logo
Still no green light for largest public subsidy in state history as Legislature hits adjournment day

Still no green light for largest public subsidy in state history as Legislature hits adjournment day

Yahoo02-06-2025
A small army of lobbyists for film studios could be seen entering the Senate Democrats office after the lawmakers adjourned for the night. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
The Hollywood movie studios seeking $1.4 billion in transferable tax breaks over 15 years have clearly not received a red carpet rollout from the Nevada State Legislature.
Assembly Bill 238, which proposes a twelvefold expansion of the state's transferable film tax credit program, passed the Assembly late Friday in a 22-20 vote, the thinnest margin allowable since a tie would mean not passing. That left the high profile bill three days to pass the Senate. However, two whole days came and went, leaving the bill with less than 24 hours to make it across the finish line.
The Senate Finance Committee on Sunday appeared to be gearing up for a late night hearing on the film tax credit bill, but instead the full Senate withdrew the bill from the committee and allowed it to take a procedural step it needed in the full chamber.
The bill would massively expand Nevada's film tax credit program to support the build out and operation of a 31-acre film studio currently referred to as the Summerlin Production Studios Project (after the Las Vegas neighborhood where it would be located). Hollywood giants Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery are attached to the project. Howard Hughes Holdings is developing.
A small army of lobbyists for film studios could be seen entering the Senate Democrats office after the lawmakers adjourned for the night.
Nevada's film tax credit program is currently capped at $10 million per year. AB 238 would raise that cap to $120 million per year, for 15 years, beginning in 2028. The majority of those tax credits, $95 million per year, would be reserved for productions at the Summerlin studio; $25 million per year would be for productions not attached to the studio.
Altogether, that's equivalent to $1.8 billion in public subsidies for the television and film industry. If approved by the Senate and signed into law by Gov. Joe Lombardo, the legislation will be the largest public subsidy approved by the State of Nevada, surpassing the $1.25 billion approved by lawmakers in 2014 for Tesla Motors.
While tax credits aren't issued to companies until they prove they've met the qualifications for them, the state must treat them as 'negative revenue' when forecasting expected state revenue. That means they do impact the state budgeting process.
Here's where other high-profile bills stand going into the last day of the session:
All five state budget bills have all passed the Nevada Legislature. Senate Bill 502, known as the capital improvement program (CIP) bill, crossed the legislative finish line on Sunday. The CIP bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority, so it is often used by the minority party as leverage in broader negotiations. That was the case in the 2023 session, when the CIP bill failed to pass the Senate before midnight on the last day. That forced a one-day special session.
The state's other four budget bills (Senate Bill 500, Assembly Bill 591, Assembly Bill 592, and Senate Bill 501) all passed the Legislature within the last week and have been signed by the governor.
Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Gov. Joe Lombardo reached a compromise on their competing omnibus education bills.
Cannizzaro's Senate Bill 460 was amended to include components of Lombardo's Assembly Bill 584, including his proposal to establish a statewide accountability system and a salary incentive program for educators and administrators. Components of Cannizzaro's bill that made it past the amendment include revised evaluation procedures for educators and administrators and additional transparency and assessment requirements for schools receiving funding through the state's quasi-voucher system, known as Opportunity Scholarships.
The Senate unanimously passed the bill Sunday, and the bill now heads to the Assembly.
Cannizzaro said the bill represents the state taking 'significant strides' toward accountability and transparency. Senate Minority Leader Robin Titus also spoke on the floor in support.
Also on the education front: Senate Bill 161, a Clark County Education Association priority bill carried by state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen (D-Las Vegas), passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support and was signed by Lombardo in the last week of the session. The bill establishes an expedited arbitration process for teachers unions and school districts, and, perhaps more consequentially, establishes a pathway for K-12 public school teachers to legally go on strike.
With the passage of SB 161, CCEA will withdraw a ballot measure it had qualified for the 2028 general election ballot. That ballot measure, if approved by voters, would have given teachers the right to strike. The teachers union had previously said it was prepared to defend the ballot measure next year but would prefer to bypass it through legislative action.
It marks the second time the union has pulled this move. In 2021, CCEA qualified two ballot measures — one to raise the gaming tax, another to raise the sales tax — only to pull them after the Legislature established a new mining tax that directly funds the state's K-12 per pupil education fund.
Assembly Bill 540, Lombardo's housing bill, is currently in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. It has received a hearing but no action has been taken. The bill has already cleared the full Assembly.
Senate Bill 457, Lombardo's criminal justice bill, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday after receiving a major amendment. The bill needs to pass the full Senate and the full Assembly.
Senate Bill 495, Lombardo's health care bill, is prepped for a vote by the full Senate. It will need to be approved by the Senate, then by the Assembly.
Senate Bill 461, Lombardo's economic development bill, is currently in the Senate Revenue and Economic Development Committee. It received a hearing but no action has been taken.
On Friday, a banking bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager fell short of the required two-thirds approval it needed to pass the chamber. Assembly Bill 500 would allow for payment banks, a new type of financial institution that focuses solely on payment processing rather than lending.
The Assembly vote was 25-17, a simple majority but three votes short of the two-thirds it needed because it would raise state revenue. On Sunday, AB500 returned to the Assembly floor with an amendment that removed the two-thirds requirement. The amendment was adopted but, in a bizarre turn of events, the vote failed 20-22. The vote was attempted a third time and also failed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship

With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.

Trump offers Putin, Zelensky contrasting approaches
Trump offers Putin, Zelensky contrasting approaches

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Trump offers Putin, Zelensky contrasting approaches

President Donald Trump has offered his critics, the world and U.S. allies contrasting images on how America treats its friends and adversaries after failing to broker a ceasefire in Russia's unprovoked war to annex Ukraine. At the Alaska-based summit Russian President Vladimir Putin received a red-carpet welcome from the U.S. that included a B-2 bomber fly-by and a ride in the presidential limousine, nicknamed "The Beast" with video of him laughing with Trump. The two superpower leaders exchanged flatteries, with Putin saying the war wouldn't have started it Trump had been president in 2022. Andrei Gurulyov, a Russian parliament member and retired general, described it as a "breakthrough" moment that was played up heavily on Russian state television. Putin's foreign ministry said it marked an end to the foreign country's reported isolation. That showcase is in sharp contrast to a fiery exchange Trump and top administration officials had earlier this year with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy when the foreign ally's leader was told in the Oval Office he was being disrespectful to the U.S. and risking World War III. Zelenskyy was teased by Trump and others for his attire and eventually booted from the White House. Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., suggested Ukraine's president should either resign, change his tune or "send somebody over that we can do business with." The administration went as far to pause intelligence sharing and weapons shipments to Ukraine after the incident, and while Trump has threatened to impose sharp economic penalties on Russian if an agreement to end the war wasn't reached, he suspended those sanctions after the Alaska sit-down with Putin. Now, Trump is poised to welcome Zelenskyy back to Washington on August 18 to discuss a peace agreement. Republican praise Trump's strength, Dems fret 'it was just theater' After being hyped by the administration and its congressional allies as an opportunity to end the more than three-year conflict in region, Trump's dealmaking skills are being tested in an international negotiation that could backfire on the country and globe. "The goal is always peace," the White House said in an Aug. 15 post on X, amid the talks. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, said in an Aug. 16 post on X that Trump "stood firm in defense of U.S. interests," and that the summit marks a critical first step to a "durable and stable peace that protects Ukraine's territorial and economic sovereignty." But Democrats and other detractors warn that the summit has largely benefited Putin, who is facing war crime charges from the International Criminal Court and seeking legitimacy on the global stage after starting a war that has resulted in more than 1.4 million casualties, according to studies. "Our fear is that the Trump-Putin meeting wasn't diplomacy—it was just theater," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said in a post on X ahead of the talks. Trump seeks reset in pursuit of peace as Europe worries Trump returned to Washington on Aug. 16 carrying plenty of compliments from Putin, who said the war wouldn't have started if Joe Biden hadn't been in charge back in 2022. But without a deal the administration appears to be skipping cease-fire discussions altogether and pivoting quickly to reset its public relationship with Zelenskyy, who will be returning to the Oval Office on Aug. 18 for a talk that remains inconclusive to most observers. Trump began to tip-toe away from Putin and toward Zelenskyy in late April after Russia bombarded Kyiv with missiles. The president, however, is also reportedly considering land swaps including Ukraine areas not currently occupied by the Russians, according to the New York Times, something U.S. allies have opposed in the past. Zelenskyy said in an Aug. 16 post on X that he spoke with Trump and European leaders, adding that the "killings must stop" but that the battling must pause first before a larger peace agreement can be made. "The positions are clear," he said. "A real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions." In a joint statement, European leaders echoed that sentiment and expressed support for a Putin-Zelenskyy summit. "I'm disgusted that Donald Trump met with Putin on American soil and did so with no representatives from Ukraine," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, a retired Army helicopter pilot, said in an Aug. 16 post on X. "Trump and his inflated ego may not realize it, but it's clear that Putin is not engaging in good faith to end this war."

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. Advertisement So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. Advertisement 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. Advertisement State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Advertisement Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. Advertisement In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store