Proposal requiring permits for filming on Bainbridge finds few fans

Published 9:02 am Friday, November 28, 2014

The city of Bainbridge’s Island’s first crack at new regulations that would require a permit for filmmakers on the island turned out to be box office poison during its debut at the council meeting last week.

The proposed ordinance — which had been expected to be fast-tracked for approval at a special meeting Saturday after an initial OK Tuesday — didn’t muster enough support for even a vote this week.

More information, and more discussion with the community, was needed, said Mayor Anne Blair.

“I’m not ready to be able to move this forward,” Blair said.

“I’m kind of struggling whether this is something we should be doing or not,” added Councilman David Ward.

City officials unveiled proposed new restrictions for filming motion pictures, television shows or Internet videos at last week’s council work study session.

Sweeping rules

The comprehensive set of new regulations included permit requirements for filmmakers and also charges for “any extraordinary costs incurred by the city in connection with the permit,” according to the proposed ordinance. Those costs may include covering the staff time of police and public works employees, litter disposal and other items.

Permits would be required for those filming not only on public property, but on private property as well. And filmmakers would be required to give detailed information on their plans before uncasing their cameras, including proposed locations where filming will occur, dates and times, descriptions (including the number and type) of all motor vehicles the filmmakers will use, a list of all public facilities that may be used, details on who will be in charge at each filming location, and “such other information as the city manager deems necessary to evaluate the application and appropriately condition the permit.”

Brush with controversy

The idea for filming permits dates back to last summer, after some islanders complained about the farmers market being used — along with other places on the island — for the filming of a commercial for a new Oral-B toothbrush.

Before and during last week’s council meeting, however, local filmmakers and photographers told the council the proposed restrictions were too broad and unwieldy.

Some said the hullabaloo that happened after the controversial toothbrush commercial was filmed was a “blue moon” event that shouldn’t prompt a crackdown on filmmakers.

When he asked why the proposal was before the council, Councilman Val Tollefson looked for a quick stage left exit when told it was a holdover from the toothbrush kerfuffle.

“I plead innocent with regard to any requests that were made before the first of January,” Tollefson laughed, referring to his arrival on the dais.

Nothing on the books

Councilman Steve Bonkowski noted the city lacked regulations on filming.

“A lot of municipalities have restrictions in on how you go about filming,” he said.

“We’re not trying to be overly restrictive,” Bonkowski added. “There is nothing on the books that this is how you have to apply for a permit or whether you need a permit or not. The concept was we need to get something in place so it’s pretty clear what’s allowed and what isn’t allowed without a permit.”

Even so, Bonkowski said he found the provisions that exempt nonprofits from permits problematic.

“I have an issue with the way this is set up,” Bonkowski said, noting that nonprofits include everything from hospitals, and public broadcasting to airplane manufacturers.

Blair said she was impressed by the feedback offered by local filmmakers on the proposal for permits. Several Bainbridge-based filmmakers sent letters to the council before the meeting that raised concerns about the permit proposal.

“I think they raised questions that I would like to have more information about,” she said.

‘Knee-jerk reaction’

Filmmakers who sent letters about the proposal said they weren’t against permits, but pointed to other problems with the new regulations.

“As near as I can tell, this whole idea is a knee-jerk reaction to one filming incident that may have been an annoyance to some islanders, and led to some city staff cost for clean-up,” wrote Steve Keller, the owner of Differential Films. “The problem, which is only going to occur once in a blue moon, will only occur during high-budget shoots such as the commercial shoot at the farmers market that started this whole discussion.”

Keller said that such large-scale productions should be required to get permits.

But Keller added that it was a mistake to require anyone shooting “professional” video on the island to get a permit.

“Almost all filmmakers of lower-budget productions, whether they be a wedding video, documentary film, or a promotional film for a local business, with or without a business license with the city, will shoot in a quiet, respectful manner that inconveniences no one,” he said.

