Jan 20, 2026
To: The Honorable Senator Luz Escamilla, District 10
The Honorable Representative Angela Romero, District 25
Subject: $3.5 Million earmarked in public, but reallocated in secret.
Dear Senator Escamilla and Representative Romero,
I’m writing as a constituent, a filmmaker, and member of Utah’s nonprofit sector.
I am subscribed to receive email notifications for the “GOED Business Development Board” through the state’s Public Notice Website to be informed about decisions that may affect the film industry (I suppose I’m also writing as someone with “hyper-focused” ADHD). That being said:
I want to express my concern about a recent decision by the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (FKA “...Economic Development”/“GOED”) to award a one‑time $2 million IAA grant in support of a so-called “AI”‑centric film “ecosystem” proposal. I consider myself a strong advocate for strengthening Utah’s creative economy—I’m scheduled to participate in the upcoming “Cultural Industry Advocacy Day on the Hill” for the third year in a row, and have also participated in its precursor “Film Day on the Hill”—but the way this grant was noticed, justified, and structured raises serious questions about transparency, risk, and the appropriate use of Utah’s economic development tools.
Public notice and agenda description
In the official meeting notice and “All Materials” packet posted between January 6 and 8 of this year—all of which is available to the public through the state’s Public Notice Website (see link below)—the agenda described the item of concern only as “Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) Grant – The Board will vote to approve one IAA grant” (emphasis added). NOT “to consider a grant proposal,” not “to vote on said proposal,” but “The Board will vote to approve one IAA grant.” How could anyone possibly know the outcome of a vote that has yet to take place, so much so as to transform an agenda into something prophetic? It should also be noted that there was no indication of the grant amount, the film‑focused nature of the proposal, the “AI”‑driven “ecosystem” concept, or the involvement of a newly formed nonprofit. By contrast, the same packet includes detailed executive summaries, job projections, wage levels, capital investment, and recapture provisions for other incentives considered at the same meeting, demonstrating that the Board can and does provide substantive, accessible information when it chooses to do so.
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/1049891.html
Nature of the proposal and corporate structure
According to the discussion—also available through the link above, but, as I write this, only as a nearly hour-long audio file—the grant supports a nonprofit entity formed in 2025 with a broad mission to build a multi‑pillar film “ecosystem,” including “AI”‑enabled filmmaking labs, an “AI” soundstage at a technology hub, enhanced incentive policy work with the Legislature and the Utah Film Commission, negotiations to attract a film financing fund, and education and certificate programs across schools and higher education. The articles of incorporation—also publicly available from the Utah Department of Commerce website—confirm that this entity was only recently created as a Utah nonprofit corporation, reinforcing the need for clear governance provisions, state oversight mechanisms, and performance requirements before entrusting it with a substantial statewide economic development grant.
Comparison with other incentives and IAA purpose
In the same meeting, the Board approved performance‑based tax incentives for two companies through a rural economic development program, with detailed projections: hundreds of high‑paying jobs, specific capital investment amounts exceeding $250 million, and explicit contractual recapture provisions tied to verified performance. Public reporting on those incentives emphasizes job creation, capital investment, and measurable economic outcomes, which aligns with the traditional purpose of Utah’s incentive tools and with statutory expectations for programs like the IAA. By contrast, the film “ecosystem” grant relies on broad qualitative claims about future prestige, technology leadership, and “putting Utah on the map,” without comparable, clearly quantified job and revenue benchmarks or detailed recapture language in the public materials.
Reinventing the wheel
The stated objectives used to justify the grant are nothing short of redundant and duplicative of the excellent work that is already being done by the Utah Film Commission and several existing, long-established Utah-based non-profit organizations. What they are proposing—using an absurd amount of marketing clichés, buzzwords and hyperbole—appears to be little more than an attempt to rebrand existing resources and then take credit for implementing them.
Utah’s filmmaking infrastructure—established over the last century—already meets their definition of the filmmaking “ecosystem” they intend to “build.”
They literally said that they “...will put Utah on the map as the place for filmmaking…” (emphasis added) As if the Utah Film Commission hasn’t been doing that for over 50 years! Often with actual maps! Their recent “Utah Film Trail” promotion is only the latest implementation of their promotional efforts.
https://www.visitutah.com/things-to-do/film-tourism/utah-film-trail
What’s especially ironic is that I’m pretty sure the GOEO is aware of this redundancy. The proposal stated “We would also establish an MOU with the film commission so that we are sure that we're working together and as we build this out for Utah success.” (sic)
An “MOU” is a “Memorandum of Understanding.” As in they understand that they’re not bringing anything new to the table. Couching it in the phrase “...we’re working together…” is just a fancy way of acknowledging that redundancy without spelling it out in plain english.
