A new draft of the Nevada AB238 bill by Sony Pictures and Howard Hughes Properties has been posted in an official form and we have reviewed it for any changes and amendments. From what we can see, a number of questions have been cleared up simply by the bill offering more specifics and clarifications. While a few questions do remain, the most important changes and amendments we suggested from before have yet to be answered, particularly in the bills sole focus on Summerlin Studios and its troubling emphasis and subsequent obfuscation of its DEI policies in the official draft of the bill.
As before, we have collected our findings and suggestions from our thread post on X and have collected them on this blog post:
Review
We have reviewed the new latest draft of the Nevada AB238 bill by @SonyPictures! We appreciate that there are a few answers from our previous concerns with clarifications and added specifics but there are still major fundamental and systemic issues, More below:
Sec. 2 If opinion, is neglecting other parts of Nevada where such studio development can be beneficial to the state. Babs Do Studios has plans for Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City with other areas under consideration for at least a small studio build. All of Nevada has creative advantages with its varying landscapes and cityscapes as well as educational programs in film and media. There are also a number of discussions for more land to become available to establish new cities and towns as well. If this text needs to be in place for legal reasons to apply to certain Las Vegas business laws or tax purposes, then it would, we believe, be beneficial to include a note that reads something like “until such infrastructure development has provided for” or “has made possible the continued (or expanded) development of large-scale facilities for motion picture or other qualified productions in other Areas in this State.”
Essentially to say that this will be the start of Nevada’s film and media development and it could grow to include other areas of the state. Just remove the line of “which are found nowhere else in this state.” It is unnecessary and excludes other areas of Nevada with parties that wish to develop their own film studios, such as in Reno, Nevada. If a law of local and special application is required, just say that and explain what the new law is that is required.
Sec. 2a-c, 2.2 If something needs to be said for the sake of Summerlin Studios, it should state that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area is the most ideal for Summerlin Studios and leave it at that.
Sec.9 There should be a sub-section or new section to provide clarification or statement of the obligations and minimum requirements of other studio developments that wish to build film and media studios in Nevada. Also to restate that the bill is stating the agreed requirements to build Summerlin Studios to aid in establishing INITIAL large-scale film and media infrastructure in Nevada. Babs Do Studios and Warner Bros. Studios by example have different building strategies, budget levels, and their own particular benefits and offerings for Nevada and would be compromised in following exactly the bill’s stated agreed terms for Summerlin Studios by Sony Pictures and Howard Hughes Properties.
Sec. 10, potential typo or clarification point, if Summerlin Studios won’t be built until June 30th 2028 at the latest, how will production companies be “located at” the studio?
Sec 10.3.e, 33.4a-c, 12, 19.3d, 21 This is still DEI diversity practices with different terminology if not completely left unchanged from the draft version. A “second draft rephrasing” by any other name and Sec. 12 and Sec. 21 still shows the entire quota system for “traditionally underrepresented groups” is still intact and actually reduces the number of tax credits eligible for not meeting these quotas, even for internships and apprenticeships!
For a bill that, at its core, is supposed to present a universal tax-based incentive program for the creation of art and possible technological, scientific, or creative innovation, this language is unnecessary, inappropriate, and still inherently discriminatory to all applicants for the film tax incentive program, who the majority of artists and employed individuals will be tax-paying Nevada residents.
The new “Waivers” for “Good Faith Effort” in diversity hiring is a clear sign that the bill is still placing an unusual and significant concerted effort to include DEI practices regardless of the unnecessary complexity, discrimination, and harm that these practices inherently cause core business and operations in general as established by various cases currently being investigated, presented, and removed by local state authorities and the Federal Government across various industries. A waiver as a concession for including these practices is not a waiver but an unnecessarily burdensome application to punish non-compliance to the inner political, social, and/or cultural agenda the bill prescribes to which by its core responsibility to the people and state of Nevada it should not be within its purview to do so.
Any reference or disguised language referring to diversity, equity, minorities, racial, ethnic, sex, gender or any other names, terms, or description for persons or groups cited in the bill for direct allocation of benefits, preference, and employment should be removed and the only group name to be universally and unequivocally considered for direct benefits, preference, and employment by this legislation should be “Nevada residents” which would by definition in its reference include all of the above without discrimination.
