Seth A. Richardson

srichardson@rgj.com

The deal to fund a $750 million football stadium in Las Vegas to attract the Oakland Raiders is in the books after passing the Nevada Legislature on Friday.

The stadium is the brainchild of Las Vegas Sands Corp. CEO Sheldon Adelson, who as part of the package would contribute $650 million. The Raiders would also give $500 million for the proposed 65,000 seat, $1.9 billion arena in downtown Las Vegas.

The $750 million is the largest public contribution to a stadium in history. It would be funded via a 0.88 percent increase in the room tax while another $400 million was also approved via a 0.5 percent increase in the room tax for a $1.4 billion expansion and renovation of the Las Vegas Convention Center. The funding would be bonded out over a 30-year period.

“It is truly exciting to see our gaming industry, labor unions, and small businesses come together with broad support for these important projects,” said Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval in a statement. “Nevada has a past unlike any other state, but it is the ability to write a new narrative and redefine our state’s image that makes us so unique and so capable of innovating once again through the new Nevada.”

The Raiders have been courting other cities in an attempt to move out of the Oakland Coliseum for some time, feeling the accommodations are not up to par. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is also trying to put together an investor group to keep the Raiders in the Bay Area.

The bill was rushed through the Legislature Friday after a week of special session. The Assembly was not able to hold general debate on the bill as it was immediately called to question, passing by a 28-13 vote.

The Legislature was just the latest hurdle in Adelson’s attempt to bring the Raiders to Las Vegas. Before the Raiders can relocate, they must first gain approval by 24 of 32 of the NFL owners. Some, including Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones, have expressed optimism of the move.

Raiders owner Mark Davis issued a statement after the vote thanking Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval and the Legislature.

"All parties have worked extremely hard to develop and approve this tremendous stadium project that will serve as a proud new home for the entire Raider Nation," he said.

Sandoval and Davis are expected to sign the bill during a ceremony in Las Vegas on Monday. The projected completion date for the stadium would be 2019, with the Raiders playing their first game in Las Vegas in 2020.

The Raiders would also share the field with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The Rebels would pay rent to a stadium events company, which Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Steve Hill said would likely be run by Adelson and the Raiders organization.

Week in 1,000 Words: Just Waste Taxpayers’ Money, Baby!

Part of the reason for calling the special session three weeks before the November election is the group wants to present the plan to the NFL owners at their fall meeting on Oct. 18. Critics felt it was rushed and lacked transparency and a fair discussion. No formal opposition was invited to testify, nor were any sports economists, who are largely critical of stadium deals as economic drivers.

Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, called the proceedings a disgrace, especially since the Assembly voted without debating the bill.

"This was a stacked deck going in," he said. "Let’s face it. What you saw today is why people are so cynical about government because the big power players got their way and the real losers are the Nevada taxpayers. I hope this thing works, I really do. The reality is if you look at all of the studies – literally all of them – stadiums tend to be money losers and tax sinkholes for the taxpayers."

Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, D-Reno, said she studied much of the literature, include a 2005 survey from the North American Association of Sports Economists that showed 86 percent of economists agreed that governments should eliminate subsidies for professional sports franchises.

"I hope that Las Vegas is the place that turns the paradigm on its head," she said. "I hope that Las Vegas and this deal is the deal that reframes the turnout. But this deal as presented, SB1, is structured in ways that all other sports subsidies have been structured and they just have not come out in the wash."

Current projections by the pro-stadium faction estimate $620 million in economic output, 450,000 annual incremental visitors, 14,000 jobs, 708,400 annual incremental room nights, 46 events and $35 million in state and local revenue.

If the Raiders don’t relocate to Las Vegas, the law would allow for a $580 million stadium to replace UNLV’s Sam Boyd Stadium. Under that plan the public would contribute $380 million and the team would not pay rent at all.

Profits will not be shared with the public because “this is not a money making venture,” Hill said.

Stadium backers said the tax would not affect Nevadans, thus justifying its passage as a tax on tourists, but that turned out to be false since weekly rentals – many of which are used by low income residents – would be charged the tax. They also said the naysayers were wrong about the economics of Las Vegas because the city is different from others.

Our view: Assembly should sack risky Vegas Raiders stadium deal

Independent sports economists questioned the projected numbers and whether the defense that "Las Vegas is different" would mean anything in the world of sporting economics.

