BBMP Restructuring Expert Committee Preliminary Report Dec 2014 Chairman: Members: B.S. Patil, IAS (Retd) Siddaiah, IAS (Retd) V. Ravichandar Manivannan P, IAS (Secretary)  2 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report BBMP RESTRUCTURING BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Contents 1.0 Context 1.1 Background 1.2 Government Order (GO) 4 2.0 Activities of the Expert Committee 2.1 Activities to date 2.2 Takeaways from the initial stakeholder meetings 6 3.0 Issues to be addressed by the Committee 9 4.0 Comparing Bengaluru with similar cities 11 5.0 Learnings from other cities 14 6.0 The next steps 18 Annexure 1 - Government Order 21 Annexure 2 - Some relevant articles and research papers 24 Annexure 3 - Some of the major acts applicable for Bengaluru 26 3 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 1. Context 1.1 Background Bangalore (now Bengaluru) has been one of the fastest growing urban regions in India. As illustrated in Figure 1, in the last 2 decades it has grown from 4.1 million in 1991 to 9.6 million in 2011. It is the largest single municipal corporation in India covering an area of 800 sq kms with a current population of over 10 million. >15 Million 15 10.1 Million 10 Population in Million 4 8.5 Million 5.7 Million 5 1 1941 1961 1981 2001 2011 2014 2030 Year Figure 1: Trajectory of Bengaluru’s population growth Source: India Census data, BBMP, Secondary sources In 2007, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) with an area of 226 sq kms catering then to a population of 6.5 million was amalgamated with 7 City Municipal Corporations (CMC), 1 Town Municipal Corporation (TMC)and 110 villages to form Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). This expanded the scope of BBMP to cover 800 sq kms, governing 8.2 million citizens. Figure 2 sets out the growth in population, area and number of Corporation wards since inception. Conservative estimates place Bengaluru at a population of 15 million by 2030 by assuming a 50% growth rate over the next 15 years. For the record, between 2001 and 2011 Bangalore grew by 48% in a decade. Population Area (in sq kms) Wards 1947 1980s 2007 2015 2030 0.9 Million 5.0 Million 8.2 Million 10 Million 15 Million 102 226 800 800 62 100 198 198 ? Figure 2: Bengaluru’s growth in population, area and wards Source: India Census data, BBMP, Secondary sources BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report The prime rationale for the amalgamation into BBMP was the poor governance and negligible infrastructure provisioning in the CMC / TMC and villages. A case was made that by integrating it with BMP, there was scope to optimize expenditure and bring in efficiencies of service delivery through access to better resources centrally. The 2007 amalgamation exercise primarily focused on expanding the physical boundaries to bring the extended area as one contiguous urbanised area. There was no road map about what was to be done about the peri-urban areas as they become increasingly urban in the years to come. At that point of time, it was felt that just adding the 98 wards to BMP to make it BBMP would make for vastly improved conditions in the newly added wards. With the passage of 7 years, there has been a gap in expectation versus the reality on the ground. The newer areas, particularly the 110 villages, continue to languish in terms of basic infrastructure even today. Neither governance nor service delivery improvements has accrued from the 2007 amalgamation exercise. This has shown that continuing amalgamation into larger municipalities is unsustainable. The State Government has realised that there is a need to address the issue of Bengaluru’s future governance and administration model starting with the restructuring of the BBMP. There are few widely held views about the BBMP. For one, it has become too large and unwieldy to be managed as a single Corporation and the state of infrastructure is under severe stress. To repeat, it is the largest, geographical urban area managed by a single Corporation in the country. The BBMP is starved of funds and experiences in other smaller municipalities show that property tax collection and compliance tends to better in smaller administered units. Aspects like centralised waste management practices in the BBMP area are taking a toll on the system and the neighbouring villages. The greater distance between elected representatives and the seat of power has led to neglect of many areas since it’s more difficult for their voices and concerns to be heard and acted on. Consequently in Sept 2014, the State Government set up a 3 member committee to study restructuring BBMP and set out its recommendations. 1.2 Government Order (GO) A Government order no. NaAaE484 MNY 2013 dated Sept 22, 2014, was issued setting up a 3 member committee with Mr. B.S. Patil, former Chief Secretary as the Chairman and Mr. Siddaiah, former BBMP Commissioner and Mr. V. Ravichandar, former Bangalore Agenda Task Force member as fellow members of the Committee. Mr. Manivannan P was designated the Member Secretary. This Government order suggested that the committee should recommend the best way to divide BBMP into multiple Corporations based on examples in India (Delhi, Kolkatta, Mumbai) and overseas (London). Subsequently, in an addendum note to the original GO, the goal for the committee was defined to provide better quality of life for all citizens in Bengaluru and recommendations in terms of appropriate government systems to restructure BBMP were sought. The Government Order with the addendum notes is set out in Annexure 1. 