Las Vegas Sun

October 1, 2014

Currently: 74° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Regents OK negotiations on proposed 40,000-seat domed stadium at UNLV

Image

Justin M. Bowen

Craig Cavileer, president of the Silverton hotel-casino, presents a plan to the Board of Regents on Friday, Feb. 11, 2011, on the proposed UNLV stadium.

Updated Friday, Feb. 11, 2011 | 7:36 p.m.

UNLV Stadium/Board of Regents

UNLV president Neal Smatresk presents his case to the Board of Regents Friday, Feb. 11, 2011, in favor of the proposed UNLV stadium. Launch slideshow »
Click to enlarge photo

This is a conceptual rendering of a proposed on-campus, multi-use stadium for UNLV shown Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

The Nevada Board of Regents on Friday approved a 150-day agreement to negotiate with Majestic Realty Co. to build a 40,000-seat domed stadium on the UNLV campus.

If built, the facility could house UNLV football on campus and the Runnin’ Rebel basketball team would get a new home. The stadium also could house the National Finals Rodeo in December.

Following an hour-long presentation by Majestic and a parade of mostly favorable comments of support, regents voted 11-1 with one abstention to approve the exclusive agreement with the company that worked to build Los Angeles’ Staples Center and its nearby L.A. Live commercial district.

The 150-day agreement will enable Majestic and UNLV to develop details of a 150-acre mixed-use project that includes building the domed stadium and a university village with retail outlets and dormitory housing.

During the agreement period, UNLV would develop the necessary approvals and agreements governing land use on the site, which is on the west side of the campus near the Thomas & Mack Center.

UNLV and Majestic also will work to develop the financing necessary to build the project and get any needed legislative approval. During the 150 days, Majestic and UNLV would develop a long-term exclusive negotiation agreement to bring back to the regents for consideration.

A former Nevada governor and National Basketball Association all-star were among those who endorsed the project, described as a game-changer for UNLV.

Former Gov. Bob List called the proposal “an incredible opportunity,” and said Roski is “one of the best businessmen I’ve ever met.” He added that having such a project also would be a great educational experience for engineering and architecture students as well as those in the College of Hotel Administration to contribute ideas in the design of the project.

Four-time NBA all-star Spencer Haywood, who became a Las Vegas resident when the league brought its all-star game to the Thomas & Mack Center in 2007, said he believed the campus facility “would become a rallying point for the whole valley.”

Tom Thomas, a representative of the family that helped open the Thomas & Mack Center in 1983, also endorsed the project and applauded Roski’s business acumen.

But not everybody was in favor of the project.

Pat Lundvall, an attorney for rival sports facility developer International Development Management LLC, Austin, Texas, said her client was concerned about the preliminary assessment agreement and whether the deal would lock in an exclusive arrangement with Majestic.

“In essence,” she said, “you’re auditioning Majestic without any other competition. We feel you are obligated to have competitive bidding.”

Earlier this week, IDM unveiled the three-venue $1.57 billion Las Vegas National Sports Center. That proposal, identified for downtown Las Vegas, includes plans for a 17,500-seat arena for basketball and hockey, a 9,000-seat partially enclosed baseball stadium and a 50,000-seat partially enclosed football stadium. The baseball and football stadiums could be expanded to 36,000 and 75,000 seats, respectively, to host Major League Baseball and the National Football League.

Click to enlarge photo

Former Nevada Gov. Bob List presents his case to the Board of Regents on Friday, Feb. 11, 2011, in favor of the proposed UNLV stadium.

The proposed complex would be located in downtown Las Vegas on 70 acres northeast of the World Market Center near the Spaghetti Bowl freeway interchange of Interstate 15 and U.S. 95. IDM said it would offer a $1-a-year lease to UNLV sports teams to play in the facilities.

When regents discussed the proposal, most of the controversy centered around the exclusivity of the agreement with Roski’s group.

Regent Mark Alden, who cast the only vote against the proposal, was concerned about signing an exclusive agreement, noting that Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman advised him that dealing with one vendor would be a mistake. Regent Cedric Crear abstained. He’s a member of the nonprofit Las Vegas Arena Foundation board of directors, which has proposed to build a $500 million arena on land east of the Imperial Palace on the Las Vegas Strip.

Representatives of Roski’s team didn’t offer many additional details, including a cost estimate for the project, from the presentation it made Feb. 1. At that event, Roski, Silverton Casino president Craig Cavileer and UNLV President Neal Smatresk outlined the project’s master plan. In that presentation, Cavileer said the company would develop several funding sources, including a combination of private and corporate donations, developer equity, traditional bank debt and the establishment of a special improvement district to guarantee construction bonds.

Two Roski team members, Simon Sykes of Design Development Group and Dan Meis of Populous, added some detail of the type of environment the organization envisions at UNLV.

Sykes, who led a team in the development of Las Vegas’ Town Square, had a presentation showing the retail component of the project, which would include restaurants and food outlets and public spaces where people could picnic or gather for pre-game tailgate parties.

Meis, one of Time magazine’s 100 innovators in the world of sports for his work in the development of stadiums and arenas, explained some of the high-tech concepts envisioned for the domed stadium.

Noting innovative projects like the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., where the field surface can be moved in and out of the arena and the roof is retractable, Meis showed a concept of movable seating within an arena bowl. That’s how the facility could have 40,000 seats for a football game, but quickly transformed into a more intimate arena for basketball.

While the regents were dazzled with the innovative ideas, some of the big challenges for the project remained unanswered. Cavileer said finding the answers would be part of the work ahead in the next 150 days.

Among the challenges that have been identified are the reaction of the Clark County Department of Aviation and the Federal Aviation Administration to having a domed stadium built less than a mile from the end of McCarran International Airport runways and concerns about traffic egress from McCarran if Swenson Street is eliminated.

