ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
▪ According to the Municipal Systems Act, each Municipal Council must, within a prescribed period after its elected term, adopt a single, inclusive strategic plan for the development of the municipality. However, our Predecessor Council already adopted a draft IDP. We, in an endeavor to execute our political mandate, followed the path laid by them and adopted the draft IDP with amendments made considering the contract we made with the people of Waterberg during the local government elections.
▪ The tasks given to local government entail more demanding capabilities and performance. This means that we are not only expected to find the means for addressing traditional local government challenges of delivering basic services to the people, but we are supposed to find strategies and mechanisms that are potent enough to remove the many bottlenecks which stand in the way of sustainable development in a local jurisdiction. The IDP document that we adopted will serve as a blue-print that will gauge service delivery and timely implementation.
▪ The next five years will be fundamentally different regarding the kind of support that both national and provincial government spheres will be providing to municipalities. Different in that, it will be characterized by intensive intergovernmental collaboration, and of course hands-on support.
▪ To all my colleagues, both from the Political authority and the administrative arm, It is my understanding, that as we carry out this contract entered into with our people, we will appraise it with 100% ownership of all the things that were discussed and agreed upon, we will implement it with full preparedness to provide developmental support to all municipalities in the district.
▪ It is only when we are 100% committed that we stand a chance of realising these local government strategic priorities.
▪
▪ One of the critical things we need to do in the next five years is to build and strengthen the capacity of newly elected mayors and councillors, particularly women. This objective is also consistent with building a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa. We should do so by putting in place targeted support programmes for our women mayors and councillors, and not rejoice at their failures.
▪ The success of the integrated development plan as enshrined herein caters also for development of infrastructure is dependant on the competencies of Councillors, municipal officials, and service providers
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪ Infrastructure is the cornerstone of social upliftment and economic development. In particular, fast tracking Infrastructure delivery will also contribute to the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA), and also assist in achieving the targeted economic growth rate of 6% through job creation as well as the establishment of well-serviced areas conducive for economic investment and development. On achieving the 6% growth, we need to sustain this by maintaining the infrastructure assets. We believe that we have built the basis for a national effort to achieve faster and shared economic growth. With this programme we can achieve our social objectives and we can more than meet the Millennium Development Goals. Our municipality has allocated sufficient funding to kick start a basis for the development of proper infrastructure in needy areas. Local Government as the custodian of community infrastructure such as roads, waste disposal sites, water and sanitation systems, and public facilities. Most importantly we will intensify assets management efforts in a sustainable manner to best serve the interests of communities and enable local economic development.
STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT BY MANAGEMENT
▪ The strategic plan as detailed herein is informed by the successes in the previous implementation and service delivery initiatives and seeks to provide a framework within which our municipality will address the remaining challenges as we enter the second decade of freedom.
▪ The overall thrust of our plan centres on building the capacity of the district municipality and the local municipalities to implement government’s development programmes. The interests of ordinary people in the district continue to inform the strategic institutional thrust of the district municipality.
▪ It is also a building block on what has been done since the inception of local government in 2000 and encompass a five year strategy for the future, with a firm focus on the mid-term planning. The refined vision and mission put additional emphasis on the following:
▪ Establishing the needs of communities through Inclusive and participatory processes
▪ Render effective, efficient and sustainable services
▪ Ensure a better life for all
▪ In this manner our municipality should make a meaningful contribution to government’s vision of our future embodied in vision 2014. Management and staff of the WDM recommit themselves to work tirelessly at enabling Council to realise the targets for 2014 that include the following:
▪ Reducing unemployment by half
▪ Reducing poverty by half
▪ Providing the skills required by the district economy
▪ Improving services to achieve a better life
▪ We will strive to do so informed by our municipality’s intention to play its role in “‘Building a people’s contract to create work and fight poverty ” .
▪ We will do so guided by the strategic objectives of the municipality which provide a guideline that we will follow as management and staff in executing Council’s mandate. Specific outputs, indicators and outcomes are central to fulfilling this mandate. All Service Business Units will be implementing their programmes on the basis of detailed action plans informed by the strategic plan.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪ •
▪ We will further ensure that Council’s obligation of community participation is structured in such a manner that ’all district stakeholders continue to support our municipality as we mobilise our people’s individual and collective efforts to implement government’s programmes at provincial and local level. This includes partnerships with the three spheres of government, civil society and the private sector. Our goal is to accelerate the shared growth initiative and invest in the life’s of our people a new age of hope
▪ We thank the sterling contribution of the predecessor Council, Mayoral Committee, all three spheres of government and parastatals, members of the public, business community and organs of civil society and our many stakeholders who have interacted with us and brought valuable insights to this strategic plan. Lastly, I thank the committed staff of WDM that continues to find joy in serving the people of the district.
SECTION A
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
Chapter 7 of the constitution
Status of municipalities
151 (1) The local sphere of government consist of municipalities, which must be established for the whole territory of the republic.
(2) The executive and legislative authority of a municipality is vested in its municipal council
(3) A municipality has the right to govern, on its own initiative, the local government affairs of its community, subject to national and
provincial legislation , as provided for in the constitution;
Objects of local government
152 (1) The objects of local government are-
a) To provide democratic and accountable government for local communities;
b) To ensure the provision of service to communities in a sustainable manner;
c) To promote social and economic development;
d) To promote a safe and healthy environment; and
e) To encourage the involvement of communities and community organizations in matters of local government
Establishment of municipalities
Section 155 provides for three categories of municipalities
a) Category A- Is a municipality that has exclusive municipal executive and legislative authority in its area.
b) Category B- Is a municipality that shares municipal executive and legislative authority in its area with a category C municipality within whose area it falls (All the locals viz. Mogalakwena, Lephalale, Thabazimbi, Modimolle, Bela-Bela and Mookgophong are classified within this category)
c) Category C- Is a municipality that has municipal executive and legislative authority in an area that includes more than one municipality- (Waterberg District Municipality fall within this category)
1.2 MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
Sections 156 of the Constitution, 8 of the Municipal systems Act and 86 of the structures act outline the powers and functions of the municipal
|Key: ATP = Authority to perform |
|PFM = Powers Performed by Municipality |
|ESP = External Services Provider |
|S78 = Section 78 Process in terms of Systems Act Complete |
|SDA = Service Delivery Agreement in Place |
|Functions of the district municipality according to the Constitution, the Municipal Structures Act and|ATP |PFM |ESP or other sphere |S78 |SDA |Personnel |
|Systems Act | | |of Govt. | | | |
|Air pollution |Yes |Yes |No |Yes |No |0 |
|Bulk supply of Electricity |Yes |No |Yes |No |No |0 |
|Bulk Water Supply |Yes |No |Yes |Yes |Yes |0 |
|Bulk sewage purification and main sewage disposal |Yes |No |Yes |Yes |No |0 |
|Cemeteries and Crematoria |Yes |No |No |No |No |0 |
|Municipal roads |Yes |Yes |No |No |No |1 |
|Education |No |No |No |No |No |0 |
|Fire-Fighting Services |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Local Economic Development |Yes |Yes |No |No |No |3 |
|Municipal Abbattoir |Yes |Yes |No |Yes |No |- |
|Municipal Airports |Yes |No |No |No |No |0 |
|Municipal Health Services |Yes |Yes |No |No |Yes |- |
|Municipal Transport Planning |Yes |Yes |No |No |No |1 |
|Municipal Public Works |Yes |Yes |No |No |No |1 |
|Municipal Planning |Yes |Yes |No |No |No |2 |
|Safety and Security |No |No |Yes |No |No |0 |
|Social development |No |No |Yes |No |No |0 |
|Sports, Arts and Culture |No |Yes |Yes |No |No |1 |
1.3 COUNCIL COMPOSITION
The District is allocated 33 seats. 32 Seats are filled and one vacancy exists. The Council comprises of 32 councillors of which 13 are directly elected and 19 indirectly elected. The councillors represented hereunder are reflected as from March 2006
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE MAYOR : Councillor P S Kekana
SPEAKER : Councillor Y E Lorgat
MEMBERS OF THE
MAYORAL COMMITTEE : Councillor M D Mabote
Councillor S J Madela
Councillor R E Mothibi
Councillor J M Rakgwale
Councillor M J Makhafola
Councillor S M Molekwa
COUNCILLORS : Councillor A E Basson
Councillor R M Kekana
Councillor M M Lamola
Councillor M E Lefawana
Councillor V B Machine
Councillor S K Makgae
Councillor M J Makhafola
Councillor L S Manamela
Councillor M J Mashiane
Councillor G S Matsietsa
Councillor M P Modiba
Councillor O O Modise
Councillor M A D Monama
Councillor R N Monene
Councillor M L Moremi
Councillor T P Mphahlele
Councillor R M Radebe
Councillor G M Seleka
Councillor M A Sethlare
Councillor P H Tsebe
Councillor van Aswegen L W
Councillor van Heerden J D
Councillor Vreugdenburg J
Councillor S A Sebolai
Councillor N V Mashamaite
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
|SOCIAL SERVICES |
|Chairperson: S M Molekwa |Members: T P Mphahlele |
| |M L Moremi |
| |R M Kekana |
| |R M Radebe |
|INFRASTRUCTURE |
|Chairperson: R E Mothibi |Members: M A D Monama |
| |R N Monene |
| |J Vreugdenburg |
| |
|TRANSFORMATION & ADMINISTRATION |
|Chairperson: J Rakgwale |Members: O O Modise |
| |G M Seleka |
| |V B Machine |
| |L S Manamela |
|BUDGET & TREASURY |
|Chairperson :S J Madela |Members: M M Lamola |
| |A E Basson |
| |M P Modiba |
| |S K Makgae |
|PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT |
|Chairperson: M.D Mabote |Members: L W van Aswegen |
| |P H Tsebe |
| |M E Lefawana |
| |G S Matsietsa |
| |S A Sebolai |
| | |
|GENDER, YOUTH, SPORTS, ARTS & CULTURE |
|Chairperson: M J Makhafola |Members: M J Mashiane |
| |M A Setlhare |
| |J D van Heerden |
| |N V Mashamaite |
|PUBLIC PARTICIPATION |
|Chairperson: Speaker |Members: |
|Cllr. Y. E. Lorgat |1. R. M. Kekana |
| |2.S.M. Molekwa |
| |3.G.M.Seleka [Ms.] |
| |4.O.O. Modise[Ms.] |
| |5.M.L.Moremi[Ms.] |
| |6.M.M.Lamola |
|GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES COMMITTEE |
|Chairperson: Speaker |Members: |
|Cllr. Y. E. Lorgat |1.J.Rakgwale |
| |2.J.Vreugdenburg |
| |3.R.M.Radebe [Ms.] |
| |4.G.S.Matsietsa[Ms.] |
| |5.M.A Setlhare [Ms.] |
| |6.T.P.Mphahlele |
CHAPTER 2:
ALIGNMENT AND HARMONISATION
2. INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Development Planning is “… a participatory approach to integrate economic, sectoral, spatial, social, institutional, environmental and fiscal strategies in order to support the optimal allocation of scarce resources between sectors and geographical areas and across the population in a manner that provides sustainable growth, equity and the empowerment of the poor and the marginalized…”. (Forum for Effective Planning and Development[1] (FEPD), 1995).
Integrated Development Planning is a cooperative and continuous process that is undertaken by the Municipality and leads to the adoption of the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and its annual revision based on new data and changing circumstances. The Municipality’s IDP is concerned with the allocation of public resources in the most effective and efficient way so as to provide a framework for community, economic, and environmentally sustainable development at the local level. The IDP has legal status. It is the instrument for the strategic management of the Municipality and decision-making by the Council. The IDP ensures a cooperative approach by the National, Provincial and Local spheres of government to develop and implement projects and programmes on a priority basis which will empower and benefit the community.
Each sphere of government in South Africa has to see to the optimal allocation and application of resources for its area of jurisdiction. Development Planning is therefore an executive function as it has to be overseen by the highest political office at each sphere and should be ratified by the elected political representatives in that sphere. Development Planning has to determine the way in which each sphere sets its budget. Its influence should extend beyond that of government resources and it must serve to mobilize off-budget resources (State Owned Enterprises, private sector and NGOs). Development Plans also serve to inform the actions of a range of role players, so they have a broader role than merely establishing a one-to-one relationship with budgets. They should also serve to inspire and guide the self-action of communities and residents by presenting a clear vision for the area and long, medium and short-term development priorities and objectives.
Development Planning is a core part of the service delivery and development process. Service delivery and development cannot occur without identifying relevant actions, programming the activities and setting in place the requisite resources. The relevant actions are the ones that have the most impact on addressing poverty and growing the economy. They are sustainable and lead to long-term benefits for a particular area and its people. It is always a challenge to determine these relevant actions in the face of huge needs and limited resources. It requires formulating strategies that are innovative, inter-sectoral and spatially targeted.
Development Planning is also central to any performance management system. The setting of development objectives and targets is the basis for measuring performance through appropriate monitoring and evaluation steps. Development Planning is therefore a part of an integrated system of planning and delivery and does not sit as an isolated process de-linked from the actual functioning of a municipality, province or the country.
The IDP relationship between the three spheres of government can be illustrated as follows:
2.1 Local Government Sphere
Development Planning in the Local Government sphere is conducted through the Integrated Development Planning instrument. Each municipality in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (2000) is responsible for formulating, adopting and implementing and Integrated Development Plan (IDP). The Mayor is responsible for the IDP and it has to be adopted by the municipal council. Community participation and involvement is central to IDPs. Communities are encouraged to organize themselves and take care of their own development working together with government. Community/Ward based planning can be a useful way for making more structured inputs in the IDP process and for organizing community/ward based self-action. IDPs are not a mere collection of community needs or plans but are municipal-wide plans that have to take community needs into account together with wider strategic issues incorporating provincial and national priorities and strategies. Mediating these various interests the IDP should reflect the best possible development decisions and trade-offs that focus on viability and economic, social, environmental, financial and institutional sustainability.
2.2 Provincial Government Sphere
Development planning in the provincial sphere occurs through the Provincial Growth & Development Strategies (PGDSs) that are driven by the Premier’s office and adopted by the provincial cabinet. Currently there is no national legislative framework that governs the formulation, adoption and implementation of PGDSs. Nevertheless in practice all provinces do formulate an overarching strategic framework. The PGDS should have effect over the entire province and therefore needs to be completed in consultation with municipalities and key provincial stakeholders. The PGDS and IDPs should be aligned so that a common strategic path is followed and there is complement in the way resources are allocated and in the way delivery occurs.
2.3 National Government Sphere
Development Planning at national level occurs through the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). The MTSF is prepared by the Presidency and approved by the national Cabinet. Like the PGDS, the MTSF currently does not have a legal status. The influencing nature of the MTSF over the national budget is still limited. This will improve as the inter-sectoral, geographical and people-centred focus of the MTSF is deepened, and as institutional preparedness issues are addressed.
Intergovernmental Planning, that is, the coordination of development planning across the three spheres of government is a critical area for improvement in order to realize the objective of optimal resource allocation and implementation for the state as a whole for the purpose of eradicating poverty and growing the economy. Enhanced development planning across government will contribute to the existing Planning Framework that includes the planning cycle which culminates in the MTSF and annual State of Nation Address.
The IDP Hearing analysis together with an analysis of provincial capacities (and an analysis of District – Wide IDP Consultative Meetings) forms the basis of the Intergovernmental Planning support strategy that focuses on an action plan relevant to the context of the Limpopo Province and Waterberg District Municipalities. The strategic objectives of the support strategy are:
2.3.1. Entrench integrated development planning as an approach by improving the perceptions and understanding of key role players
2.3.2. Improve the capacity of municipalities to plan so that they develop realistic and creative strategies that ensures sustainable,
integrated and targeted development spending and infrastructure investment in a municipal area,
2.3.3 Improve the capacity of municipalities to implement so that they ensure feasible and effective municipal operation, service delivery
and development, monitoring, evaluation and review,
2.3.4 Improve provincial-municipal as well as inter-sectoral cooperation in prioritization, resource allocation and implementation,
2.3.5 Improve the capability of provincial government and districts to give effect to their constitutional and legal obligations to support
municipalities,
2.3.6 Ensure the coordination and effective implementation of the various support initiatives, and
2.3.7 Support the municipalities that have no/very limited structural capacity with frame conditions and establishment processes.
In order to strive towards a developmental state that will enhance service delivery and lives of people, the appropriate mechanisms and support will be required from all actors in government. Issues like alignment and programme linkages, communication in structures, support from national, to provincial and local (financial, procedural and human resources) and sector involvement in development planning all calls for integration at each level of government, horizontal and vertical.
It is imperative that the support needs to be structured at various levels of national, provincial and local structures (political and technical) and the rules of engagement must be clearly communicated for all role players to know what role they are playing and how to play it effectively.
To further forge alignment across the three spheres of governance the following clusters has been established and meeting regularly except the infrastructure cluster and the structural arrangements are as depicted in table 1.1. below. These structures meet quarterly and discuss issues that provide content to the agenda of the District Intergovernmental Forum that is also held quarterly.
Table 1.1: Structural arrangements for the District Clusters
[pic]
CHAPTER 3:
PERFORMANCE REPORTING
3.1 FUNCTIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY REPORTING
|Key Performance Area |Good Governance and Public Participation |
|Department |Executive Mayor’s Office |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
|Municipal Function |Overall coordination of council activities |
|Description of the Activity. |Overall administration in the office of the Executive Mayor and to contribute to its effectiveness in leading the Institution. |
| |Promoting the culture of co-operative governance. |
| |Ensure Public Participation in Municipal issues. |
| |Enter into twinning agreement with Foreign Countries District Municipalities. |
| |Facilitate the District Learning Network. |
| |Co-ordinate Sports, Arts and Cultural activities. |
| |Facilitation of safety and security issues in the district. |
| |Ensuring maintenance of order during Council meetings. |
| |Co-ordinate Council Sub-Committee meetings. |
| |Compilation of agenda and render Secretarial Services to Mayoral Committee and Council. |
| |Co-ordination with communities and interaction with various stakeholders. |
| |The Strategic objectives of the above functions are as follows: |
| | |
| |To ensure 60% of all public institutions and households within rural areas have access to communication facilities within 5 years. |
| |To promote interdepartmental linkages and alignment both on a horizontal and vertical basis annually. |
| |To improve the level of safety and security by reducing the incidents of identified crime by 8% within the District Municipality annually |
| |To ensure 100% accessibility to schools for all learners and 50% decrease in the learner/educator and learner/classroom ratio within the next 5 years. |
| |To ensure that 25% of young people’s talents are identified, nurtured and developed within 5 years. |
| |To ensure effective co-ordination and management of sports within municipalities in a year. |
| |Promotion and awareness of cultural diversity. |
|Performance reporting |The total number of personnel employed |8 |
| | | |
| |Total number of Councillors |32 |
| | | |
| |Number of Councillors on the Mayoral Committee |6 |
| | | |
| |Number and type of Council and Committee Meetings | |
| |Council Meetings | |
| |Ordinary |4 |
| |Special |5 |
| | | |
| |Mayoral Committee Meetings | |
| |Ordinary |3 |
| |Special |5 |
| | | |
| |Portfolio Committee Meetings | |
| |Finance Committee |4 |
| |Labour and Administration Committee |4 |
| |Planning & Economic Development Committee |5 |
| |Infrastructure Committee |6 |
| |Community Services |7 |
|Municipal Function |Media and communications |
|Performance reporting | |
| |District Communicators Forum met as planned |
| |Received positive reportage from media |
| |Bought airtime on radio for a number of advocacy programmes |
| |Communication Strategy reviewed and programme of action adopted by council |
| |Newsletter were distributed throughout the district |
|Municipal Function |Ward committee capacity building |
|Performance reporting |Capacity Building |
| |A total of 15 Trainers were Trained in Partnership with Planact. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Municipal Function |Education, Sports, Arts and Culture |
|Performance reporting |(Sport Development) |
| | |
| |Establishment of Local Sport Councils. |
| |Hosted District O.R.Tambo Games in Modimolle with 876 Participants. |
| |Hosted the Provincial O.R.Tambo Games with ± 1 000 Participants. |
| |A number of players have been selected to play for the Provincial Team that will participate in National Games to be held during September 2007 in East London. |
| | |
| |Arts & Cultural |
| | |
| |Hosted Arts and Cultural Festival in Bakenberg ± 2 000 people attended in the Event. |
| | |
| | |
|Municipal Function |Special programmes |
|Performance reporting |Special projects (Highlights) |
| | |
| |Youth Development |
| | |
| |Facilitated the establishment of Youth Council’s in all six Local Municipalities. |
| |Established the District Youth Council. |
| |1 (One) General Council Meeting was held. |
| | |
| |Domestic Workers / Farm Workers |
| | |
| |Domestic Workers Forums were held in all Local Municipalities. |
| |Hosted the District Domestic Workers Forum in Modimolle during November 2005. |
| |Free the Farm Dweller Campaign was held in Kroomdraai, ± 2 500 workers attended the event. |
| | |
| |Women Development |
| | |
| |The Launch of the South African Women in Dialogue (SAWID) held in Lephalale during November 2005. |
|Key Performance Area |Financial viability and management |
|Municipal Function |Procurement (Supply Chain Management) |
| | |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
|Overview |The Finance Department's mission is to provide financial support and ensure that public funds are utilised efficiently, effectively and economically, thus improving |
| |the lives of the communities. |
| | |
|Description of the Activity. |The Finance Department comprises of the following divisions: |
| |Income |
| |Expenditure |
| |Reporting |
| | |
| |The Strategic objectives of the function are the following: |
| | |
| |Revenue management |
| |Expenditure management and Supply Chain Management |
| |Financial reporting |
| |Budget compilation and control |
| |Adherence to legislative requirements |
| | |
| |The key issues for 2005/06 were: |
| | |
| |Collect levies due to the District |
| |Establishment of the various Bid Committees |
| |Comply with the requirements of the Municipal Finance Management Act |
| | |
| |Regular reporting in terms of MFMA |
|Performance reporting |1 Number and cost to employer of all financial personnel | | |
| | | | |
| |The total number of personnel employed | | |
| |Financial interns appointed | | |
| | |12 | |
| | |2 | |
| |2 Debtor analysis: amount outstanding over 30, 60, 90 and 120 | |R (000s) |
| |plus days: | | |
| |Abattoir | | |
| |30 days | |172 |
| |60 Days | |1 |
| |90 Days | |3 |
| |120 plus days | |32 |
| |3 Write off of debts: number and value of debts written off: | | |
| |One debt at the abattoir was written off during the year. | | |
| | | | |
| | | |76 |
| |4 Regional Service Council (RSC) levies: | |R (000s) |
| |Number and value of returns |66 084 | |
| |Total Establishment levy | |35 166 |
| |Total Services levy | |12 346 |
| |Levies collected for the current year | |46 018 |
| | | | |
| |5 Creditor Payments: | | |
| | | | |
| |Creditors are paid within a period of 30 days. | | |
| | | | |
| |6 Supply Chain Management | | |
| |The Supply Chain Management Policy was approved during December | | |
| |2006 and came into effect as from 1 January 2006. | | |
| | | | |
| |Details of Bid Adjudication Committee activities: | | |
| |Total number of Bid Adjudication Committee meetings held during | | |
| |the year | | |
| |Total number of bids considered | | |
| |Total number of bids approved | | |
| |Total value of bids awarded | | |
| |Bids awarded to PDIs - 100% owned |11 | |
| |- less then |16 | |
| |100% owned |16 | |
| | | |16 958 |
| | |11 | |
| | | | |
| | |5 | |
| |7 External Loans: | | |
| | | | |
| |No loans were taken up during the year | | |
|Municipal Function |GAMAP/GRAP |
|Performance reporting |The District converted to GAMAP/GRAP and aligned its accounting policy with Generally Accepted Municipal Accounting Practice/Generally Recognised Accounting Practice |
| |and the annual financial statements were prepared in this format. |
|Municipal Function |MFMA implementation |
|Performance reporting |The District was classified as a low capacity municipality. The implementation plan was reviewed regularly to monitor implementation. |
|Municipal Function |Governance Relations |
|Performance reporting |The Finance Portfolio Committee met regularly during the year to discuss matters relating to finances. |
|Municipal Function |Budget Reform |
|Performance reporting |Two financial interns were appointed in terms of the conditions of the Municipal Finance Management Grant. The interns are exposed to the following areas: |
| |Municipal legislative environment and policy |
| |Municipal budgeting and policy |
| |Management budgeting and implementation |
| |Municipal Supply Chain Management |
| | |
|Key Performance Area |Transformation and Organisational Development |
|Municipal function: |Admin (HR, IT, other)(Corporate Services) |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |The department of Corporate Services provides an internal support service to the municipality in order to enable it to fulfil its constitutional mandate of providing |
| |sustainable services to the communities and ensuring socio-economic development. |
| | |
|Description of the Activity |The main functions of the department ( functional areas) are: |
| | |
| |Human resources management |
| |Administrative and auxiliary services |
| |Legal services |
| | |
| |During the year under review the department undertook several projects aimed at achieving the general objectives of the department. These projects and other activities |
| |undertaken by the department will be presented in this section of this report. |
| | |
| |The Strategic objectives of the departments are the following : |
| | |
|Human resources |To ensure adequate supply of the human resources in order to enable the municipality to discharge its constitutional mandate and legal obligations in the most effective, |
| |efficient, fair and transparent manner. |
| |To render economic, effective and efficient administration of the human resources of the municipality. |
| |To develop and provide work designs and organizational development services to the municipality. |
| |To promote sound labour relations and foster a peaceful working environment. |
| |To effectively and efficiently control and manage the performance of the staff of the organisation. |
| |To coordinate and administer the training and development of the officials and councillors to enable them to execute their roles and responsibilities in the most effective |
| |and efficient way. |
| |To ensure the occupational health and safety of the officials and councillors of the municipal |
| | |
| | |
|Administrative and auxiliary services |To provide general administrative and auxiliary support to the other functional areas of the municipality in order to ensure effective and efficient rendering of services.|
| |To ensure a healthy and safe working environment. |
| |To provide state-of- the- art equipment, systems and machinery for service delivery. |
| | |
| |To ensure compliance with the legal and constitutional requirements and obligations. |
|Legal services | |
| |To protect the legal interests of the municipality. |
| |To ensure that the municipality performs its functions and exercises its powers within the parameters of the law. |
|Performance Reprting |Number of all municipal staff employed: | | |
| | | | |
| |Professional (Managers/Specialists) | | |
| |Field (Supervisors) |15 | |
| |Office (Clerical/Administrative) |0 | |
| |Non-professional |33 | |
| |Temporary staff |16 | |
| |Contract staff |4 | |
| |Total |14 | |
| | |82 | |
| |Key appointments and staff turnover during the year: | | |
| | | | |
| |Appointments | | |
| |M Managers | | |
| |Assistant managers |2 | |
| |Senior officers |1 | |
| |Total |2 | |
| | |5 | |
| |Staff turnover | | |
| |M Managers | | |
| |A Assistant managers |0 | |
| |Senior officers |1 | |
| |Total |1 | |
| | |2 | |
|Municipal Function |Human resource management |
| | |
|Performance reporting | |
| |Reviewed workplace skills plan |
| |Implemented the Workplace Skills plan |
| |Awarded bursaries to officials |
| |Conducted training programmes for officials |
|Municipal Function |Administrative and auxiliary services |
|Performance reporting | |
| |Completed the shaded parking area project |
| |Completed the repair of the municipal building |
|Municipal Function |Municipal Function |
| | |
|Performance reporting |Conducted disciplinary hearings for 2 officials |
|Key Performance Area |Economic Development |
|Municipal Function: |Economic Development and Planning |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |Includes all activities associated with economic development and Planning initiatives. |
| | |
| |The department is involved in the stimulation and the promotion of economic growth in the district particularly in areas that are identified as key growth sectors of mining, |
| |tourism, agriculture, construction and manufacturing. |
| | |
| |The department also coordinates all the spatial planning and land management issues in the district. |
| |The function of economic planning / development within the municipality is administered as follows and includes: |
|Description of the Activity. | |
| |ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT |
| |Formulate, develop and implement economic development policy and LED strategies |
| |Facilitate research on economic development and maintain database; Stimulate the local economy by promoting job creation, investment and the development of SMMEs |
| |Mobilize investments both nationally and internationally |
| |Enhance local economic development through sectoral development focusing especially on agriculture, tourism, manufacturing and mining development and marketing |
| |Leverage government and international donor funds to support the LED program |
| |Foster partnerships with other stakeholders in support of poverty reduction, job creation projects and infrastructure provision |
| |Manage the implementation of LED initiatives in accordance with the IDP |
| |Technical support to category B municipalities |
| | |
| |DEVELOPMENT PLANNING |
| |Administration and development of the District Spatial Development Framework (SDF) |
| |Develop and maintain GIS System; Assist in the implementation of the IDP |
| |Assist category B Municipalities with land use management and development planning |
| |Formulation of development Policies, strategies and action plans" |
| | |
| |The strategic objectives of this function are to: |
|Description of the Activity (cont.) |The strategic objectives of economic development division are: |
| |To grow the district economy by 6% per annum |
| |To create 6 000 jobs per annum in order to reduce unemployment |
| |To reduce poverty by half amongst the rural and urban poor by 2015 |
| |To enhance human resources development |
| |To enhance the district and six municipalities’ capacity to manage LED |
| |The Development Planning Unit’s strategic objective is to guide, coordinate and implement spatial planning policies in the district through: |
| |Improved access to spatial information for planning purposes |
| |Formulation of development policies, strategies and action plans |
| |Creating sustainable human settlements, quality urban and rural environments |
| | |
| |The key issues for 2005/06 were: |
| | |
| |Review of the District LED plan |
| |Fast racking the compilation of SDF’s by local municipalities |
| |Establishment of sector working committees in mining tourism and agriculture |
| |Establishment of the Waterberg Development Agency |
| |Capacity building and establishment of functional LED unit in local municipality |
| |Development of Mining and Cooperatives Strategies |
|Performance reporting |1. Number of all economic development personnel: | | |
| |Professional(Directors/Managers) (3) |4 | |
| |Non-professional(Clerical/Administrative) |1 | |
| |Temporary |0 | |
| |Contract |2 |R 1 415 225 |
| |Note: total number to be calculated on full-time equivalent (FTE) basis, total | | |
| |cost to include total salary package | | |
| | | | |
| |2. Detail and cost of other rural development | | |
| |strategies: | | |
| |The following rural development strategies were initiated by the department: | | |
| | | | |
| |Poverty Reduction Plan | | |
| |Agricultural Development Strategy |R 500 000 | |
| |Modimolle Agricultural Training Centre and |R 150 000 | |
| |Establishment of Co-operatives |R 1.2 M | |
| | |R 250 000 |R 1 900 000 |
| |3. Type and number of grants and subsidies | | |
| |received: | | |
| |Integrated Provincial Support Programme | | |
| |Note: total value of specific planning and development grants actually received|R 1M | |
| |during year to be recorded over the five quarters - Apr to Jun last year, Jul | | |
| |to Sep, Oct to Dec, Jan to Mar, Apr to Jun this year. | | |
|Municipal Function |Formulation of Sector Strategies |
|Performance reporting |Core sectoral strategies of mining, tourism, cooperatives and agric were successfully completed. |
|Municipal Function | Coordination of LED activities in the District and Capacity building cipal Function |
|Performance reporting |LED review is under way for proper coordination of LED activities in the district |
| |Municipalities were assisted to establish their LED divisions |
| |Mining, tourism & agriculture LED working forums were establishment for effective coordination of these sectors |
| |The district participated effectively on EU LED programme |
| |Assisted communities and individuals to apply for funding from EU LED programme |
| |Facilitated the establishment and registration of cooperatives in the district with LIBSA |
| |Assisted mines to formulate their social and labour plans |
| |The variance has been that not all six municipalities managed to establish fully-fledged LED divisions and that the LED-working forum was not as fully functional as expected. |
|Municipal Function |Poverty Alleviation and Job creation; Spatial Planning Coordination in district |
|Performance reporting |Poverty related projects were successfully implemented such as registration of coops, agricultural training centre and SMME |
| |The variance in this area was that training was not effective. |
|Municipal Function |Coordinationof Spatial Planning in the district |
|Performance reporting |The target was that all six municipalities must have their spatial framework by end June 2006 |
| |Five of the six municipalities now have their spatial frameworks |
| |The district failed meet the target, one municipality still do not have the spatial framework |
|Municipal Function |Tourism Promotion |
| | |
|Performance reporting |Tourism was successfully promoted in the district through events such as wildlife expo, Bela-Bela tourism festival, wilde fees in Thabazimbi as well as Modimolle grape festival |
| |The tourism strategy & implementation Plan was also completed in the year under review |
| |The district participated in the Tourism Indaba in Durban |
| | |
|Key Performance Area |Basic Service Delivery and Infrastructure Development |
|Municipal function: |Sports and Recreation (Social Services) |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |Coordination and facilitation of Sports Arts and Culture Activities to unleash young people's talents |
| | |
|Description of the Activity. |To establish a structure that co-ordinates sports activities within the district |
| |To ensure the construction and maintenance of sports facilities |
| |To coordinate annual sports festivals |
| |To ensure that municipalities in cooperation with federations contribute to the development of sports programmes |
| |Municipalities and other stakeholders to mobilise funding for coaching programmes |
| | |
| |The Strategic objectives of the above functions are to : |
| | |
| |Ensure that 25% of young people’s talents are identified within the next 5 years. |
| |Ensure effective co-ordination and management of Sports, Arts and Culture within local municipalities. |
| |The key highlights for 2005/06 were: |
| |Hosting O R Tambo Games in District |
| |Hosting of Indigenous Games |
| |Co-ordinating meetings related to sports, arts and culture |
|Municipal function |Sports Development nurthe Year, Performance Targets Against Actual Achieved and Plans to Improve ormance |
|Performance reporting |Hosted O R Tambo Games in District |
| |Co-ordinated meetings |
|Municipal function |Arts and culture |
|Performance reporting |Hosted Indigenous games |
| |Provision of awards to athletes |
| |Co-ordinated meetings |
|Municipal function |Education |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |To ensure that all learners have access to education |
| | |
|Description of the Activity. |To encourage partnerships between the relevant sectoral departments and the municipality in identifying infrastructure needs |
| | |
| |The Strategic objective of the above functions is to : |
| | |
| |Ensure that all learners in farm areas have access to education |
| | |
| |The key highlights for 2005/06 were: |
| | |
| |Fencing rural school |
| |Purchasing of computers to offshoot schools |
| |Meetings with Department of Education |
|Municipal Function |Education in farming communities |
| | |
|Performance Reporting |Fencing rural school |
| |Purchasing of computers to offshoot schools |
| |Meetings |
|Municipal function: |Public Safety |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |To improve the level of safety and security by reducing the incidents of identified crime and ensuring that disaster management plans are in place. |
| | |
|Description of the Activity. |To ensure that proper co ordination of safety and security campaigns within the district |
| |Supporting local municipalities to have capacity to render a disaster management function |
| |The Strategic objectives of the above functions are to : |
| | |
| |Reduce or eradicate incidences of crime in the District by 5% before 31 March 2006 |
| |To empower local municipalities to render a disaster management function |
| |Disaster prevention and preparedness |
| |Improvement of disaster management communication network |
| |The key highlights for 2005/06 were: |
| | |
| |Establishment of rural and community safety |
| |Establishment of disaster centres |
| |Establishment of Fire Protection Association |
| |Established Join Operation Committees |
| |Appointed service provider to develop the communication network plan |
|Municipal Function |Safety and security |
|Performance Reporting | Meetings of rural and community safety held |
|Municipal Function |Disaster Management |
|Performance Reporting |Distributed tents and blankets to disaster victims |
| |Appointed Disaster Officer |
| |Distribution of 3 fire engines to local municipalities |
|Municipal Function |Environmental Health |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| |The main focus is on prevention of spread of communicable diseases, investigation of reported cases, control of outbreaks, monitoring and meat quality and compliance with |
|Overview |legislation; promoting integration of environmental management. |
| |To provide services in terms of the Health Act, 1997 (No. 63 of 1977) |
|Description of the Activity. |Monitor compliance with Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure that appropriate preventive and remedial measures are implemented. |
| |Waste management |
| |Abattoir |
| |The Strategic objectives of the above functions are to : |
| | |
| |To prevent the spread of disease, raise health and hygiene awareness; and protect the natural environment; thereby contributing to the social and environmental stability of the |
| |District |
| |Management of the Abattoir to ensure that the meat slaughtered is good for human consumption |
| |The key issues for 2005/06 were: |
| |Establishment of disaster disease outbreak committee |
| |Developed Environmental and Waste management plan |
| |Audit of landfill sites within district |
| |Meetings held with veterinarian services |
| |Monitoring of hygiene at abattoir |
|Municipal Function |Health and Social Welfare |
|Performance Reporting |Establishment of an orphanage drop in centre |
| |Coordination and completion of devolution of municipal health services from local municipalities and provincial government |
| |Appointed Assistant Head of health |
|Municipal Function |Waste management |
|Performance Reporting |Audited landfill sites |
| |Rehabilitated Bela Bela landfill site |
| |Developed Integrated waste and environmental plan |
|Municipal Function |Management of Abattoir |
|Management of Abattoir |Appointed general workman |
| |Reviewed contract of IMQAS for meat examination and grading |
|Key Performance Area |Basic Services and Infrastructure Development |
|Municipal Function |Water & Sanitation |
| |Road & Storm water |
| |Electricity |
| |Municipal Infrastructure Grant Programme |
|Reporting Level |Detail |
| | |
|Overview |The mission of the Department is to provide technical support in ensuring that the services provided by the Municipality in realizing the strategic focus areas of Technical |
| |Services are being done efficiently and effectively. |
| | |
|Description of the Activity |Technical Services is comprised of the following functional areas: |
| | |
| |Water and Sanitation |
| |Roads and Storm water |
| |Electricity |
| |MIG Programme |
| | |
| |The Strategic objectives are as follows: |
| | |
| |Coordination of water and sanitation development. |
| |Ensuring proper management of the district road network |
| |Co-ordination of the provision of the electricity services |
| |Management, administration and coordination of the MIG Programme |
| |The key issues for 2005/06 were: |
| | |
| |Coordinate Monthly District Water and Sanitation Forum |
| |Re-gravel/pave identified local access roads |
| |Coordinate Monthly District Energy Forum |
| |Management of the MIG Programme and the MIG Project Management Unit |
|Performance Reporting |1. Water and Sanitation |
| |DWAF has established Area Planning Forum for the Waterberg District Municipality for the coordination of the planning and development of water and sanitation activities. |
| |Waterberg District Municipality is a stakeholder in the forum |
| |Four Area Planning Forums and two Catchments Management Agencies meeting were hosted for the year |
| |A total of 16 old water and sanitation projects were managed for the year |
| | |
| |Roads and Stormwater |
| |A total of 13 local access roads were re-gravelled/paved for the year |
| |Only about 30% of the work towards the development of the roads management and information system was done |
| | |
| |Electricity |
| |Four District Energy Forums were held for the year |
| |A total of 3 old electricity capital projects were managed for the year |
| | |
| |MIG Programme |
| |R1.9m was allocated to the Waterberg District Municipality towards the financing of the management of the MIG Programme worth R58.0m |
| |The MIG Project Management Unit was established in January 2005 |
| |A total of 10 old CMIP projects and 18 new MIG projects were managed for the year |
|Municipal Function |Water and sanitation coordination |
|Performance Reporting |It was established that DWAF was also coordinating the planning and development of water and sanitation services via the Area Planning Forum. |
|Municipal Function |Roads management system |
|Performance Reporting |The road function was devolved to the district as at July 2004. The District engaged with RAL to acquire information and database of the Waterberg District Road Network. |
|Municipal Function |Re-gravelling/Paving of roads |
|Performance Reporting |Due to lack of knowledge and information on the district road network, the District continued to re-gravel/pave local access roads. Development of the Roads Management System is |
| |expected to be complete by June 2005. |
|Municipal Function |Electricity coordination |
|Performance Reporting |The major issue in the electricity services is the restructuring of the electricity business which will have a major impact on Local Municipalities. The sub-issues that were |
| |identified are the ring-fencing of the electricity business by the Local Municipalities and the handing over of the electricity distribution licence from Eskom to Local |
| |Municipalities. |
|Municipal Function |MIG Programme |
|Performance Reporting |The District was able to develop and establish the MIG Programme Management System: the PMU, the MIS Reporting; the District Monthly MIG Forum. The District MIG Programme will |
| |however cease to exist as at April 2006. The District has employed two technical assistants (PMU Technicians) towards the strengthening of the capacity to manage the own funded |
| |Capital Programme as well. |
3.2 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
FREE BASIC SERVICES
The District does not directly render water, sanitation and electricity services to residents but only performs a coordinating role and providing project management assistance to the six local municipalities.
The following information was obtained from the PIMSS database in the district. It should be noted that the purpose for including this information in the Annual Report is to provide a district picture of progress made during the previous financial year in rendering basic services to indigent households.
|Local municipality |Total number of households* |Number of indigent households benefiting from free basic services# |
| | |Water |Sanitation |Electricity |
|Bela-Bela |12 279 |9 500 |0 |9 500 |
|Lephalale |23 401 |7 500 |140 |2 500 |
|Modimolle |17 536 |13 000 |4 500 |13 000 |
|Mogalakwena |68 010 |38 148 |2 148 |1 107 |
|Mookgophong |6 977 |2 800 |0 |3 100 |
|Thabazimbi |20 280 |6 498 |0 |492 |
|Total |148 483 |77 446 |6 788 |29 699 |
*Total number of households according to 2001 Census
# Information provided by local municipalities
Service Delivery Backlogs
Access to Services
|Service |1996 |2001 |2005 |
| |(117 615 Households) |(168 071 Households) |(222 569 Households) |
| |Basic and above |Below basic |Basic and above |Below basic |Basic and above |Below basic |
|Water1 |86 241 |31 374 |145 316 |22 754 |148 546 |74 023 |
|Sanitation |104 448 |13 167 |142 638 |25 433 |66 153 |156 416 |
|Electricity |53 579 |64 036 |109 752 |58 319 |118 483 |104 086 |
|Refuse Removal |37 612 |80 003 |54 553 |113 517 |60 345 |162 224 |
|Housing2 |83 217 |34 400 |131 252 |36 823 |50 810 |171 759 |
|Telephones3 |85 131 |32 484 |147 901 |20 170 |n/a |n/a |
Notes:
1. 2001 figures – Basic and above include pipe water within a village, which is not included in 1996 and 2005.
2. Housing figures only include housing delivered by government.
3. Telephone statistics for 2005 were not available.
3.3. KEY CHALLENGES
The following challenges have been identified impacting on the provision of basic infrastructure and services in the various local municipalities.
