<<
>>

§ 1. Change of the territorial organisation of local government within the limits of municipal reform 2014-2016 (on an example of city districts)

A number of experts approve, that in large cities local government realisation only at city level has led in many cases to communication loss between the population and the city power. « In such large megacities the city municipal authority poorly supervised by city community having considerable material and financial resources, is remote from the population, therefore quite often it appeared is ineffective for maintenance of ability to live of the population, its activity was accompanied by corruption scandals, cases of no-purpose use of budgetary funds took place, doubtful privatisation of municipal property etc. the Two-level model of the organisation of local government is offered to be extended to large city districts. Two new kinds of municipal unions are for this purpose entered: city district with intracity division and intracity area. Creation of such city districts and intracity municipal unions will be carried out by laws of corresponding subjects of the Russian Federation. Questions of local value, sources of incomes of local budgets, structure of municipal property of city district with intracity division and intracity areas will be differentiated by laws of subjects of the Russian Federation and the charter of the such

70

City district ».

During municipal reform 2014-2016 have been legislatively entered two new kinds of municipal unions: city districts with [70] intracity division and intracity areas. According to ch. 1 items 2 of the Federal act № 131-FZ city district with intracity division - city district in which according to the law of the subject of the Russian Federation intracity areas as intracity municipal unions are formed. Intracity area - intracity municipal union on a part of territory of city district with intracity division in which borders the local government is carried out by the population directly and (or) through elective and other local governments. Criteria for division of city districts with intracity division into intracity areas are established by laws of the subject of the Russian Federation and the charter of the city

71

Districts with intracity division.

According to ch. 1.1 items 10 of the Federal act № 131-FZ investment of municipal unions with the status of city district with intracity division, intracity area is carried out by laws of subjects of the Russian Federation. According to ch. 7.1 items 13 of the Federal act № 131-FZ change of the status of city district in connection with investment with its status of city district with intracity division or deprivation of its status of city district with intracity division is carried out by the law of the subject of the Russian Federation taking into account opinion of the population of corresponding city district in

72

Conformity with its charter.

The given innovation, in our opinion, disputably.

In a science of the municipal right it was generated two points of view concerning an admissibility and expediency of division of city district on intracity areas.

According to the first point of view, divisions of large city districts into intracity areas it is admissible and it is expedient. So, N.L.Peshin specifies, that «large cities cannot cope as settlement - municipal unions, their local governments should in bolshej be approached [71 [72] degrees to the population, and the main criterion of definition of level on which local governments should be formed, there is a demographic criterion.

The city district necessarily should include the settlement which population has reached at least 100 thousand persons in the structure. This settlement should be divided into intracity areas, and these areas should have the status of municipal unions. As to questions of development of a city infrastructure, engineering networks and so forth they should dare at level of district which should act in the form of an administrative and territorial unit, i.e. The subject of the government ». According to V.I.Vasileva,« creation of regional municipalities can pull together local authorities with citizens and expand their participation in a city administrative office, is positive affect these affairs if, of course, at creation of the regional authorities the unity of municipal economy is not broken. The reservation in the Federal act № 131-FZ about necessity of preservation of a city as complete organism is not casual. Regional intracity municipal unions already existed earlier. Their formation was supposed by the Federal act № 154-FZ. But it was necessary to refuse them because of the dissociation of the municipal economy which has become by result razbalansirovannosti of powers of the city and regional authorities »[73 [74] [75].

