2 City Officials Oppose Stadium Bond Idea

The latest suggestion for resolving the contentious stadium debate--putting the project to a vote of the people--could stall efforts to draw a minor league baseball team here or force the city to pay for a costly special election.

Two City Council members Thursday joined Councilman Jim Monahan in saying that the stadium issue may well be resolved by the voters. “I think they should have the opportunity to advise us,” Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures said.

But Measures and Councilman Ray Di Guilio said they would not support Monahan’s surprise suggestion Wednesday night that the city float bonds to pay for the $18.7-million project.

“I do not support a bond measure,” said Di Guilio, who says the city has enough money in its coffers without burdening citizens with more debt. “That just came off the wall. The stadium is not a high enough priority to merit that approach.”

Only something like libraries or schools would deserve that kind of measure, he added. Until now, the city has discussed using reserve cash to pay for the ballpark.

In the coming months, the city must decide whether to build a ballpark and bring minor league ball to 20 acres of celery fields behind the Ventura Auto Mall off Johnson Drive.

Two weeks ago, developer John Hofer presented the city with an $18.7-million stadium proposal. But Hofer’s conditions and the project’s price tag were unacceptable to most council members. The city has since gone back to the bargaining table, with City Manager Donna Landeros as point person.

The council’s handling of the issue in recent weeks has unleashed a firestorm of public protest, and ever-louder demands that voters should decide the issue.

But putting the measure on the ballot could be expensive and time-consuming.

The council members would first have to decide whether to seek an advisory vote to gauge the pulse of the community or a binding measure that would direct their action.

Whichever option they choose, it would take at least three months to put it on the ballot. And if it is not placed on a normal election ballot, the process could cost the city $70,000 to $80,000, city officials said.

The next regular election for which such a measure could qualify would be November 1997, but the deputy city clerk said there could be a special election before then. The earliest a stand-alone measure could appear on a ballot would be January.

Because three of seven council members are out of town, and stadium negotiations with developer Hofer are still underway, it is still too early to say whether the issue will go to the voters.

But allowing a vote of the people is sure to throw a monkey wrench into the timeline set by Hofer and California League President Joe Gagliardi.

Gagliardi, who has promised to deliver a Class A ball team if Ventura delivers a stadium, has said in the past that there are no definite deadlines, but that at a certain point he will have to start considering other options. Hofer has been reticent about deadlines. Neither could be reached Thursday for comment.

But Di Guilio, who is on council’s bargaining team, says he has felt some heat.

“I have heard it could be a problem, but it’s not insurmountable,” he said. “But I am not going to be pushed by an artificial deadline. More and more people are saying we want a say, and I am respecting that.”

Measures, too, worries about time, but thinks voters take precedence.

“Time is certainly an issue,” she said. “However, I believe the value of getting the citizens’ endorsement is greater than the potential loss of an additional 90 days.”

Several of the more than two dozen speakers who turned out Wednesday to air their views on the proposed stadium beseeched the council not to put the issue before the voters.