Anaheim officials still don’t know if Angel Stadium is trashed as top city executives say it’s time to discuss the future of the ballpark years after a corruption scandal tanked a previously proposed land sale in 2022.
But that could change this summer after city officials put the stadium back in play last month.
[Read: Anaheim Officials Once Again Put Angel Stadium in Play]
Even though taxpayers own the property, it’s been more than two decades since city officials have inspected it and given it a deep scrub, according to state auditors, despite trying to sell the stadium twice since 2013 with the last attempted deal imploding because of an FBI probe.
City Manager Jim Vanderpool said last month a detailed evaluation of Angel Stadium that city leaders called for in the wake of the canned land sale is expected to be completed this year.
“Engineering consultants have completed testing concrete and metal columns as part of the ongoing stadium assessment. I can share that lab testing is underway as expected, with results set to take four to six weeks,” he said at the Dec. 9 city council meeting.
The assessment is expected to evaluate the condition of the stadium and its maintenance needs.
“The next step will be to hire an engineering firm for a final assessment based on the testing and results. A finalized assessment is expected around mid-2026. There are no significant stadium developments other than this,” Vanderpool said.
Yet city officials haven’t directly said if they’ll use the report to enforce the stadium lease maintenance obligations on the Angels.
Mayor Ashleigh Aitken said she looks forward to the assessment’s findings in a few months and its results will be important for the future of the stadium.
“Anaheim must protect its largest resident-owned asset. Under the contract, the Angels must upkeep the stadium as a world-class facility,” she wrote in a Thursday text message. “Whether the Moreno corporation continues to own the team or decides to sell, the condition of the stadium needs to be known to value the asset as a whole.”
As residents continue to wait for the completed city commissioned assessment of the property, another land sale could be on the horizon for Angel Stadium.
Last month, city staff asked council members if they could begin discussing the property and the surplus land act – a law pertaining to selling public land – with state housing officials.
The request comes after state auditors last year found the current lease with the Angels – that can be extended up until 2038 – keeps city staff from seeing how the stadium is maintained
Auditors also describe an unresolved dispute between city leaders and Angel executives over tens of millions of dollars for repairs – with ballclub leaders claiming the city will have to pay them for excess spending once the lease is over and city leaders disagreeing.
State Assemblyman Avelino Valencia, who called for that audit along with State Senator Tom Umberg, said the current lease fails to properly serve Anaheim residents.
“When a public stadium generates only about $415,000 in net revenue for the city over nearly 30 years, pays no ongoing base rent, and operates under lease terms that restrict oversight, it raises serious concerns and fails to serve Anaheim residents,” Valencia wrote in a text message last week.
Valencia, a former Anaheim City Council member who questioned the previous stadium sale process, said city officials need to play hardball with the Angels.
“Residents deserve confidence that their public property is being properly maintained and that responsibility for costs is clear and enforceable,” he said.
Umberg said city officials should do everything they can to ensure the stadium is benefitting the people who own it – the taxpayers.
“The taxpayers should not be subsidizing the Angels,” he said in a phone interview last week.
“Should the city use whatever leverage they can legally employ to ensure that the taxpayers get their fair share, to make sure the taxpayers are treated fairly? The answer to that is yes. If that means that they somehow can reengage to get a more favorable lease for the taxpayers, then I would say yes.”
City Spokesman Mike Lyster did not say whether officials would use the report to get the Angels to make repairs.
“We don’t want to get ahead of ourselves by speculating about the outcome,” Lyster wrote in a Tuesday email.
He said the city expects to compile a final assessment report in the first half of the year.
“We are taking the time to make sure the assessment is done right,” Lyster wrote. “2025 was spent testing concrete and metal columns and collecting samples, while working around stadium events.”
The rest of the city council did not respond to a request for comment last week.
Marie Garvey, a spokeswoman for the Angels, also did not respond to emailed questions last week.
Corruption Probe Still Looms Over Stadium
The assessment is expected as officials start to mull over the future of the publicly owned stadium years after a corruption scandal tanked the last effort to sell the stadium to the Angels.
City council members have said they want to get public input about the stadium after city staff said in December it was time to discuss the Surplus Land Act and Angel Stadium with state housing officials.
It’s the same state law state housing department officials in 2022 alleged Anaheim leaders violated when they tried to sell Angel Stadium to the team owner and did not put the property on the auction block for affordable housing developers.
Despite the violation, State Attorney General Rob Bonta was going to allow the deal to continue after fining the city $96 million.