Electricity
Coping with the challenges of the electricity reform process
Upgrading electricity supply to meet the demand and development of business operations
Ensuring access to free basic electricity in villages and farming communities
Register and supply all deserving beneficiaries with free basic coupons
Water
▪ Finalization of the Section 78 Process
▪ Recruitment and retention of technical skills for project planning, implementation and supervision
▪ Budget required to eradicate the backlogs
▪ Water Resources and water demand
▪ Development of Cost Recovery Systems
▪ Maintenance and Operations of transferred DWAF Schemes
▪ Provision of water to industrial users to unlock economic development
▪ Synergy across the three spheres of government in budget allocation, project implementation and monitoring
▪ Capacity of emerging service providers
Refuse removal (solid waste)
▪ Rehabilitation of borrow pits, quarries and dumping of construction waste material.
▪ Preserve the district heritage and protection of identified heritage sites.
▪ Duration of producing Environmental Impact Assessment study for various projects.
▪ Aligning the land use management system with the spatial development framework
▪ Ensuring that all municipalities that operate with non permitted land fill sites acquire the necessary permission from the relevant department to operate such.
▪ Ensure that all land fill sites are managed according to the required standards
▪ Identification of new and rehabilitation of existing dumping sites
Roads
▪ Developing a road master plan for Waterberg District Municipality.
▪ Funding for implementation of projects identified in the Waterberg District Municipality Integrated Transportation Plan.
▪ Maintenance of District roads.
▪ Aligning integrated environmental management plan with implementation of Integrated Transportation Plan.
▪ Upgrading of roads and other safety improvements.
Housing
▪ Housing not a competency of the district municipality, therefore do not have the capacity to provide the service
▪ Approval of beneficiaries
▪ Capacity of Developers / Contractors
▪ Sub-contracting by Developers
▪ Problems by Developers with acquisition of building material
▪ Honoring of agreements / Developers starting on time as per agreements
▪ Existence of informal dwellings on building sites
▪ Illegal occupation
▪ Funding for township establishments
Local Economic Development
▪ Managers serve as both IDP and LED manager and at times no official to drive LED
▪ Social and Economic projects are not separated
▪ Lack of project management
▪ There is no clear job descriptions in LED units
▪ Lack of funding for LED projects
Education
▪ Provision of electricity to 190 schools, which accounts to 35 % of total number of schools recorded under the departmental records.
▪ Provision of water to 161 schools that comprise 30 % of the schools listed under departmental records.
▪ Provision of sanitation to 98 schools about 18% of those listed under departmental records as properly registered schools.
▪ Provision of additional classrooms as the average indication is that each classroom accommodates approximately 45 learners on a district scale.
▪ Ensuring that gender equity is maintained among educators throughout the district.
▪ Investigate the need to build additional institutions of higher learning
▪ Ensuring that FET centres and Institutions of Higher Learning that are not on departmental records are properly registered with the department
Social Development
▪ Ensuring a paradigm shift from handouts to social development
▪ Development of an integrated development planning approach among all private and government sectors
▪ Recruitment of foster parents for fostering of 800 orphans listed under departmental records.
▪ Ensuring that the infrastructure developed in public institutions cater for the disabled.
▪ Delivery of service to the disadvantaged in remote rural areas.
▪ To ensure that social development projects are strengthened to address poverty pockets in areas where they are established.
▪ Bringing both private and public institutions on board in supporting community-based projects with an element of Local Economic Development.
▪ Development of Drought relief programme that integrates operational plans of all participating stakeholders in drought prone areas
▪ Involvement of all stakeholders in the off-loading of emergency food security to beneficiaries
Health
▪ To increase access to ARV services district wide.
▪ To decrease the vacancy rate of professionals at hospital and PHC level
▪ To improve the quality of child care and reduce the infant mortality rate
▪ Increase access and utilisation of VCT, care and support services
▪ Minimise the impact of HIV/AIDS on the working force with specific reference to public servants.
▪ Intensify HIV/AIDS and TB awareness campaigns.
▪ Empowering SMME’s in the district through BEE Projects.
Safety and Security
▪ Poor lightning in certain areas that contribute to the commission of these crimes.
▪ Inaccessible roads in rural areas like Bakenberg, Mapela and surrounding areas in Mahwelereng as well as Gilead policing areas.
▪ Street kids that roam the streets during the night are also exposed to the danger of falling victims to crime.
▪ The escalating number of Illegal operation of shebeens and unlicensed liquor outlets that sell liquor to children less than 18 years of age.
Land Development
▪ Accelerating the finalisation of land claims lodged, especially those that are under investigations.
▪ Finalising and adopting the spatial development framework.
▪ Land redistribution hindering residential and economic development.
▪ Addressing the land tenure rights in rural areas and townships.
▪ Venturing into private public partnerships on spatial development initiatives.
▪ Existence of informal dwellings on building sites
▪ Illegal occupation
▪ Funding for township establishments
3.4 KEY SUCCESSES
The key successes relating to the performance of the District Municipality include the following amongst others:
• The District won the provincial Vuna awards for the category C municipality and won for the following KPAs:
• Basic Service Delivery
• Municipal Financial Viability and Management
• Good Governance and Public Participation
• The District also won third place in the national Vuna awards
• Conversion of accounting policies and reporting to GAMAP/GRAP
• HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns conducted
• Completion of district LED plan and district Marketing and Investment Strategy
• Developed District Disaster Management Plan
• Land donated for the construction of Disaster Centres in Modimolle and Lephalale
• Established District Water and Sanitation & Energy Forums
• Re-gravelled and paved identified local access roads
CHAPTER 4:
PROCESS PLANNING
4.THE PLANNING PROCESS AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Integrated development planning is one of the key tools for local government to cope with its new role and function in terms of the Constitution of The Republic of South Africa, 1996 and other applicable legislation. In contrast to the role planning has played in the past, Integrated Development Planning is now seen as a function of municipal management, as part of an integrated system of planning and delivery. The Integrated Development Planning process is meant to arrive at decisions on issues such as municipal budgets, land management, social and economic development and Institutional transformation in a consultative, systematic and strategic manner.
Integrated Development Planning is a process through which municipalities prepare a strategic development plan, for a five-year period. The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) is a product of the integrated development planning process. The IDP is the principal strategic planning instrument that guides and informs all planning, budgeting, management and decision-making in a municipality. It is a tool for bridging the gap between the current reality and the vision of satisfying the needs of the whole community in an equitable and sustainable manner. Integrated development planning will enable municipalities to develop strategic policy capacity to mobilise resources and to target their activities. In practice the IDP is a comprehensive strategic business plan for the municipality over the short and medium term.
Under the new Constitution, local government has a new, expanded role to play. In addition to the traditional role of providing services, municipalities must now lead, manage and plan for development and also play an active role in social and human development. In addition to ensuring that all citizens have access to at least a minimum level of basic services, municipalities must now also take a leading role in addressing poverty, and in promoting local economic and social development.
They must not only deliver on present demands for services, they must also anticipate future demands and find ways to provide services in an effective,efficient and sustainable manner over the short, medium and long term.
The value of integrated development planning for municipalities lies in the formulation of focused plans, based on developmental priorities. It is essential to spend the limited council resources on the key development priorities of the local community. This is the essence of the IDP - how to align the projects,plans, budgets and other council resources, as well as the budgets, programmes, etc. of Provincial and National Government with the sustainable development priorities of the community.
4.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The IDP process requires that all role-players are fully aware of their own, as well as other role-players’ responsibilities in the execution of the IDP process.
The roles and responsibilities of the various spheres of government and other relevant stakeholders are as follows:
• The role of the national sphere of government is to provide a legal framework, policy guidelines and principles for sectoral, provincial and local government planning. National government’s involvement in the process was basically restricted to the input from specific departments (e.g. DWAF) rendering services in the provinces and to assist and guide municipalities in the integrated development planning process;
• The role of the provincial sphere of government is to monitor the IDP process on a provincial level, facilitate horizontal alignment of the IDP’s of district municipalities within the province and to ensure that vertical/sector alignment took place between provincial sector departments and the municipal planning process;
• The role of the Waterberg District Municipality is firstly to compile a 5 - year IDP as part of an integrated system of planning and delivery, which will serve as an outline for all future development activities within the municipal area. Secondly, the district
municipality is also responsible to effect horizontal alignment of the IDP’s of the municipalities, vertical alignment between district and local planning and the facilitation of vertical alignment of IDP’s with other spheres of government and sector departments; and
• The input and participation of corporate service providers, private sector, NGO’s, representatives of organised stakeholder groups,
etc. in the IDP process is important as these stakeholders are involved in providing goods and rendering services in the municipal area and to inform the planning process of issues, problems and constraints experienced, opportunities that exists and areas of potential intervention.
The following diagram indicates the organizational structure that was established to ensure the institutionalisation of the IDP process, the effective management of the drafting of the IDP and to ensure proper and sufficient stakeholder participation in decision-making.
DIAGRAM 1: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE IDP REVIEW PROCESS
TABLE 4.1:
4.2THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH STAKEHOLDER DURING THE IDP REVIEW PROCESS
|ACTORS |ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES |
|Executive mayor/committee |Ensures that all relevant political actors are appropriately involved, monitor the planning process, consider, adopt and approve the IDP |
| |Participate in the IDP process. Assists the mayor as well as officials in problem solving and establishing policies regarding their specific portfolio committees. |
|Portfolio Councillors | |
|Ward Councillors and Committees|Link the planning process to their constituencies, organise stakeholder consultation and participation through District Level representative structures and through the IDP Rep Forum and ensure |
| |that the municipal budget is linked to and based on the IDP. |
| |Is responsible for the overall management, co-ordination and monitoring of the planning process, ensuring that all relevant actors are appropriately involved, is responsible for the day-to-day |
| |management of the drafting process, ensures that Alignment takes place with provincial and national department’s budgets and alignment of planning activities on provincial and local level. |
|Municipal Manager | |
| |Takes joint responsibility for overall management, co-ordination and monitoring of the planning process. They would identify persons to be in charge of the different roles, activities and |
| |responsibilities of the process and specific planning activities, screens the contents of the IDP, considers and comment on inputs from sub-committees, provincial sector departments and |
|Line function Managers |specialists,\as well as comment on draft outputs from each phase of the IDP. |
|IDP manager |This position does not exist at district level. The PIMSS Centre is currently fulfilling such role. |
| |Offer Professional support and technical guidance to both the district and local municipalities. Co-ordinate Project implementation and IDP meetings. |
|PIMSS | |
|Sector Departments (Province, |They provide all relevant technical, sector and financial information for analysis to determine priority issues and contribute technical expertise in the identification of projects. They are |
|national) |also responsible for the preparation of Project proposals, the integration of projects and sector programmes. |
|Business sector |The form part of the IDP representative forum and make contributions to the IDP process at that level. |
|NGO’s and CBO’s |Support the alignment procedures between the municipalities and spheres of government and product related contributions at the IDP representative forum. |
| |Submit inputs to the IDP process through ward committees and public consultation processes to the IDP representative forum at Local municipal level. Municipalities will then submit the said |
| |inputs in a form of in-depth analysis to the district for consideration during the review process. Each ward in all municipalities within the district will send one delegate to the IDP |
| |Representative Forum effective from thisfinancial year. |
|Community members | |
4.3 PROCESS OVERVIEW: STEPS AND EVENTS
ACTIVITY TEMPLATE
|PREPARATORY PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
| |Prepare IDP/BUDGET/PMS Review Framework and process plan |PIMSS Manager | | |
|1/1 Drafting of framework and plans | |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |01 -09 Aug 2006 |
| |Discuss and adopt IDP/BUDGET/PMS Review Framework and process | | | |
|1/2 Planning process |plan |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |11 August 2006 |
| |Discuss and adopt IDP/BUDGET/PMS Review Framework and process | | | |
|1/3 intergovernmental consultation |plan |Executive Mayor |Co-ordinating Committee |18 August 2006 |
|1/4 Public participation and consultation |Discuss and approve IDP/BUDGET/PMS Review Framework and process| | | |
| |plan |Executive Mayor |IDP Rep Forum |22 August 2006 |
| |Discuss and approve IDP/BUDGET/PMS Review Framework and process| | | |
|1/5 Executive decision making |plan |Executive Mayor |Municipal Council |24 August 2006 |
|ANALYSIS PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
| |Identification of gaps & incorporation of new |PIMSS Manager | | |
|2/1 Compilation of existing information |information. |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |01 Sept- 28 Oct 2006 |
| |Identification & analysis of spatial gaps. |PIMSS Manager | | |
|2/2 Spatial analysis. | |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |01 Sept- 28 Oct 2006 |
|2/3 Socio-economic analysis. |Identification & analysis of socio-economic issues. |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee | |
| | |Municipal Manager | |01 Sept- 28 Oct 2005 |
|2/4 Community and stakeholderlevel |Analysing inputs from community & stakeholders. |Municipal Manager |Co-ordinating Committee | |
|analysis. | |Executive Mayor | |21 October 2006 |
|2/5 Reconciling existing information. | |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee | |
| |Reconciling activities 1/1 & 1/2 |Municipal Manager | |23-27 October 2006 |
|2/6 Municipal wide analysis. |Identification & analysis of gaps within municipal |Municipal Manager | | |
| |wide issues. |Executive Mayor |IDP Rep Forum |08 December 2006 |
|2/7 Review of Municipal priority |Review the municipal priority issues. |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee |27 Oct – 10 Nov 2006 |
|issues. | |Municipal Manager | | |
|2/8 In-depth analysis of priority issues. |In-depth analysis of reviewed priority issues. |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee |27 Oct – 10 Nov 2006 |
| | |Municipal Manager | | |
|2/9 specific guidelines and programmes. |In-depth analysis of reviewed sector specific issues.|PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee |27 Oct – 10 Nov 2006 |
| | |Municipal Manager | | |
| |Compiling summary reports for each priority issue. |PIMSS Manager |Co-ordinating Committee | |
|2/10 Consolidation of analysis results. | |Municipal Manager | |13 – 24 Nov 2006 |
|STRATEGIES PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
| | |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee | |
|3/1 Vision |Reviewing the vision. |Municipal Manager |Co-ordinating Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
| | |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee | |
|3/2 Working objectives |Reviewing the objectives. |Municipal Manager | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|3/3 Localised Strategic guidelines |Reviewing Localised Strategic Guidelines |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee | |
| | |Municipal Manager | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|3/4 Creating Strategic Alternatives. |Developing strategic alternatives. |PIMSS Manager |Co-ordinating Committee | |
| | |Municipal Manager | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
| |Refining resource frames & redesigning financial | |Steering Committee | |
|3/5 Financial strategy |strategies. |Chief Financial Officer | |04 Dec- 14 Feb 2007 |
| |Organising District Municipality level Strategy |PIMSS Manager |Extended Steering Committee | |
|3/6 Mid year review |Workshop |Municipal Manager | |15-16 February 2007 |
|3/7 Linking District strategies with Local |Translating District-wide strategies into Local and | |Co-ordinating Comm. | |
|Municipal strategy |District Projects |Municipal Manager | | |
| | |Executive Mayor | |02 March 2007 |
|3/8 Creating conditions for public debates on |Compiling & structuring information on alternative |Municipal Manager | | |
|alternatives |strategies |Executive Mayor |IDP Rep Forum | |
| | | | |09 March 2007 |
|3/9 Analysing alternatives | |Municipal Manager | | |
| |Analysing alternative strategies |Executive Mayor |IDP Rep Forum |09 March 2007 |
| |Making choices on viable strategies. |Municipal Manager | | |
|3/10 Deciding on alternatives | |Executive Mayor |IDP Rep Forum |09 March 2007 |
|PROJECT PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
| | |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
|4/1 Project Task Teams |Reviewing & redesigning projects |Respective Managers WDM |District Clusters |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/2 Involvement of project partners |To ensure that project proposals are linked to | | | |
| |Sector/Corporate specific guidelines |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| | |Respective Managers WDM |District Clusters |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/3 Target group participation in |Ensuring that the proposed projects meet the | | | |
|Project Planning. |expectations of the targeted groups. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| | |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/4 Designing Project Proposals |Reviewing project proposals. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| | |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/5 Setting indicators for objectives. |To illustrate the impact of the project on the |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| |targeted groups. |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/6 Project Output/Target/Locations |To provide a basis for a viable management tool. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| | |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/7 Major Activities/Timing/ |To provide a basis for a viable management tool. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
|Responsible Agencies | |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|4/8 Cost/Budget Estimates /Sources of Finance |To provide a basis for a viable management tool. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
| | |Respective Managers WDM |Project Task Teams |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
| |To ensure a link between proposed projects and | | | |
|4/9 Establishing Preliminary Budget allocations |available resources. | | | |
| | |Chief financial officer |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
| |To ensure a link between proposed projects and | | | |
|4/10 Confirmation of project |available resources. |District Cluster Chairpersons | | |
|designs | |Respective Managers WDM |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|INTEGRATION PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
|5/1 Integrating Projects and Programmes. |To ensure a holistic approach to develop projects. | |Sector Specialists | |
| | |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/2 Screening of draft project proposals. |Checking project compliance with priority issues & |Municipal Manager |Sector Specialists | |
| |strategies. |PIMSS Manager |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/3 (5) Year Financial Plan |To create MTEF for planning budget link. | |Steering Committee | |
| | |Chief Financial Officer | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/4 (5) Year Capital Investment Plan |To inform the municipal budget. | |Steering Committee | |
| | |Chief Financial Officer | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/5 Integrated Spatial Development Framework |To review a framework for integrated land-use |Manager: Planning & Economic |Steering Committee | |
| |management. |Development | |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/6 Integrated LED Programme | |Manager: Planning & Economic |Steering Committee | |
| |To review existing LED Plan. |Development |Interest Groups |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/7 Integrated Poverty Reduction Programme |To ensure that the IDP is focused on poverty |Manager: Planning & Economic | | |
| |reduction and gender equity. |Development |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/8 Integrated Environ- mental Programme |To review existing Environmental Plan. | |Steering Committee | |
| | |Manager: Social Services |Environ. Specialists |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/9 Integrated Institutional Programme |To ensure institutional transformation & integrated | | | |
| |management systems. |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
| | | | | |
|5/10 Performance Management System | |Manager: Corporate Services | | |
| |To update the existing system. | |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|5/11 Integrated bulk water resource/ |To develop a strategy would ensure an integrated | | | |
|Development management |approach to bulk water supply | | | |
|strategy | |Manager: Technical Services |Steering Committee |04 Dec-14 Feb 2007 |
|APPROVAL PHASE |
|PLANNING ACTIVITY |TASK |RESPONSIBLE PERSON |PARTICIPANTS |TIME SCHEDULE |
|6/1 Providing opportunity for comments from |Integrating Plans and Programmes in compliance with | | | |
|Sector Dept. |Sector Guidelines. |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |19-22 Feb 2007 |
|6/2 District-Level Workshop for horizontal | |Municipal Manager | | |
|co-ordination. |To align the District and LMs IDPs. |Executive Mayor |Co-ordinating Committee |03 May 2007 |
|6/3 Providing opportunity for comments from the |To check compliance of the IDP and the public | | | |
|public. |priorities. |Municipal Manager |IDP Rep Forum |11 May 2007 |
| |To incorporate identified gaps into the IDP. | | | |
|6/4 Incorporating comments. | |PIMSS Manager |IDP Rep Forum |11 May 2007 |
|6/5 Draft IDP - adoption by |To adopt the draft IDP, as a legal binding document. | | | |
|Council. | |Executive Mayor |WDM Council |29 March 2007 |
|6/6 District summaries of Local IDP’s. | | | | |
| |Preparing IDP summaries for all Locals |PIMSS Manager |Co-ordinating Committee |02-06 Apr 2007 |
| |To receive comments from various stakeholders and | | | |
|6/7 Invitation of public comments |the public on the draft IDP | | | |
|on media | |Municipal Manager |Steering Committee |09-27 Apr 2007 |
| |To adopt the final IDP, as a legal binding document | | | |
|6/8 Final adoption by Council | |Executive Mayor |WDM Council |24 May 2007 |
The Waterberg District Municipality's approach to Review process was based on a community and issue driven approach. Although the District Municipality is legally obliged to review and approve an Integrated Development Plan and to align all actions, projects, programmes etc. according to the issues in terms of the IDP, the approach followed by the Waterberg District Municipality included the facilitation and capturing of issues identified by the community that relates to the competency of other stakeholders and that should be addressed by these stakeholders.
The IDP review process officially commenced in October 2005.
The planning process necessitated that various meetings and workshops be held with government departments, organizations, bodies and institutions through the established IDP structures.
4.4 MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS HELD DURING IDP PROCESS
|Meetings |No. of Meetings |Composition |Purpose |
|Council meetings |3 |Meetings were attended by: |The purpose of the meetings were to: |
| | |Mayor; | |
| | |Councillors; |Approve the IDP Review Framework and Process Plan |
| | |Managers of various service business units |Approve draft IDP reviewed |
| | |or Departments. |Approve final IDP |
| | |PIMSS | |
|IDP Steering Committee |3 |Meetings were attended by: |The purpose of the meetings were to: |
|meetings | |Executive Mayor; |Manage, co-ordinate and monitor the IDP Process; |
| | |Mayoral Committee members; |ensure that all relevant actors were appropriately |
| | |Municipal Manager; |involved; |
| | |Managers of various service business units |Identify municipal wide issues and ensure that |
| | |PIMSS; and |issues are addressed in the planning process; |
| | |Divisional Managers |ensure that horizontal & vertical alignment took |
| | | |place in planning process; |
| | | |screen the contents of the IDP; |
| | | |consider and comment on inputs from |
| | | |sub-committee/s and specialists; |
| | | |discuss and comment on inputs from provincial |
| | | |sector departments and support providers; and |
| | | |comment on draft outputs from each phase of the |
| | | |IDP. |
|IDP Representative |3 |Meetings were attended by: |The purpose of the meetings were to: |
|Forum | |District IDP Steering Committee members; |Co-ordinate with local municipalities, provincial and |
| | |Government departments: 3 Spheres |national departments; |
| | |PIMSS; and |form a structured link between the municipal |
| | |Traditional leaders |government and representatives of the public; |
| | |Business community, NGO’ s and CBO’s |Provide an organisational mechanism for discussion, |
| | |Ward committee representatives and CDW s |Negotiation and decision-making between the |
| | |Community Development Workers |stakeholders including ward committees and community |
| | |Councillors from both district and local |development workers on the framework and process |
| | |Municipality level |plan for review, the situational analysis, strategies and |
| | | |project phases |
|IDP Strategic Review |4 |Meetings were attended by | |
|Workshops | |Executive Mayor; |To develop a strategic direction for the institution and |
| | |Mayoral Committee members; |develop a new vision for the institution |
| | |Senior managers; and other senior staff members; |To contextualise and apply the NSDP |
| | |PIMSS |To forge the IGR framework Act between all govt.spheres |
| | |Sector Departments |To give strategic direction to administration on |
| | |Private Sector |organisational re-arrangements and planning. |
| | |Local Municipalities | |
| | |OTP, | |
| | |Presidency and CSIR | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
The above-mentioned meetings were held on a regular basis at predetermined dates and giving participants sufficient notice of such meetings. The composition of the meetings were done to suit the local circumstances of the Waterberg District Municipality and to ensure that sufficient representation and participation on district and local level could be achieved. Most of the work was done at the Steering Committee level, while public participation took place during Representative Forum meetings and district imbizos held in local municipalities, where local needs and issues were raised. Reports on progress with the IDP process were given to the Representative Forum for discussion. The District Strategic retreat with local municiplities was primarily responsible for alignment of processes, projects and budgets between the district and local municipalities.
4.5 SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
The assessment of the IDP process was done in terms of the following criteria:
• IDP Review process (methodology) as contained in the IDP Guidelines;
• Content requirements of the IDP as stipulated in the IDP Guidelines;
• Public participation;
• Co-ordination with local municipalities in terms of time frames;
• Integration of planning processes and budgets with local municipalities; and
• Integration with national and provincial governments.
|CRITERIA |ASSESSMENT |
| | |The IDP Guide Pack provides sufficient guidelines that can be followed to complete the IDP. |
|1 |IDP process (methodology) |The process is clear and logic. |
| |Content requirements of the |The IDP Guide Pack requires minimum outputs or deliverables, which are not necessarily applicable |
|2 |IDP |on all levels of local government, i.e. metro councils, district councils, local municipalities. |
| | |Provision is made for sufficient public participation although stakeholders need to be educated |
|3 |Public participation |and supported to interact more in the process. District wide Imbizos were held in each local municipality. |
| |Co-ordination with local |The review process has experienced difficulty with regard to co-ordination with local municipalities |
| |municipalities |with regard to time frames. This is due for various reasons, which will not necessarily repeat itself |
|4 |(time frames) |in future. Interventions were and are still sought through engagement processes to deal with this |
| | |matter |
| |Integration with local |Thre has been an improvement on the integration of programmes between the district municipality and local |
|5 |municipalities |Municipalities. The planning on MTEF basis still require further strengthening |
| |Integration with national and |Integration with Provincial and National Government was still insufficient. The main |
| |provincial |stumbling block as identified, is the budgeting process of sector departments as it is |
|6 |governments |unknown to officials nominated to be part of the District IDP and the non involvement of |
| | |municipalities in the formulation of sector plans and programmes. |
4.6 SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THE IDP REVIEW PLANNING PROCESS
CHAPTER 5:
DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
5.1. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The Waterberg District Municipality is in the western section of the Limpopo Province sharing the provincial border with Botswana. There are five border control posts with Botswana at Groblersbrug, Stockpoort, Derdepoort, Zanziba and Platjan. Within the province, it shares its borders with Capricorn District Municipality to the north and Sekhukhune District to the east. The south-western boundary of the district abuts the Northwest Province and the south-eastern boundary the Gauteng Province. Entry points (roads) to the district from Sekhukhune are the N11, Gauteng the N1 (national road) and R101, from Northwest the R159 and R133.
The analysis overview provided in the Revised Waterberg IDP document serves as a reference framework and should be read in conjunction with the various analysis reports compiled as part of each of the sector plans. A brief overview of the study area, socio-economic analysis, spatial and land-use analysis, infrastructure, social services, economic potential and the environment is provided. For a more detailed fact file, the relevant sector plan analysis reports should be consulted.
The Waterberg District Municipality’s area of jurisdiction is made up of six local municipalities, as follows:
• Bela Bela Local Municipality, comprising the town Bela Bela, Bela Bela Township and urban & rural settlement.
• Lephalale Local Municipality, comprising the town Lephalale and numerous peri-urban and rural settlements.
• Modimolle Local Municipality, comprising the town Modimolle and urban/peri-urban settlements.
• Mogalakwena Local Municipality, comprising the town Mokopane and numerous urban/peri-urban and rural settlements.
• Mookgophong Local Municipality, comprising the town Mookgopong, Mookgophong Township and Roedtan.
• Thabazimbi Local Municipality, comprising the town Thabazimbi, Thabazimbi Township and urban settlement.
DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The district contains 11.6% of the Limpopo Province’s total population that is estimated at approximately 5.2 million with an average population density of 52.5 people per square km. This varies widely across the municipalities, from 147 people per square kilometre in the Mogalakwena Municipal area to six people per square kilometre in Mookgophong Municipal area. Mogalakwena Municipality is home to 48.6% of the district’s people (298 419 people) while just 5% of the population live in Mookgophong Municipality.
The majority of population within Waterberg is in the age groups of 0-19yrs contributing 46.6% of the total population, and a gradual decline of people as from the age of 20years to 85years. Furthermore, the male population group constitute a higher number than females in Mookgophong and Thabazimbi. Over 44% of Waterberg’s population is under 19 years old. Coupled with this figure is a high number of elderly residents in the area, as reflected hereunder. This implies that many people in Waterberg are dependent on the income of others.
5.2.1. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE – POPULATION & GROWTH
|MUNICIPALITY |OCT 2001 POPULATION |OCT 2001 HOUSEHOLDS |
| | | | |
| |Employed |Unemployed | |
|Bela – Bela |14 371 |6 965 |11 077 |
|Lephalale |28 673 |5 274 |25 040 |
|Modimolle |22 799 |6 992 |16 295 |
|Mogalakwena |37 089 |33 698 |94 272 |
|Mookgophong |11 196 |2 647 |6 183 |
|Thabazimbi |26 249 |7 045 |12 618 |
|Sub-total |140 377 |62 621 |165 485 |
|Total | 202 998 | |
SOURCE SSA 2001 CENSUS
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a reliable indicator of development. It measures life expectancy; literacy and income and shows a slight increase across all areas in the district. This suggests that while the economic situation in terms of lack of income and unemployment is increasing, there have been some gains in terms of service.
Household income levels are low. Almost all of the households within the Waterberg Municipal area (94%) record income levels of R1 – R6 400; and 26% earn between R6 001 and R18 000 a year. This translates into approximately 80% of households having annual incomes below R18 001.
Education levels are generally low. Only 11% of Waterberg’s population have matriculated or have above matriculation qualifications. At least 14% have no formal schooling. A comparison of the levels of education across the municipalities point to the strong links between low household incomes, high unemployment and low human development index.
In terms of the economic profile of the Waterberg District, the area combines elements of a sophisticated and globalised industrial economy with an under-developed agricultural sector, where household production levels are reportedly declining and where the majority of the population now depends on state pension and welfare as primary sources of subsistence. The district is consequently characterised by huge discrepancies in wealth and skills. The key sectors in the district (as defined by their contribution to GDP) include agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing Industry as a dominant employer, with 24% of the employed population within the District, followed by Community, Social & Personal Services Industry with 15% of the employed population. Few people are involved in the electricity, gas and water supply Industry constituting 0, 8% of the employed population. Tourism is also a significant contributor to GDP and employment in the district.
Despite the high agricultural production potential agriculture continues to contribute only 3.6% towards the economy of Waterberg District Municipality. Many local municipalities continue to import agricultural products outside their boundaries despite this potential. This is probably explained by low levels of development, especially high levels of poverty and poor infrastructural development, suggesting that potential and emerging farmers have limited access to resources necessary for production. Again, agriculture continues to contribute far less than expected to formal employment opportunities, and gross geographic production. These reflect a need for aggressive intervention in providing resources and infrastructure that will encourage agricultural production and hence increase employment opportunities.
CHAPTER 6:
ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
ECONOMIC CLUSTER
ANALYSIS
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING
6.1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Waterberg District Municipality has many sensitive and conservation worthy areas within its region, such as wetlands, river systems, cultural sites, rare and endangered species and of course Waterberg Biosphere. There are also many areas, which require remedial attention, i.e. the eradication of alien vegetation, erosion control and aspects which require special management, such as pollution and land use. This special and varied environment also presents many opportunities for the economic development of the area.
Environmental degradation in the form of soil erosion, overgrazing and habitat destruction are key issues affecting the quality of the land, while over exploitation and lack of effective control are key issues.
6.1.2: Generic impacts and associated mitigation measures
|Impact |Project phase |Mitigation measures |Performance specifications |
|Soil |
|Loss of top soil: (the essential |Pre-implementation; |Prior to earthing operations all topsoil (top 300mm as a minimum must be stripped and stockpiled |Site establishment |
|substrate for plant growth and |Implementation; Operation |separately from subsoil and rocky material. Soil must be stripped in a phased manner so as to retain |Access roads |
|hence rehabilitation) | |vegetation cover for as long as possible. |Combat erosion |
|Erosion; Compaction and crusting | |Stockpiled topsoil should not be compacted and should be replaced as the final soil layer. No vehicles |Vegetation clearance |
|Changes in soil properties (e.g. | |may be allowed access onto the stockpiles after they have been placed. |Topsoil |
|acidification and salinisation) | |Stockpiled soil must be protected by erosion- control berms if exposed for a period of greater than 14 |Erosion control |
|Chemical contamination | |days during the wet season. |Slope protection |
|Invasion of exotic biota | |To prevent topsoil from being spread out or mixed with the other spoil during the construction, soil |Storage facilities |
| | |stockpiles must not take the form of windrows. |Pollution prevention |
| | |Topsoil stripped from different sites must be stockpiled separately and clearly identified as such. | |
| | |Topsoil stockpiles must not be contaminated with oil, diesel, petrol, waste or any other foreign matter, | |
| | |which may inhibit the later growth of vegetation and micro-organisms in the soil. | |
| | |Soil must not be stockpiled on drainage lines or near watercourses. | |
| | |Topsoil obtained from sites with different soil types | |
| | |Soil must be exposed for the minimum time possible once cleared of invasive vegetation. The timing of | |
| | |clearing and grubbing should be co-ordinated as much as possible to avoid prolonged exposure of soils to | |
| | |wind and water erosion. | |
| | |Stockpiled topsoil must be either vegetated with indigenous grasses or covered with a suitable fabric to | |
| | |prevent erosion and invasion by weeds. | |
| | |All cut and fill surfaces need to be stabilised with appropriate material or measures when major civil | |
| | |works are complete. | |
| | |Erosion and Donga crossings must be dealt with as river crossings. Appropriate soil erosion and control | |
| | |procedures must be applied to all embankments that area disturbed and destabilised. | |
| | |Only limited vehicular access is allowed across rocky outcrops and ridges. | |
| | |All equipments must be inspected daily for oil or fuel leaks before it operated. Leakages must be | |
| | |repaired on mobile equipment or containment trays placed underneath immobile equipment until such leakage| |
| | |has been repaired. | |
| | |Soil contaminated with oil must: be dug up to 30cm below the saturated oil mark; or disposed at a | |
| | |permitted landfill site; or the soil can be | |
|Water |
|Altered hydrology |Implementation; Operation |Adequate sedimentation control measures must be instituted at the any river crossings when excavations or|Site establishment |
|Contamination of water resources | |disturbance of drainage lines of wetland may take place. |Vegetation clearance |
|Sedimentation | |Adequate sedimentation control measures must be instituted at the any river crossings when excavations or|Erosion control |
|Salinisation | |disturbance of riverbeds takes place. |Water quality monitoring |
|Eutrophication of rivers or | |The batching plant must be positioned away from drainage lines, and measures to ensure that no polluted |Offices & other structures |
|impoundments | |water enters a natural stream, i.e. more than 20m from the nearest stream/ river channel. |Storage facilities |
|Groundwater contamination | |All runoff from batching areas must be strictly controlled. |Pollution prevention |
|Surface water pollution | |Cement contaminated water must be collected, stored and disposed of at a site approved by Site Engineer. | |
|Barriers to migration of fish, | |Waste concrete and cement sludge must be scraped off the site of batching plant daily and removed to an | |
|aquatic vertebrates and | |approved landfill site. | |
|invertebrates | |Concrete shall not be mixed directly on the ground. Plastic liners or mixing trays are to be used. | |
| | |All fuel, chemical, oil, etc spills must be confined to areas where the drainage of water can be | |
| | |controlled. Use appropriate structures and methods to confine spillages such as the construction of berms| |
| | |and pans, or through the application of surface treatments that neutralise the toxic effects prior | |
| | |Vehicle traffic across wetland areas must be avoided. | |
| | |No dumping of foreign material in streams, rivers and/or wetland areas is allowed. | |
| | |Oil absorbent fibres must be used to contain oil split in water. | |
| | |A wetland area and/or river must not be drained, filled or altered in any way including alteration of a | |
| | |bed and/or, banks, without prior consent from DWAF and the relevant DEAT office. The necessary licenses | |
| | |must be obtained fro DWAF in terms Section 21 and 22 of the National Water Act, (Act 36 of 1998). | |
| | |No fires or open flames are allowed in the vicinity of the wetland, especially during the dry season. | |
| | |No swimming, washing (including vehicles and equipment), fishing or related activity is permitted in a | |
| | |wetland or a river without written permission from Environmental officer. | |
| | |The contractor must install and maintain mobile toilets at work sites. | |
| | |Maintain soil erosion structures such as stone pitching, gabions, etc to enable effectiveness. | |
| | |The contractor must provide adequate and approved facilities for the storage and recycling of used oil | |
| | |and contaminated hydrocarbons. Such facilities must be designed and situated with the intention of | |
| | |preventing pollution of the surrounding area and environment. | |
| | |All vehicles must be serviced in the designated area within the contractor camp. | |
| | |All chemical spills must be contained and cleaned up by the supplier or professional pollution control | |
| | |personnel. | |
|Flora |
|Loss of individuals of rare or |Implementation |All rare flora and seeds must be rescued and removed from the site. |Site establishment |
|endangered species | |Protected plants must not be cut or damaged in any way. |Access roads |
|Damage to the integrity of the | |The felling and/or cutting of trees and clearing of bush must be minimised. |Vegetation clearance |
|ecosystem functioning | |Any incident of unauthorised removal of plant material, as well as accidental damage to priority plants, |Planting |
|Heavier utilisation of medicinal | |must be documented. |Fencing & gates |
|and/or protected plants | |Transplanting of indigenous plants must be encouraged at all times. Trees and shrubs must be planted so |Destumping |
|Invasion of alien vegetation | |that their stems or trunks are at the same depth as in the original location. |Landscape rehabilitation |
| | |Transplanted plants must be watered once a week for 5 weeks and therefore once every 2 weeks. | |
| | |If any protected tree, identified in the site specific study, is felled, cut, pruned and/or, in the | |
| | |opinion of the environmental officer, is unduly damaged by the contractor, the contractor will pay a | |
| | |penalty (amount stipulated by DEAT) per tree | |
| | |Trees selected for preservation in the site-specific study within or adjacent to the works areas must be | |
| | |fenced around their drip line. The fence must be clearly marked with danger tape. No open fires may be | |
| | |lit within this fenced area. | |
|Fauna |
|Loss of individuals of rare or |Implementation; Operation |No species of animal may be poached, snared, hunted, captured or wilfully damaged or destroyed. |Site establishment |
|endangered species | |Fishing is only allowed with the written consent of the landowner and only when anglers are in possession|Protection of fauna |
|Disturbance of fauna (e.g. | |of a Provincial Fishing License. | |
|disrupted breeding of fish in | |Snakes and other reptiles that may be encountered on the construction site must not be killed unless the | |
|dammed areas, and disturbed bird | |animal endangers the life of the employee. | |
|nesting areas) | |Anthills that occur must not be disturbed unless it is unavoidable for construction purposes. | |
| | |Any incidents of poaching wilfully disturbance or damage to wild animals, as well as accidental damage to| |
| | |or death of wild animals must be recorded by the CR and made available to the EA on a weekly basis. | |
| | |Nesting sites of birds must not be disturbed. | |
| | |The contractor’s representatives and environmental officer must ensure compliance with the relevant | |
| | |Nature Conservation Ordinances. | |
| | |The contractor’s representative must ensure that domestic and native animals belonging to the Local | |
| | |Community are kept away from unprotected works. | |
| | |All animals injured on account of construction activities must be taken to the local SPCA. Dead animals | |
| | |must be disposed at a permitted landfill site. | |
| | |No pesticides must be used unless approved by the environmental officer, and may only be applied by an | |
| | |approved specialist. | |
| | |If water is dammed, an ichthyologist must be consulted, during the site-specific study, to establish the | |
| | |impact on breeding patterns of the affected fish species. The environmental officer must ensure | |
| | |compliance with the findings of the investigation. | |
| | |Particular care must be taken to avoid nesting, | |
| | |No breeding and roaming sites of animals in or adjacent to wetlands areas. | |
|Dust |
|Odours, exhaust fumes; waste |Implementation, Operation |Speed limits must be enforced in all areas, including public roads and private property to limit the | |
|material; smoke | |levels of dust pollution. | |
| | |Dust must be suppressed on access roads and construction sites during dry periods by the regular | |
| | |applications of water or a biodegradable soil stabilisation agent. Water used for this purpose must be | |
| | |used in quantities that will not result in the generation of run-off. | |
| | |Suitable screening and containment measures must be in place prevent wind blown contamination. | |
| | |The site-specific investigation must quantify the impact of dust on nearby wetlands, rivers and dams in | |
| | |terms of sedimentation. All mitigation measures identified during the site specific study must be | |
| | |implemented. | |
| | |The environmental officer must notify all people living within 50m of the construction site of the | |
| | |proposed activities. | |
| | |In the event of serious levels of dust pollution, the implementation of constant dust monitoring by | |
| | |qualified consultants must be undertaken. | |
| | |Waste must be allowed to stand on site to decay, resulting in malodours and attracting vermin. Waste must| |
| | |be disposed of at a municipal transfer station, skip or on a permitted landfill site. | |
| | |The contractors must stick to normal working hours between 07h00 and 17h00 Monday to Friday. | |
| | |The contractors must inform all adjacent landowners of any after-hour construction activities and any | |
| | |other activity that could cause nuisance e.g. the application of chemicals to the work surface | |
| | |The environmental officer or contractors’ representative must ensure that all vehicles comply with the | |
| | |SABS 0181 standards. | |
| | |Vehicles used on, or entering, the site must be serviced regularly to ensure that they do not emit smoke | |
| | |or fumes. | |
|Noise |
|Noise levels |Implementation |Noise control measures must be implemented. All noise level must be controlled at the source. If the |Noise control |
| | |noise level at the boundaries of the site exceeds 7Db above ambient levels, the local health authorities |Blasting |
| | |must be informed. | |
| | |All employees must be given the necessary ear protection gear. | |
| | |Affected parties must be informed of the excessive noise factors. | |
| | |Pumps must be housed in a brick building to help reduce any noises when the pump is in operation. | |
| | |Affected livestock farmers must be informed of excessive noisy activities a month in advance. This will | |
| | |enable them to take appropriate steps to prevent disturbance and possible injury to livestock e.g. moving| |
| | |the livestock to distant camps. | |
| | |The relevant by-laws and regulations must be adhered to. These laws include: Environmental Conservation | |
| | |Act, 73 of 1989, Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1983 and Provincial and local by-laws. These | |
| | |laws regulate noise control. | |
| | |Soft explosives and/or noise mufflers must be used during blasting to minimise the impact on humans and | |
| | |animals. | |
| | |No loud music is allowed on site and in construction camps. | |
|Aesthetics |
|Reduced sense of place and tourism|Implementation, Operations |Damage to the natural environment must be minimised. |Access roads |
|potential of the area; | |Trees and tall woody shrubs must be protected from damage to provide a natural visual shield. Excavated |Combat erosion |
|Reduced visual integrity | |material must not be placed on such plants and movement across them must not be allowed. |Vegetation clearance |
| | |The clearing of sites must be kept to a minimum and surrounding vegetation must be left intact as a |Slope protection |
| | |natural shield. |Shaping and trimming |
| | |At construction sites in densely vegetated areas, the vegetation must be cut at angles of 45 degrees from|Aesthetics |
| | |the bottom to minimise any visual impact. |Offices & other structures |
| | |Marking for surveying and other purposes must only be done with pegs and beacons. Painting and marking of|Blasting |
| | |natural features must not be allowed. |Landscape rehabilitation |
| | |All waste concrete/cement shall be removed together with contaminated soil after the completion of the | |
| | |project. | |
| | |Where existing access routes and borrow pits have been overgrown with vegetation such surfaces must not | |
| | |be graded. | |
| | |Borrow pits must be shaped to have undulating slopes and surfaces such that they blend into the natural | |
| | |landscape as much as possible. | |
| | |Blasted areas and cut and fill slopes must be as rough as possible such that the natural surroundings are| |
| | |emulated as far as possible and that the jagged ledges facilitate the accumulation of soil and the | |
| | |subsequent establishment of vegetation. | |
| | |Where possible, concrete surfaces on embankments and storm water gullies must be undulated to minimise | |
| | |surface reflection. | |
| | |Excavated material must be flattened (not compacted) or removed from site. No heaps of soil material must| |
| | |be left on site once the Contractor has moved to a new construction site. | |
| | |Littering on site and the surrounding areas is prohibited. Clearly marked litterbins must be provided on | |
| | |site. The contractor’s representative must monitor the presence of litter on the work sites as well the | |
| | |construction campsite. All bins must be cleaned of litter on a daily basis. | |
| | |Excess concrete, building rubble or other material must be disposed of in areas designated specifically | |
| | |for this purpose and not indiscriminately over the construction site. | |
| | |All plastic material must be removed from area where livestock could swallow it. | |
| | |Contaminated soil must be treated and disposed at a permitted waste disposal site, or be removed and the | |
| | |area rehabilitated immediately. | |
|Disturbance of archaeological areas |
| |Implementation |a) Work in areas where artefacts are found must cease immediately. The Environmental Officer must be | |
| | |notified immediately and Global Positions System reading must be taken. | |
| | |b) The excavation must be examined by an archaeologist as soon as possible. The EA will advise the | |
| | |Contractor of necessary actions to be taken after receiving advice from the archaeologist. All necessary | |
| | |actions to ensure that delays are minimised must be taken. | |
| | |c) Under no circumstances must the contractor, his employees, his sub-contractor’s employee remove, | |
| | |remove, destroy or interfere with archaeological artefacts. Any person who causes intentional damage to | |
| | |archaeological or historical sites or artefacts could be penalised or legally prosecuted in terms of the | |
| | |National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999). | |
| | |d) All known and identified archaeological and historical sites must be left untouched. No stones or | |
| | |rocks must be removed from such sites. | |
| | |e) The contractor’s representative must ensure that employees do not gain access to any archaeological | |
| | |areas (whether fenced or unfenced), expect when authorised to do so by the environmental officer. | |
|Relocation of homesteads or community due to project |
| |Planning, Implementation |Owners of Land to be expropriated must receive compensation in terms of Expropriation Act, Act 63 of |Site establishment |
| | |1975; | |
| | |An extensive public participation must be undertaken allowing a decision making process that is based on | |
| | |rights and risks culminating in negotiation to benefit sharing, resettlement and compensation; | |
| | |Project must be planned in consultation with the local community leaders. | |
| | |Resettlement action plan and development programmes for the displaced must be planned in advance. This | |
| | |must be done in accordance with the S&ES standards Resettlement Action Plan; | |
| | |If required, provision of temporary accommodation must be planned in advance. | |
| | |Ongoing liaison with community leaders/ representatives must be maintained in order to tract any problems| |
| | |with the relocations. | |
| | |Affected people must be empowered to participate effectively in the process. | |
|Direct or indirect loss of essential resources |
| |Implementation, Operation |The amount of essential resources lost must be minimised through alternative project design |Site establishment |
| | |Damaged to crops or other food resources must be compensated for. | |
|Disturbance of graves |
| |Planning, Implementation |Any graves situated in the construction site or area of inundation in case of dams must be dealt with |Site establishment |
| | |according to the Exhumation Laws of the Provincial Government and with the bye-laws of the Local | |
| | |Municipality Authority. | |
| | |If a graveyard is discovered, the Environmental Officer (EO) must be contacted immediately. The relatives| |
| | |of the deceased must be contacted immediately. The local chief, SAHRA and local Authority must also be | |
| | |informed of the situation. | |
| | |The relatives must be informed should a grave need to be moved. The exhumation of bodies must be executed| |
| | |in the local traditional manner and affected families allowed sufficient time to perform any traditional | |
| | |rituals. | |
| | |All finds of human remains must be reported to the nearest police station to ascertain if there was any | |
| | |crime involved. | |
|Disruption of services |
| |Implementation |Where service disruption is inevitable, the contractor must advise the Project Manager at least 7 days in|Site establishment |
| | |advance, allowing enough time to inform affected parties. | |
| | |A complaints register must be maintained on site and must include contact details for complaints by the | |
| | |public in accordance with details provided by the Engineer. | |
| | |Updated information boards must be maintained on site and must include contact details for complaints by | |
| | |the public in accordance with details provided by Engineer. | |
|Employment prospects |
| |Planning, Implementation, |a) The project must be planned in consultation with local authorities and aligned with local plans such |Site establishment |
| |Operation |as IDPs. | |
| | |b) Labour intensive method must be used where feasible, cost effective and not time constraining. | |
| | |c) Local labour must be employed as far as possible. | |
| | |d) Training of the unskilled labour must be undertaken. | |
| | |e) Local suppliers must be used, as far as possible. | |
6.1.3 WASTE DISPOSAL SITES (UNLICENSED V/S LICENSED)
|LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |NUMBER OF LAND FILL SITES |PERMITTED SITES |
|Bela-Bela |ONE |ONE |
|Mogalakwena |TWO |ONE |
|Lephalale |TWO |ONE |
|Modimolle |TWO |TWO |
|Mookgophong |ONE |TWO |
|Thabazimbi |FOUR |Three |
|TOTAL |TWELVE(12) |TEN(10) |
CHALLENGES
• Ensuring that all municipalities that operate with non permitted land fill sites acquire the necessary permission from the relevant department to operate such.
