P/EPA
JUNE 1988
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
STATE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND EVALUATION
OFFICE OF POLICY. PLANNING AND EVALUATION
-------
STATE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
-------
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a. stud/ of States' current use of
Alternative Financing Mechanisms (AFMs) to support environmental programs. The
study focused on the use of AFMs to fund the administrative and operating costs
of regulatory programs (rather than project or facility construction costs).
Information on States' use of AFMs was obtained from Program Managers in
eleven States: Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Appendix I contains brief
descriptions of AFMs currently being used. Appendix II contains a detailed
Profile of each State's current use of AFMs.
The major findings are:
Many States are already using or considering the use of AFMs in their
environmental programs. Nearly one-third of all States make
widespread use of AFMs.
States already using AFMs have knowledge that could be tapped by
other States. Many States have successfully used AFMs to fund part
or all of their program operating costs.
The real or perceived barriers to instituting or expanding the use
of AFMs can be overcome. State officials with experience in using
AFMs have worked out ways to overcome the barriers and sharing of
information can alleviate some of these concerns.
The Program Evaluation Division (PED) in the Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation (OMSE)--a subdivision of EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE) conducted this study. The PED project ream consisted of Nancy
Zahedi, Project Manager, Joe Kruger and Jamie Hill. Water Simon was Project
Secretary. Phil Paparodis of OPPE's Office of Policy Analysis contributed to
the study.
The study was undertaken at the request of Rebecca Hanmer, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water. The Office of Water has initiated a State
Funding Study to examine anticipated State funding problems resulting from new
requirements of the amendments to the Water Quality Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act. For additional information about either the OPPE study or the Office
of Water study, or to give comments, suggestions, and additional information on
AFMs, please call or write to Elizabeth Miner, Program Manager, State Funding
Study, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WH-546,
M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-5818.
-------
CONTENTS
page
I. Scud/ Methodology 4
II. The Basics of Alternative Financing
Mechanisms (AFM) 5
V. State Use of AFMs: An Overview 6
VI. State Characteristics that Influence
Use of AFMs : 8
VII. Successful Approaches to Establishing or
Implementing AFMs 10
VIII. Barriers to Establishing or Implementing
Alternative Financing Mechanisms 12
IX. Possible EPA Roles in Encouraging State
Use of AFMs 14
Appendices
Appendix I: Descriptions of AFMs
Appendix II: Profiles of Eleven States' Use of AFMs
-------
I. STUDY METHODOLOGY
To obtain information on States' use of AFMs, the Project Team took the following
steps:
Reviewed previous studies on State use of AFMs
The Team reviewed studies by the National Governor's Association (1982),
the Office of Solid Waste (1982), the Office of Air and Radiation (1985),
the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (1987) and the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (1988).
Solicited current information from Regional Offices on State use of AFMs
EPA Regional Offices were asked to provide current information on States'
use of AFMs in their environmental programs.
Selected 11 States for case studies
Based on the information obtained from the previous studies and Regional
Offices, all 50 States were placed in one of three categories: (1)
widespread use of AFMs, (2) moderate use, or (3) low use. Those in
Category One use AFMs in the three major regulatory programs (air, water,
hazardous waste). Those in Category Three use AFMs in one of these
programs or none.
Eleven States were then selected to provide a cross-section of high to low
use of AFMs. These States were Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
More than 40 State environmental Program Managers in these States were
interviewed to determine, among other things, whether AFMs are being used
or why they are not, how they were put into place, the amount of revenue
being generated, the legal and political issues associated with State use
of AFMs, and how AFM revenues are used.
The Project Team interviewed Program Managers in the water quality, air,
hazardous waste, underground storage tank (UST), underground injection
control (UIC), drinking water, and solid waste programs.
See Appendices I and II for descriptions of AFMs and individual State
profiles.
Obtained information on selected other innovative mechanisms
The project team also gathered some information on a few innovative
mechanisms not covered in the case studies.
-------
II. THE BASICS OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS
An Alternative Financing Mechanism (AFM) is any mechanism--other than general
revenue appropriations or Federal grants--used to fund program costs
AFMs are used to raise revenues, to achieve environmental goals, or to do both.
The most common use of AFMS is to raise revenues to fund program costs.
To a lesser degree, AFMs are also used to achieve specific environmental
goals. When AFMs are used for a combination of these purposes, the
objectives may conflict. For example, a hazardous waste disposal fee
intended to encourage greater recycling may bring in less revenue than one
aimed solely at raising revenue.
Taxes and user fees are the most commonly used mechanisms to fund operating and
administrative program costs.
Fees are generally used when program activities provide a special service
or a benefit to the fee payers. Ideally, fee levels will at least reflect
the cost of providing the service.
Dedicated taxes are used when program funding needs are large or when the
benefits of an activity are broad-based. All or part of the revenue from
levies such as sales, property, or commodity taxes, can be dedicated to
specific environmental programs. Dedicated taxes can fund direct services
or general services. They can also be environmentally based (e.g., tax
on disposal of solid waste) or more broadly based.
In practice, the distinction between user fees and dedicated taxes is not very
rigid.
A number of State legislatures have enacted fees that could just as easily
be called taxes. The willingness to call an AFM a "tax" rather than a
"fee" often depends largely on political factors.
Revenues from AFMs can be either dedicated or not dedicated.
Revenues from fees or taxes can be dedicated to a specific program or go
to a State treasury; in the latter case, they may provide no direct benefit
to a program. A third possibility involves deposit of tax or fee revenues
in a special fund to be used by a program for operating costs or other
specifically designated purposes (e.g., research activities, emergency
response).
-------
III. STATE USE OF AFMs: AN OVERVIEW
Most States are already using or planning to use AFMs in their environmental
programs
Almost one-third of all States make widespread use of AFMs (i.e., use AFMs
in all three major environmental programs). New Jersey and Oregon are at
the forefront. New Jersey uses AFMs to fund the greatest proportion of
program costs relative to other States, while Oregon uses the largest
number of mechanisms.
Less than one-half of all States make minimal or no use of AFMs (i.e., use
AFMs in one regulatory program or none). All the other States fall between
these two categories.
In the last ten years, particularly in the 1980s, State use of AFMs has
increased substantially. The use of AFMs in new programs, such as the UST
program, often has been more acceptable to State legislatures than their
use in existing programs, even in States not using AFMs in other programs.
Many of the eleven States included in this study have AFM legislation
pending or are about to implement new AFMs.
Permit feers are the most widely used alternative financing mechanism.
particularly in the air and water quality programs
Of the eleven States, seven use both air and water quality permit fees.
One of the others, West Virginia, plans to start using fees in its water
program beginning in June 1988. Iowa has the authority to charge permit
fees but does not do so. Nebraska and Georgia also use no permit fees in
the air and water quality programs.
States vary in the amounts of their permit fees and in how fees are
determined. For example, in Missouri, NPDES facilities are assessed a flat
fee of $75 every five years. In New Jersey, however, where NFDES permit
fees depend in part on the environmental impact of discharges from the
permitted facility, one facility was assessed a permit fee of $404,000 last
year.
There is a great deal of variation in the extent to which AFM revenues fund
program costs
In the water program, the eleven States' revenues from fees range from 1
to 90 percent of program costs. In the air program, fee revenues range
from 4 to 50 percent of total program costs.
Fee levels are set in a number of ways
Fees can be fixed, i.e., everyone pays the same amount. In Pennsylvania,
for example, a flat fee of $500 is charged for all NPDES permits.
-------
Fees can be graduated. In Ohio, for example, air permit fees are based
on the size of the source.
