When the category is "Film Commissions," appropriately enough the name of the game is Jeopardy, as evidenced by the front page of last week’s SHOOT, which contained stories on the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission and the Film California First anti-runaway production program. Thankfully, the latter survived a scare, but the jury remains out on New Jersey’s film office.
Massive deficits in state budgets across the country have triggered cutbacks in—and the outright elimination of—assorted services, programs and entities. In his proposed 2003-’04 fiscal year budget for the State of New Jersey, Gov. James E. McGreevey (D-N.J.) cut off funding for the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission. However, his proposal still needs to pass the State Assembly and Senate. Joseph Friedman, chairman of the New Jersey film office, has initiated a lobbying campaign to point out to legislators the importance of the film commission to the state’s economy.
Unfortunately, the New Jersey scenario is nothing new. As chronicled in SHOOT, numerous state and local film commissions have endured major funding cuts—and some offices have been shut down—due to state and municipal budgets awash in red ink. Film commissions in Boston, St. Louis and Dallas/Fort Worth have been shuttered, and last summer, the Massachusetts Film Office was closed—though a private sector fundraising effort subsequently emerged to form an interim film commission, tentatively called the Massachusetts Film Bureau (SHOOT, 10/18/02, p. 1).
The irony is that state and local governments are cutting or doing away with film commission budgets despite the fact that these film offices have longstanding track records of being incredible revenue generators. The current annual operating budget for the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission is $406,000. In calendar year ’01 alone, that film commission had a hand in facilitating, attracting and expediting filming for nearly 700 projects in New Jersey, infusing some $63 million into the state’s economy. The return on investment over the course of the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission’s history is a staggering 10,800 percent. The New Jersey film office was launched in ’77.
Friedman noted that with the United States facing an escalating runaway production problem, state and local film commissions are becoming increasingly important in helping to keep and attract more filming. Also, the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission is playing a key role in what could evolve into the development of a major studio facility in the state.
Meanwhile, as reported in SHOOT, the Film California First program was saved at the eleventh hour, thanks in part to industry lobbying, which included e-mails and faxes to California legislators from numerous members of the commercialmaking community.
Clearly, cutbacks are a part of fiscal life today, and with decreased funding for schools, healthcare programs and emergency services, the film business shouldn’t escape being negatively impacted. In fact, the Film California First program survived—but with a 21 percent budget cut of $2.1 million. Still, elected government officials need to be mindful of the fact that film commissions and anti-runaway programs translate into revenue streams for state and local economies. Eliminating six-figure funding for film commissions that bring in millions of dollars yearly is shortsighted. Similarly, Film California First has not only drummed up considerable business for California, but has also spawned progressive anti-runaway programs in other states.