• Ensure that all land fill sites are managed according to the required standards
• Identification of new and rehabilitation of existing dumping sites
6.2 SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
6.2.1 SPATIAL AND LAND USE OVERVIEW
Waterberg District Municipality covers an area of approximately 4 951 882ha. The municipal area consists mainly of commercial farms, game farming, etc. and only approximately 0,43% of the total area is used for settlement purposes (i.e. towns and villages).
Approximately 69% of all the settlements (i.e. towns and villages) in the Waterberg District Municipality area are located within Mogalakwena Local Municipality. Approximately 68% of all the larger settlements with 5 000 people and more are also located within this local municipality. The problem is, however, that both Mogalakwena and Lephalale Local Municipalities have a large number of small villages, being villages with less than 1 000 people. These low population densities have serious implications to improve the levels of service provision to communities. The cost associated with respect to the provision of service infrastructure is very high. This problem within the Waterberg District Municipality is further exacerbated by the fact that at least 50% of the population are located within Mogalakwena Local Municipality, meaning that the majority of the population are located in relative small settlements, which are scattered over a large area.
An overall appraisal of the Waterberg District indicates distinctive differences in the spatial patterns of development (i.e settlement patterns) between the six local municipalities.
In general, it is evident that the urban areas (Mokopane, Mookgophong, Modimolle, Lephalale, Thabazimbi and Bela Bela) dominate the district urban settlement pattern. Apart from this dominant urban centres, the district is characterised by a number of smaller towns (some of which function as sub-regional service centres), so-called communal land areas where dispersed rural settlements are the dominant pattern, and areas where extensive commercial agricultural land holdings are the norm.
However, within the generalised spatial landscape of these areas one finds diverse and complex urban and rural situations. As noted above, the Waterberg District has a distinctive settlement pattern that encompasses a range of settlement types from major urban centre to smaller regional and sub-regional service centres; and from dispersed rural settlements to isolated homesteads.
The settlement hierarchy developed for the Limpopo (currently under review) in the Limpopo Provincial Spatial Rationale assists in the categorisation of the hierarchy of towns and settlements prevailing in the Waterberg district. The Provincial Spatial Rationale
motivates the categorisation of settlement in the province. Within this framework, five levels of settlement are identified in the Provincial Spatial Rationale, which correlate broadly to a strategic framework for investment in settlement.
With regard to the above strategic framework for investment in levels of settlement, a number of key implications for the management of settlement development are derived. A settlement hierarchy is usually based on the classification of individual settlements[2] (e.g. towns and villages). This would mean that the approximately 2 450 towns and villages in the Limpopo Province would have been individually classified in terms of a proposed hierarchy. Polokwane (Pietersburg) would have been the highest order settlement with second order settlements such as Mokopane (Potgietersrus), Thohoyandou, Tzaneen, Makhado (Louis Trichardt), etc. Third order settlements would have included places such as Giyani, Lebowakgomo, possibly Jane Furse, etc.
The settlement hierarchy as contained in the Limpopo Province Spatial Rationale (Review) 2002 is as follows:
First Order Settlements (Growth Points) [GP]
Growth points are further divided into three categories, viz.:
Provincial Growth Point [PGP];
District Growth Point [DGP]; and
Municipal Growth Point [MGP].
Second Order Settlements (Population Concentration Points) [PCP].
Third Order Settlements (Local Service Points) [LSP].
Fourth Order Settlements (Village Service Areas) [VSA].
Fifth Order Settlements (Remaining Small Settlements) [SS].
Settlement clusters therefore indicate priority development areas/nodes in which primarily first order settlements (three types of growth points) and second order settlements (population concentration points) are identified. Growth points are therefore the highest order in the settlement hierarchy, with Population Concentration Points being the second order in the settlement hierarchy.
• There are six towns within the Waterberg District that are seen from a provincial perspective to be higher order urban areas where the highest levels of investment (First Order Settlements) could be targeted to achieve key development goals. These are identified as Mokopane
(Provincial Growth Point), Mookgophong (Provincial Growth Point), Modimolle (Provincial Growth Point) Bela-Bela (Provincial Growth Point), Thabazimbi (Provincial Growth Point) and Lephalale (Provincial Growth Point);
• In addition, six townships or smaller towns in the district are identified in the Provincial Spatial Rationale for so-called Municipal Growth Points; that is investment to boost capacities of existing infrastructure or to extend institutional capacity for developmental purposes. These are identified as Pienaarsrivier, Vaalwater, Rebone, Bakenberg, Roedtan and Northam;
• In the strategic terms adopted by the Provincial Spatial Rationale, the remaining settlements within the Waterberg District should be seen as areas that, in the first instance, should be regarded as settlements that need to achieve basic levels of services.
However, it is noted that the Limpopo Provincial Spatial Rationale should not be read as a deterministic document and merely aims to set normative guidelines for spatial development and related investments. It seems reasonable to assume that where individual instances (or settlements) are identified that have clear growth potential, these could be classified as Municipal Growth Points areas where investment could be targeted at higher levels than basic service in order to achieve desirable developmental outcomes.
6.2.2 LAND AND HOUSING & LAND REFORM
6.2.2.1 Land Reform
Waterberg District Municipality must develop a “Land Reform and Settlement Plan” (LRSP) as a sector plan in its Integrated Development Plan, which must be prepared with specific reference to the key land issues relating to land reform and settlement development in the District. Land reform issues within Waterberg District Municipal area encompass a complex array of challenges located within the sphere of land access, land tenure, land restitution (Land claims) and land administration. The Land Reform Programme for Waterberg District Municipality, especially the LRSP, is key to unlocking such challenges. These will differ from one local municipal area to another.
Therefore the key challenge for the district in the land reform process is to deal effectively with the injustices of land dispossession, equitable distribution of ownership, reduction of poverty and economic growth, tenure security as well as a system of land management which will support sustainable land use patterns. This is in line with the National Policy on Land Reform, 1997. These will be dealt with in terms of the required land related legislation. It is clear that land reform is seen as a composite suite of issues and interlocking components, the precise make up of which will differ from one municipality to another. Some of these components include, land identification, land acquisition, in-site upgrade and tenure upgrade, land planning for residential and productive uses, land-legal issues (e.g. land rights audits, title adjustments, land survey, registration of ownership etc.) post implementation livelihoods support, post implementation land use management, and infrastructure / asset maintenance and operational issues.
New developments involving four pieces of legislation will assist in the development of LRSP, which impact on issues of tenure reform, land administration and the capacity of various spheres of government to carry out planning and management, and implementation of land reform
All of the laws interlink either directly or indirectly to the Municipal Structures Act and are noted as follows:
• The promulgation of the Communal Land Rights Act 11 of 2004 (ClaRA). The Act is cross-linked to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Act, 41 of 2003 (TLGF).
• The successful lodgement of restitution claims to land rights lost as a result of betterment in terms of Restitution Act, 22 of 1994,
• The Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act, 2005,
SETTLED LAND CLAIMS IN THE WATERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPAL AREA PER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
|MOGALAKWENA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|PROJECT |
|1. Rooipan Comm. |
|1.Pienersrivier Community(Moretele) |
|1.Modimolle Community |
|1.Ba-Phalane Ba |Rural |1 |500 |N/A |N/A |3000 |Schilpadnest 385 KQ |
|Mantsere Community | | | | | | | |
SOURCE: LAND CLAIM COMISSION, 2006
6.2.2.2. Land and Housing
The objectives of this sector are to ensure accessibility to land through the Land Reform Programme, as per the National Land Policy, provision of adequate and sustainable housing in line with the provision of both the national and provincial policy and legislative prescripts, as well as ensuring organised method of settlement planning and surveys through acceptable development planning and survey legislative prescripts.
6.2.2.3. Land Tenure
In South Africa the primary real right in land is that of outright ownership for which a Full Title Deed is registered. It is very similar to the English concept of "freehold title" whereby the land and the buildings on the land constitute one property. Most land in South Africa including farms, small holdings, residential township erven, commercial properties, etc. are privately held by outright ownership and therefore registered in Full Title. The piece of land is surveyed by a land surveyor and its borders will be physically pegged or beaconed. The property’s placement, size and borders are recorded in a Surveyor General diagram that forms part of the registered Title Deed of the property. An owner will have exclusive use of the entire piece of land, but the use of the land (business, residential, etc.) and the density or number of buildings (even on farms and small holdings) are governed by the applicable land use rights. An owner may furthermore sub-divide or consolidate his land, subject to the relevant town planning scheme, legislation and/or Article 21 Company rules (in the case of a private development).
Land tenure reform is being addressed through a review of present land policy, administration and legislation to improve the tenure security of all South Africans and to accommodate diverse forms of land tenure, including communal tenure.
Residents of the former so-called townships such as Phagameng, Bela-bela, Regorogile, Mookgophong, Thusang and Marapong obtained full property ownership rights over the past approximately 9 years through the Extended Benefit Scheme implemented by government since 1994.
Land tenure in the rural areas of Mogalakwena and Lephalale, however, still need to be addressed. Land is held in trust for tribal authorities with communal ownership as the most likely option. Tenure rights in townships such as Mahwelereng (so-called R293 towns) must also be addressed to ensure upgrading of the existing rights.
Land restitution (land claims) and land redistribution of which the potential impact is yet unknown could alter the spatial pattern and land needed for various macro land-uses (e.g. settlement development, agricultural development, mining, conservation areas, etc.) enormously. On the other side many people would obtain access to land that could result in improved living standards and quality of life. It could unfortunately also result in large-scale sterilisation of economically productive land (e.g. high potential agricultural land, mining of certain minerals, nature conservation areas, etc.) if not managed and planned properly within the context of a spatial development framework that considers all these factors.
6.3 LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
6.3.1 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The magnificence of the Waterberg District Municipality is self-expressed in its cultural diversity, history and natural environment, and is endowed with a range of habitats, tourist attractions and wildlife. Its economic profile is characterised by its six local municipalities and it revolves around agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, mining and quarries, residential development, smallholdings, water-bodies, etc. Despite high levels of unemployment, Waterberg District Municipality is among the highest contributors to the provincial economy and has a relatively good infrastructure.
However, many people and households in Waterberg District Municipality earn a living from the informal sector, spaza shops, hawking, and street vending. Many households would plan their informal merchandising opportunities around specific events such as old-age pension pay days, holiday seasons, Christmas and new period as travellers and tourist abound in the region. Economic indicators state that the Waterberg District Municipality has the largest economy compared to other District Municipalities in Limpopo.
The Waterberg District Municipality has the largest district economy of all five district municipalities in the Limpopo Province. It contributes 26, 79% of the total production in the Limpopo Province in terms of GGP.
❖ The mining sector is by far the largest contributor to the district Gross Geographic Product (GGP) with 49.03% of the total production of the Limpopo Province being from the Waterberg District Municipality area;
❖ The second highest contributor is Finance sector with Waterberg District Municipality contributing 11.44% of the total provincial production; and
❖ Agriculture and forestry with 3.17% of the total GGP of the Limpopo Province.
❖ Construction is the lowest contributor to the district GGP with 1.25% while manufacturing contributes 3.72%.
The Waterberg District Municipality’s area of jurisdiction has a rich history and heritage that consist of various layers – pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial. The available heritage resources in the district have socio-cultural, spiritual and non-spiritual, historical and political value and meaning that have intangible significance for different people at various levels.
There is uncoordinated socio-economic and cultural development in the district. As such, a holistic approach, including systematic cultural mapping, heritage impact assessment and environmental impact assessment should be central in any development that takes place. This includes social development, urban planning and renewal, rezoning, open space development, mining, road construction, commercial and residential development and economic development. This approach will enable balanced development that takes into account a range of economic, social, cultural, historical and environmental aspects. Because of uncoordinated development, and non-adherence to heritage management and existing legal instruments there are a number of areas in the district where human remains have been unearthed through development. Sustainable development that takes in cognizance the abovementioned issues should be of paramount importance in the district.
Heritage forms part of socio-economic and cultural development. It contributes significantly to the GDP through tourism, particularly cultural tourism. The development, marketing and packaging of heritage tourism routes will accelerate the contribution of tourism (heritage tourism) in the district. Heritage, marketed through the medium of the film industry has a potential to contribute to the GDP and local economic development of the district. Promotion of the district as a film destination will enhance the socio-economic benefits.
Aagriculture (31.93%), mining (48.32%) and electricity (36.04%) play a major role in the economy (i.t.o. GGD), providing 26.93%, 16.17% and 0.75% respectively of formal employment.
|FORMAL EMPLOYMENT FOR WATERBERG AND LIMPOPO |
|Sector |Waterberg District |Limpopo Province |
|Agriculture |26.98 |18.52 |
|Mining |16.17 |7.42 |
|Manufacturing |7.43 |7.47 |
|Electricity |0.75 |0.83 |
|Construction |4.09 |4.47 |
|Wholesale |11.04 |14.35 |
|Transport |1.80 |2.51 |
|Finance |7.61 |10.49 |
|Community Services |13.49 |12.84 |
|Government Services |10.64 |21.10 |
|Total |100 |100 |
SOURCE: WDM LED STRATEGY, 2007
Unemployment has grown within Waterberg. Although the lowest levels of unemployment are recorded in Mookgophong, the 2001 unemployment estimates suggests that 31% of the economically active population is unemployed. The unemployment levels in Mogalakwena, Thabazimbi, Bela Bela and Modimolle are most desperate although Lephalale reflects 2.5%.
Contextualizing and applying the NSDP in assessing the economy of WDM
6.3.2. Economic Potential
Economic growth is most prevalent in the Lephalale, Mogalakwena and Bela- Bela areas with significant potential for expansion in the mining, agricultural and tourism sectors. The District’s proximity to Gauteng also ensures easy access and linkages to expertise, industries, markets and international opportunities. This contributes to both the comparative and competitive advantages of the Province.
6.3.2.1 Spatial Location of Needs and Potential
The District has a relatively high poverty rate, with poverty concentrated in the Lephalale, Mogalakwena and Thabazimbi municipal areas. This situation is supported by the available data that indicate that the Lephalale and Mogalakwena have poverty rates of 60.6% respectively, with Thabazimbi recording a poverty rate of 52%. This is followed by Modimolle at 48% and Mookgophong at 42.2%.
High poverty rates are compounded by the unique challenges of service delivery in the area. Service delivery needs within the District are diverse and mainly linked to historical spatial distributions, limited service provision and market accessibility. While the District has significant market expansion opportunities in the agriculture, mining and tourism sectors, the absorption capacity of its economy appears to be hampered by a number of barriers to entry and other structural characteristics, which reduces its ability to alleviate unemployment in the area.
Faced with the challenge to address the relative high levels of poverty, the District has taken the approach to leverage its natural and mineral resources to unlock the economic potential in the area. Significant economic opportunities in the mining, agricultural and tourism sectors exist throughout its jurisdiction and therefore targeted strategies to ensure direct and indirect spin-offs for local communities is seen as a key component of the development trajectory for the district.
6.3.2.2 KEY SECTOR SPECIFIC ISSUES
Mining, Agriculture and Tourism are seen as key pillars of development in the Waterberg.
6.3.2.2 (a) Mining
The extensive and rich mineral resources are located in the North-Eastern and Western parts of the District. At present mining is the largest and predominant contributor to the GDP of the Province at 57.5% with a recorded annual growth rate of 13.9%. Extensive current and planned mining activities are mainly located in the Lephalale area which has the third biggest coal reserves in country, providing the District with a distinct competitive advantage which could strategically position the area as a continental powerhouse of coal fueled electricity production. The coal fields at Lephalale also currently fuels a number of Eskom’s power stations.
Other mining activities include iron ore mining in the Thabazimbi area, and extensive platinum reserves in the Mokopane and Northham areas, which has been ear-marked for future exploration.
The success of mining development hinges on a number of key factors:
▪ effective transport network;
▪ water supply;
▪ service management;
▪ electricity provision; and
▪ skilled labour supply.
Besides the mineral extraction process, the emergence of new mining communities impacts significantly on housing development, retail and service supply demands. Some concerns have been raised about processes and procedures involved in prospecting in local areas as well as reallocation of communities due to mining rights and activities. Intergovernmental and inter-sectoral planning across private and public sectors to ensure that appropriate planning therefore should precede unlocking potential and conflict mitigation can take place.
6.3.2.2 (b) Agriculture
As a key contributor to the Provincial GGP at 28.8%, agricultural and forestry development in Waterberg is seen as another key catalyst for significant economic development. Being predominantly rural, most of the District is suited for livestock production but also with some major cropping taking place in cotton, sunflower, tobacco, and soya bean production. The District is supporting agricultural growth by developing a policy for the subdivision of agricultural land in collaboration with the land claims commission and is negotiating the acquisition of state land for agricultural production.
In the two priority areas of Lephalale and Mogalakwene, where both a high levels of need and potential are evident, the following areas of potential were identified:
Lephalale
Lephalale is seen as an area with high agricultural potential. Accordingly a number of labour intensive development initiatives, have been identified as having the potential of for ensuring wide-spread economic spin-offs for local communities. However, expediting land claims and land restitution processes as well as ensuring access to water for agriculture development is seen as a top priority to unlock the agricultural potential in the area. In partnership with province, LRAD and community, some noteworthy projects include:
▪ debushing (Shongwane);
▪ commercialisation in DNayala;
▪ marula in Maraphong;
▪ commonage initiative in Refilwe; and
▪ seed nursery in Madibaneng.
Furthermore, the area boasts substantial production capacity for table grapes. The grapes produced in the area have a two-week lead-time over other grape production areas in South Africa and globally, providing it with a substantial competitive and comparative advantage. The cultivating of table grapes has already yielded significant profits for local commercial farmers over the past year. The intention is to capitalize on the District’s proximity to Botswana which is regarded as a substantial market opportunity. The challenge however is how to expand these activities to include emerging small scale farmers.
Mogalakwena
Unlike Lephalale, Mogalakwena has a smaller agricultural sector. Its potential centers mainly on the production of crops and meat for regional consumption. Extensive growth in the mining sector is seen as an ideal outlet for local production and together with the District, local entrepreneurs, experts and affected community champions are exploring ways of targeting specific buyers in the area. The District has done significant assessments on expanding the existing abattoir to meet local and regional demand for white meat as well as extending chicken farming initiatives. Successful management and execution in this could yield positive results for local employment and production. Other similar initiatives include:
▪ the Mokamole Agricultural farm;
▪ extension of beneficiation initiatives and primary food production along river courses;
▪ potential white meat cluster;
▪ citrus farming opportunity; and
▪ Doring-draai fishing initiatives.
6.3.2.2 ( c) Tourism
The District’s rich biosphere which is home to the Makapan’s Valley World Heritage Site, Nature reserves and which boasts an abundance of fauna and flora, hot-springs and more than 400 bird species is seen as a key catalyst for development in the tourism sector. This cuts across the Bela Bela, Modimolle and Lephalale areas. The District notes that its tourism competitive edge is its proximity to Gauteng, its rich biosphere, malaria free areas and its hunting capital status.
The Bela Bela and Thabazimbi area already boasts an extensive and well known tourism network with key attractions being hunting, game parks, bird and wild life.
Funding permitting, priority projects include;
• A conference centre facility at the World Heritage Site
• Entabeni initiative with the Doordraai project. This project, which will be home to the Big Five, a golf estate and other, is owned by government and is in the process of being developed. License permitting, water will be taken from the Flag- Boshielo dam.
Waterberg District’s location to Gauteng Province has made it a key-visiting site for visitors to the 2010 World Cup. Extensive work is already underway to ensure that all businesses are equipped to take advantage of this opportunity. Some ideas touted at this stage include:
▪ the establishment of fan parks for viewing 2010 matches;
▪ grading of accommodation;
▪ provision of packages for visitors to area; and
▪ entertainment and local based activities.
Success of this initiative is dependant on:
▪ a sound and realistic 2010 strategy for the District;
▪ appropriately graded accommodation;
▪ reliable and stable water supply;
▪ effective transport system;
▪ effective communication system;
▪ steady supply of big screens for viewing;
▪ effective electricity supply;
▪ effective signage; and
▪ establishment of a world class airport.
This would require that the District develops a world class, effective and efficient logistics team to lead its strategy and give manage related interventions.
6.3.3. IDENTIFYING NEEDS IN AN AREA
Whilst significant economic opportunities exist in the focus areas, the following key development challenges have been identified, which hamper and affect the pace at which the District will advance:
• Water supply to residents in remote areas is a huge problem;
• Water supply for economic development is inadequate;
• Sanitation facilities and the extent of current backlogs does not meet growing demand and current resources are insufficient to meet this challenge;
• Settlement planning and development that links outer-lying remote villages with service sites is not in place;
• Roads and Transport linkages for both economic and commuter usage is inadequate and not suited to meet the needs of economic expansion opportunities in the area;
• Skills, Literacy levels and readiness of local population to take advantage of economic opportunities is inadequate;
• High demand for services especially in the outer Lephalale areas and most of Mogalawena is not met because of the current capacity challenges within the municipality. This in turn results in lower rates of service provision;
• Land release and development for agricultural purposes are not matched with appropriate strategies to capitalize on these opportunities;
• Economic benefits from mining, agriculture, tourism are in the hands of a limited few and does not necessarily alleviate poverty
• Extensive private ownership of land, especially foreign owned land in Lephalale areas and the challenge of connecting communities and development initiatives with water source points sometimes located on this land, poses a challenge;
• Implications of village relocation as a result of mining activity on local people who will be reallocated and municipalities who have to provide services are not readily negotiated. Decision needed on how what where, who involved in this process.
• Communication across spheres of government especially with regard planned activity is inadequate. Current pattern of no due regard for governance role of local municipalities leads to unnecessary conflict and resource wastage.
6.3.4 UNLOCKING POTENTIAL AND MEETING REQUIRED NEEDS OF KEY DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN DISTRICT
It was agreed that the most pertinent challenge in the Waterberg District area was the provision and availability of water. Water was a crucial catalyst for unlocking economic potential in the agriculture, tourism and mining sectors and lack of water sources and supply had damaging consequences on growth and development in the area. While significant investment by all spheres of government was already ploughed into water initiatives across the District, experts argue that current rates of planning around supply and provision was highly inadequate and shifts were needed to ensure more sustainable planning over the medium to long term.
Furthermore, analysis of the spatial economy also reflected very high clusters of poor in Waterberg. This meant that there was a serious disjuncture between where people were located and where economic activity was taking place. This was exacerbated by the high demand for specialized skills in key sectors and the low skills base prevalent in poorer communities. Additionally, while the District’s proximity to Botswana was its comparative advantage, the potential economic spin-offs were hampered by severe infrastructure challenges in the connecting localities.
The following have been identified as the key critical blockages to realizing economic potential in the Mogalakwena and Lephaphale areas in the District:
6.3.4.1 Water
The shortage of water supply for human consumption and economic production is inadequate. Linked to this is the appropriate management of water supply and the technical competency to address water source, water management and water planning requirements.
6.3.4.2 Roads and transport
The extension, maintenance and management of the R33 and the N11, is critical. In this regard, these roads are crucial for linking resource extraction, production and commuters with key economic centers. In addition the upgrading and reorientation of railway stock to improve connectivity with economic centers and service points was also seen as critical. Investment in roads infrastructure in the localities connecting Botswana and South Africa was also seen as a critical blockage requiring urgent attention.
6.3.4.3 Agriculture
There is a substantial need for land released for agricultural purposes and the development, to poor communities within the relevant area. In conjunction with the release of the relevant land, local capacity should be enhanced to ensure the sustainable utilization of these resources.
6.3.4.4 Communication
The execution of an effective communication strategy across government is required to give effect to key development decisions taken across all spheres of government. Of specific importance, is the issue of communication that relates to the negotiations between mining houses, and the Department of Minerals and Energy, and the Limpopo Investment Agency. The downstream implications from both a policy and implementation process should be articulated and communicated appropriately.
6.3.4.5 Settlements
The rural nature of the district and the historical legacies of settlement distribution make service planning and provision a substantial challenge. This is
especially true in the case of the Mogalakwena and Lephalale areas. However the plight of the community in the biosphere area in Modimolle was also
highlighted, since lack of service provision especially sanitation services, could seriously jeopardize environmental and tourism development down the
line.
6.3.5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS
The following table high-lights the key intergovernmental challenges needed to unlock economic and development potential in the District. It should be noted that in the event that actors are unable to resolve challenges, where appropriate, the presidency could be called upon to intervene as part of the current pilot process.
|SECTOR |ISSUE |ACTION |ROLE PLAYERS |
| |Water needs and supply management requirements across the |Agreement is needed on standardized source of statistics for the quantification of |District Municipality |
|WATER |District must be quantified. |water needs and the related planning and implementation interventions. | |
| | | |All Local Municipalities; |
| | |Agreement is needed on alternative sources of water supply given different economic| |
| | |and spatial contexts. This would require inter-governmental cooperation in |DWAF’s (Water Services, Water Resources|
| | |conducting a detailed analysis across the District. |and Forestry Divisions.) |
| | | | |
| | |The results of the analysis will then be used to form the basis for an | |
| | |inter-governmental agreement on an integrated strategy, implementation and | |
| | |resourcing plan. | |
| | | | |
| | |Specific emphasis should be given to the challenges around the Flag-Boshielo Dam | |
| |High costs of pipeline installation in the Mogalakwena area |Agreement must be reached with National Treasury regarding potential sources of |OTP, DWAF, NT, WDM, LM, DME |
| |result in serious delays in water resourcing and management |financing of the Mogalakwena pipeline installation. | |
| |strategies. | | |
| | |The District Municipality must be included in deliberations of the Premier’s | |
| | |Office, DWAF, DME, as part of the existing Committee. | |
| |The Mokolo Dam wall could be raised by 15 meters to increase the |Inter-governmental agreement is needed to conduct a hydrological feasibility study |DWAF in partnership with DM, LM to |
| |catchment’s capacity. |regarding the extension of dam wall by 15 meters. |commission hydrological study. |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |In the event that the wall will be raised, an additional multi-lateral agreement is|OTP to commission meeting with DWAF, |
| |A decision is needed on the extension of the Dam in the Lephalale|needed with Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique |DFA, DM to meet regarding multi-lateral|
| |areas. | |agreements and related protocols. |
| | | | |
| |LM are not readily equipped to deal with high level investment |Inter-governmental agreement is reached on the provision or secondment of |DM, LM, NT |
| |and resourcing needs of huge bulk infrastructure investment. |‘transactional advisors’ to advise District and Local Municipalities on the most | |
| | |appropriate funding and investment models regarding mega- investment projects. | |
| |At the same time they have to be accountable for financing and | | |
| |maintenance of such investments in the medium- to long term | | |
|SANITATION |Water supply in the District Municipality is a challenge |Based on technical inputs by DWAF, CSIR and other research institutions agreement |DWAF to take lead on alternative WBS in|
| |therefore alternatives to waterborne sewage need to considered |must be reached on the most appropriate technical solution. |collaboration with DM |
| |and agreed to. | | |
| |Role players are not using standardize baseline statistics As a |General agreement was reached in the meeting that DWAF and IDP stats be used as |DWAF, LM and DM |
| |result, villages in Mogalakwena and Lephalale areas which did not|baseline data. This agreement needs to be formalized in the District. | |
| |feature in StatsSA data are not accounted for in service | | |
| |provision prioritization processes. | | |
| |The current overload of sanitation infrastructure has negatively |Agreement must be reached on the need to expand infrastructure to address the |DM, LM, DWAF to discuss alternatives. |
| |impacted new developments. This is exacerbated by limited water |radical urban expansion taking place across the District but especially in the | |
| |supply. |Modimolle and Bela Bela areas. | |
| | | | |
|REFUSE REMOVAL |Land fill sites are not managed in accordance with regulations. |Agreement must be reached on identifying and adopting alternative strategies and |DM, DEAT, DWAF, LM, Eskom, CSIR |
| | |methodologies for refuse removal and refuse disposal in rural areas. | |
| |In Lephalale water management problem is exacerbated by the |District to explore talks with CSIR, DEAT on biomass conversion. | |
| |absence of waste management strategies. | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Problems with biomass conversion and licensing and cost of |Initiatives of the ESKOM development foundation looking at conversion and | |
| |conversation render it difficult for municipalities to deal with |management needs to be explored | |
| |this challenge on its own. | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Dumping sites are not managed properly. | | |
| | | | |
| |By products from industry and mines and how this is managed need | | |
| |to be monitored. | | |
|MINING |District and Local Municipalities are not included in provincial |An agreement needs to be signed with DME, Provincial government and LM/ DM on |DME, District, OTP, mining companies |
| |and national deliberations with mining and investment companies |protocols with regard to investment in local areas. This should include information| |
| |that impact on local areas. |on: | |
| | | | |
| | |Prospecting | |
| | |Community reallocation and settlement strategies | |
| | |Service requirements and strategies | |
| |Local municipalities do not contribute towards agreements on |Local and District Municipalities be included in the approval mechanisms from DME |DM, LM, DME, mines |
| |Social and Labour Plans with the Mines. |regarding Social and Labour Plans submitted by the mines. | |
| |Transport blockages hindering pace at which mining development |Inter-governmental agreement be reached under the leadership of the Premier’s |National department of transport, |
| |can take place in both Lephalale and Mogalakwena areas |Office to on addressing access issues pertaining to road infrastructure in the |SAMRA, Provincial Department of |
| | |District. As part of this agreement should be the review of financial models. |transport, Lephalale, Waterberg |
| | | |District and Local Municipalities |
| | | | |
| |In Mogalakwena ownership of land and mineral rights are unclear. |Agreement needs to be obtained on the status of mineral rights and communicated to |Premiers Office,DME, DLA, LM, DM |
| | |all relevant role players. | |
| | | | |
|ROADS AND TRANSPORT |Studies commissioned by Spoornet on whether to transport coal |A decision is needed on most appropriate strategy for coal transportation. This |DM, Mines, DT, DME |
| |from Lephalale to Richards Bay needs to be completed. |needs to be communicated with Local and District municipalities. | |
| | | |OTP, DM and |
| |Specific roads priority actions includes: |Specific roads implementation plan needs follow up. |Department of Roads and transport to |
| |R33 and N11 unlock mining potential with Botswana and Polokwane. | |follow up on challenges |
| | | | |
| |R33 road between Modimolle and Lephalale needs upgrade. |NT, TIL, SANRA deciding R33 road. Includes distance between Modimolle and | |
| | |Lephalale. Funding model agreed on and being explored needs finalization. | |
| |Road between Modimolle and Mabatlane needs upgrade. | | |
| | |Project underway with Dept roads and transport with all municipalities on the | |
| |Rail between Brits and Lephalale also needs upgrading. Condition |development of an appropriate roads and transport plan. DM and dept of roads and | |
| |of rail to carry the heavy load (more than 30 tons) is not clear.|Transport to communicate progress. | |
| | | | |
| | |Decision needed on R33 road from Lephalale to Modimolle. High level intervention | |
| |R33 road between Modimolle to Lephalale study was concluded. |needed. | |
| |Financing cannot be done by Province. This requires National | | |
| |treasury to give permission for province to take up loan. | | |
| | | | |
| |South African National Roads Agency to upgrade R33. Agreement |National Treasury and SANRA to agree on guarantee for future loan |National Treasury, SANRA and District |
| |needed to make it a priority. | |Municipality, Provincial Department of |
| | |DM should secure funding for gravel roads en-route to Botswana. |Transport. |
| |Need guarantee that the upgrade will take place in the near | | |
| |future. |NT to give direction on best models for roads extension. | |
| | | | |
| |R33: decision needed by Province to ensure clear guideline from |TIL to coordinate and report on findings to all affected stakeholders. | |
| |National Treasury. | | |
| | |Decisions needed on the following other roads: | |
| | | | |
| | |Roads in biosphere- engaging EU to fund project to upgrade road. Information | |
| | |sharing needed with locals municipalities. | |
| | | | |
| | |Alma to Marakele and Thabazimbi to Mabatlane. | |
| | | | |
| | |Road from Mogalakwena to Marken a problem. | |
| |Current EPWP is not optimal for rapid delivery of services and |Agreement on additional funds needed from National Treasury to construct road using|Provincial dept of public works; RAL; |
| |quality requirements of Mogalakwena Local Municipality |labour-based methods and technologies. |DM and LM. |
| | | | |
| | |EPWP is perceived as failing, due to perceptions that the labour force is being | |
| | |exploited. The need is for an agreement that would ensure that the remaining | |
| | |components of the project be completed as a matter of urgency. | |
| | | | |
|AGRICULTURE |Water supply for agricultural development is a significant |Assessment and agreement is needed regarding the water supply and water management |DWAF, WDM and Lephalale to follow up on|
| |challenge. |strategies over the medium- to long-term. |water provision alternatives and |
| | | |possible |
| | |DM and Department of Agriculture to reach agreement on priority areas. |DM, Department of Agriculture, Dept of |
| |There is a challenge around access to viable agricultural | |Roads and transport |
| |opportunities, financing for agricultural development, capacity |Agreement and information is needed at District level on financing intermediaries | |
| |and resourcing for small scale farming initiatives and the |for agriculture sector. | |
| |finalization of land acquisition and transfers. | | |
| | | | |
| |Access to profitable agricultural ventures that are sustainable |Agreement is needed on how to address the current shift from agricultural | |
| |remains a problem without access to proper financing, |production to game farming, and its impact on local labour supply. | |
| | | | |
| |Transformation of agricultural farms to more profitable game |Agreement on strategies required to address the peri-urban growing trend is | |
| |farming initiatives across the Waterberg presents a labour, |required. | |
| |service provision and skills challenge for the District. | | |
| | | | |
| |Regional marketing and specialization of chicken farming | | |
| |initiatives have significant spin-offs for local entrepreneurs |Agreement needs to be reached with the mines to ensure poultry interventions link | |
| | |into the potential market presented by the mines. | |
| | | | |
| | |Agreement must be reached on the level of support to be given to the African Rural | |
| | |Development Corporation, NGO which is linking local agricultural production with | |
| | |national and international markets. | |
| | | | |
| | |Agreement on water supply as it pertains to these issues is required. | |
| | | | |
| | |Agreement on how successful grape farming initiatives can be replicated by emerging| |
| | |farmers and communities to ensure spread of the benefits of these viable investment| |
| | |opportunities. | |
|LAND |Information gaps exist on progress with land reform initiatives |Research to be commissioned and agreement be reached on land restitution progress |DM |
| | |and impact of change in land use given high rate of conversion of agricultural | |
| | |farms into game and hunting farms. | |
| |Administrative delays with land release is hindering agricultural|High level assistance is needed with unlocking blockages with land release |DM, DLA, OTP Presidency |
| |and economic development |especially land owned by DLA and Eskom. | |
|INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONES |Unlock and link Industrial development zones in Province and |Villages need to be connected to economic opportunities. This includes Marken to |DM, LM and DRT, LIP to follow up |
| |district with relevant opportunities. |Mokopane, Marken to Polokwane, N11, establishing linkages between the Maputo | |
| | |corridor and Lephalale. | |
| | | | |
| | |Agreement must be reached on the upgrading of the road connection as it relates to | |
| | |the transportation of coal to the smelter in Polokwane. | |
|MONITORING OF DEVELOPMENT |Decisions and commitments made by mining companies, Eskom, DWAF |Agreement needs to be reached by the District Municipality with stakeholders on how|DM in collaboration with province and |
| |and other sector departments are not adequately monitored at |it will review, managed and monitor commitments of agencies and related government |affected sector department |
| |district level. |departments. | |
INFRASTRUCTURE
CLUSTER
ANALYSIS
WATER SERVICES OVERVIEW
6.4. WATER SERVICES
The Waterberg District Municipality is not Water Service Authority. The Water Service Authority (WSA) function is the responsibility of the local municipalities of Mogalakwena, Bela Bela, Thabazimbi, Lephalale, Mookgophong and Modimolle. The Waterberg District Municipality WSA population (sum of WSA Population of local municipalities) has been estimated to be 614041 people, based on data from Statistics South Africa.
6.4.1. Level of services
The 2005/2006 WSDP study highlights that as of March 2005, the following percentages of people had access to RDP water services:
• Water - RDP standard or above 42% (25 litres per person per day within 200m walking distance)
• Sanitation - RDP standard or above: 23% (waterborne sewerage or VIP toilet)
As of April 2006, the Waterberg District Municipality had improved water services to the extent of:
• Water - RDP standard or above 90% (25 litres per person per day within 200m walking distance)
• Sanitation - RDP standard or above 49% (waterborne sewerage or VIP toilet)
|WATER BACKLOG |
|NO Infrastructure population |NO Infrastructure Household |Population (Access below RDP) |Households (Access below RDP) |
|Oct 2001 |
|SANITATION BACKLOG |
|Population (Access below RDP |Households (Access below RDP) | |
|Oct 2001 |April 2006 |Backlog % |Oct 2001 |April 2006 |Backlog % | |
|350 326 |314 908 |10 |88 097 |79 015 |10 | |
|Estimated cost to eradicate = 385 594 500 |
Source: DWAF, 2006
Providing a higher level of service to the resident within Waterberg District Municipality is a challenge especially within peri-urban areas due to the backlogs still to be eradicated and the increase in the water demand these higher level of services will result in. Residents want to move from access to communal stand tap water supply to individual erf connection and from a VIP to water borne sewage system. The same challenge applies where communities want to extend the water supply infrastructure into their area by connecting into nearby reticulation.