Fees can be based on environmental impact and program costs. Among the
eleven States, this is a Less common method of determining fee levels.
New Jersey calculates NPDES permit fees based on the environmental impact
of discharges and the cost of running the program. The Louisiana NPDES
program uses a somewhat similar method.
States using AFMs think that administrative costs are reasonable and that their
systems work well
Among the Program Managers interviewed, those who have had experience with
AFMs expressed no real concerns. Some had encountered problems in the
early stages of using AFMs, but these problems had been satisfactorily
resolved. Program Managers who have not had experience with AFMs or who
are jusc starting to use them tended to express more concerns about
potential administrative problems.
Administrative costs in the eleven States range from 1 to 25 percent of
AFM revenues. Programs with high percentages tend to have more complex
fee structures and accounting systems or allocate a fixed percentage of
revenue for administrative purposes.
Fine or penalty revenues can also be used to finance program operating costs
(although this is unusual^.
In general, States have been reluctant to finance regulatory programs with
revenues from fines Several Program Managers said legislatures are
concerned that this type of funding could lead to unnecessary enforcement
actions.
In most cases, fine revenues are deposited in State treasuries or are
designated for specific uses. For example, fines levied in Pennsylvania's
water program are deposited in a fund designated for equipment purchases.
Other States use these revenues for such activities as hazardous waste
cleanups and emergency response.
-------
IV. STATE CHARACTERISTICS THAT INFLUENCE USE OF AFMs
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONDITIONS
facing severe ecc
substitute for general revenues.
is forced to
Economic necessity has forced some States to use fees. For example, in
Louisiana, poor economic conditions have led to the extensive use of fees.
Recently, the State temporarily increased its environmental fee scale by
60 percent. As a result, the State revenue portion of its environmental
program is now almost entirely covered by fees.
Over time, States acquire experience in using fees and are able to run fee
programs more efficiently. In addition, given the many competing demands
on a State's budget, there is little incentive for legislatures to return
to funding environmental programs with general revenues once fees are in
place. In the case of Oregon, the legislature has adopted statutory
restrictions on the use of general revenues for environmental programs.
Such restrictions make it difficult to increase the proportion of
environmental program costs funded by general revenues.
POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE
Some State legislatures have an anti-tax ethic and consider user fees taxes in
disguise
Some State legislators ardently oppose adopting any new alternative revenue
generating mechanisms. In one State, a powerful legislator has blocked
most of the fees that have been proposed by the State environmental agency.
Other States fear that high fees vill harm industry or deter businesses from
locating in the State
Fear of appearing "anti-business" has led some States to oppose fees. In
one State, the Governor's office has looked unfavorably upon any factor
that might discourage businesses from bringing new jobs into the State.
On the other hand, many States feel fees have no influence on industry
siting decisions because- they constitute such a small percent of overall
business expenses.
Some States have adopted a "make the polluter oav" philosophy
Some State legislatures, such as in New Jersey, have adopted a more
aggressive approach toward making industry pay for environmental programs.
-------
9
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Public knowledge and concern about environmental problems Induces State
legislatures to adopt AFMs.
Legislative decisions to adopt fees are often affected by public awareness
of environmental problems. In one SCate, an underground storage tank leak
in a key legislator's district galvanized support for legislation to
require tank registration fees.
Public awareness helps neutralize industry opposition to fees and taxes
Affected industries are more likely to cooperate with proposed fee
legislation if there is strong public support for it. In Florida, for
example, petroleum companies have not opposed excise taxes for underground
storage tank clean-ups because groundwater protection has strong support
in the State.
FUNDING BASE
Some States don't need alternative funding sources since they spend little beyond
the Federal program and match
In one of the States included in the study, 90 percent of its water program
is funded by Federal grants and use of AFMs is limited. With reductions
in Federal funding expected, however, this State is beginning to explore
the use of AFMs.
Some States have a small universe of sources that can be assessed
One of the States has relatively few stationary sources of air pollution;
in addition, most of the sources are small businesses. The State's air
program manager believes these sources would be unable (and unwilling) to
pay fees high enough to cover a substantial part of the program's costs.
-------
10
V. SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING OR
IMPLEMENTING AFMs
ESTABLISHING AFMs
States are most llkelv to succeed in getting legislative authority to charge fees
If their proposals are adequately justified
Legislatures are more likely to approve fees when a program can show that
the fees are based on the true cost of issuing a permit or conducting other
activities (than if the proposed fee structure seems arbitrary).
Since legislatures may be concerned that fees can be inequitable, some
States have used a rating factor or formula which incorporates equity
considerations (e.g., fees based on the size of the facility.).
Program Managers whose fee proposals were accompanied by good documentation
(e.g., justification of fee levels, realistic revenue projections) believe
that this documentation helped them to persuade their legislatures to adopt
their proposals.
States use a number of methods to enlist the support (or deter active opposition)
from industry.
One State offered some flexibility on the frequency of permit reissuance
in return for an industry commitment not to oppose fees.
Oregon involves industry in the fee development process by allowing
industry representatives to play an active role in determining the need
for fees and fee levels.
In several cases, States have told industry that they would be forced to
give their programs back to EPA if they aren't able to generate additional
revenue from fees. This has been particularly common in the RCRA program.
Finally, several State Program Managers have argued that they will provide
better service to industry with the increased funding from fees. These
Program Managers have convinced industry that they will be able to cut down
on the time required to approve permits if they have additional resources.
IMPLEMENTING AFMs
Some States have reduced administrative costs by piggybacking on existing State
infrastructures.
Louisiana uses the State's computer system to keep records for its new
Title III, Tier II fee program. Other State programs take advantage of
financial and accounting expertise that exists in other State programs.
In some cases, collection and accounting operations are performed by an
office outside of the environmental program, either by a special division
within the environmental agency or by the State Department of Finance or
Revenue.
-------
11
Cash flow problems can be avoided.
State programs have developed several ways Co avoid the cash flow problems
that may emerge when programs are funded by fee revenues. Ohio's air
program receives an up-front appropriation from the legislature that is
repaid from fee revenues. Other State programs (Louisiana's air program,
for example) collect fee revenues during a limited period of time at the
beginning of each fiscal year. Thi's allows the program to avoid having
fee revenues trickle in over the course of the year.
-------
12
VI. BARRIERS TO ESTABLISHMENT OR IMPLEMENTATION OF
AFMs
Philosophical barriers can block the establishment of AFMs.
A few Program Managers interviewed for this study are philosophically
opposed to funding environmental programs with AFMs. One argued that the
role of an environmental agency is to protect the environment, not to
collect revenue. He noted "If I wanted to be a tax collector, I'd work
for the IRS."
Several Program Managers maintained that environmental programs should be
funded from taxes paid by both citizens and corporations. They contended
that it is unfair to single out industry for user fees since environmental
protection benefits everyone.
Lack of legislative, political or industry support is a barrier.
Legislative authority must be obtained before AFMs can be put in place.
This can take one or two years or longer. Even if authority is obtained,
legislatures may impose unrealistic caps on fee levels, which make revenues
too low to be worthwhile. Legislatures may also oppose dedicating fees
directly to environmental programs.
One common reason legislators oppose the use of AFMS is the fear that they
will drive away industry. This fear is often strongest when economic
conditions are poor. However, the Project Team found little evidence to
substantiate this concern. One Program Manager indicated that a few
"marginally profitable" firms had gone out of business due to inability
to pay NPOES permit fees; others cited no such outcomes.
