Council Balks at Cost of New Stadium Plan

Ventura may lose its claim to a minor league baseball team if City Council members do not send a clear signal soon that they will move forward with plans to build a stadium, California League President Joe Gagliardi said on Monday.

“If they’re just gonna fumble around, I’m not gonna sit idle. I am going to have to entertain other things,” said Gagliardi before last night’s council meeting. “I can’t do a thing till they make a step.”

Owners of the league’s Stockton Ports favor moving that team to Ventura, but Gagliardi said that interest could quickly wane if city leaders do not act quickly on a developer’s proposal to build an $18.7-million stadium behind the Ventura Auto Mall.

Council members debated Monday night whether to keep negotiating with developer John Hofer or to abandon his project because of its surprisingly high cost to the city. The discussion continued late into the evening as about 20 residents were scheduled to comment during a public hearing.

The meeting was council members’ first chance to formally discuss developer Hofer’s newest plan for the Centerplex stadium that the city released last week. The latest version increased the amount the city would pay from about $10 million, plus a $5-million loan, to nearly $19 million.

The majority of the council has balked at the hefty new price tag. But most members said they wanted to discuss the issue further.

The proposal emerged after three months of intense closed-door negotiations between Hofer and a committee of three council members: Ray Di Guilio, Jim Friedman and Gary Tuttle.

Under the proposal, the city would pay the entire construction cost plus improve roads, sewers and electrical connections to the surrounding area. In exchange, Hofer would donate 20 acres south of the Ventura Freeway near Johnson Drive as well as operate and manage the ballpark for 20 years.

He would also pay the city $300,000 a year to lease the stadium, with his rent increasing to $330,000 after five years.

*

Most council members say they cannot approve the proposal as it stands, because the net loss to the city would be about $700,000 a year. If the $18.7 million were not used for the stadium, those reserve funds would earn about $1 million in interest a year, analysts say.

Council members also say that spending so much on a stadium is a problem because it would take so much money away from cash-starved city services such as libraries and recreation.

Councilman Steve Bennett said that city officials received a flood of calls over the weekend, and that residents opposed the new stadium proposal 16 to 1.

Resident Lillian Goldstein, a strong backer of improving city libraries, said the city would be wasting money.

“I’m opposed to it because I think it’s a sinkhole,” she said before her presentation to the council. “I think what would put Ventura on the map is a big main library.”

Pressure is mounting, however, for the city to move forward.

Stockton Ports owners, who filed this spring to relocate to Ventura, are tired of waiting around, officials said.

“You can’t have a lease if you don’t have a stadium,” General Manager Dan Chapman said. “We went ahead and refiled some papers, but they are sitting on the desk of Joe Gagliardi.”

Meanwhile, developers of a rival Camarillo stadium plan are right on Hofer’s heels, ready to snap up the Stockton Ports if the Ventura proposal continues to founder. They must compete with Ventura since the California League will allow only one franchise in Ventura County.

“We have contacted Stockton,” said businessman Bob Pearson, on whose 40 acres in Camarillo a developer wants to build a 6,500-seat, $12-million stadium. The partners would pay the entire cost of construction but are negotiating with the city of Camarillo for concessions on infrastructure improvements.

“[The Stockton Ports] are very disturbed and worried that one of two things will happen in Ventura,” Pearson said. “That [the proposal] will be defeated by the council, or that if the council tries to ram it through, it will be put on a referendum.”