When it comes to the Raiders’ off-field play, the team boasts an impressive win streak.

First, the team played a key role in securing $750 million worth of tax dollars to support a domed $1.9 billion stadium just off the Las Vegas Strip. Then the Raiders informed the Las Vegas Stadium Authority that the NFL needs an approved lease agreement by next week, hastening the drafting process.

Now it appears that lobbyists for the team have helped kill a proposed amendment that would have tweaked the original stadium-related legislation approved by Nevada lawmakers last fall. Independent Sen. Patricia Farley, who voted for the stadium deal, said team representatives heavily lobbied against her proposed changes to the stadium bill that would have required more outreach to small subcontractors involved in the project.

The amendment likely won’t go anywhere — members of the Assembly Transportation Committee passed the bill out with two unrelated amendments on Tuesday, leaving Farley’s proposal on the scrap heap.

“For them to do this, now, so early on, raises my eyebrow in just what is it going to be like to have them here,” she said. “Are they going to be a community partner and good corporate citizen, or is this just now about the Raiders?”

Farley said she began working on the amendment to SB448 with construction groups and contractors immediately after the October special session. She was unable to put the concept in the original bill because of the time constraints of the five-day special session.

The amendment would require the Las Vegas Stadium Authority to host seminars for small subcontractors retained for stadium construction that would cover topics including the types and purposes of bonds and insurance coverage, establishing loans and lines of credit, risk management, basic financial accounting structure and any federal and state programs designed to help small businesses. It also allows for creation of a business “mentorship” program for smaller subcontractors to help with “general business management.”

Farley said it copies similar provisions in California, and would help the state meet its requirement that 15 percent of the stadium project construction is subcontracted out to applicable small businesses.

“We’re talking about actually hitting small businesses and actually allowing them to get onto these jobs,” she said.

The amendment also included language clarifying that only companies capable of meeting the state’s bonding requirements could work on the project. Farley said the extra wording didn’t change any intent of the original stadium bill. She just wanted small local businesses to know that the educational seminars and mentorship program wouldn’t alleviate the bonding requirements.

“You still have to be qualified to do the work,” Farley said. “That’s why we’re so clear.”

Democratic Assemblyman Richard Carrillo, who chairs the Transportation Committee, said he pulled Farley’s amendment after requests from Democratic Sen. Mark Manendo and Republican Sen. Scott Hammond.

Manendo demurred when asked about the amendment, saying the committee made its own decision. Hammond said he had worked on the main portion of the bill for the past two years and, having finally reached bipartisan consensus, was afraid that adding a significant amendment could slow or stop its progress with only a few weeks left in the session.

The Raiders did not return a request for comment.

Steve Hill, who chairs the Stadium Authority, rejected any notion of the Raiders calling all the shots. Revisiting the stadium bill could create a slippery slope, he said, because it would allow more input on recently passed legislation that was intended to serve as the full legal agreement.

“Generally, we would not support opening the (Southern Nevada Tourism Improvements Act) unless there is a critical need that, right now, we don’t see,” he said.

Hill said the education seminars and mentorship program targeting small local businesses could happen without a law change.

The concept appears to have buy-in from the construction industry. Officials from the Nevada Contractors Association and the state chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors said they support the idea of providing more education to subcontractors involved in the project.

“If you’re a smaller contractor looking to grow, understanding this process is very important,” said Mac Bybee, president of the Nevada chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.

His organization puts on similar education seminars, which, given the likely demise of Farley’s amendment, might be the best bet for small businesses seeking guidance. The most recent one, held last month in Reno, drew 10 to 15 companies, he said.

Despite the Stadium Authority’s reluctance to alter the original legislation, Hill reiterated the nine-member board’s commitment to serve as the watchdog for the taxpayer-funded facility.

“Generally, we think the stadium project is a great thing for Southern Nevada,” he said. “We are going to work hard to allow that to happen but certainly not at the expense of making sure the public is fully protected in the process.”

The Stadium Authority met again Thursday and approved the lease agreement with the Raiders shortly before the NFL owners are scheduled to meet next week in Chicago.

Farley said she hopes the amendment can work its way back into the bill at some point but expressed disappointment with how lawmakers appeared to kowtow to the powerful NFL team.

“It’s always bad when you go in negotiating by giving up too much,” she said. “Because if you’re not negotiating from abundance, you’re negotiating from a losing position. And so the moment we start acquiescing and taking a knee every single time, they win. They own us. And that’s not a bad spot, or a bad strategy for the Raiders, but it’s a really bad spot, I think, for everybody else in the state.”

Caption: This vacant piece to land at Russell Road and Interstate 15 is the possible site of the new Raiders Stadium.(Jeff Scheid/The Nevada Independent)