Roger Noll, an economist from Stanford who studies public-private stadiums, called it the worst deal he’s ever seen for a city.

Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College in Massachusetts who specializes in stadium deals, said if anyone wasn’t being genuine, said he isn’t universally against publicly funded stadiums, only as an economic driver. If the people of Las Vegas want to spend that money for the entertainment value, Zimbalist said that is more than fine, so long as they understand the costs associated.

“I’m just going to tell them don’t support it if you think it’s going to help the economy,” he said. “That’s not the reason to do that. If you think it’s worth it socially, culturally to have a football team, then it’s fine to vote for it. We’re not saying it’s bad. Just don’t do it if you think it’s an economic benefit. It’s an economic cost.”

Noll outright questioned the projections put forward by the stadium proponents and said he noticed some discrepancies.

The proponents are projecting near 33 percent tourist attendance when Noll said other teams never break the single digits. He pointed to Angel Stadium in Anaheim Calif., which is close to Disneyland yet still doesn’t break double digits in terms of tourist attendance.

“When you look at the net job creation and the net income creation arriving from it, all of it is fat right off the top,” he said. “The idea that the thing is going to pay for itself based on a huge inflow of tourists is crazy.”

Noll also said even if the projected amount of increased visitors is accurate, the tax will cause the 40 million who already come to Las Vegas annually to spend less money, thus negating the new visitors.

“Again, we have lots of research on that,” he said. “It’s not something that is a big secret.”

He was also skeptical of how many events the stadium would actually host outside the 16 Raider and Rebel games.

“There’s not a stadium in the country that has more than four or five that draw those kinds of people,” Noll said. “Exactly what is it about the Las Vegas stadium unlike any other NFL stadium that’s going to cause it to be used extensively for events that don’t exist anywhere else?”

Stefan Szysmanski, and economist at Michigan University who studies stadium financing, said he gave a presentation to the Economics Club of Las Vegas where he reached the conclusion there weren’t any systemic, significant impacts from sports facilities. Part of the reason is the facilities are often too big to fill easily.

He called the Las Vegas stadium a speculative investment.

The notion that the tax would only be paid by tourists was also not accurate, Zimbalist said.

“The first thing that could happen is because hotel prices go up, individuals and businesses will decided it’s priced itself out of the market and they’ll do their conventions or meetings somewhere else,” he said. “In that case, you actually reduce tourism.”

“The other possibility is tourists don’t care,” Zimbalist continued. “If they’re going to pay $200, they’ll also pay $205 or $210 a night and they’ll come anyway. If that’s true, then you can raise your hotel taxes and raise revenue either to provide additional social services – put it into the schools, put it into the roads, put it into the police – or you could use it to lower taxes. Either way, the hotel tax is a real tax and it taxes people in Las Vegas.”

Hill called sports economists who study stadium deals a “cottage industry” and reiterated that Las Vegas wasn’t like any other city because of the its reliance on tourism.

“I would be interested if those economists had projected anything along the lines of what would a good deal look like,” he said. “I think their point is it will never work and I certainly don’t agree with that.”

Noll said a more modest sum of $100 million would make sense from an economic standpoint. Once that number climbs to $200 million, there are almost surely losses and at $500 million, it can seriously strain the budget, he said.

Zimbalist said it was Hill who was being deceitful by saying this would be an economic boon for the city.

“He can call us a cottage industry, he can call us anything he wants, but if anyone is being dishonest in this process, it’s he,” Zimbalist said. “Not Roger Noll or me or other economists. We have no axe to grind.”

Noll also took issue with stadium economists being called a “cottage industry.”

“We’re the only people involved in the debate who aren’t paid by anybody,” he said. “I don’t know why what we say should be given less weight because we’re not on somebody’s payroll.”

2:05 p.m. update:

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval issued a statement Friday upon the final passage of Senate Bill 1. It read, in part:

“I would like to thank the members of the Nevada State Senate and Assembly for asking the tough questions and for their thoughtful deliberations. This week, legislators representing north and south, urban and rural, came together to prove we are one Nevada. It is truly exciting to see our gaming industry, labor unions, and small businesses come together with broad support for these important projects. Nevada has a past unlike any other state, but it is the ability to write a new narrative and redefine our state’s image that makes us so unique and so capable of innovating once again through the new Nevada."

Sandoval will host a bill signing in Las Vegas, expected to be Monday.

