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 |
-"- |
60.00
|
24.64 |
35.36
|
41% |
|
24 |
Basavakalyana |
1990-91 |
10.47
|
10.47 |
- |
100% |
|
25 |
Udupi |
-"- |
64.52
|
64.52 |
- |
100% |
|
26 |
Kolar |
-"- |
103.50
|
49.00 |
54.50
|
47% |
|
27 |
Shikaripura |
-"- |
36.00
|
36.00 |
- |
100% |
|
28 |
Malavalli |
1991-92 |
93.90
|
40.32 |
53.58
|
43% |
|
29 |
Rabakavi
Banahatti |
-"- |
20.00
|
20.10 |
(0.10) |
101% |
|
30 |
Chinthamani |
-"- |
103.00
|
93.16 |
9.84 |
90% |
|
31 |
Chickmagalur |
-"- |
29.10
|
29.10 |
- |
100% |
|
32 |
Dhandeli |
-"- |
92.00
|
92.00 |
- |
100% |
|
|
8th plan
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
33 |
Tiptur |
1992-93 |
98.13
|
98.13 |
- |
100% |
|
34 |
Badami |
-"- |
59.82
|
59.82 |
- |
100% |
|
35 |
Gowribidanur |
-"- |
91.40
|
59.07 |
32.33
|
65% |
|
36 |
Gurumitkal |
-"- |
17.08
|
17.08 |
- |
100% |
|
37 |
Saundatti |
-"- |
40.00
|
40.90 |
(0.90) |
102% |
|
38 |
Byadagi |
-"- |
51.72
|
51.71 |
0.01 |
100% |
|
39 |
Karwar |
-"- |
76.66
|
66.15 |
10.51
|
86% |
|
40 |
Bidar |
1993-94 |
83.60
|
85.59 |
(1.99) |
102% |
|
41 |
Haveri
|
-"- |
70.92
|
70.74 |
0.18 |
100% |
|
42 |
Bellary |
-"- |
173.40
|
173.40 |
- |
100% |
|
43 |
Madhugiri |
-"- |
20.00
|
20.00 |
- |
100% |
|
44 |
Ilkal |
-"- |
38.68
|
38.67 |
0.01 |
100% |
|
45 |
K.R.Nagar |
-"- |
20.16
|
25.51 |
(5.35) |
127% |
|
46 |
Nippani |
-"- |
110.84
|
148.01 |
(37.17) |
134% |
|
47 |
Doddaballapur |
-"- |
106.00
|
94.66 |
11.34
|
89% |
|
48 |
Bailahongal |
1993-94 |
119.90
|
121.43 |
(1.53) |
101% |
|
49 |
Mulbagal |
-"- |
53.68
|
53.68 |
- |
100% |
|
50 |
Mudlagi |
-"- |
120.00
|
120.00 |
- |
100% |
|
51 |
Lingasagur |
-"- |
36.68
|
36.68 |
- |
100% |
|
52 |
Mandya |
1994-95 |
287.45
|
117.63 |
169.82
|
41% |
|
53 |
Bijapura |
-"- |
185.58
|
211.18 |
(25.60) |
114% |
|
54 |
Laxmeswar |
-"- |
98.18
|
60.44 |
37.74
|
62% |
|
55 |
Shiggaov |
-"- |
50.10
|
50.10 |
- |
100% |
|
56 |
Savanur |
-"- |
87.66
|
74.90 |
12.76
|
85% |
|
57 |
Gadag Betgeri |
-"- |
283.54
|
218.99 |
64.55
|
77% |
|
58 |
Kottur |
-"- |
56.80
|
56.80 |
- |
100% |
|
59 |
Maluru |
-"- |
113.60
|
75.06 |
38.54
|
66% |
|
60 |
Shorapur |
-"- |
92.97
|
79.65 |
13.32
|
86% |
|
61 |
Kundapura |
-"- |
116.57
|
77.00 |
39.57
|
66% |
|
62 |
Sidlagatta |
-"- |
74.00
|
78.45 |
(4.45) |
106% |
|
|
TOTAL |
|
4,853.32
|
4,330.21 |
523.11
|
89% |
Under the new guidelines where the financial assistance by Central &
State is treated as grant (From 1995-96) 107 towns were selected
and sanctioned. Following are the performance table.