In many States, it is difficult to impose AFMs where industry strongly
lobbies against their use. Several Program Managers noted that strong
interest groups can block even nominal fees.
Some Program Managers have concerns about administrative problems involved vith
implementation of AFMs.
Several Program Managers who have limited or no experience with AFMs
expressed concern that administrative costs could exceed revenues. This
view was not shared by Program Managers who have experience with AFMs,
although some of them indicated that certain accounting and collection
activities are not always cost-effective. For example, in one State water
program, correcting minor accounting discrepancies has taken a
disproportionate amount of staff time. In addition, several Program
Managers said it is particularly difficult to collect from small
facilities--and that the costs of collecting fees from such facilities
sometimes exceed the revenues collected.
-------
13
Concern that there might be high start-up costs associated with AFMs was
expressed by Program Managers who have not used AFMs. To some extent,
this concern was substantiated by Program Managers who have experience
with AFMs, several of whom said that they lacked the staff expertise to
run fee programs at first. In addition, they noted there is a "learning
curve" involved with running fee programs and that it takes some time to
get such programs running efficiently.
Funding uncertainties can make Program Managers reluctant to depend upon AFMs.
Some Program Managers prefer to rely on appropriations because they are
concerned that it may be difficult to predict the level of revenues from
AFMs. Fee or tax revenues may vary from year to year depending on
economic conditions and other factors. Moreover, the base for an AFM may
shrink over time. In one State, for example, the water program is funded
partially by a tax on cigarettes; declining cigarette consumption
obviously could affect revenues for the program.
Even when the AFM base is constant, revenues may not be available when
needed. Revenues may trickle in over the course of the year if there are
delays in billing or in receipt of payments. This could result in program
expenditures being delayed until enough revenues have accumulated.
There are limitations to reliance on AFM revenues.
One drawback to reliance on fee revenues is limited flexibility in
allocating revenues among different program activities. In some cases,
fee revenues are dedicated to specific activities and may not be spent on
other parts of a program.
Another concern related to heavy reliance on AFMs is that if regulated
industries pay a substantial part of program costs, they would begin to
assert increasing influence in environmental policy decision-making. One
State official noted that industry is beginning to feel a sense of
"ownership" of the State's environmental programs.
-------
VII. POSSIBLE EPA ROLES IN SUPPORTING STATE PROGRAMS
EPA should be consistent in its message to States about federal funding trends
and the need to develop AFMs.
Although it is difficult to predict future Federal funding levels, EPA
could try to keep States better informed about the expected levels of
Federal support. State officials recalled that, in the past, EPA at times
has warned States about deep cuts in Federal support--reductions far
greater than those Congress ultimately made. State Program Managers say
this makes it appear that they are simply "crying wolf" when they talk co
elected officials about imminent cuts in Federal support and that this
makes it more difficult to convince State legislatures to adopt AFMs.
Similarly, if EPA'wants States to become more self-supporting in their
environmental programs, this should be communicated clearly to Governors
and State legislators. This view was recently supported by the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA), which voted to
ask EPA to push States to adopt permit fees in their air programs.
EPA can increase technical assistance to States to help them put AFMs into
place.
The Agency could provide assistance in designing and setting up fiscal
management and administrative systems and in designing fee structures.
The Agency could encourage States to share information and experience.
either through conferences or other means.
EPA could gather and disseminate information on State experiences with AFMs
EPA could serve as an information clearinghouse on State AFM activities
or provide support to a clearinghouse operated by one of the national
associations of State officials.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX I
DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM1
Permit fees: Seven of the eleven case study states charge permit fees.
Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania use permit
fees in their NPDES programs. Florida charges fees for their state-issued
permits. Most States calculate fees on a sliding scale. Louisiana and
New Jersey calculate fees based on an environmental impact formula (e.g.
number of point sources, bioassay, stream factor).
Application fees: Payable when a source files a permit, variance or PTI
application, Ohio charges a $15 application fee.
Annual fees: Louisiana and V. Virginia (fee in place FY89) require
facilities issued permits to pay an annual fee.
Permit-to-Install fees: Ohio charges new facilities a fee based on each
point source to which issuance is applicable.
Construction fees: Pennsylvania and Missouri charge a fee for the review
of construction plans for new facilities.
Dredge and Fill certification fees: Ohio and Louisiana require
certification permit fees for dredge and fill operations.
Coal Mining generator fees: Ohio and W. Virginia (in place FY89) charge
generators permit fees. Ohio charges a fixed $250 per facility; W.
Virginia will assess fees based on a sliding scale, with a $500 cap.
Agricultural Management Account: Iowa places annual registration and
inspection fees on fertilizer manufacturers and distributors of
agricultural chemicals and places a surcharge on chemicals sold. The
account funds groundwater pollution research.
Oil Overcharge fees: Iowa's Ground-water Protection Trust is funded by
projects related to energy and used to monitoring ground water by
landfills. The Dept. of Energy negotiates with the State annually to
determine which fees will fund the Trust.
Water Pollution Control Fund: Idaho uses a percentage of sales,
inheritance and commodity taxes to fund sewage treatment projects,
agricultural non-point source pollution control, and part of the water
program's state match.
Tax on pollutants: Florida and Oregon levy taxes on chemicals and
pesticides which are dedicated to a ground water protection fund.
1 Water Quality Program alternative financing mechanisms
described here do not include State Revolving Loan Funds for
wastewater treatment plant construction.
-------
Drinking Water Program
Water Tax fees: Rhode Island charges $.01 per 100 gallons of water from
public water supplies. Ten percent of revenues fund watershed protection
activities.
Plan Review fees: To recover the cost of reviewing public water supply
systems, Ohio charges new treatment works facilities $100 + .2% of
estimated project cost.
Lab Certification fees: Nebraska's public water supply systems program
charges water systems for laboratory analysis of monitoring samples.
Louisiana has legislation pending.
Ground Water Program
Subsurface permit fees: This is an Oregon fee-for-service for individuals
needing site consultation for septic tanks.
AIR PROGRAM
Permit fees: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon
calculate fees based on a sliding scale.
Construction permit fees: Missouri and Florida charge new facilities or
upgraded facilities a construction permit fee.
I/M Program: Louisiana, Ohio, and Oregon charge inspection fees in their
I/M programs.
License tag fee: Florida Air Pollution Trust is financed by a $.50
surcharge on license plate registrations. Revenues fund local and state
air programs. Florida's program is administered by the DMV.
Certification/Renewal fees: New Jersey charges permitted facilities a
fixed $75 fee every five years.
Field Burning permit fees: Oregon charges $ I/acre burned (burning banned
in metro areas). Farmers finance 100% of Field Burning Program costs.
Ownership. Issuance/Denial. Variance and Exemption fees: Louisiana charges
a one-time owner fee, an issuance/denial fee, a variance fee and an
exemptions fee for applicable permit applicants.
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal fees: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New
Jersey, Ohio and Oregon charge facilities for treatment, storage and
disposal.
Application fees: Ohio charges a $1,500 one-time fee to all permit
applicants.
Transporter fees: New Jersey and Missouri charge fees for transporters
of hazardous waste.
-------
Generator fees: Louisiana, Missouri and Oregon charge a fee based on cons
of waste generated.
Construction. Operation and Closure fees: Florida charges new facilities
a fee Co open, a fee Co operate, and a fee to close.
Annual Permit fees; Ohio charges permitted facility owners an annual fee.
EngineerInf/Geologic Review & Siting fees: Missouri and Oregon charge a
fee to recover the cost of technical reviews and travel expenses for the
hazardous waste program. MO charges 2.5 times the engineer's salary.
