迅速增長的石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)為美國政府帶來了可觀的收入。該報(bào)告描述了阿肯色州，科羅拉多州，路易斯安那州，蒙大納州，北達(dá)科他州，德克薩斯州，賓夕法尼亞州和懷俄明州的地方政府的油氣收入的主要來源，并評估了現(xiàn)有政策是否提供了足夠的收入來管理與增長相關(guān)的不斷增長的服務(wù)需求石油和天然氣工業(yè)。考慮到地方政府可以在多大程度上提高石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)的收入以及州與地方之間的收入共享，這個(gè)問題對于地方領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和州決策者具有明顯的意義。 圖1列出了2012財(cái)年油氣生產(chǎn)向地方政府各部門流動(dòng)的收入占油氣總產(chǎn)值的百分比。例如，如果某州某州生產(chǎn)的所有油氣的價(jià)值2012年為100美元，地方政府通過本報(bào)告涵蓋的來源獲得了2美元，圖1將顯示2％。地方政府的收入大約占總產(chǎn)值的1％至近10％，各州之間存在很大差異。圖1包括通過遣散稅或影響費(fèi)流向地方政府的收入，對石油和天然氣的地方財(cái)產(chǎn)稅以及州和聯(lián)邦土地的租賃。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)增長相關(guān)的營業(yè)稅或石油和天然氣行業(yè)的一般公司所得稅（流向各種國家基金）。 平均而言，當(dāng)?shù)貙W(xué)校的收入份額最大（3％），學(xué)區(qū)主要通過地方財(cái)產(chǎn)稅受益，而學(xué)校信托基金主要從州或聯(lián)邦油氣租賃收入的分配中受益。懷俄明州，德克薩斯州，科羅拉多州和蒙大拿州的學(xué)校所占比例最大（4％至7％），而賓夕法尼亞州和路易斯安那州的學(xué)校所占比例相對較小。這并不一定意味著賓夕法尼亞州和路易斯安那州的學(xué)校資金不足。每個(gè)州都通過多種渠道為學(xué)校運(yùn)營提供資金，而這兩個(gè)州碰巧依賴于本報(bào)告所述的與石油和天然氣相關(guān)的收入以外的其他來源。 在縣政府中，科羅拉多州，蒙大納州和懷俄明州的政府所占收入份額最大（1-2％），而阿肯色州，路易斯安那州1，北達(dá)科他州，德克薩斯州和賓夕法尼亞州的縣所占份額較?。?1％）?？赡軙?huì)對石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)和/或儲(chǔ)量征收財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的州（AR，CO，TX，WY）通過從價(jià)稅對這些財(cái)產(chǎn)收取大部分收入。在其他州（LA，MT，ND，PA），收入主要通過州征收的稅收或影響費(fèi)流向縣（參見第1.3節(jié)中的數(shù)字）。 學(xué)校和縣的收入差異很大，主要是由于三個(gè)因素：（i）不同州的地方政府出于財(cái)產(chǎn)稅目的對石油和天然氣財(cái)產(chǎn)的估價(jià)不同，而有些地方根本不對石油和天然氣財(cái)產(chǎn)征稅； （ii）地方政府對油氣資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值采用各種評估和財(cái)產(chǎn)稅率； （iii）從州級到學(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％）。一般而言，市政當(dāng)局嚴(yán)重依賴銷售稅，這里未包括在內(nèi)，但由于人口增長或與石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的變化而可能受到間接影響。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，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賓夕法尼亞州，該州將其很大一部分影響費(fèi)轉(zhuǎn)給了稱為鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)的市政當(dāng)局。 贈(zèng)款計(jì)劃在科羅拉多州，北達(dá)科他州和賓夕法尼亞州發(fā)揮著重要作用，主要通過競爭性贈(zèng)款流程將州政府收取的收入分配給各市縣政府。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)劃必須在這種酌處權(quán)與有可能使擁有更多資源和技能的地方政府擁有優(yōu)勢的地方政府，還有其他力量的潛力，這些力量可能將支出從最需要的社區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)移出去。 正如我們在上一份報(bào)告2中所述，這些州的大多數(shù)地方政府最近石油和天然氣開發(fā)的增加，對凈財(cái)政產(chǎn)生了積極的影響。但是，北達(dá)科他州巴肯地區(qū)的大多數(shù)縣市，蒙大拿州東部的市鎮(zhèn)以及德克薩斯州的某些縣目前在管理與石油和天然氣有關(guān)的增長方面面臨財(cái)政挑戰(zhàn)。這些高度農(nóng)村地區(qū)近年來對與快速發(fā)展相關(guān)的服務(wù)的需求大幅增長，盡管流向這些地區(qū)所有地方政府（包括學(xué)區(qū)）的總收入達(dá)到或高于我們的八州平均水平，流向北達(dá)科他州和直轄市，蒙大納州和德克薩斯州的收入的比例接近或低于平均值。我們以前的發(fā)現(xiàn)表明，這些地方政府可能需要更多的收入，以幫助管理與快速發(fā)展相關(guān)的財(cái)政需求。另外，行業(yè)和地方政府之間的合作，特別是在道路維修方面，可以減輕對額外收入的需求。 此外，在2000年代中期至后期，經(jīng)歷了大規(guī)模天然氣開發(fā)的科羅拉多州西部和懷俄明州西南部的一些地方政府，面臨著與行業(yè)驅(qū)動(dòng)的人口增長和重型車輛交通相關(guān)的財(cái)政挑戰(zhàn)（盡管這些挑戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)減輕了）隨著行業(yè)活動(dòng)的放緩）。廣義上講，大規(guī)模油氣開發(fā)往往會(huì)在基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施有限的農(nóng)村地區(qū)創(chuàng)造最大的財(cái)政需求。在大多數(shù)地區(qū)，這是通過增加政府收入和/或與行業(yè)合作來解決的。在上述地區(qū)，可能需要修訂政策，以確保在最活躍的開發(fā)階段獲得足夠的縣和市級資金。 盡管我們在此報(bào)告中包括了當(dāng)?shù)貙W(xué)校，學(xué)校信托基金和其他地方政府的收入，但我們并未對這些轄區(qū)的服務(wù)需求和成本進(jìn)行采訪或詳細(xì)分析。因此，我們無法判斷他們是否獲得了足夠的收入來管理與石油和天然氣行業(yè)相關(guān)的服務(wù)需求。

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.