It's budget time again, a dreadful time of year for local government. Elected officials sharpen pencils and scratch their heads as they prepare to plan their spending. Tensions are high at public meetings and comments spin round like a tornado. Typically the same old rhetoric: "You are spending too much," and "My taxes are too high," is concluded with, "But you're not spending enough on what I want."
Sometimes intelligent, insightful discussion can help weather the storm; other times the roof gets blown off by talk radio one-liners and other anti-government jargon.
All government monies must adhere to certain rules and eligible uses, but Act 13 funding is perhaps the most specific.
As the title suggests, there are 13 uses for the money, a simple concept as presented.
That is until you go down the
rabbit hole.
This happens when people seek to manipulate the interpretation of the funding's eligibility to support projects not consistent with the intent or the spirit of the funding. The rabbit hole, a fantasy land where logic is fiction and rhetoric is reputed as fact, is a cold dark place where frightened politicians go to find solutions to satisfy their cronies and political contributors. Hard to tell if it's fear or anxiety driving the need to answer the nonsensical one-liners with policy proposals.
When politicians propose spending plans that are inconsistent with the intent of the funds, it's a sure sign they are looking for the rabbit hole. Ignoring guidance found in comprehensive planning documents and through professional service advisors is another tell-tale sign of flight. The rabbit hole is a comfortable place to hide during budget discussions.
Can
Act 13 funding be the
carrot to bring the
bunnies out into the
light?
We know there are many eligible uses, but what is the purpose of Act 13 funding? According to the Public Utility Commission the purpose is "to cover the local impacts of drilling." That seems rather simple -- money to help ease the pain of having oil and gas in your community.
So where does most of the impact occur?
If you ask me, I'd have to say "In the forest, of course. That is where most of the wells are drilled." That's simple. "Some money for the forest, please."
How do the Commonwealth's citizens use the forest?
Recreational activities like hiking, biking, birding, hunting and fishing. This is too easy -- money for the birds and the bees, the flowers and the trees.
Not so fast, industry advocates and political "Yes" men may scoff.
Be assured, citizens and state agencies are concerned with the environmental impacts of shale gas development within PA's forested biome; it's not just me thinking that way. The Commonwealth's Bureau of Forestry developed a Gas Management Team (GMT) to manage many issues evolving around the industrial impacts within our forest. The GMT recognizes public concern about forest impacts, or conversion.
GMT policy states, "This conversion directly affects forestland by increasing habitat fragmentation and reducing the overall amount of forest cover. Construction activities could impact plants, animals and their habitat (wetlands included), forest-interior bird species, and species of concern such as timber rattlesnakes, bats, Allegheny woodrats and an array of native species."
Meanwhile, scenic vistas and view sheds are disappearing to oil and gas development.
It's obvious the forest has taken it tough, but what about people?
Who has been
squeezed, thrown under the bus?
Renters, especially low income families. During the shale boom the high demand and short supply for housing priced many individuals and families out of their homes. In 2012, Lycoming County released the "Marcellus Shale Impact Studies," and one of the documents focused on housing. The following summary was included in that study: "[T]he rate for a 3-bedroom dwelling averages around $1,166 per month. These figures suggest that households with incomes under $35,000 could not afford to rent the average 3-bedroom dwelling."
That's very troubling, considering that 40 percent of Lycoming County households have a total annual income of less than $35,000. Seeing that almost half of the county residents can not afford the average rent, it's fair to say that affordable housing has also been negatively impacted by the gas boom.
In conclusion,
a brief suggestion on impact fee usage.
Initially we should direct the bulk of the funding to mitigation of eligible direct impacts. Unfortunately, not all impacted areas are eligible for this form of mitigation funding, so let's start with what is eligible:
1. Housing. Two recommendations from
The Impacts of the Marcellus Shale Industry on Housing in Lycoming County
follow:
One recommendation is to "Provide incentives for home ownership, perhaps in partnership with local banks."
Another recommendation utilizes grant programs: "Fully explore PA Housing Finance Agency-funded programs enhanced by Act 13 funding (into the Rehabilitation Enhancement Program account especially) to meet the housing needs of low-moderate income, disabled, and elderly residents."
2.
State Forests. The other eligible area of focus is the negative impact to the forests' vast natural beauty and recreational resources. Impact fee money could be used in partnership with DCNR to buy back severed rights or entire lease tracts.
The impact to recreational tourism in North Central Pennsylvania is described in the
Shale Gas Monitoring Report
: "In addition to environmental concerns, shale-gas development could alter the character of north-central Pennsylvania, an area known as the 'Pennsylvania Wilds,' that abounds with scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities."
Tourism is the second-largest industry in the Commonwealth and recreational tourism is Pennsylvania's fastest growing sector.
What do
visitors to our
forests have to say about these
impacts?
They are
not happy, and 46 out of 116 comment card respondents indicated that gas drilling changed their visitor experience and recreational use of the forest.
So we must use the Act 13 monies for what they are intended: "to cover the local impacts of drilling."
By the time you read this, many municipal budgets will already be proposed and a preliminary budget available for public view and comment. See your borough, township or city office to look at the proposed and previous year's spending of Act 13 funds. You may be shocked and angry with the results.
I'm not opposed to the
airport project or the 911 center monies that have been spent or proposed. These are good projects, but they are not the way the Act 13 money was intended to be used. These projects have not been negatively impacted by oil and gas extraction.
The recreational use
of our forest
Speak up and tell your municipal decision makers that you want Act 13 monies used legally as intended and to improve what matters most.
