Ford says he’d back new infrastructure spending if Raiders don’t move to Las Vegas
CARSON CITY — Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford said Wednesday he fully supports construction of an NFL stadium in Las Vegas to be the home of the Raiders, and that his infrastructure funding proposal is only an option if the deal falls through.
Ford, D-Las Vegas, said proposed legislation announced Tuesday by Senate Democrats would divert about $400 million for infrastructure projects in Southern Nevada and create jobs in the region — but only if the Raiders do not relocate to Las Vegas.
Ford was emphatic in his continued support for the Raiders’ relocation, which is in doubt after Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson withdrew his family’s $650 million investment in the $1.9 billion domed stadium project.
State lawmakers in October approved a Clark County hotel room tax hike to help pay for the stadium. A 0.88 percentage-point increase would fund $750 million in bonds for the stadium, and a separate half-point increase will pay for improvements to the Las Vegas Convention Center. The new hotel room taxes take effect March 1. Ford’s proposal would not affect the convention center expansion and modernization.
However, the legislation provides a reduced room tax increase if the Raiders don’t move to Southern Nevada. That increase would fund about $300 million toward the construction of a smaller, open-air stadium for UNLV, provided the university can raise $200 million in private donations within two years.
Ford said Wednesday that Democrats are researching whether lawmakers would need a two-thirds vote — the margin needed to pass the tax hike — to approve a change in how the room tax revenue is used. The proposal would allocate the remaining revenue to create an infrastructure bank to fund construction projects in Southern Nevada.
“Nevadans should get the benefits they were promised from this deal,” Ford said.
ROBERSON RESPONDS
Senator Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said it’s too early to call the project doomed.
“We shouldn’t rush to judgment,” Roberson said in a statement. “It’s early and I would expect to see a few more twists and turns before this process is completed.”
Roberson added, “It would not shock me to see the Raiders and the Sands ultimately resolve their difference at some point. Regardless, I still believe Las Vegas is on track to become an NFL city.”
He also said any talk of alternative uses for room tax dollars is premature. The state, he said, should see the NFL effort through “rather than proposing seemingly random ideas to start spending room tax money that we currently don’t have and without the consensus of support from our tourism industry.”
“I would advise that we continue to see this process of obtaining an NFL team through to a successful conclusion rather than proposing seemingly random ideas to start spending room tax money that we currently don’t have and without the consensus of support from our tourism industry.”
CRITICISM OF FUNDING
Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, liked the idea of a stadium and bringing a professional team to Nevada but voted against the bill in last year’s special session.
“It was so ridiculously one-sided to the Raiders,” Hansen said. “I still like the concept. But when you got down into the weeds … hell no.
“I thought it was even then a mistake for the Legislature to get involved. We didn’t know the details. Then we had this mad rush to get it passed.”
He pointed to the Faraday Future tax incentives passed in 2015 to lure a manufacturing plant for the electric car startup. Work on the project has stalled, and the company’s finances are in doubt.
“Faraday has totally collapsed, now the stadium is collapsing,” Hansen said. “I think it makes Nevada government look stupid.”
Hansen said it will be up to Southern Nevada lawmakers to decide an alternative use for room tax revenues that were earmarked for the stadium — if they agree to the proposal by Ford.
“What other options are there for this much money? What are the highest and best possible uses?” Hansen asked.
Sen. Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka, voted against the room tax hike in the special session, arguing that the funding proposal belonged at the County Commission level, not at the Legislature. Goicoechea said he would oppose legislation using the room tax revenues for another purpose for the same reason.
Assemblyman Nelson Araujo, D-Las Vegas, who also opposed the tax increase in the special session, said he is gathering information about the status of the project.
The Senate Democrats’ proposal will have to be vetted along with any other proposals in the session, Araujo said.
An estimated 18,000 construction jobs are projected to be created if the Raiders’ stadium is built.
The 2017 legislative session starts Monday.
The Review-Journal is owned by the family of Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson.
Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-461-3820. Follow @seanw801 on Twitter.
READY
Las Vegas Stadium Authority will continue to work with Raiders
Goldman Sachs financing in jeopardy after Adelson exit from Raiders stadium plan
NFL hypocrisy one possible reason for Adelson’s exit from Raiders stadium deal
Proposed Raiders lease calls for $1 in annual rent to Las Vegas Stadium Authority
