The funding for a baseball stadium for the Oakland Athletics in Las Vegas remains uncertain as the constitutionality of its $380 million public financing plan has not yet been determined. The legal battle, initiated by Strong Public Schools Nevada, focuses on the legality of SB1, arguing that the stadium’s public financing plan threatens public education funding. Conversely, attorneys for the Las Vegas Stadium Authority and Legislative Council Bureau argued that the PAC lacked standing to sue because no public money had been spent and no actual harm had occurred.
Judge Kristin Luis did not make an immediate decision but will issue one after reviewing the proposed rulings from both sides, which she has requested be filed within 10 days.
The Nevada Independent further explained:
Kevin Powers, an attorney with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that there’s a long way to go before any public dollars are spent. The private financing component for the stadium needs to be met, he said, and the development and community benefits agreements need to be approved, along with other requirements, before the public financing portion kicks in.
He added that once agreements are in place and public dollars have been expended then sufficient standing for a lawsuit would be established. At that point, Powers said, the court would be involving itself at the appropriate time.
The PAC’s attorneys argued that the legislation establishing public financing for the stadium threatened funding for public education and could potentially harm students.
Luis responded that the argument appeared speculative, especially because constitutionally, schools have to be funded first, to which the PAC’s attorney, Grant Ingram, responded that the deal has the potential to negatively affect the state budget.
The PAC’s attorneys said that because the law establishes a public financing apparatus which lets the state treasurer draw unspecified amounts of money to support Clark County’s bond debt, it violates the Constitution. They added that the public financing structure of the deal “impermissibly results in public debt” without a way to repay it. They said the pledge of taxes for bond repayment requires the state to assume Clark County’s debt.
However, opposing counsel countered by saying that nowhere in SB1 is there an obligation to keep making appropriations if something is not paid and there are stipulations within the law to pay off county bonds and ensure that the project is solvent.
