second ordinance that approved the plans for the project, Hecht said.
Higgins said NCR has experienced delays with previous projects but not because of referendums.
Another potential delay for the project are two administrative appeals filed in January by 10 residents who question the validity of the 3-0 city council votes that passed the two ordinances. Three council members were advised not to participate because of a conflict of interest, and a fourth was out of town at the time of the vote.
The latest development in that case is a journal entry by Judge Michael Ward. In the Feb. 3 entry, Ward questions if the ordinances were administrative, for which the court can hear appeals, or legislative, for which the court cannot. He also questioned if the appellants have standing to bring an appeal. Ward declined to further explain or comment on the entry because it is part of an active case, his secretary said.
Ward halted all progress on the appeals until each party provides briefings to address his questions, according to the journal entry. 17
Archives
Kantele Franko
