New York TimesHe recalled how his father, Fred, attended the historic 1957 New York City Crusade. Mr. Graham, who died last week at 99, brought both evangelism and evangelicalism into the mainstream of American culture. Meanwhile, young Donald grew to be successful … and more …read more Source:: New York City News By Google News
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/24/in-donald-trump-evangelicals-have-found-their-president-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Companies Cut Ties to the NRA, but Find There Is No Neutral Ground – New York Times
New York TimesWithin hours of announcing its decision to end a credit card relationship with the National Rifle Association, the First National Bank of Omaha found itself thrust into the center of the resurgent national gun debate. Its Twitter and Facebook pages …Delta and United join companies cutting ties with NRANew York Post all 1,255 […]
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/24/companies-cut-ties-to-the-nra-but-find-there-is-no-neutral-ground-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/24/companies-cut-ties-to-the-nra-but-find-there-is-no-neutral-ground-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
John Shuster and the US Curling Team Win First Gold Medal – New York Times
New York TimesGANGNEUNG, South Korea — John Shuster, the face of American curling for the past four Winter Olympics — and all the good and bad those experiences have entailed — for the first time in his life on Saturday had a gold medal draped around his neck … and more …read more Source:: New […]
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/24/john-shuster-and-the-us-curling-team-win-first-gold-medal-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/24/john-shuster-and-the-us-curling-team-win-first-gold-medal-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
8-Year-Old Girl Hit In Head By Falling Piece Of Wood In Queens – CBS New York
CBS New YorkNEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — An 8-year-old girl was hit in the head by a falling piece of wood Friday morning in Queens. Around 9:35 a.m., the wood came flying off a fourth floor fire escape in the courtyard of the family’s apartment building on 35th… and more …read more Source:: New York City […]
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/23/8-year-old-girl-hit-in-head-by-falling-piece-of-wood-in-queens-cbs-new-york/
via IFTTT
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/23/8-year-old-girl-hit-in-head-by-falling-piece-of-wood-in-queens-cbs-new-york/
via IFTTT
Esther Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding
Esther Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - Video
Esther Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - First Woman
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/1FiTRxWXLPs
Esther Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - First Woman
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/1FiTRxWXLPs
Ester Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding
Ester Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - Video
Ester Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - First Woman
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/1FiTRxWXLPs
Ester Ledecka Wins Olympics Gold Medals In Super G Skiing And Snowboarding - First Woman
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/1FiTRxWXLPs
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland’s New Deputy City Administator Mayor’s Lawyer vs Oakland Global?
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland’s New Deputy City Administator Mayor’s Lawyer vs Oakland Global? - Video
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland's New Deputy City Administrator To Be Mayor's Lawyer vs Oakland Global? Past Docs Say Yes. Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake is the new City of Oakland Deputy City Administrator. In the press release announcing her hire, one of the reasons given was that she “has worked with the City of Oakland and the City of Richmond on various redevelopment efforts, including the Amy Base Project in Oakland”. But what the press release did not report was what an October 21st 2014 Oakland City Council closed session agenda still available for view online did: that Lake was listed as one of the “chief negotiators”: the agenda reported that the Oakland City Negotiators were: Henry Gardner, Arturo Sanchez, Doug Cole, Pat Cashman,. John Monetta, Dianne Millner, and Elizabeth Lake. With the negotiating parties being the developer, Prologis/CCIG: Phil Tagami, Mark Hansen, Daniel S. Letter, and Marc Stice. Prologis/CCIG is the developer of Oakland Global, the under construction Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal – the project at the center of the coal controversy. And the online-posted record of involvement of Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake in the Oakland Army Base Project, as it's called, doesn't stop there. On October 13th 2013, the firm Ms. Lake was a partner in, Holland & Knight, issued a press release telling the World that the law organization “worked closely with Barbara Parker, the Oakland City Attorney, and Dianne Millner, the City's legal team leader on the project, to complete necessary negotiations and agreements.” Then Ms. Lake is quoted as saying “We are very pleased that the city of Oakland, our client, and the private developer, Prologis CCIG Oakland Global have come together to make this development go forward. This work secured a $176 million state grant to assist in the build out. The project is expected to take five years to complete." Then the press release continues “The Oakland Army Base is a 360-acre former base adjacent to the Port of Oakland. The project to be built there is intended to make the site a world-class intermodal trade and logistics center. Prologis is one of the world's largest developers of port-oriented logistics facilities and is partnering in this project with Oakland-based California Capital Investment Group (CCIG).” That allows me to conjecture that Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake has a lot of documents the public may not have seen, and perhaps were not brought up in the recently concluded court battle between Oakland Global and the City of Oakland over the issue of the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal