Referendum Sought Over New Medical Center Wing : Health care: Community Memorial alleges that county hospital’s proposed project is aimed at luring away private patients.

After losing one fight in the courtroom, Community Memorial Hospital said Thursday that it plans to appeal to voters to block construction of a $51-million outpatient wing at neighboring Ventura County Medical Center.

Michael Bakst, director of Community Memorial, said his hospital has already begun collecting the 22,214 signatures needed to place a countywide referendum on the March, 1996, ballot.

The hospital hopes to prevent the sale of bond-like certificates to finance the public medical center’s new ambulatory care clinic. Community Memorial, a private hospital, says the taxpayer-funded project would be used to lure away private patients.

But fresh from losing a lawsuit against the county over the same issue, Community Memorial may have already hit a wall in its effort to put the matter before voters.

Under the law, Community Memorial must collect petition signatures within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors’ decision authorizing the sale of the hospital certificates, said county Counsel James McBride.

The board voted this week to change the agency that will insure the certificates, but authorized the sale last December. McBride said that puts the matter beyond the time permitted for a referendum challenge.

“We think it’s too late,” he said.

Community Memorial officials, including Bakst, did not return calls seeking comment Thursday.

But Bakst said in a prepared statement faxed to the media that the new wing is unnecessary and a financial gamble for taxpayers, adding that the county’s plan is just another attempt to attract private patients.

“We are confident that once the voters know the facts, they will agree with us and rein in this reckless action,” Bakst wrote.

County officials expressed frustration at what they view as a costly and misleading campaign to block the medical center project.

“I’m disappointed that they are continuing to inflict fear in taxpayers with inaccurate information,” said Pierre Durand, director of the county’s Health Care Agency. “We are not competing for private patients. Our system is one that provides care for the uninsured.”

Durand said the medical center is also not expanding or adding beds as Community Memorial alleges, but consolidating outpatient services now housed in leased, outdated facilities. He said combining the services under one roof in a new building would actually save the county money in the long run.

“We are a model system in the state for health care,” Durand said. “They’re trying to penalize us for being efficient.”

In his statement, Bakst said the county is taking a serious risk relying on federal reimbursement for the hospital project when Congress is talking about cutting health-care spending.

Supervisor Frank Schillo believes the project would pay for itself if the federal money disappeared, by saving money on leased facilities and maintaining its current level of patients.

“Even if we didn’t get the [federal] funds, we would still have the patients,” he said.

Meanwhile, county hospital officials have asked the Board of Supervisors to increase the amount of its contract with the O’Melveny & Myers law firm from $100,000 to $550,000 to cover anticipated legal fees in its ongoing court battle with Community Memorial. The private hospital has filed an appeal of its original case.

County officials said that legal fees for the public hospital could top $800,000.

“I feel sorry for the taxpayers in this county,” Schillo said. “They are the ones that are really getting hurt. This money could have been used for medical care.”