石油和天然氣產(chǎn)量的增加為美國(guó)政府帶來(lái)了可觀的收入。該報(bào)告描述了每個(gè)主要生產(chǎn)州的地方政府油氣收入的主要來(lái)源：阿拉斯加，阿肯色州，加利福尼亞州，科羅拉多州，堪薩斯州，路易斯安那州，蒙大拿州，北達(dá)科他州，新墨西哥州，俄亥俄州，俄克拉荷馬州，賓夕法尼亞州，德克薩斯州，猶他州，西部弗吉尼亞州和懷俄明州。州通過稅收和收費(fèi)以及在國(guó)有或聯(lián)邦政府擁有的土地上的租賃，從石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)中獲得收入。該收入可能分配給也可能不分配給地方政府，地方政府通常會(huì)遇到與行業(yè)活動(dòng)相關(guān)的服務(wù)需求增加的情況。盡管各州和地方之間的財(cái)產(chǎn)稅基礎(chǔ)和稅率差異很大，但大多數(shù)州的地方政府直接從油氣財(cái)產(chǎn)稅中產(chǎn)生收入。 圖1.1顯示了2013財(cái)年油氣生產(chǎn)向地方政府的收入流占油氣總產(chǎn)值的百分比。例如，某州2013財(cái)年生產(chǎn)的所有油氣的價(jià)值為100美元，地方政府通過本報(bào)告涵蓋的來(lái)源獲得2美元，這一數(shù)字將顯示2％。地方政府的收入大約占總產(chǎn)值的0.5％到9％以上，各州之間存在很大差異。圖1.1包括通過遣散稅或影響費(fèi)，石油和天然氣財(cái)產(chǎn)的從價(jià)稅以及州和聯(lián)邦土地租約流向地方政府的收入。由于數(shù)據(jù)和方法問題有限，它不包括地方政府土地租賃產(chǎn)生的收入，與經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)增加相關(guān)的營(yíng)業(yè)稅或石油和天然氣行業(yè)的企業(yè)所得稅（通常流向國(guó)家資金）。平均而言，當(dāng)?shù)貙W(xué)校的收入份額最大（約2.5％），學(xué)區(qū)通過地方財(cái)產(chǎn)稅受益，而學(xué)校信托基金從州或聯(lián)邦石油和天然氣租賃中獲得收入。多數(shù)西部州將州土地的收入分配給在美國(guó)大陸西擴(kuò)期間通過聯(lián)邦政府的土地贈(zèng)款建立的學(xué)校信托基金（Souder＆Fairfax 1996）?？屏_拉多州，俄亥俄州，新墨西哥州，德克薩斯州和懷俄明州的學(xué)校所占份額最大（4％至7％），而洛杉磯，俄亥俄州和賓夕法尼亞州的學(xué)校獲得的直接收入相對(duì)較少。這不一定意味著這些州的學(xué)校資金不足。每個(gè)州都通過多種渠道為學(xué)校運(yùn)營(yíng)提供資金，這些州更加依賴本報(bào)告所述的與石油和天然氣相關(guān)的收入以外的其他來(lái)源。 在縣政府中，AK，CO，KS，MT和UT的政府所占份額最大（1.5％至2％），而AR，CA，NM，OH，PA和TX的縣所占份額較?。?0.6百分）。大多數(shù)州的縣通過對(duì)油氣儲(chǔ)量，生產(chǎn)和/或相關(guān)設(shè)備征收從價(jià)稅來(lái)收取大部分稅收。在州無(wú)法將這些來(lái)源作為財(cái)產(chǎn)征稅的州（MT，ND和PA），收入主要通過州征收的稅款或影響費(fèi)流向縣。 學(xué)校和縣的收入差異很大，主要是由于三個(gè)因素：（i）不同州的地方政府將其財(cái)產(chǎn)稅工廠稅適用于不同的稅基，而有些地方根本不對(duì)石油和天然氣財(cái)產(chǎn)征稅； （ii）地方政府對(duì)油氣資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值采用各種財(cái)產(chǎn)稅率； （iii）從州級(jí)到學(xué)區(qū)和縣的撥款差異很大。 與縣和學(xué)區(qū)相比，市政當(dāng)局和其他地方政府往往從石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)中獲得的收益份額較?。ù蠖鄶?shù)情況下，<0.5％）。通常，市政當(dāng)局嚴(yán)重依賴銷售稅（此處未包括），這可以通過人口增長(zhǎng)或與油氣生產(chǎn)相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)變化而間接受到影響。此外，與縣或?qū)W區(qū)相比，市政當(dāng)局往往更小，人口密度更高。結(jié)果，邊界內(nèi)發(fā)生的石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)減少，從而減少了財(cái)產(chǎn)稅收入的可獲得性。流入市政當(dāng)局的大部分石油和天然氣收入都經(jīng)過州一級(jí)，通常（但并非總是）根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)水平進(jìn)行分配。市政收入份額最高的州是堪薩斯州，北達(dá)科他州，賓夕法尼亞州和懷俄明州（0.5％至0.8％）。贈(zèng)款計(jì)劃在CO，ND，PA和UT中發(fā)揮著重要作用，通過競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性贈(zèng)款流程將州政府收取的收入分配給地方政府。 贈(zèng)款計(jì)劃具有靈活性，并且原則上允許各州將收入引導(dǎo)到最需要的地方。 但是，贈(zèng)款計(jì)劃必須在這種自由裁量權(quán)與給擁有更多贈(zèng)款編寫資源和技能的地方政府帶來(lái)優(yōu)勢(shì)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)以及其他力量可能將資金從最需要的社區(qū)中轉(zhuǎn)移出去的潛力之間取得平衡。

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.