1:45 p.m. update:

Raiders owner Mark Davis issues the following statement Friday:

"I would like to thank Governor Sandoval, the Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee, and the members of the Nevada Legislature on this historic day, " said Raiders owner Mark Davis. "All parties have worked extremely hard to develop and approve this tremendous stadium project that will serve as a proud new home for the entire Raider Nation."

1:06 p.m. update:

The deal to fund a $750 million football stadium in Las Vegas to attract the Oakland Raiders is in the books after passing the Nevada Legislature on Friday.

The stadium is the brainchild of Las Vegas Sands Corp. CEO Sheldon Adelson, who as part of the package would contribute $650 million. The Raiders would also give $500 million for the proposed 65,000 seat, $1.9 billion arena in downtown Las Vegas.

The $750 million is the largest public contribution to a stadium in history. It would be funded via a 0.88 percent increase in the room tax while another $400 million was also approved via a 0.5 percent increase in the room tax for a $1.4 billion expansion and renovation of the Las Vegas Convention Center. The funding would be bonded out over a 30-year period.

The Raiders have been courting other cities in an attempt to move out of the Oakland Coliseum for some time, feeling the accommodations are not up to par. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is also trying to put together an investor group to keep the Raiders in the Bay Area.

The bill was rushed through the Legislature Friday after a week of special session. The Assembly was not able to hold general debate on the bill as it was immediately called to question, passing by a 28-13 vote.

The Legislature was just the latest hurdle in Adelson’s attempt to bring the Raiders to Las Vegas. Before the Raiders can relocate, they must first gain approval by 24 of 32 of the NFL owners. Some, including Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones, have expressed optimism of the move.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval and Raiders owner Mark Davis are expected to sign the bill during a ceremony in Las Vegas on Monday.

Part of the reason for calling the special session three weeks before the November election is the group wants to present the plan to the NFL owners at their fall meeting on Oct. 18.

The projected completion date for the stadium would be 2019, with the Raiders playing their first game in Las Vegas in 2020.

The Raiders would also share the field with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The Rebels would pay rent to a stadium events company, which Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Steve Hill said would likely be run by Adelson and the Raiders organization.

Current projections by the pro-stadium faction estimate $620 million in economic output, 450,000 annual incremental visitors, 14,000 jobs, 708,400 annual incremental room nights, 46 events and $35 million in state and local revenue.

Profits will not be shared with the public because “this is not a money making venture,” Hill said.

Independent sports economists have questioned the projected numbers and largely agree governments shouldn’t subsidize stadiums. Not one sports economist was called to testify during the special session, which was rife with supporters of the package.

However, several economists have been critical of the plan, including Stanford economist Roger Noll, who called it the worst deal he’s ever seen for a city.

Stadium backers line up in opening day of special session

Proponents argue that Las Vegas’ economy is fundamentally different by relying on tourism dollars and that economists don’t know what they’re talking about and hadn’t read the plan.

If the Raiders don’t relocate to Las Vegas, the law would allow for a $580 million stadium to replace UNLV’s Sam Boyd Stadium. Under that plan the public would contribute $380 million and the team would not pay rent at all.

Noon update:

The Nevada Assembly passed a package on Friday to give $750 million in public funding to build a stadium in Las Vegas to try to attract the Oakland Raiders to Nevada.

The chamber had a marathon session overnight before breaking and being delayed by wildfires in Northern Nevada. Once session started at around 11 a.m., the bill passed with amendments.

There was no debate on the bill as Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R-Minden, instantly called it to question. It passed 28-13.

The bill now moves back to the Senate, which passed it 16-5 on Tuesday.

Here's how Northern Nevada lawmakers voted:

Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, D-Reno, No

Assemblywoman Amber Joiner, D-Reno, No

Assemblyman Mike Sprinkle, D-Sparks, No

Assemblywoman Jill Dickman, R-Sparks, Yes

Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, No

Assemblyman Randy Kirner, R-Reno, Yes

Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R-Reno, Yes

Assemblyman P.K. O’Neill, R-Carson City, Yes

10:15 a.m. update:

The Assembly is getting ready to go back into session over the Raiders stadium and will consider several amendments to the original bill.

One amendment would expand the stadium authority board to nine members, adding a third member appointed by the Clark County Commission and a representative from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in charge of managing events.