and whether it should be allowed to continue to be able to handle the transfer of coal, among the various types of minerals it was expected to see during its operation, and (as the developer contends) was established in the 2013 development agreement between the City and Oakland Global, LLC. Betsy Lake ads an institutional memory that, if Ms. Lake had some hand in creating letters leading up to and that include the development agreement, could cause us to answer the question “Did the City of Oakland really know that it was approving a faciltiy that was planned to handle different minerals, including coal in 2013?” Considering that I just found one document online that is a legal description of the land to be transferred to Oakland Global, LLC / Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, the answers to that question seems to be 'it would seem so'. But what this proves is that in Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has the lawyer and land use expert who worked on that project as her new employee. Schaaf now has the luxury of having her own in-house lawyer and not having to turn to the staff of Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker. This is a game-changer, but just how the game is changed remains to be seen. Stay tuned. PLEASE INVEST IN ZENNIE62MEDIA VIA PAYPALHERE: http://ift.tt/2u7j8De
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/za9OHfBKioM
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland's New Deputy City Administrator To Be Mayor's Lawyer vs Oakland Global? Past Docs Say Yes. Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake is the new City of Oakland Deputy City Administrator. In the press release announcing her hire, one of the reasons given was that she “has worked with the City of Oakland and the City of Richmond on various redevelopment efforts, including the Amy Base Project in Oakland”. But what the press release did not report was what an October 21st 2014 Oakland City Council closed session agenda still available for view online did: that Lake was listed as one of the “chief negotiators”: the agenda reported that the Oakland City Negotiators were: Henry Gardner, Arturo Sanchez, Doug Cole, Pat Cashman,. John Monetta, Dianne Millner, and Elizabeth Lake. With the negotiating parties being the developer, Prologis/CCIG: Phil Tagami, Mark Hansen, Daniel S. Letter, and Marc Stice. Prologis/CCIG is the developer of Oakland Global, the under construction Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal – the project at the center of the coal controversy. And the online-posted record of involvement of Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake in the Oakland Army Base Project, as it's called, doesn't stop there. On October 13th 2013, the firm Ms. Lake was a partner in, Holland & Knight, issued a press release telling the World that the law organization “worked closely with Barbara Parker, the Oakland City Attorney, and Dianne Millner, the City's legal team leader on the project, to complete necessary negotiations and agreements.” Then Ms. Lake is quoted as saying “We are very pleased that the city of Oakland, our client, and the private developer, Prologis CCIG Oakland Global have come together to make this development go forward. This work secured a $176 million state grant to assist in the build out. The project is expected to take five years to complete." Then the press release continues “The Oakland Army Base is a 360-acre former base adjacent to the Port of Oakland. The project to be built there is intended to make the site a world-class intermodal trade and logistics center. Prologis is one of the world's largest developers of port-oriented logistics facilities and is partnering in this project with Oakland-based California Capital Investment Group (CCIG).” That allows me to conjecture that Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake has a lot of documents the public may not have seen, and perhaps were not brought up in the recently concluded court battle between Oakland Global and the City of Oakland over the issue of the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal and whether it should be allowed to continue to be able to handle the transfer of coal, among the various types of minerals it was expected to see during its operation, and (as the developer contends) was established in the 2013 development agreement between the City and Oakland Global, LLC. Betsy Lake ads an institutional memory that, if Ms. Lake had some hand in creating letters leading up to and that include the development agreement, could cause us to answer the question “Did the City of Oakland really know that it was approving a faciltiy that was planned to handle different minerals, including coal in 2013?” Considering that I just found one document online that is a legal description of the land to be transferred to Oakland Global, LLC / Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, the answers to that question seems to be 'it would seem so'. But what this proves is that in Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has the lawyer and land use expert who worked on that project as her new employee. Schaaf now has the luxury of having her own in-house lawyer and not having to turn to the staff of Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker. This is a game-changer, but just how the game is changed remains to be seen. Stay tuned. PLEASE INVEST IN ZENNIE62MEDIA VIA PAYPALHERE: http://ift.tt/2u7j8De
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/za9OHfBKioM
White House Told Kushner’s Security Clearance Will Be Delayed – New York Times
New York TimesThe new details about Mr. Kushner’s security clearance, first reported by The Washington Post, emerged hours after Mr. Trump said on Friday that he would leave it up to Mr. Kelly to decide whether Mr. Kushner could continue to hold his interim … and more …read more Source:: New York City News By […]
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/23/white-house-told-kushners-security-clearance-will-be-delayed-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
from WordPress http://zennie62blog.com/2018/02/23/white-house-told-kushners-security-clearance-will-be-delayed-new-york-times/
via IFTTT
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland’s New Deputy City Administator Mayor’s Lawyer vs Oakland Global?
