Clark County, Las Vegas clash over stadium parking garage taxation plan

Clark County leaders don’t like Las Vegas’ plan to build a county-subsidized stadium parking garage in Symphony Park, but they will need a lot of help to stop it.

County commissioners haven’t minced words in opposing the 1,200-space garage, one meant to support a controversial 24,000-seat, $200 million downtown soccer stadium that wouldn’t feed county tax coffers.

They say the parking garage — which would be partially funded by the diversion of some $1.5 million in county sales tax revenue collected through a new, Las Vegas-proposed tourism improvement district — would hurt their ability to fund critical county services.

The city-backed tourism district looks to draw on millions of dollars in projected future sales tax revenue to pay down around $20 million in bonds used to finance the garage.

Commissioners came out swinging against that proposal at a Jan. 20 meeting, where Las Vegas Economic and Urban Development Director Bill Arent took a shellacking over the proposal’s “unacceptable” impact on county finances.

It seems unlikely that county leaders have revised their opinion since then.

On Tuesday, commissioners plan to take up a resolution aimed at sinking the tourism district, which goes up for city approval Wednesday and for a final vote at the Nevada Commission on Tourism in March.

County leaders are concerned because the city’s proposed tourism improvement district boundaries are drawn up by connecting parcels that aren’t contiguous, using a road’s right of way to connect to an outlet mall with a 150,000-square-foot expansion already in the works.

“I don’t think they meet the intent of the law,” said Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, who asked for the resolution to be brought forward.

Giunchigliani’s resolution also asks state tourism commissioners to consider if increased sales tax revenues in the district would be the direct outcome of the district’s creation or simply the result of including the near-finished mall expansion.

“That has nothing to do with this tourism improvement district,” said commission Chairman Steve Sisolak. “The tourism improvement district is supposed to bring in businesses that are supposed to help it succeed.”

Sisolak said using a road’s right of way to connect to the mall parcel is a “disingenuous application of the statute.”

Commissioners call the proposed district’s boundaries “gerrymandered.”

Sisolak said he doesn’t know how the state’s tourism commissioners will respond.

“I would hope that they would accept it with open eyes and be open to what our criticism and/or suggestions might be, and they’ll make their decision accordingly,” Sisolak said.

According to the tourism commission, that decision will boil down to one question: Would at least half of all sales taxes collected in the new Symphony Park-area tourism district come from out-of-state tourists? In such cases, it’s directed to approve the creation of tourism districts.

Their only insight into that question? A 25-page tourism district study commissioned by Las Vegas leaders in the summer and picked apart by some of those same City Council members six months later.

The study assumes a head-spinning turnaround at Symphony Park-area properties included in Las Vegas’ tourism district proposal, one that would see the completion of three casinos, some 1,800 residential units and 257,000 square feet of retail space by the start of 2016.

Councilman and certified public accountant Bob Beers has called those growth assumptions “fatally flawed,” given that none of Symphony Park’s three major developers are contractually obligated to build in the area by 2016.

Arent has confirmed that most of the new revenue cited in the study is expected to come out of the same near-finished mall expansion that has become a favorite target for county critics of the proposal.

Mall representatives did not return requests for comment on whether most of their patrons come from out of state.

City leaders who back the proposed Symphony Park soccer stadium and accompanying parking garage said they were shocked to see the county’s anti-tourism district resolution last week.

Councilman Bob Coffin, who provided one of the swing votes needed to put the stadium over the top, said he was “bowled over” by Giunchigliani’s opposition.

“I’m almost speechless,” Coffin said. “These projects especially benefit Ward 3 and constituents in Chris G’s commission district. We should be on the same side. … I’m just baffled.”

But Giunchigliani said she has talked to lots of city residents in her district who are opposed.

Coffin said the county, which has balked several times at a proposed More Cops sales tax increase to bolster police staffing, is in no position to judge other municipalities’ tax proposals.

“It’s just the pot calling the kettle black,” he said. “I think they should use restraint — settle down and think it through.”

Mayor Carolyn Goodman, long recognized as perhaps the downtown stadium’s fiercest supporter, also mentioned More Cops, pointing out that she and other city leaders went to bat for the move several times in front of county commissioners.

By her lights, the proposed tourism district is the city’s business and no one else’s.

“I’m amazed at this, I’m shocked,” Goodman said. “I think this (county) resolution is not in the best interest of those looking to move the city forward.”

State tourism board members did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Board spokeswoman Bethany Drysdale said board members have been advised by the state attorney general’s office that it would be “improper” for them to form an opinion on Las Vegas’ proposed tourism district before a March hearing on the matter.

Contact James DeHaven at jdehaven@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3839. Find him on Twitter: @JamesDeHaven. Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-405-9781. Find him on Twitter: @BenBotkin1.