HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0405 CC REG ITEM 08DCITY OF MO ORPARK
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager
DATE: March 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Consider the Status of Filming Projects in the City
IT E\A
J
Pursuant to Council direction November 9, 1994, staff is providing a 90 day status report of
filming activities since this date.
I ; . ! •. •
Upon consideration of staffs report to Council on November 9, 1994, staff was directed to
establish a filming fee resolution, propose a marketing strategy for filming for the Economic
Development/Affordable Housing Committee's (Councilmembers Hunter and Perez)
consideration, and return to Council in 90 days to report on the status of filming activities. The
Committee is scheduled to consider the marketing strategy March 28, 1995. The fee resolution
became effective December 7, 1994.
Staff is aware of four filming projects which have occurred in Moorpark since the filming policy
and fee resolution became effective in 1994. All four of these projects filmed for one day each.
Three of the four projects have paid the City a combined total of $2,000, and the Redevelopment
Agency has received a combined total of $1,000. One project did not pay, and a second company
had to be pursued for payment, as will be described below
The first project occurred on December 14, 1994. The $100 application fee was not assessed
because the application was received prior to the fee resolution being adopted. The film permit
fee of $600 was collected. Agency property was rented to the company at $500 per parcel, for a
total of $1,000. This project posed a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood, using
Agency property at 226 High Street as a farmer's market, and using the street to film vehicles
arriving in Moorpark. Agency property on the south side of High Street at the west corner of
Moorpark Avenue and High Street was rented to the company as a staging area. This project was
difficult to coordinate because the Administrative Services Manager was in Los Angeles for
training two days prior to the film day and back -up staffing was not available. As a result, "no-
parking" signs were posted less than the required 48 hours in advance, and three calls were
received from concerned businesses which could not be returned until the following day. The
project created some traffic congestion at the intersection of High Street and Moorpark Avenue,
and during the evening hours in front of 79 High Street One citizen complaint was received
00031
concerning parking on High Street, west of Moorpark Avenue. A second complaint was received
from a citizen concerning the detour of traffic in front of 79 High Street.
The second project occurred near the entrance to Moorpark High School, on Tierra Rejada Road.
The City was not informed about this project, and no fees were collected. The Administrative
Services Manager was at the County Government Center when this project occurred on January
10, and heard of the project "second" hand upon his return. By this time, the company had ceased
operations in the City. Moorpark Unified School District staff indicated that approximately once
every six months a private company films educational promotional videos on campus, and most
likely this was that company. Staff will send a letter to Moorpark Unified School District advising
them of the new requirements in an attempt to improve film activity communications.
The third project was a television commercial filmed inside the business at 255 East High Street
on February 8, 1995. The locations company was not aware of City permit fees or requirements,
and waited until two days before the event to inquire. This project was determined to have a
minimal impact on the surrounding businesses and staff was able to issue the permit with almost
no lead time. The City received a $1,000 deposit for the project. During the project, staffwas
requested by the business owner to visit the filming site. Once at the location, the production
manager expressed a negative opinion regarding City fees, and advised staff that he would not
film in Moorpark again because of the "high" cost of the permit. Staff explained that the City
hoped to attract high profile filming companies, and the production manager responded that "he
would make sure that none applied to film in Moorpark " The owner of the business (a food
service establishment) also stated that City film permit fees are too high, and that more should be
done to encourage all filming projects. One other business owner on High Street loaned the
company a plant to use as a prop, and did not receive the compensation promised to the business
for doing so. The locations company stopped payment of the deposit check, and it did not clear
the bank. A follow -up phone call yielded no results, and staff had to send a letter informing them
of possible collection action that would be taken if necessary. On March 28, 1995, a payment
was received of $700 (six days after the March 24 deadline) but it did not include payment for
staff time to collect this debt.
The fourth project was completed by an experienced locations company coordinating the
production of a television commercial at Flory School on February 23, 1995. The Administrative
Services Manager was attending a conference in Monterey, and no staff was available to inspect
the location and follow -up on the project. The City received no complaints regarding this project.
A $100 application fee and a $600 permit fee was received for a total of $700.
Marketing tratea
The Economic Development/Affordable Housing Committee had scheduled to consider the
marketing strategy for filming March 28, 1995, but the meeting had to be postponed.
•
Receive and file this report
00032