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland’s New Deputy City Administator Mayor’s Lawyer vs Oakland Global? - Video
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland's New Deputy City Administrator To Be Mayor's Lawyer vs Oakland Global? Past Docs Say Yes. Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake is the new City of Oakland Deputy City Administrator. In the press release announcing her hire, one of the reasons given was that she “has worked with the City of Oakland and the City of Richmond on various redevelopment efforts, including the Amy Base Project in Oakland”. But what the press release did not report was what an October 21st 2014 Oakland City Council closed session agenda still available for view online did: that Lake was listed as one of the “chief negotiators”: the agenda reported that the Oakland City Negotiators were: Henry Gardner, Arturo Sanchez, Doug Cole, Pat Cashman,. John Monetta, Dianne Millner, and Elizabeth Lake. With the negotiating parties being the developer, Prologis/CCIG: Phil Tagami, Mark Hansen, Daniel S. Letter, and Marc Stice. Prologis/CCIG is the developer of Oakland Global, the under construction Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal – the project at the center of the coal controversy. And the online-posted record of involvement of Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake in the Oakland Army Base Project, as it's called, doesn't stop there. On October 13th 2013, the firm Ms. Lake was a partner in, Holland & Knight, issued a press release telling the World that the law organization “worked closely with Barbara Parker, the Oakland City Attorney, and Dianne Millner, the City's legal team leader on the project, to complete necessary negotiations and agreements.” Then Ms. Lake is quoted as saying “We are very pleased that the city of Oakland, our client, and the private developer, Prologis CCIG Oakland Global have come together to make this development go forward. This work secured a $176 million state grant to assist in the build out. The project is expected to take five years to complete." Then the press release continues “The Oakland Army Base is a 360-acre former base adjacent to the Port of Oakland. The project to be built there is intended to make the site a world-class intermodal trade and logistics center. Prologis is one of the world's largest developers of port-oriented logistics facilities and is partnering in this project with Oakland-based California Capital Investment Group (CCIG).” That allows me to conjecture that Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake has a lot of documents the public may not have seen, and perhaps were not brought up in the recently concluded court battle between Oakland Global and the City of Oakland over the issue of the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal and whether it should be allowed to continue to be able to handle the transfer of coal, among the various types of minerals it was expected to see during its operation, and (as the developer contends) was established in the 2013 development agreement between the City and Oakland Global, LLC. Betsy Lake ads an institutional memory that, if Ms. Lake had some hand in creating letters leading up to and that include the development agreement, could cause us to answer the question “Did the City of Oakland really know that it was approving a faciltiy that was planned to handle different minerals, including coal in 2013?” Considering that I just found one document online that is a legal description of the land to be transferred to Oakland Global, LLC / Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, the answers to that question seems to be 'it would seem so'. But what this proves is that in Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has the lawyer and land use expert who worked on that project as her new employee. Schaaf now has the luxury of having her own in-house lawyer and not having to turn to the staff of Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker. This is a game-changer, but just how the game is changed remains to be seen. Stay tuned. PLEASE INVEST IN ZENNIE62MEDIA VIA PAYPALHERE: http://ift.tt/2u7j8De
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/za9OHfBKioM
Is Elizabeth Betsy Lake Oakland's New Deputy City Administrator To Be Mayor's Lawyer vs Oakland Global? Past Docs Say Yes. Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake is the new City of Oakland Deputy City Administrator. In the press release announcing her hire, one of the reasons given was that she “has worked with the City of Oakland and the City of Richmond on various redevelopment efforts, including the Amy Base Project in Oakland”. But what the press release did not report was what an October 21st 2014 Oakland City Council closed session agenda still available for view online did: that Lake was listed as one of the “chief negotiators”: the agenda reported that the Oakland City Negotiators were: Henry Gardner, Arturo Sanchez, Doug Cole, Pat Cashman,. John Monetta, Dianne Millner, and Elizabeth Lake. With the negotiating parties being the developer, Prologis/CCIG: Phil Tagami, Mark Hansen, Daniel S. Letter, and Marc Stice. Prologis/CCIG is the developer of Oakland Global, the under construction Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal – the project at the center of the coal controversy. And the online-posted record of involvement of Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake in the Oakland Army Base Project, as