MANSFIELD — An effort has failed that would have put the annexation of land into Mansfield for a Buc-ee’s Travel Center on the November ballot.
The bipartisan directors of the Richland County Board of Board of Elections on Tuesday told board members a referendum petition “failed to comply with several mandatory requirements of Ohio law governing municipal referendum petitions.”
Director Matt Finfgeld and Deputy Director Jane Zimmermann sent a letter to Mansfield Finance Director Kelly Converse on July 8 notifying her of the decision.
No board action was needed on Tuesday. If the two elections officials had approved the petitions, the four-member, bipartisan board would consider it for the ballot.
Lucas Road resident Nick Stadelman — whose farm is near the proposed Buc-ee’s site — submitted the petition and signatures to Converse on June 18. That was the first step in the process needed to put the Mansfield City Council annexation decision on the ballot.
Converse held the petitions for public inspection for 10 days, as required by law, before submitting them to the Board of Elections for review.
“Because these statutory requirements were not satisfied, the Board found there were no valid part-petitions and, consequently, no valid signatures to certify,” Finfgeld and Zimmermann said in a one-page letter to Converse on July 8. “The requirements governing referendum petitions are mandatory, and the Board of Elections must apply them uniformly to all petitions submitted for review.
“Because the petition failed to satisfy these requirements, none of the part-petitions could be accepted as valid. Accordingly, no signatures submitted with the petition could be certified.”
At this point, the petition effort is done, officials said.
“It just dies from what we understand,” said Finfgeld, who credited Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Amanda Middis for her guidance.
“She was great to work with on this at a quick speed. She worked with us a lot on (the issue).
“It pretty much dies from our understanding, and I believe it’ll be Director Converse (who will) probably notify the person that filed that petition,” Finfgeld said.
Referendum petition sought to put annexation to a city-wide vote
City Council approved the annexation on May 19 of 112.5 acres from Madison and Mifflin townships near the I-71/Ohio 39 interchange.
About 37.5 of those acres comprise the land needed for a sprawling retail center that could mean more than 200 new, full-time jobs in the city at a site that would encompass more than 70,000 square feet.
According to the Richland County Auditor’s Office website, Buc-ee’s recently closed the purchase of those 37.5 acres from the estate of Peter G. Ross for $2,625,000.
Specifically, Finfgeld and Zimmermann identified the following “deficiencies” in the petition:
1. There was a lack of valid signatures
In order to get the referendum on the ballot, residents needed petitions with the signatures of 4,148 registered voters in the city — 35 percent of voters in Mansfield who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.
Finfgeld said the petition included about 1,800 “electronic signatures” from people who signed an online petition at change.org that began in March, two months before local lawmakers approved the annexation in question.
“It’s hard to petition something that hasn’t happened yet,” Finfgeld said during Tuesday’s meeting.
That online petition reads, “We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Madison Township, Mifflin Township, and the City of Mansfield, formally oppose the annexation and development of 110+ acres at the I-71 and State Route 39 interchange for a Buc-ee’s Travel Center. While proponents cite economic growth, the catastrophic risks to our environment, safety, and property rights far outweigh the perceived benefits.”
But in order to be valid, signatures must be “personally affixed in ink,” according to Ohio Revised Code 3501.38(B). In other words, an online petition doesn’t meet the legal requirements to get an issue on the ballot.
In addition to being improper, the two elections officials said many of those who signed electronically don’t live in the city of Mansfield and some live outside of Ohio, including Texas, Colorado and Georgia.
“(Online signatures) were from all over …. not only the state of Ohio, but also some other states,” Finfgeld said.
2. Part-petitions lacked circulator’s statement
The elections officials said state law requires each part-petition “must include a completed circulator’s statement certifying that the circulator witnessed each signature and believes the signers to be qualified electors.”
They said the submitted petition did not include the required statement, “rendering each part-petition legally insufficient.”
3. There was a missing statutory notice
Finfgeld and Zimmermann said ORC 305.34 requires referendum petitions to include “a notice printed in red advising signers of the legal effect of signing the petition.”
They said the submitted petition did not contain the notice.
4. There was a lack of elector eligibility
Only registered voters in the city of Mansfield are eligible to sign a referendum petition concerning a municipal ordinance.
“Due to the lack of valid signatures, the Board was unable to verify the residency of qualifications of any purported signer,” the elections officials said.
Officials said Stadelman submitted just 200 signatures in ink, which had no circulator statement.
“Again, a lot of them didn’t live in Mansfield,” Finfgeld said.
Zimmermann said those initiating the petition drive contacted the elections board before they began.
“They needed to know where to start,” she said.
“I said, ‘You need to contact some legal counsel with these referendums, because it doesn’t start here. It starts with the city.'”
Should any resident planning such a referendum seek advice from an attorney before beginning?
“Absolutely,” Finfgeld said.
