That's a wrap: Las Cruces ends partnership with movie studio

LAS CRUCES — The city council voted Monday to terminate its partnership with 828 Productions and seek a refund of $1.3 million in taxpayer money, concluding that the studio had not delivered on promises it made three years ago.

The vote was a blow to what was hailed in 2022 as a major step for the local film and television industry. 828 CEO Todd Lundbohm pledged to invest $75 million to build a 300,000-square-foot production studio and numerous other facilities on properties it had acquired in several locations within Las Cruces, creating a minimum of 100 jobs.

828 Productions has brought productions to Las Cruces and other locations in New Mexico, including last year’s Cannes-featured COVID-era western, “Eddington.”

The company has pointed to 1,200 production jobs for New Mexico performers and workers over more than a dozen productions and millions in local spending as proof of its performance. Yet the city's economic development director, Elizabeth Teeters, said the company only reported nine people on its staff by the end of 2025.

Out of nine feature films filmed in Las Cruces in 2025, among a total 17 projects, the city reported only two were produced by 828. Blighted properties acquired by the company for renovations only continued to deteriorate. Meanwhile, last September, New Mexico State University broke ground on a $15 million movie studio on its Arrowhead Center campus.

Preceding the vote, 828 Productions suggested it might leave Las Cruces if the council canceled the program.

The council voted 6-1 to terminate the city’s own contribution, consisting of nearly $900,000 in capital outlay and $2.8 million in city funds approved in 2023. 

The termination does not affect a $3 million investment of state economic development funds which the city oversees as fiscal agent. The project was sustained by funding from the Local Economic Development Act.

Teeters said the experience is also motivating improvements in how the city monitors the performance of similar projects, in which public funds or tax incentives are used to recruit industrial and commercial development in exchange for guarantees of private investment and jobs.

Some of the city’s money was distributed through reimbursements for expenses specified in the agreement, and Teeters said most of those requests “fit within the broad scope” of the agreement; but that, on closer examination, individual expenses in 828’s invoices did not line up or were vague. She said documentation provided by the company suggested much of the money was used for planning and design, repairs and maintenance — mainly at 828’s central office, a former church close to downtown.

Alarm bells were raised in particular, Teeters said, when the city discovered that 828 had “defaulted” and lost title to a property for which the city had spent $1.14 million to help develop. This property, on S. Compress Avenue, featured the prominent historic seed barn that was represented on some of 828’s promotional materials.

“The city put LEDA money toward a property with the expectation it would be developed,” Councilor Michael Harris said to 828’s attorney, Joseph Dworak. “You no longer own said property and might not get it back to do that actual development.”

Lundbohm maintained the company had temporarily “shrunk ranks” from ambitious building projects but was ahead of schedule on its targets for local production spending.

Teeters said the billing deficiencies were “something staff should have caught” and that her department was instituting more formalized procedures for checking expenditures, monitoring performance of economic development projects and keeping companies on track.

Lundbohm and Dworak urged the councilors to allow time for a new agreement to be hammered out. 

Dworak said the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike and other developments had rocked the film industry and forced 828 to revise its short-term business model. Lundbohm claimed the city had not been responsive to the company’s requests to negotiate — a claim Teeters denied, saying the city had a log of at least 50 communications exchanged since it raised questions about 828’s invoicing last March.

Councilor Johana Bencomo observed that when LEDA projects go awry, the city finds itself in a “lose-lose” position, risking being portrayed as unfriendly to business while stewarding public dollars.

The lone vote against terminating the agreement was Councilor Bill Mattiace, who hesitated before casting his “no” vote.

Following the vote, 828 Productions issued a statement saying it was “disappointed with the vote and maintains that it is an economic driver of the local film industry in Las Cruces.”

The statement said the council acted “on insufficient evidence and unsubstantiated assertions” and did not allow the company adequate time to refute the city’s claims during the meeting.

“The City Council’s vote today undermines a commitment to small business and this budding industry,” the statement continued, “and such a rushed decision made without fully understanding the issue may have unintended and long-lasting consequences for film in rural New Mexico.”

Algernon D'Ammassa is the Journal's southern New Mexico correspondent. He can be reached at adammassa@abqjournal.com.