The original plan included a board consisting of three members appointed by the governor, two members appointed by the Clark County Commission and two members elected by those appointed members.

One of the members appointed by the governor and one of the members appointed by the commission must come from a list of nominees submitted by the two largest casino resort companies.

Another amendment would fix the rent paid by the university for football games at the actual operating costs while another opens up competitive bidding to small businesses.

8:25 a.m. update:

The Assembly went late Thursday after the Las Vegas Review Journal released a report from Gov. Brian Sandoval's office stating a need to prioritize $899 million in infrastructure projects for the stadium. Nevada Department of Transportation Director Rudy Malfabon said the road upgrades weren't new spending, but rather a reshuffle of already existing projects.

Lawmakers were slated to reconvene 9 a.m. Friday, but a Fire in Washoe Valley has caused a delay of up to two hours, according to Assembly Majority Leader Paul Anderson, R-Las Vegas.

12:15 a.m. update:

The Assembly continues to hear presentations concerning the stadium package. It appears members are planning a vote sometime this morning.

11:05 update:

The Nevada Assembly was working late Thursday night in an attempt to pass a $1.1 billion public funding package that includes $750 million for an NFL stadium in Las Vegas.

The chamber initially recessed with the intention of calling it a night, but last-minute negotiations gave the package a glimmer of hope. Lawmakers began filing back into the Assembly at around 11 p.m., though a vote had not been taken.

10:50 p.m. update:

Members of the Nevada Assembly were re-assembling late Thursday - some returning from Reno after having left Carson City earlier in the night - to possibly vote on the more than $1 billion package for an NFL stadium in Las Vegas and expansion to the Las Vegas Convention Center.

Initial story:

The Nevada Assembly went home Thursday night without holding a vote over whether to spend $1.1 billion in public money for an NFL stadium in Las Vegas and expansion to the Las Vegas Convention Center.

The Legislature has been considering the massive tax hike since the week began. The Senate passed the measure on Tuesday with only five voting no and minimal input from detractors.

At hand is whether to give billionaire Sheldon Adelson and the Oakland Raiders $750 million for a proposed 65,000 seat, $1.9 billion domed stadium in Las Vegas, as well as $400 million for upgrades to the convention center. The money for the stadium would come from a 0.88 percent increase in the room tax on the Strip while the convention center would come from a 0.5 percent increase elsewhere in Clark County.

Under the stadium plan, Adelson would give $650 million and the Raiders would contribute $500 million.

Republican leadership had hoped to hold a vote by Thursday night, but broke at 8:20 p.m. for dinner and to caucus. If there is no vote Thursday night, they will return Friday morning.

Proponents took up nearly 10 hours of testimony with no formal opposition invited to testify. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., also lobbied errant no votes within the Democratic Party. Reid previously said he supported the deal, but would stay out of the matter.

Opponents got one hour during public comments to express their disdain at the plan, describing it as funding the dreams of a billionaire. They also argued the convention center was being held hostage by being tied to the stadium.

Former Raiders fullback and Wolf Pack star Frank Hawkins provided written testimony, admonishing the plan as a scam.

“We the public are a partner, we are putting in public money, the public will get screwed,” Hawkins wrote in his testimony.

They also reserved some criticism for the Nevada Senate, feeling the process wasn’t transparent with very few substantive questions asked of the stadium team.

Labor workers came out in support similar to public testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, saying the large project would provide jobs. However, Yvanna Cancela of the Culinary Local 226 testified against the bill, saying the convention center and stadium should be separate proposals.

Steve Hill, chairman of the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee, said the stadium would provide a boon for the economy, as many as 14,000 jobs.

The common theme from proponents is that the tax would not affect Nevadans, but Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, pointed out weekly rentals – which many Nevadans use – would also apply. Jeremy Aguero of Applied Analytics during his testimony in favor of the stadium confirmed that Nevadans in weekly rentals would be charged the tax.

Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, also brought up concerns about the general economics behind stadiums.

“When you study this whole stadium issue across the nation, you find very consistently these things flop,” Hansen said.

A 2005 survey of American Economic Association members found 86 percent agreed with the statement that local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.

Stanford sports economist Roger Knoll told CDC Gaming Reports the deal was the worst deal for a city he’d ever seen. Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist from Smith College in Massachusetts, said he was skeptical of the projections from the proponents as well as the usefulness of a large stadium in downtown Las Vegas.

