Ventura to Reroute Fairground Funds

Following a highly charged debate, the Ventura City Council voted 6 to 1 to take $9 million from a decade-old fairgrounds fund, but delayed making any decision on how the money would be spent.

Instead, the money will be placed in a holding account and the council will work out how it wants to allocate it later. All local groups wanting a piece of the pie--including the fairgrounds board--will have a chance to vie for the funds at that time.

Only Councilman Jim Monahan, a longtime fairgrounds supporter, voted against the idea Monday night. The decision came after the council voted to squelch an initial proposal by Councilmen Steve Bennett and Gary Tuttle to pledge the money toward building libraries, the Ventura River bike trail and the downtown parking structure.

Tuttle and Bennett suggested Thursday via a press release that $5.5 million of the fairgrounds fund be earmarked for library construction, $2 million for completion of the bike trail and $1.5 million toward the cost of a proposed 500-space parking structure near California and Santa Clara streets.

“The community values libraries, the bike trail and the downtown parking structure more than the Fairgrounds Master Plan,” Bennett said as part of a rapid-fire slide presentation in support of his proposal.

Although six council members ultimately voted to terminate the fairgrounds fund, several of them decried Bennett’s eleventh-hour political maneuvering. Councilman Jim Friedman lashed out at Bennett, accusing him of political grandstanding and manipulation.

“What this does is build a nice campaign issue for someone who is running for office,” Friedman said. “What Mr. Bennett has done is make it so you if you don’t vote for this, you are voting against libraries.”

Bennett, Tuttle and Rosa Lee Measures’ council terms will expire in November. Tuttle has decided not to seek a third term, while Bennett and Measures have not announced their intentions.

Friedman added that he could not support such a motion because he does not clearly understand what the Fairground Master Plan is--so how could he fairly reject it. Despite that position, he went on to support terminating the existing fund.

Tuttle said he, too, did not know exactly what the Fairgrounds Master Plan is--and that is a problem. “It’s a moving target--it’s a myth,” he said.

Several members of the fairgrounds board sat in the back of council chambers at Monday’s meeting, but none spoke.

The council originally issued bonds for a host of municipal projects in the mid-1980s, including water, sewer and storm drain improvements. The city originally planned to use some of the bond revenues for a convention center complex proposed at the fairgrounds, which is also known as Seaside Park. But that project encountered opposition.

So the issue was taken to the voters in the form of two advisory ballot measures. One, which sought support for general improvements at the fairgrounds, won. The other, which opposed the city’s lending money for construction of a convention center, also won.

Confused by the voters’ conflicting messages, the council dropped the convention center proposal. The leftover bond money was placed in a special reserve account, and the council directed that the interest it earns go straight into the city’s general fund. Some money was taken out for a downtown redevelopment project--but most of the principal has remained untouched.

Monahan, who sat on the council when the fairgrounds money was originally set aside, said the fairgrounds has finished the first phase of its improvements and is ready for the second phase--construction of a multiuse center, which could be used for trade shows, conferences and meetings.

“People in the city don’t understand it,” he said. “It’s time to bring that plan to the council. Let’s give it a fair hearing.”

Monday’s vote could leave the money still unused, but simply floating in a new account. In an effort to force the council to make a decision quickly, Bennett proposed setting a June deadline to prioritize how to use the money.

The motion was defeated, with only Bennett and Tuttle voting to support it.

“If we do not put a time frame on it, it just keeps postponing when the council has to set its priorities,” Bennett said after the vote.