Urban Reforms pptx Urban reforms assist in improving ULBs transparency, accountability

Urban reforms assist in improving ULBs transparency, accountability, financial status and credit worthiness and can provide the necessary platform for private investments in urban infrastructure and services thereby augmenting the concept of 'investor friendly' cities

1. URBAN LOCAL BODIES REFORMS ULB Reforms FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REFORMS E-GOVERNANCE REFORMS PRO-POOR REFORMS MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTING PROPERTY TAX USER CHARGES BSUP IEFSUP

2. What is meant by urban reforms? Urban reforms assist in improving ULBs transparency, accountability, financial status and credit worthiness and can provide the necessary platform for private investments in urban infrastructure and services thereby augmenting the concept of 'investor friendly' cities.

3. Category I: Financial Management Reforms Streamlining the municipal finance structure initiates a virtuous cycle of better service delivery, capital investment, increase in revenue and credibility resulting in empowerment and self sustainability of the ULBs. This category primarily focuses on the following two components: a) Improving the operational efficiency of ULBs – It includes the Municipal Accounting Reform.

4. Municipal Accounting Reform Cities were expected to make a transition from a largely cash based accounting system to a modern municipal accounting system, based on double entry and accrual principles, allowing an all-inclusive representation of ULBs assets and liabilities leading to better financial management, transparency and self reliance. b) Augmenting the source of funding – This component of financial management category includes Property Tax and User Charges Reforms.

5. Property Tax Reform Property Tax (PT) is the single most important tax revenue source available to an ULB. One of the main objectives of the 74th CAA was to make the ULBs efficient units of self governance. For this, ULBs had to be able to generate their own revenues. Guidelines of the PT Reform emphasized the need for proper mapping of properties using the Geographical Information System (GIS) system so that the ULB would be able to have a full record of properties in the city for inclusion in the tax net, enabling self-assessment (through a system which is formula driven and where the property owner can calculate the tax due) and improving collections to achieve at least 85% of the demand.

6. User Charges Reform Complete cost recovery of User Charges, as a mandatory reform of JnNURM required the ULBs to levy reasonable user charges for the services provided. For uninterrupted urban service delivery, linkages between asset creation and asset maintenance are necessary. Asset maintenance or Operation and Maintenance (O&M) in turn relies solely on cost recovery. Institutional frameworks for formulating policy on user charges has been considered important for initiatives in this category.

7. Category 2: E-Governance Reform The essence of the e-Governance reform was to bring about changes in traditional methods of management, administration and operation of ULBs with respect to service delivery. It simplifies the process of interaction between citizens and ULB staff, ULB staff and management and also the ULB and other departments related to municipal administration. This category includes innovative e-initiatives by ULBs in service delivery based on citizen centric approach .

8. Category 3: Pro-poor Reforms Commitment from ULBs to earmark funds and provide access to basic services to the urban poor communities was the rationale behind pro poor reforms. These reforms were crucial in achieving a part of city’s vision of improved quality of life and services. This category included two components :

9. a) Provision of Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP): Providing basic services improves quality of life and reduces vulnerabilities of poor communities. Initiatives in the domain of comprehensive assessment of poor communities, identification of deficiency indicators (infrastructure and socio-economic), logical framework for prioritization of urban poor clusters, and community based participatory approaches in implementation have been documented in the study.

10. b) Internal earmarking of funds for services to urban poor (IEFSUP): Earmarking of funds for the urban poor constitute separate budget provisions and targets for expenditure .