Registration fees: Louisiana charged sources a fixed $9.46 fee per
permitted facility.
Tax on petroleum & chemical feedstocks: New Jersey levies a tax on
petroleum and chemical feedstocks, dedicated to a hazardous waste cleanup
fund.
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
License fees: Ohio charges Solid Waste facility generators a one-time fee
ranging from $.50-1.70/ton.
Disposal & Tonnage fees: Iowa, Ohio, Oregon and W. Virginia charge annual
fees per ton of solid waste, dedicated to waste management activities.
Application fees: Ohio charges a $400 fee for permit and license
applicants.
Infectious Waste fees: Ohio recently passed generator and transporter
fees for transporters and generators.
Tire fees: Oregon charges $1 per tire purchased, dedicated to a fund for
recycling and disposal of waste tires.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Registration fees: Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, and
W. Virginia require underground storage tank owners to pay registration
fees. Most fees are annual, some are one-time fees.
Facility Inspection & Monitoring fees: Nebraska and Louisiana charge
annual fees to recover the cost of inspecting tanks.
Installation Inspection fees: Nebraska charges a one-time $50 fee to new
tank owners.
Annual fees: Iowa and Florida charge registered tank owners an annual fee
(Iowa $15/tank, Florida $25/tank).
Certification fees: New Jersey charges tank owners an annual $100 per
tank fee.
-------
Petroleum Produces tax: Florida and Georgia tax tank owners based on
gallons of petroleum products. In Florida funds are dedicated to the
Inland Protection Trust.
UIC PROGRAM
Permit fees: Nebraska charges well owners a maximum of $25,000 per Class
I well; $5,000 per Class V well. Florida charges a maximum of $1,000 per
Class I well; $100 per Class V well.
-------
APPENDIX II
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IOWA
LOUISIANA
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEW JERSEY
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
-------
STATE PROFILE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
1 - STATE - The case study State.
2 - PROGRAM - The specified environmental program.
3 - ALT. FINANCE MECHS. (AFMS) - Sources of revenue other than
general revenue or federal funds, used to fund operating or administrative
costs of the program.
4 - PERCENTAGE STATE/FED - The percentage of State funds
(appropriations & fee revenue); the percentage of Federal grant funds the
program receives.
5 - AFM REV. & YEAR - .Revenue generated from AFMs during the course
of the specified fiscal year.
6 - % PROG. AFM FUND - The percentage of the program budget funded
by AFM revenue.
7 - DED/GEN REVENUE - AFM revenues are dedicated to the environmental
program (DED); AFM revenues are deposited in the State treasury and are
not earmarked for the environmental program (GEN REVENUE).
8 - FEE LEVEL, MIN/MAX The level at which the fee/tax is assessed.
Indicated minimums or maximums (caps) where applicable.
9 - HOW FEE DETERM. - One set fee [fee level does not fluctuate]
(FIXED); fee level varies by scale [ex: size of source] (SLIDING); fee
based on a formula or rating factor which accounts for environmental impact
(E IMPACT).
10 - FREQ. OF FEE - How often the fee is assessed or renewed.
11 - % AFM FUND ADMIN COSTS - The percentage of the AFM revenue
which funds administrative costs of operating the fee system.
12 - WHO ADMIN? - The organization which administers the fee system
(collection and accounting): (ENV AGENCY, STATE REVENUE DEPT, DMV, etc. .).
13 - PENDING LEGIS. - Proposed fee increases and/or new fees that await
legislative approval.
NOTES:
Brief descriptions of the State's distinguishing uses of AFMs (details of
how fees are determined, how funds are dedicated, etc.)
PENDING LEGISLATION:
When and what fees are pending.
-------
i u n I u H
T E P R o r i i
Stilt
t 2
Percenlige UK Re«. Z f rwj IM/Gm Fee Lf'el to Fet
All. Finince Ifctns. (AFnsl St«lt/Fed i leu AFn Fund Revenue Hin/Mi Deter..
: i & 7 a i
flf
F»
Atom Costs Me
fwdinq
le)is.
r
FL
a
a
a
a
a
a
MIER & Ptrnt fee
source piyi
M ASSuD Ajric./Dmicil lee
!BJST chnicil buyer piyi
AIR Construction ptrail ft*
nen fKility piyi
Operitinj ptrait fee
Utility p*ys
AIR POU. license t*) fit
CNFRL TOT vehicle omr piys
W * ISO Per.it fee
1 ic I Illy piys
Construction ft*
He* facility piyt
Qperitioi fee
liClllty pip
Closure fn
facility piys
161 Rejiitrition fee
link oner piys
Rmwl fit
registered link oner piys
EIUW lii
tint oner ptf*
UIC Ptrul fee
ell (Mier ftjt
W10
N/A
BBM2
V*
M/A
a/A
40/40
t 0.3
iftaai
MJS.W
IFV881
«w.i.n.
IFYFJ8)
1 3.0 e
(FYB8I
ll.lt.
IFY88I
11.4
*»
IFY8B)
125,000
IFY87)
101
N/A
Km no t»
frt levels .ill rrdMbly reum il I Ju/birrel becwse Fund n , fees- K>Pr
AIR progru- riised caps pendinj legislitive ipprovil.
-------
GEORGIA
STATE PROFILE
Percentage AFH lev. » Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level Hov Fee
State Prograi Alt. Finance Hechs. lAFHs) State/Fed 1 Yeai AFH Fund Revenue Min/Nai Oeten.
12 3 4 56769
Freq ol * AFH Fund Who Pending
Fee Adiln Costs Ad«ln? Legls.
10 II 12 13
CA
GA
GA
GA
GA
VATEM
VSTEUATER
D. WATER
HU
USTZ
Jfo fees
Loin Closing fee
Loan applicant pays
No fees
No fees
petroleut fee
tank ovner pays
40/60
N/A
7S/2S
K/T5
100/0
N/A
« 1
It/A
H/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
M/k
H/A
H/A
N/A
Ded1
N/A
H/A
Ded
N/A
41 of loan
N/A
N/A
t.OOI/|al
N/A
fiiad
N/A
N/A
fiied
N/A
per loan
N/A
N/A
continuous
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agency
N/A
N/A
Agency
yes 3
N/A
no
no
no
NOTES:
f/astewter Treatment Projrai- Dedicated to Administrative Account, not SBF Account -- State catch ones froi loan prograi.
*UST Prograo- Granted authority 4/88. Pettoleui fee will be In place 7/88.
PENDING LEGISLATION:
3 Hater Projraa ujr turn to fees in mar-futute.
-------
STATE
U A
1 0 F I L E
Percentage
State Prograo Alt. Finance Mechs. (AFMs) State/Fed
12 3 4
AFN Rev. I Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level Now Fee
& Year . AFN Fund Revenue Hm/Hax Deters.
5678 9
Freq of * AFH Fund Uho Pending
Fee AdiIn Costs Adnin7 Legis.