it's called, doesn't stop there. On October 13th 2013, the firm Ms. Lake was a partner in, Holland & Knight, issued a press release telling the World that the law organization “worked closely with Barbara Parker, the Oakland City Attorney, and Dianne Millner, the City's legal team leader on the project, to complete necessary negotiations and agreements.” Then Ms. Lake is quoted as saying “We are very pleased that the city of Oakland, our client, and the private developer, Prologis CCIG Oakland Global have come together to make this development go forward. This work secured a $176 million state grant to assist in the build out. The project is expected to take five years to complete." Then the press release continues “The Oakland Army Base is a 360-acre former base adjacent to the Port of Oakland. The project to be built there is intended to make the site a world-class intermodal trade and logistics center. Prologis is one of the world's largest developers of port-oriented logistics facilities and is partnering in this project with Oakland-based California Capital Investment Group (CCIG).” That allows me to conjecture that Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake has a lot of documents the public may not have seen, and perhaps were not brought up in the recently concluded court battle between Oakland Global and the City of Oakland over the issue of the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal and whether it should be allowed to continue to be able to handle the transfer of coal, among the various types of minerals it was expected to see during its operation, and (as the developer contends) was established in the 2013 development agreement between the City and Oakland Global, LLC. Betsy Lake ads an institutional memory that, if Ms. Lake had some hand in creating letters leading up to and that include the development agreement, could cause us to answer the question “Did the City of Oakland really know that it was approving a faciltiy that was planned to handle different minerals, including coal in 2013?” Considering that I just found one document online that is a legal description of the land to be transferred to Oakland Global, LLC / Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, the answers to that question seems to be 'it would seem so'. But what this proves is that in Elizabeth “Betsy” Lake, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has the lawyer and land use expert who worked on that project as her new employee. Schaaf now has the luxury of having her own in-house lawyer and not having to turn to the staff of Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker. This is a game-changer, but just how the game is changed remains to be seen. Stay tuned. PLEASE INVEST IN ZENNIE62MEDIA VIA PAYPALHERE: http://ift.tt/2u7j8De
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/za9OHfBKioM
Is Clark County Playing Bait & Switch With Oakland Raiders And Las Vegas Stadium Bonds?
Is Clark County Playing Bait & Switch With Oakland Raiders And Las Vegas Stadium Bonds? - Video
Will the Oakland Raiders have to pay $100 million of what was to be a Clark County-provided $750 million subsidy, thus making it really a $650 million subsidy? Or will the Silver and Black have to pay any level of money toward the bond issue that wasn't clearly explained while the deal was being formed in 2016? Did Clark County play “bait and switch” with the Raiders, promissing a $750 million subsidy, but really giving less because the Raiders had to pay the County part of that money? According to the 2017 “Clark County Debt Management Policy”, (page 69) which says that the County will only 'backstop' $650 million in bonds, as the policy reads “The bonds will be additionally secured by other dedicated incremental increases to the region's hotel room tax rate, the intended repayment source, that are 0.88% for the Las Vegas Strip area and 0.5% for surrounding areas. The public subsidy is limited under Nevada's Senate Bill 1 to $750 million from a combination of tax collections and bond proceeds. These dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project.” “The Clark County Debt Management Policy”, available on the County's website as of this writing, essentially left a $100 million gap between what the County would ask the taxpayers to protect if the stadium hotel tax revenue for the bonds fell short of required debt service and coverage ratio levels. In other words, that $100 million gap would have to be filled in, in part, by the waterfall, or the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” - but who pays the difference between that and the total of $100 million needed to reach $750 million? Given that the Raiders are the stadium developer, it would have to be Oakland. Right now, that “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” totals $44,499,967. Thus, the gap the Raiders have to fill is $55,500,033 if all of the $750 million is to be accounted for with respect to the bond issue. The trouble is, according to the Clark County debt policy document, the Raiders aren't really getting the kind of public subsidy they would not have to pay in – instead, they don't have a true “public subsidy”. And the Raiders are being asked to pay the first $100 million of stadium construction – something the organization's doing right now. But that's $100 million in addition to the $55,500,033 – so the Raiders real up front cost before bonds can be floated is $155,500,033. If the Raiders refused to pay the $55,500,033, the team would