At Friday’s presentation, Cavileer said the project is not dependent on eliminating the Swenson Street access and the precise location of the stadium could change based on discussions with aviation experts.

Crear also tried to pin down an estimated cost from Cavileer.

“I know you guys have a number, I know that you have a thought process,” Crear said. “You guys have a number in your head and I think the board should know what that number is.”

But Cavileer replied, “We do not have a cost because we don’t have a project. What we have is a great plan and a great vision. The cost is going to be determined by the scale of the project, how much of the retail we actually develop, how many residential units are appropriate there.

“How big is the events center? Is it really 40,000 seats or is it 36,000 or is it 55,000? Does it really have a roof on it or does it not have a roof? These are all things that are yet to be determined,” he said.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 8 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. LOL.

  2. you can try and spin this as a bad idea Turrialba, but the facts of the matter are 1) it will be at least a year before this breaks ground at the bare minimum. The economic picture won't be the same. It may not change much, but you invest in infrastructure during downturns 2) it's a boon for the University and actually adds merit to the astronomical tuition hikes that are being proposed 3) it will be a boost to the area's economics 4) UNLV won't lose revenue to the other group that proposed the three stadium complex

  3. What a huge waste of time and money, NV is broke, STOP spending our money on boondoggles and start focusing on balancing the budget.

  4. TonyV:

    Don't kid yourself. There is public $$$ all over this deal. How much private money have these guys put up (zip)? How much will the project cost (they don't know)?

    The fact that they have to go to the legislature makes it a public matter. The legislature will be asked to allow incremental tax revenues to be used to securitize the bonds.

    The question is what happens if the revenues from the improvement district are not adequate for cover the bonds? Who is responsible? (the public?)

    Who will be responsible for any infrastructure improvements, including rerouting of traffic? (the public?)

    These boys haven't even been to see the FAA about the airspace (read the presentation)

    Is this the optimal facility?

    Will it cannibalize business from outside the district or add business?

    How much alumi money will be needed (that has a public element since the donations to UNLV are tax deductible).

    Are there better deals out there? Who knows? They are out negotiating exclusive agreement with these boys.

    There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed and those with Rebel Fever should allow those without to take a sober look at the whole deal.

  5. This is a win/win. No public money is being spent during this 150 day period, and the renents can decide for themselves after that period if the details of the full deal merit approval.

    Remember that this has been in the works since sometime in 2010. The president has been involved the entire time. Same with the athletic director. They decided to reveal the project to the competition because it was at the stage where Majestic needed an exclusive agreement to justify spending THEIR money on developing this possibility.

    Everyone who has been crying about this has been jumping 3,4, or even more steps ahead. Calm down. The details will be made public and a vote will be taken by people you can campaign against before any public money is spent.

    Lord, the criticism you have to endure to get something positive done in this town. Sheesh. No wonder we're still in a recession.

  6. logic_should_rule states that "Bizarre negative comments from the usual losers who have little to no understanding of how this is a benefit to UNLV and Las Vegas......"

    I would say this is a most uninformed comment read thus far. The streets of the cities and counties are littered with good ideas and intentions that went bad. Nevada has its share. There are some lessons to be learned from these examples.

    There is always a sense of euphoria about these visionary projects. People have to believe in these things or they won't ever get done. On the other hand, there are risks associated with these plans. How is going to bear the risks and will they benefit proportionally, according the risks they assume?

    You want to transform UNLV from a commuter school to a residential school. Great. Is the plan place before the regents the best plan to achieve this goal? How would you know? A very glossy plan with slick images has been put in front of you. What information is in this plan--very little, not even a cost estimate for the project. Mr Logic where I grew up this was called stupid.

    A lot of people want a stadium on campus. This piece of equipment is not going to be cheap. Can UNLV afford it? Who bears the risk--this is supposed to be a positive transformation, what happens if it doesn't deliver? Are students/taxpayers going to be saddled with the costs of these bonds if the tax revenues don't appear? Think ahead boys.

    The term public-private partnership has been kicked around--thus far I have only seen public money discussed in any serious way. Show me the money and not the powerpoint slides.

    If this is the plan people want, why not send it out for a competitive bid in the market place. Make the bidders put up some cash for privilege of bidding. Find out what the market can do with 150 acres at the university. Shake the tree and see what falls out.

    Let's see what UNLV can get out of this so as to maximize the benefits for the university and its students. I haven't seen squat yet that answers this.

  7. UNLV-123

    As for the information question, it is incumbent upon those people to put forward the information necessary to form an informed judgment. I pointed out some areas where this proposal is lacking, such as how much will it cost. I am not sure how they can support statements about financing without such a cost estimate. Nevertheless, there are comments here stating build it.

    The project is in its infancy--well why is the university negotiating an exclusive agreement? How does this proposal maximize the benefits to UNLV and its students compared to other alternatives that were examined? These are fair questions. This is called being rational and thinking critically about ideas.

  8. If the project is funded by private money, there is no problem with the exclusive relationship. The private money is at risk, and the developer gets the financial rewards if it is successful (revenues from housing and retail, income from the non-university events at the arena, etc.) UNLV benefits by attracting better athletes and students and getting increased revenues from donors.

    At worst, if some public money does become a part of the project, it could be through a public-private partnership where UNLV (i.e. State of NV) becomes a minor stakeholder in the initial cost and also benefits proportionately in the otherwise private revenues. The major risk still belongs to the private developer (because they still pony up most of the initial investment), therefore a competitive bid is still not appropriate.

    This is a model that is being used successfully all over the nation in higher ed and mass transit projects, among others. If properly executed, this can be a huge win-win for the developer and UNLV.