Aguero also responded to economists’ criticisms of the proposed deal, including one in particular from Noll.

Aguero said Noll and other economists who have criticized the $750 million package simply hadn’t done their homework.

“I can tell you that not one of them has asked to see the economic model nor have they offered any legitimate criticism to what was done,” Aguero said.

Aguero said he agreed with other economists’ assessments about publicly-funded stadiums in other cities, but that the Raiders proposal was different because of the tourism angle.

“Being in Southern Nevada is what makes it different,” he said.

Current projections by the pro-stadium faction estimate $620 million in economic output, 450,000 annual incremental visitors, 708,400 annual incremental room nights and $35 million in state and local revenue.

Noll was not in Carson City to testify – nor were any other sports economists – but he responded to Aguero’s statements via email and said he’s never talked to Aguero, but read the financial plan and economic impact study.

“Rather than characterize the criticism as illegitimate, he might explain the basis for the assumptions about the fraction of attendance accounted for by tourists (assumed to be several times higher than any other NFL team), the number of events that will be staged and will draw large crowds (46, or about 35 more than NFL + UNLV games, when other NFL games have at most a handful), where the two bowl games at 55,000 will come from (given that only 13 bowls last year drew more than 50,000 and that the NCAA has a moratorium on new bowls), and why, contrary to all research on tax effects, the amount spent by the 40 million tourists who now come to Vegas each year will not be affected by the tax,” Noll wrote in the email. “In short, I have been very detailed and concrete about why the financial projections are weak and how this project will set a new record for total costs to the host city/county. His answer is simply to shoot the messenger.”

No independent sports economists have testified during the special session as of yet, something Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, D-Reno, said was troubling.

“It’s been a conversation in our caucus why the majority party didn’t line up more of an objective panel for presentation this week , especially since they were the ones that set the date, knew when we were going to convene and could’ve made all the logistical arrangements to bring someone here,” she said.

The session was a far cry from Monday when both the Senate and Assembly applauded proponents on the floor during testimony, with several Assembly members grilling Gov. Brian Sandoval’s team tasked with passing what would be the largest amount of public funding for a stadium in history.

Assemblywoman Ellen Spiegel, D-Las Vegas, questioned why there was no profit-sharing in the current deal. Under the bill, all of the profits would be privatized, with none going to the public despite a nearly 40 percent contribution to the project.

Hill said that is because the project is not that profitable, calling it “farfetched” that there would be a market return on investment.

Current projections from stadium supporters are around $20 million per year with the developer. Those would have to climb to $60 million to even consider profit sharing, Hill said.

“It will not happen,” he said. “They will not at any time in the near future be able to come to those profit numbers.”

Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, D-Las Vegas, also criticized the makeup and power of the Stadium Authority.

Currently, the plan would include a board consisting of three members appointed by the governor, two members appointed by the Clark County Commission and two members elected by those appointed members.

One of the members appointed by the governor and one of the members appointed by the commission must come from a list of nominees submitted by the two largest casino resort companies.

“At best, on a seven-member board, they have two representatives, but one of those must be from the large casinos,” she said. “So at best they have two people. I want to make that clear.”

Change orders in construction could be passed on to the taxpayers, which Swank called “disturbing.”

An analysis from the Legislative Counsel Bureau laid out a few more details further questioning the transparency and fairness of the plan. One bullet point states the bill “provides for an exemption from laws related to competitive bidding, procurement, and public works generally, except that pertinent construction contracts must comply with statutory prevailing wage provisions.”

A community benefits plan was also added during Tuesday during the Senate session on SB1, though it remains loosely defined. A stadium community oversight committee would carry out the plan.

The Senate also added a provision requiring 15 percent of the work to be subcontracted to local small businesses, though the developers can opt out of that provision if there aren’t enough firms to complete the work.

Guy Hobbs of Hobbs, Ong & Associates, testified the county would likely issue around $575 million in bonds for the stadium with a total payment of $1.2 billion with the room tax designed to cover all payments.

Assemblyman Mike Sprinkle, D-Sparks, asked Yolanda King, chief financial officer for Clark County, whether she could give assurances that the credit rating would not be affected. King said she could not assure the credit rating would not dip.

The Assembly will pick back up 9 a.m. Friday.