10 11 12 13
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
WATER Q1
D. WATErf*
GU PRTEC1
TRUST
AIR
UST M
SW ACCT
AC NGNT
ACCOUNT
No fees
Operation fee
source pays
Construction fee
treatnent facility pays
Oil overcharge fee*
No fees
Registration fee
tank owner pays
annual fee
tank owner pays
Tonnage fee
source pays
Agriculture-Cheiical fee
buyer pays
35/65
N/A
N/A
25/75
45/55
N/A
N/A
N/A
$110,000
(FY88)
N/A
N/A
$400,000
(FYB8)
N/A
N/A
N/A
19»
N/A
N/A
36*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gen
Ded
N/A
Ded
N/A
N/A
N/A
ax $2,000
nai $250
tai
N/A
$10/tank
$15/tank
$.50/ton
tai
N/A
populatio
source
filed
N/A
fixed
fixed
fixed
fixed
WA
2 yrs
3e r peri it
continuous
N/A
one tiie
annual
annual
continuous
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25*
N/A
N/A
N/A
State
Agency
N/A
License Bur
Agency
Revenue Opt
No
Yes5
No
No
No
N/A
No
NOTES:
'WATER Q- has authority to collect fees.
2D.UATER- Construction fee: $125- new water source; $100- storage facility; 150- treatnent unit.
Operation fee: $60 for water source < 500 gallons to $2,000 for source > 100,000.
Non-couunity source: $30.
Fees collected fall short of the intended 251 state Batch.
?GV PRT Trust- State negotiates with DOE annually to deternine how revenue is generated.
TRUST revenue funds GU research and clean-up. GU Protection act passed 1987.
^UST- Tank Insurance Act allows DNR to charge $200/year preiiun for tank owners.
Licensing Bureau charges a flat 251 service fee for adiinistration.
PENDING LEGISLATION:
5 D.WATER- Lab certification fees pending for the Drinking Uater/Uasle Water Prograis.
-------
L U U I .,
STATE PROFILE
Percentage AFN Rev. » Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level Ho» Fee
State Projrat Alt. Finance Needs lAFMs) State/Fed 1 Vear AFH Fund Revenue Hin/Nai Deleri.
12 3 4 56789
Fres ol » AFH Fund Uho Pending
hee Adiin Costs Adifn' Legis.
10 11 12 13
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
UATER 0
AIR
KV
TITLE II
UST
Peru t fee
source pars
Annual fee
taclity issued pernt pays
Peru t fee
source pays
Maintenance fee
facility pays
Ownership fee
ovner pays
Issue/Denial fee
per lit applicant pays
Variance fee
pern t applicant pays
Eieiptlons fee
eieipt to test applic pays
Application fee
peril t applicant pays
TSD pernt fee
facility pays
Generator fee
source pays
Registration fee
source pays
Tier II fee
facility pays
Registration fee
tank ovner pays
Monitoring fee
tank ovner pays
6S/3S
59/41
100/0
1 4.7 i
(FY88)
12.0
(FY89)
»1.0 i
(FVB8)
1160,000
(FY88I
400,000
(FY88)
65»
47*
37«
N/A
361
w»^B^^_
Gen
ten
Gin
Ded
Gen
^i^BBBMI
I227/SO,000
ui ISOO
1283
19.46
»I5/SOJ
l2S/tank
ai ISO
^^^^H^^^^B
201 of
app. fee
E lipact1
eliding
sliding
sliding
died
died
flied
Hiding
E iipact
flied
flied
died
Hied
sliding
S yrs
ainual
oie tiie2
annual
one tlie
one I lie
one tiie
one tlie
Syrs
annual
annual
one I lie
annual
N/A
201
2
_
Ajency
Agency
Agency
PubSafety
Agency
res*
no
ye,s
u
res'
NOTES:
Governor revoked all dedicated prograis and raised fees at least 601 across the board
^creases are leiporary. but .a, beco.e pe,.an,nt ,n soae pr.gra.s. Env. Protec^nVus, fund .a, rep.ace genera, revenue.
^ATER pro, lee deter.ined by lype of fac.hty. dischar.e. heat load, publ.c health ..pact
'AIR prograi- Periits have no eipiratlon date.
3TITLE III- siall business pays 115, couercial facility pays ISO.
PENDING LEGISLATION-
tlST prograi- Mat annual tank fees proposed.
fcm«I01'"" *"" '""'"" *""«F<»ter, and vasle injection fees proposed.
"HATER prograi- GU user, lab cerlif.. petroleui fees proposed.
-------
hi I S S 0 U R
STATE PROF
I L f.
State Prograi
1 2
Alt. Finance Nechs. UFfls!
3
Percentage
StatefFed
4
AFH Rev.
t Year
S
* Prog
AFN Fund
6
Ded/Gen
Revenue
7
Fee Level
Kin/Ha*
B
How Fee
Oeteri.
9
Freq of
Fee
10
I AF« Fund
Adi in Costs
11
Uho
Adnin?
12
Pending
Legls.
13
NO
HO
HO
UATEfi Q
AIR
HU
Peril t fee
source pays
Construction fee
perii t applicant pays
Peril I fee
source pays
Construction fee
peril t applicant pays
Generator fee
source pays
Transporter License fee
transporter pays
Engineer/Geologic Review fee
facility pays
Landfill fee1
landfill operator pays
Peril t fee
facility pays
Variance fee
pernit applicant pays
10/90
N/A
26/74
tso.ooo
IFY88)
I120.0003
(FY88)
»300,000
(FY88)
It
10ft
17.5*
Ded
Gen
Ded
«7S
125
engineer cost
lai 110,000
tlOO/vehicle
2.5 i salary
21 tax
$i,000/site
150
fixed
fixed
sliding
sliding
fiied
fixed
fixed
fixed
died
Syrs
Syrs
N/A
annual
annual
quarterly
quarterly
annual
one tiie
N/A
N/A
5» "
Agency
Agency
Agency
yes
no
no2"
NOTES:
IHU--- Ho connercial facilities currently in state.
2-HU--- Recently passed authority to collect tl.la (351 of prograo cost).
3AIR- recent authorization. FY89 collection will be significantly higher.
-------
NEBRASKA
STATE PROFILE
State Prograa Alt. Finance Hechs. (AFfls)
1 2 3
Percentage
State/Fed
4
AFH Rev. % Prog
t, Year AFtl Fund
5 6
Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fee fte» 0(
Revenue (lin/Hax Deten. pee
7 8 9 10
1 AFH Fund Uho Pending
Adi in Costs Adain? Legis.
11 12 13
NE
NE
NE
NE
WATER Q
AIR1
UIC
UST1
No fees
No fees
Peril I fees
well owner pays
Tank Registration fee
tank owner pays
Installation Inspection fee
new tank owner pays
Facility Inspection fee
tank owner pays
20/60
50/50
25/75
45/55
N/A
N/A
N/A
t 50,000
(FY86)
N/A
N/A
<25*
281
N/A
N/A
Ded
Ded
N/A
N/A
at 1- 125,000
ai V- 15,000
ISO/tank
tl5/tank
N/A
N/A
fixed
fixed
fixed
fiied
N/A
N/A
annual
one tiie
one tiie
annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agency
Fire Harsh.
No
Ho
fes»
yes^
NOTES:'lIST prograo-- unable to confiri chart W prograi nanager.
PENDING LEGISLATION:
2 AIR prograi-- uy turn to fees in near-future.
3lllC prograo Significant Non-Cotpliers (SNCJ fee proposal would recover actual t assoe. costs of non-coapliers.
''UST prograo petroleua assessaent tat proposed.
-------
N E U
STATE
E R S E Y
PROFILE
Percentage AFH Rev. % Prof Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fee Freq of * AFH Fund Who Pending
State Progran Alt. Finance Hechs. (AFHs> State/Fed I Year AFH Fund Revenue Nin/Hai Deteri. Fee Adiin Costs Adnin? Legis.