According to the second point of view, divisions of large city districts into intracity areas it is inadmissible and inexpedient. Still V.S.Osnovin in work «City council - body of social management» underlined, that «... The city acts as unity of branch and territorial infrastructures that causes unity of management of it on branch and territorial lines» [76]. A.N.Kostyuk believes, that «local government carrying over on level of intracity areas practically completely will emasculate local government institute. The matter is that the city community which only also can be a local government basis, does not develop of regional communities. Certainly, people have the requirements connected directly with territory of their residing in a city. But interests of townspeople are not limited to it. Development prospects, the city environment, cultural space - all it is formed at city level as a whole, and the city community should have a casting vote in a choice from possible alternatives of the decision of the given questions. Not casually Law of RSFSR № 1550-1 contained the whole chapter 9, concerning bases of the organisation of management of a city, from the maintenance

77

To which followed, that the city should cope as a unit ». N.S. The cooper and A.A.Dzhagarjan underline, that« city settlements irrespective of width of the spatial borders are historically developed form of territorial self-organising of the population assuming unity of municipal economy ». In the decision of Omsk city council from 10.09.2014 № 920 «About the reference to working group concerning realisation in Omsk area of the Federal act № 136-FZ», deputies of Omsk city council asked working group «to recommend to the House of Assembly of Omsk area to keep existing model of local government in the city of Omsk including for the reason that absence of crushing of a city on set of small intracity areas allows to solve complex questions of an accomplishment, buildings, the infrastructure developments which effective decision in borders of a city of Omsk broken into intracity areas with the extremely poor budgets,

79

It is impossible ». [77 [78] [79]

The constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decision from 01.12.2015 № 30-P has stated the following legal position: « ... Taking into consideration influencing local government realisation in city district.federalnyj the legislator at entering by the Federal act № 136-FZ respective alterations in the Federal act № 131-FZ has considered factors necessary to isolate as separate kinds of municipal unions city districts with intracity division, and also intracity areas a part such city districts. G orodskie districts with the intracity division, intended, as well as all other municipal unions, irrespective of their territorial basis, for municipal authority realisation as the authorities of local community, by the legal nature represent the municipal unions combining qualities of territorial association of citizens, in common realising on corresponding territory the right to local government, and qualities of the publicly-territorial unit integrated into system of state-imperious relations which bodies of public authority urged not only to solve questions of local value, but also to participate in realisation in the territory of the state functions, first of all - executing the separate state powers assigned to them by the Russian Federation or the subject of the Russian Federation ».

Let's consider separate aspects of introduction of two new kinds of municipal unions. Questions of local value of city district with intracity division are fixed in Federal act article 16 № 131-FZ and are similar to questions of local value of usual city district. Drawing up and consideration of the budget statement of city district, the statement and execution of the budget of city district, control of its execution, drawing up and the statement of the report on execution of the budget of city district concern them; an establishment, change and cancellation of local taxes and gathering of city district; possession, using and the order property, [80] being in the municipal property of city district; the organisation in borders of city district elektro - warmly - gazo - and water supply of the population, water removal, supply of the population by fuel; Realisation within the powers of actions for maintenance of the organisation of rest of children during vacation time, including actions for maintenance of their safety

About і

Life and health; other questions of local value (all nearby 40).

According to ch. 3 items 16 of the Federal act № 131-FZ can be established by laws of subjects of the Russian Federation additional questions of local value of city districts with intracity division with transfer of material resources necessary for their realisation and financial assets.

Questions of local value of intracity area are fixed in Federal act article 16.2 № 131-FZ. Their number is much less, than at city district. The basic questions of local value of intracity area concern: formation, the statement, execution of the budget of intracity area and the control over execution of the given budget; an establishment, change and cancellation of local taxes and gathering; possession, using and the order the property which is in the municipal property; maintenance of primary measures of fire safety in borders of intracity area; creation of conditions for maintenance of inhabitants of intracity area with a telecommunication service, public catering, trade and consumer services; creation of conditions for the organisation of leisure and maintenance of inhabitants of intracity area with services of the organisations of culture; maintenance of conditions for development in territory of intracity area of the physical

Cultures, school sports and mass sports; other questions of the local

82

Values.

According to ch. 2 items 16.2 of the Federal act № 131-FZ with intracity division and accepted according to them the charter of intracity area behind [81 [82] intracity areas can be fixed by laws of the subject of the Russian Federation and the charter of city district also other questions from among established according to the Federal act № 131-FZ questions of local value of city districts. According to ch. 3 items 16.2 of the Federal act № 131-FZ powers of local governments of city district with intracity division and local governments of intracity areas under the decision of questions of local value of intracity areas can be differentiated by laws of the subject of the Russian Federation between local governments of city district with intracity division and local governments of intracity areas.

