So soon after our review of the latest draft of the Nevada AB238 Film Tax Incentive bill by Sony Pictures, we now have the announcement today of the SB220 bill by Warner Bros. and UNLV! The bills are surprisingly similar in their text, possibly basing both off of the same original template when they were working together before separating in September 2024. Both bills also have serious problems with DEI requirements and practices being inserted throughout their language and neither support any other studio developers that could come to Las Vegas or even Nevada-born studios like Babs Do Studios. Our collection of findings, observations, and opinions from our X thread are included below:
Review
We have just reviewed the new Nevada SB220 Film Tax Incentive Bill by Warner Bros. @wbd @wbpictures! Like AB238, the bill has serious problems with DEI and no support for other studio developments. For the sake of Nevada, serious amendments and revisions are required, More Below:
Sec.2.1b – Advice – Should also mention Artificial Intelligence under the UNLV Research Foundation list of workforce and educational development, it would apply to video games, animation, and the other industries mentioned as well and is surely a point of interest by the foundation.
Sec. 2.1d-e – Practically almost word for word as the AB238 bill from @SonyPictures, also claims Las Vegas as the “only” area in the State to build the studio in, which is fundamentally untrue for the future development of Nevada, as Babs Do Studios has potential plans for Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City. Once more, unless stated for a particular legal purpose, this should be changed with the deletion of “the only area in this State” to “is the most appropriate and suitable area for the Nevada Media and Technology Lab…” followed by the ending line “… and circumstances within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area and to benefit the residents of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. The following 2e section can also drop the “which are found nowhere else within this State,” without further corrections.
Sec. 11 – This should state “A production company at the Project” or at least to make clear that the lead participant, essentially Warner Bros., is in charge of approving or denying film infrastructure transferable tax credits for production companies working with Warner Bros. and not all Nevada production companies in general through this bill’s program. Without this clarification it conflicts with the following Sec 12 text which places this role at the Office of Economic Development.
Sec. 12.3-4, 32 – The first requirement for eligibility for film infrastructure transferable tax credits at Sec. 12.3a, before anything else, is the DEI requirement. This is extremely disappointing! Just as with AB238, the focus of any film tax incentive bill in Nevada should solely be on the benefit, preference, and employment of “Nevada Residents” and no other persons or groups as tax-paying Nevada Residents are the sole relevant party to be included in such legislation and would by definition and reference include all of the above without discrimination. This language should be immediately removed from the bill for its discriminatory nature, inappropriate and unnecessary complexity, and to prevent undue harm, litigation, investigation, or complete removal of the bill as local state authorities and the Federal Government are currently working to abolish such programs and legislation across various industries. UNLV has already made headline news for its conflicting stance with DEI programs and practices now under the microscope and has removed a diversity scorecard from their website which is already an indication of change. To push forward with these requirement practices under the partnership with UNLV will place the entire project under a precarious position and potentially immense scrutiny. At its core, focusing on solely “Nevada Residents” in the bill’s language does not present any legal, moral, or practical conflicts with the base concept of diversity of people, business, or the economy as this bill aims to represent and benefit, Warner Bros. and UNLV should recognize this and remove the DEI language and requirements from the bill outright for the sake of all Nevada citizens and communities that seek to create film and media and benefit from its production.
We ran the SB220 bill through @Grok to determine the points of DEI, any we may have missed, and how to quickly remove them from the bill. All of the DEI language in SB220 should be removed.
https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/0TzyPilNPvM9vibLEFKUdeGhr
Sec.12.3b – Once again the clarification should be made that the “lead participant” is only responsible for productions made at the Project. All it would take is “If production company is located at the Project, submit to the Office the written approval from the lead participant…” and at the end, “If a production company is not located at the Project, submit the application to the Office directly.”
Sec. 12.3h.2 – There should again be a clarification that “if the production was produced at the Project,” when requiring the Nevada Studios Project end credit acknowledgment.