They also say they want “...to enhance the state's incentive programs to bring filmmakers to Utah…” There is no need to create a new non-profit entity to do this because one already exists! The Motion Picture Association of Utah—of which I am a dues-paying member!—has been actively and successfully lobbying the legislature for that specific purpose since 2009!
AI hype, timing, and risk
The proposal leans heavily on exaggerated claims about “AI”, including the creation of an “AI”‑enabled soundstage described as the first of its kind in the United States and assertions that major studio‑scale films could be produced in a fraction of the usual time and cost.
Eighteen months ago, narratives of dramatic, near‑term transformation from AI may have sounded more compelling; today, there is broad acknowledgment that parts of the AI sector show speculative, bubble‑like characteristics, with valuations and promises that frequently outpace proven, sustainable business models. Against this backdrop, the suggestion that a single “AI” soundstage and related programming will quickly confer national leadership in film production appears overly optimistic at best, and at worst raises concerns that the expectations being created for the public and policymakers are unrealistic and potentially misleading.
Where is this money coming from?
It isn’t until over 40-minutes into the recording of the meeting, that the source for the $2 million was parenthetically indicated and in a manner one might describe as suspiciously casual.
“In addition, the funds were previously allocated to Sundance, but with Sundance leaving has come back, which is allowing us to still keep within the film vertical, but look at where the future of this industry is going.”(sic)(emphasis added)
Describing the funds as having “come back,” is disingenuous, since it could be inferred that they were already used for their intended purpose and subsequently refunded instead of having been reallocated. I want to know whether or not that reallocation allows for it to be used in this way. Also, what is the extension for the other $1.5 million—out of $3.5 Million total—that was budgeted to try and keep Sundance in Utah?
As I’m writing this letter, the official minutes of the meeting have yet to be published. The only way to know what was said is to listen to the recording posted to the state’s Public Notice Website (link below, I’ll also refer you to my previous acknowledgement of hyper-focus above). https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1373837.m4a
Broader film ecosystem context
Public reporting on Utah’s film infrastructure (or “ecosystem”)—which, again, already exists—indicates that, even with the departure of the Sundance Film Festival, the state already hosts dozens of film festivals and is attracting new international events, signaling a diverse and evolving landscape. Industry participants in these reports emphasize incremental, community‑driven growth, experimentation across many festivals and formats, and caution about trying to “recreate” the unique historical conditions that allowed a single festival to become globally dominant. For all of the Governor’s bloviating about “replacing” Sundance with something “bigger and better,” this context suggests that investment in the existing, diverse, and organically developing infrasturture is both more realistic and more resilient than trying to make from scratch a single, highly centralized, “AI”‑branded replacement concept.
Established and popular film festivals that can effectively fill the void left by Sundance already exist, in particular, FilmQuest, founded by Jonathan Martin. The Kanab Film Festival recently announced that they were shutting down. I can’t help but think that it could have been prevented if the GOEO actually cared about Utah’s film community more than they do about high-tech hyperbole. At the very least, the most transparent and quantifiable way to ensure that this funding directly benefits Utah’s economy, would be to just add it to the Motion Picture Incentive Fund. Again, assuming any amount of sincerity behind statements to “to still keep within the film vertical…”(sic)
https://film.utah.gov/production/
https://www.mpau.org/economic-impact-study.html
To be frank, as I listened to this proposal, all I could think about was how few people would actually benefit from such a poorly conceived concept. In addition to a feckless plan to duplicate existing infrastructure and programs, all I can see coming out of this are some short-lived facsimiles and a handful of well-compensated non-profit board members who I have no doubt already live quite comfortably.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Joseph L. Puente
Salt Lake City, Utah
Attached: Requested legislative consideration.
Requested legislative consideration
In light of these issues, the following legislative actions would be helpful:
Require that all agenda items involving any state-funds—especially if they were already appropriated for a different purpose—above a specified dollar threshold include, at minimum, the proposed grant amount, general sector (e.g., specific industry[ies]), and a brief but unambiguous purpose statement, rather than simply stating that “one IAA grant” will be voted on.
Establish heightened review standards for IAA‑funded projects that rely heavily on “AI” or similarly hyped technologies, including independent evaluation of cost, schedule, and competitiveness claims and clear documentation of downside risks.
Ensure that any large IAA grant to a newly formed nonprofit includes clear governance expectations, performance benchmarks (jobs, wages, private capital leverage), reporting obligations, and enforceable clawback provisions, in line with the rigor applied to other incentives approved at the same meeting.
Clarify in statute or intent language how IAA grants should complement, rather than duplicate or overshadow, existing film initiatives administered in coordination with the film commission, especially where speculative “AI” or other "high tech”‑driven claims are a primary justification.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns about transparency, realism, and stewardship of Utah’s economic development resources. As a constituent, there is a strong interest in seeing the state support film and innovation in ways that are ambitious yet grounded, protective of public funds, and aligned with the demonstrated strengths of Utah’s existing film industry and the film commission’s mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment