Content

 

About Building Blocks

 

Search

 

Building Awareness and Public Support

Building Capacity for Lead Safety

Collaborations, Partnerships, and Incentives

Financing and Subsidies

Lead Safety and Healthy Homes Standards

Targeting High Risk Homes

Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems

 

 

Appendices

 

 

Building Blocks Full Text [PDF]

 

 

CDC-Funded Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs

 

 

Produced by the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

 

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 


Acknowledgements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Building Blocks | Search Building Blocks for Primary Prevention

Financing and Subsidies

 

Impose Fees on Real Estate Transactions and Related Professional Licenses

 

Click here for PDF version or MS Word version

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

Imposing fees on real estate transactions and on the licenses of professionals who procure housing, risk management, or lead services can help subsidize the cost of managing public sector systems for lead poisoning prevention. Fees levied on real estate transactions (e.g. for the recording of deeds or tax stamps) and on licenses for professions and disciplines such as real estate agents, insurance agents, lead inspectors, risk assessors, lead abatement contractors, and others can be a source of dedicated income for lead poisoning prevention programs. These types of strategies would be more common at the state level, but enactment and implementation is possible at the county and municipal levels as well.   

 

BENEFITS

Immediate/Direct Results:  New or increased recurring funding sources are immediately created as the fee structure goes into effect. These funds can be used to support primary prevention programs that may have little, if any, funding from other sources.

 

Public Health Benefits:  Funds from these fees or surcharges can be used to fund existing childhood lead poisoning prevention programs as well as initiatives that complement efforts already in existence.

 

Other Indirect/Collateral Benefits: By targeting home purchases and individuals directly involved with buying, selling, and insuring housing, such fees could raise awareness among homebuyers, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, insurers, and others about lead poisoning prevention issues. Such a strategy may also reinforce the responsibility of buyers, agents, and others to ensure that the home involved in a specific transaction is lead-safe.

 

Scope of Potential Impact

Statewide

City - or - County - Wide

 

PRIMARY ACTOR(S)
KEY PARTNER(S)
State Licensing and Certification Agencies
Code Inspection Agencies
Housing Agency
Property Owners
Certified Lead Abatement Contractors
Insurance companies and brokers

 

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Staff requirements: Minor to moderate administrative activities would be required at the start-up of a strategy that imposes a fee on real estate transactions or a surcharge on certain professional licenses. It is unlikely that any new staff would be required to implement such fees or surcharges.

 

Other resource requirements: In the case of professional license surcharges, the agency(s) that oversees the licensing may need to be involved in administering the strategy.

 

Institutional capacity required:   New statutory or code sections, naming the specific real estate transactions or professional licenses involved, must be added, and the agency(s) involved may need to promulgate new regulations to implement the strategy.

 

Cost considerations: Small start-up costs to the government agencies responsible for the collection of the new fees or surcharges can be expected, but no further costs should exist beyond this transition period.

 

Timing issues: None.

 

Feasibility of Implementation:  Moderate. Political will, bolstered by the support of individuals, community and statewide organizations, and those who have been adversely affected by lead poisoning will be key to implementing this strategy. Partnering with professionals in the real estate or insurance worlds who are concerned about or aware of lead hazards in homes would also be useful.  

 

Potential Obstacles/Barriers

The lack of political will to impose a new fee or surcharge is the major obstacle that could block the realization of this strategy. Once put in place, a license surcharge strategy may have to overcome overburdened licensing agencies or inefficient transfer of revenues. A minimal fee on real estate transactions is not likely to face significant implementation barriers.  

 

Additional Resources

 

 

 

ILLUSTRATION OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE

In Massachusetts, surcharges are imposed on the annual fees of a variety of professional licenses. These surcharges are imposed on individuals licensed as real estate brokers and property and casualty insurance agents, as well as on mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, small loan agencies, and individuals licensed to perform lead inspections. The surcharge is generally $25 per license or renewal, though mortgage brokers, lenders, and small loan agencies pay a $100 surcharge. The strategy was enacted by the state in 1993 to provide additional funds to the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Amounts raised by the surcharges are deposited into a retained revenue account, known as the Lead Paint Education and Training Trust Account, for use by the Department of Health in lead poisoning prevention activities, including primary prevention efforts.

 

Jurisdiction or Target Area
Massachusetts

 

Primary Actor

Dept. of Public Health, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program; Dept. of Labor and Industries; Div. of Professional Licensure; Div. of Banks; Div. of Insurance.


Staffing utilized

0.5 FTE.

 

Other resources utilized

 

 

Factors essential to implementation

The cooperation of professionals impacted by this strategy is key, as is the level of priority each licensing board places on collecting the surcharges. Two additional factors are essential to the continuing implementation of this strategy: 1. The continued existence of the statutory authority contained in the Acts of 1993; and 2. The timely distribution of the surcharges to the Trust Account for disbursement to DPH.

 

Limitations/challenges/problems encountered

There have been no major challenges in implementing the surcharge strategy. However, the Office of the State Auditor found that some professions were not being billed for the surcharge in a timely manner in 2000; the responsible agency subsequently corrected the problem, and in 2002, the Legislature mandated that it collect the surcharge in direct connection with the license renewal process.

 

Magnitude of Impact/Potential Impact

The surcharge strategy raises about $1.25 million per year for DPH/CLPPP. This gives the department and the program much needed funds to engage in a variety of childhood lead poisoning prevention activities.

 

Potential for Replication

Moderate. In states with sufficient political will, fee-based funding strategies, such as surcharges on specific professional licenses, could be readily replicated.

 

Contact for Specific Information
Paul Hunter
Director
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
617-624-5757
paul.hunter@state.ma.us
Mary Madden
Supervisor
Agent & Broker Licensing
Division of Insurance
617-521-7794
Mary.Madden@state.ma.us

 

References for additional information
1. - Mass. Acts of 1993, Chapter 482, Section 22
2. http://www.state.ma.us/dph/clppp/clppp.htm - Mass. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

 

Previous Building Block
Establish A Revolving Fund to Stretch Dollars
Next Building Block
Impose Taxes or Fees on Polluters