A Shrinking Town's Grant: Arena or Childcare
A town in Aomori with 18,000 residents forecasts population falling to 15,000 by 2040. Its general fund budget is 12 billion yen; tax revenue fell 8% in three years; debt service is 2.16 billion yen per year (18% of the budget); the childcare waitlist is 45 children, and the 1985 sports arena needs 2.1 billion yen in repairs. The national government offers a one-time 1.5 billion yen grant that must be spent on either a new arena or childcare facilities, not on debt reduction. A new arena would cost 4.5 billion yen total and add 120 million yen per year in operating costs; childcare expansion would cost 1.8 billion yen and add 60 million yen per year, but would allow 30 more children to enroll and might attract 20 families. The town's bond repayment ratio is already above the national average.
1. Calculate the funding gap for each option after the grant, and assess which is more fiscally sustainable.
Read the worked answer
For the arena, the total cost is 4.5 billion yen, the grant covers 1.5 billion yen, so the local share is 3.0 billion yen. It also adds 120 million yen per year in operating costs. For childcare, the total is 1.8 billion yen, the grant covers 1.5 billion yen, so the local share is 0.3 billion yen, with 60 million yen per year in operating costs. Childcare is more fiscally sustainable: it requires one-tenth the local capital share and half the annual operating addition. The town already spends 18% of its budget on debt service, above the national average, so adding 3.0 billion yen of arena debt is risky. The 1.5 billion yen grant does not remove the need to repay the remaining local share.
2. Explain opportunity cost and intergenerational equity in choosing between the arena and childcare.
Read the worked answer
Opportunity cost is the value of the next-best use of the same grant and local funds. Choosing the arena gives up childcare expansion and any debt reduction the town could otherwise pursue; choosing childcare gives up the arena's recreation and possible local spending. Intergenerational equity asks who pays and who benefits. An arena's benefits are immediate, but its construction debt and 120 million yen annual upkeep fall on future residents. Childcare benefits young children and may attract 20 families, supporting future taxpayers, but it also carries a risk if population falls further. Because the grant cannot be used for debt reduction, the town should compare which option leaves future residents with the smaller burden and the greater capacity to pay.
3. Recommend a decision with one condition for using the grant, and explain a risk.
Read the worked answer
Recommend using the grant for childcare. The local capital gap is only 0.3 billion yen, the operating addition is 60 million yen per year, and the waitlist is 45 children, so the facility would be used immediately. The condition should be a confirmed enrollment and waitlist review before construction, with flexible rooms that can be shared if demand falls. A risk is that the population forecast proves too optimistic: if families do not move in, the town could have unused capacity and still owe operating costs. To manage that risk, the town should design multifunction space and set a review after three years. It should separately commission an independent estimate for the arena repairs rather than treating this decision as permanent rejection.