Previous posts:

The special legislative session continues Thursday over whether to spend $750 million in public money to build a football stadium in an attempt to lure the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

* Nevada Senate approves $1.1 billion stadium package; bill moves on to Assembly

* Stadium backers line up in opening day of special session.

Here is live coverage from Carson City:

7:05 p.m. update:

Roger Noll responded to Jeremy Aguero’s statements via email and said he’d never talked to Aguero and read all the material front-to-back.

“Rather than characterize the criticism as illegitimate, he might explain the basis for the assumptions about the fraction of attendance accounted for by tourists (assumed to be several times higher than any other NFL team), the number of events that will be staged and will draw large crowds (46, or about 35 more than NFL + UNLV games, when other NFL games have at most a handful), where the two bowl games at 55,000 will come from (given that only 13 bowls last year drew more than 50,000 and that the NCAA has a moratorium on new bowls), and why, contrary to all research on tax effects, the amount spent by the 40 million tourists who now come to Vegas each year will not be affected by the tax,” Noll wrote in the email. “In short, I have been very detailed and concrete about why the financial projections are weak and how this project will set a new record for total costs to the host city/county. His answer is simply to shoot the messenger.”

6 p.m. update

Jeremy Aguero of Applied Analysis, in testimony favoring the proposed stadium, said that some Nevadans, in fact, will be affected by the proposed tax increase.

The common theme from proponents is that the tax would not affect Nevadans, but Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, pointed out weekly rentals – which many Nevadans use – would also apply. Aguero confirmed that Nevadans in weekly rentals would be charged the tax.

Aguero also responded to economists’ criticisms of the proposed deal, including one in particular from Stanford economist and stadium funding expert Roger Noll.

Noll called the deal the worst he’s seen for a city in a post on CDC Gaming Reports, but Aguero said he and other economists who have criticized the $750 million package simply hadn’t done their homework.

“I can tell you that not one of them has asked to see the economic model nor have they offered any legitimate criticism to what was done,” Aguero said.

Noll was not in Carson City to testify nor were any other sports economists. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Aguero said he agreed with other economists’ assessments about publicly-funded stadiums in other cities, but that the Raiders proposal was different because of the tourism angle.

“Being in Southern Nevada is what makes it different,” he said.

3 p.m. update

Testimony started Thursday in the Assembly over whether to spend $1.1 billion in public money for an NFL stadium in Las Vegas and expansion to the Las Vegas Convention Center.

The Legislature has been considering the massive tax hike since the week began. The Senate passed the measure on Tuesday with only five voting no and minimal input from detractors.

At hand is whether to give billionaire Sheldon Adelson and the Oakland Raiders $750 million for a proposed $1.9 billion stadium in Las Vegas, as well as $400 million for upgrades to the convention center.

Proponents took up the entire morning where they laid out their case again. Steve Hill, chairman of the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee, said the stadium would provide a boon for the economy, as many as 14,000 jobs and 450,000 more visitors to the state.

But the session was a far cry from Monday when both the Senate and Assembly applauded proponents on the floor during testimony, with several Assembly members grilling Gov. Brian Sandoval’s team tasked with passing what would be the largest amount of public funding for a stadium in history.

Assemblywoman Ellen Spiegel, D-Las Vegas, questioned why there was no profit-sharing in the current deal. Under the bill, all of the profits would be privatized, with none going to the public despite a nearly 40 percent contribution to the project.

Hill said that is because the project is not that profitable, calling it “farfetched” that there would be a market return on investment.

Current projections from stadium supporters are around $20 million per year with the developer. Those would have to climb to $60 million to even consider profit sharing, Hill said.

“It will not happen,” he said. “They will not at any time in the near future be able to come to those profit numbers.”

Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, D-Las Vegas, also criticized the makeup and power of the Stadium Authority.

Currently, the plan would include a board consisting of three members appointed by the governor, two members appointed by the Clark County Commission and two members elected by those appointed members.

One of the members appointed by the governor and one of the members appointed by the commission must come from a list of nominees submitted by the two largest casino resort companies.

“At best, on a seven member board, they have two representatives, but one of those must be from the large casinos,” she said. “So at best they have two people. I want to make that clear.”

Change orders in construction could be passed on to the taxpayers, which Swank called “disturbing.”

An analysis from the Legislative Counsel Bureau laid out a few more details further questioning the transparency and fairness of the plan. One bullet point states the bill “provides for an exemption from laws related to competitive bidding, procurement, and public works generally, except that pertinent construction contracts must comply with statutory prevailing wage provisions.”