In sootv. With ch.ch. 4-5 items 16.2 of the Federal act № 131-FZ structure of municipal property of intracity areas are defined by laws of subjects of the Russian Federation and the charters of city districts accepted according to them with intracity division and charters of intracity areas according to the list of questions of the local value, the Federal act established for intracity areas № 131-FZ and laws of subjects of the Russian Federation. Sources of incomes of local budgets of intracity areas are defined by laws of subjects of the Russian Federation and the charters of city districts accepted according to them with intracity division and charters of intracity areas proceeding from necessity of preservation of unity of municipal economy.

As approves the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decision from 01.12.2015 № 30-P: «... Isolation as separate kinds municipal

Formations of city districts with intracity division and intracity areas entering into their structure it is caused by aspiration in addition to guarantee to citizens possibility of direct participation in the decision of the questions of the local most closely connected with their daily needs

84

Values ».

The declared purpose of the given transformations - local authorities approach to the population, the citizen of real possibility to accept maintenance [83 [84]

Participation in management of a city or settlement. The analysis pravoprimenitelnoj practice of subjects of the Russian Federation shows, that the specified purposes of reform are not reached.

In practice from 67 cities with intracity division on which reform first of all has been calculated, the two-level model is entered only

85 86 87

In Chelyabinsk, Samara and Makhachkala. Sharp increase of the crisis phenomena in the Russian economy has not allowed to extend the given organizational model to other large cities as it demands serious budgetary injections.

In designated above city districts laws of corresponding subjects of the Russian Federation form intracity areas. In Chelyabinsk it is formed seven intracity areas: Kalininsky, Kurchatovsky, Lenin, Metallurgical, Soviet, Traktorozavodsky, Central. In Samara it is formed nine intracity areas: Railway, Kirov, Krasnoglinsky, Kuibyshev, Lenin, October, Industrial, Samara, Soviet. In Makhachkala it is formed three intracity areas - Kirov, Lenin, Soviet.

Accordingly, in each intracity area of each city district with intracity division representative bodies and local administration are generated. We will illustrate the given practice (tab. 2). [85 [86] [87]

Number of deputies of representative bodies of city districts with intracity division and intracity areas as of March, 1st, 2017

Table 2

Intracity area CHislennos Norm
t predstavitelst
Deputies va deputies
The city vnutrigorodskog
(vnutrigo About area in
rodskogo) Representatively
predstavi M body
telnogo The city
Body Districts
The Chelyabinsk city district 49
Kalininsky intracity area 25 7
Kurchatovsky intracity area 25 7
Lenin intracity area 25 7
Metallurgical intracity area 25 7
The Soviet intracity area 25 7
Traktorozavodsky intracity area 25 7
The central intracity area 25 7
City district Samara 41
Railway intracity area 28 4
The Kirov intracity area 38 8
Krasnoglinsky intracity area 36 3
Kuibyshev intracity area 32 3
Lenin intracity area 24 2
October intracity area 26 2
Industrial intracity area 40 9
The Samara intracity area 26 2
The Soviet intracity area 34 6
G orodskoj district «G orod Makhachkala» 45
The Kirov intracity area 27 15
Lenin intracity area 27 15
The Soviet intracity area 25 15

Taking into account that the Chelyabinsk municipal duma is formed by election of structure of representative bodies of intracity areas on seven persons from each representative body of intracity area according to equal irrespective of a population of intracity areas a rate of representation, the aggregate number of the deputy case constitutes 170 persons.

