石油天然气收入分配给美国地方政府Oil and gas revenue allocation to local governments in the United States in 2016

石油和天然气产量的增加为美国政府带来了可观的收入。该报告描述了每个主要生产州的地方政府油气收入的主要来源：阿拉斯加，阿肯色州，加利福尼亚州，科罗拉多州，堪萨斯州，路易斯安那州，蒙大拿州，北达科他州，新墨西哥州，俄亥俄州，俄克拉荷马州，宾夕法尼亚州，德克萨斯州，犹他州，西部弗吉尼亚州和怀俄明州。州通过税收和收费以及在国有或联邦政府拥有的土地上的租赁，从石油和天然气生产中获得收入。该收入可能分配给也可能不分配给地方政府，地方政府通常会遇到与行业活动相关的服务需求增加的情况。尽管各州和地方之间的财产税基础和税率差异很大，但大多数州的地方政府直接从油气财产税中产生收入。 图1.1显示了2013财年油气生产向地方政府的收入流占油气总产值的百分比。例如，某州2013财年生产的所有油气的价值为100美元，地方政府通过本报告涵盖的来源获得2美元，这一数字将显示2％。地方政府的收入大约占总产值的0.5％到9％以上，各州之间存在很大差异。图1.1包括通过遣散税或影响费，石油和天然气财产的从价税以及州和联邦土地租约流向地方政府的收入。由于数据和方法问题有限，它不包括地方政府土地租赁产生的收入，与经济活动增加相关的营业税或石油和天然气行业的企业所得税（通常流向国家资金）。平均而言，当地学校的收入份额最大（约2.5％），学区通过地方财产税受益，而学校信托基金从州或联邦石油和天然气租赁中获得收入。多数西部州将州土地的收入分配给在美国大陆西扩期间通过联邦政府的土地赠款建立的学校信托基金（Souder＆Fairfax 1996）。科罗拉多州，俄亥俄州，新墨西哥州，德克萨斯州和怀俄明州的学校所占份额最大（4％至7％），而洛杉矶，俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州的学校获得的直接收入相对较少。这不一定意味着这些州的学校资金不足。每个州都通过多种渠道为学校运营提供资金，这些州更加依赖本报告所述的与石油和天然气相关的收入以外的其他来源。 在县政府中，AK，CO，KS，MT和UT的政府所占份额最大（1.5％至2％），而AR，CA，NM，OH，PA和TX的县所占份额较小（<0.6百分）。大多数州的县通过对油气储量，生产和/或相关设备征收从价税来收取大部分税收。在州无法将这些来源作为财产征税的州（MT，ND和PA），收入主要通过州征收的税款或影响费流向县。 学校和县的收入差异很大，主要是由于三个因素：（i）不同州的地方政府将其财产税工厂税适用于不同的税基，而有些地方根本不对石油和天然气财产征税； （ii）地方政府对油气资产的价值采用各种财产税率； （iii）从州级到学区和县的拨款差异很大。 与县和学区相比，市政当局和其他地方政府往往从石油和天然气生产中获得的收益份额较小（大多数情况下，<0.5％）。通常，市政当局严重依赖销售税（此处未包括），这可以通过人口增长或与油气生产相关的经济活动变化而间接受到影响。此外，与县或学区相比，市政当局往往更小，人口密度更高。结果，边界内发生的石油和天然气生产减少，从而减少了财产税收入的可获得性。流入市政当局的大部分石油和天然气收入都经过州一级，通常（但并非总是）根据当地生产水平进行分配。市政收入份额最高的州是堪萨斯州，北达科他州，宾夕法尼亚州和怀俄明州（0.5％至0.8％）。赠款计划在CO，ND，PA和UT中发挥着重要作用，通过竞争性赠款流程将州政府收取的收入分配给地方政府。 赠款计划具有灵活性，并且原则上允许各州将收入引导到最需要的地方。 但是，赠款计划必须在这种自由裁量权与给拥有更多赠款编写资源和技能的地方政府带来优势的风险以及其他力量可能将资金从最需要的社区中转移出去的潜力之间取得平衡。

Increased oil and gas production has raised substantial revenues for governments across the United States. This report describes key sources of oil and gas revenues for local governments in every major producing state: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States generate revenue from oil and gas production through taxes and fees, as well as from leases on state- or federally-owned land. This revenue may or may not be allocated to local governments, which typically experience increased service demands associated with industry activity. Local governments in most states generate revenue directly from property taxes on oil and gas property, though property tax bases and rates vary widely between states and localities.

Figure 1.1 presents revenue flows to local governments from oil and gas production as a percentage of total oil and gas production value in fiscal year (FY) 2013. For example, if the value of all oil and gas produced in a state in FY 2013 was $100 and local governments received $2 through the sources covered in this report, the figure would show 2 percent. Local government revenue ranged from roughly 0.5 percent to more than 9 percent of total production value, with substantial variation across states. Figure 1.1 includes revenue flowing to local governments through severance taxes or impact fees, local ad-valorem taxes on oil and gas property, and leases of state and federal land. Due to limited data and methodological issues, it does not include revenue from local government land leases, sales tax associated with increased economic activity, or corporate income taxes from the oil and gas industry (which typically flow to state funds).

On average, local schools see the largest share of revenue (~2.5 percent), with school districts benefiting through local property taxes and school trust funds receiving revenue from state or federal oil and gas leases. Most western states allocate revenue from state lands to school trust funds established through land grants from the federal government during westward expansion of the continental United States (Souder & Fairfax 1996). Schools in CO, OK, NM, TX, and WY collect the largest share (4 to 7 percent), while schools in LA, OH, and PA receive relatively little direct revenue. This does not necessarily imply that these states are underfunding schools. Each state funds school operations through a range of sources, and these states rely more heavily on sources other than the oil- and gas-related revenues described in this report.

Among county governments, those in AK, CO, KS, MT, and UT receive the largest share of revenue (1.5 to 2 percent), while counties in AR, CA, NM, OH, PA, and TX receive smaller shares (<0.6 percent). Counties in most states collect the bulk of their revenue through ad-valorem taxes on oil and gas reserves, production, and/or related equipment. In states where localities cannot tax these sources as property (MT, ND, and PA), revenue flows to counties primarily through state-levied taxes or impact fees.

The wide variation in revenues for schools and counties is largely due to three factors: (i) local governments in different states apply their property tax mill levies to different tax bases, while some do not tax oil and gas property at all; (ii) local governments apply a wide range of property tax rates to the value of oil and gas property; and (iii) allocations from the state level to school districts and counties vary substantially.

Municipalities and other local governments tend to collect a smaller share of revenue from oil and gas production than counties and school districts (<0.5 percent in most cases). Typically, municipalities rely heavily on sales taxes (not included here), which can be indirectly affected through population growth or changes in economic activity associated with oil and gas production. Additionally, municipalities tend to be smaller and more densely populated than counties or school districts. As a result, less oil and gas production occurs within their borders, reducing the availability of property tax revenues. Much of the oil and gas revenue flowing to municipalities passes through the state level, often—but not always—allocated according to local production levels. The states with the highest municipal revenue shares are KS, ND, PA, and WY (0.5 to 0.8 percent).

Grant programs play a significant role in CO, ND, PA, and UT, allocating state-collected revenue to local governments through a competitive grant process. Grant programs offer flexibility and, in principle, allow states to direct revenues to where they are most needed. However, grant programs must balance this discretion with the risk of giving an advantage to local governments that have more resources and skills in grant-writing, along with the potential for other forces that could direct spending away from those communities with the greatest need.