6.4.2. Raw Water Situation
The urban areas of the Waterberg District Municipality Water Service Authority (of six local municipalities) function are generally in need of upgrading in terms of capacity of bulk infrastructure and access to raw water supply. This need is growing rapidly as the continued process of urbanization continues and pressure is placed on local municipalities to provide housing and basic services.
Water Resources
• Mokolo Dam 23 x 106 m3/a
• Doorndraai Dam 8.6 x 106 m3/a
• Glen Alpine Dam 5.6 x 106 m3/a
• Donkerpoort Dam 0.6 x 106 m3/a
• Transfer in
– Thabazimbi from Vaalkop Dam 22 x106 m3/a
– Bela-Bela from Roodeplaat Dam 3 x106 m3/a
– Modimolle from Roodeplaat Dam 3 x106 m3/a
• Ground water Use
– Well developed fields in the Mookgopong (0.99 x 106 m3/a Use) and Mogolakwena (1.6 x 106 m3/a Use)
– Extensive use of ground water in the District’s rural and farming areas, and most of them have no detail of quantities used
• Return flows
– Bela-Bela about 2.5 x 106 m3/a used for irrigation
- Most areas treatment cost to portable standard not viable
Existing Bulk Water Supply
• Thabazimbi
– Domestic 0.6 million m3/a
– Mining and Industrial 18 million m3/a
• Lephalale
– Domestic 1 million m3/a
– Mining & Industrial 4 million m3/a
– Power Generation 7 million m3/a
• Bela-Bela
– Domestic 3 million m3/a
• Modimolle
– Domestic 3 million m3/a
• Mookgopong
– Domestic 1.2 million m3/a
• Mokgalakwena
– Domestic 4 million m3/a
– Mining & industrial 6 million m3/a
Possible and Probable alternatives of water supply
• Raising of the Mokolo Dam
• Transfer from the Crocodile (West)/Marico
• ORWRDP: Raising of Flag Boshielo Dam and construction of De Hoop Dam to augment water supply to Mokopane
• Ground water use
• Water Trading with the irrigators
Water Situation 2000
| |Surface | |Return | | | | |
| |water | |flows |Transfer in |Total |Requirements |Balance |
|L. Crocodile |7 | |23 |112 |171 |171 |0 |
|Matlabas/Mokolo |35 | |4 |0 |46 |63 |-17 |
|Lephalala |38 | |0 |0 |42 |42 |0 |
|Mokgalakwena |50 | |7 |3 |75 |79 |-4 |
|Total in Waterberg | |334 |355 |-21 |
|Municipality | | | | |
Water Situation 2025
| |Local |Transfer |Local |Transfer out |Balance |Potential for |
| |Yield |in |Requirement | | |Development |
|L. Crocodile |59 |113 |173 |0 |-1 |0 |
|Matlabas/Mokolo |46 |0 |63 |0 |-17 |0 |
|Lephalala |42 |0 |43 |0 |-1 |0 |
|Mokgalakwena |73 |3 |101 |0 |-25 |7 |
|Total in Waterberg |220 |116 |380 |0 |-44 |7 |
|Municipality | | | | | | |
Existing Bulk Water Supply
• Thabazimbi
– Domestic 0.6 million m3/a
– Mining and Industrial 18 million m3/a
• Lephalale
– Domestic 1 million m3/a
– Mining & Industrial 4 million m3/a
– Power Generation 7 million m3/a
• Bela-Bela
– Domestic 3 million m3/a
• Modimolle
– Domestic 3 million m3/a
• Mookgopong
– Domestic 1.2 million m3/a
• Mokgalakwena
– Domestic 4 million m3/a
– Mining & industrial 6 million m3/a
Possible and Probable alternatives of water supply
• Raising of the Mokolo Dam
• Transfer from the Crocodile (West)/Marico
• ORWRDP: Raising of Flag Boshielo Dam and construction of De Hoop Dam to augment water supply to Mokopane
• Ground water use
• Water Trading with the irrigators
Raising of Mokolo dam
|Full Supply Level |Description |Capacity |Historic Firm Yield |
|(m) | |(x 10 6m3) |(x 10 6m3/a) |
|921 |Current |146 |27.1 |
|927 |New |303.88 |48.2 |
Transfer from Crocodile west/Marico
• 45 million m3/a
6.4.3. DROUGHT RELIEF
6.4.3.1 TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
6.4.3.1.1 Motivation
The motivation for each selected piece of work required was tested against the above drought relief principles. The fact that this funding was provided is sufficient proof that the money is required in the area. We need to ensure that it is spent for the purpose of alleviating domestic water supply problems induced by drought.
(a) Lephalale Municipal Area
Rainfall in Lephalale area has been erratic over the past years. Except for a period of above average rainfall over January – March 2003, the rainfall has been far below average. During the previous drought relief programme Lephalale’s efforts was for developing additional water sources concentrating on villages where supply was insufficient and risk of failure high, but also ensuring that at least one additional source was developed for all villages dependant on a single source. An indication of the rate of success is the fact that more than 50% of holes were successful, in an area notorious for the low strike rate.
In the Shongoane area the almost total absence of ground water makes it difficult to implement a conjunctive water use policy as is used in other villages near the river.
The biggest problem at this stage, after a rainfall season with less than 60% of expected rainfall, are the villages in Shongoane which are depending mainly on water from the Lephalala river, namely Setateng. This is the largest village in Lephalale and obtains all its water from the Lephalala river. Flow in this river dried up in early June 2005, compared to typical patterns of surface flow continuing until September/October. It is evident that the water available will not be sufficient to last until the river starts flowing again, even though pump rates have already been reduced, except if it rains during winter which is highly improbable.
It is proposed that additional river well points be developed, equipped and linked to existing supply systems in both Setateng and Matladi, which depends on water from the river for 80% of its supply. This will result in use and access to water sources other than those presently utilised. For Mothlasedi and Ga Monyeki the same option is proposed. At the same time it is proposed that water supplies be developed for
Phahladira. This village which lies adjacent to Matladi but inside the Mogalakwena municipal area and has no water supply at all presently - people are using water directly from the river when available, or buy or take water from nearby villages at great cost and hardship.
For a longer term and more permanent solution, it is proposed that a weir be constructed which will increase the water storage capacity and availability, and reduce the risks of water in the river bed being totally depleted. The construction on the weir need to be preceded by a thorough feasibility study, technical report and EIA, and is regarded as a request for future funding. Allowing an amount of R 220 000 for the investigation and reports under the present funding would however be sufficient to kickstart this initiative.
(b) Mogalakwena Municipal Area
The Mogalakwena rural communities are situated north of Mokopane. This falls in the summer rainfall area and has a low annual average rainfall. The recent below average rainfall did create water supply problems and especially to the communities obtaining water from boreholes or well fields alongside the Mogalakwena River.
Many of the sand point abstraction pits in the Mogalakwena area are now not a reliable source and an alternative means of abstracting this sand/alluvium encased water should be embarked upon. This drought relief project would therefore concentrate on constructing new abstraction boreholes just adjacent to the Mogalakwena River to alleviate this problem.
Stolen or broken pumps would also listed as part of this project. Instead of securing (drilling) additional boreholes, more people can be helped by replacing and repairing these pumps.
The carting of water in the Mogalakwena area is daily occurrence. DWAF has supplied two water tankers as far back as 1988. The one tanker is stationed at Mokopane and supplies water to the Mapela, Bakenberg and Mokopane areas. The other tanker is stationed at Salem Satellite office and supplies water to Nkidikitlana and Salem Desert area. Currently DWAF provides the drivers and the running costs for the vehicles.
These two vehicles are breaking down more regularly now and really need to be replaced. DWAF officials have confirmed that these vehicles operate everyday as well as on week-ends.
(c) Mookgophong Municipal Area
Mookgophong town obtains about 0.75 million m³/year from the Nyl Wellfield and about 0.42 million m³/year from the dam nearby. Ultimately additional bulk water would be obtained from the Magalies Water Board pipeline which presently stops at Modimolle. This augmentation is still far from a reality. The yield from the 10 equipped boreholes in the Wellfield has started to diminish due to the dry period production on the boreholes had to be cut back.
There are unequipped boreholes available for expansion of this wellfield. The proposal is to equip two boreholes and construct the necessary pipeline (about 2km) to the collection tank from where it is pumped to Mookgophong Town. An interim solution to pump into the adjacent borehole pipeline to the collection tank can be considered if there are not sufficient funds to do all the work at once. These boreholes typically yield up to 10ℓ/s each.
d) Thabazimbi Municipal Area
The Rooiberg housing area has an acute problem. The current 260 houses and newly completed 264 RDP housing units development have no water supply at present. The yield in the eight (8) available boreholes have diminished to such an extent that the Thabazimbi Municipality is carting water every day from Leeupoort. The past two weeks has resulted in the 6000kℓ truck making 3 deliveries per day to the stricken area.
The following two boreholes are available to equip and can give immediate relief:
• 1 x Borehole on private land but of which approval has been obtained. The borehole is already equipped and can deliver 5.5 ℓ/s. A pipeline of 520m is needed for this.
• 1 x Borehole about 500m from the reservoir can be equipped to yield 2.8ℓ/s. The requirement is for the borehole pump and pipeline to be constructed. Thabazimbi Municipality would install the electrical cable (500m) and transformer if the project can supply it.
(e) Belabela Municipal Area
Belabela Town obtains water from their own boreholes as well as augmentation of surface water via the Magalies Water Board pipe line. The dry period has influenced the water table and the groundwater availability. The request from Belabela Municipality was to reinstate a borehole which was lost due to a blockage. Instead of searching for suitable drilling positions, a new borehole can be drilled just next to the blocked borehole in Roodepoort street in Belabela town.
(f) Modimolle Municipal Area
The water supply to two remote settlements has been affected very seriously. They are:
• Mabatlane (previous name Vaalwater)
• Mabaleng (previous name Alma)
At Mabatlane the existing eight equipped boreholes are not sufficient to supply water to the area. Further augmentation is only possible by means of further groundwater exploration. The Mabaleng water also requires further boreholes.
The need to do a proper geohydrological study to the above areas is critical. The groundwater has not been quantified properly yet and an exploration study is suggested to identify or target the major water bearing structures in the vicinity. This information would help in the strategic planning of bulk water to these areas.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OVERVIEW
6.5. ELECTRICITY PROVISION OVERVIEW
The provision of sufficient electricity supplies is vital for the general development and prosperity of the Waterberg region. The Waterberg District Municipality does not generate or distribute any electricity itself but has an interest to ensure that the provision of electricity is closely aligned to the developmental needs of the area as a whole. Waterberg District Municipality therefore sees its role as facilitating proper interaction of all roleplayers in the Integrated Development Planning Process [IDP] and the providers of bulk and reticulation services, like Eskom in the electrification field. The fact that the majority of rural households still live in a dispersed settlement format makes the provision of electricity more difficult for service providers such as Eskom. The Waterberg Electricity Development Plan should be developed to depict the extent of electrification development in the district. 2006/07 IDP Review depicts that rural electricity backlogs in Waterberg as at end 2005 stands at 9 070 households.
Electrification programme (as per ESKOM) and individual municipalities
| |2001/02 |2002/03 |2003/04 |2004/05 |2005/06 |2006/07 |
|Munic |Budget |Budget |Households |budget |Households |budget |households |
| | | |Connected | | | | |
|Mogalakwena |4553 |1 107 |R3 100 000 |R37 586 142 |R3, 000, 000 |R1, 032, 784 |R1, 210, 524 |
|Lephalale |15 000 |4 077 |R1 050 00 |R0 112 |R65, 035 |R63, 718 |R66, 333 |
|Modimolle |3 045 |14 695 |R3 645 000 |R3 570 885 |R2, 852, 000 |R2, 852, 000 |R3, 175, 700 |
|Mookgophong |1 898 |1 898 |R4 565 972 |R2 369 718 |R1, 500, 000 |R1, 439, 000 |R1.5m |
|Bela-Bela |8 683 |8 683 |R812 200 |R 989 862 |R964 830,000 |R1 086 000,00 |R776, 700 |
|Thabazimbi |4 770 |10521 |R4 500 000 |R1 070 000 |R7, 475, 855 |R2, 523, 494 |R3, 913, 965 |
|TOTAL |24 545 |40 981 |R17 673 172 |R45 586 607 |R979, 722, 890 |R8, 996, 996 |R10, 643, 222 |
EDI RESTRUCTURING AND RINGFENCING PROCESS
|MUNICIPALITY |STATUS |
| | |
|1. Mogalakwena |Busy with ring fencing process |
|2. Thabazimbi |Not yet started |
|3. Mookgophong |Not yet started |
|4. Lephalale |Not yet started |
|5. Bela-Bela |Not yet started |
|6. Modimolle |Not yet started |
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
CHALLENGES
Coping with the challenges of the electricity reform process
Upgrading electricity supply to meet the demand and development of business operations.
Ensuring access to free basic electricity in villages and farming communities
Propagate, register and supply all deserving beneficiaries
• Low number of token collection
• Limited number of vending stations.
• Lack of finance for ring fencing process
ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW
6.6 ROADS MANAGEMENT
The Waterberg District Municipality has an interest to serve all the people residing in its area of jurisdiction. To this end, a well established road network and the proper maintenance thereof, is absolutely vital to the economy of the region as a whole and to ensure accessibility to all and proper linkages between urban and rural environments. The Waterberg District Municipality would therefore endeavour to promote good co-operation between national, provincial and local road authorities at all times.
The road network is the “heart” of the transport network in the Waterberg District Municipality, considering the long distances between production locations and markets. Transport and development go hand-in-hand, especially where public transport is concerned.
Roads are classed according to the function they have to perform. The main differences between the various classes of roads relate to the extent to which they cater for traffic movement or for access. Freeways and toll roads are the responsibility of the National Roads Agency, while arterial, collector and local roads are the responsibility of the Limpopo Roads Agency. The municipalities are responsible for the road networks within their respective municipal boundaries. This section describes the road hierarchy in the Waterberg District Municipality, in terms of National Roads, Provincial Roads, and District Roads, and their significance with respect to access and mobility for Public Transport, Freight, and Tourism. Traditionally roads projects were prioritised according to traffic volumes and pavement conditions. The new criteria for prioritisation of road projects include traffic volumes, pavement conditions, public transport, passenger volumes, tourism, and freight.
6.6.1 National Roads
The National Roads Agency is the custodian for the National Road Network. Currently the N11 is the only National Road declared in the jurisdiction of the Waterberg District Municipality. However, several roads are to be handed over from the Road Agency Limpopo to the National Roads Agency (NRA).
6.6.2 Provincial Roads
The Provincial road network is currently the responsibility of the Roads Agency Limpopo (RAL) and the Department of Roads and Transport. The RAL utilise the Road Management System (RMS) as a tool for assisting with road network management. There are several Provincial Roads in the WDM. According to the PLTF, the current RAL strategies are identified according to the Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (PGDS). The PGDS of the Limpopo Province is primarily focussed on the development needs and in particular the development corridors and economic development centres that have been identified and that are of economic importance to the province.
The assessment of roads, traffic counts and inspections of bridges are conducted and fed into the system. The RMS then reflects the road network conditions and predicts deterioration patterns. The system assists in prioritising road maintenance and rehabilitation projects.
In addition to the above roads, the local access roads are gravel and predominantly utilised by buses and taxis. The condition of these roads is below standard. They require upgrading and improved storm water management.
The RAL has completed process of demarcating roads for the WDM. There is a map with the demarcated routes, but the route description is not yet complete, and the formal transfer of authority is enacted. As a result, there is no Roads Master Plan for the WDM yet. It must be borne in mind that all of these roads were previously maintained by the Province and not by Waterberg District Municipality.
6.6.3 Proclaimed Waterberg District Roads
The Roads Agency Limpopo is the custodian of all Provincial Roads in the Limpopo Province. The Department of Roads and Transport also carries out maintenance. The Local Municipality identifies road maintenance and upgrade projects at random in consultation with the communities and Ward Councillors.
PROCLAIMED WATERBERG DISTRICT ROADS
[pic]
| WATERBERG DISTRICT |
| | | | |
|Conditions of District Roads | | | |
|ITEM No. |
|Robbery with weapon other than firearm |
|Theft of motor vehicle |
|Indecent assault |
|Attempted murder |
|Burglary |
|Robbery aggravating |
Source: SAPS, District, 2006
6.11.2. Identified possible causes of crime
• Unemployment
• Poverty
• Inadequate or inaccessible policing
• Alcohol and drug abuse
• Lack of sporting and recreational facilities, lack of skills, and low self-esteem
• Moral degeneration and break-down of family structures, rapid and uncontrolled urbanisation
The information as on the chart below span over two (2) Quarters namely the Second Quarter (July – September 2006) and the Third Quarter (October – December 2006).
|Quarter 2 – 2006/2007 (July, August & SeptembeTheft (Other)r 2006) |
|Decreasing/Equal Priority Crimes |
|Crimes |% Down |Crimes |% Up |
|Attempted Murder |-40.48 |Theft of All Stock |63.64 |
|Attempted Theft of Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle |-30 |Robbery with Weapon Other Than Firearm |61.11 |
|Burglary (Excluding Residential Premises) |-22.45 |Theft of Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle |41.82 |
|Theft Off/from Motor Vehicle |-10.11 |Indecent Assault |35.71 |
|Common Robbery |-9.9 |Burglary (Houses) |22.31 |
|Assault common |-8.97 |Robbery Aggravating |20.59 |
|Assault Gbh |-5.57 |Arson |16 |
|Fraud |-4.17 |Malicious Damage to Property |12.1 |
|Theft (Other) |-0.94 |Shoplifting |11.36 |
|Murder |0 |Rape |9.4 |
|Attempted Robbery: Aggravated: with Fire-arm |0 | | |
|Attempted Theft (Other) |0 | | |
|Quarter 3 - 2006/2007 (October, November & December 2006) |
|Decreasing/Equal Priority Crimes | |
|Crimes |% Down |Crimes |% Up |
|Attempted Murder |-50 |Indecent Assault |40 |
|Arson |-34.78 |Attempted Murder |34.48 |
|Attempted Burglaries (Business) |-33.33 |Burglary (Excluding Residential Premises) |27.66 |
|Attempted Theft of Motor Vehivle and Motor Cycle |-25 |Robbery Aggravating |25.81 |
|Murder |-23.91 |Burglary (Houses) |12.17 |
|Shoplifting |-17.95 |Fraud |7.5 |
|Theft of All Stock |-10.17 |Theft of Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle |5.63 |
|Rape |-7.36 |Assault Gbh |5.03 |
|Theft Off/from/Off Motorcycle |-2.38 |Robbery with Weapon Other Than Firearm |4.65 |
|Common Robbery |-0.58 |Malicious Damage to Property |3.5 |
|Attempted Robbery: Aggravated: with Fire-arm |0 |Theft (Other) |2.15 |
|Attempted Theft From/off Motor Vehicle |0 |Assault (Common) |2.06 |
Source: SAPS, District, 2006
CHALLENGES:
• Illegal operation of unlicensed shebeens and taverns
• Monitoring of proper utilsation of licenses and permits issued to liquor sellers
• Access to certain crime scenes due to bad conditions of roads
• Lack Street lighting in most streets in rural and urban/informal settlements
• Ineffective operation of Community Policing Forums
• Crime awareness and substance abuse
• Domestic violence,( women and child abuse)
• Stock theft
• Robbery
• Burglary
• Untimely response by SAPS to crime scenes
• Access to police service in rural areas
HEALTH SERVICES OVERVIEW
6.12. HEALTH
Co-ordination of health services should take place at district level where different health rendering authorities should formulate a plan called the District Health Plan which should be linked to the district municipality’s Integrated Development Plan. The plan sets out the goals and strategies that will enable the health district to best meet the health needs of its population and includes details of the funding allocated for implementation.
6.12.1.1 Health Priorities
|PROVINCIAL, DISTRICT AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES SPECIFIC COMMUNICABLE AND NON-COMMUNICABLE PRIORITIES |
|Provincial |District |Bela-Bela |Lephalale |Modimolle |Mogalakwena |Mookgophong |Thabazimbi |
|HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |HIV/AIDS |
|Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |Tuberculosis |
|Pneumonia |Agricultural |Agricultural |Agricultural |Agricultural |Agricultural |Agricultural |Agricultural |
| |Poisoning |Poisoning |Poisoning |Poisoning |Poisoning |Poisoning |Poisoning |
|Malaria |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |Meningo – coocal |
| |Meningitis |meningitis |meningitis |meningitis |meningitis |meningitis |meningitis |
|Cancer |STI |STI |STI |STI |STI |STI |STI |
|Food poisoning |Hypertension |Hypertension |Hypertension |Hypertension |Hypertension |Hypertension |Hypertension |
Source: Dept of Health, 2007
NB:
❖ Tuberculosis – HIV/AIDS link is the major cause of death
❖ Tuberculosis is the major notifiable condition in the Waterberg District
| |
|PROVINCIAL, DISTRICT AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES |
| |
|PHC PRIORITIES |
|Provincial |District |Bela Bela |Lephalale |Modimolle |
| |2005\06 |2006/07 |
| | |Target |
| | |Non-Fixed Facilities | | |District |District Hospital Beds |
| | | |Fixed Clinics |CHC |Hospital | |
| |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|BELA-BELA |32.2 |29.38 |
|MAOPE |30.4 |38.88 |
|WARMBAD |100 |98.68 |
| |
|MODIMOLLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|LESEDING |52.6 |76.47 |
|MEETSETSHEHLA |100 |98.78 |
|MOSHIA |61.9 |72.22 |
|MOHLAKAMOTALA |98.2 |100 |
|NYLSTROOM |98.9 |100 |
|PHAGAMENG |44.3 |50.48 |
|SETTLERS |100 |98.68 |
| |
|MOOKGOPHONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|HANS STRIJDOM |97.4 |95.59 |
|MAKHUTJISHA |50.6 |46.23 |
|ROEDTAN |54.5 |78.57 |
| |
|THABAZIMBI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|GROENVLIE |100 |88.88 |
|FRIKKIE MEYER |99.2 |100 |
|MABOGOPEDI |68.9 |23.23 |
|NALETSANA |- |0 |
|NORTHAM COMP |66.6 |68.57 |
| |
|LEPHALALE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|BAITSWE |100 |100 |
|BATLHALERWA |68 |55.74 |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|DIAMONA |100 |80.95 |
|DIMPE |90.9 |96.0 |
|DINOKO |81.1 |76 |
|ELLISRAS |99.1 |98.31 |
|KODUPO |100 |90.91 |
|LETUPU |100 |100 |
|MAJADIBODU |81.7 |52.35 |
|MALEBO |69.6 |51.61 |
|MANANYE |89.1 |69.73 |
|MATHULASERA |100 |63.16 |
|MATSHWARA |87.7 |64.18 |
|MATSIABABA |79.2 |28.57 |
|MAZWE |82.4 |24.29 |
|MMAY |68.9 |60.87 |
|MOKONONKWENOKO |76.8 |86.21 |
|MORAKOLO |100 |96.67 |
|MOTLHATJWA |96 |90.32 |
|MPEDI |54.8 |84.62 |
|MPHARI |57.7 |38.46 |
|PHEGELELO |82.5 |76.0 |
|RABODITSE |78.6 |92.31 |
|RADINONG |62.1 |50 |
|RASERITE |82.8 |53.85 |
|SEOKETSENG |77.3 |84.62 |
|SEPHUTI |42.5 |50 |
|SETHULA |81.3 |88.88 |
|THABANG |100 |100 |
|TSHIRELETSO |78.9 |96.15 |
| |
|MOGALAKWENA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |
|BAKENBERG |58.5 |36.12 |
|BATHOKWA |54.3 |34.0 |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|CHARLES MARAKALALA |42.4 |31.92 |
|DENIS MATLHABA II |48.9 |39.79 |
|GEORGE LANGA |26.1 |34.23 |
|GEORGE MASIBE |80 |66.67 |
|JM GWANGWA |85.7 |30.76 |
|JOHN MANGANYE |59.1 |66.67 |
|KGAUBOTLALE |26.3 |57.14 |
|KGAKGATHU |53.57 |42.85 |
|KGOKARI |62.7 |60.37 |
|KGOLODI |59.63 |30.14 |
|KOLOBE RAMOSOBANA |81.6 |27.27 |
|LAMOLA |55.88 |61.53 |
|LEMETJA |96.77 |43.75 |
|LAPHADIMISHA |41.6 |30.43 |
|MAFASA |64.29 |68.57 |
|MALEMOCHA |23.6 |49.42 |
|MASHAMAITE |76.24 |60.0 |
|MASHOBELA |76 |70.96 |
|MASHUBASHUBA |90.48 |57.89 |
|MATATANE |46.7 |55.0 |
|MATHULAMISHA |70 |83.33 |
|MATOPA |74.7 |38.36 |
|MATSOGELLA |57.9 |45.68 |
|MMAMOPI |90.91 |100 |
|MOKGALAKA-MOLEMOLE |100 |0 |
|MOOKAMEDI |73,9 |57.14 |
|MPADI |85.71 |20 |
|MAWELE |48 |61.29 |
|NAKONKWETLOU |100 |70.27 |
|NKORU |83.7 |51.11 |
|NKUBE |37.3 |86.21 |
|NTHUBA |56.74 |46.59 |
|PALEDI |78.38 |32.43 |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|PHAHLA PHAHLA |40 |60 |
|PIRWANA |77.27 |67.65 |
|PT MATLALA |54.54 |49.15 |
|RAKUKUBANE |36.2 |39.68 |
|RAMOLLWANA |84.1 |72.73 |
|RALELEDU |74.29 |75 |
|SEGOBOKO |72 |28.57 |
|SENWANE |61.5 |31.25 |
|SERAME |80.5 |8.56 |
|SESHOATLHA |45.2 |31.15 |
|SESHOKA |58.4 |25.71 |
|SEWELABATHO |60 |32 |
|SIYAKHALENI |61 |33.33 |
|TLOU MATLALA |75.34 |75 |
|MPHOKENG |76.47 |42.86 |
|MOTJERE |77.46 |70.11 |
|KUDUSHE |77.42 |53.13 |
|NKOBO |72.97 |26 |
|TSHEBEDI |95 |81.25 |
|AB MAKAPAN |66.3 |35.83 |
|AC SPORT EXC |2.2 |10 |
|BEN HLONGANA |65.9 |35 |
|DG TSEBE |85.7 |69.23 |
|EBENEZER |88.8 |85.71 |
|EDL RAMPOLA |67.25 |80.43 |
|FRED LEDWABA HIGH |68.1 |54.55 |
|GOBELA |61.5 |34.78 |
|GOJELA |42.2 |68.70 |
|HEBRON MODEL SCHOOL |92.3 |92.98 |
|JOHN PETRO |38.6 |19.41 |
|KGABA |41.1 |32.47 |
|KGATHI YA MOSHATE |51.2 |43.12 |
|LANGALIBALELE |16.98 |40 |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|LEKWA |47.2 |45 |
|LELESO |75.0 |34.48 |
|LETAMONG |2.2 |52.17 |
|MADIKWE |24.1 |25.69 |
|MAKGENENE |81.8 |36.11 |
|MALEYA |74.1 |65.62 |
|MAPANOLLA |29.1 |54.29 |
|MASS MOJA |57.6 |31.03 |
|MASERUNYANE |43.8 |51.25 |
|MASODI |57.6 |56.25 |
|MATANTA |63.6 |45.0 |
|MATSIBE |31 |42.19 |
|MC LANGA |48.2 |63.16 |
|MADIKANA |85.5 |82.80 |
|MMANTUTULE |68.8 |55.83 |
|MMATEDU |79 |66.18 |
|MMOLAWA |47.5 |82.57 |
|MOKOTLI-NTLAKANA |83.4 |78.91 |
|MPIRWABIRWA |51.6 |48.15 |
|MPUNYE |32.9 |30.26 |
|NKAKABIDI |88.8 |71.25 |
|NTATA |55 |33.68 |
|NORTH CREST |27.02 |62.86 |
|PIET POTGIETER |100 |97.52 |
|RAMOGABUDI |100 |93.15 |
|SAINT THOMAS |38.46 |42.86 |
|SEKOBA |74.2 |14.71 |
|SERITARITA |47.6 |65.45 |
|SOMAVUGHA |55.6 |33.66 |
|STERKRIVIER |73.6 |15.38 |
|TETEMA |65 |61.63 |
|TJITJILA |55.2 |41.18 |
|WATERBERG |97.4 |97.14 |
|NAME OF SCHOOL |2005 (%) |2006 (%) |
|WEENEN |85.7 |79.31 |
|WATERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY |
|TOTAL |63.11% |55.5 % |
Source: Dept. of Education, 2007
CHALLENGES:
• Provision of water, sanitation and electricity to needy schools
• Provision of additional classrooms
• Addressing gender imbalances among educators district wide.
• Curricula of FET’s to be demand orientated (e.g economic development)
• Partnership between locals, private sector and FET’s on skills development
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
6.14. Social Development
6.14.1. Information On Beneficiaries In Receipt Of Social Grants Within The Waterberg District Municipal Area
|LOCAL MUNICIPALITY |OLD AGE |DIS |WAR VETERAN |
|THABAZIMBI |190 |REGOLOGILE |190 |
| |52 |NORTHAM |52 |
|SUB-TOTAL |242 | |242 |
| |
|BELABELA |195 |BELABELA COM HALL |195 |
| |73 |PIENARSRIVER |73 |
|SUB-TOTAL |268 | |268 |
| |
|MODIMOLLE |180 |PHAGAMENG COM HALL |180 |
| |27 |ALMA MOSHIA HIGH |27 |
| |112 |VAALWATER LESEDING COM HALL |112 |
|SUB-TOTAL |319 | |319 |
| |
|MOKGOOPONG |226 |MOKGOOPONG COM HALL |226 |
| |59 |THUSANG(ROETAN) COM HALL |59 |
|SUB-TOTAL |285 | |285 |
| |
|LEPHALALE | | | |
| |95 |ABBASPOORT |95 |
| |108 |SHONGWANE |108 |
| |135 |SELEKA |135 |
| |60 |WITPOORT |60 |
|SUB-TOTAL |398 | |398 |
| |
|MOGALAKWENA 1 | | | |
| | |MAHWELRENG WELFARE |152 |
| | | | |
| | |MAPELA |69 |
|SUB-TOTAL | | |221 |
| |
| | | | |
|MOGALAKWENA 2 | |BAKENBERG |70 |
| | |MAKOBE TRIBAL HALL |101 |
| | |TAUEATSWALA TRIBAL HALL |96 |
|SUB-TOTAL | | |267 |
| |
| |
|TOTAL |2000 | |2000 |
Source: Dept of Social Development, 2007
Note: The food parcels contain the following:
1X 5kg dried beans,1X 5kg Sugar,1X 2,5kg Samp,1X1kg Full Milk Powder,1X1kg Soya mince 1X1kg Iodised salt, 1X 800g Soup, 1X810g Peanut butter, 1X2 litres sunflower oil,100x1, 5kg tea bags, 2X 500g Washing powder, 4X125g bath soap & 2X25kg maizemeal.