Taking into account that the Duma of city district Samara is formed by election of structure of representative bodies of intracity areas according to the following rate of representation: from a representative body of Railway area - 4 persons; from a representative body of the Kirov area - 8 persons; from a representative body of Krasnoglinsky area - 3 persons; from a representative body of Kuibyshev area - 3 persons; from a representative body of Lenin area - 2 persons; from a representative body of October area - 4 persons;

From the Industrial region representative body - 9 persons;

From a representative body of the Samara area - 2 persons;

From a representative body of the Soviet area - 6 persons, the aggregate number of the deputy case constitutes 325 persons.

Taking into account that the meeting of deputies of city district with intracity division "city of Makhachkala" is formed by election of structure of representative bodies of intracity areas on fifteen persons from each representative body of intracity area according to equal, irrespective of a population of intracity areas, a rate of representation, the aggregate number of the deputy case constitutes 124 persons.

Sharp increase in number of deputies, numbers of municipal employees, creation of independent local governments at level of intracity areas, other organizational questions will demand considerable material and financial resources, organizational expenses, there will be disputes concerning legitimacy of reference of separate questions of local value to conducting municipal unions of different level.

Questions of financial independence of city district of intracity areas dare the budgetary legislation and the legislation on taxes and tax collections. According to item 64.1 of the Budgetary code of the Russian Federation in budgets of intracity areas tax incomes of the following local taxes established by representative bodies of intracity areas according to the legislation of the Russian Federation about taxes and tax collections come under to transfer: the land tax - under the specification of 100 percent; the tax to property of physical persons - under the specification of 100 percent; tax incomes of the federal taxes and gathering, including the taxes provided by special tax modes, and (or) regional taxes under the specifications of deductions established by public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation; Tax incomes of the federal taxes and gathering, including the taxes provided by special tax modes, regional and (or) local taxes under the specifications of deductions established by representative bodies of city districts with intracity division according to item 63.1 BK the Russian Federation.

However, as marks O.I.Bazhenov «any sources of tax revenues in budgets of intracity areas city districts Chelyabinsks, Samara and Makhachkala do not provide. Financial maintenance of their activity is carried out at the expense of interbudgetary transfers from budgets of corresponding city district. Differently, the system of financing of intracity areas offered by the legislator substitutes a problem of financial independence (self-sufficiency) of intracity areas for a problem of their financial maintenance. Whatever were the sources of receipts in the regional budget, the financial position of intracity areas always directly depends on the discretion of the subject of Federation, city district, from character developing between them

- 89

Relations ».

In a similar situation it is difficult to count on the high importance of intracity area in a life of city district as single whole. As [88 [89] competence of local governments of intracity area ogranichenna, citizens are still deprived possibility of active participation in municipal authority realisation. The overall objective of municipal reform - local authorities approach to the population turns out, that, maintenance to the citizen of real possibility to take part in management of a city or settlement - and is not reached, as the real power at intracity areas as has not enough municipal unions. It is necessary to agree with O.I.Bazhenovoj approving, that the representative body of intracity area can only «act as a place of concentration and vypleska public discontent» [90].

According to O.I.Bazhenovoj, «unique way« decisions »problems of mutual relations of city district and intracity areas is is standard fixed functional independence of intracity area in a combination to political loyalty of intracity area and city district under the relation to each other. Such political loyalty provides working capacity of the city mechanism of management at the expense of bilaterial interaction, but opens thus possibilities for hidden, administrative as a matter of fact influences on intracity areas. Whether it is possible to argue in this situation on intracity area as municipal union?! Such control system represents rather doubtful alternative let and administrative, but at least openly administrative, to management in city district without two-level division» [91]. It is difficult to agree With O.I.Bazhenovoj's offer in view of the following.

Standard fastening of functional independence of intracity areas potentially very dangerously also bears in itself threat of that large cities (city districts with intracity division) as a whole can in due course actually start to function and cope as the public formations which are carrying out the government in the territory, and the local government will be carried out only at level of intracity areas. Besides, the city district as the uniform self-administrative whole disappears, and intracity areas become high-grade municipalities with the very limited competence. In addition to it, creation of intracity areas in city districts will not allow to strengthen the control of citizens over activity of the city authorities.

