Integrated Development of Small & Medium Towns (IDSMT)
Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) is a centrally sponsored scheme, which is covers with a population up to 5 lakhs. The IDSMT scheme was initiated in the Sixth Plan (1979-80). And continued in subsequent years.
The objectives of the IDSMT scheme, is to take up integrated development of small and medium Towns that are capable of generating economic growth and employment, so that the push factor from these towns to larger cities is arrested. The scheme is targeted at strengthening small and medium towns as regional growth centers, so that migration to large and metropolitan cities is reduced. A “harmonious pattern of settlements” is thus envisaged with the establishment of complementary linkages between villages, towns and cities.
The mid-term appraisal of the Eighth Five year Plan lead to the revision of guidelines for the IDSMT Scheme that had been formulated earlies during the sixth Plan period. The Chief consideration for revision were the enactment of the constitution( 74 th Amendment) Act, 1992 and the economic reforms which lay emphasis on strengthening of infrastructure and service facilities in growth centers with a view to enhancing their capacity to attract private investment.
Coverage:
IDSMT is applicable to towns/cities with population up to 5 lakhs subject to the stipulation that about 1/3rd of the total amount available each year for the scheme as a whole, isl be allocated to towns with less than 50,000 population. Towns are categorized for the purpose of assistance under IDSMT as follows.
|
Population |
Category |
|
Less than 20,000 |
A |
|
20,000 to 50,000 |
B |
|
50,000 to 1,00,000 |
C |
|
1,00,000 to 3,00,000 |
D |
|
3,00,000 to 5,00,000 |
E |
Financing Pattern:
The financing pattern under the IDSMT scheme is shown in the table below:
(Rs. in lakhs)
|
Sl. No. |
Category of Town (population) |
Project cost |
Central Assistance (Grant) Maximum |
State Share (Grant) |
HUDCO/Financial Institution Loan/Other Sources |
|
1 |
A less than 20,000 |
100 |
48 |
32 |
20 (20%) |
|
2 |
B(20,000-50,000 |
200 |
90 |
60 |
50(25%) |
|
3 |
C (50,000-1,00,000) |
350 |
150 |
100 |
100 29% |
|
4 |
D ( 1-3 Lakhs) |
550 |
210 |
140 |
200 (36%) |
|
5 |
E (3-5 lakhs) |
750 |
270 |
180 |
300 (40%) |
State Urban Development Strategy:
The State Governments are required to formulate State Urban Development Strategy FOR THE NEXT 10 years and give comprehensive reasoning for proposing towns under the IDSMT scheme. The selection has to be done carefully after studying in depth the stage of development, growth potential, employment generation capacity, centrality, nodal functions, relative importance of towns in their regional setting, etc. The states are required to submit the list of selected towns in order to priority along with brief proposals in prescribed formats and copies of their State Urban Development Strategy papers to the ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment.
The major objectives of formulating KUDS are:
1. To identify the past trends of urbanisation.
2. To prepare a scenario of future urbanisation.
3. To assess the future growth and development pattern of Human Settlement (Urban) with a
special emphasis on small and medium towns.
4. To examine the existing infrastructure and service levels.
5. To outline the current status of local self Government in the State and its
policies in Municipal reforms.
6. To forecast the urban population at the State as well as at the district levels.
7. To suggest the methodology and indicators for identification, prioritization and selecting small and
medium towns for integrated Development of such towns under IDSMT scheme.
MODE OF SANCTION:
A sanctioning Committee at the State level will consider the IDSMT appraisal reports submitted by TCPO/HUDCO/Financial institutions. After approval by the sanctioning committee, recommendations (along with minutes of meeting) will be sent to the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment through TCPO for release of Central assistance. The composition of the IDSMT Sanctioning Committee at the State level will be as follows:
|
Secretary, Urban Development /Local Government (in charge of IDSMT) |
Chairman |
|
Secretary, Finance |
Member |
|
Director(Town & Country Planning) |
Member |
|
Commissioner/Director (Muncipal Administration) |
Member |
|
Representative of MUA&E |
Member |
|
Representative of Planning Commission |
Member |
|
Representative of TCPO |
Member |
|
Representative from Financial Institution/Hudco |
Invitee |
The Committee will select the towns based on the Urban Strategy paper. The selected towns will submit the project report to TCPO through Government of Karnataka.