|
Under New
Guidelines Up to July 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rs. in lakhs |
|
|
Sl.No |
Name of the Town |
Year of Selection |
Amount Released by Govt. |
Expeinditure
|
Unspent balance
|
% of expenditure
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
|
8th plan |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Arsikere |
1995-96 |
135.97 |
126.75 |
9.22 |
93% |
|
2 |
Hunsur |
" |
140.82 |
110.90 |
29.92 |
79% |
|
|
Gajendragad |
" |
150.00 |
101.95 |
48.05 |
68% |
|
4 |
Sira |
" |
150.00 |
111.46 |
38.54 |
74% |
|
5 |
Bangarpet |
" |
109.49 |
73.01 |
36.48 |
67% |
|
6 |
Koppal |
" |
149.99 |
158.19 |
-8.20 |
105% |
|
7 |
Kadur |
" |
140.46 |
140.46 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
8 |
Holenarasipur |
1996-97 |
148.33 |
111.40 |
36.93 |
75% |
|
9 |
Chincholi |
" |
79.99 |
61.13 |
18.86 |
76% |
|
10 |
Muddabehal |
" |
100.00 |
95.36 |
4.64 |
95% |
|
11 |
Harapanahalli |
" |
150.00 |
186.25 |
-36.25 |
124% |
|
12 |
Chennagiri |
" |
79.99 |
79.99 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
13 |
Ron |
" |
79.99 |
45.90 |
34.09 |
57% |
|
14 |
Hassan |
" |
299.99 |
303.99 |
-4.00 |
101% |
|
|
9th
Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
Shimoga |
1997-98 |
172.88 |
74.12 |
98.76 |
43% |
|
16 |
Hoskote |
1998-99 |
150.00 |
49.91 |
100.09 |
33% |
|
17 |
Gundlupet |
" |
145.83 |
34.50 |
111.33 |
24% |
|
18 |
Navalgund |
1999-00 |
71.66 |
21.66 |
50.00 |
30% |
|
19 |
Manvi |
1999-00 |
125.00 |
34.44 |
90.56 |
28% |
|
20 |
Gulbarga |
" |
408.97 |
137.97 |
271.00 |
34% |
|
21 |
Davangere |
" |
349.99 |
121.65 |
228.34 |
35% |
|
22 |
Athani |
2000-01 |
77.50 |
24.04 |
53.46 |
31% |
|
23 |
Aland |
" |
50.00 |
48.45 |
1.55 |
97% |
|
24 |
Birur |
" |
150.00 |
46.68 |
103.32 |
31% |
|
25 |
Devanahalli |
" |
69.15 |
26.33 |
42.82 |
38% |
|
26 |
Chamrajnagar |
2001-02 |
75.00 |
63.13 |
11.87 |
84% |
|
27 |
Mundargi |
" |
20.50 |
20.50 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
28 |
Kerur |
2001-02 |
38.17 |
38.17 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
29 |
Hangal |
" |
75.00 |
70.00 |
5.00 |
93% |
|
30 |
Indi |
" |
150.00 |
75.00 |
75.00 |
50% |
|
31 |
Tumkur |
" |
174.99 |
174.99 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
|
10th
Plan |
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
32 |
Konnur |
" |
40.00 |
24.39 |
15.61 |
61% |
|
33 |
Khanapur |
" |
31.66 |
31.66 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
34 |
Yadgiri |
" |
59.16 |
58.40 |
0.76 |
99% |
|
35 |
Arakalagud |
" |
14.16 |
11.73 |
2.43 |
83% |
|
36 |
Mahalingapur |
" |
128.88 |
63.33 |
65.55 |
49% |
|
37 |
Mulagunda |
" |
40.00 |
25.20 |
14.80 |
63% |
|
38 |
Bhalki |
2002-03 |
72.83 |
0.00 |
72.83 |
0% |
|
39 |
Chitaguppa |
" |
38.61 |
0.00 |
38.61 |
0% |
|
40 |
Anekal |
" |
54.36 |
28.99 |
25.37 |
53% |
|
41 |
Nelamangala |
" |
28.00 |
0.00 |
28.00 |
0% |
|
42 |
Haliyala |
" |
33.00 |
22.10 |
10.90 |
67% |
|
43 |
Channarayapatna |
" |
50.86 |
39.07 |
11.79 |
77% |
|
44 |
Bantwala |
" |
43.30 |
20.75 |
22.55 |
48% |
|
45 |
Annigeri |
" |
75.00 |
10.14 |
64.86 |
14% |
|
46 |
Alnavar |
" |
40.00 |
29.02 |
10.98 |
73% |
|
47 |
Hosadurga |
" |
23.86 |
23.86 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
48 |
Bellary |
" |
176.60 |
85.32 |
91.28 |
48% |
|
49 |
Bagalkot |
" |
114.40 |
27.85 |
86.55 |
24% |
|
50 |
Humnabad |
" |
74.99 |
0.00 |
74.99 |
0% |
|
51 |
Kanakapura |
" |
47.27 |
0.00 |
47.27 |
0% |
|
52 |
Mudabnidri |
" |
61.25 |
29.72 |
31.53 |
49% |
|
53 |
Naragunda |
2002-03 |
64.45 |
0.00 |
64.45 |
0% |
|
54 |
Kunigal |
" |
42.08 |
42.08 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
55 |
Tiptur |
" |
30.26 |
30.00 |
0.26 |
99% |
|
56 |
Gubbi |
" |
27.20 |
27.20 |
0.00 |
100% |
|
57 |
Raibhag |
" |
80.00 |
38.57 |
41.43 |
48% |
|
58 |
Turuvekere |
" |
28.60 |
24.00 |
4.60 |
84% |
|
59 |
Gokak |
" |
86.66 |
71.31 |
15.35 |
82% |
|
60 |
Kudachi |
" |
80.00 |
39.06 |
40.94 |
49% |
|
61 |
Molakalmur |
2003-04 |
28.80 |
12.00 |
16.80 |
42% |
|
62 |
Basavana
Bagewadi |
" |
75.00 |
0.00 |
75.00 |
0% |