5 6 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 2. Activities of the Expert Committee 2.1 Activities to date Since the original GO issued on Sept 22, 2014, it took the Committee two months to get started on its tasks. This period was required to get greater clarity on the goals that should govern the Committee’s deliberations, the underlying guiding principles as the Committee went about its role, the status of the Committee and obtaining requisite infrastructure (premises, office set up) and budgets. While the Committee did 3 internal meetings since Oct 20, 2014, the external stakeholder reach out and consultations started with meeting the BBMP senior leadership on Nov 19, 2014. Additionally, the committee has started studying the earlier reports on Bangalore including the Dr.Kasturirangan Committee report. The Committee has been scanning secondary sources for literature on the subject – a list of some of the documents accessed is set out in annexure 2. Later in this preliminary report, some of the initial observations from these documents have been elaborated. To date, senior officials of the following departments and associations have been met for preliminary discussions – BBMP, BWSSB, BDA, BMRDA, DTCP, BESCOM, KPCTL, KPCL, Fire Force, Police, BMTC, ELCITA, Pollution Control Board, CREDAI and Industry Associations. Going forward, consultations are proposed to be held with the other relevant government agencies (DULT, Transport Commissioner, Sakala, Law, Slum Clearance Board, Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners – Bengaluru Urban and Rural), Elected representatives (MPs, MLAs, Corporators), Resident Welfare Associations, NGOs and Citizens. The Committee also proposes to meet with former Mayors and BBMP Commissioners to get their insights about the BBMP restructuring exercise. A web site is under construction and will be an important vehicle to disseminate the Committee’s activities and get feedback from Stakeholders, particularly Citizens. A very important element of the Committee’s consultations will be to understand the expectations of Citizens from the restructuring exercise. The Committee is applying its mind to find the best channels to obtain citizen inputs. An exercise of this magnitude with long lasting implications for the future of Bengaluru will need a detailed spatial analysis through the use of GIS. While many government agencies do have different levels of GIS information resident in their systems, it will be necessary to bring them all on one platform (with ward characteristics mapping as the focus) designed to serve the interests of the BBMP restructuring exercise. Subsequently, any gaps in the spatial information need to be worked on. The GIS maps will also focus on the following: • Base map: Transport infrastructure, Water bodies, Valleys, Built space, Open spaces • Population, Area and Boundaries Map: Wards, Population, Area, Households • Activity, Growth layer: Industries, Commercial, Construction activity, Future growth • Revenue layer: Property tax revenues • Services Map: Housing types, prices, Water, Sewerage, Energy, Education, Police, etc. The GIS exercise is proposed to be taken up from Jan 2015 and is expected to take 3-4 months. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 2.2 Takeaways from the initial Stakeholder meetings In meeting with the Government agencies and other stakeholders, the Committee posed a few questions for the participating agencies / organisations: • Understanding the roles, responsibilities and organisation structure of the agencies • Nature and Extent of involvement with BBMP • Challenges, if any, in meeting their goals in the BBMP area • Views on the proposed BBMP restructuring envisaged in the Government order. The Committee had meaningful exchanges in these consultations normally lasting around 90 minutes. Most of the agencies submitted background information in power point form and offered to supplement any additional data in future. While it is premature to come to any conclusion about the direction of the BBMP restructuring, the key points made: • It was mentioned to the Committee that the BBMP Council had passed a resolution opposing a division on grounds of diluting the brand image of Bangalore. • BBMP had become extremely large and unmanageable by a single central unit irrespective of the decentralised zones and other administrative arrangements. - It was opined that the 8 zones in existence were not scientifically planned and the 3 zones in erstwhile BMP area were overloaded with responsibilities. - It was felt that even if the administrative zones in BBMP were better structured, the overall service quality would still be below par without a stronger voice for the elected representative in smaller Corporation councils. - Most Stakeholders met were either in favour of multiple Corporations or opined that they were okay if it was done. - There were a few views that a single Corporation headed by an Additional Chief Secretary level person, supported by multiple decentralised Zonal officers, could address the citizen’s needs. - The Officers, particularly in higher executive positions were seriously stretched in meeting their role obligations and managing a system with 198 elected representatives (nearly the size of the State Assembly) was an extremely difficult task and not efficient in terms of responsiveness and service delivery to citizens. • BBMP has been unable to take over many of the layouts developed by BDA due to acute constraints in managing their current tasks. • There was a case made for a separate Act governing Bengaluru instead of the current KMC Act that is more suitable for cities with smaller population and different needs. 7 8 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report • Any restructuring activity, if decided, should be sensitive about the Valley lines, the water shed areas, existing infrastructure by the different agencies based on their service area definitions, etc. • Some industrial areas felt they were being neglected under the current arrangements and proposed that predominantly industrial areas need to come under independently managed Industrial township authorities. • One of the major problems of Bengaluru is solid waste management. It was felt the city would be better served by multiple Corporations since each unit could take local responsibility for their waste disposal. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 3. Issues to be addressed by the Committee While the original GO spoke about a BBMP division, in the light of the focus on BBMP restructuring, the Committee decided to keep an open mind on all possibilities including one where the decentralisation exercise covered only administrative decentralisation. The initial meetings with Stakeholders indicated that most were in favour of multiple Corporations with political devolution and administrative decentralisation. As will be seen from a later section in this preliminary report, based on other city case studies and comparison with Bengaluru, there seems to be a case for going down the route of multiple Corporations. However, the Committee felt that we should hear all Stakeholder viewpoints about the pros and cons of having multiple Corporations before arriving at a decision. As set out in the GO, the Committee is guided by two key objectives in this exercise. The outcome of the BBMP restructuring exercise has to result in better access to quality civic services by all citizens and clear cut accountability of all service providers. In this context, it will be necessary to clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of the elected representatives and the administration officials. This will need a detailed understanding of how the current roles and responsibilities are structured and the lacunae in the current arrangements. Another important element of the Committee’s task while deciding on the contours of what needs to be done on BBMP restructuring is to ‘tie up’ the governance and administrative mechanism at the larger regional level, the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area (BMA) so that Bengaluru looks, feels and operates as one composite experience city. So it will be a case of disaggregation and aggregation to achieve the end goals. The organisation structure at the decentralised, local level and the regional area and their interaction protocol will be an important component of the restructuring exercise. The outcome of the report needs to stand the test of time and must provide a road map for future municipalization with an appropriate logic as the city grows in size and area. The restructuring exercise proposes to look at the following components – spatial, governance, planning, infrastructure, administration and financial. 9 10 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 4. Comparing Bengaluru with similar cities Figure 3 sets out sample cities with a population of 4 million and above. It is noticed that of the 10 cities with population of over 9 million, only 2 cities in the world have a single Corporation (‘Dense’ Mumbai with an area of 463 sq kms and Bengaluru with an area of 800 sq kms). Further, once a city reaches the 7-8 million population range, the number of Corporations tends to rise from a solitary one to multiple Corporations. London (32) and Johannesburg (7) are exceptions in the sense that they had multiple Municipalities even at lower population levels. 4 - 9 Million Cities > 9 Million Population In Million Area in km2 Number of Corporations Kolkata 4.5 185 1 Johannesburg 5.1 1,645 Singapore 5.4 Chennai Population in Million Area in in km2 Number of Corporations Lima 9.1 2,672 43 7 Bengaluru 10.1 800 1 710 1 Jakarta 10.2 664 6 6.5 426 1 Seoul 10.4 605 25 Bogota 7.2 1,587 1 Sao Paulo 12.5 1,502 31 Hong Kong 8.0 1,104 1 Mumbai 12.5 438 1 Hyderabad 8.0 626 1 Istanbul 14.1 5,196 39 Ahmedabad 8.2 464 1 Tokyo 15 621 23 Greater London 8.2 1,572 32 Delhi 17 1,480 3 Pune 8.2 552 1 Dhaka 17 347 2 New York 8.4 1214 1 (Est. for 2014) Cities (Est. for 2014) Figure 3: Comparing global cities Source: India Census data, Web sources A listing of 20 cities with area, population and lowest elected unit is set out in Figure 4. In this chart, Bengaluru is shown as the reference base (intersection of the population and area axis). The Metropolitan view of the subject is interesting too for the large number of municipalities in the region (Figure 5). For regions with population between 14-26 million, the number of Municipalities range from 8-60 Municipalities. 