have to wait for the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” to reach $55,500,033. And according to my projections based on the rate of collection to date (which, itself, has been less than expected), that could take another 13.7 months, pushing back the stadium financing time, and delaying the construction of the facility by a year in the process, since there would be no money to pay for building activity, as the bonds would not be floated by Clark County until that $55,500,033 mark was reached. How we got here. When the Oakland Raiders Mark Davis and Team President Marc Badain visited the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee in 2016, one of the first stipulations of any continuation of talks toward building a new NFL-ready stadium in Las Vegas was that the State of Nevada and Clark County provide a subsidy of $750 million. When it looked like the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee (SNTIC) Consultants were going to give less in a public subsidy than the $750 million the Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Sands and Majestic Realty (who were partnered) wanted, Mr. Badain said he was “disapponted” with the alternative proposal of a $550 million subsidy, and threatened to walk away from the SNTIC. So the SNTIC Consultants went back to work and fashioned a way that, on paper, it looked like a $750 million subsidy was affordable to Clark County without raising the hotel tax rate to one percent or greater – the rate is 88 100ths of 1 percent. The final version of the subsidy called for collection of the staidum hotel tax until a “waterfall mark” of $50 million was reached – this would allow Clark County to float a bond of only $700 milion, but contribute a total subsidy of $750 million. That was the idea presented – or so it seemed. Trouble is, it seems the Raiders were not made aware of the $650 million backstop issue. As of now, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority has not determined how large the bond issue will be, and that's due in large part to the less-than-expected performance of the stadium tax revenue What will the Raiders do? http://ift.tt/2GGbsKY
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/cdJrQN4fBnM
Will the Oakland Raiders have to pay $100 million of what was to be a Clark County-provided $750 million subsidy, thus making it really a $650 million subsidy? Or will the Silver and Black have to pay any level of money toward the bond issue that wasn't clearly explained while the deal was being formed in 2016? Did Clark County play “bait and switch” with the Raiders, promissing a $750 million subsidy, but really giving less because the Raiders had to pay the County part of that money? According to the 2017 “Clark County Debt Management Policy”, (page 69) which says that the County will only 'backstop' $650 million in bonds, as the policy reads “The bonds will be additionally secured by other dedicated incremental increases to the region's hotel room tax rate, the intended repayment source, that are 0.88% for the Las Vegas Strip area and 0.5% for surrounding areas. The public subsidy is limited under Nevada's Senate Bill 1 to $750 million from a combination of tax collections and bond proceeds. These dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project.” “The Clark County Debt Management Policy”, available on the County's website as of this writing, essentially left a $100 million gap between what the County would ask the taxpayers to protect if the stadium hotel tax revenue for the bonds fell short of required debt service and coverage ratio levels. In other words, that $100 million gap would have to be filled in, in part, by the waterfall, or the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” - but who pays the difference between that and the total of $100 million needed to reach $750 million? Given that the Raiders are the stadium developer, it would have to be Oakland. Right now, that “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” totals $44,499,967. Thus, the gap the Raiders have to fill is $55,500,033 if all of the $750 million is to be accounted for with respect to the bond issue. The trouble is, according to the Clark County debt policy document, the Raiders aren't really getting the kind of public subsidy they would not have to pay in – instead, they don't have a true “public subsidy”. And the Raiders are being asked to pay the first $100 million of stadium construction – something the organization's doing right now. But that's $100 million in addition to the $55,500,033 – so the Raiders real up front cost before bonds can be floated is $155,500,033. If the Raiders refused to pay the $55,500,033, the team would have to wait for the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” to reach $55,500,033. And according to my projections based on the rate of collection to date (which, itself, has been less than expected), that could take another 13.7 months, pushing back the stadium financing time, and delaying the construction of the facility by a year in the process, since there would be no money to pay for building activity, as the bonds would not be floated by Clark County until that $55,500,033 mark was reached. How we got here. When the Oakland Raiders Mark Davis and Team President Marc Badain visited the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee in 2016, one of the first stipulations of any continuation of talks toward building a new NFL-ready stadium in Las Vegas was that the State of Nevada and Clark