Possibility of realisation of two-level model at level of large cities with inevitability will entail delay of rates of their economic development as the large cities operated as a unit, are points of growth of regional economy. In urbanistics and the municipal right well-known the municipal economy unanimity. V.V. Tabolin marks: « Municipal economy - set of the legal and material relations arising between bodies of the city power and management and subjects of economic and other socially significant activity concerning use of material and non-material resources in interests of urban population ». As approves S.I. Priests« the unity of municipal economy should be understood, first of all, as unity of the branches constituting a city infrastructure, regulation and which service to carry out at city level »more effectively and more cheaply. Concentration of economic and human resources in city territory objectively causes their accelerated in comparison with other kinds of municipal unions economic development.« The economic science proves for a long time positive influence of a scale effect (differently - aglomeratsionnogo effect) on economic development. Transferring of local government about [92 [93] levels of a city on level of intracity areas levels a scale effect that will lead to delay of economic growth »[94].

In our opinion, replacement of local government with the government, reception by public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation of access to the economic resources concentrated in large cities that will provide to the higher officials of subjects of the Russian Federation the political power as well in the large cities located in its territory, - here the valid purpose of carried out municipal reform.

The situation when at creation and functioning of intracity areas there can be problems with uninterrupted maintenance of the population with utilities is rather probable, are possible judicial trials about an accessory of objects of municipal economy to municipal unions of different levels, repair and service of these objects, differentiation of the property right to the ground areas and other problems as the municipal economy unanimity will be broken.

We come to conclusion again, that introduction of two-level model at level of city districts will not bring positive effect - power approach to the population, however will generate weight of the most serious problems, such as infringement of the unanimity of municipal economy and threat of unreasonable intervention of public authorities in activity of local governments of city district.

In the circumstances the most obvious represent two ways of the further development of city districts, developments of mutual relations of local governments of city districts with public authorities. In the first case it is possible to try to realise A.N.Kokotova's offer and to make city districts a basis for local territorial level of the decentralised government [95]. In this case the status of municipal unions will be reserved only by intracity areas of city districts with intracity division. But for this purpose at first it is necessary to provide the two-level organisation of city districts in all territory of Russia. Considering, that for financial and other reasons to enter two-level system was possible only in three cities - administrative centres of subjects of the Russian Federation, - this problem practically not vypolnima.

In the second case city districts remain municipal unions, but public authorities will keep the serious legally fixed levers of influence on cities, centralisation process will be continued.

Neither the first, nor the second variant are not comprehensible to Russia.

As it is perfect obosnovanno writes N.S. The cooper, «to assign to subjects of the Russian Federation arrangement of city districts not simply doubtfully, but is inadmissible and it is dangerous, including from the point of view of possibility of their separation from the federal authority and creation of preconditions for a superfluous fragmentation of politiko-legal space of a uniform federative state» [96].

Thereupon T.M.Bjalkina very truly notices, that «creation of independent controls in city areas can be admissible only in very large cities what capitals of the states are, first of all, and in our legislation it has initially been provided concerning cities of federal value. In overwhelming majority of other large Russian cities it is not observed so essential variety of the population and serious distinctions in their interests and requirements to build the expensive two-level system of municipal authority fraught with conflicts, collisions of interests city and regional elite, management disorganisation as a whole. There is no necessity to transfer on all large Russian cities with intracity areas to practice of Moscow and St.-Petersburg as it does not lead to increase of efficiency of local government and elimination of problems available in it, and, on the contrary, promotes occurrence

97

New ».

Interesting experience of Canada where management optimisation by large city agglomerations throughout last thirty years was object both the scientific analysis, and scale legislative experiments is represented. It is necessary to notice, that reforming of territorial bases of local government in provinces of Canada went differentsirovanno, that is caused by decentralisation of the state and domination of public authorities of provinces in sphere of an establishment of the general principles of the organisation of local government within the jurisdiction. Nevertheless the general tendency in Canada is process of association and integration of municipal unions which has mentioned rural territories, but in bolshej degrees - large cities.

