Weidner described the arrangement as an "illegal transaction" that "will put Las Vegas taxpayers at risk for tens of millions of dollars."

In a sternly worded letter delivered to LVCVA board members, Weidner warned the Authority that if it approves the deal at its April 13 board meeting, legal action could be taken "to protect our interests as well as those of the taxpayers of Clark County."

He said the LVCVA has offered no financial plan for the operation of the proposed addition, and that such an analysis "would confirm the need for future increased tax subsidies."

Weidner said the board violated Nevada statute on Feb. 9, when it voted to give preliminary approval to a deal that would finance a portion of the construction of the proposed 1-million-square-foot addition to the Convention Center out of "prepaid rent" from a group of tenants called "the Consortium."

He cited a state law (NRS244A.637) that requires the LVCVA to obtain voter approval to enter into "any contract with private parties which creates an indebtedness" as grounds for an election. Weidner's letter paints a stark portrait of the LVCVA receiving more than $100 million a year in taxpayer subsidy, almost $20 million of which is already consumed by operation, maintenance and other costs associated with the Convention Center.

The LVCVA has said that the additional operational expenses associated with the planned expansion will be paid with rent revenue, a claim Weidner described as "VooDoo economics."

"It is a matter of public record that the existing LVCVA facility does not generate enough income to cover its own operating costs, let alone to pay debt on a portion of construction costs for a million- square-foot addition," Weidner stated.

"By applying the Consortium's discounted `prepaid rent' to construction costs, the LVCVA is ensuring that this money will not be available to pay the added operating expenses of the addition."

In addition, according to a Las Vegas Review-Journal article dated April 9, 1999, the LVCVA is trying to avoid its obligation to the Clark County School District to direct 5/8 of 1 percent of the existing room tax to the schools.

Proposing a plan that absorbs tax revenue while at the same time trying to avoid a tax obligation appears to be contradictory.

Weidner's letter makes the following points: 
 

Calling the financing plan "poor business judgment and irresponsible use of tax dollars," Weidner said the formula for the LVCC's operation should be to "run it like it's your own money, like a business. Market it, charge market prices, and don't consume tax subsidies to continue government waste and inefficiency."

Weidner noted that he had previously called upon the Authority to assess the proposal's financial viability and to seek voter approval.

"The voters of Clark County have proven themselves to be astute judges of capital spending programs, approving those which add value in a responsible manner and rejecting those that don't," he said. Only after an election, Weidner said, "can the LVCVA claim this dubious financing scheme has been properly reviewed."