The Rules, Elections and Government Committee unanimously voted to approve a resolution recommending that the city’s state legislative program support expanding the annual cap on the state film and television tax credit to $750 million.

The measure, discussed as agenda item six, drew public comment from local film-industry supporters who said production and local jobs have fallen and urged prompt legislative action. Noel Steeman, a film-industry representative, told the committee the petition behind their request has garnered more than 26,000 signatures and urged the committee members to use their influence in Sacramento. Pamela MusicKim, who identified herself with Stay Nley, said commercial production has dropped by more than 30 percent and argued the city should pursue incentives and local steps to bring work back.

Member Roman said he supported the resolution, calling incentives “important for our economy” and arguing the industry’s decline has damaged districts with studios and entertainment-sector workers. The committee opened but did not extend debate and then called the roll; Members Harris Dawson (chair), Roman, Your Sousky, Soto Martínez and Lee voted in favor, and the motion passed 5-0.

The resolution asks the city to include support for the higher cap in its state legislative program; it does not itself change city law or allocate funds. Committee discussion referenced the need for both state-level incentives and local actions — such as streamlining permitting and reducing local barriers to production — but no specific local funding or ordinance was proposed in committee. Committee members also thanked public commenters for submitting petitions and supporting materials.

Background provided at the hearing noted proponents’ view that each dollar of production generates multiple dollars of local economic activity; a speaker cited a commonly used industry estimate that roughly $24.34 of economic activity returns for each production dollar, though the committee did not adopt or verify that multiplier during the meeting.

The committee’s action is advisory to the full council and would be transmitted as part of the city’s state legislative priorities. No state legislation was before the committee itself, and the committee did not schedule a follow-up hearing on specific draft state language.