County provide a subsidy of $750 million. When it looked like the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee (SNTIC) Consultants were going to give less in a public subsidy than the $750 million the Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Sands and Majestic Realty (who were partnered) wanted, Mr. Badain said he was “disapponted” with the alternative proposal of a $550 million subsidy, and threatened to walk away from the SNTIC. So the SNTIC Consultants went back to work and fashioned a way that, on paper, it looked like a $750 million subsidy was affordable to Clark County without raising the hotel tax rate to one percent or greater – the rate is 88 100ths of 1 percent. The final version of the subsidy called for collection of the staidum hotel tax until a “waterfall mark” of $50 million was reached – this would allow Clark County to float a bond of only $700 milion, but contribute a total subsidy of $750 million. That was the idea presented – or so it seemed. Trouble is, it seems the Raiders were not made aware of the $650 million backstop issue. As of now, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority has not determined how large the bond issue will be, and that's due in large part to the less-than-expected performance of the stadium tax revenue What will the Raiders do? http://ift.tt/2GGbsKY
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/cdJrQN4fBnM
Is Clark County Playing Bait & Switch With Oakland Raiders And Las Vegas Stadium Bonds?
Is Clark County Playing Bait & Switch With Oakland Raiders And Las Vegas Stadium Bonds? - Video
Will the Oakland Raiders have to pay $100 million of what was to be a Clark County-provided $750 million subsidy, thus making it really a $650 million subsidy? Or will the Silver and Black have to pay any level of money toward the bond issue that wasn't clearly explained while the deal was being formed in 2016? Did Clark County play “bait and switch” with the Raiders, promissing a $750 million subsidy, but really giving less because the Raiders had to pay the County part of that money? According to the 2017 “Clark County Debt Management Policy”, (page 69) which says that the County will only 'backstop' $650 million in bonds, as the policy reads “The bonds will be additionally secured by other dedicated incremental increases to the region's hotel room tax rate, the intended repayment source, that are 0.88% for the Las Vegas Strip area and 0.5% for surrounding areas. The public subsidy is limited under Nevada's Senate Bill 1 to $750 million from a combination of tax collections and bond proceeds. These dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project.” “The Clark County Debt Management Policy”, available on the County's website as of this writing, essentially left a $100 million gap between what the County would ask the taxpayers to protect if the stadium hotel tax revenue for the bonds fell short of required debt service and coverage ratio levels. In other words, that $100 million gap would have to be filled in, in part, by the waterfall, or the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” - but who pays the difference between that and the total of $100 million needed to reach $750 million? Given that the Raiders are the stadium developer, it would have to be Oakland. Right now, that “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” totals $44,499,967. Thus, the gap the Raiders have to fill is $55,500,033 if all of the $750 million is to be accounted for with respect to the bond issue. The trouble is, according to the Clark County debt policy document, the Raiders aren't really getting the kind of public subsidy they would not have to pay in – instead, they don't have a true “public subsidy”. And the Raiders are being asked to pay the first $100 million of stadium construction – something the organization's doing right now. But that's $100 million in addition to the $55,500,033 – so the Raiders real up front cost before bonds can be floated is $155,500,033. If the Raiders refused to pay the $55,500,033, the team would have to wait for the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” to reach $55,500,033. And according to my projections based on the rate of collection to date (which, itself, has been less than expected), that could take another 13.7 months, pushing back the stadium financing time, and delaying the construction of the facility by a year in the process, since there would be no money to pay for building activity, as the bonds would not be floated by Clark County until that $55,500,033 mark was reached. How we got here. When the Oakland Raiders Mark Davis and Team President Marc Badain visited the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee in 2016, one of the first stipulations of any continuation of talks toward building a new NFL-ready stadium in Las Vegas was that the State of Nevada and Clark County provide a subsidy of $750 million. When it looked like the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee (SNTIC) Consultants were going to give less in a public subsidy than the $750 million the Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Sands and Majestic Realty (who were partnered) wanted, Mr. Badain said he was “disapponted” with the alternative proposal of a $550 million subsidy, and threatened to walk away from the SNTIC. So the SNTIC Consultants went back to work and fashioned a way that, on paper, it looked like a $750 million subsidy was affordable to Clark County without raising the hotel tax rate to one percent or greater – the rate is 88 100ths of 1 percent. The final version of the subsidy called for collection of the staidum hotel tax until a “waterfall mark” of $50 million was reached – this would allow Clark County to float a bond of only $700 milion, but contribute a total subsidy of $750 million. That was the idea presented – or so it seemed. Trouble is, it seems the Raiders were not made aware of the $650 million backstop issue. As of now, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority has not determined how large the bond issue will be, and that's due in large part to the less-than-expected performance of the stadium tax revenue What will the Raiders do? http://ift.tt/2GGbsKY
