Nevada lawmakers gaveled into a special session on Thursday with a long list of items on their agenda, including a massive, multibillion dollar expansion of film tax credits and revived versions of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s bill on criminal justice.

Unlike regular sessions of the Legislature, the bills’ subject matters are limited to the concepts outlined in the governor’s proclamation calling the special session. The special session agenda, however, is wide-ranging, with seven bills returning from the 2023 and 2025 regular legislative sessions, five new topics and 14 proposed expenditures.

Lombardo said the agenda he outlined “implements critical public safety measures, expands healthcare access, and supports good-paying jobs.”

Among the other initiatives and topic areas outlined in the proclamation are health care, labor standards, cybersecurity, social services and school zone safety. 

Lombardo’s call also noted a need to implement safety measures for public servants and a new Silver State General Assistance Program (the governor didn't provide details on what that entails).

The Nevada Independent is tracking all of the policies up for debate this special session and summarizing the key points below. 

Scroll through the summaries, or click on the topic to be taken to that specific section. 

This resource will be updated as more details emerge. 

Last updated 11/13/2025 at 10 a.m.

• Film tax credit expansion
• Lombardo's omnibus crime bill
• Centers for medical excellence 
• Changes to an alcohol-related bill
• Windsor Park relocation
• State government operations

Film Tax Credit Expansion

What would it do?

• The bill likely to come up during the special session is a version of AB238, which died in the final hours of this year’s legislative session.
• Under that bill, the state would set aside $120 million in annual transferable tax credits from 2028 to 2043 to film production companies. It’s a major expansion of the state’s existing film tax credit program, which is capped at $10 million annually. These credits can be transferred (and often are) to other companies in exchange for cash. 
• Proponents said it would bring in about $11 million annually for pre-K programs in Clark County across the next 17 years. The proposal would create a new district in Summerlin (where a new film studio would be located) that would funnel certain tax revenues toward the Clark County School District to build up new pre-K programs. 
• The bill required companies to invest an aggregate of $900 million in construction by the end of 2029, in addition to $1.8 billion in capital investment by the end of 2038, in order to receive tax credits. If a project fails to meet these milestones, it could face a lien against the remaining undeveloped land.
• Companies also must make $400 million in capital investment by the end of 2028 and spend $1.5 billion across the 15-year credit period.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• AB238 died in the Senate without receiving a vote. The bill, sponsored by Assms. Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) and Daniele Monroe-Moreno (D-North Las Vegas), had passed 22-20 in the Assembly, with support coming from 15 Democrats and seven Republicans.
• Another film tax credit bill (SB220) sponsored by Sen. Roberta Lange (D-Las Vegas) did not receive a vote in either chamber. 

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• Sony and Warner Bros. are backing the proposal. The Southern Nevada Building Trades Unions and Laborers International Union of North America Local 872 are part of a group of unions that put $1 million toward a supportive new PAC. .
• Opponents include progressive groups such as Battle Born Progress, the Nevada State Education Association, the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041. Economists have also largely opposed the viability of the credits.

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• Proponents say it’s a necessary measure to diversify Nevada’s tourism-dependent economy, particularly amid an economic downturn.
• A state-commissioned economic analysis — conducted before the bill included stricter investment requirements and the money for pre-K programs — found the proposal could generate significant economic activity, but the amount of tax revenue government entities would recoup would fall far short of breaking even with how many tax credits were invested to spur the activity.

Last month, Jauregui toldThe Nevada Independent that the special session “is our only shot” to get the bill passed and that the studios won’t “wait for the state to approve.”

---

Lombardo’s Omnibus Crime Bill

What would it do?

• The omnibus crime bill from Gov. Joe Lombardo — a former Clark County sheriff — tackled many different aspects of criminal law, including fentanyl trafficking and retail crime. It proposed having felony theft charges kick in when items valued at $750 or more are stolen — a lower, stricter threshold than the existing $1,200 — but that section was later replaced by a provision about smash-and-grab burglaries. 
• The bill also proposed expanding several opioid use disorder programs in state prisons. It comes as the prison reports a sharp increase in overdoses in the past few years.
• One of the bill’s most contentious proposals is to re-establish a defunct Resort Corridor Court to deal with crimes from the Strip. Proponents, aiming to ensure the Strip’s reputation as safe and inviting, propose allowing even misdemeanor convictions to come with a monthslong ban from the resort corridor. 