10 7 Sydney Johannesburg Area Bogota 1500 km2 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 31 32 Sao Paulo Delhi London New York Number of Municipal Corporations Jakarta Hyderabad Chennai Bengaluru Population 6 500 km Singapore 15 Million 2 10 M 5 Million 800 km 2 Hong Kong 25 23 Seoul Tokyo Pune Ahmedabad Mumbai Dhaka Surat Figure 4: Comparing municipal structure of global cities (Bengaluru as base) Source: India Census data, Web sources City Regions Population In Million Area in km2 Number of Municipalities 12 8,000 Bangalore city 10.1 800 Kolkata Metropolitan Region 14.1 1,886 Kolkata 4.5 185 1 Municipal Corporation Mumbai Metropolitan Region 20 4,350 8 Municipal Corporations Mumbai 12.5 438 1 Municipal Corporation Mexico City Region 21.2 7,854 Mexico city 9 1,485 South East England 22 19,096 Greater London 8.2 1,572 32 Boroughs New York Metropolitan Region 23.5 34,500 31 Counties New York city 8.4 1,214 1 Government National Capital Region 54 34,100 20 Class-I cities Delhi Metropolis 17 1,480 3 Municipal Corporations (Est.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bangalore Metropolitan Region Figure 5: Comparing global city regions Source: India Census data, Web sources 1 Corporation, 3 CMCs, 7 TMC 38 Municipalities, 3 Municipal corporations 60 Municipalities 11 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Bengaluru does have the designated Bengaluru Metropolitan Area (BDA of 1219 sq kms) and Bengaluru Metropolitan Development Authority (BMRDA of 8000 sq kms). In this context it is worthwhile to reflect on Figure 6, which sets out an approximate estimate of the likely population trends within the BBMP area, the BDA area (fast growing Bengaluru Metropolitan Area) and within the Metro region (BMRDA). This chart is a reminder that any exercise to restructure BBMP has to take into account the future growth in the extended region in the decades to come. In this context it is worth mentioning Italy, where there is a move towards Metropolitan governance arrangements that manage multiple cities and town units under its jurisdictions. BMRDA BDA (BMA) BBMP Ring Road Population 12 2011 2014 2020 2030 Year Figure 6: Likely trends in population in BBMP, BDA and BMRDA Source: BBMP, BDA, BMRDA, Secondary sources A preliminary attempt has been made to set out the Government agencies and their jurisdictions in Bengaluru and the region (Figure 7). This is not an exhaustive list and will be refined as more data becomes available. This will then be mapped against roles and responsibilities of each of the agencies in their area of work. Annexure 3 sets out many of the Acts, Rules relevant in the BBMP area – these have to be kept in mind as any changes in the Bengaluru area is contemplated. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Economy Environment and planning Infrastructure & Transport Education and Culture Health & Social Service Security Others Health Home UDD Karnataka State TRANSPORT Education K&C Bengaluru Metropolitan Region 8000 km2 BMRDA Planning Biapa KSPCB KSRTC Pollution Transport (Inter-state/ Intra -State) Airport KERC Electricity Regulation 1219 km2 BDa Planning Bengaluru City 1,01,00,000 800 km2 BBMP/DTCP Local Planning ELCITA Local Planning BBMP Waste BBMP Urban Forestry Bmtc Transport Bbmp Education Bbmp BCP City Police and Traffic police KSFEC Public Works Fire and Emergency services Bescom Telephone and Electricity BWSSB Water Supply and Sewage BMRCL Metro Rail 198 Wards Avg. : 50,000 People Figure 7: Mapping urban civic services, Bengaluru Source: BBMP, Secondary sources BBMP Health & Welfare RTO Transport BBMP Revenue 13 14 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 5. Learning from other cities Given the complexity of the task at hand and its repercussions for the future of the Bengaluru, the Committee recognised the need to look at examples from other cities in India and globally to understand how they have dealt with similar challenges to help formulate an informed opinion. While more time is required to investigate this further, the preliminary findings are as follows: a. Top mega-cities follow multi-municipal structures Study of global cities with a population over 8 million suggest that they increasingly follow a multimunicipal governance structure with an umbrella metropolitan government at the regional scale. Some of the well-known examples include world class cities such as London and Tokyo. London has a population of 8.2 million, comprised of 32 boroughs and a metropolitan government constituted of a directly elected Mayor and assembly council. While Tokyo with a population of 15 million is divided into 23 ‘special wards’ that act as mini-cities with a metropolitan government headed by the Mayor, as the chief executive of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Other examples with comparable population in developing economies include Lima (43 districts), Jakarta (6 municipalities) and Sao Paulo (31 boroughs). Recent examples of splitting a Corporation are from Delhi where the municipal corporation was trifurcation in 2012 and Dhaka where it was bifurcated in 2011. Literature sources indicate that the prime drivers were to reduce the burden on service providers and improve the citizen experience of civic services through efficient management. b. Decentralization and devolution of powers felt useful as cities grow With greater number of people living in cities, the rise of the mega-city scale, decentralization has been seen globally as a way to expand the supply and effectiveness of public services to the urban population with a focus on citizens, as well as increase citizen participation in public policy and improve accountability. The example of Sao Paulo is worth mentioning as a recent case