The sale was ultimately upended when FBI agents filed affidavits in state court alleging former Mayor Harry Sidhu tried to get $1 million in campaign contributions from the Angels to ram through the stadium deal.
Sidhu ultimately ended up going to prison last year for lying to federal investigators about the failed stadium sale.
His plea agreement described how Sidhu and former elected officials allegedly participated in a private mock council meeting to rehearse public deliberations over the land sale.
Earlier this month, TimesOC reported that the mock council meeting took place and potentially included Lyster, Vanderpool, Angels executives and former Anaheim Chamber of Commerce leaders.
Umberg said there are still questions on why the former chamber leaders were so involved in the previous attempt to sell the stadium and what information was exchanged between city officials and the ball club.
“How does that impact any future negotiation, even though it’s different people?” he said.
“I’m not casting aspersions at the current mayor, the current city council, or even the current head of the Anaheim chamber, but what I am saying is that we need to understand exactly what those relationships were, what those communications were.”
Lyster and Vanderpool did not respond to questions about whether they attended the mock council meeting.
Another Land Sale on The Horizon?
As city executives look to talk with state housing officials about Angel Stadium and the Surplus Land Act, Umberg said it’s time for the city to sell the stadium.
“I would hope that the city would basically sell the stadium and no longer be in the business of operating Angel Stadium and that the taxpayers basically get their return on that investment from a long time ago,” he said.
“The city should focus on its primary functions, which in my view, does not include operating Angel Stadium.”
Lyster said officials are still considering next steps when it comes to the stadium.
“We are committed to and evaluating next steps on community input and speaking with our state partners, with no specifics to share at this time,” he wrote.
At last month’s city council meeting, elected officials said any future stadium proceedings should be publicly discussed – with some council members suggesting a sports complex could be built there at some point.
Council members also called on staff to gauge resident interest on what they’d like to see done with the roughly 150 acres of land the stadium sits on.
It’s a move praised by the OC Register editorial board.
“We’re pleased that elected officials are doing this in the public view and considering the highest-and-best uses for the property rather than simply prioritizing professional baseball,” the editorial board wrote last month.
Meanwhile, top city officials met with Angels executives and real estate consultants to discuss the surplus land act early last year despite repeatedly denying any long term talks about the stadium.
Around that same time, officials announced that Angels Baseball extended their lease of Angel Stadium to 2032.
About a month later, state auditors released a report that found the lease severely limits how much revenue Anaheim makes from the public stadium and that its unclear terms have kept city officials from being able to see if the property is properly maintained.
[Read: CA Auditors: Anaheim Doesn’t Know if Angel Stadium is Trashed]
Assessing Angel Stadium
According to the auditors, the city’s assessment will mark the first time the stadium was evaluated since it was last renovated over two decades ago.
Under the lease originally signed nearly 30 years ago, the Angels are responsible for maintaining the property at “first class professional level.”
City officials are staying silent on whether they’ll use the final assessment to force the ball club to make any necessary repairs.
At the same time, auditors said Angels ownership claimed that as of January 2025 taxpayers owed the ball club $36 million for how much they spent on repairs in excess of a joint capital reserve fund both parties contribute to and can be used to make significant repairs and improvements.
Ball club executives also say taxpayers will have to reimburse them for all excess spending at the end of the lease, according to the auditors report.
Auditors wrote that Anaheim officials have done little to verify the repair work and that city leaders say the Angels’ claims for the money are meritless.
“Anaheim maintains that this interpretation is baseless, but it has not resolved this issue, and ownership’s claim could result in litigation at the end of the lease,” reads the auditors report.
It is also unclear when the city will be able to assess the stadium again amid the current lease despite auditors recommending its inspection annually or bi-annual to verify repairs.
When asked about incorporating the auditors’ recommendations, Lyster pointed to a year old news release that stated the recommendations are “for any potential future stadium lease” and that the city entered an access agreement with the Angels to conduct the assessment.
Valencia said the audit made it clear that the city’s current agreement with the Angels isn’t working.
“Any future decisions about Angel Stadium and the land surrounding it must deliver a clear win for Anaheim residents through transparency, independent oversight, and long-term public benefit,” he wrote
“This site represents a critical opportunity to restore trust and ensure this public asset truly serves the city.”
Umberg said the city shouldn’t be restricted when it comes to checking the stadium.
“The city should be able to inspect the stadium anytime it wishes to.”
Editor’s note: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken’s father, Wylie Aitken, chairs Voice of OC’s board of directors.
Hosam Elattar is a Voice of OC reporter and corps member with Report for America, a GroundTruth initiative. Contact him at helattar@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @ElattarHosam.