The Washington State Film Office has survived a scare, staring down the prospect of closing on June 30 due to a state budget shortfall of an estimated $1.2 billion. Thankfully, state legislators and Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA) ultimately realized and agreed that saving a film commission budget of $375,000 would in the big picture be penny wise and pound foolish, translating into potentially tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. (See story, p. 1.)
Earlier this year (SHOOT, 1/11, p. 1) the future didn’t look all that bright for the Washington State Film Office. Gov. Locke initially called for a series of cutbacks in his proposed 2002-’03 fiscal year Washington budget, including the elimination of the three-person state film commission. At that time, the rationale was that the state’s sizeable deficit meant tough choices had to be made. Furthermore, the thought was that if the state film office’s closure came to pass, Washington would still have the Seattle Film & Video Office and a network of film liaisons scattered throughout the state.
However, those arguments lacked staying power. For one, over the years the Seattle Film Office and the liaisons have come to depend on the Washington State Film Office for services and referrals. The repercussions of losing that operation would figure to have a significantly negative impact on the state’s chances for securing filming business spanning longform and commercials. Arguably, a shutdown of the state film commission would also do away with a prime competitor of neighboring British Columbia, which has been aggressively pursuing and securing lensing business through a favorable exchange rate in Canada, tax credits and lower production costs—not to mention the talent buyouts option.
Indeed, the $375,000 budgeted annually for the Washington State Film Office helped to generate film industry spending of some $55 million in the state during the past full fiscal year. For every dollar in its budget, the Washington State Film Office has generated in excess of $100 on average over the past 10 years, as computed by the state’s Office of Trade and Economic Development (OTED). To eliminate the Washington State Film Office would have made no fiscal sense whatsoever, especially during a time when the runaway production issue is at the industry forefront, underscoring the value of local and state film commissions.
While saving the Washington State Film Office represents a major victory for the film commission and production communities generally—and for the local, state and national economy—anti-runaway advocates cannot rest on any laurels. At the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI) Locations trade show earlier this month, a number of film commissioners in the U.S. expressed concern over the overall state and local government budget crunch.
State, city and county financial deficits have put some film commissions in jeopardy—or at the very least have triggered major belt-tightening, resulting in hiring freezes and/or staff and program cutbacks. Several months ago, the St. Louis Film Office closed despite having helped to generate a considerable amount of filming revenue. And some film commissions are still holding their collective breath, waiting to see if they will be included in state budgets for the upcoming July 1, ’02-June 30, ’03, fiscal year.
The irony is that now more than ever, film commissions are vital to a healthy economy. 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 operation designed to promote and encourage filming, as well as to push for measures that will help retain and attract more business.