According to the known expert in the field of municipal management in Canada Andrew Sanktona, «two-level municipal unions on the basis of large cities are the unstable designs subject to internal contradictions and conflicts of parts constituting them"."Sankton gives an example two similar formations: Corporations of Incorporated Winnipeg (1961 - 1971) and Municipality of Incorporated Toronto (1953 - 1998). The corporation of Winnipeg consisted of 19 municipalities and

It was headed by the council formed on the basis of elections on election districts, specially cut so that to exclude representation in city council of the members representing only one subordinate municipality. Though such system also has been directed on minimisation of a phenomenon of regionalism, but finally has led to opposition of a city and the intracity municipalities convicting city council in isolation from interests of the population intracity [97 [98]

Municipal unions. In 1971 Winnipeg has been consolidated in the uniform

99

Municipality ».

In connection with the above-stated it is necessary to direct the munitsipalno-legal policy on the termination of the further unreasonable distribution of two-level model of the organisation of local government at level of large cities as its introduction breaks the municipal economy unanimity, leads to delay of economic development of a city, breaks off uniform city space on the intracity areas which are not possessing financial and functional independence, demands rather considerable budgetary injections, but thus does not approach municipal authority to the population, and does not allow the population to participate in a municipal union administrative office in which territory they live, that is the purposes of introduction of two-level model of the organisation of local government are not reached.

Thereupon we suggest to state ch. 7.1 items 13 of the Federal act № 131-FZ in the following edition: «Change of the status of city district in connection with investment with its status of city district with intracity division or deprivation of its status of city district with intracity division is carried out by the law of the subject of the Russian Federation taking into account opinion of the population expressed by carrying out of voting. Deprivation of municipal union of the status of city district with intracity division involves abolition of intracity areas».

<< | >>
A source: BLAGOV JURY VLADISLAVOVICH. REFORMING of the MUNICIPAL RIGHT of Russia During the NEWEST TIME. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Omsk -. 2017

More on topic § 1. Change of the territorial organisation of local government within the limits of municipal reform 2014-2016 (on an example of city districts):

  1. § 2. Development of legal regulation of local referenda, votings by a response of the deputy, a member of elected body of local government, the elective official of local government, voting by questions of change of borders of municipal union, municipal union transformation
  2. § 1. Development of institute of organizational models of local government in modern Russia (on an example of city districts)
  3. Chapter 2. REFORMING of TERRITORIAL BASES of LOCAL GOVERNMENT In the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  4. 3.6. The analysis of a specific saturation invazionnymi rastenijamimunitsipalnyh areas and city districts of the Voronezh area
  5. § 1.1. The constitution of the Russian Federation and the modern Russian legislation on the local government organisation
  6. councils of heads of territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in federal districts as subjects of inter-regional coordination
  7. § 3. Development of legal regulation of a descent of citizens, pravotvorcheskoj initiatives of citizens, territorial public self-management, public hearings, meetings of citizens, conferences of citizens, interrogation of citizens and other forms of direct realisation by the local government population
  8. §3. The role of territorial branch of dominating party in formation of local governments
  9. Rams Ilja Nikolaevich. MUNICIPAL PRAVOTVORCHESKY PROCESS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow-2016, 2016
  10. §1. The reasons of introduction lip and a territorial self-government.
  11. local government Questions.
  12. § 2. Transformation of an elective principle of bodies and officials of local government
  13. Collisions of the legislation of subjects of Russia on local government regulation
  14. § 1. The Pure democracy as the form of realisation of local government
  15. powers of local governments on legality maintenance in municipal union
  16. SUCHILIN Valery Nikolaevich. the LEGAL STATUS of ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS of MUNICIPAL UNIONS In the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The dissertation On competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws Tyumen - 2014, 2014
  17. § 2.2. The Munitsipalno-legal policy as the tool of development of local government
  18. attempt of correction of a terminological error within the limits of arbitration reform