Not against permits

Keller suggested setting an exemption for local, licensed production companies and low-budget productions under $100,000.

“Low budget films are not now, never have been, and never will be a problem for anyone on the island,” he said.

Lucy Ostrander and Don Sellers of Stourwater Pictures asked why permits were necessary.

“Upon reading the draft, we find it both disturbing and problematic for our work and for the work of other filmmakers.”

Hammer needs a nail

“First, why? Have film crews been running amok on the Island? Is this an attempt to generate income for the City? This smacks of an attempt to build a large hammer to go looking for a non-existent (or perhaps very rare) nail, and in the process beat down the civil rights and livelihoods of many filmmakers who cause no trouble, and whose activities benefit the Island,” they wrote.

The proposal was too broad, they noted, and would require permits for shooting in their own yard — even though they are already a licensed studio — and the exemptions carved out for nonprofit companies and news media were also flawed.

Councilman Roger Townsend said the comments from filmmakers also underscored problems with the wording of the new regulations.

“I found the letters helpful in thinking about unintended consequences,” he said.

Inherited idea

The proposed ordinance was written by the previous city attorney, city officials said, which was based on regulations adopted by Seattle and Tacoma.

City Manager Doug Schulze said the restrictions were set up to allow the city to recover  any costs for public services that would be provided to filmmakers, such as police or litter removal.

The permit fee itself would be around $25, he said.

Schulze noted the filmmakers for the toothbrush commercial did contact the city, via the chamber of commerce, to ask about permits before they began filming.

Blair noted the island has had some experience with filmmaking, including some major motion pictures that were shot on Bainbridge in the 1980s and ‘90s, when a member of the state film council lived on the island.

“There were a bucket load of films made. And a number of families made a lot of money, quite honestly, by renting their back yard or their front porch, or the view of their house or the view from their house,” Blair recalled.

The council needs to set its direction on the overall policy, with input from those with local expertise, the mayor said, before it gets into the specifics of permits.

YouTube, what else?

Townsend also said the ordinance, as written, did not clearly indicate what type of film work would require a permit.

He said the proposal made it sound like he would need a permit if he was editing or even planning a film in his basement.

“Do I need a permit for that? As I read this, I would say yes,” Townsend said.

Editing a film for YouTube, a for-profit company, in his basement would seem to apply, he added, a comment that inspired a few good-humored responses.

“He’s got cats in his basement,” joked Councilman Wayne Roth.

And it wouldn’t apply to Sports Illustrated filming the swimsuit edition on Bainbridge, another councilman quipped.

Bainbridge residents at the meeting also chimed in, and said the new rules didn’t fit the real world of filmmaking as it presently exists.

“You are missing a lot,” said resident Doug Rauh. “Film is no longer film like what you are thinking. Mr. Townsend is right on the money.”

What about filming underwater? By remote aircraft? Google mapping?

“When you start bringing all of this together, it’s a real can of worms,” he said. “You’re in a big gray area.”

Matt Longmire, who was asked by nearly two dozen filmmakers to represent them at the council meeting, said filmmakers aren’t against permits.

“It’s really the language that concerns us,” Longmire said.

He said the rules seem to require permits for more than shooting. And pretty much all filmmakers now work from home, he said.

Other language in the proposal was also making them nervous, he said, such as the requirement for filmmaking on private property.

“I totally understand the risk of could we inconvenience neighbors,” he said.

Filmmaking that would disrupt a whole neighborhood, Longmire said, would be done at the level of a major studio. And in those cases, residents are commonly compensated.

“Anything we would do, the neighbors generally don’t even know that we’re there,” he said.

Instead of categorizing who is doing the filming, permits could be required by the size of the budget, above $500,000 or $1 million, he said.

Longmire asked for the chance to offer input from local experts if discussions on film permits continues.

“We’re here to help. We’ll talk about incentives, we’ll talk about permits,” Longmire said. “We’re here.”