Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Film Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears changes to Ohio motion-picture tax credit; sponsors seek rolling applications, higher cap
Summary
Senate Bill 159 would modify Ohio's motion-picture and theater production tax credit program to allow rolling applications, change financial-ability rules and raise the program cap; sponsors told the Senate Ways and Means Committee the credit has generated jobs and hotel nights but members raised concerns about singling out an industry and cost.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee held a first hearing on Senate Bill 159, a proposal to amend Ohio’s motion-picture and theater production tax credit program. Sponsors told the committee the credit has driven production activity in the state and that technical changes — including a rolling application window and revised eligibility documentation — would capture productions that are currently lost to other states.
"The motion picture and theater production tax credit has proven to be a success in attracting motion picture and theater productions to Ohio," a sponsor told the committee, citing Department of Development figures that, in the 2024 application rounds, awarded credits tied to 44 qualifying productions with $268,700,000 in eligible production expenses and $653,000,000 in total production expenses. The testimony said productions hired crews and vendors, and booked more than 30,000 hotel-room nights, producing roughly $4.5 million in hotel spending.
Key changes in the bill presented to the committee include: shifting from twice-yearly application reviews to a rolling, first-come, first-served application window; allowing an investment-intention letter to establish financial capacity in lieu of other documentation; and removing a $5 million earmark for capital-improvement projects tied to the industry-credit program. Sponsors proposed increasing the program cap — noting the state budget process contains proposals to adopt portions of the bill — and said a $100 million cap would better meet demand, while existing budget language discussed a $75 million cap.
Committee members asked whether post-production activity would qualify and whether the bill disproportionately favors one industry over others. Senator Schafer asked specifically about post-production and whether high-tech post work — visual effects and editing — would be included; sponsors said such work could qualify under the program when funds are available. Senator Rugner said he was concerned about singling out one industry for an expanded tax credit and asked whether the state should instead use funds to reduce other taxes; sponsors replied that tax incentives are a policy tool used across industries and argued the credit supported jobs, workforce development and infrastructure investment.
Several senators described workforce and local economic benefits. Senator O'Brien described a studio in his district that runs workforce-development partnerships with schools and said small, local studios have lost access to credits under the current limited-cap process. Sponsors referenced Cleveland State University work estimating a return of about $3.09 for every dollar spent on credits in prior analyses and said additional credits could attract more productions and associated infrastructure spending.
No committee vote was recorded at the conclusion of the hearing. The bill’s sponsors said they were open to questions and anticipated discussions with budget authors about how to fold program changes into the statewide budget or other legislation.
