Nevada committee hears AB238 studio tax-credit bill; backers cite jobs and training, critics warn of education funding loss

At a Nevada Assembly Ways and Means Committee hearing, lawmakers heard testimony on Assembly Bill 238, the Nevada Studio Infrastructure Jobs and Workforce Training Act, a proposal that would create transferable film-production tax credits tied to studio infrastructure, workforce requirements and local spending.

Sponsors and industry representatives told the committee the bill would leverage private investment to build studio infrastructure, create construction and ongoing production jobs, and fund workforce training programs. Opponents, including education and policy groups, said the foregone tax revenue and the size of the proposed credits risked diverting funds from K‑12 and other state services.

The bill sponsors, Assemblymember Sandra Howtege, who introduced the measure, and Assemblymember Danielle Monroe Moreno, framed AB238 as an economic-diversification and workforce bill. “These numbers speak for themselves,” Howtege said, citing sponsor estimates of roughly 19,000 union construction jobs during an eight‑year build phase, nearly 18,000 permanent jobs once operations stabilize, $2 billion in private capital investment to construct studios and about $3 billion a year in ongoing economic activity once the studios are operating.

Fiscal mechanics and timing: state analysts and proponents

Consultants working with the project and the film office presented fiscal figures and a regulatory timeline. Guy Hobbs, the project consultant, and Mallory Richards (PFM) provided revenue estimates for the construction phase: combined sales-tax receipts of about $70.6 million (state and local) over eight years, modified business tax receipts of about $5.2 million and property-tax revenue of about $45.4 million for the construction period. Mallory Richards said the state’s portion of the construction-phase sales tax would be about $16.9 million over eight years.

Proponents said the transferable credits would not be redeemable immediately: the amended timeline in the draft requires the film office to complete regulations by 06/01/2026, applications to be accepted thereafter, and that credits could not be cashed in until on or after 07/01/2028. The governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) provided a fiscal note for the film office of $206,126 to fund two additional positions to administer the program.

State fiscal staff walked the committee through how AB238 would change credit calculations and how existing projects would have fared under the proposed structure. Michael Nakamoto of the Legislature’s Fiscal Analysis Division used the recent WrestleMania application as an example: under current law that event received about $4.2 million in transferable credits; running that event’s application through AB238’s proposed rates and caps (and removing a current $750,000 wage cap) would have increased the credit to roughly $8.3 million, an increase of about $4.1 million, Nakamoto said.

Supporters: unions, higher education and small-business groups

Support testimony came from a broad coalition that included construction and stagecraft unions, higher-education leaders and local business groups. Vince Saavedra, executive secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trade Unions, asked lawmakers to approve “shovels in the ground” that would employ Nevadans. UNR Reynolds School of Journalism Dean Dean Gi Yoon, several Nevada System of Higher Education officials and representatives from the College of Southern Nevada and UNLV said their institutions have film and media programs and described internship and curriculum commitments tied to industry investment. Cameron C. H. Miller of the Urban Chamber of Commerce described the proposal as “smart economic diversification” that could benefit small businesses statewide.

Opponents: education funding, fiscal risk and geographic concentration

Opposition testimony focused on the program’s cost and the effect of expanded transferable credits on the state general fund. The Nevada State Education Association (spokesperson Alexander Marks) and other education advocates urged lawmakers to prioritize K‑12 funding, saying the state faces competing needs and citing the commission on school funding’s recommendations. Policy organizations (including the Nevada Policy Research Institute and Nevada Policy) and coalitions such as New Day Nevada and Battle Born Progress argued AB238 would amount to a large public subsidy with limited fiscal return.

Tess Opperman of the Nevada Women’s Lobby summarized a fiscal critique drawn from the proponents’ own exhibits, saying the sponsors’ fiscal exhibit projected that over 15 years the program could allow $1.65 billion in credits while returning roughly 46% of that amount to state and local governments in aggregate. Other opponents pointed to out‑of‑state production practices and to studies from other states showing mixed fiscal returns for film-credit programs.

Committee questions and next steps

Committee members asked for clarifications on revenue sources, how credits would interact with other abatements, the geographic distribution of workforce training funds and the timing of credits. Proponents said the statutory qualification would require production to show Nevada expenditures before credits are certified and that credits would be audited by a third party prior to certification. Matt Walker, representing Howard Hughes (the developer associated with the Summerlin Production Studios project), said the bill precludes participation in other statutory job‑creation credits except for standard property-tax abatements that apply broadly to property owners.

Sponsors and proponents signaled forthcoming amendments. Assemblymember Howtege told the committee she and others were preparing guardrails and that an amendment would be available by the bill work session; Monroe Moreno said more work remained but urged collaboration to refine the proposal.

No formal committee votes were recorded during the hearing. The committee received roughly 30 minutes of registered testimony in support and a similar span of opposition during the hearing; additional written testimony submitted to the committee record was referenced.

The bill’s fiscal structure, the size and timing of any credits, and the proposed statutory performance requirements are likely to be focal points in the work session and in any fiscal negotiations.

Ending

Sponsors said the bill would leverage private capital to create long‑term jobs, workforce pipelines and training facilities; opponents urged caution and prioritized direct funding to schools and core services. The committee hearing closed with sponsors offering to continue amendment work before their scheduled work session.