Sec. 12.5 – Easy fix for clarifying productions made at the Project versus those that aren’t and whether the production is a game, movie, etc., place “where applicable” like this “…pursuant to section 14 of this act, where applicable, to:”
Sec. 13i – Should clarify as “Payments for goods or services provided by a Nevada business or, if solely or in part produced at the Project, the lead supplier;”
Sec. 14.3b – A fantastic note I don’t remember being present in AB238, “Any work performed by an extra must not be considered in determining the percentage of the below-the-line personnel who are Nevada residents.”
Sec. 15.5 – I’m not sure what this is saying as the tax credits should be given out before production, how would they expire 7 years after? Surely they would have expired much sooner and tax credits would not be tied up with such a far out or lost production? This should be clarified or replaced with protections to prevent this delay with such a professional level of production that would be qualified to have or even require the assistance of tax credits.
Sec. 20 – Some of the text for noninfrastructure transferable tax credits applies directly to our concerns for the infrastructure transferable tax credits, simply copy and paste the appropriate wording to the previous half of the bill for additional clarification for productions at or with studio developments produced outside of the Project that may apply for infrastructure transferable tax credits.
Sec. 20.5 – Once again, place “where applicable” at the part for where to forward copies to.
We should state that the language of the Warner Bros. bill aside from the severe concerns in need of significant amendment, revision, and outright deletion, is otherwise clearly stated and is easy to read and follow when compared to the Sony Pictures AB238 bill that preceded it. Of particular note is the clear description of responsibilities and duties involved by the Nevada Tax Commission and the Nevada Gaming Commission which weren’t very well described in AB238 and seemed unusually vague on initial read through.
Like AB238, for the sake of Nevada citizens, we cannot officially support the SB220 bill by Warner Bros. & UNLV in its current form. With the changes we recommend, SB220 can be equally as great of a bill for bringing Hollywood 2.0 to Nevada!
As with Sony Pictures, if I have misread or misunderstood any of the SB220 bill’s text, I would appreciate any clarification or explanation from Warner Bros. to help clear up any issues or misunderstandings in the review of the bill.
Both AB238 and SB220 appear to be based off of the same text template & they both contain troubling DEI practices & both bills provide no support for other studio developers including @netflix, @AmazonMGMStudio, @DisneyStudios @UniversalPics, or even Nevada-born Babs Do Studios!
With the AB238 bill still being reviewed by the Nevada Legislature, we would recommend that @sandra4nv, @PictureThisNV, @DavidOReillyHH, @NVDemsChair take note of our review of the current draft of SB220 for any possible updates and changes for the next draft of AB238! There are some good notes and points of clarification in the text of SB220 that may have been missing from AB238.
Whichever bill gets voted for and approved, Nevada’s future as a production hub hangs in the balance and the bill it chooses to modernize its film and media incentive program must place Nevada citizens and the future development of the state at the forefront of anything else!
For all involved, we ask our notes for the SB220 bill to be taken into serious consideration for the sake of Nevada artists, citizens, & other studio developers like Babs Do Studios! Please, Warner Bros, @unlv , @LangeForSenate , @JosephMLombardo, @drrobintitus @DiversifyNevada
Conclusion
As with Sony Pictures and Howard Hughes Properties, we do not want to make enemies, cause hard feelings between us, or make any trouble for Warner Bros. and UNLV. We feel that it is important to provide comprehensive feedback on the SB220 bill in order to help Warner Bros. and UNLV to present the best possible film tax incentive bill that will represent not only their shared development but also the best interest for Nevada artists, communities, and other studio developers for the sake of Nevada’s potential future as a new film and media production hub! Whichever bill wins the vote, we hope that the changes, amendments, additions, and subtractions we have recommended in our reviews will contribute towards the best bill possible to allow widespread film and media production across the state for all artists in Nevada for years to come and we hope that future includes Babs Do Studios!