I even put the bill through @grok to see if I missed anything, it found more sections and cross references to enable DEI language, principles, and methods of enforcement in the bill. For the sake of tax-paying Nevada residents, all of it needs to go.
https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/AXqRpDq0cVQrxnb1vOIcuJy7X
Sec. 10.7 “The film infrastructure transferable tax credits issued under the certificate may not be used before July 1, 2028.” – This should be placed under a section specifically for Summerlin Studios as the bill still places all preference on incentives for Summerlin Studios and no other potential or possible studio developments. As per our previous notes, this bill should include other studio developments besides Summerlin Studios in the scope of its legislation. Other studio developments should have their own section or sub-section guidelines to follow for their own share of Infrastructure Transferable Tax Credits. If no such share is allocated for, adjust for $20M ($10M Babs Do Studios, $10M Warner Bros. for example) or $10M at the least for shared studio infrastructure development credits.
As an alternative, a new section at the bottom should include legislation for other developments to follow that says essentially to follow the steps for Summerlin Studios outlined above with exception to the same dates, numbers, figures, and financial commitments made by Summerlin Studios, Sony Pictures, and Howard Hughes Properties to the State and to have each new studio development be evaluated on a case by case basis with the Office or the Executive Director of the Office for registration and application for development and allocation for Infrastructure Transferable Tax Credits as may be applied.
The bill ultimately needs to clarify that the completion date of June 30, 2028 and July 1, 2028 have no bearing on other studio developments that may want to build in Nevada and any such Infrastructure Transferable Tax Credits allotment before those dates. As it reads, it sounds like any studio development in Nevada is locked off from any incentives or benefits until Summerlin Studios is finished three years from now in 2028 and, if reading things right, possibly some years after as well. Sec. 16 outlines the processes for helping to form ways to support other studio developments by the committee with the Office of Economic Development which is good to include but that implies once again that revisions and amendments must be made to this bill in order to provide expanded or reallocated funds and services to support new developments, so why not incorporate at least some form of support initially as changes will be guaranteed to come with the bill’s passing if not?
The best solution is to either request additional tax credit amount of +$10M-$20M at least or reallocate the amount and reduce the totals in order to open up the bill to include any other development besides Summerlin Studios to provide fair competition for development and to immediately provide a path for Nevada’s film and media infrastructure potential without delay.
Sec. 20.2i – “The design, construction, improvement or repair of property, infrastructure, equipment or a production or postproduction facility”
Can this be used to build a small to medium sized studio? Perhaps this should be the key line to opening up Infrastructure Transferable Tax Credits to other studios in the previous half of the bill! For example, the description could work towards building Babs Do Studios with our multiple building pathways that include repurposing one or more pre-existing properties into production facilities.
Perhaps for infrastructure’s sake a combination of Infrastructure and Noninfrastructure tax credits could be utilized for helping to fund such a purpose but that would need to be determined by the bill’s writer’s and its inherent definitions.
– As the bill has been refined to offer specifics and clarifications to clear up some questions from its draft version, it still has yet to amend the most significant issues within its structure. Summerlin studios will be a fine studio, the bill outlines this and details its development, however the bill needs to provide solutions for future developments in the state as one single film studio development cannot solely provide for an entire state. Even our Babs Do Studios development plan expects to work alongside other film studio developments in a state, even ones as developed and significant in studio space as Georgia and Texas.
As we have detailed, the bill can easily allocate the resources to offer this and the increased development with the likes of Babs Do Studios and other potential Nevada studios for added production and training can be a major benefit to Summerlin Studios even before it is finished building with a trained Nevada workforce ready to occupy its offices and stages on day one.
The elimination of DEI from the bill will allow the simplification and focus on providing strictly for the state of Nevada and its residents, communities, and future development without discriminatory measures and unnecessary complexity. It will also keep the bill clean and clear of any future scrutiny, calls for review, or potential litigation and investigation that could be derived from such discriminatory language and agenda being present in its legislative text.
Once more, for the sake of Nevada artists, citizens, & other studio developers, we ask that our review of the AB238 bill be taken under consideration for amendments & revision! @JosephMLombardo @sandra4nv @PictureThisNV @DavidOReillyHH @DiversifyNevada @drrobintitus @NVDemsChair
Conclusion
As the bill is under review by the Committee on Revenue, we can only guess what findings and opinions they may have in addition to our own. With the changes and amendments we are calling for, the bill can become a streamlined film and media infrastructure bill that can truly be the start to bringing a “Hollywood 2.0” pathway to Nevada. If the bill doesn’t change, the question becomes whether it can pass through the Nevada legislature and their examination of the bill. Adding to this is the fact that Warner Bros. still has yet to present their bill to the legislature and we have heard that one or more potential surprise bills could be presented as well! The future of Nevada as a film and media production hub is literally hanging in the balance and while we want to build “Babs Do Studios – Nevada”, we want to do what is right for Nevada artists, communities, and the future of the state. For the moment, the best thing we can do is reach out to all involved and the inform the Nevada legislature of our opinions and findings and hope that all of it leads to a better bill to benefit all of Nevada.