In 2002 and ’03, huge budget deficits in most municipalities and states had many film commissions throughout the country coping with less funding and in some cases facing the possibility of being shut down. Fast forward to today and while fiscal shortfalls remain prevalent, film offices seem to have turned the corner with local and state governments realizing the importance of lensing–and film commissions–to the health of their economies. As reported over the past several months in SHOOT, this heightened awareness has translated into proposed financial incentives designed to help keep and attract filming. Several of these initiatives have already been passed or enacted in different cities and states.
Yet while progress has been made, there are still reminders of the same shortsightedness that jeopardized the viability–if not the very existence–of many film commissions just a few years ago. The latest case in point comes in Wisconsin, where that state’s film office is slated to shut down on June 30. The powers that be in the state have decided to cut off film office funding for the upcoming fiscal year (July 1, 2005-June 30, ’06).
With a state budget deficit in the billions, the closure of the Wisconsin Film Office will “save” some $125,000 in funding. By conservative estimates, a well-run film commission helps to generate lensing activity that represents millions of dollars for a state economy.
While this is a negative déjá vu, there’s something to be said from history repeating itself–as long as we remember the lessons from the past. For example in ’02, the State of Washington grappled with major fiscal woes. Its governor at that time, Gary Locke, proposed a ’02-’03 fiscal year budget that called for the elimination of the Washington State Film Office, among other assorted programs (SHOOT, 1/11/02, p. 1). The cutbacks were in response to the prospect of a $1.2 billion deficit in the overall state budget.
Ultimately, though, the Washington State Film Office was preserved as the Gov. Locke and state legislators agreed that saving a then film commission budget of $375,000 would in the big picture be penny wise and pound foolish, potentially resulting in tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue (SHOOT, 4/26/02, p. 1). Indeed the Washington State Film Office helped to facilitate and bring about film industry spending of some $55 million in the state during the prior full fiscal year. For every dollar in its budget, the Washington State Film Office generated in excess of $100 on average over the previous 10 years, as computed by the state’s Office of Trade and Economic Development. To have eliminated the film office would have made no fiscal sense whatsoever, especially during a time when the runaway production issue was at the industry forefront, underscoring the value of local and state film commissions.
While the budget crunch in states and municipalities across the country is real, so too is the need for viable film commission operations as a means to help bring about economic recovery. Indeed film commissions are vital to fiscal health. And that argument extends well beyond state and local borders. Some make the case for creating a federal film commission, the U.S. being one of the few major countries not to have such a national organization designed to promote and encourage filming, as well as to push for measures that will help retain and attract more business.