Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board keeps disputed film rebate language after narrow vote; supervisors debate retroactive payments to NBC Universal
Summary
Supervisors debated amendments to an administrative-code ordinance that would change caps on film tax rebates and raised concerns about retroactive payments for TV production; a sever-and-amend procedure left contested language in place and the ordinance passed on final reading.
An ordinance to amend the administrative code’s cap on individual film production rebates prompted sharp debate among supervisors about whether the ordinance’s amendments would permit retroactive payments to major studios.
What happened: The board considered an ordinance (item 10) that would change the cap on individual tax rebates tied to production activity. At second reading, a supervisor asked to sever amendments (language beginning on page 3, the word “rebates” through a specified sentence) so they could vote on them separately. That motion was made and debated. After the roll-call on the severed portion, the board recorded 6 ayes and 5 noes, meaning that the attempted severance failed to remove the language. The ordinance, including the contested portion, subsequently passed a final vote reported as 10 ayes and 1 no.
Main concerns raised: Supervisor Daly (phonetic transcript name) warned the severed amendments could be vetoed by the mayor as retroactive payments to media companies, and he urged caution. Other supervisors argued the ordinance would promote job growth and that the severance was not appropriate. Several supervisors said they opposed retroactive payments and had opposed the amendments in committee but were procedurally limited in how they could act at final reading.
Why it matters: The dispute centered on whether the city would be authorizing retroactive payment to studio production companies (NBC Universal was specifically mentioned in debate). Opponents contended that retroactivity raises “pay-to-play” optics; supporters emphasized job creation and the economic benefits to local production. The board did not remove the contested language and the ordinance was reported as finally passed.
Outcome and next steps: The ordinance moved forward with the amendments retained; one supervisor warned that the mayor might veto the retroactive section and that the board might be unable to override a veto. No veto had been issued during the meeting.
Attribution: Direct quotes and attributions in this article come from supervisors recorded on the item 10 transcript.
