在過去的十年中，美國的石油和天然氣開發(fā)已大幅增長，這在很大程度上與頁巖資源有關(guān)。這一增長對地方政府向公民提供優(yōu)質(zhì)服務(wù)的能力具有重要意義。該報(bào)告描述了與近期油氣開發(fā)相關(guān)的地方政府的主要收入和服務(wù)需求（即成本）。這些收入和成本因州而異，并且通常在州內(nèi)差異很大。 我們的研究表明，最近油氣開發(fā)的凈影響總體上對地方公共財(cái)政是積極的。盡管在許多地區(qū)，由新服務(wù)需求引起的成本很高，但來自各種來源的增加的收入通常超過了它們，或至少保持了步伐，從而使地方政府得以維持并在某些情況下擴(kuò)展或改善了他們提供的服務(wù)。一些地方政府，特別是在賓夕法尼亞州的阿肯色州和科羅拉多州的部分地區(qū)，已經(jīng)與石油和天然氣公司達(dá)成協(xié)議，以修復(fù)對當(dāng)?shù)氐缆返钠茐?，這在限制公共成本方面發(fā)揮了重要作用。然而，到目前為止，北達(dá)科他州和蒙大納州的巴肯地區(qū)的大多數(shù)地方政府都受到了凈的負(fù)面財(cái)政影響，盡管在這些最艱巨的發(fā)展階段，科羅拉多州和懷俄明州非常農(nóng)村地區(qū)的一些城市仍難以應(yīng)對人口的快速增長。隨著鉆探活動的減緩而消退（見表1）。 我們觀察到了各種地方因素的凈凈財(cái)政成果。這包括近年來正在進(jìn)行或近期減慢了鉆探和水力壓裂活動的地區(qū)的地方政府，以及活動規(guī)模不同的地區(qū)的地方政府。這也包括城市，半城市和農(nóng)村地區(qū)的地方政府，那里的人口密度和政府能力相差很大。但是，在油氣繁榮迅速發(fā)生的農(nóng)村地區(qū)，迄今為止，一些地方政府已經(jīng)經(jīng)歷了凈的財(cái)政負(fù)面影響（例如巴肯地區(qū)），或者在發(fā)展的重災(zāi)期努力解決財(cái)政問題（例如科羅拉多州西部和懷俄明州的部分地區(qū)）。 對于征收石油和天然氣生產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的縣政府而言，這些稅收提供了最大的收入來源，而對于那些不征收財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的縣來說，最大的收入來源通常來自國家征收的生產(chǎn)分配（即“遣散費(fèi)”）。 ”）稅，或者在賓夕法尼亞州則收取影響費(fèi)。一些縣政府還從縣擁有土地上的油氣租賃中獲得了大量新收入。 大多數(shù)縣的主要成本來自與石油和天然氣相關(guān)的卡車交通造成的道路維護(hù)和維修，而在較小程度上則是由于與人口增長相關(guān)的服務(wù)需求的增長（例如執(zhí)法，緊急服務(wù)或行政管理）而導(dǎo)致的人事費(fèi)用員工。我們考察的大多數(shù)縣都經(jīng)歷了與油氣有關(guān)的凈凈財(cái)政影響發(fā)展。但是，迄今為止，北達(dá)科他州西部的縣政府一直在努力滿足對服務(wù)尤其是道路維護(hù)的需求增長。 對于許多市政府而言，主要的收入來源是銷售稅，這是由于人口增長以及與石油和天然氣行業(yè)相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動增加所致。對于其他城市，州遣散費(fèi)的分配一直是與石油和天然氣相關(guān)的最大收入來源。對于擁有大量土地的市政當(dāng)局來說，一個(gè)主要來源是從市政擁有土地上的生產(chǎn)中租賃獎金和特許權(quán)使用費(fèi)收入。 對于人口快速增長的城市，主要成本是下水道和供水基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的升級，以及人工成本的增加。我們研究的大多數(shù)市政府都經(jīng)歷了與油氣開發(fā)相關(guān)的大致中性或凈正財(cái)政影響，盡管西部農(nóng)村一些州在發(fā)展的最活躍階段曾經(jīng)歷（或正在經(jīng)歷）凈負(fù)財(cái)政影響。

Oil and gas development has increased substantially in the United States over the past decade, largely associated with shale resources. This increase has important implications for local government’s ability to provide quality services to citizens. This report describes the major revenues and service demands (i.e., costs) for local governments associated with recent oil and gas development. These revenues and costs have varied substantially from state to state, and often within states.

Our research indicates that the net impact of recent oil and gas development has generally been positive for local public finances. While costs arising from new service demands have been large in many regions, increased revenues from a variety of sources have generally outweighed them or at least kept pace, allowing local governments to maintain and in some cases expand or improve the services they provide. Some local governments, notably in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and parts of Colorado, have entered into agreements with oil and gas companies to repair damage to local roadways, which has played a major role in limiting public costs. However, most local governments in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken region have experienced net negative fiscal effects to this point, and some municipalities in very rural parts of Colorado and Wyoming struggled to manage rapid population growth during the most active phases of development, though these challenges subsided as drilling activity slowed (see Table 1).

We observed net positive fiscal outcomes across a variety of local factors. This includes local governments in regions where heavy drilling and hydraulic fracturing activity was ongoing or had slowed in recent years, as well as regions that experienced different scales of activity. This also includes local governments in urban, semi-urban, and rural regions, where population density and government capacity vary substantially. However, in rural regions where oil and gas booms have occurred rapidly and at a large scale, some local governments have experienced net negative fiscal effects to date (such as the Bakken region), or struggled to manage fiscal issues during heavy phases of development (such as parts of western Colorado and Wyoming).

For county governments that collect property taxes on oil and gas production, these taxes have provided the largest revenue source, while the largest revenue source for counties that do not collect property taxes typically has been from allocations of state-collected production (i.e., “severance”) taxes or, in the case of Pennsylvania, an impact fee. Some county governments have also generated large new revenues from oil and gas leases on county-owned land.

The leading costs for most counties have been from road maintenance and repair due to oil-and gas-related truck traffic, and to a lesser extent staff costs due to growing service demands associated with population growth such as law enforcement, emergency services, or administrative staff. Most counties we examined have experienced net positive fiscal impacts related to oil and gas

development. However, county governments in western North Dakota have thus far struggled to keep up with increased demand for services, especially road maintenance.

For many municipal governments, the leading revenue source has been sales taxes, driven by a growing population and increased economic activity associated with the oil and gas sector. For other municipalities, allocation of state severance taxes has been the largest oil- and gas-related revenue source. For municipalities with substantial land holdings, a leading source has been leasing bonuses and royalty revenues from production on municipally-owned land.

For municipalities experiencing rapid population growth, the leading costs have been upgrades to sewer and water infrastructure, along with increased staff costs. Most municipal governments we examined have experienced a roughly neutral or net positive fiscal impact related to oil and gas development, though some in rural western states have experienced (or are experiencing) net negative fiscal effects during the most active phases of development.