12 3 4 5678 IB II 12 13
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
WATER Q
USTEUATEfi
AIR
HU
UST
Penit fee
source pays
Penit fee
treatment plant pays
Periit fee
source pays
Cert if /renewal fee
faclty Issued peril t pays
Periit fee
source pays
Transporter fee
transporter pays
Registration fee
tank owner pays
Certification fee
new owner pays
90/10
100/0
70/30
N/A
87/13
t 12 i
(FY88)
1 1.9
(FY89)
1 3.3 B3
(FY89)
* 2.0 B
(FY89)
11.35 a
(FY8B)
t 1.5 a
(FY89)
901
lOOt
311
181
671
Oed
Ded
Ded
Gen
Ded
in 1500 '
In MOK HU
50/500 '
UK 1500 '
1 75
» 500 '
ai 1500
MOO1
MOO
E iapact
2
fiied
sliding
fined
fiied
sliding
fixed
fixed
annual
per peri it
per peril t
5 yrs
per perait
per truck
annual
annual
41
11
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
SU Prograa
Agency
no
no
yes1*
yes
t,
yes
NOTES:
I- fees collected lay not eiceed budget expenditures.
2vATER Q NJPDES fee based on environ, iipact - kg /unit, bioassay, streai factor.
3AIR - revenue includes fines: M.Bn fee/*2 i fine, t.5 o returned to general revenue.
Revenues do NOT reflect local air agency budgets.
PENDING LEGISLATION:
*>AIR prograa- proposed increase in fee cap.
SHU prograi- interic legislation scheduled for adoption t/89. Proj. FY 90 rev: I 3i.
Proposed fees: generator, inspector, waste classif, facility review.
long-tern legislation: fees based on quantity/how quantity handled.
UST prograa- Spill Coip I Control Fund- oil tax regs pending.
-------
o H i n
STATE
0 F I I E
Percentage AFN Rev. l Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fee
State Prograi Alt. Finance Hechs (AFNs) stale/fed I Year AFN Fund Revenue Nin/Hai Deten.
12 345678
Freq of 1 AFM Fund Uho Pending
Fee Adiin Costs Adiln' Legls.
9 10 II 12
OH
OH
OH
OH
VATER Q*
AIR
HU
SU
Peru t fee
source pays
application fee
peril! applicant pays
PTI fee
source pays
PTI application fee
PTI applicant pays
plan review fee
new treatit writs fac pays
variance fee
pern t applicant pays
coal lining generator fee
source pays
certification fee - dredge
faclty issued per ill pays
Peru t fee
source pays
I/H prograi
vehicle owner pays
Disposal 1 Off-site treat
facility pays
Application fee
pern t applicant pays
Annual Peril t lee
pern tied owner pays
License fee
generators pay
Disposal fee
source pays
Application fee
license/pern 1 app pays
Peru! fee
source pays
65/35
65/35 *
n/a
25/75
100/0
N/A
12.2
(FT89)
cost
recovery
12.6 IH
1500,000
(FY88)
12.0
(FT89)
4 tues
AFN revenue
20t
N/A
N/A
Gen
Can
Ded
Ded3
Gen
t 50/750
1 15
1 200/5.000
1 15
HOOi.21
const, cost
1 IS
1 250
< 15/200
1 100/1.000
ui 175.000
t 1,500
ui 140.000
1750/60.000
f 50-1.70/lor,
1400 per nt
1100 license
I1K-80K lai
sliding
fued
sliding
fued
fued
fued
fiied
sliding
sliding
fiied
sliding
fiied
sliding
fued
fiied
fued
sliding
Syrs
per periit
net. facility
per periit
new facility
or upgrade
per periit
new facility
_
per periit
3 yrs
annual
annual
icnthly
OM tlie
annual
one liie
new facility
one liie
per periit
S-10S
11
N/A
N/A
Agency
Agency
contract
Agency
Agency
Agency
-
No
Ye,S
No
Yesfe
NOTES:
DATES Q- refer to OHIO fee schedule for tore detailed certification fee info.
2AIR prograi- budget does not include local air prograi appropriations.
I/N prograi separate Iron AIR budget Revenues dedicated to rotary acct
3H« prog-- all fees are dedicated to the Super fund latch I cleanup contract fund
tHU prog-- I2.6B is the coiblned fee total for 7/87-3/88.
HV prograi presented a report of 20 states' use ol fees to UH legislature
PENDING LEGISLATION:
6AIR prog-- proposed fee increases
bSII piog-- eitensive fees recently approved.
Infectious waste prog-- generator and transporter fees recently approved.
-------
0 I E C 0 II
STATE PIOFILE
P*rcanta|t
Stitt ProffM Alt. FlniKt Nachi. IIFHi) Stata/Fad
12 3 4
FH lt». I Prof Dad/Can Faa Uvtl
t Taar AFI Fund lavanua Hln/IUi
& 6 7 6
Ho* FM Fraa, ol
Datari. FN
9 10
t AFrl Fmd Hha Pi«dli|
MaUCeili /Main? U|li.
II 12 13
01
M
01
01
01
OEQ
JUTOQ
All
HV/Stt
UST
Total A|incy uia of AFHi
Paralt faai
TII Cradlt
Sa*afa cartlflutlon faa
SubSurfaca Paralt faa
SubSurfaca Varlaaoa faa
SubSurfaca Llcaaia faa
Paralt faa
Tai Cradlt
Flit Burnlof. fia
I/H Pro|iia faa
Backyard Burnlif faa
Hoodttova Ctrl III call faa
Aibaitos Cartlflcatlon faa
SH Dliposal faa
Tai Cradit
HH ISO Fit
HH Ginaratar tia
laqrcllai fta
Hula t Ira faa
laflitratlon fta
76/2*.
I22M
87-09
SOI
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
201 tarvlca
SEE DEQ OPEMTIHG III DGCT '
SEE DEQ OPEIATING IUDCET1
SEE OEQ OPEIATIHG IUDCET *
SEE OEQ OPERATING BUDGET '
~
NOTES:
0«ar forty fati fund SOI of DEQ budftt.
' (he [iperi'inq budge' is attached because individual
operatmq budgets are not available.
-------
STATE OP OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
DETAIL OF OTHER FUNDS
AND FEO-TOL FUNDS SOURCES
SOURCE
1
Air Quality Program
Field Burning Permit Fees
Vehicle Inspection Certificate Fees
Tax Credit Fees (AQ & Noise)
Air Contaminant Discharge Permit Fees
Oregon Department of Energy Grant
Backyard Burning Fees
Wbcdstcve Certification Fees
Asbestos Certification Fee
Energy Facility Assessment Fee
Water Quality Program
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Fees
Municipal Waste Discharge Permit Fee
ILUAL
F :
U.
N :
D :
? :
X
4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
.
1983-85
Actual
3
1,525,174"
2,738,325
50,085
413,984
166,337
121,877
3,286
-0-
-0-
163,004
147,180
(cent.)
:
: 1985-87
: Legislatively
: Approved
:4
:
t
: 1,618,191
t 3,198,265
: 69,210
:' 624,635
*
: -0-
! 12,000
1 20,000
: -0-
i -0-
:
i 186,762
s
: 186,762
:
i (cent.)
-
1985-87 t
Estimated :
5 s6
«
2
1,593,758 :
i
3,729,496 :
i
91,000 :
615,920 :
-0- :
99,513 :
21,496 t
-0- i
-0- :
:
t
208,219 :
{
145,066 :
i
t
(cent.) :
Agency
Request
1,748,601
4,375,624
55,563
790.314
-0-
12,539
20,901
115,770
190,072
372,900
241,790
(cent.)
