Q&A regarding usage fees and fees revised on April 1, 2020

Regarding the revision of various usage fees and fees from April 1st, we posted it on the January 15th, 2020 issue of Koho Inagi and announced it on our website. This time, we will organize the opinions and questions that were sent after that, and post the answers about them. This Q&A is also published in the March 1, 2020 issue of Koho Inagi.

Note: Please see the following page for the revised amount and calculation standards. If you have any questions, please contact each person in charge.
We ask for your understanding and cooperation.

A The purpose of this review is to achieve "sustainable administrative management," "optimization of the burden on users and non-users," and "response to the consumption tax hike."

There are costs involved in running a government and providing services. The main source of funds for this expense is the city tax, but it is not possible to cover everything with the city tax alone. The amount of city tax is far short of the total amount of expenditure, and it depends on revenue other than city tax, such as grants and subsidies from the national and metropolitan governments, and usage fees and fees are important income for the city. is.

For example, in the budget for 2019, city tax income is about 15,337 million yen, which is only 43% of the general account's 35,694 million yen. The city is making efforts to secure other income, but most of the subsidies from the national government and the Tokyo metropolitan government are financial resources with a specific purpose and cannot be used freely. On the other hand, in recent years, the obligatory expenses necessary for administrative issues such as child care support, welfare for the elderly, and welfare for the disabled have been increasing steadily, and in the situation of chronic revenue shortages (excessive expenditures), funds (savings) We are doing financial management while doing the demolition of the.

In order to maintain necessary administrative services, the financial resources must be secured, and if the prospect of financial resources is not established, the administrative services themselves must be abolished or reduced. In general, the set amount of usage fees and fees collected from users of administrative services is kept at a level lower than the actual expenses, and the shortfall is covered by taxes. Therefore, if the amount is set too low compared to the actual cost, it will put pressure on the city's finances.

In order to maintain administrative services while tax revenues and other financial resources are limited, usage fees and commissions should be reviewed in a timely manner to set amounts that do not burden the public finances, and to receive appropriate compensation from service users. It is necessary.

The fee for use collects from user as consideration for use, the use of administrative property and public facility. Fees are collected to cover the cost of clerical work for a particular target audience.

The amounts of usage fees and commissions are set independently by each local government, taking into comprehensive consideration the costs required to provide services and the benefits received by users. However, usage fees and fees are not necessarily low. If the amount is too low, the amount of tax compensation will be large, and as a result, the financial resources that can be used for other administrative services will be reduced. Due to the nature of usage fees and fees to cover the expenses necessary for clerical work for specific users, if the amount of tax compensation becomes too large, it will be unfair to those who do not use the service. It will end up.

Consumption tax was introduced at 3% in 1989, raised to 5% in 1997, 8% in 2014, and 10% in 2019. On the other hand, many of the city's usage fees and fees have not been reviewed on a sequential basis, and the consumption tax rate has not been properly passed on or reflected.

A Regarding usage fees and commissions, from the perspective of fairness between those who use the service and those who do not, it is necessary to ask users, etc., to bear the burden based on appropriate calculation standards. Inagi City formulated the "Concept of Usage Fees and Calculation Standards" in 1997 and the "Concept of Fees and Calculation Standards" in 1999, and has calculated usage fees and fees based on these standards.

In 2011, we introduced a new public accounting system based on double-entry bookkeeping and the accrual basis, and from 2017, we shifted to a new public accounting system based on the “uniform standards” of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. It is now possible to grasp the full costs related to the management and operation of facilities and businesses, including depreciation expenses, etc., making it possible to calculate costs more accurately than ever before.

Based on the above, in order to achieve "sustainable administrative management" and "optimization of user burden", we have proposed a new use system that incorporates the perspective of the new public accounting system that utilizes full cost information including depreciation expenses. We decided to formulate the calculation standards for fees and the calculation standards for commissions. We explained at the city assembly general affairs committee on October 29, 2019, carried out a public offering of public opinions between October 30th and November 12th, and decided these standards after referring to the opinions we received. I'm here.

Based on these calculation standards, the city reviewed all the usage fees and fees stipulated in the ordinance and submitted them to the 4th municipal assembly regular meeting in December 2019.

A The result of calculating the expenses (costs) required to provide a service, not only direct expenses but also all necessary expenses, is called the cost based on the full cost.

For example, the cost of issuing a certificate is the cost of paper and ink if only direct costs are considered. It is also necessary to add the cost of building a database that manages information and the development and maintenance cost of a computer system that issues certificates.
Note: For details on the cost calculation method for usage fees and fees, please refer to the “Calculation Standards for Usage Fees” and “Calculation Standards for Fees” established on November 18, 2019.

