OCR Text |
Show where the federally owned land is being used for facilities, as in the case of post offices, to furnish services to all the people throughout the country. Believing, as the Commission does, that the tax level represents the actual need for revenue, Federal payments related to the level of state and local taxes levied on private owners should be in proportion to the services received and burdens imposed by Federal ownership. At the same time, to repeat, they should be fair and equitable to all concerned. Level of Payments While the Commission is convinced that payment should be related to actual property taxes in the area, it does not follow that the payments should be equal to full tax equivalency. Under the existing system, certain benefits are received by local governments. For example, probably because it pays no taxes, the Federal Government permits state and local governments to use its land without charge for such facilities as airports and cemeteries, and allows them to take sand and gravel without cost. In addition, the Federal landowner provides fire protection for its own lands where fire is a major threat, thereby relieving the state and local governments of that cost. There are also indirect benefits, like the use of roads, which Federal agencies construct and maintain. Though the Commission's studies have proved that these direct and indirect benefits cannot be calculated with any degree of precision, the Commission believes that some reduction in payments should be made for the measurable as well as the immeasurable benefits which accrue to the communities in which there are concentrations of Federal lands.11 After careful consideration, the Commission has concluded that fairness will best be served by deducting-as recognition of the direct and indirect benefits received by state and local governments from the use of public lands-not less than 10 percent nor more than 40 percent of the amount necessary to provide full tax equivalency. At the same time, the Commission has concluded that while benefits are national, the geographic distribution of the Federal lands makes their burdens regional and local, and that, in general, continued Federal ownership of public lands provides no distinguishable benefits to state and local governments in lieu of the benefits they would receive if the lands were privately owned. 11 EBS Management Consultants, Inc., Revenue Sharing and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Pt. 4. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. The great variety of indirect benefits, which include use of Federal facilities and lands for some purposes, availability of Federal employees to provide exeprtise in some cases, and joint use of Federal roads and facilities in some cases, differ widely from one location to another. 238 Extraordinary Benefits and Burdens From time to time, certain extraordinary benefits may be obtained, or burdens imposed, as a result of Federal ownership of public lands. The Commission does not believe that they should be taken into consideration in establishing the basic formulae of Federal payments. Whatever their cost may be, they should be negotiated separately, and a separate payment should be arranged. If a state or local government, for example, was required to give the Federal Government services, such as increased police protection, over and above what it provided to regular taxpayers, it could and should suggest the negotiation of a contract with the Federal Government. If the Federal Government thought the local government was charging too much for such special services, it could seek other arrangements. The important point is that under a payments-in-lieu-of-taxes system, the Federal Government would expect, and would be entitled to, the same services received by a regular taxpayer from the state and local governments-no more and no less. Unit of Government to Receive Payment The governmental unit that supplies the services, usually the county or municipality, should receive the Federal payments in lieu of taxes. But, under our Federal system, the national Government should deal solely with the state government, which should make proper allocations within the state. In this connection, the Commission recognizes that in many instances, state tax-equalization programs redistribute all categories of funds. While this is a matter of state policy, concerning which the Federal Government should take no position, the Commission's contractor study showed that generally these programs must supplement local tax revenues from general state funds to a greater degree in areas of public land concentrations than elsewhere. Different Land Categories The Commission believes that it would be impractical to exclude from the program any types or categories of lands because the impact of different classes of land is uneven. Under existing revenue-sharing systems, no payments are made for national parks, military reservations, and reclamation reservations. Yet, there is no evidence that the economic benefits flowing from the activities carried on at these lands would not be equalled or exceeded if the lands were privately owned and were part of the local tax base. |