1987-89
;
: Governor's :
t Reconnendation :
:7 :
: 1,741,001
1 4,375,624
i 55,563
1 790,314
i -0-
:" 12,539
i 20,901
: 128,453
1 -0-
!
s
: 372,900
J
: 241,790
:
: (cent. )
Legislatively
Approved
8
1,739,224
4,358,831
55,449
788,203
-0-
12,539
84,910
128,291
-0-
427,123
187,578
(cent.)
CODE
AGENCY 34000
PROGRAM
SUBPROGRAM
ACTIVITY
BAWR.87 (1)
TITLE
Dept. of Environmental Quality
DESCRIPTIONS
1 Program Special Analysis
2 Detail of Other and Federal
3 Fund Sources
.DOCUMENT
( ) AGENCY REQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105BF6
Budget Page
-------
STATE OF OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
D&EAIL OF OTHER FUNDS
AND FHERAL FUNDS SOURCES
SOURCE
1
Hater Quality Program. . .continued
Tax Credit Fees
Coastal Energy Inpact Fees
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Fees
Bond Fund Administration
Strategic Water Planning
Drinking Water Lab Certification Funds
Hazardous Waste TSD Fees
Hazardous Waste Generator Fees
Sewage Works Operator Certification Fee
Hazardous and Solid Waste Program
Solid Waste Disposal Permit Fees
Recycling Fees
TOBVL
: F :
ii
u
: N :
: D :
:2 :3
. :
: :
: 0 :
: 0 i
i
: 0 :
Q
: 0 :
: 0 :
: 0 :
: 0 :
: 0 :
;
: :
: :
: 0 :
I 0 i
: :
1983-85
Actual
13,934
2,307
586,132
-0-
54,020
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
164,073
-0-
(oont.)
_
: 1985-87 :
: Legislatively :
: Approved :
:4 :5
: t
: :
i 32,442 t
i -0- i
s
: 1,011,977 t
': 45,594 :
i 55,793 I
: :
: -0- :
*: 60,392 :
i 60,392 :
i -0- :
: t
: :
i 408,838 :
: -0- :
i (cent.) :
.
.
1985-87 1
Estimated :
:6
:
21,970 :
-0- :
j
1,243,556 :
45,594 :
55,793 :
s
33,709 :
-0- :
-0- :
-0- :
s
:
534,099 :
-0- :
(cant.) :
Agency
Request
34,983
-0-
958,475
41,397
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
471,144
81,206
(cant.)
1987-89
Governor's
Reoamendation
7
34,903
-0-
958,475
41,397
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
471,144
81,206
(cant.)
Legislatively
Approved
8
34,982
-0-
955,539
41,282
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
88,304
469,483
80,855
(cent.)
AGENCY
PROGRAM *
SUBPROGRAM ~
ACTIVITY
DAWR.87 (2)
CODE TITLE DESCRIPTIONS
34000 Dept. of Environmental Quality 1 Program Special Analysis
2 Detail of Other and Federal
3 Fund Sources
DOCUMENT
( ) AGENCY REQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105DF6 ^,.j
Budget Page '~ t
-------
STATE OF OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
DETAIL OF OTHER EtMB
AND FEEERAL FUNDS SOURCES
SOURCE
1
Hazardous and Solid Waste Program, .continued
Hazardous Waste T5D Fees
"
Hazardous Waste Generator Fees
Solid Waste Tax Credit Fees
Underground Storage Tank Permit Fees
Producers & Suppliers Assessment Fee
Hazardous Waste Tax Credit Fees
Oregon Department of Energy Grant
Oil and Hazardous Materials Emergency
Response and Remedial Action Funds
Bend Fund Administration
CBRdA Matching Funds
Landfill Siting Fee
Waste Tires
Illegal Drug Cleanup Funds
TD1RL
: F :
: U :
: N :
: D :
:2 :
.
: 0
: 0
: 0
:
: 0
t
: 0
: 0
: 0
: 0
t
: 0
: O
J 0
t
: 0
: 0
:
;
1983-85
Actual
3
174,670
116,513
9,626
-0-
-0-
-0-
289,324
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
: (cent. )
: 1985-87 :
: Legislatively
: Approved
:4
:
: 219,280
: 175,367
I 26,374
: -0-
e
i -0-
i -0-
: -0-
: -0-
': 40,418
: 590,000
t
: -0-
: -0-
: -0-
:
: (cent.)
1985-87
Estimated
5
618,869
271,326
10,889
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
40,418
-0-
1,440,297
-0-
-0-
: (cent.)
_
: Agency
: Request
:6
:
: 698,197
t
: 937,119
: 25,721
: 1,640,244
: 2,616,262
: -0-
: -0-
t
: 3U,526
|
: 14,923
': 4,871,879
2
: 361,000
: -0-
: -0-
*
: (cent.)
1987-89
: Governor's
: Reaomrendati.cn
9 T
{ /
s
t
: 698,197
J
: 937, 119
i 25,721
i 1,640,244
: -0-
i -0-
i ' -0-
2
: 311,526
i 14,923
i 4,871,879
s
: 361,000
s
: -0-
1 -0-
*
: (cent.)
Legislatively
Approved
8
697,829
935,766
25,636
1,086,301
-0-
-0-
-0-
310.852
14,923
3,464,641
361,000
258,473
750,000
(oont. )
AGENCY
PROGRAM
SUBPROGRAM *
ACTIVITY
DAWR.l 1)
CODE TITLE DESCRIPTIONS
34000 Dept. of Environmental Quality 1 Program Special Analysis
2 Detail of Other and Federal
3 Fund Sources
DOCUMENT
( ) AGENCY REQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105DF6
Dudget P
-------
STATE OF OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
DETAIL CF OTHER FINDS
AND FHERAL EUND6 SOURCES
s F :
: U :
SOURCE : N :
: D :
1 :2 :
Hazardous and Solid Waste Program, .continued :
Landfill Siting Loan (Transfer from Treasury) : 0
Agency Management Program :
nerd Fund Administration : 0
Miscellaneous Receipts Reuenue : O
Air Quality Program :
Federal Grant Funds : F
Hater Quality Program :
Federal Program Support Funding (Section 106) : F
Federal Supplemental Funds : F
Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) : F
1DTOL :
1983-85 :
Actual :
3 :
-0-
-0-
1,445,691
2,863,532
1,558,568
-0-
156,748
»
i
:
!
s (cont.)
1985-87
Legislatively
Approved
4
-0-
37,868
2,456,610
2,784,889
1,586,175
272,522
224,495
(cent.)
1985-87 : Agency
Estimated : Request
5 :6
549,013 : -0-
123,880 : 21,779
2,273,992 1 3,418,386
;
3,659,400 : 3,770,426
2,243,693 : 1,746,202
-0- : -0-
164,202 : 149,283
s
: (cont.) : (cont.)
1987-89
Governor's
Reocnmendation
7
-0-
21,779
3,251,285
3,770,426
1,746,202
-0-
149,283
(cont.)
Legislatively
Approved
8
-0-
21,779
3,318,038
3.765,913
1,731,222
-0-
147,661
(cont.)
