Bill Overview
Title: A bill to provide for the application of certain provisions of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 for fiscal year 2021.
Description: This bill extends through FY2021 the inapplicability of the requirement for counties to elect to receive certain payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. That act provides compensation to counties for the presence of untaxable federal land within their borders.
Sponsors: Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: People in US counties affected by untaxable federal lands
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 primarily impacts counties in the United States that have federal lands, such as National Forests, within their borders, which are exempt from property taxes.
- The presence of federal land can significantly affect local economies as these lands do not contribute to the local property tax base, which funds crucial public services such as schools and infrastructure.
- This legislation provides financial assistance to offset the reduced tax revenue potential for these areas.
- It's likely that the impact will be felt mostly in rural areas where such federal land is most prevalent.
- Rural counties across the United States, especially those with significant portions of federal lands, are the primary direct beneficiaries of this bill.
Reasoning
- The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 targets counties with significant federal lands, which affect local revenue due to their tax-exempt status.
- This policy extension aims to provide financial support to these counties, ensuring continued funding for crucial services such as education and infrastructure.
- The population affected will primarily be in rural areas, where dependency on these funds is higher due to limited local resources and economic activity.
- Given the $1.4 billion budget cap in Year 1 and over a 10-year span, the policy impact will likely be spread across many counties, each receiving a portion sufficient to offset direct tax revenue losses.
- Most noticeable impacts will be in counties with larger proportions of federal lands and smaller populations, where alternative revenue options are limited.
- In estimating how this policy will affect self-reported wellbeing, considerations include the extent of dependency on the funds for public services and the baseline economic conditions of these counties.
Simulated Interviews
High School Teacher (Rural Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding is crucial for our schools; without it, educational resources would suffer.
- We need this policy to maintain school programs that are already stretched thin.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Northeastern California)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable county funding means more customers having jobs and buying products.
- This policy indirectly supports local businesses by keeping the community economically active.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
County Government Worker (Northern Idaho)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The continuation of these funds allows us to plan long-term infrastructure projects.
- Without this, many essential services would see cutbacks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Farmer (Western Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on good local services and infrastructure funded by these payments.
- The policy helps maintain property values and local services which can be vital in retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Community Organizer (Appalachian Kentucky)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These extended funds are essential for community growth and sustainability.
- Rural areas often don't have other revenue streams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Rancher (Northern Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy helps stabilize local economy, crucial for planning and investment in the ranching industry.
- Local schools and services benefit directly from these funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Public Health Nurse (Southern Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding ensures we can keep essential health services running.
- Without it, our clinics and the health of the community would suffer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Retired Government Employee (Western Maine)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continuation of these payments supports community stability and quality of life.
- We often forget how critical these funds are until they're threatened.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Elementary School Principal (Northern New Mexico)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy ensures our school can plan for the future without fear of budget shortfalls.
- The benefits of a well-funded school ripple through the entire community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (West Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows for continued environmental projects that benefit both the economy and ecosystem.
- Maintaining these funds ensures that economic and environmental needs are balanced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1400000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The continuation of these payments is critical for maintaining public services in jurisdictions with limited tax bases due to federal land ownership.
- The payments are vital for local economic stability, particularly in rural areas that might otherwise suffer from funding shortfalls for essential services.