LOOKING IN ON: CLARK COUNTY

Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006 | 7:21 a.m.

The largest indoor venue in Las Vegas - the Thomas & Mack Center - would cost at least $125 million to renovate and, even then, would continue to lag behind other similar arenas across the nation in terms of premium seating and parking .

That's the analysis from a consultant hired by the Las Vegas Events Center Task Force, which is studying the need for a new events center in the area.The task force met Thursday and received a report from consulting firm Conventions, Sports and Leisure International.

The analysis also found that, in terms of media market size and corporate inventory, the Las Vegas market is within the range of other NHL-only and NBA-only markets that have built arenas since 1995.

Southern Nevada's relatively young, affluent population and the lack of any other big-league professional sports team here could make Las Vegas an attractive market for a professional team, the analysis said.

"The Las Vegas market's demographics are generally comparable to those of many NHL-only and NBA-only markets hosting recently built arenas," the analysis said.

An NBA franchise would rank 25th among the 30 current teams in terms of market population and 23rd among the NHL's 30 teams.

"Las Vegas currently compares favorably to a number of NBA and NHL markets in terms of market population," the report said. "With the estimated growth in the population over the next several years, Las Vegas will continue to improve relative to other market populations."

A significant portion of the arena development costs would need to be publicly funded, the consultant found.

Task force members - who include city and county staff, gaming executives and event and tourism promoters - also received a list of 15 potential locations for a new arena and 15 potential taxing options.

The task force took no action, but asked for a survey of Strip tourists to gauge their interest in professional sports here.

Casino Ready Mix, the concrete company providing materials for the $234 million Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge project, won a small court victory last month when District Judge Michelle Leavitt rejected a union's bid to shut down the company's Eldorado Valley plant.

Now, the company is charging forward with its fight against county commissioners who rejected a permit request from the company, basically bringing the bridge project to a screeching halt, according to Casino Ready Mix executives.

In its most recent filing, the company accuses commissioners of exceeding their authority by holding a permit hearing, during which the seven-member board split along party lines, with the four Democrats voting against the permit.

The Clark County Planning Commission already granted the permit and sent the company a final action notice. There was no written appeal within the statutory five-day deadline, so the Planning Commission action should stand, the company argues.

The company, which is not unionized, claims the commission bowed to union pressure and illegally overrode the Planning Commission's decision.

"Unfortunately, the union's political lobbying efforts to shut down Casino's nonunion cement operations pressured the board to wrongfully override Planning's authority and decision," the company said.

Commissioners took up the issue 25 days later, delayed a vote, and then voted to shut down the plant in May.

Rob Warhola, the county's attorney, said he hadn't time to review the company's filings.

The first public airing of views on the so-called PISTOL ballot initiative may come Thursday. The Clark County Planning Commission will be considering a resolution opposing the initiative.

County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who is leading the opposition to the initiative that would restrict government's eminent domain powers, among other things, said he anticipates a number of private business leaders and others to attend the meeting at 7 p.m. at the County Government Center.

Proponents of the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land say it will prevent recent court decisions that have allowed government to take private land and give it to private developers in the name of public good.

Opponents, however, say other measures that are part of the initiative will cost taxpayers millions of dollars because it would, among other things, allow property owners to sue for any government action that affects property values and jeopardize millions in federal highway funding thanks to a provision that would require government to return land if it is not used within five years.