where decentralization and devolution was conceived in 2003 as a way to expand the supply and effectiveness of public services. Sao Paulo then had a population of 10.3 million, and was 1500 sq kms in area. The city undertook creation of boroughs and installation of participatory budgeting to address a broader ‘democratic deficit’. The unique aspect was that it was the first time it took “population size as requirement for both action and quality of the administration.”As reported, the process of decentralization had an impact on not just provision of public services but also on political and administrative polity. The emphasis on the territory as a geographic and social space was central to the provision of services to the population and strengthening localities to produce public policy and extend democracy. c. Finding optimal scale and size of governance is an iterative process With respect to size and number of sub-divisions, there seems to be no one size fits all solution. The key enquiry about how to decide, how to sub-divide seems to be about achieving the optimal scale BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report and size of governance structures that will foster higher liveability, economic vibrancy, inclusion, and sustainability. It is also observed that the discovery of the optimal configuration of governance layers and how civic responsibilities are organized may not be a one time act but a process of iteration. As seen in London, the 32 borough configuration and service responsibilities are not immutable. Reports point to how due to recent fiscal stress some boroughs have been collaborating for service deliveries such as health and waste management (London waste) to reach new economy of scale and reduce costs. To illustrate the iterative nature of the sub division process, in London there have been discussions to align new governance to changing urban context, include Ken Livingston’s (former Mayor) proposal to make London into 5 ‘Super Boroughs’. Meanwhile, the Green Party, prefers further scaling down Boroughs to increase local level governance. These ongoing debates demonstrate how determining size of municipalities/service delivery body is also about balancing need to meet economies of scale and local scale accountability. d. The number of Corporations is based on balancing power, economy & accountability When comparing the larger vs smaller sub-divisions, the trend show lesser number of sub-divisions would make for a stronger top tier government. Since the sub-divisions would be larger in size, comparable to smaller cities, they can have more real power, more independence in providing services and more capital at their disposal. However, the case of Delhi also suggests (and it is early days), fewer sub-divisions (3 divisions, population 5.6 million per municipality) might also lead to more conflicts between the municipalities for resources given their relatively large size. On the other hand, smaller sub-divisions such as seen in London (32 boroughs, average population 248,000 per municipality) or Sao Paulo (31 boroughs, average population 400,000 per municipality), can lead to making of a true local area government with a close relationship between citizens and elected representative. What has been noticed in these cities is that since no single municipality is very large, there is less inter municipal differences as well as less conflict between the roles of Metropolitan authority and local level governance. However, as in London boroughs, they may have to resort to more inter-borough cooperation based service delivery. The support of the super boroughs proposal for London points to how consensus forming process for planning and development can be a cumbersome process for large city wide projects. The number of sub-divisions is also noted to impact the burden to find additional human resource for multiple municipalities in various areas such as planning, engineering, environmental health etc. as pointed out in case of Delhi trifurcation. While the above points will be borne in mind, as and when the Committee gets down to determining the 15 16 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report ideal number of Corporations, we will also be guided by the growth of these sub-divisions over decades and ensure that the suggested divisions will stand the test of time. e. Clarity in roles and responsibilities between the local and the regional levels is necessary In London, services are organized between Greater London Authority, the London Metropolitan government and the Boroughs at a local government level outlining who is responsible for planning, execution, coordination and regulation. True political power is devolved at the boroughs level and the civic services are integrated at the regional level. For example Greater London Authority is responsible for strategic planning (London Plan), policing, the fire service, most aspects of transport and economic development for Greater London. Boroughs are responsible for basic local area services such as local planning, schools, social services, maintenance of local road, waste collection and disposal. This layered governance structure and devolution of responsibilities is made possible due to fiscal devolution to the Boroughs. What the above example shows is that decentralization has to be accompanied by devolution of powers. In addition, it has to get reintegrated at the regional level for the entire city –region to work