Status report: Key decisions on horizon for Las Vegas soccerstadium

Courtesy

An artist's rendering shows a proposed design for a future Major League Soccer stadium to belocated in Symphony Park near the Smith Center. The proposal was announced Wednesday, May 14,2014, by Findlay Sports and Cordish Companies.

By Conor Shine (contact)

Thursday, Feb. 12, 2015 | 2 a.m.

Despite continued setbacks, plans to build a $200 million soccer stadium in downtown Las Vegas arestill in play and face a critical vote next week.

The project's path has been rocky, with intense scrutiny over $56.5 million worth of public fundingthat would be put toward construction. The Las Vegas City Council nearly killed the proposal last fallbefore a restructuring of the financial plan persuaded Councilman Bob Coffin to change his vote,giving the project a 4-3 margin needed for approval in December and a boost of momentum headinginto the new year.

But much of the optimism has evaporated after stadium opponents successfully qualified a ballotinitiative that will let voters decide the fate of the project in the June election.

On Wednesday, the city council will decide whether it wants to continue a legal challenge to keepthe stadium initiative off the ballot. The group will also vote on a master development agreementthat lays down rules for the construction and operation of the stadium.

Ahead of the vote, here's a look at where the stadium stands and what's coming in the months

ahead:

On the ballot, for now

A ruling last week by a Clark County district judge means Las Vegas voters will get to decidewhether they want city dollars to be put toward the construction of the stadium at the ballot box inJune.

Petitioners gathered 6,966 signatures to put the issue on the ballot, but the city said that fell short ofthe required number of signatures, roughly 8,000. The decision prompted a lawsuit by stadiumopponents, led by council members Bob Beers, Lois Tarkanian and Stavros Anthony. District JudgeJerry Wiese sided with the stadium opponents, ruling that the city miscalculated and that only 2,000signatures were needed.

The city council could decide to challenge the wording of the initiative in an attempt to keep it offthe ballot, but there doesn't seem to be much appetite to continue the fight.

"It's done; let's move on," Mayor Carolyn Goodman said last week.

Barring further legal challenge, the stadium faces a clear path to the ballot. The only question thatremains is whether either side will mount a campaign to sway public opinion to support or opposethe stadium.

Key agreement up for approval

Although broad terms of the stadium deal have been known for months -- $200 million in total costs,with the city's contribution at $56.5 million plus a 13-acre parcel of land -- the finer details hadn'tbeen revealed until this week.

The council will vote on the 77-page master development agreement next Wednesday, whichoutlines in-depth various responsibilities and obligations for the developers and the city in thestadium's construction and operations.

Under the deal, the stadium would be owned by the private development partnership of FindlaySports and Entertainment and the Baltimore-based Cordish Cos. The city would maintain ownershipof the land, which is valued at $38 million to $48 million, and would lease it out for 99 years at a rateof $1 per year to the developers.

A promise by Cordish Cos. to invest an additional $250 million to develop land around the stadium, akey deal-sweetener, also was included in the agreement. But the agreement says the company "shallendeavor" to make the investment and doesn't require it as part of the stadium deal.

The development agreement has the support needed to pass the council by the same 4-3 margin thatvoted in favor of the project in December. But the hearing will give stadium opponents anotheropportunity to point out perceived flaws.

"Two months, especially with the Christmas holiday, is a very short time to thoroughly vet a contractlike this," said Beers, a staunch stadium opponent. "I think we should proceed very slowly and verydeliberately."

Parking problems

A key part of the stadium plan calls for the city to build a 1,200-space parking garage at SymphonyPark to support game-day operations. The city has pitched the $20 million garage as a neededaddition to benefit all of the businesses in the area, not just the stadium, and is seeking to create aTourism Improvement District to fund its construction.

The district would allow the city to divert new sales tax revenues in the area to pay for the garage.

But the tourism district proposal still needs approval from the Nevada Tourism Commission at itsMarch meeting. The proposal has already drawn criticism from Clark County commissioners, whoargue they would lose out on $1.5 million in sales tax revenue if the tourism district is created.

If the tourism commission blocks the creation of the district, it could blow a sizeable hole in thestadium's funding plan.

Will any of it matter?

Several contingencies, from the ballot initiative to the parking garage funds, could derail thestadium project. But the arbiter of soccer's fate in Las Vegas is Major League Soccer, which willdecide whether to grant the city the last remaining expansion franchise. Without a team, no stadiumwill be built.

Las Vegas was already considered an underdog against Sacramento and Minneapolis, the other twofinalists for the expansion team. Both cities already have minor league soccer clubs and larger mediamarkets to bolster their appeal. They also aren't experiencing the political controversy that hasdogged Las Vegas' bid.

The MLS is expected to make its decision sometime this spring, and some city officials think theleague will be reluctant to choose Las Vegas without a guarantee of a stadium.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/feb/12/status-report-key-decisions-horizon-las-vegas-socc/