6.14.3. Integrated Social Development Services to replace emergency food security program.
ALLOCATION OF FOOD PARCELS
|MUNICIPALITY |POVERTY LEVEL |ALLOCATION |
|Bela –Bela |40.9% |268 |
|Lephalale |60.6% |398 |
|Modimolle |48.3% |319 |
|Mogalakwena |60.6% |488 |
|Mookgophong |42.2% |285 |
|Thabazimbi |52.3% |242 |
|TOTAL | |2000 |
Source: Dept of Social Development, 2007
CHALLENGES:
• Recruitment of foster parents for fostering of orphans
• Sustainability of social development projects
• Involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the off-loading of beneficiaries
• Service delivery to the disadvantaged in rural areas
• Staff turn over
GOVERNANCE
AND
ADMINISTRATION CLUSTER
ANALYSIS
HUMAN RESOURCES
AND
ORGANISATIONAL MANAGEMENT
16.5 MANAGEMENT ORGINASATIONAL STRUCTURE
[pic]
6.15.1 SWOT ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS PER DEPARTMENT
6.15.1.1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITY ISSUES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. WATER , SANITATION AND DROUGHT RELIEF
2. ROADS AND STORMWATER
3. ELECTRICITY CO-ORDINATION
SWOT ANALYSIS
|NATIONAL KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION | | | | | | |
| | |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |PROPOSED INTERVENTION |
|BASIC SERVICE AND |Water & sanitation |Skills, expertise, |HR capacity to respond to |Support from National and |Insufficient Skills and expertise at |Separate functions on water |The District need to |
|INFRASTRUCTURE | |operational budget |invitation for co-ordination is|Provincial Government in |LMs regarding water and sanitation |and sanitation activities at |separate the water and |
|DEVELOPMENT | |and transport |limited by number of staff. |co-ordinating water and |development. |LM levels as opposed to the |sanitation |
| | |resources are | |sanitation activities. | |District level. |co-ordination |
| | |available for | | |There is not enough water and | |activities. |
| | |co-ordination | |Waterberg DM has a district |financial resources to meet the |The WSA status residing at | |
| | |purposes. | |eye-view of opportunities and |demand at LMs. |the LM levels is negative |HR component need to be|
| | | | |potentials, to avoid local | |towards the potential of the |increased (create |
| | | | |vested interests. |Non-attendance of meetings by LMs |District to take advantage of|separate posts for |
| | | | | | |District-wide opportunities |water and sanitation |
| | | | |Central provision of problem | |and potentials. |co-ordinators) (two |
| | | | |solving models | | |junior officials) |
| | | | | | |Non-attendance leads to | |
| | | | | | |poorly informed decisions |Identify the |
| | | | | | |around programs |possibilities for |
| | | | | | |implementation |sharing the WSA |
| | | | | | | |function with the LMs. |
| | | | | | | |(one senior official) |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |Identification and |
| | | | | | | |understanding of |
| | | | | | | |reasons for poor |
| | | | | | | |attendance, and |
| | | | | | | |engagement with senior |
| | | | | | | |management at LM level |
| | | | | | | |to delegate officials. |
| |Drought relief |Skills, expertise, |HR capacity to do the planning |Joint funding from the WDM and |No proper systems and management of |There is no dedicated person |Create a post of |
| | |operational budget |is limited by number of staff. |the Province facilitates the |drought relief programme |for drought relief activity |drought relief Officer |
| | |and transport | |planning process. | | |(one senior official) |
| | |resources are | | | | | |
| | |available for | | | | | |
| | |planning purposes. | | | | | |
| |Roads and |Draft report on the |Absence of skills, expertise, |Availability of information |Limited skills, expertise, |Inability to spend |Grow (HR) the project |
| |stormwater |institutional |operational budget and |resources at RAL. |operational budget and transport |potentially higher capital |management capacity of |
| | |arrangements and |transport resources for the | |resources are available for roads and|budget on maintenance |the WDM. (one senior |
| | |roads condition |roads authority function. |Unlocking of access to LED |stormwater planning and development. |(regravelling) of roads. |and one junior |
| | |regarding District | |opportunities. | | |officials) |
| | |road authority | | |Road condition information is |Effective planning is | |
| | |function is | |Ability to comply and respond |outdated. |hampered by outdated |Conduct a road |
| | |available. | |to Government objectives and | |information. |condition survey on a |
| | | | |strategies (e.g. EPWP, ASGISA).|Inaccessibility of economic | |five year cycle. |
| | | | | |opportunities and social services. |Backlog of roads and | |
| | | | |Possibility for MIG Funding for| |stormwater services. |Increase funding |
| | | | |construction of roads. |Inability to discharge the road | |sources and amounts. |
| | | | | |authority function. |Lack of organizational | |
| | | | | | |structure, funding, and |Establish a section 78 |
| | | | | | |execution capacity. |process. |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |Develop and implement |
| | | | | | | |the organizational |
| | | | | | | |structure that will |
| | | | | | | |ensure the effective |
| | | | | | | |discharge of the road |
| | | | | | | |authority function. |
| | | | | | | |(one senior official) |
| |Electricity |Skills, expertise, |HR capacity to respond to |Support from National and |Non-attendance of meetings by some |Non-attendance leads to |Identification and |
| | |operational budget |invitation for co-ordination is|Provincial Government in |LMs. |poorly informed decisions |understanding of |
| | |and transport |limited by number of staff. |co-ordinating electricity | |around programs |reasons for poor |
| | |resources are | |activities |Non attendance of Local Energy Forum |implementation. |attendance, and |
| | |available for | | |by the WDM. | |engagement with senior |
| | |co-ordination | |Establishment of REDS. | |No opportunity to attend to |management at LM level |
| | |purposes. | | | |Local Specific issues about |to delegate officials. |
| | | | | | |LMs | |
| | | | | | | |The District needs an |
| | | | | | | |electricity |
| | | | | | | |co-ordinator. (one |
| | | | | | | |junior official) |
| |Technical Support |Availability of |HR capacity to provide advice |Procedures and solutions are |Crisis management in Technical |Other departments request |Support from Technical |
| |to other |Technical Support |is limited by number of staff. |streamlined and standardized. |Services due to ad hoc request for |support in an ad hoc manner |Services should clearly|
| |Departments |and Advice. | | |support. |without appropriate planning.|be indicated in the |
| | | | | | | |project plans/designs. |
| | | | | |Non-standard procedures and solutions|Sitting with different | |
| | | | | |lead to duplication of efforts and |solutions to the similar |Development and |
| | | | | |wasteful expenditure. |problem. |implementation of |
| | | | | | | |technical procedures |
| | | | | | | |and solutions should be|
| | | | | | | |standardized by |
| | | | | | | |Technical Services. |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |MIG and EPWP |Skills, expertise, |HR capacity to respond to |Support from National and |Non-attendance of meetings by some |Non-attendance leads to |Identification and |
| | |operational budget |invitation for co-ordination is|Provincial Government in |LMs. |poorly informed decisions |understanding of |
| | |and transport |limited by number of staff. |co-ordinating MIG activities | |around programs |reasons for poor |
| | |resources are | | |Non attendance of Local MIG Forum by |implementation. |attendance, and |
| | |available for | |Possibility for MIG Funding for|the WDM. | |engagement with senior |
| | |co-ordination | |construction of roads. | |No opportunity to attend to |management at LM level |
| | |purposes. | | |Inability to address the roads and |Local Specific issues about |to delegate officials. |
| | | | | |stormwater backlog of services. |LMs | |
| | | | | | | |MIG Funding to be used |
| | | | | | |Poor MIG expenditure due to |to secure the services |
| | | | | | |lack of HR. |of the PMU. |
[pic]
6.15.1.2 NAME OF DEPARTMENT: SOCIAL SERVICES
PRIORITY ISSUES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. MUNICIPAL HEALTH SERVICES
2. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES
3. DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND FIREFIGHTING
4. SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE CO-ORDINATION
5. EDUCATION CO-ORDINATION
6. SAFETY AND SECURITY CO-ORDINATION
SWOT ANALYSIS
|NATIONAL KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |
|FIRE FIGHTING SERVICES |Purchased mobile heavy load |Lack of human capital or |Provision of comprehensive fire |Veldt fires. |Personnel recruitment. |Securing of sufficient |
| |fire fighting tankers, vehicles|personnel. |fighting services. | | |funds to acquire |
| |and skid units. | | |Domestic Fire. |Inadequate and insufficient |additional fire fighting |
| | | | | |equipments |equipments |
| | | | |Funds. | | |
| | | | | | |Personnel recruitment. |
| | | | |Outdated fire equipment. | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |Lack of personnel | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |Regular or bi-monthly |
| |Service Delivery Agreements | |Rendering of the fire fighting |Direction boards to incidents | |meetings with the locals. |
| |entered into between the |Irregular submission of fire |services efficiently and |Inaccessible areas/settlements |Inconsistencies on the submission of | |
| |District and Local |monthly claims and internal |effectively. | |monthly fire fighting claims by all | |
| |municipalities. |audit for fire fighting | |Audit queries |local municipalities. |Development of District |
| | |services | | | |standardized tariff policy|
| | | |Uniformity in terms of rendering | |To have a uniform fire fighting |for fire fighting call- |
| |Allocated operational and |Lack of standardized tariff |call –out charges by local | |tariff policy for all callouts |out charges. |
| |capital budgets for rendering |policy for fire call – outs |municipalities | |charges. |Finalization of by- laws |
| |the services. |purposes | | | | |
| | | | |Non performance towards service| | |
| | | | |delivery by Local | | |
| |Initiate the process of | |Adherence to applicable |Municipalities. |Non –compliance with fire fighting | |
| |fire-fighting by-laws. |Internal delays by |legislation. | |legislations | |
| | |implementing Department. | |Municipalities have | | |
| | | | |inconsistencies in rendering | | |
| | | | |the fire fighting services | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |Inability to implement a by-law| | |
| | | | |due to internal delays | | |
|TO CO-ORDINATE AND |Provision of support services |Lack of working relationship |Upliftment of standard of |Insufficient funding. |Alignment of project between |Social Cluster meeting to |
|SUPPORT TO STRUCTURES |to structures dealing with |between the Department and |education. | |Department Education and District |be strengthened. |
|DEALING WITH EDUCATION |education. |the District Municipality. | | |Municipality | |
| | | | | | |Intervention by Political |
| | | | | | |office. |
|TO CO-ORDINATE SPORTS, |Hosting of District O.R Tambo |Lack of promotion on |To unleash the potential of young |Lack of interest by youth. |Attracting enough young talents. |Research to be made within|
|ARTS AND CULTURE |and Indigenous Games regionally|individual Sporting codes. |talents in the District | | |the Province about the |
| |and Provincially | | |Insufficient funding. | |location of sports, arts |
| | |Lack of a sports, arts and | | | |and culture subdivision. |
| | |culture officer within the | | | | |
| | |social services department. | | | |Personnel recruitment. |
| | | | | | | |
| | |Inter Departmental | | | | |
| | |disagreements with regards to| | | | |
| | |the location of the function.| | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | |Poor attendance of meetings | | | |Personnel recruitment |
| | |by locals . | | | | |
| |Established District Sports | |Establishment of sports assembly. |No official dealing with sports|Coordination of relevant stakeholders| |
| |Council | | |activities. | | |
|TO CO-ORDINATE AND |Strategic location for |Lack of coordination and |Development of crime prevention |Lack of cooperation with regard|Coordination and support initiatives.|Regular meeting with all |
|SUPPORT TO STRUCTURES |coordination and support. |support plans initiatives. |strategy. |to the sharing of information | |structures dealing with |
|DEALING WITH SAFETY AND | | | | | |Safety and Security. |
|SECURITY | | | | | | |
| | |Lack of crime prevention | |Uncoordinated awareness |No coordinated effort by the |Interact with the sister |
| | |strategies. |Attendance of SAPS rural safety |programmes with the District |Province. |Department and local |
| | | |committee meetings. | | |municipalities to develop |
| | | | | | |the crime prevention |
| | | | | | |strategy. |
CURRENT STAFF COMPLEMENT
|DEPARTMENT |NUMBER OF STAFF |
| |DESIGNATION | STATUS |
| |MANAGER:SOCIAL SERVICES |OCCUPIED | |
| |ASSISTANT MANAGER:SOCIAL SERVICES |OCCUPIED | |
| |ASSISTANT HEAD HEALTH SERVICES X 2 |OCCUPIED | |
| |DISASTER MANAGEMENT OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |MUNICIPAL HEALTH OFFICIALS | 22 0CCUPIED |07 VACANT |
| | 33 |26 |07 |
|TOTAL | 33 | 33 |
|DEPLOYED OFFICIALS |ASS. DIRECTOR COMM.ENVIRONMENTAL WORKER |01 01 |
[pic]
6.15.1..3 NAME OF DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES
PRIORITIES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. INSTITUTUIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SWOT ANALYSIS
|KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTON |STRENGTH |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |PROPOSED INTERVENTION |
|FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND |Revenue Management |Main source of income is |Dependent on govt for |Donor funding |Uncertainty of govt grants |Insufficient revenue |Investigate alternate sources of|
|MANAGEMENT | |grants |grants | | | |revenue |
| | | | | |Revenue to replace RSC Levies | | |
| | | |RSC Levies eliminated – |Appoint Tracing Agents |may not be a district | |Institute legal action |
| | | |levy payers not paying | |responsibility | |Summons must be issued by 30 |
| | | | | | | |June 2008 |
| | | | | |Loss of income | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | |Strong investment | |Additional funds available for |Fluctuation of interest rates | |Placement of personnel |
| | |portfolio | |projects | | | |
| | | | | |Loss of personnel due to | | |
| | |Low turnover of personnel | | |elimination of RSC Levies | | |
| |Expenditure Management |Efficient expenditure |Poor implementation of | |Grants may be reduced due to |Poor service delivery |Effective implementation of PMS |
| | |management |projects by other | |poor implementation of | | |
| | | |departments | |projects | | |
| | | | | | |High personnel costs |Submission to National Treasury |
| | |Low turnover of personnel |SCM unit not fully |Placement of personnel due to |Unfunded mandates(Municipal | |for additional grants |
| | | |operational |elimination of levies |Health Service) | | |
| | | | | | | |Finalise and approve organogram |
| | | | | |Job evaluations may result in | | |
| | | | | |increase in personnel costs | | |
| |Financial Reporting |Ability to report |Inability of financial | |Non compliance of MFMA | |Amend/upgrade system |
| | |timeously in compliance |system to report in the | | | | |
| | |with MFMA |required format | | | | |
| | | |Officials inability to | | | | |
| | |GAMAP/GRAP conversion |compile AFS | | | |Training officials |
| | |completed |in new format | | | | |
| |Budget Compilation and |Ability to compile and |Inability of financial | |Non compliance of MFMA | |Amend/upgrade system |
| |Control |approve budget |system to monitor budget | | | | |
| | | | | | | |Regular report to managers |
CURRRENT STATUS
| | |
| | |
|DEPARTMENT | |
| |NUMBER OF STAFF |
| |DESIGNATION | STATUS |
| |1.CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |2.ASSISTANT MANAGER:EXPENDITURE |OCCUPIED | |
| |3.ASSISTANT MANAGER: INCOME |OCCUPIED | |
| |4.ASSIST ACCOUNTANT x2 |OCCUPIED (1) | |
| |5.CLERK GRADE 1 x4 |OCCUPIED | |
| |6.CLERICAL ASSISTANTS x2 |OCCUPIED | |
| |7.ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT |OCCUPIED | |
| |8.DEPUTY CFO |ELIMINATE | |
| |9.ACCOUNTANT |ELIMINATE | |
| |SCM UNIT (4 POSTS) |PROPOSED | |
| |BUDGET AND REPORTING OFFICER |PROPOSED | |
| |FINANCIAL INTERNS x 2 |2 OCCUPIED (CONTRACT) | |
|TOTAL | CURRENT |14 + 2 |
[pic]
6.15.1.4 NAME OF DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITIES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SWOT ANALYSIS
|KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |
|Regulation and co-ordination of |The integrated transport |Lack of human, technical and | |Unavailability of land for |New mandates with no |Build new capacity in human|
|public transport matters |plan is in place. |financial capacity. |Business opportunities for SMMEs. |transport facilities. |requisite capacity to |resource, technical and |
| | | |Improved public transport system. | |execute. |financial. |
| | |Lack of role clarification. | |Negative impact on public | |Regulations and management |
| | | | |transport service. | |model. |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |Prone to violence. | | |
CURRENT STAFF COMPLEMENT
|DEPARTMENT |NUMBER OF STAFF |
| |DESIGNATION |STATUS |
| |MANAGER:: PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT |OCCUPIED | |
| |ASSISTANT MANAGER:DEVELOPMENT PLANNING | |VACANT |
| |ASSISTANT MANAGER:ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT |OCCUPIED | |
| |LED CO-ORDINATOR |OCCCUPIED | |
| |ADMIN & HYGIENE OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |MARKETING & TOURISM OFFICER | |VACANT |
| |GENERAL WORKSMAN |OCCUPIED | |
| |SLAUGHTERERS |OCCUPIED X 8 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|TOTAL | |13 |02 |
|OVERALL TOTAL | | 15 |
[pic]
6.15.1.5 NAME OF DEPARTMENT: CORPORATE SUPPPORT SERVICES
PRIORITIES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |PROPOSED INTERVENTION |
|TRANSFORMATION AND ORGANISATIONAL |LEGAL SERVICES |Sufficient budget provided for the |Maintenance of records of |Assigning the duties of |Ability to source |To appoint a resource |Transfer of legal matters |
|DEVELOPMENT | |legal services |contracts and the |administering legal |legal competency |that is sufficiently |to the Administration unit|
| | | |management of agreements |matters to the |in the |competent to deal the |and appointment of a |
| | | | |administration unit |administration |administration of legal|senior official (Assistant|
| | | | | |unit |matters |Manager) to be responsible|
| | | | | | | |for both administration |
| | | | | | | |and legal matters |
| |HUMAN RESOURCES |Availability of approved posts |Delay in obtaining |Clear recruitment/ Staff |Failure to comply |Service delivery is |Speedy approval of the |
| |MANAGENT | |approval to fill key |\provisioning policy |with the policy |negatively affected |delegations policy |
| | | |vacant positions | | | |framework |
| | |Manageable staff component |Staff incentives not |Recruitment of local |High staff |Retain staff |Develop a policy for |
| | | |attractive |people |turnover |(especially key |retention of key personnel|
| | | | | | |personnel) | |
| | |Effective personnel administration |Non-integration of the HRM|Development of the MSP to |Dissatisfied |Maintain Effective |Integration of the HRM and|
| | | |system with other systems |integrate all IT systems |personnel and low |personnel |PayDay systems to the |
| | | | | |morale |administration |other It systems in the |
| | | | | | | |municipality |
| | | |Personnel appraisals not |PMS framework has been |Deserving |Coordinate and |Strategic information of |
| | | |done in terms of |adopted |officials not |facilitate PMS |PMS are assessed and |
| | | |requirements | |reward and |evaluations/ appraisals|evaluated by HR, and steps|
| | | | | |under-perfomance |(annually) |taken |
| | | | | |not being dealt | | |
| | | | | |with | | |
| |ADMINISTRATIVE AND |Fairly new building |Insufficient funding for |Provision of office space |Physical and |Ensure safe and |Seek sufficient funding |
| |AUXILLARY SERVICES | |building maintenance | |health risks to |comfortable buildings |(internally or externally)|
| | | | | |staff and people | | |
| | | | | |visiting the | | |
| | | | | |municipality | | |
| | |Approved posts on the organogram |Shortage of staff |Job opportunities for |Staff doing duties|Basic duties are not |Fill Corporate Services |
| | | | |people from the district |that are not in |attended to in time |Vacancies |
| | | | | |their job | | |
| | | | | |descriptions | | |
| | |Draft Fleet Management Policy developed|Delay in the approval of |Consideration of policies |Abuse of municipal|Lack of standard |Submission of the draft |
| | | |the policy |at the ensuing Strategic |vehicles |procedure for managing |policy for approval |
| | | | |Planning Workshop | |the municipal fleet | |
CURRENT STAFF COMPOSITION
|DEPARTMENT CORPORATE SERVICES |NUMBER OF STAFF |
| |DESIGNATION | STATUS |
| |MANAGER:CORPORATE SERVICES |OCCUPIED | |
| |ASSISTANT MANAGER: LEGAL SERVICES | |VACANT |
| |ASSISTANT MANAGER: HUMAN RESOURCES | |VACANT |
| |SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |RESEARCH & INFORMATION OFFICER | |VACANT |
| |HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |SENIOR RECORDS OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY |OCCUPIED | |
| |DRIVER/MESSENGER/MAINTENANCE OFFICER | |VACANT |
| |ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT:HR |OCCUPIED | |
| |DOCUMENT PROCESSING CLERK |OCCUPIED | |
| |RECEPTIONIST/TYPIST |OCCUPIED | |
| |TELEPHONIST | |VACANT |
| |CLEANERS X 6 |4 OCCUPIED |2 VACANT |
| |PREMISES CLEANER | |VACANT |
| | 20 |12 |08 |
|TOTAL | 20 | 20 |
[pic]
6.15.1.6NAME OF DEPARTMENT: OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR
PRIORITIES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION
2. SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE CO-ORDINATION
3. EDUCATION CO-ORDINATION
|KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |PROPOSED INTERVENTION |
|GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION |Provide Political Leadership |
| |DESIGNATION | STATUS |
| |MANAGER: OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MAYOR |OCCUPIED | |
| |ASSITANT MANAGER: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION |OCCUPIED | |
| |EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT |OCCUPIED | |
| |COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL CO-ORDINATION OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |SPECIAL PROJECTS CO-ORDINATOR | |VACANT |
| |SECRETARY TO SPEAKER |OCCUPIED | |
| |SECRETARY TO EXECUTIVE MAYOR |OCCUPIED | |
| |EXECUTIVE MAYOR’S DRIVER |OCCUPIED | |
| |ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT |OCCUPIED | |
| | 10 |09 |01 |
|TOTAL | 10 | 10 |
[pic]
6.15.1.7 NAME OF DEPARTMENT: OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER
PRIORITIES DELEGATED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. THIS OFFICE ADMINISTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TARGETS SETS ON ALL THE 14 PRIORITY ISSUES
SWOT ANALYSIS
| | | | | | | | |
|NATIONAL KPA |MUNICIPAL FUNCTION |STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |OVERALL CHALLENGES |PROPOSED INTERVENTION |
|BASIC SERVICE AND INFRASTRUCTURE | |Provide district-wide |Lack of sufficient |Improvement of the district |Loss of investment |Meager equitable share and |Seek alternative sources of |
|DEVELOPMENT | |planning and co-ordination|capacity in Technical |infrastructure |opportunities. |unfunded mandates. |funding. |
| | | |Services Department. | |Communities | |Adequate staffing of the |
| | | |(staffing) | |dissatisfaction | |Technical Services Department|
|TRANSFORMATION AND ORGANISATIONAL |Organizational |All locals adopted |Inability to comply with|Electronic generation of |Failure to reward |Funding and review of the PMS |Acquire an electronic system |
|DEVELOPMENT |performance management |Performance Management |the MPPF and the systems|progress reports |performance |in municipalities |that will assist in |
| | |Systems |act to review our PMS | | | |generating quarterly |
| | | |annually | | | |performance assessments |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |Establish and strengthen the |
| | | |Setting unrealistic | | | |performance management unit |
| | |PMS currently under review|targets and KPI’s | |Uninformed decisions |Inaccuracy of reports | |
| | |by corporate services | |Improved Service delivery |on performance related| | |
| | | | | |aspects | | |
| | | | | | | |Conduct intensive project |
| | | |Poor expenditure | |Loss of confidence by | |management training workshops|
| | |SDBIP’ s approved and |patterns | |community in service |Effective implementation of |with senior management and |
| | |performance contracts | | |delivery programmes of|approved programmes/projects |respective local |
| | |being aligned with new | | |the municipality | |municipalities. |
| | |regulations |Conducting quarterly | | | | |
| | | |assessments on | | | | |
| | | |individual managers | | | | |
| | | |including MM | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Involvement of middle | | | | |
| | | |and lower management on | |High staff turn over | |Signing of performance |
| | | |implementation of PMS | | | |agreements with lower levels |
| | | | | | | |of staff |
| | | | | | | |Review performance reward |
| | | | | | |Cascading the PMS to |policies |
| | | | | | |other/lower levels in the | |
| | | | | | |institution. | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Organisational project |Projects are aligned to |Projects do not have |Projects are designed such |Measuring impact of |Implementation of rolled over |Intensive training on project|
| |management |strategies. |clear targets and |that are easy to monitor and |inputs on project |and current financial year |management skills. |
| | | |baseline indicators. |evaluate. |delivery. |projects. | |
| | | | | |Projects not completed| | |
| | | |Cash flow projections | |within scheduled time | |Strengthening evaluation and |
| | | |are not fully realistic | |frame. | |monitoring systems. |
|FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT| |Sound financial |Not meeting legislative |Compliance with legislative |Forfeiture of grants. |Council and MAYCO meetings |Scheduling of all councils |
| | |management. |reporting requirements. |reporting requirements. | |not aligned to reporting |meetings in accordance with |
| | | | | | |deadlines. |reporting deadlines. |
| | | | |Provide effective feedback to | | | |
| | | | |communities. | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |Deliver effectively on the | | | |
| | | |Low revenue base. |mandate of the District. |Loss of confidence in | |Explore alternative means of |
| | | | | |municipal programmes |Insufficient funding for |enhancing revenue generation |
| | | | | |by communities |identified community needs | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION |Develop and maintain relations with local municipalities and other spheres of government |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |DESIGNATION | STATUS |
| |MUNICIPAL MANAGER |OCCUPIED | |
| |INTERNAL AUDITOR |OCCUPIED | |
| |SENIOR ADMIN/PROCUREMENT OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| |SECRETARY |OCCUPIED | |
| | PIMSS SUPPORT STAFF (Contract) |
| |SENIOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER |OCCUPIED | |
| |JUNIOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER |OCCUPIED | |
| |PMS CO-ORDINATOR |OCCUPIED | |
| |ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICER |OCCUPIED | |
| | 08 |08 | |
|TOTAL | 08 | 08 |
[pic]
6.15.2 SUMMARY OF STAFFING INFORMATION PER DEPARTMENT
The table below indicates the total number of posts per function as at 30 April 2007 as well as the number of posts filled and the vacancies per function.
|Department |Total no. of posts |No. of filled posts |No. of vacancies |
|Office of the Mayor |10 |8 |2 |
|Office of the Municipal Manager |8 |8 |0 |
|Financial Services |13 |10 |3 |
|Corporate Services |20 |15 |5 |
|Technical Services |7 |2 |5 |
|Social Services |17 |14 |3 |
|Planning and Economic Development |7 |5 |2 |
|Total |82 |62 |20 |
6.15.3 EMPLOYMENT EQUITY STATISTICS
Workforce profile as at 30 April 2007
|Occupational category |Male |Female |Total |
| |A |C |I |
| |A |C |
|Management department programme |1 |11 250.00 |
|Development and using performance training |2 |10 374.00 |
|Disaster risk management programme |1 |11 600.00 |
|Information and records management course |1 |4 560.00 |
|Skills Development Facilitator |1 |4 817.64 |
|Discipline, arbitration and cross examination skills |2 |9 006.00 |
|Developing and using performance measures to improve government |1 |6 187.00 |
|Finance, accounts and budgets for secretaries and Pas |1 |3 705.00 |
|Skills audit workshop |1 |3 500.00 |
|Pay-Day HR software training |2 |2 310.52 |
|Executive leadership: Municipal development programme |3 |45 000.00 |
|TOTAL |16 |112 310.16 |
6.15.6 PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE TRENDS
|Financial year |R’000 |% of total expenditure |
|2001/02 |6 393 729 |14.1% |
|2002/03 |10 684 975 |14.5% |
|2003/04 |13 094 024 |17.2% |
|2004/05 |16 336 377 |14.1% |
|2005/06 |16 737 306 |14.2% |
6.15.7 COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL POSITION AT 30 JUNE 2006
[pic]
6.15.8 HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES
| | | |
|APPROVED BY COUNCIL |DRAFTED AND READY FOR LLF |IN - PROCESS |
| | | |
|Travelling & Subsistence |HIV/AIDS |System of Delegations |
| | | |
|Cellphone |Employment Equity |Security |
| | | |
|Conditional Grant |Employee Assistance |Sexual Harrassment |
| | | |
|Overtime |Smoking |Health & Safety |
| | | |
|Training & Development |Remuneration |Induction |
| | | |
|Internship |Succession Planning | |
| | | |
|Performance Management | | |
| | | |
|IT Security | | |
| | | |
|Staff Provisioning | | |
| | | |
|Fleet Management | | |
6.15.9 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
The table underneath indicate where policy exist, and when it was adopted
|Issues |District munic |Mogalakwena |Lephalale |Modimolle |Mookgophong |Bela-Bela |Thabazimbi |
|Organisational |Adopted November |Adopted 2001 |Adopted in 2002 | |Adopted 2006 |Adopted, Jan 2005 |Adopted 31st May 2006 |
|Structure |2004 | | | | | | |
|Total Staff Composition|82 |942 |349 |263 |176 |327 |192 |
|Filled Positions |62 |449 |286 |240 |173 |274 |192 |
|Job Evaluation |NOT COMPLETED |Completed |Job description |Submitted to TASK |Completed, awaiting results |Not completed |Completed. Results awaiting|
| | | |completed,feedback from |Committee | | | |
| | | |Provincial office awaited. | | | | |
|Information Management |Registry Unit is |Yes |Yes-Manual system |Registry unit in |In the process. Service provider |Not completed |Registry Unit is |
|System |established | | |place |appointed | |established |
|Delegations |YES |Yes 2000 |Yes-partly |Implemented |Adopted in 2006. |Completed 2002 |Yes |
|PMS |YES |Yes |Adopted in 2004 but not |Implemented |Adopted. Implemented only for Senior|Adopted, 2002 |yes |
| | | |implemented | |Managers | | |
|Skills Development Plan|YES |Yes |Policy adopted in 2003 |Submitted up to |Completed. Submitted to LGSETA |Adopted, 2002 |yes |
| | | | |2004/2005 | | | |
|Employment Equity Plan |YES |Yes |Adopted in 2003 |Compiled and agreed|EE Plan in place. Reviewed but not |Not in place |yes |
| | | | | |yet adopted | | |
|Employment Assistance |NO |No |Policy adopted in 2003 |In progress |Policy adopted 2004. Not yet |Not in place |DLGH will help |
|Programme | | | | |implemented | | |
|Occupational Health and|NO |No |Policy adopted in 2005 |Committee in place |Not in place. Structure exists. |Established 2003 |yes |
|Safety Plan | | | | | | | |
|Website |PARTIAL |Yes | |Yes |In place. .za | | |
| | |.za |munic@.za |.za | |In process |In process |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Communication |Yes |No |Completed 2005 |Yes |No |Adopted, 2002 |yes |
|Plan | | | | | | | |
|Customer Care Strategy |NO |No |Through Premier and District |Yes |No |Adopted, 2004 | yes |
|(Batho Pele) | | |office | | | | |
|Indigent Policy |NO |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Adopted, 2004 | |
| | | | | | | |yes |
|HIV/Aids Plan |NO |Yes |Policy adopted in 2003 |Policy exists |Yes |In process | |
| | | | | | | |Yes(draft) |
|Focus Groups Programme |Yes |Yes |Adopted in 2005 |Yes |Programmes in place, but no proper |In place |No |
|(Youth, Gender and | | | | |institutional arrangements | | |
|Disability) | | | | | | | |
|Financial Delegations |Yes being reviewed |Partially |Yes |Yes |Adopted in 2006. In process of being|Adopted, 2002 |No |
| |in line with MFMA | | | |implemented. | | |
|Procurement Framework |Yes being reviewed |Yes |In process of being reviewed |Yes |Yes |Adopted, 2005 |Yes |
| |in line with | |in accordance with SCM Policy| | | | |
| |regulations | | | | | | |
|Audit Committees |Yes |No |Adopted in 2005 |Established |Yes. External (WDM) |Not in place |yes |
|By-law reforms |Yes |Yes |In process for community |Done |Yes in place, Submitted to Dept. of |Not done |Yes |
| | | |participation | |Local Govt. & Housing | | |
|Credit Policy |Yes-Approved May |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Adopted, 2002 |Yes |
| |2005 | | | | | | |
|Disaster Management |NO |Yes |Yes |No |Yes |Adopted, 2004 |Yes |
|Plan | | | | | | | |
|Project Management Unit|Yes |No |Yes |No |No |No l |Yes |
6.15.10 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
|Municipality |Internal Audit |Performance |Procurement Policy|Terms of Reference |Delegations of Authority in |Customer Care System in place|Tracking System for | |
| |Committee |Management System |in place |for Mayor in place |place |& Functioning |Council Decisions in | |
| |Established |Implemented | | | | |place | |
|Waterberg | Yes |Yes, Partly |YES |NO |YES |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |The System was not user-friendly and |Review in accordance with current regulations |
| | | | |difficult to implement | |
|WATERBERG |Yes, in January 2004 |Yes, partially |Yes , 2007/08 | |Cascade the application of the system to other levels |
| | | | |Cascading it to middle managers |of staff |
| | | | | |In the process of appointing a performance audit |
| | | | |Establishment of a performance audit |committee. |
| | | | |committee | |
| | | | | |District to in the assist development of SDBIP’ s |
|MOGALAKWENA |Yes |NO |Yes 2005/06 |Personnel to assist roll out of PMS | |
| | | | | |Engaged Service provider to assist in the review |
| | | | |The system was incomplete and difficult to |process |
|LEPHALALE |Yes, Adopted 2003 |NO |Yes 2005/06 |implement | |
| | | | |Took effort to simplify the system for | |
| | | | |implementation. | |
| | | | |Lack of funding | |
| | | | | |Solicit funding from other sources |
|MODIMOLLE |Yes |Yes |Yes 2005/06 |Cascading the system to middle management | |
| | | | |No internal capacity to implement the system | |
| | |Yes,partially. Manual system utilized| |i.e. personnel |Made budget provision to review and implement system. |
|MOOKGOPHONG |Yes | |Yes 2005/06 | |Consultants invited to submit proposals |
| | | | |Cascading the system to middle managers | |
| | | | |Councilors not adequately involved on PMS | |
| | | | |implementation | |
| | | | | |Monthly reports to be submitted |
|BELA-BELA |Yes |NO |Yes 2005/06 |No performance audit committee in place | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|THABAZIMBI |Yes |NO |Yes 2005/06 |Performance contract not signed yet |Monthly reports to be submitted |
6.15.12 BY-LAWS
| |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |Lephalale |Modimolle |Mookgophong |Bela-Bela |Thabazimbi |
|Achieved: enacted |None |TWENTY EIGHT |Community Participation|SIXTY FOUR |FORTY FOUR |None |Drafted |
| | | |not published yet. | | | | |
|Planned: under consideration | |TWO |36 |TEN(10) |Approved |None |Yes |
| |One | | | | | | |
|Outstanding |None |FIVE |None |TEN(10) |None |All |None |
|Challenges |None |Lack of council approval |In-house capacity to |Lack of funds to |None |Capacity to update |Consultation and public |
| | |on adoption of by-laws |conclude By-laws. |promulgate the amended| |By-laws |participation. |
| | | | |21 by-laws and to | | | |
| | | | |compile new by-laws | | | |
| | | | |cost is estimated at | | | |
| | | | |R400 000-00. | | | |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND WARD COMMITTEES
6.16.1 WARD COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED
|MUNICIPALITY |NO. OF WARD COMMITTEES ESTABLISHED |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |31 |
|2.LEPHALALE |11 |
|3.MODIMOLLE |07 |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |07 |
|5.BELA-BELA |07 |
|6.THABAZIMBI |10 |
6.16.2 ISSUES DEALT WITH BY WARD COMMITTEES
|MUNICIPALITY |ISSUES DEALT WITH AT WARD LEVEL |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |Community needs |
|2.LEPHALALE |Community needs |
|3.MODIMOLLE |Community needs |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |Service delivery issues |
| |Advice and making recommendations on matters affecting the ward |
|5.BELA-BELA | |
|6.THABAZIMBI |Immediate Community needs |
6.16.3 ISSUES FROM WARD COMMITTEE SERVING IN COUNCIL
|MUNICIPALITY |RESPONSE |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |YES |
|2.LEPHALALE |YES, if necessary |
|3.MODIMOLLE |YES |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |YES, presented by Ward Councillors |
|5.BELA-BELA |YES |
|6.THABAZIMBI |YES |
6.16.4 SUPPORT PROVIDED TO OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER TO DEAL WITH THIS RESPONSIBILITY
|MUNICIPALITY |TYPE OF SUPPORT OFFERED TO SPEAKER |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |Administrative and logistical Support |
|2.LEPHALALE |Administrative,ward committees,Portfolio of Councillors, Chair of the council. |
|3.MODIMOLLE |Administrative and logistical Support |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |Handled by the Mayor. Limited institutional arrangements. Work study in process |
|5.BELA-BELA |Administrative and logistical Support |
|6.THABAZIMBI |Administrative and logistical Support |
6.16.5 BUDGETS FOR WARD COMMITTEES
|MUNICIPALITY |BUDGET |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |No specific budget Provide light refreshments in meetings and traveling expenses |
|2.LEPHALALE |R 150000/3,also provide light refreshments in meetings and traveling expenses, training, Audit committee, forum |
| |meetings |
|3.MODIMOLLE |No specific budget Provide light refreshments in meetings and traveling expenses |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |R44 000.00 |
|5.BELA-BELA |R140 000 (Community Based Planning) |
|6.THABAZIMBI |R150 000 |
6.16.6 CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE WARD COMMITTEES
|MUNICIPALITY |CHALLENGES |
|1.MOGALAKWENA |Lack of incentives |
| |Low morale of communities |
| |Negative propaganda |
| |Holding constant meetings with communities and Ward Councilors |
|2.LEPHALALE | |
| |Active involvement of communities in governance issues |
|3.MODIMOLLE |Continuity |
| |Remuneration |
| |Constructive reports |
| |Training |
| |Budget constraints |
| |Proper feed back to constituencies |
|4.MOOKGOPHONG |Continuity |
| |Remuneration |
| |Constructive reports |
| |Training on their roles and responsibilities |
| |Community Development Workers not providing the expected support |
| |Budget constraints |
| |Proper report back to communities |
|5.BELA-BELA |Distances to travel for meetings |
| |Training of ward committee members to enable effective participating in decision making |
| |The need to establish appropriate support service in the office of the Speaker |
|6.THABAZIMBI |Continuity |
| |Remuneration |
| |Constructive reports |
| |Training |
| |Budget Constraints |
6.17. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTIONAL SWOT ANALYSIS
| | |
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Regulatory framework |Regulatory framework |
|Awareness creation (events, campaigns, seminars, conferences, publications, |Policy instruments (policies, strategies, standards, plans, guidelines, standard operating procedures) |
|Imbizos, summits) |Legislative instruments (by-laws, agreements) |
|Capacity in the District municipal area |External stakeholder compliance monitoring (audits, assessments, enforcements, inspections) |
|Technical training / Advisory services (technical advice, consultation, |Status monitoring (surveys, surveillance, detections, testing) |
|information sharing) |Capacity in the District municipal area |
|Economic development planning |Authorisation decisions (permits, certification, licenses) |
|IDP co-ordination |Stakeholder institutional arrangements (forums establishment / maintenance, SLA’s, MOU’s, performance |
|Financial management |monitoring, contract management) |
|Asset management | |
| |Implement district municipal services |
| |Spatial development planning |
| |Infrastructure development |
| |Social development |
| |Local municipal institutional support |
| |Municipal health services |
| |Corporate governance practices |
| |Compliance management |
| |Risk management |
| |Business leadership |
| |Strategic positioning (strategic planning, municipal structuring) |
| |Business culture |
| |Business performance management |
| |Communication |
| |Service delivery |
| |Stakeholder management |
| | |
| |Resource management |
| |People management |
| |Information management |
| |Knowledge management |
| |Programme/project management |
| |Contract management |
| | |
| | |
|Opportunities |Threats |
|Mining investment |Budget constraints |
|Tourism investment |Diminishing revenue base |
|Wildlife management |Insufficient skills base |
|Agricultural farming |Diminishing intergovernmental grants |
|Donor funding |Poverty |
|Political stability |Insufficient Provincial Government support |
|Legislative framework |Unemployment |
|Education system |Insufficient industrial investment |
|Management of dreaded diseases |Insufficient job opportunities |
|Intergovernmental support |Unclear roles and responsibilities on powers and function between Province and Local Government |
|Absence of a provincial planning framework |Inadequate Transport network |
| |Restrictive legislative requirements |
| |Crime |
Vulnerabilities:
• HIV Aids
• Natural disasters
6.18. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS
The demographics show a noticeable uneven development within the District. On the one hand there is a noticeably rural-urban divide coupled with high levels of poverty in rural areas. The causes of rural poverty are very complex and are a mixture of various forces. Basic to poverty in the Waterberg district is access to basic services; health services, employment, and land. The Waterberg District Municipal Vision elements relating to addressing imbalance of the past and service provision needs to be translated into substantial development strategies in order to address these challenges.
The situational analysis of the Waterberg District Municipal Area implies that there is an urgent need to address the following issues:
• Unemployment
• Poverty Alleviation
• Services backlog including Free Basic Services
• HIV/AIDS
• Health Care
• Local Economic Development
• Infrastructure development and maintenance
• Land Acquisition
• Environmental Conservation
• Spatial Development, Land Use Management and Land Development
• Rural Development
• Community Development
• Skills Development
• Institutional Development
SECTION B
STRATEGIES PHASE
7. GUIDING POLICIES AND LEGISLATION
This section constitutes the alignment between the national objectives; Provincial Growth and Development Strategy [PGDS], National Spatial Development Perspective (NSDP) principles and the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa [ASGISA] principles, and the district strategic priorities; it further reflects on the state of the nation address [SONA]; and the state of the province address [SOPA] delivered in February 2006 and the district vision, mission and values.
7.1 MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
| MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDG) |
|GOAL 1: ERADICATE EXTREME POVERTY AND HUNGER |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one |1. Proportion of population below $1 (PPP)per day |
|dollar a day. |2.Poverty gap ratio(incidence x depth of poverty) |
| |3.Share of poorest quintile in national consumption |
|Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015 , the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. |4. Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age |
| |5.Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary and energy consumption |
|GOAL 2: ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 3: Ensure that ,by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike , will be able to complete|6. Net enrolment ratio in primary education |
|a full course of primary schooling. |7. Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 |
| |8.Literacy rate of 15-24 years-olds |
|GOAL 3 :PROMOTE GENDER EQUALITY AND EMPOWER WOMEN |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and to |9. Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education |
|all levels of education no later than 2015 |10.ration of literate females to males of 15-24 year-olds |
| |11.Share of women in wage employment in the non agricultural sector |
| |12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament |
|GOAL 4 :REDUCE CHILD MORTALITY |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 5 : Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 |13. Under five mortality rate |
|and 2015, the under five mortality |14. Infant mortality rate |
|rate. |15. Proportion of 1 year-old children immunized against measles |
|GOAL 5 : IMPROVE MATERNAL HEALTH |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 6 : Reduce by three- quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio. |16. Maternal mortality rate |
| |17. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel |
|GOAL 6 :COMBAT HIV/AIDS, MALARIA AND OTHER DISEASES |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 7 : Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS |18. HIV prevalence among 14-24 year old pregnant women |
| |19.Condom use rate of the contraceptive prevalence rate |
| |20.Number of children orphaned by HIV/AIDS |
|Target 8 : Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major |21. Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria |
|diseases. |22. Proportion of population in malaria risk areas using effective malaria prevention and treatment measures |
| |23.Prevalence and death rates associated with TB |
| |24. Proportion of TB cases detected and cured under directly observed treatment short course |
|GOAL 7 :ENSURE ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 9 : Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes |25. Proportion of land area covered by forest |
|and reverse the loss of environment resources. |26.Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area |
| |27. Energy use (kg oil equivalent)per $1 GDP (PPP) |
| |28. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and consumption of ozone depleting CFCs |
| |29.Proportion of population using solid fuels |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Target 10 : Halve ,by2015 ,the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking |30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural |
|water. | |
|Target 11 : By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 |31.Proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation |
|million slum dwellers. |32.Proprtion of households with access to secure tenure ( owned or rented) |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|GOAL 8 : DEVELOP A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 12 : Develop further an open , rule – | |
|based, predictable , non-m | |
|discriminatory | |
|trading and financial system. | |
|Includes a commitment to good governance ,development and poverty reduction –both nationally and | |
|internationally. | |
|Target 13: Address the special needs of the |Official development Assistance |
|least developed countries. |33. Net ODA , total and to LDCs, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors gross national income |
| |34. Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic |
|Includes: tariff and quota free access of least developed countries’ exports; enhanced programmme of|education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) |
|debt relief for HIPC and more generous ODA for countries to poverty reduction. |35. Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied |
| |Market access |
| | |
|Target 14: Address the special needs of |38.Proportion of total developed country imports ( by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and |
|landlocked countries and small |LDCs admitted free duties. |
|island developing states. |39. Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from |
| |developing countries |
|(through the programme of Action for the sustainable Development o f small island Developing states |40. Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as per GDP |
|and the outcome of the twenty- second special session of the General Assembly) |41. Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity |
| | |
|TARGET |INDICATOR |
|Target 15 : Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and| Debt sustainability |
|international |42. Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their |
|measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term. |HIPC completion points |
| |43. Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative, US$ |
| |44. Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services |
|Target 16 :In co- operation with developing countries , develop and implement strategies for decent |45. Unemployment rate of 15-24 years, each sex and total |
|and productive work for youth | |
|Target 17 :In co-operation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable, essential |46. Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable |
|drugs in developing countries |Basis |
|Target 18: In co-operation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies,|47. Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population |
|especially information and communication |48. Personal computers in use per 100 population and internet users per 100 population |
7.2 National Spatial Development Perspective
A framework for contextualizing and applying the NSDP
7.2.1 Introduction
At the turn of the first decade of democracy, government undertook a body of work intended to provide an analysis of the advances and challenges of the first decade of democracy. The analytical insights of the TYR and 2014 scenarios provoked an incisive appraisal of ideas and thoughts about the development trajectory going forward into the second decade of freedom.
A major observation made by the TYR is that:
The advances made in the First Decade by far supersede the weaknesses. Yet, if all indicators were to continue along the same trajectory, especially in respect of the dynamic of economic inclusion and exclusion, we could soon reach a point where the negatives start to overwhelm the positives.
The TYR goes on to warn that this “could precipitate a vicious cycle of decline in all spheres”.
Based on an appreciation of the progress made and mindful of the fact that critical challenges remain as a result of the terrible legacy of apartheid, government set itself the objectives of growing the economy, tackling the high levels of poverty, reducing the stubbornly high levels of unemployment and promoting social inclusion.
7.2.2 Meeting the challenge
One of the key measures identified by government to enable the developmental state to actively intervene in and inform and shape the trajectory for the Second Decade of Freedom IS BETTER PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE.
Better performance by the state entails 3 things:
• Make government as a whole work better in meeting common objectives and outcomes;
• Need for decisive, coordinated interventions to improve the state's capacity to spend and deliver services
• Need to specifically include a geographical dimension to growth and employment
The framework addresses all of these by focusing on the key question of how does government go about achieving its objectives of accelerating growth and addressing poverty and inequality. Development occurs in geographic space. Hence our ability as a country to accelerate growth and reduce unemployment and poverty is principally tied to the growth potential of different areas and regions. According to the NSDP, developing a coherent understanding of regional economic development and territorial patterns of economic development, social exclusion and resource use is of paramount importance in achieving our objectives. The NSDP argues that undertaking infrastructure investment and development spending decisions on the basis of an area’s unique potential is likely to produce far more desirable and sustainable outcomes in terms of addressing poverty and improving growth.
Four assumptions underpin the statement above:
▪ Dynamic qualities of areas are developed historically and culturally over a long period of time.
▪ In no country in the world is social and economic development and potential evenly distributed.
▪ Different regions have different economic potentials and the spatial variations in the incidence of poverty are also vastly different.
▪ Diverse and disparate spatial contexts suggests a policy approach which itself should be differentiated and conducive to the requirements of the different contexts.
Government has identified district and metropolitan areas as the pivotal sites on which to build an understanding of the nature and distribution of regional potential across the country. The district/metro levels are also understood to be the basic units to drive intergovernmental coordination to maximize the potential of regions. This is not to suggest that the notion of regional growth and development potential equates neatly with district/metro administrative boundaries. On the contrary, the growth and development of districts/metros areas is impacted upon by actors and factors both within and beyond their administrative borders. However sub-national structures such as districts/metro areas have a valuable role to play in capitalising on synergies and harnessing the energies and contributions of a range of actors and role players with a view to enhancing an areas social & economic potential.
7.2.3 Contextualising the NSDP
Contextualising and applying the NSDP has to be understood within the perspective that the overall performance of our economy hinges on the growth and development potential of regions. Theories and models abound explaining why some regions are more successful than others (Storper, 2004). While there are no universal rules, an emerging consensus is that the depth and quality of institutions[6] are a crucial common denominator in initiating and sustaining economic growth in regions and that poverty and inequality are more likely to be addressed if redistributive interventions are combined with strategies to maximise an areas unique economic potential.
This immediately raises the question of what we mean by a region. The concept of a region does not equate to districts/metros, and thus requires further elaboration. DTI’s RIDS provides some definitions based on the work of Michael Porter. Generally it is held that regions are not mere spatial entities but are seen as part of a wider set of economic connections and institutions (Ash Amin, 2006). According to Amin, there are two policy implications flowing from this conception. One, local effort has to work through these broader economic connections and institutional obligations and two there can be no simple division of responsibilities between national, provincial and local institutions.
This is the general understanding from which this document proceeds. While the focus in this document is on districts and metros, the conception of a region as comprising a wider set of economic connections and institutional obligations recognises that regions could be defined in a way that may embody a number of districts and metros such as in the case of the Gauteng Global City Region or a coherent region may exist within a district or metropolitan area. This brings into play a different division of responsibilities. In the case of the Gauteng City Region, the PGDS has an important role in functionally linking and integrating districts/metros to enhance the competitiveness and development impact of the wider global city region.
By the above conception a district or metro may be viewed as a coherent region or districts and metros may be the essential building blocks of a potentially wider regional entity. Whatever the conception, at the core of the regional focus in this document are districts and metros as the essential building blocks for a regional focus. Hence this framework is focused on configuring district/metro areas to assume strategic responsibility for building an understanding of the nature and extent of development poverty and inequality in spatial terms.
Moreover the framework is geared towards ensuring integrated development planning by municipalities serves as a tool to integrate and coordinate implementation in terms of geographical space and time and hence has to inform and be informed by the planning of other spheres of government, including sectoral/departmental planning of line agencies. In this regard this document provides a framework to give effect to government’s goal of developing credible IDPs and making district/metro IDPs the local expressions of the development plans of all spheres and agencies of government within an overall system of cooperative governance.
With this in mind, contextualising the NSDP implies district/metros developing a shared understanding of the social, growth and environment trends, processes and dynamics at play, providing strategic leadership and seeking to align the plans of all levels and departments of government, communities, labour & the private sector to maximize growth and development opportunities. This framework attempts to give effect to this broad mission.
The proposed framework is not intended to be a blue print or set of prescribed steps nor is it a technique. Rather it provides a broad context for district/metros to play a key part in effecting structural transformation and drive innovation, growth and development performance of their areas by maximising potential and seeking out new areas of potential or advantage. It is intended to provide a context for mobilising a district/metro development path based on just, equitable and ecologically sustainable foundations.
A key axiom of this framework is that district and metros promote a democratically and interactively pluralistic process that draws together state and non-state institutions and groups in particular the poor and marginalised. This entails engaging in decision-making processes that encourage “informational transparency, consultative and inclusive decision-making and strategy building on the basis of reflexive monitoring of goals”[7].
7.2.4 Framework for contextualising and applying the NSDP at district and metropolitan levels
As mentioned the framework is not meant to be a blue print. Rather it is meant to provide a context for districts/metros to take leadership and play a pivotal role in coordinating and aligning the actions of a wide spectrum of actors to bring about social and economic transformation.
The framework and its application will also differ from area to area, between district and metro and within districts or metros.
a. Developing a shared analysis
The objective is for various state and non-state stakeholders to better understand an areas growth and development potential with the aim of fostering greater growth and development. Understanding an area implies more than gathering data as is the case with most planning initiatives currently. Generating appropriate and relevant data is important, but of crucial importance is to develop, analyse and interpret socio-economic data with the necessary rigour and insight. This entails a comprehensive and incisive analysis of current and future trends with respect to poverty, inequality, economic development and ecological sustainability in spatial terms, the forces and factors driving these trends and the strategic implications thereof. Failure to understand issues of development and inequality in spatial terms means that policy and planning decisions will be made in an empirical and analytical vacuum. The district/metro has a pivotal role to play in getting various stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of the essential characteristics, trends and dynamics of the district/metro space economy.
Insightful and rigorous analysis supports proper planning and effective decision-making in a number of ways. These include:
▪ Identifying the determinants of poverty and social exclusion and how poverty, inequality and exclusion are reproduced;
▪ Identifying the special and long-term, hard to replicate unique characteristics that comprise the area’s competitive and comparative advantages.
▪ The presence of or potential for the emergence of distinct industrial districts or territorial complexes;
▪ The broader set of social relations binding firms and workers to each other as well as the actor-rationalities which operate within the region’s dominant institutions and their impact on the distribution of resources and opportunity and innovation.
▪ Use of renewable and non-renewable resources and the risks and opportunities this poses for the area’s growth and development trajectory.
b. Shared socio- economic vision or development trajectory
The shared analysis above is likely to generate varying challenges and competing demands. It provides the basis for interpreting the strategic direction, promoting policy coordination and fitting government actions into a spatial terms of reference. By spatial terms of reference we mean injecting spatial considerations into strategic policy making and planning within the public sector.