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• A series of last-minute amendments to the bill became a major source of concern among legislators and criminal justice reform advocates. Legislators and key stakeholders expressed that they had received little communication on major amendments to the bill (such as the proposed corridor court system) from the governor and the Washoe County district attorney, a major bill supporter.
• The bill died in the final minutes of the legislative session due to a series of procedural delays. It passed the Assembly 36-6 and passed the Senate 20-1 with Sen. James Ohrenschall (D-Las Vegas) as the sole nay vote. The Senate, however, ran out of time to give its formal approval to final bill amendments. 

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• The bill was backed by local law enforcement agencies, including the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. 
• The bill was heavily opposed by public defenders in Washoe and Clark counties as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP. 

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• An initial version of the bill was estimated to cost the state more than $42 million per biennium because of an increase in incarcerated people. Clark County also noted a significant cost because of an increased number of felony cases that public defenders would need to handle. 
• Tackling crime has long been a major priority for Lombardo, who spent three decades in law enforcement and is gearing up for his 2026 re-election campaign. 

Proponents feel that the measure has economic stakes. “We have to remember that the Strip is the engine, the major economic engine, for not just Las Vegas, not just the county, but the entire state of Nevada,” Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union Local 226, told The Indy in a previous interview.

---

Centers for Medical Excellence

What would it do? 

• Lawmakers intend to bring back a failed bill from this year’s legislative session (SB434) to establish a competitive grant program aimed at addressing health care provider shortages.
• Under the proposal, a wide swath of health organizations — including facilities that treat alcohol and substance use disorders, higher education programs that provide health care provider training and nonprofits in the health care space — would be eligible to apply for the grant funding.
• To be eligible for the grant, the applicant must secure funds that match the amount of  money it is requesting from the grant program.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• SB434, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas), received bipartisan support in both chambers, but it did not reach Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s desk because of a last-minute amendment.
• On the penultimate day of the session, an amendment was added to the bill that changed the process to fund the grant program. 
• Originally, a set share of the state’s budget would transfer to the grant program rather than the state’s emergency fund as long as certain conditions are met, such as the emergency account having a balance of at least $1 billion. The program could also receive up to $25 million in prescription drug rebates for each fiscal year.
• The last-minute amendment removed these provisions and instead set aside $10 million for the grant program. These dollars were originally included in a separate health care bill brought by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo (SB495), who had proposed a similar program to bolster Nevada’s health care workforce. But that program was eventually removed, paving the way for Cannizzaro’s bill to pass.
• The Assembly unanimously passed the amended version of the bill with less than nine hours to go before the session ended, but it needed final approval from the Senate. The clock eventually ran out, killing the bill.

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• There was wide support from Nevada’s health care community. Supporters included HCA Healthcare, which runs the Sunrise Hospital and Sunrise Children’s Hospital, the Nevada Hospital Association and the Nevada Rural Hospital Partners Foundation.
• Three members of the public submitted opposition letters over its funding mechanisms and potential effects on the health care bureaucracy.

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• Proponents said the program would allow the state to make progress in addressing its health care provider shortage, a long-running bipartisan priority.
• Lombardo said the special session would focus on completing “unfinished business” from the 2025 Legislature. The final changes to Cannizzaro’s bill represented an apparent deal related to Lombardo’s own health care bill, an indication that he supports it.

---

Windsor Park

What would it do? 