SCHEME APPRAISAL:
TCPO will be the nodal agency for appraisal of IDSMT Project proposals. Municipalities/State Governments will submit project reports to TCPO at least 15 days before the date of Sanctioning Committee Meeting. Indicative guidelines for the preparation of IDSMT Project reports are given at Annexure IV. TCPO will scrutinize the proposals and present reports to the IDSMT Sanctioning Committees at the State level.
The Sanctioning Committee based on the assessment reports will approve the project reports of the towns. On the approval of the State Committee, Urban development Department, Government of India will release the funds to the State Government.(In 5 year period) The State Government along with its share will release the funds to the Urban Local bodies.
STATUS OF IDSMT TOWNS IN KARNATAKA:
Under the old guidelines where the finacial assistance was loan, 62 towns were selected: the following are the Towns:
|
Under Old Guidelines Up to July 2005 |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
(Rs. in lakhs) |
|
|
|
|
Sl. No. |
Name of the Town |
Year of Selection |
Total Amount Released |
Expenditure |
Unspent balance |
% of Expenditure |
|
|
|
6th plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Channapatna |
1983-84 |
89.87 |
89.87 |
- |
100% |
|
|
2 |
Kanakapura |
-"- |
71.96 |
65.63 |
6.33 |
91% |
|
|
3 |
Magadi |
-"- |
37.00 |
37.00 |
- |
100% |
|
|
4 |
Hospet |
-"- |
24.80 |
29.87 |
(5.07) |
120% |
|
|
5 |
Humnabad |
-"- |
76.38 |
74.66 |
1.72 |
98% |
|
|
6 |
Jamakhandi |
-"- |
43.26 |
43.26 |
- |
100% |
|
|
7 |
Chitradurga |
-"- |
39.84 |
39.84 |
- |
100% |
|
|
8 |
Karkala |
-"- |
33.47 |
33.47 |
- |
100% |
|
|
9 |
Ranebennur |
-"- |
60.01 |
60.18 |
(0.17) |
100% |
|
|
10 |
Shahapur |
-"- |
107.10 |
107.10 |
- |
100% |
|
|
11 |
Hassan |
-"- |
80.00 |
83.24 |
(3.24) |
104% |
|
|
12 |
Holenarasipura |
-"- |
84.93 |
83.68 |
1.25 |
99% |
|
|
13 |
Kushalnagar |
-"- |
50.18 |
49.38 |
0.80 |
98% |
|
|
14 |
Raichur |
-"- |
36.68 |
40.00 |
(3.32) |
109% |
|
|
15 |
Sagara |
-"- |
67.20 |
67.20 |
- |
100% |
|
|
16 |
Tumkur |
-"- |
71.74 |
71.74 |
- |
100% |
|
|
|
7th plan |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
17 |
Ramanagaram |
1987-88 |
91.99 |
91.11 |
0.88 |
99% |
|
|
18 |
Gokak |
-"- |
92.48 |
92.48 |
- |
100% |
|
|
19 |
Harihar |
-"- |
63.40 |
73.68 |
(10.28) |
116% |
|
|
20 |
Chickballapur |
-"- |
75.24 |
75.24 |
- |
100% |
|
|
21 |
Kollegal |
1987-88 |
68.00 |
38.00 |
30.00 |
56% |
|
|
22 |
Sindhanur |
-"- |
40.18 |
42.84 |
(2.66) |
107% |
|
|
23 |
Sirsi |
| |||||