A There is an opinion that it is okay for the city council to decide on important matters that affect the lives of citizens without even holding briefing sessions. It adopts an "indirect democracy" that entrusts the exercise of power and entrusts politics. The mayor has a wide range of administrative powers, but in order to ensure fairness and fairness, when deciding important matters for local governments, they are required to involve the decisions of the parliament (Article 96 of the Local Autonomy Law).

In this system, usage fees and fees are important matters that affect civic life, so they are stipulated in the ordinance. The mayor formulates the original draft of the ordinance, submits it to the city assembly as a bill, and the city assembly deliberates according to the procedure, and finally votes.

In the current system of indirect democracy, there are no procedural provisions that oblige citizens to hold briefing sessions before the assembly votes on the bill. The members of the city assembly deliberated carefully on bills as representatives of the citizens who were elected by election, and each was judged to be right or wrong.

A We received the opinion that we should not overhaul because it affects the lives of citizens, but as a result, unfairness occurs as a result of limiting the target of revision to a part. This is because usage fees and commissions should be borne by the specific person who receives the service, but not everyone uses the service equally.

In addition, when reviewing usage fees and fees, we do not mechanically revise them to "theoretically reasonable prices" and adjust them so that they do not increase significantly, taking into consideration the impact on the lives of citizens.

A The expenses (costs) required to provide services are calculated based on the full cost for each individual service, based on the "calculation standards for usage fees" and "calculation standards for fees." Calculate the full cost of this cost for one year, and convert it to the amount per service unit divided by the actual usage etc.

However, depending on the type of service, the nature of the costs differs, as to whether the cost should be covered entirely by usage fees and fees or only partially. Therefore, we will determine the proportion of public expenses based on the nature of the service, and the portion not covered by public expenses (the portion borne by users) will be the “theoretically appropriate price” for usage fees and fees. On top of that, if the theoretical reasonable price greatly exceeds the current unit price, consider mitigating the sudden increase in the burden, and also consider comparing the unit price with the same or similar service prices of the private sector and surrounding municipalities. The adjusted amount is the revised amount.
Note: See below for calculation results for individual items.

A As part of the review of the usage fee and fees, we revised the ordinance to charge for parking in the city hall, but this was not a sudden decision. In the city, in June 2011, we devised the "Parking Lot Charge Policy" and reported it to the City Council General Affairs Committee in July of the same year.

In line with this basic policy, we have submitted ordinance enactment and revision bills to the city council so far. (tennis courts), Wakabadai Park, and Inagi Kita Ryokuchi Park are gradually being charged.

About city hall and community promotion plaza, we were originally going to charge in 2015 by this basic policy. However, there were problems with the structure of the parking lot and the placement of vehicles, and since it was not possible to charge the parking lot as it was, it was decided to reconsider the implementation timing after the facility was completed.

Regarding the City Hall No. 1 Parking Lot, a large-scale renovation work was completed in 2017, and the surrounding parking lots are also on the verge of facility development, so this time, we will propose an ordinance by charging a fee within 2nd year of Reiwa. and passed.

A When we received a reference estimate from a parking lot management company for this ordinance proposal, it was shown that the balance would be in the red with a deficit of about 9 million yen. This revenue and expenditure forecast was a somewhat firm estimate in considering the profitability of the business. Until now, instead of opening the parking lot to the public for free as a parking lot for exclusive use of the city hall, it has been prohibited to use it by anyone other than the city hall users and is closed at night.

When the parking lot in the park was introduced to a fee, it was estimated that the income and expenditure would be on the verge of a deficit. Considering the location of the city hall and the fact that it can be used by non-city hall users after the charge is introduced, it is expected that the income and expenditure will be balanced.

By the way, the primary purpose of the parking lot charging is to prevent people who are not city hall users from parking for long periods of time. is in

The parking lots of the city hall are separated from each other, and it would be convenient if the first parking lot could be guided to the second parking lot when it was full. was If you try to display the vacancy status of each parking lot while keeping the parking lot free, you will have to assign at least one person to each parking lot and grasp the vacancy status in real time, which will incur considerable expenses. increase. In that respect, if you introduce a machine and charge a fee, you can display the availability of parking lots in real time on an electric bulletin board.

In other words, even if the revenue and expenditure of the parking lot itself is slightly in the red, compared to the convenience improvement of being able to display the vacancy status in real time, I think it is sufficiently cost effective.

Based on the "Calculation Standards for Usage Fees" and "Calculation Standards for Fees," the revisions to usage fees and fees were calculated for each individual service. The calculation results are as follows.

Full cost per year ÷ actual usage, etc. × (1 – public expenditure ratio) × 1.08
Note: If the public expenditure ratio is 30%, it will be calculated at 0.3.