CODE
AGENCY 34000
PROGRAM
SUBPROGRAM
ACTIVITY
DAWR.87 (4)
TITLE
Dept. of Environmental Quality
DESCRIPTIONS
1 Program Special Analysts
2 Detail of Other and Federal
3 Fund Sources
DOCUMENT
( ) AGENCY REQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105BF6
Budget Page
-------
STATE OP OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
DEXAIL CF OTHER PUNTS
AND FECEBAL FUNDS SOURCES
SOURCE
1
Hater Quality Program. . .continued
Federal Planning Support Funds (Section 205J)
Federal Construction Grant Delegation
Funds (Section 205G)
Federal Clean Lakes Grant Funds
Federal Planning Grant Funds (Section 208)
Federal "Environmental Atlas" Grant Funds
Federal WQ Permit Oaipliance & Pretreatment
Grant Funds (Section 104)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Program
Federal Grant Funds (HCRA-Section 3011)
: F :
: U :
: N :
: D :
:2 :3
: :
: F :
5
: F :
: :
: t
: F i
j
: F :
t :
: F s
;
i :
: F :
; ;
: :
: F :
: t
Federal Grant Funds (Super fund Investigations: F :
Secticn 3012)
Federal (EPA) Cooperative Agreement Funds
Federal Super fund Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Funds
TOIAL
: :
: t
: F :
: F :
: :
: ;
.
: :
1983-85
Actual
276,090
-0-
189,957
13,826
-0-
-0-
828,004
89,249
1985-87
Legislatively
Approved
4
166,199
622,960
-0-
-0-
70,000
-0-
963,187
-0-
-O- : -0-
-O- i -0-
*
:
i
(cant.) : (cant.)
.
t
i5
i
t
s
t
!
t
:
*
:
t
:
t
:
t
t
:
)
t
:
i
t
|
!
:
t
:
1985-87
Estimated
156,478
581,723
375,000
-0-
70,000
160,177
991,988
-0-
-0-
-0-
(cont.)
:
: Agency
: Request
:6
:
: 464,856
;
: 1,804,844
«
:
: -0-
;
: -0-
;
: -0-
:
:
: 56,972
:
:
: 616,820
t
: -0-
*
:
: 676,495
i -O-
:
:
:
: (cant.)
1987-89
j
: Governor's
: Recaimendatian
:7
:
: 454,380
:
: 1,804,844
:
: -0-
;
: -0-
:
: -O-
:
:
: * 56,972
:
:
i 616,820
:
: -0-
5
:
: 676,495
i -0-
:
:
:
: (oont.)
Legislatively
Approved
8
468,407
1,800,585
-0-
-0-
-0-
56,902
615,676
-0-
1,540,330
332,654
(cent.)
CODE
AGENCY 34000
PROGRAM
SUBPROGRAM
ACTIVITY
TITLE
Dept. of Environmental Quality
DESCRIPTIONS
1 Decision Unit Analysts
2 Detail of Other and Federal
3 Fund Sources
DOCUMENT
BAWR.r 5)
( ) AGENCY REQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105BF6 > r
Budget P
-------
STATE OF OREGON
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
CCEML CF OTHER FUNDS
AND FGCERAL FINDS SOURCES
SOURCE
.1
Hazardous and Solid Haste Program.
Federal Grant Funds (RCRA-Section
Undergounri Storage Tanks)
Federal Grant Funds
Agency Management Program
Federal Grant Funds:
Air Quality (Section 105)
Water Quality (Section 106)
Hazardous Haste (RCRA Sectior
TOTOL (excludes Debt Service & Gr£
: F : :
: U :
: N : 1983-85
: D : Actual
:2 :3
.continued : :
: :
2077 (F) (2),: F i -0-
' '
: F : -0-
| i
i i
m ,
i F : -0-
: s
t F : -0-
i 30U) I F i -0-
: t
i i
: t
s s
: i
I !
mts/Loans) : : 14,161,516
1985-87
Legislatively
Approved
4
-0-
-0-
21,379
47,847
50,774
t_
t
1 17,947,600
.
; ;
1985-87 : Agency
Estimated : Request
5 :6
5
233,719 : 263,967
-0- : -0-
2
2
I
-0- : 21,410
-0- : 47,916
-0- : 56,077
;
«
:
*
;
:
22,404,253 : 34,103,583
1987-89
Governor's
Reconnendatian
7
263,967
-0-
21,410
47,916
56,077
31,124,755
Legislatively
Approved
8
263,549
1
21,410
47,916
56,077
31,546,13
CODE TITLE DESCRIPTIONS
AGENCY 34000 Dept. of Environmental Quality 1 Decision Unit Analysis
PROGRAM 2 Detail of Other and Federal
SUBPROGRAM ~^^.
ACTIVITY
3 Fund Sources
DOCUMENT
BAWR.87 (6)
( ) AGENCY KEQUEST
( ) GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(X) LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED
1987-89
105BF6 ,, .
Budget Page »J i
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
STATE PROFILE
Percentage
State Prograi Alt. Finance Mechs. IAFHs) State/Fed
12 3 4
AFM Rev. S Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fee Freq of
t Year AFH Fund Revenue Min/flai Deteri. Fee
5678 9 10
* AFH Fund Who Pending
AdiIn Costs Adiln? Legis.
ll 12 13
PA
PA
1
UATER Q
AIR1
Peril t fees
source pays
Construction fee
nev facility pays
Construction periit fee
nev facility pays
Operating periit fee
facility pays
SO/SO
55/45
1200.000
1300.000
(FY89)
projected
6»
-------
U. V I B G I N I A
STATE PROFILE
Percentage
State Prograa Alt. Finance Hechs. (AFHs) State/Fed
12 3 4
AFH Rev. » Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fee Freq of
& Year AFH Fund Revenue Hin/Hai Deteri. Fee
5678 9 10
1 AFN Fund Uho Pending
Adiin Costs Adnin? Legis.
11 12 13
uv
uv
uv
WATER Q1
»»
UST*
Coal pern its
Annual fee
Tonnage fee
source pays
Registration fee
tank owner pays
25/75
100/0
50/50
N/A
N/A
$413,000
(FY88)
N/A
N/A
221
Ded
Ded
Ded
nai tSOO
*1.25/tonZ
125/tank
sliding
filed
fixed
fiied
5 yrs
annual
annual
annual
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agency
Agency
Agency
Yes
No
No
NOTES:
'WATER Q prograi-- fees will not be in place until FY89.
iSW prograi - Host counties charge an additional I.SO/ton charge.
3SU I UST progs-- fees recently authorized and vill be in place 7/88.
-------
ADDITIONAL
STATE PROFILES
State
AFN Rev. * Prog Ded/Gen Fee Level How Fpe Freq of
Alt. Finance Means. (AFHs) & Year AFN Fund Revenue Nin/Hai Deteri. Fee
I AFH Fund Mho Pending
Adiin Costs Adiin? Legls.
CT
VT
ID
Rl
Real Estate
Transfer tai
Land Turn-
Over Tai
Sales Tax
Cigarrette
Tobacco
Inheritance
water tai
proposa 1
failed
1988
$4.8
10.91 net
(all)
siall X
in place
FY 1989
N/A
N/A
$20
(FY88)
N/A
10* of tax'
iperations
Ded1
Gen
Ded*
UPCF
Ded
,5S tai on
profits
601 profit
fluctuates
«. 01/100 gal
fixed property
transfer
property owned
less than 6 IDS
tai
sliding
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
State
State
State
Pub Water
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
NOTES:
CT- Proposed tai dedicated in the following categories:
251 equal opportunity housing
25* open space lanageient
25S land lanageient enforcement prograi
25% discretionary funds
Legislation failed 1988. HA law pending, VT law passed.
ID- Water Pollution Control Fund (UPCF).
Fund: salaries, sewage treatment project grants, EPA grant latch, grants for ag non-point source pollution
- 90* of revenue goes to bonds, 10X funds operational costs (watershed protection activities).
no water tai increase likely.
------- |