八个州当地政府的石油天然气收入分配Oil and gas revenue allocation to local governments in eight states in 2014

迅速增长的石油和天然气生产为美国政府带来了可观的收入。该报告描述了阿肯色州，科罗拉多州，路易斯安那州，蒙大纳州，北达科他州，德克萨斯州，宾夕法尼亚州和怀俄明州的地方政府的油气收入的主要来源，并评估了现有政策是否提供了足够的收入来管理与增长相关的不断增长的服务需求石油和天然气工业。考虑到地方政府可以在多大程度上提高石油和天然气生产的收入以及州与地方之间的收入共享，这个问题对于地方领导人和州决策者具有明显的意义。 图1列出了2012财年油气生产向地方政府各部门流动的收入占油气总产值的百分比。例如，如果某州某州生产的所有油气的价值2012年为100美元，地方政府通过本报告涵盖的来源获得了2美元，图1将显示2％。地方政府的收入大约占总产值的1％至近10％，各州之间存在很大差异。图1包括通过遣散税或影响费流向地方政府的收入，对石油和天然气的地方财产税以及州和联邦土地的租赁。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，与经济增长相关的营业税或石油和天然气行业的一般公司所得税（流向各种国家基金）。平均而言，当地学校的收入份额最大（3％），学区主要通过地方财产税受益，而学校信托基金主要从州或联邦油气租赁收入的分配中受益。怀俄明州，德克萨斯州，科罗拉多州和蒙大拿州的学校所占比例最大（4％至7％），而宾夕法尼亚州和路易斯安那州的学校所占比例相对较小。这并不一定意味着宾夕法尼亚州和路易斯安那州的学校资金不足。每个州都通过多种渠道为学校运营提供资金，而这两个州碰巧依赖于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，科罗拉多州，蒙大纳州和怀俄明州的政府所占收入份额最大（1-2％），而阿肯色州，路易斯安那州1，北达科他州，德克萨斯州和宾夕法尼亚州的县所占份额较小（<1％）。可能会对石油和天然气生产和/或储量征收财产税的州（AR，CO，TX，WY）通过从价税对这些财产收取大部分收入。在其他州（LA，MT，ND，PA），收入主要通过州征收的税收或影响费流向县（参见第1.3节中的数字）。 学校和县的收入差异很大，主要是由于三个因素：（i）不同州的地方政府出于财产税目的对石油和天然气财产的估价不同，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评估和财产税率； （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％）。一般而言，市政当局严重依赖销售税，这里未包括在内，但由于人口增长或与石油和天然气生产相关的经济活动的变化而可能受到间接影响。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宾夕法尼亚州，该州将其很大一部分影响费转给了称为乡镇的市政当局。 赠款计划在科罗拉多州，北达科他州和宾夕法尼亚州发挥着重要作用，主要通过竞争性赠款流程将州政府收取的收入分配给各市县政府。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酌处权与有可能使拥有更多资源和技能的地方政府拥有优势的地方政府，还有其他力量的潜力，这些力量可能将支出从最需要的社区转移出去。 正如我们在上一份报告2中所述，这些州的大多数地方政府

Rapidly growing 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 Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming, and assesses whether existing policies are providing sufficient revenue to manage increased service demands associated with a growing oil and gas industry. This question holds clear significance for local leaders and state policymakers considering the extent to which local governments can raise revenue from oil and gas production, as well as revenue-sharing between the state and local level.

Figure 1 presents revenue flows to various local government entities from oil and gas production as a percentage of total oil and gas production value in fiscal year (FY) 2012. For example, if the value of all oil and gas produced in a state in FY 2012 was $100, and local governments received $2 through the sources covered in this report, Figure 1 would show 2 percent. Local government revenue ranged from roughly 1 percent to nearly 10 percent of total production value, with substantial variation across states. Figure 1 includes revenue flowing to local governments through severance taxes or impact fees, local property taxes on oil and gas, 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 development, or general corporate income taxes from the oil and gas industry (which flow to various state funds).

On average, local schools see the largest share of revenue (3 percent), with school districts benefiting largely through local property taxes and school trust funds benefiting primarily from allocations of state or federal oil and gas lease revenues. Schools in Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, and Montana collect the largest share (4 to 7 percent), while schools in Pennsylvania and Louisiana receive relatively little. This does not necessarily imply that Pennsylvania and Louisiana are underfunding schools. Each state funds school operations through a range of sources, and these two states happen to rely on sources other than the oil- and gas-related revenues described in this report.

Among county governments, those in Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming collect the largest share of revenue (1 to 2 percent), while counties in Arkansas, Louisiana1, North Dakota, Texas, and Pennsylvania collect smaller shares (<1 percent). Counties in states where oil and gas production and/or reserves may be taxed as property (AR, CO, TX, WY) collect most of their revenue through ad-valorem taxes on such properties. In other states (LA, MT, ND, PA), revenue flows to counties primarily through state-levied taxes or impact fees (see figures in Section 1.3).

The wide variation in revenues for schools and counties is largely due to three factors: (i) local governments in different states value oil and gas property differently for property tax purposes, while some do not tax oil and gas property at all; (ii) local governments apply a wide range of assessment and 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). Generally speaking, municipalities rely heavily on sales taxes, which are not included here but 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 state with the highest municipal revenue share is Pennsylvania, which directs a substantial portion of its impact fee to municipal authorities known as townships.

Grant programs play a significant role in Colorado, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, allocating state-collected revenues primarily to municipal and county 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.

As we described in a previous report2, most local governments in these states have experienced net positive fiscal effects from recently increased oil and gas development. However, most counties and municipalities in the Bakken region of North Dakota, municipalities in eastern Montana, and certain counties in Texas are currently facing fiscal challenges managing oil- and gas-related growth. These highly rural regions have experienced large increases in demand for services associated with rapid development in recent years, and while the total revenue flowing to all local governments (including school districts) in these regions are at or above our eight-state average, the share of revenue flowing to North Dakota counties and municipalities, Montana municipalities, and Texas counties is near or below the average. Our previous findings suggest that more revenue may be warranted for these local governments to help manage the fiscal demands associated with rapid development. Alternatively, collaboration between industry and local governments, especially on road repairs, could mitigate the need for additional revenues.

Additionally, some local governments in western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming, which experienced large-scale natural gas development in the mid- to late-2000s, faced fiscal challenges associated with industry-driven growth in population and heavy vehicle traffic (though these challenges have lessened as industry activity has slowed). Broadly speaking, large-scale oil and gas development tends to create the greatest fiscal needs in very rural areas with limited existing infrastructure. In most regions, this has been managed through increased government revenue and/or collaboration with industry. In the regions noted above, policy revisions may be required to ensure adequate county and municipal funding during the most active phases of development.

Although we include revenues for local schools, school trust funds, and other local governments in this report, we have not conducted interviews or performed detailed analysis of service demands and costs for these jurisdictions. As a result, we do not offer judgments as to whether or not they are receiving adequate revenue to manage service demands associated with the oil and gas industry.