Districts and metros will need to develop necessary processes and practices to forge a shared vision and development trajectory among various stakeholders. By a shared vision and development trajectory we don’t mean arriving at a short, crisp and politically correct vision statement. What is implied here is a strategic dialogue with stakeholders within and outside of government which states that given our shared understanding of the features and characteristics of the district/metro space economy, what are the long-term social and economic outcomes we would strive to achieve and how should the NSDP principles be contextualised and applied to put the area on a firm development path?
It must be remembered that districts/metros are not neutral arbiters merely mediating the varied interests in society. Instead districts and metros should consciously and actively seek to ensure that the development trajectory is underscored by the fundamental values of socio-material citizenship underpinning our constitution. Our government is committed to the objectives of social and economic justice and democratic nation building. Metros and districts have to be vigilant in ensuring that the development trajectory reconciles and is underscored by our basic aspirations of accelerated and shared growth, poverty reduction, sustainable resource use, protection of biodiversity and social cohesion. In this regard the shared development trajectory or vision is more than a short and catchy statement, but a compelling story of the strategic outcomes to be achieved (as an example seen Jo’burg’s core vision elements for each of the 12 sector areas).
c. Priority interventions and Critical strategies
Translating the development trajectory into clear goals (long, medium and short-term), priority interventions for reaching the goals and backed by coherent objectives and strategies is an important part of good planning and strategy making. The shared analysis and development should inform the planning processes of spheres of government and all sectors in so far as these are in charge of implementing or financing projects at local levels. These interventions, objectives and strategies should find concrete expression in the IDPs which should spell out the 5 year plans for achieving the medium-term goals and objectives of the district/metro. The IDP should serve as a tool to integrate and coordinate implementation of the priority intergovernmental actions critical to achieving the developmental goals and objectives of the area.
d. Building the institutional base for multi-stakeholder co-operation and action
A central theme running through this framework is that achieving the long-term development outcomes in a district or metro depends on the mobilisation of collective action by a range of role players both inside and outside of government. A governance framework that enables the district/metro to draw together government and extra-government organisations into a participatory and integrated decision-making process is therefore important.
Such a governance framework must accomplish at least the following minimum requirements:
▪ It must enable the district/metro to identify with various agencies and spheres of government the critical or priority intergovernmental actions to achieve the development goals and outcomes;
▪ These intergovernmental priority actions must be integrated into the IDP of the district/metro so that the IDP becomes the local expression of the plans of all spheres of government;
▪ Drawing on the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act as a facilitative piece of legislation, appropriate intergovernmental forums will have to be established and protocols and or service level agreements hammered out to tie commitments into firm agreements;
▪ Proper mechanisms for monitoring and promoting accountability need to be developed;
▪ The IDPs incorporating the 5 year development goals and objectives should be cascaded up within government and provide government with a rigorous appreciation of the development potential of each district and metro which would feed into an iterative process of review, refinement and further elaboration of the NSDP.
7.2.5 Implementing the framework
As already stated, the framework for contextualising and applying the NSDP must be seen as an integral part of developing more credible IDPs. As such it is part of the IDP development process and not a new process or something extraneous to the IDP development process.
The framework will initially be implemented on a pilot basis in a select number of districts and metros and WDM pride to be part of the piloted district municipalities nationa wide.
7.2.6 FIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE NSDP
• Rapid economic growth that is sustained and inclusive is a pre-requisite for the achievement of other policy objectives, amongst which poverty alleviation is key;
• Government has a constitutional obligation to provide basic services to all citizens (e.g. water, energy health and educational facilities) wherever they reside;
• Beyond the constitutional obligation identified in Principle 2 above, Govt spending on fixed investment, should be focused on localities of economic growth and/or economic potential in order to:
← gear up private sector investment
← stimulate sustainable economic activities
← create long-term employment opportunities
• Efforts to address past and current social inequalities should focus on people not places:
← In localities with low development potential, Govt spending should focus on providing social transfers, human resource development and labour market intelligence which would enable people to become more mobile and migrate to localities that are more likely to provide sustainable employment or other economic opportunities.
← In localities where there are both high levels of poverty and development potential, this could include fixed capital investment beyond basic services to exploit the potential of those localities.
• In order to overcome the spatial distortions of Apartheid, future settlement and economic development opportunities should be channelled into activity corridors and nodes that are adjacent to or link the main growth centres
← Infrastructure investment should primarily support localities that will become major growth nodes in South Africa and the SADC region to create regional gateways to the global economy.
7. 3 Reflections from the State of the Nation Address, February 2007
• Realistic IDP’s
• Credible Local Economic Development Programme
• Human resources capacity
• Management and Operational System
• To implement IDP’s and LED’s
• Integration of planning and implementation across the government spheres
• Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act as a guiding tool of integration and planning
• Lessons learnt from Project Consolidate
• Properly qualified managers, professional and technical personnel
• Job creation
• Reduction of unemployment by half [2014]
• HIV and Aids mainstreaming
• Bucket Eradication [2007]
• Alignment of PGD and IDP’s to land distribution programme
• Youth and women co-operatives programme
7.4 Strategic Objectives of the PGDS
Five Key Objectives:
1. Improve the quality of life of the population of limpopo
2. Growing the economy
3. To improve the institutional efficiency and effectiveness of government
4. Regional integration
5. Enhance innovation and competitiveness
7.5 Reflections from the State of the Province Address, February 2007:
• Municipal transformation and capacity development
• Basic service delivery and infrastructure development
• Local Economic Development
• Financial management
• Improving functionality of ward committees
• Project Consolidate initiatives
• Strengthening Intergovernmental Relations
• Support to municipalities
7.6 Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative in South Africa
• Education and skills development
• Eliminating the second economy
• Human resource training
• Expanded Public Works Programme
• Youth skills training
• Governance and institutional interventions
• Skills problems identified in project consolidate
• Deployment of graduates
• Expenditure management
• To improve the capacity of local government to support local economic development
• Intervention in the EPWP
• New elements of EPWP: Early Childhood Development component, home based care
NB: for the success of this programme partnerships are a key component.
7.7 Waterberg District Municipality’s Strategic Goals
Strategic Goal 1: To provide a sound district regulatory framework
Strategic Goal 2: To promote management capacity in the District municipal area
Strategic Goal 3: To implement district municipal services
Strategic Goal 4: To ensure effective corporate services
All role-players in a municipality need a joint vision as a common ground, which provides guidance to the municipality and the residents. The Council’s decisions have to be oriented towards clearly defined and agreed objectives, which at the same time give orientation towards management, and which form the basis for performance management and the accountability of the municipal government towards the residents. The activities of the Council (Councillors and officials), as well as all stakeholders (Local Municipalities, Sector Departments, Private Sector, Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), etc) need to be guided and focused by strategies relating to and addressing the issues (problems, constraints, opportunities etc) as identified from the analysis. The strategies are formulated by all stakeholders and represent the joint decision-making by all stakeholders.
7.8 BUSINESS DEFINITION
|Vision |
| |
|Waterberg …. the cradle of rural growth and development |
| |
|Mission |
|To provide a municipal governance management framework that ensures sustainable service delivery towards a better life for all. |
| |
7.9 STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FRAMEWORK
|Strategic Goals and Objectives framework |To provide a sound district regulatory framework |
| |Policy instruments (policies, strategies, standards, plans, guidelines, standard operating procedures) |
| |Legislative instruments (by-laws, agreements) |
| |External stakeholder compliance monitoring (audits, assessments, enforcements, inspections) |
| |Status monitoring (surveys, surveillance, detections, testing) |
| |Authorisation decisions (permits, certification, licenses) |
| |To promote management capacity in the District municipal area |
| |Advisory services (technical advice, consultation, information sharing) |
| |Awareness creation (events, campaigns, seminars, conferences, publications, Imbizos, summits) |
| |Stakeholder institutional arrangements (forums establishment / maintenance, SLA’s, MOU’s, performance monitoring, contract |
| |management) |
| |To implement district municipal services |
| |Spatial development planning |
| |Economic development planning |
| |IDP co-ordination |
| |Infrastructure development |
| |Social development |
| |Local municipal institutional support |
| |Municipal health services |
| |Environmental / Conservation management |
| |Disaster risk management |
| |To ensure effective corporate services |
| |Corporate governance practices |
| |Compliance management |
| |Risk management |
| |Business leadership |
| |Strategic positioning (strategic planning, municipal structuring) |
| |Business culture |
| |Business performance management |
| |Communication |
| |Service delivery |
| |Stakeholder management |
| |Resource management |
| |People management |
| |Financial management |
| |Information management |
| |Asset management |
| |Knowledge management |
| |Programme/project management |
| |Contract management |
7.10 CORE BUSINESS VALUES
| | |
|Core Business Values |Commitment |
| |Integrity |
| |Productivity |
| |Excellence |
| |Transparency |
| |Accountability |
7.11 OUTCOMES
| | |
|Outcomes |Poverty reduction |
| |Sustainable service delivery |
| |Economic growth |
| |Political stability |
| |Administrative stability |
7.12 STAKEHOLDER FRAMEWORK
|Stakeholder Framework |Clients |
| |Users of sold services |
| |Beneficiaries |
| |Waterberg community |
| |General public |
| |Local municipalities |
| |Service providers (inbound to business entity) |
| |Providers of funds |
| |Providers of technology |
| |Providers of infrastructure / facilities |
| |Providers of information |
| |Providers of services |
| |Regulators |
| |Auditor General |
| |Standing / portfolio Committees |
| |Relevant Government Departments |
| |Relevant PFMA Chapter 13 institutions |
| |Constitution Chapter 9 and 10 institutions |
| |Strategic partners |
| |Private-public partnerships |
| |Public public partnership |
| |Public-private partnerships |
| |Service providers (outbound – providing services on behalf of business entity to business entity clients) |
| |Local municipalities |
| |Government departments |
| |Consultants / contractors |
| |Organised coalitions |
| |Labour |
| |Local government |
| |Business |
| |Employees |
| |Media |
7.13 DISTRICT PRIORITY ISSUES
AGGREGATION OF DISTRICT PRIORITIES CONSULTATION WITH COMMUNITIES
| | | |
|PRIORITY ISSUE |NAME OF MUNICIPALITY |AVERAGE |
| |B-BELA |MKGPHNG |LEPH |TBZ |MOG |MOD | |
|1. Water, Sanitation & Drought relief |X |X |X |X |X | |5 |
| Roads and Storm water |X |X |X |X |X | |5 |
|3. Economic Development; |X |X |X |X |X |X |6 |
|4. Transport Planning | | | |X |X | |2 |
|5. Land Development |X |X |X |X |X |X |6 |
|Municipal Health and Environmental Management | | | | | |X |1 |
|7. Health and Social Development |X | |X |X |X |X |5 |
|8. Disaster Management | | |X | | | |1 |
| Community Participation & Communication |X |X |X | |X |X |5 |
| Institutional Development | | | | | | |0 |
| Education | |X |X | |X |X |4 |
| Safety and Security |X |X | |X |X |X |5 |
| Sports, Arts and Culture |X |X |X |X |X | |5 |
| Electricity |X |X |X | | | |3 |
• From the above table it is apparent that isses relating to Unemployment and housing and land development are at alarming proportions.
• Water,sanitation and drought relief, roads and stormwater, Health and Social Development,Consultation and Community participation in municipal programmes, safety and Security and Sports ,Arts & Culture are the second most important issues raised durignthe Imbizos
• Education, Electricity, Transport planning and Institutional Development are clustered in the last category of the most needs of communities
Section 26(c) of the Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000) stipulates that an Integrated Development Plan must reflect, “the council’s development priorities and objectives for its elected term, including its local economic development aims and its internal transformation needs”.
The municipality identified four (4) Strategic goals and the Key performance areas (objectives) as illustrated above.
The under-mentioned Issues from a municipal perspective were identified and listed according to order of priority:
1. Water, Sanitation & Drought relief
2. Roads and Storm water
3. Economic Development;
4. Transport Planning
5. Land Development
6. Municipal Health and Environmental Management
7. Social Development
8. Disaster Management
9. Community Participation & Communication
10.Institutional Development
11.Education
12.Safety and Security
13.Sports, Arts and Culture
14.Electricity
7.14 NATIONAL KPA’s
The minister of DPLG has recently pronounced five national key performance areas that must be adhered to when conducting performance planning in the local government sphere.
and they are as listed below:
• Basic services and Infrastructure development
• Local Economic Development
• Transformation and Organisational Development
• Financial viability and Management
• Good Governance and Public Participation
7.15 NATIONAL KPI’s
The minister of DPLG has recently pronounced nine national key performance indicators that must be adhered to when conducting performance assessment in the local government sphere.
and they are as listed below:
(a) The percentage of households with access to basic level of water, sanitation, electricity and solid waste removal;
(b) the percentage of households earning less than R1100 per month with access to free basic services;
(c) the percentage of a municipality's capital budget actually spent on capital projects identified for a particular financial year in terms of the
municipality's integrated development plan;
(d) the number of jobs created through municipality's local economic development initiatives including capital projects
(e) the number of people from employment equity target groups employed in the three highest levels of management in compliance with a
municipality's approved employment equity plan;
(f) the percentage of a municipality's budget actually spent on implementing its workplace skills plan; and
(g) financial viability as expressed by the following ratios:
(i) [pic]
Where -
"A" represents debt coverage
"B" represents total operating revenue received
"C" represents operating grants
"D" represents debt service payments (i.e. interest + redemption) due within the financial year;
(ii) [pic]
Where -
"A" represents outstanding service debtors to revenue
"B" represents total outstanding service debtors
"C" represents annual revenue actually received for services;
(iii) [pic]
Where -
"A" represents cost coverage
"B" represents all available cash at a particular time
"C" represents investments "D" represents monthly fixed operating expenditure.
16. ALIGNMENT OF THE WDM STRATEGIC GOALS WITH NATIONAL KPA’S
KPA 1: MUNICIPAL TRANSFORMATION AND ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Strategic Goal 1: To provide a sound district regulatory framework
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Policy instruments |New policy instruments planned versus milestones met (%) |80 |85 |90 |90 |90 |
|(policies, strategies, standards, plans, | | | | | | |
|guidelines, standard operating procedures) | | | | | | |
| |Policy instruments planned to be reviewed versus reviewed (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |90 |
| |Ad hoc regulatory inputs requested versus provided (%) |90 |95 |95 |95 |95 |
|Legislative / legal instruments |New legislative instruments planned versus milestones (%) |80 |85 |90 |95 |95 |
|(by-laws, agreements) | | | | | | |
| |Legislative instruments planned to be reviewed versus reviewed (%) |80 |85 |90 |95 |95 |
|External stakeholder compliance monitoring |Compliance monitoring interventions planned versus conducted (%) |80 |85 |90 |95 |95 |
|(audits, assessments, enforcements, | | | | | | |
|inspections) | | | | | | |
| |Ad hoc compliance monitoring requests versus conducted (%) |80 |85 |90 |95 |95 |
| |Recommendations approved versus implemented by external stakeholders (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |90 |
| |Council resolutions versus implemented by external stakeholders (%) |70 |75 |80 |80 |85 |
|Status monitoring (surveys, surveillance, |Status monitoring interventions planned versus conducted (%) |70 |75 |80 |85 |90 |
|detections, testing) | | | | | | |
| |Ad hoc status monitoring requests received versus conducted (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |Recommendations approved versus implemented (%) |55 |60 |65 |70 |75 |
| |Council resolutions versus implemented (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
Strategic Goal 2: To promote sound management capacity in the District municipal area
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Technical training / Advisory services |Advisory services requested versus provided (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|(technical advice, consultation, information| | | | | | |
|sharing) | | | | | | |
| |Advisory services planned versus provided (%) | | | | | |
| |Training interventions planned versus conducted (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |Information sharing interventions planned versus conducted (%) | | | | | |
Strategic Goal 3: To implement district municipal services
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Spatial development planning |District spatial development framework milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
|IDP co-ordination |District IDP co-ordination implementation plan milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
|Social development |District social development plan milestones met (%) |70 |75 |75 |80 |80 |
|Local municipal |Local municipal institutional support milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
|Institutional support | | | | | | |
|Municipal health services |Municipal health plan milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |70 |70 |
| |Municipal health standards targets met (%) |60 |65 |70 |70 |70 |
|Environmental / Conservation management |District conservation plan milestones met (%) |45 |50 |55 |60 |65 |
| |Compliance to international conservation protocols (%) |45 |50 |55 |60 |65 |
| |District development compliance to EIA standards (%) |45 |50 |55 |60 |65 |
|Disaster risk management |District disaster risk management plan / framework milestones met (%) |50 |55 |60 |65 |70 |
Strategic Goal 4: To ensure effective support services
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Business leadership / management |Business culture / employee satisfaction rating (%) |45 |48 |50 |52 |55 |
|(Strategic positioning; | | | | | | |
|Organisation culture; Business performance | | | | | | |
|management; | | | | | | |
|Stakeholder management; | | | | | | |
|Communication; | | | | | | |
|Service delivery) | | | | | | |
| |Business targets met (%) |65 |70 |75 |80 |80 |
| |Stakeholder satisfaction rating (%) |50 |55 |60 |65 |70 |
| |Internal service level charters required versus signed (%) |70 |75 |80 |85 |90 |
| |Internal stakeholder consultative forums planned to be established versus |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |established (%) | | | | | |
|Resource management | | | | | | |
|People management | | | | | | |
| |Budgeted positions filled (%) |50 |45 |40 |35 |30 |
| |Skills development plan targets met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |Additional human resource capacity required versus business case provided (%) |100 |100 |100 |100 |100 |
| |Human resources required versus requirements submitted timeously (%) |100 |100 |100 |100 |100 |
| |Interns trained (n) |6 |15 |15 |15 |20 |
|Financial management |Variance on budget spent (%) |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |
| |Services provided versus fees collected (%) |70 |75 |80 |85 |90 |
|Information / knowledge management |Knowledge planned to be documented versus documented (%) |50 |55 |60 |65 |70 |
| |Website updates required versus content submitted timeously (%) |95 |95 |95 |95 |95 |
|Information / communication (connectivity) |ICT developments / procurement planned versus requirements submitted timeously |95 |95 |95 |95 |95 |
|technology management |to ICT component (%) | | | | | |
|Asset management (Fixed assets and |Asset data integrity rating (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|consumables) | | | | | | |
| |Assets required versus available (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|Programme / project management |Programme / projects completed within time (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |Programmes / projects completed within budget (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
|Contract management |Contractor performance rating (%) |50 |55 |60 |65 |70 |
KPA 2: BASIC SERVICE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Spatial development planning |District spatial development framework milestones met|60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |(%) | | | | | |
|Economic development planning |Economic development plan milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |State wide economic planning milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |Jobs planned to be created versus created (%) |55 |60 |65 |70 |75 |
|Infrastructure development |Infrastructure planned to be developed versus |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
| |milestones met (%) | | | | | |
| |Infrastructure planned to be procured versus |55 |60 |65 |70 |75 |
| |milestones met (%) | | | | | |
| |Infrastructure plan milestones met (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |Maintenance budget required as per regulations versus|60 |65 |70 |70 |70 |
| |secured (%) | | | | | |
KPA 3 LOCAL ECONOMIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Strategic Goal 3: To implement district municipal services
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Spatial development planning |District spatial development framework milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
|Economic development planning |Economic development plan milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |State wide economic planning milestones met (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |Jobs planned to be created versus created (%) |55 |60 |65 |70 |75 |
|Infrastructure development |Infrastructure planned to be developed versus milestones met (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
| |Infrastructure planned to be procured versus milestones met (%) |55 |60 |65 |70 |75 |
| |Infrastructure plan milestones met (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |Maintenance budget required as per regulations versus secured (%) |60 |65 |70 |70 |70 |
KPA 4 MUNICIPAL FINANACIAL VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT
Strategic Goal 4: To ensure effective support services
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Corporate governance practices |Audit queries received versus responded to (%) |95 |95 |95 |95 |95 |
|(Compliance management; | | | | | | |
|Best practices management; | | | | | | |
|Risk management) | | | | | | |
| |Compliance to regulatory frameworks (%) |75 |80 |85 |85 |90 |
|Financial management |Variance on budget spent (%) |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |
| |Services provided versus fees collected (%) |70 |75 |80 |85 |90 |
|Asset management (Fixed assets and |Asset data integrity rating (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|consumables) | | | | | | |
| |Assets required versus available (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|Programme / project management |Programme / projects completed within time (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
| |Programmes / projects completed within budget (%) |90 |90 |90 |90 |90 |
KPA 5 GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Strategic Goal 2: To promote sound management capacity in the District municipal area
| | |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |TARGET |
|OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATOR |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |
|Technical training / Advisory services |Advisory services requested versus provided (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|(technical advice, consultation, information| | | | | | |
|sharing) | | | | | | |
| |Advisory services planned versus provided (%) | | | | | |
| |Training interventions planned versus conducted (%) |60 |65 |70 |75 |80 |
| |Information sharing interventions planned versus conducted (%) | | | | | |
|Awareness creation (events, campaigns, |Awareness interventions planned versus conducted (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|seminars, conferences, publications, | | | | | | |
|Imbizo’s, summits) | | | | | | |
|Stakeholder institutional arrangements |Stakeholder forums planned to be established versus established (%) |75 |80 |85 |90 |95 |
|(forums establishment / maintenance, SLA’s, | | | | | | |
|MOU’s, performance monitoring, contract | | | | | | |
|management) | | | | | | |
| |Forums functionality gaps identified versus recommendations made (%) |95 |95 |95 |95 |95 |
| |SLA’s / MOU’s / agreements planned versus submitted for signature (%)|80 |85 |90 |95 |95 |
| |SLA’s / MOU’s / agreements submitted versus signed (%) |45 |50 |55 |60 |65 |
SECTION C
PROJECTS PHASE
The identification, selection. Approval and funding of the projects underwent stringent procedures and phases as outlined underneath:
8. Project Initiation phase
During this phase the following were put into consideration:
◆ The need for the project is established, its feasibility is investigated and initial estimates of cost generated
◆ The basic processes for the initiation phase are:
– Selecting the project.
– Identifying the needs to be met.
– Collecting historical data.
– Determining objectives.
– Determining high level deliverables and estimates.
– Developing a product description (particularly in the private sector).
– Identifying the qualifications of the project manager that would be best suited for the particular project.
– Determining high level resource requirements.
– Determining internal and external project constraints.
– Assessing the socio economic and political environment and its possible impact on the project.
– Conducting a feasibility study
8.1 Project identification and selection
◆ One project’s viability could determine the success or failure of an institution
◆ Project selection is about making a commitment for the future
◆ Organisations do not always have the resources to embark on all the projects it would want to, need to prioritise by addressing or asking the following questions:
– Will the project create a difference in the community.
– Will the project meet the needs of and make a positive contribution to the community’s welfare.
– Will the project maximise the utilisation of the workforce, plant, and equipment?
– Whether the project would improve the municipality’s service delivery rating and boast the community’s confidence in the municipality.
8.2 INPUT PERSPECTIVE
8.2.1 FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROGRAMMES
|PRIORITY NO |FUNCTIONS OF MUNICIPALITY |% |FUNDS ALLOCATED PER FINANCIAL YEAR |
| | |ALLOCATION |2007/2008 |2008/2009 |2009/2010 |2010/2011 |2011/2012 |
| | | | | | | | |
|1 |Water,Sanitation,Drought relief |20.00% |14,400,000 | | | | |
|2 |Roads and Stormwater |31.42% |22,620,000 |13,500,000 |38,000,000 |39,000,000 |46,000,000 |
|3 |Economic Development |18.89% |13,600,000 |7,200,000 |4,950,000 | | |
|4 |Transport Planning |0.00% | |1,000,000 |4,000,000 | | |
|5 |Land Development |0.49% |350,000 | | | | |
|6 |Municipal Health and Enviromental management |8.19% |5,900,000 |2,500,000 | | | |
|7 |Health and Social Development |0.00% | | | | | |
|8 |Disaster Management |8.10% |5,830,000 |2,300,000 | | | |
|9 |Community Participation and Communication |4.66% |3,350,000 |1,600,000 |1,700,000 | | |
|10 |Institutional Development |7.23% |5,200,000 |1,300,000 |1,500,000 |1,500,000 |1,500,000 |
|11 |Education |0.00% | | | | | |
|12 |Safety and Security |0.00% | |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|13 |Sport Arts and Culture |1.02% |750,000 |5,800,000 |850,000 |900,000 |1,000,000 |
| |TOTAL |100.00% |72,000,000 |35,200,000 |51,000,000 |41,400,000 |48,500,000 |
8.2.3 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMME
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|NO | | | | |07/08 |
| | | | | | |
8.4 INVESTMENT ALLOCATION PER NATIONAL KPA
KPA 1: BASIC SERVICE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
| |PROJECT |RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTING |IDP CAPITAL |IDP OPERATING |CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER FINANCIAL YEAR (R) |TOTAL CAPITAL |FUNDER |
|PROJ | |OFFICIAL | | | |BUDGET | |
|NO | | | | |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |11/12 |
|DWS - 02 |Drought relief |Manager: Technical| |400,000 |400,000 | | | | |
| |plan |Services | | | | | | | |
|DRS - 01 |
|DUE 29 |Upgrading of |Manager Technical |3,200,000 | |3,200,000 |100,000 |1,000,000 | | |
| |the abattoir |Services | | | | | | | |
|DTR-02 |Multi-Modal |Manager: Planning | | | |1,000,000 |4,000,000 | | |
| |Transport |and Economic | | | | | | | |
| |Facilities |Development | | | | | | | |
|DSE-06 |Identification,|Managers Tech. And| |3,000,000 |3,000,000 |1,000,000 | | | |
| |auditing and |Social Services | | | | | | | |
| |maintenance of | | | | | | | | |
| |landfill sites | | | | | | | | |
|DDM-01 |Disaster-Centre|Managers Tech. And|1,400,000 | |1,400,000 | | | | |
| |-Modimolle |Social Services | | | | | | | |
|DIN - 020 |Mayoral House |Managers Technical and |2,000,000 | |2,000,000 | | |
| | |Corpr.Services | | | | | |
|NO | | | | |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |11/12 |
|DUE-31 |Coordination of District wide LED |Manager: Planning and | |200,000 |200,000 |400,000 |250,000 |
| | |Economic Development | | | | | |
|NO | | | | |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |11/12 |
|DUE - 28 |Waterberg |Manager: Planning |1,500,000 | |1,500,000 |1,500,000 |1,500,000 | | |
| |Economic |and Economic | | | | | | | |
| |Development |Development | | | | | | | |
| |Agency | | | | | | | | |
|LA - 04 |Policy on |Manager: Planning | |350,000 |350,000 | | | | |
| |Sub-Division of |and Economic | | | | | | | |
| |Agricultural Land|Development | | | | | | | |
|DIN - 17 |Procurement |Manager |3,550,000 | |3,550,000 |2,100,000 |500,000 |500,000 |500,000 |
| |of movable |Corporate | | | | | | | |
| |assets |Service | | | | | | | |
| |Communicatio|Manager: | |500,000 |500,000 | | | | |
| |n |Executive | | | | | | | |
| | |Mayor's Office | | | | | | | |
|DSE-01 |Co-ordination of Sports, Arts|Manager : Office of the | |750,000 |
| |and Culture |Executive Mayor | | |
| | | |April – June |July – Sept. |Oct. – Dec |Jan - March |April – June |
|Policy instruments |New policy instruments |New policy instruments | | | | | |
|(Policies, Strategies, |planned versus milestones met| | | | | | |
|Standards, |(%) | | | | | | |
|Plans, |Policy instruments planned to| | | | | | |
|Guidelines, Standard |be reviewed versus reviewed | | | | | | |
|operating procedures ) |(%) | | | | | | |
| |Ad hoc regulatory input | | | | | | |
| |requested versus provided (%)| | | | | | |
| | |Integrated infrastructure |1st Draft master plan |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |master plan | |report |submitted for approval | |report |
| | |Water service development |Final draft water service |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |plan |development plan submitted |report |report | |report |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Electricity master plan |1st Draft electricity master |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |plan submitted for approval |report |submitted for approval | |report |
| | |Fleet master plan |1st Draft fleet master plan |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |submitted for approval |report |submitted for approval | |report |
| | |Integrated transport plan |Final Draft ITP submitted for|Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |(ITP) |approval |report |report | |report |
| | |Building master plan |1st Draft building master |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |plan submitted for approval |report |submitted for approval | |report |
| | |Integrated roads and storm |1st Draft roads and storm |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |water master plan |water master plan submitted |report |submitted for approval | |report |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Drought Relief Plan | | | | | |
|Policy instruments |New policy instruments |Sanitation and waste water |N/A |1st Draft sanitation and |Stakeholder consultation |Final draft master plan |Implementation progress |
|(Policies, Strategies, |planned versus milestones met|master plan | |waste water master plan |report |submitted for approval |report |
|Standards, |(%) | | |submitted for approval | | | |
|Plans, |Policy instruments planned to| | | | | | |
|Guidelines, Standard |be reviewed versus reviewed | | | | | | |
|operating procedures ) |(%) | | | | | | |
| |Ad hoc regulatory input | | | | | | |
| |requested versus provided (%)| | | | | | |
| |District social development | | | | | | |
| |plan milestones met (%) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | |Integrated District / Local |N/A |Final draft submitted for |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |Economic development plan | |approval |report | |report |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |Local economic development | | | |
| | | | |implementation plan | | | |
| | |District broad based black |1st Draft District broad |Stakeholder consultation |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |economic empowerment policy |based black economic |report |report | |report |
| | | |empowerment policy | | | | |
| | | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | |
| | | | |for approval | | | |
| | |District Entrepreneurial |1st Draft Entrepreneurial |Stakeholder consultation |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |support policy |support policy |report |report | |report |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | |
| | | | |for approval | | | |
| | |IDP co-ordination |District IDP co-ordination |Reviewed IDP |Reviewed 2007/08 approved |2008/09 IDP review process plan|Implementation progress |
| | | |implementation plan | | |approved |report |
| | | |milestones met (%) | | | | |
| | |Social development |Social Development Master |Framework |1st draft submitted for |Stakeholders consultation |Final plan submitted for |
| | | |Plan approved |approved |adoption |report |approval |
| | |Crime prevention strategy |1st Draft |Final draft policy submitted |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | | |for approval |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | |Integrated sports, arts and |1st Draft |Final draft policy submitted |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |culture policy | |for approval |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | |District Youth development |1st Draft |Final draft policy submitted |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |implementation plan | |for approval |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | |District HIV and AIDS |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |implementation plan | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |District Gender policy |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |implementation plan | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |District Disability policy |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Local municipality |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |institutional support plan | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |District IGR policy framework|1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | | |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Municipal health services |N/A |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |plan | | |report | |report |
| | | | |Stakeholder consultation | | | |
| | | | |report | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | |
| | | | |for approval | | | |
| | |Water quality monitoring |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |management plan | |report |report | |report |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Conservation management plan |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation |report |report | |report |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Audit policy |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation |report |report | |report |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Risk management strategy |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation |report |report | |report |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |Resources management |1st Draft |Final Draft policy submitted |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |strategies |Stakeholder consultation |for approval |report | |report |
| | | |report |Implementation progress | | | |
| | | | |report | | | |
| | |Knowledge management strategy|1st Draft |Final Draft policy submitted |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation |for approval |report | |report |
| | | |report |Implementation progress | | | |
| | | | |report | | | |
| | |Environmental /Conservation |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |Management Plan | |report (IDP performance |report (IDP performance) |(IDP performance review reports|report (IDP performance |
| | | |Stakeholder consultation |review reports based on SDBIP|IDP review framework |based on SDBIP ) |review reports based on |
| | | |report |) |IDP review process plan | |SDBIP) |
| | | | | |Budget review process plan | | |
| | | |Final draft policy submitted | | | | |
| | | |for approval | | | | |
| | |District Spatial development |1st Draft review Stakeholder |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |framework |consultation report |report |report | |report |
| | | |Final draft policy review | | | | |
| | | |submitted for approval | | | | |
| | |Disaster risk management plan|Stakeholder consultation |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |(Water quality , fire, etc) |report |report |report | |report |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |Final draft policy review | | | | |
| | | |submitted for approval | | | | |
| | |Regulatory input report |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |
|Legislative/Legal |New legislative instruments |New legislative/legal | | | | | |
|instruments |planned versus milestones met|instruments | | | | | |
|(Bylaws, agreements) |(%) | | | | | | |
| |Legislative instruments | | | | | | |
| |planned to be reviewed versus| | | | | | |
| |reviewed (%) | | | | | | |
| | |Bylaw development project |1st Draft |Project implementation |Project implementation |Project implementation progress|Project implementation |
| | |plan |Stakeholder consultation |progress report |progress report |report |progress report |
| | | |report | | | | |
| | | |Final Draft submitted for | | | | |
| | | |approval | | | | |
| | |Municipal services |1st Draft |Implementation progress |Implementation progress |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress |
| | |implementation Agreements |Stakeholder consultation |report |report | |report |
| | |development plan |report | | | | |
| | | |Final Draft submitted for | | | | |
| | | |approval | | | | |
|Status monitoring |Status monitoring |Compliance monitoring |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |
|(Surveys, Surveillance, |interventions planned versus |recommendations | | | | | |
|Detections, |conducted (%) |implementation report per | | | | | |
|Assessments, |Ad hoc status monitoring |approved schedule | | | | | |
|Sampling, |requests received versus | | | | | | |
|Metering, |conducted (%) | | | | | | |
|Testing) |Recommendations approved | | | | | | |
| |versus implemented by | | | | | | |
| |external stakeholders (%) | | | | | | |
| |Council resolutions versus | | | | | | |
| |implemented (%) | | | | | | |
| | |Ad hoc compliance monitoring |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |
| | |service report | | | | | |
| | |Status monitoring |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |
| | |recommendations | | | | | |
| | |implementation report per | | | | | |
| | |approved schedule | | | | | |
| | |Ad hoc status monitoring |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |
| | |service report | | | | | |
|Authorisation decisions
(Permits, Certification) |Authorisation applications received versus finalised within prescribed time (%) |Authorisation decisions report
|Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | |Legislative/Legal instruments
(Bylaws, agreements) |New legislative instruments planned versus milestones met (%)
• Legislative instruments planned to be reviewed versus reviewed (%) |New legislative/legal instruments | | | | | | | | |Bylaw development project plan |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final Draft submitted for approval |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report | | | |Municipal services implementation Agreements development plan |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final Draft submitted for approval |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |Status monitoring
(Surveys, Surveillance, Detections,
Assessments,
Sampling,
Metering,
Testing) |Status monitoring interventions planned versus conducted (%)
• Ad hoc status monitoring requests received versus conducted (%)
• Recommendations approved versus implemented by external stakeholders (%)
• Council resolutions versus implemented (%) |Compliance monitoring recommendations implementation report per approved schedule |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |Ad hoc compliance monitoring service report |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |Status monitoring recommendations implementation report per approved schedule |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |Ad hoc status monitoring service report |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | |Authorisation decisions
(Permits, Certification) |Authorisation applications received versus finalised within prescribed time (%) |Authorisation decisions report
|Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | |
8.5.2 Strategic Goal 2: To promote sound management capacity in the district municipal area
OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
OUTPUTS |2006 / 2007 |2007 / 2008 Quarterly outputs | | | | |April – June |July – Sept. |Oct. – Dec |Jan - March |April – June | |Technical training / advisory services
(Technical advice / consultation,
Information sharing)
|Advisory services requested versus provided (%)
• Training interventions planned versus conducted (%) |Technical training / advisory service report
|Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |Training interventions schedule per district service delivery area |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final draft submitted for approval |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |Awareness creation
(Campaigns, Events, Workshops, Seminars, Conferences, Workshops Publications) |Awareness interventions planned versus conducted (%)
• Promotional material required versus requirements submitted timeously to relevant support services (%) |Awareness intervention schedule per municipal area |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final draft submitted for approval |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |District Information Publications schedule |Publish upon approval |Publish upon approval |Publish upon approval |Publish upon approval |Publish upon approval | | | |Media coverage report (Radio, TV, Print, etc) |Media coverage report with an intervention plan
Report on implementation of recommendations |Media coverage report with an intervention plan
Report on implementation of recommendations |Media coverage report with an intervention plan
Report on implementation of recommendations |Media coverage report with an intervention plan
Report on implementation of recommendations |Media coverage report with an intervention plan
Implementation report on recommendations | | | |Events/Campaigns/Seminars/ workshop/ schedule |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final draft policy submitted for approval |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |
|Stakeholder institutional arrangements management
(Forum establishment / development,
SLA, MOUs, Performance monitoring,
Contract management ) |Stakeholder forums planned to be established versus established (%)
• Forums functionality gaps identified versus recommendations made (%)
• SLAs / MOUs / Agreements planned versus submitted for signature (%) |New Stakeholder Forums establishment / disestablishment report |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council | | | |Stakeholder capacity development report |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |New SLA’s / MOU’s / Agreements report |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council |Report submitted to council | | | |Stakeholder directory |1st Draft
Stakeholder consultation report
Final draft policy submitted for approval Component |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |
8.5.3 Strategic Goal 3: To implement district municipal services
OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATORS |
OUTPUTS |2006 / 2007 |2007 / 2008 Quarterly outputs | | | | |April – June |July – Sept. |Oct. – Dec |Jan - March |April – June | |Infrastructure development |Infrastructure planned to be developed versus milestones met (%)
• Infrastructure planned to be procured versus milestones met (%)
• Infrastructure plan milestones met (%)
• Maintenance budget required as per regulations versus secured (%) |10 km road development (rehabilitation and regravelling) (against a backlog of 11 000 km) |
|
Project completion report |
| | | | | |
Mayoral house (Modimolle) |
Architects appointed |Technical designs approved |
Contractor appointed |Project completion report | | | | |
Additional office Space |Council approval
(Technical designs etc.) |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |
Rehabilitated Landfill sites |Contractors appointed |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Project completion report | | | | |
Upgraded abattoir |Contractor appointed |Project implementation report |Project completion report | | | | | |
Wild Life Centre |Technical design approved
Contractor appointed |
Project implementation report |
Project implementation report |
Project completion report | | | | |
Northam Sewer Treatment Plant |
Consultants appointed |Technical design approved
Contractor appointed |
Project implementation report |
Project implementation report |
Project completion report | | | |
Upgraded Radium to Syferskuil road |
Consultants appointed |Technical design approved
Contractor appointed |
Project implementation report |
Project implementation report |
Project completion report | | | |
Upgraded road Segole to Magagamatala |
Consultants appointed |Technical design approved
Contractor appointed |
Project implementation report |
Project implementation report |
Project completion report | |
Transport Management |District integrated Transport management plan milestones met(%) |
Multi-Modal Facilities |
N/A |
1st Draft project plan approved |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report | |
Disaster Management |
• District disaster risk management plan / framework milestones met (%) |Disaster Centres in Modimolle and Lephalale |Contractors appointed |Project implementation report |Project completion report | | | | | |50 Disaster Risk Management volunteers trained per Local Municipality |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
50% of Volunteers trained |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report | | | |Compatible Disaster Risk Management IT System (integrate to master systems plan) |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report | |
8.5.4 Strategic Goal 4: To ensure effective support services
OBJECTIVES / KPA |PERFORMANCE INDICATORS |
OUTPUTS |2006 / 2007 |2007 / 2008 Quarterly outputs | | | | |April – June |July – Sept. |Oct. – Dec |Jan - March |April – June | |Corporate governance practices
(Compliance management, best practices management, risk management) |Audit queries received versus responded to (%)
• Compliance to regulatory framework (%) |Audit query response report |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report as required | | | |Compliance report against internal municipal policies |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report as required | | | |Compliance report against regulations of external stakeholders |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report submitted to Council |Report as required | | | |Best practices | | | | | | |Business management / leadership
(Strategic positioning, Business performance management, Business culture development, Stakeholder relations,
Service delivery, Corporate governance) |Organisational culture / employee satisfaction rating (%)
• Business targets met (%)
• Client satisfaction rating (%)
• Internal services level charters required versus signed (%)
• Internal stakeholder consultative forums planned to be established versus established (%) |Strategic plan |Final Draft submitted to Council for approval |Progress report |Progress report
|Strategic plan 2008 / 09 |Progress report | | | |Operational plan |Final Draft submitted to Council for approval |Progress report |Progress report
|Develop 2008 / 09 Operational Plan |Progress report | | | |Reviewed structure |Final Draft submitted to Council for approval | | | |Reviewed structure requirements submitted | | | |An improvement plan based on the employee satisfaction survey results (if measured by the Municipality) | |Survey report |Developed improvement plans |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |Improvement plans based on stakeholder satisfaction feedback | |Stakeholder satisfaction survey report |Developed improvement plans |Implementation progress report |Stakeholder satisfaction feedback review Implementation progress report | | | |Internal municipality service level charters
|Final Draft submitted to Council for approval |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | |
| |
• Internal consultative stakeholder forums (within Municipality) |
Report on municipal internal decision making / management process
Implementation plan to address gaps / deficiencies |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report | | | |Visits / meetings report | | | | | | | | |External Municipality |Structure of external municipality visits report approved |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |International |Structure of external municipality visits report approved |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |Business assets management
• People management |Budgeted positions filled (%)
• Skills development plan targets met (%)
• Additional human resource capacity required versus business case provided (%)
• Human resource required versus requirements submitted timeously (%)
• Interns trained (n) |Vacancy rate report |Vacancy rate report structure approved
Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |Skills development plan |Implementation progress report
Skills development plan 2007 / 2008 |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report
|Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report
Skills development plan 2008 / 2009 | | | |Human resources deficit report |Business case as required |Business case as required |Business case as required |Business case as required |Business case as required | | | |Individual performance management system
• Review current performance management system and adapt to current needs |approved PMS implementation report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report | | | |Performance management capacity intervention plan |Approved project plan |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report |Project implementation progress report | | | |Performance assessment reports |Organisational Assessment report |Assessment report |Assessment report |Assessment report |Assessment report | | | |Interns training report |Report |Report |Report |Report |Report | |Financial management |Variance on budget spent (%) |Variance reports |Expenditure report |Expenditure report |Expenditure report |Expenditure report |Expenditure report | |Information / knowledge management |Knowledge planned to be documented versus documented (%)
• Website updates required versus content submitted timeously (%) |Knowledge documentation plan |Plan on identified knowledge to be documented |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | | | |Website content structure approved |Draft website online for internal consumption and approval
District website online for public consumption
Submit website content as required |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |ICT management |ICT developments / procurement planned versus requirements submitted timeously to ICT component (%) |Core systems development planned | | | | | | | | |GIS strategic information reports |GIS reports |GIS reports |GIS reports |GIS reports |GIS reports | | | |MUN Master system plan |Master system plan submitted for approval |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |Asset management
(fixed assets and consumables) |Assets data integrity rating (%)
• Assets required versus requirements submitted timeously (%) |Assets establishment / improvement plan |Final Draft approved
|Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report |Implementation progress report | |Programme / project management |Programmes / projects completed within time (%)
• Programmes / projects completed within budget (%) |Programme / project reports |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | | | |
• Development Agency |
Project initiation report approved |
Business plan approved |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report |
Implementation progress report | |Contract management |Contractor performance rating (%) |Contractor performance report |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required |Report as required | |
SECTION D
INTEGRATION PHASE
9.1 INTRODUCTION
With the Integration Phase of the IDP process the Municipality ensures that project proposals conform to objectives and agreed strategies with resource frames (financial and institutional) and with legal requirements. Moreover, the individual project proposals have to be scheduled in terms of content, location and timing in order to arrive at consolidated integrated programmes for the municipality, as well as sector agencies or corporate services providers involved in the provision of services. The purpose of this section is to report on and ensure that national and provincial guidelines related to crosscutting dimensions are adequately considered. This was achieved by the drafting of various inter-sector programmes, as prescribed in the Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act 32 of 2000), other legislation, and the IDP Guide Packs. Please note that the Waterberg District Municipality had insufficient resources for the drafting of specific sector plans/programmes to the required level of detail in all instances. Only the plans/programmes essential to the IDP process at this point in time have, therefore, been drafted, as required.