effectively. f. The case for political and administrative decentralization One of the strong points made by proponents of multiple Corporations is that waste can be better managed locally. Many developed cities have realised that the centralised waste disposal model is non-sustainable. London, for instance, which had a central waste disposal till the 90s have shifted the responsibility of waste disposal to the Boroughs. One has witnessed inter-borough coordination to get mutually beneficial outcomes. As mentioned earlier, property tax revenue collection gets a fillip with smaller municipalities. This is due to better collection efficiency and scope for rezoning around multiple city centres. Early reports from Delhi indicate an improved property tax collection post the trifurcation. A ward locality voice can be better heard in smaller Councils. This leads to a better chance of civic issues in localities getting addressed. The scope for increased citizen participation in smaller city corporations is considerably higher. There are great examples of international cities doing very well in quality of life indicators with multiple municipalities. Some examples are London, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Johannesburg, etc. Among the large cities, Mumbai (smaller are at 463 sq kms) and New York (very strong directly elected mayor with highly centralized power) operate with a single Corporation. Here too, in the immediate neighbourhood (eg. Thane, Navi Mumbai and others for Mumbai), multiple Corporations make their appearance. Many cities have regional arrangements (eg. Greater London Authority for London) that centralize regional infrastructure provisioning allowing for local scale focus at the decentralized Corporations. This brings in the requisite efficiencies at the regional level, while allowing for devolution at the local level. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Further, experience elsewhere has shown that a stronger sense of community develops with smaller units. The above points are based on an initial study of some of the case studies from cities globally. The Committee expects to make a more detailed analysis of the practices elsewhere and its suitability in the Bengaluru context. 17 18 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 6. The next steps The Committee thought it fit to submit this preliminary report to give the Government a listing of its activities thus far and a sense of the issues arising from the preliminary consultations and literature review. As can be seen from this exercise, there are many nuances to be considered before a final decision on what is to be done is taken. Since mid Nov 2014, the Committee has been actively engaged on the subject of BBMP Restructuring. Preliminary meetings have been held with over 15 Stakeholder groups and a serious literature review of practices from elsewhere has commenced. There are many Stakeholder groups like Elected Reps, RWAs, NGOs, Citizens, that need to be met and there are plans to cover them by Feb 2015. This will be followed by further consultation rounds as the issues get framed more clearly. The GIS mapping is an extremely important element of this exercise since any division would need to consider the spatial dimensions and ward characteristics. There are many Acts that may need change based on the nature of recommendations of the Committee. Laying out the roles and responsibilities from the lowest to highest governance level is another critical component of the restructuring exercise. While any physical demarcation exercise using GIS is time consuming, the overall governance arrangements and regional coordination in the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area will need extensive consultations to get it right for decades to come. Time to do these activities is essential. It is necessary to stress that the exercise is a non-trivial one and needs time and effort to do justice to the task. In the Committee’s views, about 9-12 months is required to undertake this exercise with the requisite vigour. We however realise that the Government is keen to take a decision at the earliest since it has a bearing on the city Corporation elections that are due later in the year. Consequently, the Committee has reassessed all the line items that need to be addressed and tried to crunch the time to the extent feasible. In our view, we would need a minimum 6 months from date to complete the exercise. During this period, the major activities to be undertaken with the estimated timelines are set out in Figure 8. In the light of the above timelines, an extension till June 30, 2015 is sought for submitting the Committee’s findings and recommendations. Given the trusteeship nature of the task at hand, the Committee is acutely conscious of its responsibilities and is committed to undertaking them judiciously. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Activity First round Consultations with the multiple stakeholders - Elected representatives, Associations, NGOs, Citizens, Govt bodies Repeat round of consultations with multiple Stakeholders GIS mapping and data gap filling for the 198 wards, adjoining areas Review of practices in other cities – primary visits, secondary sources Review of Acts applicable to Bengaluru; determine if any changes needed Demarcating the divisions, roles, responsibilities, etc. Analysis of findings. Build hypothesis and validate conclusions Final report writing Figure 8: Project Timelines Jan Feb March April May June 19 20 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report BBMP RESTRUCTURING BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Annexure 1 Government Order NOTIFICATION Subject : Regarding division of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ref : Letter bearing No. Sasa/Na/1296/2013, dated: 22/08/2013 received from Minister of Transport and Bangalore District In charge Bangalore Metropolitan Corporation earlier covered an area of 226 sq kms. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was formed with effect from 16.01.2007. Currently, it covers an area of 800 sq kms and comprises of 8 zones. With such rapid growth of Metropolitan Corporation on a day by day basis,the providing basic amenities and facilities to people has become the main responsibility of BBMP. But, from an administrative perspective managing this in an organized manner is posing a great challenge. 2. Mumbai, one of the four metropolitan cities, covers an area of 603 sq kms and for effective administration it has 8 municipal corporations and 9 ward committees. 3. Similarly, Kolkata Municipal Corporation has 186 sq kms and has 100 municipal corporations and 38 ward committees. Due to administrative challenges, former Delhi Municipal Corporation has been divided into 3 separate Municipal Corporations. 4. Though London, which is one of the famous international cities, has a population equivalent to Bangalore it has 32 separate Boroughs. 5. The above mentioned points have been discussed in detail in the meeting held on 12.08.13 conducted by Minister of Transport. Based on the views expressed in the meeting, Minister of Transport has requested the Government to appoint an expert committee to study the division of BBMP in detail, take public opinion and study the same carefully, ensure that the report from the committee is submitted within a stipulated time,and based on the report take a suitable decision on division of BBMP. 6. There are many issues related to the administration of BBMP like solid waste management has worsened and there are many Public interest litigations pending in the high court related to this. Yet no proper waste management program has been implemented. Besides, the 110 villages around Bangalore which have been added to BBMP are yet to be provided basic facilities like drinking water and good road connectivity. 7. Considering the above issues, the Government has decided to divide BBMP in order to improve the ease of administration and to provide basic amenities / facilities to the people. But before that, Government has decided to appoint an Expert committee, ensure that the committee submits the report within stipulated time, get public opinion based on the report and make an appropriate decision. Hence the following order: Government Order No. : NaAaE 484 MNY 2013,Bangalore, Date : 22-09-2014. 21 22 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 8. As per the reasons outlined in the proposal, the following experts have been appointed to study and submit a report regarding the division of BBMP 1. Mr. B. S. Patil IAS (R) - Chairman Retired Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka, Bangalore 2. Mr. Siddaiah IAS(R) - Member Retired Commissioner BBMP & BDA, Bangalore 3. Mr. Ravichandar - Member Member Former Bangalore Agenda Task Force, Bangalore 9. Additional Commissioner (Administration), BBMP is requested to provide all necessary information required for the above committee and also manage all co-ordination efforts to organize related meetings as required. 10. This committee is required to study in detail about the division of BBMP and submit the report in next three months. 11. Commissioner, BBMP has been ordered to provide this expert committee necessary facilities like Office, Staff, Furniture and fixtures, Vehicles, etc. BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Addendum Notice – 19.11.2014 Government under its notification NaAaEe/484/NMY/2013 dated 22/09/2014, had formed an expert team to advice Government on division of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the chairmanship of Mr. B. S. Patil, IAS, Retired Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. It is requested to include the below mentioned points after Sl. No. 10 of the above mentioned notification. 1. To improve the quality of living and living environment in the city both in the short term and long term 2. To advice the government to create suitable government systems and infrastructure to Bengaluru including increased services expected by citizens 3. Suggest steps to be taken to make Bengaluru as one among the 50 best cities 4. Suggest specific actions to be taken to restructure BBMP. For and As directed by Governor of Karnataka N Gopalaiah Government Under Secretary City Development Department (BBMP) To : 1. Chief Accountant (A&E) / (G&SSA)/(E&RSA), Karnataka, Bangalore 2. Head Accountant, Karnataka, Bangalore 3. Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 4. Chief Secretary, Chief Minister’s office, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 5. Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore 6. Mr. B. S. Patil, IAS (R), Retired Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore 7. Sri Siddaiah, IAS (R), Retired Commissioner, BBMP & BDA, Bangalore 8. Mr. Ravichandar, Former Member, Bangalore Agenda Task Force, Bangalore 9. Personal Secretary to Minister of Transport and City Development, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore 10. Personal Secretary to Additional Principal Secretary, City Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore. 11. Personal Secretary to Principal Secretary, City Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore 12. Deputy Secretary 1, City Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore 13. Branch Security file / Internet Department / Additional Copies / Compendium (Translated from Kannada) 23 24 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Annexure 2 Some relevant articles and research papers Bengaluru Plan Bengaluru 2020 ABIDE The politics of decentralized service provision; A conceptual framework Urban Institute Urban development policy for Karnataka UDD, Bengaluru Urbanization in Bengaluru H.S. Sudhira Ward quality score data-book, 2013 Jaanagraha Governance in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Kasturirangan Expert Committee Constraints and prospects of financing via municipal bonds in India: An analysis with case studies International Growth Centre Article critiquing BBMP functioning - ‘BBMP, a puppet with no power to rule Bangalore’ Citizen Matters The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 India Report on Indian infrastructure and services Ministry of Urban development An exploration of sustainability in the provision of basic urban services in Indian cities TERI Article on trifurcation of Delhi - ‘Delhi will finally benefit from smaller civic bodies’ Civic Society Online Emerging trends in infrastructure management PGP, IIM, Bangalore Second administrative reforms commission; Local governance Government of India Governance framework for delivery of urban services India Infrastructure Report 2006 Metropolitan urban governance approaches and models; Some implications for Indian Cities Centre for Good Governance International Alternatives to amalgamation in Australian government, lessons from the New Zealand experience University of New England, School of Economics Cities of tomorrow; Challenges, visions, way forward European Union Governance challenges and models for the cities of tomorrow Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest A framework for City-Regions Office of the Deputy Prime Minister A guide to City-Hall Mayor of London BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report International City developer guidelines for incoming utility services City London The Compact Metropolis, Growth Management and Intensification in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal ICURR, Toronto Final report of the NSW independent local government review panel; Consultation report New South Wales Government Decentralization and Urban Governance; Reforming Tokyo Metropolis University of Louisville Decentralization, local participation and the creation of boroughs in the city of Sao Paulo University of Sao Paulo Devolution Regional governance, UK Joseph Rowntree Foundation Who’s accountable now?; The public’s view on decentralization PWC Devolution in Scotland and Wales: The gap between public expectations and constitutional reality Alan Trench Article - ‘Empowering the City_London vs New York’ Urban Omnibus Fiscal Decentralization in Peru Georgia State University, International Center for Public Policy Governing Urban Futures London School of Economics (LSE) Reducing decentralization’s dysfunction, Jakarta The Jakarta Post Revitalizing local government ILGRP Size, shape and sustainability of Queensland local government Local Government Association of Queensland The future governance of Auckland region; A discussion paper on possible options for local governance - the role of scale, function and engagement in effective local governance Local Government Centre, AUT University Global city-regions; An overview Allen J Scott, John Agnew, Edward W. Soja, Michael Storper Governance and planning of mega-city regions London School of Economics (LSE) Metropolitan governance: Governing in a city of cities State of the World’s cities 2008/9 Metropolitan Governance United Cities and Local Governments Urban Governance around the world Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The impact of metropolitan amalgamation in Sydney on municipal financial sustainability Joseph Drew & Brian Dollery - Public Money and Management Localism act, UK Local area Governance act 1965, UK 25 26 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report Annexure 3 Some of the major acts applicable for Bengaluru • Constitutional Law • Constitution of India, 1950 • 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1993 • Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 • Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985 • Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act, 1964 • Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 • Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 • Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 • Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 • Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 • Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 • Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 • Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 • Citizen Participation Bill - KMC (Amendment) Act , 2011 • BIAPA • Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Ward Committee) Rules, 1997 • Solid Waste Management, 2013 BBMP Restructuring; Expert Committee Preliminary Report 27 BBMP RESTRUCTURING