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/cdJrQN4fBnM
Will the Oakland Raiders have to pay $100 million of what was to be a Clark County-provided $750 million subsidy, thus making it really a $650 million subsidy? Or will the Silver and Black have to pay any level of money toward the bond issue that wasn't clearly explained while the deal was being formed in 2016? Did Clark County play “bait and switch” with the Raiders, promissing a $750 million subsidy, but really giving less because the Raiders had to pay the County part of that money? According to the 2017 “Clark County Debt Management Policy”, (page 69) which says that the County will only 'backstop' $650 million in bonds, as the policy reads “The bonds will be additionally secured by other dedicated incremental increases to the region's hotel room tax rate, the intended repayment source, that are 0.88% for the Las Vegas Strip area and 0.5% for surrounding areas. The public subsidy is limited under Nevada's Senate Bill 1 to $750 million from a combination of tax collections and bond proceeds. These dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project.” “The Clark County Debt Management Policy”, available on the County's website as of this writing, essentially left a $100 million gap between what the County would ask the taxpayers to protect if the stadium hotel tax revenue for the bonds fell short of required debt service and coverage ratio levels. In other words, that $100 million gap would have to be filled in, in part, by the waterfall, or the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” - but who pays the difference between that and the total of $100 million needed to reach $750 million? Given that the Raiders are the stadium developer, it would have to be Oakland. Right now, that “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” totals $44,499,967. Thus, the gap the Raiders have to fill is $55,500,033 if all of the $750 million is to be accounted for with respect to the bond issue. The trouble is, according to the Clark County debt policy document, the Raiders aren't really getting the kind of public subsidy they would not have to pay in – instead, they don't have a true “public subsidy”. And the Raiders are being asked to pay the first $100 million of stadium construction – something the organization's doing right now. But that's $100 million in addition to the $55,500,033 – so the Raiders real up front cost before bonds can be floated is $155,500,033. If the Raiders refused to pay the $55,500,033, the team would have to wait for the “dedicated room taxes are already being collected and deposited to a special account for the project” to reach $55,500,033. And according to my projections based on the rate of collection to date (which, itself, has been less than expected), that could take another 13.7 months, pushing back the stadium financing time, and delaying the construction of the facility by a year in the process, since there would be no money to pay for building activity, as the bonds would not be floated by Clark County until that $55,500,033 mark was reached. How we got here. When the Oakland Raiders Mark Davis and Team President Marc Badain visited the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee in 2016, one of the first stipulations of any continuation of talks toward building a new NFL-ready stadium in Las Vegas was that the State of Nevada and Clark County provide a subsidy of $750 million. When it looked like the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee (SNTIC) Consultants were going to give less in a public subsidy than the $750 million the Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Sands and Majestic Realty (who were partnered) wanted, Mr. Badain said he was “disapponted” with the alternative proposal of a $550 million subsidy, and threatened to walk away from the SNTIC. So the SNTIC Consultants went back to work and fashioned a way that, on paper, it looked like a $750 million subsidy was affordable to Clark County without raising the hotel tax rate to one percent or greater – the rate is 88 100ths of 1 percent. The final version of the subsidy called for collection of the staidum hotel tax until a “waterfall mark” of $50 million was reached – this would allow Clark County to float a bond of only $700 milion, but contribute a total subsidy of $750 million. That was the idea presented – or so it seemed. Trouble is, it seems the Raiders were not made aware of the $650 million backstop issue. As of now, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority has not determined how large the bond issue will be, and that's due in large part to the less-than-expected performance of the stadium tax revenue What will the Raiders do? http://ift.tt/2GGbsKY
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/cdJrQN4fBnM