• In his special session proclamation, Gov. Joe Lombardo referred to legislation that passed in the 2023 legislative session (SB450) to relocate residents of the Windsor Park neighborhood in North Las Vegas. The historically Black subdivision has become dilapidated because of the sinking of the ground.
• While the specifics of the upcoming legislation are unclear, a bill to build off of that legislation (SB393) failed to pass this year.
• The 2025 measure allocates an additional $26 million for the relocation effort, allows anyone who lived in Windsor Park on Dec. 31, 2023, to be eligible (rather than July 1, 2023), and provides people who are relocating with an abatement so that their property taxes would remain the same in their new residence.
• Property eligible for the relocation must be owned by families, not the City of North Las Vegas, according to the bill.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• SB393 passed both chambers, but a last-minute amendment did not receive necessary approval from the Senate on the chaotic final day. The bill received only Democratic support in the Assembly and had bipartisan support in the Senate.
• Legislative sources told The Nevada Independent at the time that the Senate intended to approve the final amendment, but the clock ran out on the session.

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• Support for SB393 came from Windsor Park residents and progressive groups, including the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter and Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition.
• Senate Minority Leader Robin Titus (R-Wellington) was one of five Republican senators to oppose the bill. In remarks on the Senate floor earlier this year, she said the bill was a “fiscal boondoggle,” referring to the amount of money already allocated to the project and the state’s precarious budget situation.

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• Sen. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas), the bill’s sponsor and longtime advocate of Windsor Park residents, said it is about righting historical wrongs.
  • “The bill is trying to focus on providing justice to families who were left by their own city, and they waited for them to die. All they did was fight those families tooth and nail,” Neal said earlier this year.

Sources previously told The Indy that Gov. Joe Lombardo had intended to sign SB393 bill if it reached his desk. Supporters of the bill also noted that additional funding is important for the project to succeed.

---

Alcohol Bill Changes

What would it do? 

• The 2025 Legislature passed a bill (AB404) that would allow Nevada craft breweries to also sell their products at two retail taprooms they own (where the alcohol is not brewed), as long as they go through a wholesaler.
• However, an amendment to the bill changed the payment rules for all interactions between retailers and alcohol wholesalers. It required payments from retailers to be made through an electronic fund transfer, during which the wholesaler initiates the withdrawal from the retailer’s bank account.
• The payment rules were meant to limit cash transactions — and protect drivers from potentially being victims of robbery — but immediately after the session, concerns arose from gaming companies, which play the role of retailers in these arrangements. These companies tend to contract with third parties to manage transactions with distributors, and they worried that the new electronic fund transfer requirement could result in these contractors gaining unauthorized access to the companies’ financial accounts.
• Now, lawmakers are likely to amend the law to exempt non-restricted gaming companies from the payment rules. These are entities with more than 15 slot machines — such as large-scale gaming companies — but do not include typical restaurants or bars.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• AB404, sponsored by Assm. Howard Watts (D-Las Vegas), passed unanimously in the Assembly and with all but two senators in support. 
• Despite the near-unanimous approval, the bill process was contentious, with particular opposition from the Nevada branches of the Teamsters union, which represents truck drivers.

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• Gaming companies and alcohol distributors are supporting the change. There are no known opponents.

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• The change will likely safeguard large companies’ financial accounts. It is coming up in a special session to avoid any unintended consequences of the bill, which took effect Oct. 1.

---

State Government Operations

What would it do? 

• In his special session proclamation, Gov. Joe Lombardo told lawmakers to  revisit AB600, a bill related to state government operations that he vetoed in 2025.
• The bill would have made several changes to state government functions, including requiring all proceeds from legislative buildings — including food and souvenirs — go toward the state’s Legislative Fund, an account that bankrolls legislative activities.
• It would also require any state entity to be considered part of a branch of state government. 

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• Lawmakers unanimously passed the bill, but Lombardo vetoed it, saying it would contradict a 2024 ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court that determined the Nevada System of Higher Education and its Board of Regents are not tied to a specific branch of state government.

Who’s supporting this? Is anyone opposing it?

• During a bill hearing, Nevada Policy — a libertarian-leaning think tank that was the plaintiff in the recent Nevada Supreme Court case challenging legislators who were employed as lower-level governmental employees in their private life — testified in support. 
• There was no opposition testimony.

What effect would it have on the state? Why is this coming up in a special session?

• The Legislative Fund aspect of the bill will likely lead to more proceeds to the account, but other changes appear to be negligible.
• Lombardo said the goal of the special session is to complete “unfinished business” from the 2025 Legislature.