A community benefits plan was also added during Tuesday during the Senate session on SB1, though it remains loosely defined. A stadium community oversight committee would carry out the plan.

The Senate also added a provision requiring 15 percent of the work to be subcontracted to local small businesses, though the developers can opt out of that provision if there aren’t enough firms to complete the work.

Guy Hobbs of Hobbs, Ong & Associates, said the county would likely issue around $575 million in bonds for the stadium with a total payment of $1.2 billion with the room tax designed to cover all payments.

Assemblyman Mike Sprinkle, D-Sparks, asked Yolanda King, chief financial officer for Clark County, whether she could give assurances that the credit rating would not be affected. King said she could not assure the credit rating would not dip.

No opponents testified during the morning session, but former Raiders fullback and Wolf Pack star Frank Hawkins was slated to testify against the plan at some point during the day.

Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, also brought up concerns about the general economics behind stadiums.

“When you study this whole stadium issue across the nation, you find very consistently these things flop,” Hansen said.

A 2005 survey of American Economic Association members found 86 percent agreed with the statement that local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.

Stanford sports economist Roger Knoll told CDC Gaming Reports the deal was the worst deal for a city he’d ever seen. Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist from Smith College in Massachusetts, said he was skeptical of the projections from the proponents as well as the usefulness of a large stadium in downtown Las Vegas.

No independent sports economists have testified during the special session as of yet, something Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, D-Reno, said was troubling.

“It’s been a conversation in our caucus why the majority party didn’t line up more of an objective panel for presentation this week , especially since they were the ones that set the date, knew when we were going to convene and could’ve made all the logistical arrangements to bring someone here,” she said.

10 a.m. update:

The Assembly passed a bill on Thursday giving the Clark County Commission authority to increase the sales tax by 0.1 percent to pay for more police officers in Clark County.

While not overly controversial, the bill has been hung up in the Assembly over some language issues, which prevented it from being voted on until Thursday. Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said the bill could mean 311 more officers.

The bill passed 35-7.

Speaking in support, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, said increasing police presence in Clark County was pivotal to protect people from “domestic terrorism agencies” like the Bureau of Land Management.

“Our Clark County sheriffs stopped (the) Nevada massacre the BLM management had planned,” she said. “As the body camera footages get unsealed and released to the press and the public, the words I just spoke will be verified.”

The plan was met with some opposition. Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, D-Las Vegas, said she felt funding police through a sales tax was regressive and hurt the poor.

Several lawmakers also questioned whether or not the bill belonged in a special session. Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, said there wasn’t a demonstrable reason why it needed to be addressed now instead of during regular session where it could be properly vetted.

“I voted for this in 2011 and 2013,” he said. “I am an absolutely for law enforcement. But number one, this doesn’t belong in special session. The evidence presented to make it seem like an extraordinary situation was just exceptionally weak.”

Assemblyman David Gardner, R-Las Vegas, countered and said violent crime was already happening in his district and the Legislature failed to act previously.

“I think it’s too late already,” he said. “I’m definitely in support of this.”

The bill proposing $1.1. billion in public funding for a football stadium in Las Vegas and an expansion and renovation of the convention center was also introduced Thursday morning, though the Assembly hasn’t heard any testimony thus far since they were still debating the cops bill.

Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist’s anti-tax organization, came out Thursday in opposition to the proposed Las Vegas stadium for the Oakland Raiders.

In a post on their website, the organization said it hoped the Assembly and Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval would reject the tax increase. In the bill, funding for the stadium and expansion of the convention center would come via a more than one percent increase in the hotel tax in Clark County.

“While advocates may believe pouring tax dollars into a new football stadium to attract the Raiders may lead to economic growth in the state, the weight of the evidence says otherwise,” the post reads. “As noted by the Wall Street Journal in 2015, stadiums ‘displace entertainment dollars that would be spent elsewhere locally’ and do not lead to economic growth.”

Ten Assembly Republicans are currently signers of the no-tax pledge, promising not to raise taxes in any instance, including Assembly Speaker John Hambrick and Majority Leader Paul Anderson, both proponents of the stadium package.

If some of those signers stick with their pledge, it could add a wrinkle to passing the stadium. Right now, if all Republicans vote yes on the package, three Democrats would need to join them.