9.2 INTEGRATED SECTOR PROGRAMMES
9.2.1 ROADS AND TRANSPORT (ROADS AGENCY LIMPOPO)
PROJECT NAME |LOCATION |DESCRIPTION |STARTING DATE |COMPLETION DATE |BUDGET (RANDS) | | | | | | |2006/07 |2007/08 |2008/09 | |Road D3500/D4380 |GaKgabudi to Mapela to Bakenburg |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (34.5 kmkm) |11/08/2005 |10/05/2007 |28 000 000 |15 000 000 |30 000 000 | |Roads D3110 |Ga-Seleka to Shongoane |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) ( 28.8 km) |22/08/2005 |22/07/2007 |30 000 000 |20 792 000 |0 | |Roads D1897 |Radium Road (P1/3 –NW/Cyferskuil) |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (7.3 km) | | |7 000 000 |11 200 000 |0 | |Roads D2533/D1000 |Mabula/Mabalingwe: Rietspruit to Flora |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (12 km ) |29/08/2006 |29/05/2007 |8 000 000 |8 758 000 |0 | |Road D1711 |Marken to Rebone |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (31 km ) (Design Only at the moment) | | |5 000 000 |0 |0 | |Roads D1231/D3363/D3371 |Mokopane to GaMashashane |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (29 km ) (Design Only at the moment) | | |5 000 000 |0 |20 000 000 | |Roads P20-1/D1234/D869/D1309/D2702 |Koedoeskop to Northam to Dwaalboom (PPC):50/50 |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (Design Only at the moment) | | |5 000 000 |35 000 000 |0 | |Road P19/1 |Mokopane to Kloof Pass to Marken |Maintenance | | |0 |20 000 000 |0 | |Road D192 |Kgopong to Makekeng |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) | | |0 |4 000 000 |0 | |Road D3521 |Road D192 to Mabuladithlare |Upgrading of road (Gravel to tar) (7.8 km) |October 2005 |11/10/2006 |3 000 000 |0 |0 | |TOTAL | | | | |91 000 000 |94 750 000 |50 000 000 | |
ROAD No. |ROAD PARTICULARS |LENGTH km |DISTRICT |COST ESTIMATE |05/06 |06/07 |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |Remaining | |D2460/ D184/ D1629/ D113 |From road D2460 to road D112 |23 |Waterberg | 46,000,000 |6 |10 |10 |10 |10 | |0 | |D2702 |Dwaalboom to road D1173 (border-line with Botswana) |36 |Waterberg | 72,000,000 |12 |15 |15 |15 |15 | |0 | |D180, D178, P240/1 |Bela Bela to Alma |47 |Waterberg | 94,000,000 |14 |20 |20 |20 |20 | |0 | |D192 |GaMotlana to GaMalekwa to GaRapadi |45 |Waterberg | 90,000,000 |20 |15 |15 |20 |20 | |0 | |D1689, D1754, |Steilloop to Melinda to Mokurwanyane |46 |Waterberg | 92,000,000 |15 |20 |15 |20 |22 | |0 | |D1897 |Radium to Cyferskuil |7 |Waterberg | 14,000,000 | | |14 | | | |0 | |D928 |Marekeli National Park to Leeupoort |36 |Waterberg | 72,000,000 |10 |15 |15 |15 |17 | |0 | |D2001 |Lephalalle to Stockpoort Border-post |35 |Waterberg | 70,000,000 |10 |15 |15 |15 |15 | |0 | |P20/2,D1234 |Koedoeskop to Northam |22 |Waterberg | 44,000,000 |10 |10 |10 |10 |4 | |0 | |D908,D1038 |Rietspruit to Zandrivier to Rhenosterpoort to Donkerpoort |50 |Waterberg | 100,000,000 |20 |20 |20 |20 |20 | |0 | |D924,D934 |Hartbeestlaagte to Nysvley Nature Reserve to Blindesfontein to Middelplaats |33 |Waterberg | 66,000,000 |11 |10 |15 |15 |15 | |0 | |D1958 |Nokayamatlala to GaMalokwa to GaMolaka to Mapela to Mmahlogo to Groenfontein |34 |Waterberg | 68,000,000 |8 |10 |15 |15 |20 | |0 | | | |414 | | 828,000,000 |136 |160 |179 |175 |178 |0 |0 | |ROADS AND TRANSPORT ( ROADS AGENCY LIMPOPO)
9.2.2 SAFETY AND SECURITY
SA POLICE SERVICE (LIMPOPO) INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS FOR 2007/2008 – 2009/2010
PROJECT NAME |LOCATION |PROJECT STATUS |BUDGET 2007/2008 |PREVIUOS WXPENDITURE ON THE PROJECT |FUNDING SOURCES |RESPONSIBLE AGENT | |Building of Police Stations |Tolwe |- |R 17 000 000 |- |SAPS |SAPS | | |Waterpoort |- |R 24 000 000 |- |SAPS |SAPS | | |Vaalwater |- |R 36 000 000 |- |SAPS |SAPS | | |Roedtan |- |R 34 000 000 |- |SAPS |SAPS | |
9.2.3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Project Name District Municipality Location No of Erven Year
HOUSING |WATERBERG |MODIMOLLE |Phagameng.(Ext 4)
| 1003 | 2007/2008 Financial y | |HOUSING |WATERBERG |Mookgopong
|Naboomspruit
(Ext 6) | 500 |2007/2008 Financial . | |HOUSING |WATERBERG |LEPHALALE |Marapong (Ext 4) | 1356 |2007/2008 Financial year. | |HOUSING
HOUSING
|WATERBERG
WATERBERG |MOGALAKWENA
Bela-Bela |POTGIETERSUS Ext 20
RADIUM | 1475
350 |2007/2008 Financial year.
2007/2008 Financial year | |
9.2.4 HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Project Name |District |L/Municipality |Overall Project Budget |Implementing agent |2005/06 |2006/07 |2007/08 |2008/09 | |
CLINIC BUILDING AND UPGRADE PROGRAMME | | | | | | | | | | | |Thabaleshoba HC |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R34m |Public Works |R1.4m |R10m |R21m |R2m | |Chalema |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R3.8m |Public Works | |R3.8m | | | |Bela Bela |Waterberg |Bela Bela |R3.2m |Public Works | |R3.8m | | | |Vaalwater |Waterberg |Modimolle |R3.2m |Public Works | |R3.8m | | | |Regorogile 2 |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R3.2m |Public Works | | |R3.8m | | |Smashersblok |Waterberg |Tabazimbi |R3.2m |Public Works | | |R3.8m | | |Piennarsrevier |Waterberg |Bela-Bela |R3.2m |Public Works | | | |R3.9m | |Beauty |Waterberg |Lephalale |R3.2m |Public Works | | | |R3.9m | |CLINIC WATER SUPPLY | |Settlers |Waterberg |Bela Bela |R100,000.00 |DWAF | |R100,000.00 | | | |Kroomdraai |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R100,000.00 |DWAF | |R100,000.00 | | | |Vaalkop |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R100,000.00 |DWAF | |R100,000.00 | | | |Mapela |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R100,000.00 |DWAF | |R100,000.00 | | | |Mosesetjane |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R100,000.00 |DWAF | |R100,000.00 | | | | | |CLINIC SANITATION PROGRAMME | | | |Abbotspoort |Waterberg |Lephalale |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Bavaria |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Bokwalakwala |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Kroomdraai |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Lekhureng |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Mankuwe |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Seleka |Waterberg |Lephalale |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Shongoane |Waterberg |Lephalale |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | |Vaalkop |Waterberg |Moglakwena |R114,000.00 |DWAF | |R114,000.00 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Project Name |District |L/Municipality |Overall Project Budget |Implementing agent |2005/06 |2006/07 |2007/08 |2008/09 | |HOSPITAL UPGRADE AND BUILDING PROGRAME | |Thabazimbi |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |63,000,000 |Public works |7,m |12m |34m |10m | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES | |Warmbaths |Waterberg |Bela Bela |R3,600.000 |Public Works | |R3,600.000 | | | |Thabazimbi |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R3,600.000 | | | |R3,600.000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |STAFF ACCOMMODATION | |Thabazimbi |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |Budget centralized
R87,000,000 |Public Works |All |All | | | |Witpoort |Waterberg |Lephalale | |Public Works |All |All | | | |Ellisras |Waterberg |Lephalale | |Public Works |All |All | | | |George Masebe |Waterberg |Mogalakwena | |Public Works |All |All | | | |Voorttrekker |Waterberg |Mogalakwena | | | | | | | |FH Odendaal |Waterberg |Modimolle | |Public Works |All |All | | | |Warmbaths |Waterberg |Bela Bela | | | | | | | |Mokopane |Waterberg |Mogalakwena | | | | | | | |Mookgophong
H C |Waterberg |Mookgophong | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Project Name |District |L/Municipality |Overall Project Budget |Implementing agent |2005/06 |2006/07 |2007/08 |2008/09 | |NURSING COLLEGES | |Mokopane |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R22m |Public Works | |R1m |R13m |R8m | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |FORENSIC PATHOLOGY SERVICES MORTUARIES (FPSM) | |Warmbaths |Waterberg |Bela Bela |R8,8 m |Public Works |R8,8m | | | | |Mokopane |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R10m | | |R10m | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Project Name |District |L/Municipality |Overall Project Budget |Implementing agent |2005/06 |2006/07 |2007/08 |2008/09 | |SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES | |Modimole one-stop centre |Waterberg |Modimole |R3.5m |Public Works | |R3.5m | | | |Rapadi satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | |R1.8m | | | |Steenbokpan satellite |Waterberg |Lephalale |R1.8m |Public Works | | | | | |Tolwe satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | |R1.8m | | | |Northam satellite |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R1.8m |Public Works | |R1.8m | | | |Rooiberg satellite |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R1.8m |Public Works | | |R1.8m | | |Lesodi satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | | |R1.8m | | |Pienarsrivier satellite |Waterberg |Belea-Bela |R1.8m |Public Works | | |R1.8m | | |Shongoane satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | | |R1.8m | | |Vingerkraal satellite |Waterberg |Bela-Bela |R1.8m |Public Works | | |R1.8m | | |Mosesetjani satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | | | |R1.8m | |Mattenau satellite |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R1.8m |Public Works | | | |Ri.8m | | | |VICTIM EMPOWERMENT CENTRES (VEPs) | |Bela-Bela |Waterberg |Bela-Bela |R600,000.00 |Public Works | |R600,000.00 | | | |Mookgopong Township |Waterberg |Mookgopong |R600,000.00 |Public Works | | |R600,000 | | |Rebone |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R600,000.00 |Public Works | | |R600,000 | | |Northam |Waterberg |Thabazimbi |R600,000.00 |Public Works | | | |R600,000 | |Thushang |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R600,000.00 |Public Works | | | |R600,000 | |DROP-IN CENTERS | |Phagameng |Waterberg |Modimole |R700,000.00 |Public Works | |R700,000.00 | | | |Bakenberg |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R700,000.00 |Public Works | | |R700,000 | | |Moshate |Waterberg |Mogalakwena |R700,000.00 |Public Works | |R700,000.00 |R700,000 | | |
9.2.5 ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NAME |LOCATION |PROJECT AMOUNT |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Thutlane sacred site |Mogalakwena Municipality |R 1 500 000 |DEDET | |Telekishi Ramasobana Hospital;ity and Tourism Co-operative |Mogalakwena Municipality |R 31 000 |DEDET | |Moepel Eco-tourism |Mogalakwena Municipality |R5 000 000 |DEDET | |Melkbos Community Based Conservation Enterprise |Lephalale Municipality | |DEDET | |Babirwa Small Scale Mining Pebble Collection |Mogalakwena Municipality |R 1 500 000 |DEDET | |Upgrading of the Marakele National Park |Thabazimbi Municipality |R 7 287 953 |DEDET | |
9.3 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
9.3.1 THABAZIMBI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVES OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
PRIORITY NO.1: WATER AND SANITATION
PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.1: WATER SUPPLY / PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTW -01 |Temporary water at Schilpadnest. |Manager: Tech. Services |
- |
- |5 000 000 |3 000 000 |10 000 000 |DWAF | |LTW – 04 |Rooiberg Bulk Water. |Manager: Tech. Services |7 361 040 |9 827 599
- |
- |
- |17 188 639 |MIG | |LTW – 09
(new) |Thabazimbi Upgrading of Bulk water System – Pump Station to reservoir |Manager :Tech. Services |
- |5 000 000 |8 000 000 |
- |13 000 000 |DWAF | |LTW- 13 |Northam upgrading of water network |Manager :Tech. Services |
- |2 000 000 |3 000 000 |- |5 000 000 |
DWAF | |LTW-17 |Thabazimbi: Marakele bulk water pipeline |Manager: Tech. Services |
- |2 000 000 |3 000 000 |- |5 000 000 |DWAF | |LTW-18 |Regorogile extension 6 and 7 water reticulation |Manager: Tech. Services |3 900 000 |- |- |- |3 900 000 |TLM/MIG
DWAF | |LTW-26 |Thabazimbi upgrading borehole water scheme |Manager: Tech. Services |- |1 400 000 |3 600 000 |- |5 000 000 |DWAF | |
•
PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.1: SANITATION/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTS – 01
|Northam Waste Water Treatment Plant |Manager: Tech. Services |- |5 350 000 |6 500 000 |- |12 000 000 |DWAF | |LTS – 07
|Northam Sewer Reticulation ext 7 |Manager: Tech. Services |
- |
2 000 000 |
3 663 000 | |
5 663 000 |DWAF | |LTS – 13
|Thabazimbi Waste Water treatment plant |Manager: Tech. Services |
- |
7 000 000 |
6 000 000 |- |
13 000 000 |DWAF | |LTS - 16
|Regorogile extension 6 & 7 bulk network |Manager: Tech. Services |
3 900 000 |
- |
- |- |
3 900 000 |DWAF
DLGH | |LTS – 17
(new) |Provision of Sanitation facilities at Letswai Metsi |Manager: Tech. Services |
100 000 |
50 000 |
25 000 |- |
175 000 |ANGLO PLATINUM | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.2: ELECTRICITY/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTEL - 17 |Installation of new streetlight and high masts: Rooiberg, Northam and Regorogile |Manager: Tech Services |
545 731 |
3 878 269 |
- |
- |
4 674 000 |TLM /
MIG | |LTEL – 19 |Electrification of Regorogile ext 6 and 7 |Manager: Tech. Services |100 000 |688 000 |
- |
- |788 000 |DME | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO. 3: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: GROWING THE ECONOMY
| |LTPED – 02 |Local Economic Strategy |Manager: Planning |
280 000 |
150 000 |
150 000 |- |
580 000 |TLM
DLGH | |LTPED – 07 |Spatial Development Framework |Manager: Planning |
180 000 |
100 000 |
100 000 |- |
380 000 |TLM
DBSA | |LTPED – 09 |Development of a Cultural Village/ Strydom House |Manager: Planning |
150 000 |
1 500 000 |
1 500 000 |- |
2 150 000 |TLM/ DBSA
EU | |LTPED – 13 |Butterland Bakery |Health and Social Development |160 000 |100 000 |100 000 |- |360 000 |Dept of Soc. Dev. | |LTPED-18 |Women of Integrity Bakery Project |Health and Social Development |
250 000 |
200 000 |
100 000 |- |
550 000 |Dept of Soc. Dev. | |LTPED-20 |Kanana Bakery Project |Health and Social Development |
127 000 |
127 000 |
100 000 |- |
354 000 |Dept of Soc. Dev. | |LTPED-21 |Kromdraai Vegetable Garden |Health and Social Development |
93 000 |
186 000 |
93 000 |- |
372 000 |Dept of Soc. Dev. | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO. 4: ROADS AND STORM WATER/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE & GROWING THE ECONOMY | |LTRS – 05 |Paving/ Tarring Of Rooiberg Internal Roads. |Manager: Technical Services |- |- |3 307 500 |1 417 500 |
4 725 000 |MIG | |LTRS – 06 |Paving/ Tarring of Regorogile Internal roads. |Manager: Technical Services |
568 000 |
5 395 443 |
- |
- |
5 964 000 |MIG | |LTRS – 26 |Paving of Northam internal roads |Manager: Technical Services |
- |
- |4 630 500 |1 984 500 |6 615 000 |MIG | |
| |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.5: SOLID WASTE AND ENVIRONMENT/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTSE – 01 |Upgrading of Regorogile Cemetry |Manager: Social Services |
- |
- |
2 500 000 | |2 500 000 |MIG | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.7: HOUSING AND TRANSPORT/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTHT – 01 |Housing at Northam
|Manager: Social Services |- |1 500 000 |2 400 000 |- |3 900 000 |DLGH | |LTHT – 02 |Housing for Rooiberg residents |Manager: Social Services |- |2 000 000 |1 685 000 |- |
3 685 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 03 |Housing for Thabazimbi/ Regorogile |Manager: Social Services |
- |3 000 000 |3 633 000 |- |3 633 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 04 |Housing for Schilpadnest residents |Manager: Social Services |- |- |3 500 000 |4 000 000 |7 500 000 |DLGH | |LTHT – 05 |Housing for Raphuthi and Koedoeskop Residents (Farms) |Manager: Social Services |- |1 100 000 |2 200 000 |- |3 200 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 06 |Regorogile ext 3 & 4 upgrading of old RDP houses |Manager: Social Services |- |1 500 000 |1 500 000 |3 000 000 |6 000 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 07 |Housing at Northam Residents (PHP) |Manager: Social Services |- |2 300 000 |2 320 000 |- |4 600 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 08 |Housing for Rooiberg Residents (PHP) |Manager: Social Services |- |1 500 000 |2 100 000 |- |3 600 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 09 |Promotion of Road Safety |Manager: Social Services |- |100 000 |100 000 |- |200 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 10 |Housing for Dwaalboom |Manager: Social Services |- |100 000 |1 000 000 |- |1 100 000 |DLGH | |LTHT - 11 |Housing Development of middle cost income |Manager: Social Services |- |100 000 |2 100 000 |- |3 100 000 |DLGH | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |PRIORITY NO.12: INSTITUTIONAL / PRIORITY LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: GROWING THE ECONOMY | |LTI - 01 |New Civic Centre
|Manager: Corporate Services |- |1 500 000 |22 000 000 |- |
23 500 000 |TLM | |LTI – 05
|Municipal Internet Website |Manager: Corporate Services |- |
150 000 |
- |
- |
150 000 |TLM | |LTI – 15
|Development of Performance Management Systems |Manager: Corporate Services |- |
350 000 |
150 000 |- |
500 000 |TLM | |LTI – 16
|Fleet monitoring system |Manager: Corporate Services |
- |
200 000 |
300 000 |- |
500 000 |TLM | |LTI – 17
|Integrated Human Resource Management Strategy |Manager: Corporate Services |
- |
350 000 |
- |- |
350 000 |TLM | |LTI – 18
|Anti corruption and Fraud strategy |Manager: Corporate Services |
- |
250 000 |
250 000 |- |
500 000 |TLM | |LTI – 19
|Review Skills Development Plan |Manager: Corporate Services |
- |
250 000 |
250 000 |
- |
500 000 |TLM
MSIG | |LTI – 20
|Revenue enhancement strategy |Manager: Corporate Services |
- |
400 000 |
200 000 |
- |
600 000 |DBSA
MSIG | |LTI – 21
|Compilation of asset registry |Manager: Corporate Services |
500 000 |
- |
- |
|
500 000 |TLM
DBSA | | | |PROJECT NO. |PROJECT DESCRIPTION |Responsible
Implementing department |
2006/07 |
2007/08 |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |TOTAL
CAPITAL
BUDGET. |
FUNDER | |13. SPORTS ARTS AND CULTURE/ PRIORITIES LINKED OBJECTIVE OF THE PGDS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE | |LTSAC-01 |Construction of Regorogile multi purpose sports centre |Manager: Social Services |
314 332 |
3 285 668 |
- |
- |
3 600 000 |MIG | |LTSAC-02 |Upgrading of extensions of Northam Sports Facility |Manager: Social Services |
61 000 |
939 000 |
- | |
1 000 000 |MIG | |LTSAC-03 |Construction of Raphuthi Multi sports facility |Manager: Social Services |
50 000 |
150 000 |
100 000 | |
300 000 |ANGLO PLATS TLM | |LTSAC-04 |Construction of Regorogile Multi purpose Sports Centre |Manager: Social Services |
975 721 |
1 424 279 |
- |
- |
2 400 000 |
MIG | |
5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN OF LEPHALALE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY.
PROJ NO |PROJECT |RESPONSIBLE MANAGER | | |IDP PROJECTS |FUNDER | | | | |07/08 |08/09 |09/10 |10/11 |11/12 |TOTAL BUDGET |OPERAT |CAPITAL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PRIORITY NO 1: WATER AND SANITATION | | | | | | | | | | |1 |RESERVOIR ONVERWACHT |MR.TLHAKO |4 070 | | | | |4 070 | | 4 070 |MIG | |2 |MOKURUANYANE RWS |MR.TLHAKO |2 500 | | | | |2 500 | | 2 500 |MIG | |3 |REFURBUSHMENT OF WATER PIPES Marapong,Onverwacht,Town |MR.TLHAKO |2 000 | | | | |2 000 | | 2 000 |LM,DWAF | |4 |WITPOORT RESERVOIR |MR.TLHAKO |1 400 | | | | |1 400 | | 1 400 |MIG | |5 |SANITATION VILLAGES |MR.TLHAKO |5 000 | | | | |5 000 | | 5 000 |LM,MIG | | |TOTAL | |13 570 | | | | |13 570 | |13 570 | | | PRIORITY NO 2: ROADS,STROM WATER & PUBLIC WORKS | | | | | | | | | | | |6 |LEPHALALE ACCES ROADS |MR.TLHAKO | 900 | | | | | 900 | | 900 |LM,WDM | | |TOTAL | | 900 | | | | | 900 | | 900 | | | PRIORITY NO 3: HOUSING
| | | | | | | | | | | |7 |MARAPONG X2 CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS |Me. COCQuYT | 40 | | | | | 40 | | 40 |LM | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |8 |RURAL HOUSING: CONSTRUCTION OF 243 HOUSES |Me. COCQuYT |3 717 | | | | |3 717 | | 3 717 |DPLG | |9 |RURAL HOUSING: CONSTRUCTION OF 108 HOUSES |Me. COCQuYT |2 138 | | | | |2 138 | | 2 138 |DPLG | |10 |STEENBOKPAN HOUSING: CONSTRUCTION OF 150 HOUSES |Me. COCQuYT |4 789 | | | | |4 789 | | 4 789 |DPLG | |11 |MARAPONG X3: CONSTRUCTION OF 306 HOUSES (redevelopment hostels) |Me. COCQuYT |11 628 | | | | |11 628 | |11 628 |DPLG | |12 |THABO MBEKI AND THABO MBEKI X1 SURVEY |Me. COCQuYT | 10 | | | | | 10 | 10 | |LM | |13 |ACCREDITATION OF HOUSING DIVISION |Me. COCQuYT | 5 | | | | | 5 | 5 | |LM | |14 |MARAPONG X4 CONSTRUCTION OF 150 HOUSES |Me. COCQuYT |5 609 | | | | |5 609 | | 5 609 |DPLG | |15 |STEENBOKPAN HOUSING: CONSTRUCTION OF 20 HOUSES (Inhabitants of Hostel & Glenover mine Employees) |Me. COCQuYT | 638 | | | | | 638 | | 638 |DPLG | |16 |RURAL HOUSING: CONSTRUCTIONOF 200 HOUSES |Me. COCQuYT |6 809 | | | | |6 809 | | 6 809 |DPLG | |17 |CONSTRUCTON OF 16 HOUSES AT CAMP SITES |DPW | 430 |220 | | | | 650 |650 | |DPLG | |18 |RENOVATION OF 30 STAFF HOUSES |DPW | 400 |430 |487 | | |1 317 |1 317 | |DPW | |19 |RENOVATION OF OFFICES |DPW | |260 | | | | 260 |260 | |DPW | |20 |CONSTRUCTION OF 1356 HOUSES IN MARAPONG X4 |Me. COCQuYT |53 562 | | | | |53 562 | |53 562 |DPLG | | |TOTAL | |89 779 |910 |487 | | |91 172 |2 242 |88 930 | | | PRIORITY NO 4: EDUCATION AND TRAINING | | | | | | | | | | | |21 |GA-PHAKULA COMBINED SCHOOL:12 CLASSROOMS |DPW |3 889 |3 500 |6 000 | | |13 389 | |13 389 |DoET | |22 |LEREKHURENG COMBINED SCHOOL:12 CLASSROOMS |DPW |4 160 |4 000 |6 000 | | |14 160 | |14 160 |DoET | |23 |MORUKHURUKHUNG PRIMARY: 8 CLASSROOMS |DPW |3 190 |3 500 |6 000 | | |12 690 | |12 690 |DoET | |24 |RELEHUMANE PRIMARY-UITSPAN: 8 CLASSROOMS |DPW |5 707 |4 000 |6 500 | | |16 207 | |16 207 |DoET | |25 |YOUTH ADVISORY CENTRE |DPW |5 000 | | | | |5 000 | |5 000 |LGH | |26 |EQUIPMENT & FURNITURE YOUTH CENTRE |LGH |1 500 | | | | |1 500 |1 500 | |LGH | | |TOTAL | |23 446 |15 000 |24 500 | | |62 946 |1 500 |61 446 | | | PRIORITY NO 5:ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT | | | | | | | | | | | |27 |SOLID WASTE DUMPING SITES |Me. COCQUYT | 100 | | | | | 100 | 100 | |LM | |28 |TRANSFARE OF DUMPING SITE LAND TO MUNICIPALITY |Me COCQUYT | 150 | | | | | 150 | 150 | |LM | | |TOTAL | | 250 | | | | | 250 | 250 | |LM | | PRIORITY NO 6: EMPLOYMENT | | | | | | | | | | | |29 |LEPHALALE TOURIST INFO CENTRE/MUSEUM | |1 800 | | | | |1 800 | |1 800 |LM/EF | | |MACRO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: NEW POWER STATION AND EXPANSION AT GROOTGELUK MINE | | 500 | | | | | 500 | | 500 |DEDET | |30 |BIO DIEZEL PROJECT | | 500 | | | | | 500 | | 500 |DEDET | |31 |LIMPOPO MARULA-MUKUNBI INDUSTRIES | | 500 | | | | | 500 | | 500 |DEDET | |32 |GEO-SPATIAL ANALYSIS PLATFORM (GAP) | | 450 | | | | | 450 | | 450 |DEDET | | |LEPHALALE AGRICULTURAL CORRDOR | | |1 500 |1 500 |1 000 |1 000 |5 000 | |5 000 |WDM | | |TOTAL | | 3 750 |1 500 |1 500 |1000 |1000 |8 750 | |8 750 | | | PRIORITY NO 7: ELECRICITY | | | | | | | | | | | |33 |VILLAGE HIGH MAST LIGHTING | |2 000 | | | | |2 000 | |2 000 |MIG | | |TOTAL | |2 000 | | | | |2 000 | |2 000 | | | PRIORITY NO 8: HEALTH & WELFARE | | | | | | | | | | | |34 |STEEBOKPAN CLINIC |DPW |1 800 | | | | |1 800 | |1 800 |DHW | |35 |PROVISION OF ADEQUATE MEDICAL FACILITIES |DHW | 825 | 825 |825 |825 |825 |4 125 |4 125 | |DHW | |36 |RESTRUCTURING OF HEALTH SERVICES |DHW | 750 | | | |750 | 750 | | 750 |DHW | |37 |HIV/AIDS WELLNESS CENTRE- MARAPONG |PPP/LM | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 |55 | 275 | 275 | |PPP/LM/DHW | | |TOTAL | |3 430 |880 |880 |880 |1 630 |6 950 | 4 400 | | | | PRIORITY NO 9: LAND | | | | | | | | | | | |38 |ESTABLISH PROPER GIS | | 150 | | | | | 150 | | 150 |LM | |39 |PROMOTION OF DEVELOPMENT(Acquisition of Altootyd farm 506 LQ) | |45 000 | | | | |45 000 | |45 000 |DLGH | | |TOTAL | |45 150 | | | | |45 150 | |45 150 | | | PRIORITY NO 10:COMMUNITY SERVICES | | | | | | | | | | | |40 |REGIONAL RURAL CEMETRIES |Me. COCQUYT | 100 | | | | | 100 | | 100 |LM | |41 |STEENBOKPAN CEMETERY (fencing) |Me. COCQUYT | 50 | | | | | 50 | | 50 |LM | | |TOTAL | | 150 | | | | | 150 | | 150 | | | PRIORITY NO 11:RECREATIONAL FACILITIES | | | | | | | | | | | |42 |MOGOL CLUB;SUBSIDY IN GRANT |Me. COCQUYT | 347 | | | | | 347 | 347 | |LM | |43 |MARAPONG: SUBSIDY IN GRANT |Me. COCQUYT | 139 | | | | | 139 | 139 | |LM | | |TOTAL | |486 | | | | |486 |486 | | | | PRIORITY NO12: SAFETY AND SECURITY | | | | | | | | | | | |44 |WALK THROUGH METAL DETECTOR |MR THOBANE | 50 | | | | | 50 |50 | |LM | |45 |SECURITY ALARM SYSTEM: STORE/WORKSHOP |MR THOBANE | 80 | | | | | 80 | 80 | |LM | |46 |MAGNETIC NOTICE BOARD |MR THOBANE | 50 | | | | | 50 | 50 | |LM | |47 |FIXED LADDERS FOR BUILDINGSX3 |MR THOBANE | 25 | | | | | 25 | 25 | |LM | |48 |SAFETY SYMBOLIC SIGNS: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES |MR THOBANE | 10 | | | | | 10 | | |LM | | |TOTAL | |215 | | | | |215 |215 | | | |PRIORITY N0 13:PUBLIC TRANSPORT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN OF MOGALAKWENA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY.
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |ROADS & STORMWATER | |Phola Park Roads & Stormwater |3,850,000.00 | 850,000.00 |3,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Mahwelereng Roads |15,000,000.00 |10,000,000.00 |5,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Mahwelereng Stormwater |7,000,000.00 |7,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Extension 19 Roads & Stormwater |5,300,000.00 |1,300,000.00 |4,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Sekgakgapeng Main Taxi Route |6,200,000.00 |2,200,000.00 |4,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Tshamahanzi Roads |4,000,000.00 |4,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Bakenberg Taxi Roads |8,500,000.00 |4,000,000.00 |4,500,000.00 |0.00 | |Mapela Taxi Routes |6,000,000.00 |0.00 |6,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Madiba Taxi Routes |4,000,000.00 |0.00 |4,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Masodi Taxi Routes |5,340,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |3,840,000.00 |0.00 | |Rebone Roads & Stormwater |6,800,000.00 |3,800,000.00 |3,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Projects to be Identified |2,325,000.00 |0.00 |2,325,000.00 |0.00 | |Mosoge Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Witrivier Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Molekane Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Ditlotswana Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Mitchel Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Ham No.1 Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Leleso Taxi Routes |2,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,800,000.00 | |Mountain View Taxi Routes |2,100,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |2,100,000.00 | |Uitziight Taxi Routes |3,500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |3,500,000.00 | |
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |WATER & SANITATION | |Taolome Water |800,000.00 |0.00 |800,000.00 |0.00 | |Phahladira |1,500,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Ham No.1 |1,900,000.00 |1,900,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Moshate Water |664,050.00 |664,050.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Marulaneng Water Supply |3,000,000.00 |3,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Ditlotswana |854,850.00 |0.00 |854,850.00 |0.00 | |Kaditshwene |1,300,000.00 |1,300,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Kromkloof |1,700,000.00 |0.00 |1,700,000.00 |0.00 | |Sepharane |900,000.00 |0.00 |900,000.00 |0.00 | |Pudiyakgopa |1,100,000.00 |0.00 |1,100,000.00 |0.00 | |Lesodi |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Malapile |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Thabaleshoba |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Nelly |1,300,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |1,300,000.00 | |Jakkalskui |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Vergenoeg |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Kromkloof |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Galakwena |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Tshamahanzi |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Nkidikitlana |640,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |640,000.00 | |Mokopane Sewer |7,280,000.00 |0.00 |7,280,000.00 |0.00 | |Household Sanitation |18,800,000.00 |4,000,000.00 |4,800,000.00 |10,000,000.00 | |LED & UNEMPLOYMENT | |Hawkers Shelter |2,500,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |1,000,000.00 |0.00 | |Bakenberg Bakery |1,000,000.00 |600,000.00 |400,000.00 |0.00 | |Business Centre |6,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |6,000,000.00 | |
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |LAND & CEMETERIES | |Cemetery: Mahwelereng |4,350,000.00 |1,350,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |1,500,000.00 | |Town Planning Services (New Township) |3,985,000.00 |1,000,000.00 |1,460,000.00 |1,525,000.00 | |Park Development |1,287,850.00 |0.00 |1,000,000.00 |287,850.00 | |SOLID WASTE & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT | |Landfill Development |1,100,000.00 |500,000.00 |300,000.00 |300,000.00 | |
SOURCE: EQUITABLE SHARE
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |ROADS & STORMWATER | |Stormwater (Various Villages) |3,000,000.00 |3,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Madiba Taxi Routes |4,050,000.00 |900,000.00 |3,150,000.00 |0.00 | |Masodi |1,800,000.00 |900,000.00 |900,000.00 |0.00 | |Mapela Taxi Roads |900,000.00 |0.00 |900,000.00 |0.00 | |Rebone Roads & Stormwater |897,887.00 |0.00 |897,887.00 |0.00 | |Marulaneng Taxi Routes |4,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |4,000,000.00 | |Tipeng Taxi Routes |3,060,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 |3,060,000.00 | |CRIME PREVENTION, SAFETY & SECURITY | |High Mast Lights in Villages |3,400,000.00 |900,000.00 |1,000,000.00 |1,500,000.00 | |WATER & SANITATION | |Masodi |1,500,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Madiba |1,500,000.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Molekane |1,000,000.00 |1,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Mushi |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 | |Chere |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 | |Leyden |1,500,000.00 |0.00 |1,500,000.00 |0.00 | |Galakwenastroom |1,000,000.00 |0.00 |1,000,000.00 |0.00 | |LAND & CEMETERIES | |Black Rock |3,452,810.00 |1,102,500.00 |1,152,113.00 |1,198,197.00 | |Servicing of Stands (Mahwelereng & Part of Extension 20) |5,000,000.00 |0.00 |3,000,000.00 |2,000,000.00 | |
SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY (DME)
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |ELECTRICITY | |Extension 19 |1,800,000.00 |1,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Extension 20 (962 Houses) |5,743,000.00 |0.00 |2,292,000.00 |3,451,000.00 | |
SOURCE: LOTTERY FUNDING
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |SPORTS, ARTS & CULTURE | |Rebone Stadium – Roll over from 05/06 adjustment budget |730,000.00 |730,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Mahwelereng Stadium - Roll over from 05/06 adjustment budget |336,000.00 |336,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Bavaria Stadium – Roll over from 05/06 adjustment budget |500,000.00 |500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Mapela Stadium - Roll over from 05/06 adjustment budget |500,000.00 |500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Project Management for Above Projects |152,232.00 |152,232.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |
SOURCE: EQUITABLE SHARE
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |LED & UNEMPLOYMENT | |Makgae LRAD Project – Poultry & Crop Farming |2,500,000.00 |2,500,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Bathokoa Tlou Farming Project – Crop Farming |1,600,000.00 |1,600,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Mogalakwena PLAS 1 Project – Game & Livestock Farming |3,000,000.00 |3,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |
SOURCE: DEPT. OF EDUCATION & TRAINING
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |EDUCATION | |Additional classrooms at Lechaba Primary School, Matebeleng |R 1,950,000.00 |R 1,950,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms at Monene Primary School, Paulos Farm |R 1,300,000.00 |R 1,300,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms at Serupa Primary School, Tevredenheid |R 650,000.00 |R 650,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms Nkeketlhalwa Primary School, Diphichi |R 650,000.00 |R 650,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms Thutlane Primary School, Mothwathwase |R 650,000.00 |R 650,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms Matatane Secondary School, Klipplaatdrift |R 1,300,000.00 |R 1,300,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Additional classrooms Lephadimisha Secondary School, Taolome |R 1,300,000.00 |R 1,300,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |
SOURCE: DEPT. OF EDUCATION & TRAINING
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |HEALTH & WELFARE | |Thabaleshoba Health Center |R21,000,000.00 |R21,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Mokopane Nursing College |R13,000,000.00 |R13,000,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Social Development Facilities – Lesodi |R 1,800,000.00 |R 1,800,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Victim Empowerment Center – Rebone |R 600,000.00 |R 600,000.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Victim Empowerment Center – Bakenberg |R 700,000,00 |R 700,000,00 |0.00 |0.00 | |
SOURCE: DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
DESCRIPTION |Total Project Cost |Budget
2007/8 |Budget
2008/9 |Budget
2009/10 | |LED & UNEMPLOYMENT | |Eickstein Farming - Cattle and broiler production |R 747,650.00 |R 747,650.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Elandbosch Farm - Livestock enterprise |R 497,750.00 |R 497,750.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Grootpan Farm - Livestock enterprise |R 451,700.00 |R 451,700.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Vergenoeg Farm - Livestock enterprise |R 250,880.00 |R 250,880.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Monyeki Farm - Livestock enterprise |R 241,176.00 |R 241,176.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |Elim Farm - Livestock enterprise |R 310,250.00 |R 310,250.00 |0.00 |0.00 | |
5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN OF MODIMOLLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY.
1. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY
1. WATER
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Upgrading of Donkerpoort Purification Plant |2 000 000 | |2 000 000 | | | |MIG | |Modimolle Town 3ML Reservoir |3 500 000 | | | |3 500 000 | |MIG | |Dam Safety Compliance |8 000 000 | | | |4 000 000 |4 000 000 |MIG | |Water Reticulation (Hans Campher) |200 000 |200 000 | | | | |Reserve Funds | |Extension 10 Water Reticulation |2 900 000 |2 000 000 |900 000 | | | |PEIG | |Equipping of Boreholes (Mabatlane) |2 500 000 |1 000 000 |1 500 000 | | | |MIG | |Replacement of Asbestos Pipes |500 000 | |500 000 | | | |MIG | |Water cart Mabatlane |650 000 |650 000 | | | | |Internal Loan | |TOTAL |22 750 000 | | | | | | | |
2. SANITATION
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Modimolle Waste Water Treatment Plant (Upgrade) |20 000 000 |10 000 000 |10 000 000 | | | |MIG | |Pressure Tower & Leseding Sewer Reticulation |1 000 000 |1 000 000 | | | | |MIG | |Upgrade Sewer Ponds to conventional (Mabatlane) |9 500 000 |5 500 000 |4 000 000 | | | |MIG | |Upgrade Sewer Ponds to conventional (Mabaleng) |6 500 000 |3 000 000 |3 500 000 | | | |MIG | |Sewer Tanker (Mabatlane) |1 500 000 | | | |1 500 000 | |MIG | |Upgrading of Sewer Line (Abattoir) |2 000 000 |2 000 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Sewer Reticulation Phagameng X 9 |4 200 000 |4 200 000 | | | | |MIG | |Sewer Reticulation Mabatlane X 4 |6 500 000 |6 500 000 | | | | |MIG | |Sewer Reticulation Phagameng X 10 |5 500 000 | |5 500 000 | | | |MIG | |Sewer Reticulation Hans Campher (Modimolle) |500 000 |500 000 | | | | |Internal Fund
(Reserve) | |
3. ELECTRICITY
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Upgrading of Modimolle Electricity Network |34 500 000 |10 000 000 |14 000 000 |10 500 000 | | |External & Internal loan | |Christmas Lights |500 000 |100 000 | | |400 000 | |Internal Funds | |Alternative Energy Supply (Rural Community) |500 000 | | | |500 000 | |MIG | |Electrification Hans Campher (Modimolle) |200 000 |200 000 | | | | |Reserve Fund | |Electrification Phagameng X 9 |4 500 000 | |4 500 000 | | | |DME | |Electrification Phagameng x 10 |5 000 000 | |5 000 000 | | | |DME | |Street lighting (all areas) |3 800 000 |1 800 000 |2 000 000 | | | |MIG | |TOTAL | | | | | | | | |
4. ROADS AND STORMWATER
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Resealing of Roads |10 000 000 |1 000 000 |1 500 000 |3 000 000 |2 500 000 |2 000 000 |MIG | |Surfacing of Roads |12 000 000 |4 000 000 |1 000 000 |1 000 000 |2 000 000 |4 000 000 |MIG | |Upgrading Joe Slovo Bridge (Modimolle) |6 500 000 | |3 500 000 |3 000 000 | | |MIG | |Storm water control (all areas) |5 000 000 | |1 000 000 |1 000 000 |2 000 000 |1 000 000 |MIG | |Paving of Road (Modimolle Cemetery) |200 000 | | | |200 000 | |MIG | |Reconstruction of Lillian Ngoyi (Modimolle) |2 500 000 | | | |2 500 000 | |MIG | |Reconstruction of Joe Modise (Modimolle) |3 000 000 | | | |1 500 000 | 1 500 000 |MIG | |Subsoil Drainage (all areas) |500 000 | | | |500 000 | |MIG | |Hans Campher (Modimolle) |500 000 |500 000 | | | | |Internal Funds
(reserve) | |Construction of Roads Phagameng X 10 |200 000 |100 000 |100 000 | | | |Internal Funds | |TOTAL | | | | | | | | |
5. LAND AND HOUSING
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Landfill site development |4 000 000 |4 000 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Communal farming and grazing |3 500 000 | |3 500 000 | | | |DLA | |Animal Pound |350 000 |350 000 | | | | |DLG&H | |Housing Development Phagameng x 9 (1 003 units) |36 000 000 |36 000 000 | | | | |DLG&H | |Township establishment |1 000 000 |1 000 000 | | | | |Internal Funds
(Reserve) | |TOTAL | | | | | | | | |
6. SOLID WASTE AND ENVIRONMENT
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Construction of Crematorium |1 500 000 | | | |1 500 000 | |MIG | |Upgrading of ablution block Modimolle Cemetery |200 000 | | |200 000 | | |MIG | |Extension and upgrade of cemeteries (all areas) |1 800 000 | | |1 800 000 | | |MIG | |TOTAL | | | | | | | | |
1.7 TRANSPORT
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Development of Parking meters |300 000 |300 000 | | | | |Grant (who) which | |Traffic Lights (Modimolle) |200 000 | |200 000 | | | |Internal funds | |Upgrading Taxi Rank (all areas) |2 000 000 | |500 000 |500 000 |500 000 | 500 000 |MIG | |
8. SPORT, ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Development of sports fields (all areas) |500 000 |200 000 | |200 000 |100 000 | |Internal funds | |Identification and Development of Heritage Sites |1 200 000 |1 200 000 | | | | |Lotteries | |Construction of sports complex (Mabatlane) |8 500 000 |4 500 000 | |4 000 000 | | |Lotteries | |Development of Modimolle Stadium (2010) |30 000 000 | |15 000 000 |15 000 000 | | |RFP”S | |Upgrading and construction of parks |70 000 | |70 000 | | | |Internal funds | |Revamping and construction of old Commando (show grounds) |2 000 000 | |500 000 |1 000 000 |500 000 | |MIG | |Removal of old monument |10 000 |10 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |Erection of new sign board for (OR Tambo/Nelson Mandela Square |100 000 | |100 000 | | | |Internal funds | |TOTAL | | | | | | | | |
9. EDUCATION
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Establishment of ECD Centres | | | | | | |Department of Education | |Construction of Schools | | | | | | |Department of Education | |Provision of Basic Services to Schools | | | | | | |Department of Education | |
10. HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Construction of Health Centre at Mabatlane | | | | | | |Health and Social Development | |Development of South African Social Security Agency Centre at Modimolle | | | | | | | Health and Social Development | |
1. LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (LED)
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Flea markets (Modimolle) |1 000 000 | |500 000 |500 000 | | |MIG | |Mabatlane CBD Development |3 500 000 |2 500 000 |1 000 000 | | | |MIG | |Revitalization of Hydroponic Project (Mabaleng) |800 000 |500 000 |200 000 |100 000 | | |RFP’s | |BEEHIVE Industrial Park |1 000 000
|1 000 000 | | | | |EU | |Dipudi Coop |150 000 | |150 000 | | | |Internal funds | |Completion of WATRAP |1 800 000 |100 000 |1 200 000 |500 000 | | |Internal funds | |Flee markets (Mabatlane) |850 000 | |450 000 |400 000 | | |MIG | |Donkerpoort Dam Water Sports Facility |500 000 |500 000 | | | | |RFP”s | |Establishment of Water Front Facility (Modimolle – next to Mr Munchies) |8 000 000 |8 000 000 | | | | |RFP’s | |Recycling project of Modimolle and Mabatlane |100 000 |100 000 | | | | |RFP’s | |Development of Industrial area |500 000 |500 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Establishment of Shopping Centre Modimolle |30 000 000 |30 000 000 | | | | |RFP”s | |Establishment of Tourism Centre |2 400 000 | | |2 400 000 | | |RFP’s | |Urban Greening |200 000 | |200 000 | | | |Internal | |Modimolle Mountain Heritage Site Development |7 500 000 |2 500 000 |2 500 000 |2 500 000 | | |RFP’s | |Provision for Mabatlane Emerging Farmers |300 000 |100 000 | 100 000 |1 000 000 | | |Land Affairs | |
3. MUNICIPAL INSTITUTION AND TRANSFORMATION
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Upgrading of financial system |1 000 000 | |1 000 000 | | | | | |2 x LDV (Water and Sewer) |320 000 | |320 000 | | | | | |2 x LDV (Electricity) |320 000 | |320 000 | | | | | |1 x LDV (Town Planning) |160 000 | |160 000 | | | | | |1 x LDV (Public Works) |160 000 | |160 000 | | | | | |1 x LDV (Pool Vehicle – Corporate Services) |160 000 | |160 000 | | | | | |4 x 1400 (Budget & Treasury) |400 000 | |400 000 | | | | | |Mayoral Vehicle |400 000 | |400 000 | | | | | |3 x Tractors |750 000 | |750 000 | | | | | |1 x LDV (Parks) |160 000 | |160 000 | | | | | |1 x Trailer (Parks) |150 000 | |150 000 | | | | | |1 x Tractor (Refuse) |230 000 |230 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Mini Mass Containers |1 000 000 |1 000 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Excavator (20 ton) |1 500 000 | |1 500 000 | | | | | |
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Tipper Truck (Landfill Site – Mabatlane & Modimolle) |1 300 000 |1 300 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Compactor (Landfill Site – Mabatlane & Modimolle) |2 000 000 |2 000 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Compactor (Public Works – Modimolle) |180 000 | |180 000 | | | | | |Tools (Mechanical) |30 000 | |30 000 | | | | | |Mabaleng Grader |1 900 000 | |1 900 000 | | | | | |Tipper Truck (Modimolle) |650 000 | |650 000 | | | | | |Water Cart (Modimolle & Mabatlane) |1 300 000 |650 000 |650 000 | | | | | |Plate Compactor |50 000 | |50 000 | | | | | |Loader (TLB) (Modimolle Landfill Site) |550 000 |550 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |Pump and Irrigation system (Modimolle Landfill Site) |100 000 |100 000 | | | | |WDM
(Grant) | |
PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |Concrete palisade fencing (Mabatlane and Modimolle Landfill Sites) |2 000 000 | |2 000 000 | | | |WDM | |Sewer Trailer/Vector (Mabatlane) |1 200 000 | |1 200 000 | | | | | |Parks Equipment (all areas) |15 000 | |15 000 | | | | | |Breathalyzers |25 000 | |25 000 | | | | | |Two Way radios |40 000 | |40 000 | | | | | |Security system |350 000 | |350 000 | | | |Internal funds (loan) | |Clock system |300 000 | |300 000 | | | | | |Heavy duty lawn mowers |250 000 | |250 000 | | | | | |Blue traffic lights (patrol vehicles) |50 000 | |50 000 | | | | | |Air conditioners (halls) |300 000 | |300 000 | | | | | |Air conditioners (offices) |75 000 | |75 000 | | | | | |Upgrading of testing station |100 000 | |100 000 | | | | | |Upgrading of traffic offices |100 000 | |100 000 | | | | | |Library security system |100 000 | |100 000 | | | | | |IT Equipment |400 000 | |400 000 | | | | | |PROJECTS |COST |2007/8 |2008/9 |2009/10 |2010/11 |2011/12 |SOURCE OF FUNDING | |IT Infrastructure |400 000 | |400 000 | | | | | |Office furniture |800 000 | |800 000 | | | | | |Office partitioning |70 000 | |70 000 | | | | | |Office extensions |7 000 000 | |7 000 000 | | | | | |Office Mabaleng |400 000 |400 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |Upgrading of Leseding Hall |100 000 |100 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |Demarcation of church site (Mabatlane) |150 000 |150 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |P A system |50 000 |50 000 | | | | |Internal funds | |
5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN OF BELA-BELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY.
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMME
MOOKGOPHONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
CAPITAL BUDGET 2007/2008 MOOKGOPHONG MUNICIPALITY | |4.80% |5.30% | | | | | | |2008 |2009 |2010 | | | |DESCRIPTION | |2007 |BUDGETED |BUDGETED |BUDGETED | | | |IDP PROJECT |FUNDING |Roll-over | | | | |020 |PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN | | | | | | | | |Update GIS | |General Reserves | | 30,000 | 31,440 | 33,106 | | |Office Furniture & Computer stand |Equipment |Operating Income | | 12,000 | 12,576 | 13,243 | | |Survey Mookgophong Ext 3 (Phase 2) |MPHL-09 |General Reserves | 30,000 | - | - | - | | |Town Establishment Mookgophong Ext 5 | |General Reserves | 15,000 | - | - | - | | |Survey Town Establishmnet Thusang Ext 1 |MPHL-10 |General Reserves | 10,000 | - | - | - | | |Cadastral mapping |MPHL-11 |General Reserves | 50,000 | - | - | - | | |LDV |Equipment |General Reserves | | - | 200,000 | 210,600 | | | | | | | | | | |022 |PUBLIC WORKS | | | | | | | | |Installation of bulk stormwater | |MIG | 700,000 | 1,024,000 | 1,073,152 | 1,130,029 | | |Storm water |MPRS-05 |General Reserves | | 105,000 | 110,040 | 115,872 | | |Resurfacing roads |MPRS-06 |General Reserves | | 262,000 | 274,576 | 289,129 | | |Upgrading of Hans van Rensburg Street parking |MPRS-07 |General Reserves | | 600,000 | 628,800 | 662,126 | | |Stormwater MKG X3 Phase 2 | |MIG | | 350,708 | 367,542 | 387,022 | | | | |General Reserves | | 1,500,000 | 1,572,000 | 1,655,316 | | |Stormwater NABOOM X3 |MPRS-02 |General Reserves | - | - | 500,000 | 526,500 | | |Upgrading Roedtan Parking |MPRS-13 |General Reserves | | 500,000 | 500,000 | 526,500 | | |New water tank and pump on existing truck |MPRS-12 |General Reserves | | 100,000 | - | - | | |Compressor |Equipment |Operating Income | | 30,000 | - | - | | |Prime application equipment |Equipment |Operating Income | | 30,000 | - | - | | |Construction boards |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | 10,480 | 11,035 | | |Carport |Equipment |Operating Income | | 30,000 | - | - | | |Grader |Equipment |General Reserves | | - | 1,200,000 | - | | | | | | | | | | |026 |CORPORATE SERVICES | | | | | | | | |Fencing of the Civic centre |MPIN-05 |General Reserves | | 250,000 | - | - | | |Office equipments and furniture |Equipment |General Reserves | | 300,000 | 100,000 | - | | |Computer & printer (2) |Equipment |Operating income | | 30,000 | - | - | | |Vacuum cleaners |Equipment |Operating income | | 22,000 | - | - | | | | | | | | | | |028 |FINANCE SERVICES | | | | | ` | | | |Cabling computer - New building |Equipment |General Reserves | | 500,000 | - | - | | |Upgrading Computer equipment |Equipment |General Reserves | | 350,000 | 366,800 | 386,240 | | |GAMAP/GRAP compliance | |General Reserves | | - | - | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |034 |TRAFFIC SERVICES | | | | | | | | |Speed humps x 5 |Maintenance |General Reserves | | 45,000 | 45,000 | 47,385 | | |Street names Roedtan / Thusang |Equipment |General Reserves | | 35,000 | - | - | | |Vehicle :BMW trade-in |Equipment |General Reserves | | 100,000 | - | - | | |Stop signs |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | 10,480 | 11,035 | | |Blue light and markings |Equipment |Operating Income | | 15,050 | - | - | | |Taxi Rank |MPRS-14 |General Reserves | 898,000 | - | - | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |044 |PUBLIC BUILDINGS | | | | | | | | |Extension of Mookgophong Civic Centre |MPIN-04 |General Reserves | 3,275,000 | 4,550,000 | - | - | | |Renovation of Old Civic Centre |Building |General Reserves | | 500,000 | - | - | | |Upgrading electrical reticulation at Civic centre |Building |General Reserves | | 100,000 | - | - | | | | | | | | | | |050 |LIBRARY | | | | | | | | |Computers : Public use (3) |Equipment |General Reserves | | 45,000 | - | - | | |Wall unit and wall murals |Equipment |Operating Income | | 15,600 | - | - | | | | | | | | | | |052 |PARKS | | | | | | | | |Development of parks |MPSC-01 |General Reserves | | 80,000 | 83,840 | 88,284 | | |Parks equipments |Equipment |Operating Income | | 50,000 | 52,400 | 55,177 | | |Remove invasive plants |Equipment |Operating Income | | 20,000 | 20,960 | 22,071 | | |Petrol hand pump |Equipment |Operating Income | | 5,000 | - | - | | |Refurbish Parks Building |Maintanance |Operating Income | | 10,000 | - | - | | |Zozo hut at swimmingpool at Lapa |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | - | - | | |Refurbish fence $ buildings :Mkg Cementry |Maintanance |Operating Income | | 15,000 | - | - | | | | | | | | | | |053 |SPORTS AND RECREATION | | | | | | | | |Upgrading of facilities/ maintenance |Maintenance |General Reserves | | 120,000 | 125,760 | 132,425 | | |Grand : Lotto |MPSC-04 | | 600,000 | 1,320,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | |062 |CLEANSING:REFUSE REMOVAL | | | | | | | | |60 x Side walk Containers |Equipment |Operating Income | | 26,000 | 27,248 | 28,692 | | |2 x Trolleys |Equipment |Operating Income | | 2,000 | - | - | | |10 X Mass containers |Equipment |General Reserves | | 50,000 | 52,400 | 55,177 | | |Tractor |Vehicle |General Reserves | | 300,000 | - | - | | |Development of new landfile site |MPSW-04 |General Reserves | | 1,700,000 | 400,000 | - | | | | | | | | | | |064 |LICENSING | | | | | | | | |Vacuum cleaners |Equipment |Operating Income | | 2,000 | - | - | | |5 x Carport |Equipment |Operating Income | | 25,000 | - | - | | |Tiles for testing room |Equipment |Operating Income | | 6,000 | - | - | | |Computer and printer |Equipment |General Reserves | | 38,000 | - | - | | |Palisade fencing |MPSS-05 |General Reserves | | 100,000 | - | - | | |Cameras for testing station |Equipment |General Reserves | | - | 35,000 | 36,855 | | | | | | | | | | |066 |SEWERAGE | | | | | | | | |Tar access road to sewage works | |General Reserves | | 250,000 | - | - | | |Removal and fit of crane on truck |Maintenance |General Reserves | | 60,000 | - | - | | |Sewage Equipment |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | 11,000 | 12,000 | | |Burgular gates at Nyl pump station |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | - | - | | |Paint Nyl pump station buildings |Equipment |Operating Income | | 10,000 | - | - | | |Drain rod machine |Equipment |Operating Income | | 40,000 | - | - | | | | | | | | | | |082 |ELECTRICITY | | | | | | | | |Upgrading electrical reticulation networks |MPEL-03 |General Reserves | | 450,000 | 471,600 | 496,595 | | |Electrical Equipment |Equipment |Operating income | | 20,000 | 20,960 | 22,071 | | | | | | | | | | |088 |WATER | | | | | | | | |New water resources |MPWS-11 |MIG | | 2,250,000 | - | - | | |Back-up generator for Nyl pump station |Equipment |General Reserves | | 300,000 | - | - | | |Replacement of valve and bulk meters |Maintenance |General Reserves | | 60,000 | 62,880 | 66,213 | | |Repair accomodation/pump station |Maintenance |General Reserves | | 50,000 | - | - | | |New pump for pump station |Equipment |General Reserves | | 80,000 | - | - | | |Water equipments |Equipment |Operating Income | | 6,000 | 6,288 | 6,621 | | |Roedtan water network |MPWS-12 |General Reserves | 200,000 | | | | | |Roedtan boreholes |MPWS-05 |General Reserves | 350,000 | | | | | |Upgrading Welgevendon purification works | | | | - | 4,500,000 | - | | |Upgrading Welgevendon raw pumpline | | | | - | - | 4,000,000 | | | | | | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | 6,128,000 | 18,926,358 | 12,873,222 | 11,027,320 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Operating Income | | 471,650 |2% | | | | | |General Reserves | | 13,510,000 |55% | | | | | |MIG | | 4,324,708 |18% | | | | | |Roll-over | | 4,478,000 |18% | | | | | |Lotto Grand | | 1,920,000 |8% | | | | | | | | 24,704,358 |100% | | | | | | | | | | | | |2006/2007 | | 20,834,900 | 24,704,358 |18.57% | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
SECTION E
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
The implementation of the projects and programmes of the municipality is guided by the performance management systems framework that is attached underneath
20 INTRODUCTION
The Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations stipulates that a municipality’s Performance Management System (PMS) must entail a framework that describes and represents how the municipality's cycle and processes of performance planning, monitoring, measurement, review, reporting and improvement will be conducted, organised and managed, including determining the roles of the different role-players.
In line with the said legal requirement this framework is a policy document that will set out the requirements that the Waterberg District Municipality’s PMS will need to fulfill, the principles that informed its development and subsequent implementation, the preferred performance model of the Municipality, the process by which the system will work, the delegation of responsibilities for different roles in the process and a plan for the implementation of the system.
10.2 THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
The legislative and policy framework for PMS includes the Constitution, The Municipal Systems Act, the Municipal Finance Management Act, Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations, The White Paper on Local Government and Batho Pele principles. The main regulatory mechanism for PMS is Chapter 6 of the MSA and the related Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations.
The major PMS policy instruments is the 1998 White Paper on Local Government supported by the Batho Pele principles, which policies was given legal stature through the adoption of the Municipal Systems Act in 2000 (Act 32 of 2000). The said Act requires all municipalities to:
• Develop a performance management system
• Set targets and monitor and review the performance of the Municipality based on indicators linked to their Integrated Development Plan (IDP)
• Table and publish an annual performance report on performance of the Municipality forming part of its annual report as per the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA).
• Incorporate and report on a set of general (sometimes also referred to as national) indicators prescribed by the Minister responsible for local government
• Conduct, on a continuous basis, an internal audit of all performance measures
• Have their annual performance report audited by the Auditor-General
• Involve the community in setting indicators and targets and reviewing municipal performance
These are some of the main elements and requirements of the legislative requirements for the development and implementation of a performance management system for municipalities. For the ease of reference and for the benefit of a comprehensive Waterberg District Municipality Performance Management System Framework, more detailed legislative and policy guidelines and requirements are included in the framework.
10.2.1 The White Paper on Local Government (1998)
The White Paper on Local Government (1998) suggested that local government should introduce the idea of performance management systems. The White Paper noted that,
"Involving communities in developing some municipal key performance indicators increases the accountability of the municipality. Some communities may prioritise the amount of time it takes a municipality to answer a query; others will prioritise the cleanliness of an area or the provision of water to a certain number of households. Whatever the priorities, by involving communities in setting key performance indicators and reporting back to communities on performance, accountability is increased, and public trust in the local government system enhanced" (The White Paper on Local Government, 1998).
2 Batho Pele (1998)
Similarly, the White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery (Batho Pele) puts forward eight principles for good public service:
Consultation:
Citizens should be consulted about the level and quality of public service they receive, and, where possible, should be given a choice about the services which are provided.
Service standards:
Citizens should know what standard of service to expect.
Access:
All citizens should have equal access to the services to which they are entitled.
Courtesy:
Citizens should be treated with courtesy and consideration
Information:
Citizens should be given full and accurate information about the public services they are entitled to receive.
Openness and transparency:
Citizens should know how departments are run, how resources are spent, and who is in charge of particular services.
Redress:
If the promised standard of service is not delivered, citizens should be offered an apology, a full explanation and a speedy and effective remedy; and when complaints are made citizens should receive a sympathetic, positive response.
Value-for-money:
Public services should be provided economically and efficiently in order to give citizens the best possible value-for-money.
"Importantly, the Batho Pele White Paper notes that the development of a service-oriented culture requires the active participation of the wider community. Municipalities need constant feedback from service-users if they are to improve their operations. Local partners can be mobilised to assist in building a service culture. For example, local businesses or non-governmental organisations may assist with funding a helpline, providing information about specific services, identifying service gaps or conducting a customer survey" - The White Paper on Local Government (1998).
10.2. 3 The Municipal Systems Act (2000)
The principle requirements of the Municipal Systems Act have already been highlighted. To provide further insights into the requirements of the Act, the different sections of Chapter 6 of the MSA will be summarised:
• Section 38: Requires municipalities to establish a Performance Management System, promote a performance management culture and administer its affairs in an economical, effective, efficient and accountable manner.
• Section 39: Gives Executive Mayor the responsibility for managing the development of a Performance Management System, as well as powers of delegation of responsibilities and the responsibility of submitting the PMS to Council.
• Section 40: Places responsibility on the municipality for the monitoring and review of its PMS.
• Section 41: Outlines the core components to be included in the PMS of the municipality, and refers to KPI’s, targets, measurement mechanisms, steps for improvement and the reporting processes.
• Section 42: Requires the municipality to establish mechanisms and procedures for community involvement in the process, in terms of Chapter 4 of the MSA.
• Section 43: Allows the minister to establish general KPI’s which must be included in the KPI’s of municipalities, to the extent that these general KPI’s are relevant to the municipality.
• Section 44: Requires the municipality to notify stakeholders internally and the general public of its KPI’s and targets.
• Section 45: Requires the municipality to conduct an internal audit of its performance as well as an audit by the auditor general.
• Section 46: Requires the municipality to prepare an annual performance report.
• Section 47: Requires MEC to compile an annual performance report for the municipalities within the province
• Section 48: The Minister has to compile an annual report and submit it to parliament, in terms of the performance of the municipalities in relation to general KPI’s
• Section 49: Allows the Minister to make regulations or issue guidelines for the purpose of Chapter 6 of the MSA
4 Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations (2001)
The Minister responsible for local government published the Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations (2001) in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Section 49) setting out in detail the requirements for a municipal PMS. The Regulations also contain the general Key performance Areas prescribed by the Minister responsible for local government.
Listed as stated underneath
▪ KPA 1: BASIC SERVICE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
▪ KPA 2:LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
▪ KPA 3:TRANSFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
▪ KPA 4:FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT
▪ KPA 5:GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Although not a legislative or policy requirement, the Department of Provincial and Local Government’s Performance Management Guide for Municipalities provides relevant guidelines for the preparation and implementation of Performance Management Systems. The detailed programme will to a great extent be based on these Guides, linked in with the relevant legislative requirements.
10.2.5 Municipal Finance Management Act (2004)
It is also important to note that the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) contains various important provisions related to municipal performance management. It requires municipalities to annually adopt a Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (SDBIP) with service delivery targets and performance indicators. Whilst considering and approving the annual budget the Municipality must also set measurable performance targets for each revenue source and vote. The Municipality must lastly compile an annual report, which must include a performance report compiled in terms of the Systems Act. In terms of circular 13 issued by National Treasury provision is also made for the compilation on an annual basis of departmental SDBIPs.
10.2.6 Performance management and measures at various levels
Performance management can be applied to various levels within any organisation. The legislative framework as set out above provides for performance management at various levels in a municipality including strategic (sometimes also referred to as municipal, organisational or corporate) level, operational (also referred to as services, departmental or section/team) level and lastly, individual level.
At strategic level the five-year IDP of a municipality forms the basis for performance management, whilst at operational level the annual SDBIP forms the basis. The IDP is a long-term plan and by its nature the performance measures associated with it will have a long-term focus, measuring whether a municipality is achieving its IDP objectives. A SDBIP (both for the municipality as a whole and that of a department) is more short-term in nature and the measures set in terms of the SDBIP, reviewing the progress made with implementing the current budget and achieving annual service delivery targets.
The measures set for the Municipality at strategic level is captured in a strategic (municipal/organisational/corporate) scorecard structured in terms of the preferred performance management model of the Municipality. The measures at operational level are to be captured in the SDBIP of the Municipality and the SDBIPs of the various Departments in the Municipality.
By cascading performance measures from strategic to operational level, both the IDP and the SDBIP, forms the link to individual performance management .This ensures that performance management at the various levels relate to one another which is a requirement of the Municipal Planning and Performance Regulations. The MFMA specifically requires that the annual performance agreements of managers must be linked to the SDBIP of a municipality and the measurable performance objectives approved with the budget.
The following diagram indicates the performance management at various levels:
[pic]
10.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
As indicated in the previous chapter the Municipality’s PMS is the primary mechanism to monitor, review and improve the implementation of it’s IDP and to gauge the progress made in achieving the objectives as set out in the IDP. The objectives for any municipal performance management system is guided and regulated by the relevant legislation and policy guidelines. The Planning and Performance Management Regulations informs the objectives to a great extent. The PMS for the Waterberg District Municipality includes the following objectives that the system should fulfill:
1
Meeting IDP Objectives
To ensure that the priorities as contained within the IDP are achieved, by measuring the success of meeting these
Effective Community Participation
The Performance Management System is to ensure that effective community participation is achieved throughout the process.
Financial Accountability
The system should assist in improving the financial accountability of the key office bearers and officials.
2 Facilitate increased accountability
The performance management system should provide a mechanism for ensuring increased accountability between the local community, politicians, the Municipal Council and the municipal management team.
3
4 Facilitate learning and improvement
The PMS should facilitate learning in order to enable the Municipality to improve delivery.
5 Provide early warning signals
It is important that the system ensure decision-makers are timeously informed of performance related risks, so that they can facilitate intervention, if necessary.
6 Facilitate decision-making
The performance management system should provide appropriate management information that will allow efficient, effective and informed decision-making, particularly on the allocation of resources.
The functions listed above are not exhaustive, but summarize the intended benefits of the system. These intended functions should be used to evaluate and review the performance management system on a regular basis.
10.4 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE WATERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPAL PMS
The principles that should govern the Waterberg District Municipal PMS are developed to ensure that the PMS is relevant, especially in attaining its objectives and legislative requirements. The said principles are the following:
Effective- utilization of financial and human resources
Simplicity -so as to facilitate implementation given any current capacity constraints,
Politically Acceptable -To all political role players,
Administratively Managed- in terms of its day-to-day implementation,
Implementable -within any current resource constraints,
Transparency And Accountability- both in terms of developing and implementing the system,
Efficient And Sustainable- in terms of the ongoing implementation and use of the system,
Public Participation- in terms of granting citizens their constitutional right to participate in the process,
Integration- of the PMS with the other management processes within the Municipality,
Objectivity -based on credible information and lastly,
Reliability -of the information provided on the progress in achieving the objectives as set out in its IDP.
10.5 PREFERRED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL
A performance management model can be defined as the grouping together of performance indicators, sometimes based on the type of indicator, into logical categories or groups (often called perspectives), as a means to enhance the ability of an organisation to manage and analyse its performance. As such a model provides a common framework for what aspects of performance is going to be measured and managed. It further ensures that a balanced set of measures are employed that are not relying on only one facet of performance and therefore not presenting a holistic assessment of the performance of an organisation.
A number of performance models are available and any of them could be applied by the Municipality. The available models include the Municipal Scorecard, Balanced Scorecard and the Key Performance Area Model. The Municipality has however chosen its own model known as the Balanced Score Card , which is primarily based on the Key Performance Area Model and relevant to the powers and functions of the municipality. In terms of the said model all indicators are grouped together into the national Key Performance Areas and all the Municipality’s performance scorecards have been structured accordingly.
10.6 THE PROCESS OF MANAGING PERFORMANCE
The annual process of managing performance at strategic level in the Municipality involves the steps as set out in the diagram below:
[pic]
The following table spells out in more detail the role of all relevant role players in each of the above steps:
Stakeholders |Performance Planning | Measurement
and Analysis |Performance Reporting & Reviews | |Citizens and Communities |Be consulted on needs
Develop the long term vision for the area
Influence the identification of priorities
Influence the choice of indicators and setting of targets
| |Be given the opportunity to review municipal performance
and suggest new indicators and targets | |Council |Facilitate the development of a long-term vision.
Develop strategies to achieve vision
Identify priorities
Adopt indicators and set targets
| |Review municipal performance Annually | |Mayoral Committee and the IDP Steering Committee |Play the leading role in giving strategic direction and developing strategies
and policies for the organization
Manage the development of an IDP
Approve and adopt indicators and set targets
Communicate the plan to other stakeholders
| |Conduct the major reviews of municipal performance,
determining where goals had or had not been met, what
the causal reasons were and to adopt response strategies | |Municipal Manager + Senior Managers |Assist the Mayoral Committee in
Providing strategic
direction and developing
strategies and policies for
the organisation
Manage the development of the IDP
Ensure that the plan is integrated
Identify and propose indicators and targets
Communicate the plan to other stakeholders
|Regularly monitor the implementation of the IDP, identifying risks early
Ensure that regular monitoring (measurement, analysis and reporting) is happening in the organisation
Intervene in performance problems on a daily operational basis |Conduct regular reviews of performance
Ensure that performance reviews at the political level are
organized
Ensure the availability of information
Propose response strategies to the Mayoral Committee
| |Senior Managers |Develop service plans for integration with other
sectors within the strategy of the organisation |Measure performance according to agreed indicators, analyse and report regularly
Manage implementation and intervene where necessary
Inform decision-makers of risks to service delivery timeously |Conduct reviews of service performance against plan before
other reviews | |
The balance of this chapter looks at each of the steps in more detail and how they will unfold in the process of managing performance in the Municipality. Although the steps and what follow relates mainly to performance management at strategic level, the principles and approaches as espoused could also be applied to performance management at operational level.
It will be apparent throughout the rest of this chapter that the link between the organizational and employee performance has been provided for as part of the recommendations of the actions to be followed, thus addressing the legal requirement of linking the two.
1. Performance Planning
The performance of the Municipality is to be managed in terms of its IDP and the process of compiling an IDP and the annual review thereof therefore constitutes the process of planning for performance. It should be noted that the last component of the cycle is that of performance review and the outcome of such a review process must inform the next cycle of IDP compilation/review by focusing the planning processes on those areas in which the Municipality has under-performed.
10.6.2 Performance monitoring
Performance monitoring is an ongoing process by which a Manager accountable for a specific indicator as set out in the balanced scorecard (or a service delivery target contained in an annual SDBIP) continuously monitors current performance against targets set. The aim of the monitoring process is to take appropriate and immediate interim (or preliminary) action where the indication is that a target is not going to be met by the time that the formal process of performance measurement, analysis, reporting and review is due.
In the instance of the Waterberg District Municipality it is recommended that the balanced scorecard of the Municipality be reported on a quarterly basis to the Executive Mayor (EM). Performance monitoring requires that in between the said formal cycle of performance measurement appropriate action be taken should it become evident that a specific performance target is not going to be met. It is therefore, proposed that at least on a monthly basis Managers track performance trends against targets for those indicators that lie within the area of accountability of their respective Departments as a means to identify performance related problems and take appropriate remedial action on time.
It will be appropriate for each Senior Manager to delegate to the Assistant Manager/ Any senior official in the department, the responsibility to monitor the performance for his/her sector. Such Assistant Managers/Senior Officials are, after all, best placed given their understanding of their sector to monitor on a regular basis whether targets are being met currently or will be met in future, what the contributing factors are to the level of performance and what interim remedial action needs to be undertaken.
3. Performance measurement
Performance measurement refers to the formal process of collecting and capturing performance data to enable reporting to take place for each key performance indicator and against the target set for such indicator. Given the fact that initially at least the Municipality will have to rely on a manual process to manage its performance provision has been made in the balanced scorecard for the name of an official responsible for reporting on each indicator (please note that this might not necessarily be the same official accountable for performance on an indicator).
The said official will, when performance measurement is due, have to collect and collate the necessary performance data or information and capture the result against the target for the period concerned on the strategic scorecard and report the result to his/her Manager making use of the said scorecard after completing the next step (see performance analysis below). It should be noted at this stage that for each of the scorecards of the Municipality two formats exist namely a planning and reporting format. The planning format is used to plan and capture the performance targets for each indicator whilst the reporting format is used to capture actual performance against targets and to report to the Executive Mayor and Council.
4. Performance analysis
Performance analysis involves the process of making sense out of measurements. It requires interpretation of the measurements as conducted in terms of the previous step to determine whether targets have been met and exceeded and to project whether future targets will be met or not. Where targets have not been met performance analysis requires that the reasons therefore should be examined and corrective action recommended. Where targets have been met or exceeded, the key factors that resulted in such success should be documented and shared so as to ensure organisational learning.
In practice the aforementioned entails that the Senior Manager responsible for each indicator will have to, after capturing the performance data against targets on the strategic scorecard, analyse the underlying reasons why a target has/has not been met and capture a summary of his/her findings on the strategic scorecard. The Manager will thereafter have to compile a draft recommendation in terms of the corrective action proposed in instances where a target has not been achieved and also capture this on the strategic scorecard. Provision has been made on the reporting format of the strategic scorecard to capture both the “reason for the performance status” (in other words the results of the analysis undertaken) and the ”corrective action” proposed.
The strategic scorecard as completed must then be submitted to a formal meeting of the senior management team for further analysis and consideration of the draft recommendations as captured by the relevant Managers. This level of analysis should examine performance across the organisation in terms of all its priorities with the aim to reveal and capture whether any broader organisational factors are limiting the ability to meet any performance targets in addition to those aspects already captured by the relevant Manager.
The analysis of the strategic scorecard by senior management should also ensure that quality performance reports are submitted to Executive Mayor and that adequate response strategies are proposed in cases of poor performance. Only once senior management has considered the strategic scorecard, agreed to the analyses undertaken and captured therein and have reached consensus on the corrective action as proposed, can the strategic (municipal/organizational/ corporate) scorecard be submitted to the Executive Mayor for consideration and review.
10.6.5 Performance reporting and review
The next two steps in the process of performance management namely that of performance reporting and performance review will be dealt with at the same time. This section is further divided into three sections dealing with the requirements for quarterly versus annual reporting and reviews respectively and lastly a summary is provided of the various reporting requirements.
1. In-year performance reporting and review
The submission of the strategic scorecard to the Executive Mayor for consideration and review of the performance of the Municipality as a whole is the next step in the process. The first such report is a major milestone in the implementation of any PMS and it marks the beginning of what should become a regular event namely using the performance report as a tool to review the Municipality’s performance, and subsequently the IDP, and to make important political and management decisions on how to improve.
As indicated earlier it is recommended that the strategic (organisational/corporate/municipal) scorecard be submitted to the Executive Mayor for consideration and review on a quarterly basis. The reporting should therefore take place in October (for the period July to end of September - quarter 1 of the financial year), January (for the period October to the end of December - quarter 2), April (for the period January to the end of March - quarter 3) and July (for the period April to the end of June - quarter 4).
The review in January will coincide with the mid-year performance assessment as per section 72 of the MFMA. The said section determines that the accounting officer must by 25 January of each year assess the performance of the municipality and report to the Council on inter alia its service delivery performance during the first half of the financial year and the service delivery targets and performance indicators as set out in its SDBIP.
Performance reviews is the process where the leadership of an organisation, after the performance of the organisation have been measured and reported to it, reviews the results and decide on appropriate action. The EM in reviewing the strategic (municipal/organisational/corporate) scorecard submitted to her on a quarterly basis will have to ensure that targets committed to in the scorecard have been met, where they have not, that satisfactory and sufficient reasons have been provided by senior management and that the corrective action being proposed is sufficient to address the reasons for poor performance. If satisfied with the corrective action as proposed these must to be adopted as formal resolutions of Council, minuted and actioned accordingly.
10.6.5.2 Annual performance reporting and review
On an annual basis a comprehensive report on the performance of the Municipality also needs to be compiled. The requirements for the compilation, consideration and review of such an annual report are set out in chapter 12 of the MFMA. In summary it requires that:
• All municipalities for each financial year compile an annual report
• The annual report be tabled within seven months after the end of the financial year
• The annual report immediately after it has been tabled be made public and that the local community be invited to submit representations thereon
• The municipal Council consider the annual report within nine months after the end of the financial year and adopt an oversight report containing the council’s comments on the annual report
• The oversight report as adopted be made public
• The annual report as tabled and the Council’s oversight report be forwarded to the Auditor-General, the Provincial Treasury and the department responsible for local government in the Province
• The annual report as tabled and the Council’s oversight report are submitted to the Provincial legislature.
The oversight report to be adopted provides the opportunity for full Council to review the performance of the Municipality. The requirement that the annual report once tabled and the oversight report be made public similarly provides the mechanism for the general public to review the performance of the Municipality. It is however, proposed that in an effort to assist the public in the process and subject to the availability of funding, a user-friendly citizens’ report be produced in addition to the annual report for public consumption. The citizens’ report should be a simple, easily readable and attractive document that translates the annual report for public consumption.
It is also proposed that annually a public campaign be embarked upon to involve the citizens of the Municipality in the review of municipal performance over and above the legal requirements of the Municipal Systems Act and the MFMA. Such a campaign could involve all or any combination of the following methodologies:
• Various forms of media including radio, newspapers and billboards should be used to convey the annual report.
• The public should be invited to submit comments on the annual report via telephone, fax and email.
• Public hearings could be held in a variety of locations to obtain input of the annual report.
• Making use of existing structures such as ward and/or development committees to disseminate the annual report and invite comments.
• Hosting a number of public meetings and road shows at which the annual report could be discussed and input invited.
• Producing a special issue of the municipal newsletter in which the annual report is highlighted and the public invited to comment.
• Posting the annual report on the council website and inviting input
The public review process should be concluded by a formal review of the annual report by the IDP Representative Forum of the Municipality.
Lastly it should be mentioned that the performance report of a municipality is only one element of the annual report and to ensure that the outcome thereof timeously inform the next cycle of performance planning in terms of an IDP compilation/review process, it is recommended that the annual performance report be compiled and completed as soon after the end of a financial year as possible but ideally not later that two months after financial-year end.
10.6.5.3 Summary of various performance reporting requirements
The following table, derived from both the legislative framework for performance management and this PMS framework, summarise for ease of reference and understanding the various reporting deadlines as it applies to the Municipality:
Report |Frequency |Submitted for consideration and/or review to |Remarks | |1. Departmental SDBIPs |Continuous |Manager of Department |See MFMA Circular 13 of National Treasury for further information | |2. Monthly budget statements |Monthly |Executive Mayor in consultation with the MM |See sections 71 and 54 of the MFMA | |3. Departmental scorecards |Monthly |Executive Mayor in consultation with the MM |Only if developed separately from Departmental SDBIPs | |4. Strategic (municipal/organisational/ corporate) Scorecard |Quarterly |Executive Mayor |This PMS framework (see section 7.5.1 above) | |5. SDBIP mid-year budget and performance assessment |Annually during January of each year |Executive Mayor (in consultation with MAYCO ) |See sections 72 and 54 of the MFMA | |6. Performance report |Annually |Council |See section 46 of the Municipal Systems Act as amended. Said report to form part of the annual report (see 7 below) | |7. Annual report |Annually |Council |See chapter 12 of the MFMA | |
10.7 THE AUDITING OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
10.7.1 The role of internal audit in terms of performance management
The MFMA requires that the Municipality must establish an internal audit section which service could be outsourced depending on its resources and specific requirements. Section 45 of the Municipal Systems Act stipulates that the results of the Municipality’s performance measures must be audited by the said internal audit section as part of the internal auditing process and annually by the Auditor-General.
The Municipal Planning and Performance management Regulations stipulates that internal audit section must on a continuous basis audit all performance and the auditing must include an assessment of the following:
i) The functionality of the municipality’s performance management system.
ii) Whether the municipality’s performance management system complies with the Act.
iii) The extent to which the municipality’s performance measurements are reliable in measuring the performance of municipalities by making use of indicators.
Each of the aforementioned aspects will now be looked at briefly.
Functionality
The function could be defined as a proper or expected activity or duty or to perform or operate as expected. This could also be applied to the operation of any system such a PMS. The internal audit section must therefore on a regular basis audit whether the PMS of the Municipality is functioning as developed and described in this framework.
Compliance
To comply can be defined as to act in the way that someone else has commanded. In this respect it is clear that the legislature wishes to ensure that the Municipality’s PMS complies strictly with the requirements of the Systems Act, Regulations and the MFMA. This compliance check would require that the Municipality’s internal audit unit, at least on an annual basis, verifies that the Municipality’s PMS complies with the said legal requirements.
Reliability
To rely could be defined as to trust or depend (upon) with confidence. Reliability in the context of PMS refers to the extent to which any performance measures reported upon could be seen as being reliable, e.g. if the performance target was to build 500 houses and it is reported that the target has been met or exceeded, it must be established whether the information is factually correct or only an estimation or even worse, purposeful misrepresentation. Undertaking a reliability audit will entail the continuous verification of performance measures and targets reported upon. This will require that the Municipality sets in place a proper information management system (electronically or otherwise) so that the internal audit section is able to access information regularly and to verify its correctness.
The Municipality’s internal auditor must submit quarterly reports on the audits undertaken to the Municipal Manager and the Audit Committee.
10.7.2.Audit Committee
The MFMA and the Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations require that the municipal council establish an audit committee consisting of a minimum of three members, where the majority of members are not employees of the municipality. No Councillor may be a member of an audit committee. Council shall also appoint a chairperson who is not an employee.
The Regulations gives municipalities the option to establish a separate performance audit committee whereas the MFMA provides only for a single audit committee. The operation of this audit committee when dealing with performance management is governed by section 14 (2-3) of the Regulations which require that the audit committee must:
• review the quarterly reports submitted to it by the internal audit unit
• review the municipality's PMS and make recommendations in this regard to the Council of the Municipality
• at least twice during a financial year submit an audit report to the municipal Council
In order to fulfill their function a performance audit committee may, according to the MFMA and the Regulations,
• communicate directly with the council, municipal manager or the internal; and external auditors of the municipality concerned;
• access any municipal records containing information that is needed to perform its duties or exercise its powers;
• request any relevant person to attend any of its meetings, and, if necessary, to provide information requested by the committee; and
• investigate any matter it deems necessary for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers.
The Municipality has already established an Audit Committee and it is recommended that their responsibility in terms of performance management be as set out in the MFMA, Regulations and this framework.
10.8 PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATIONS
The Audit Committee should also be able to commission in-depth performance investigations where there is either continued poor performance, a lack of reliability in the information being provided or on a random ad-hoc basis. The performance investigations should assess:
• The reliability of reported information
• The extent of performance gaps from targets
• The reasons for performance gaps
• Corrective action and improvement strategies
While the internal audit section may be used to conduct these investigations, it is preferable that external service providers, preferably academic institutions, who are experts in the area to be audited, should be used. Clear terms of reference will need to be adopted by the Council for each such investigation.
10.9 .GENERAL ISSUES RELATING TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
The following is some general issues related to performance management that needs to be taken into consideration in implementing the PMS of the Municipality:
10.8.1 Annual review of the Performance Management System
As stated earlier, one of the functions of the audit committee is to on at least an annual basis, review the PMS of the Municipality. It is envisaged that after the full cycle of the annual review and reporting is complete and the audit committee has met as required; the internal audit section will compile a comprehensive assessment/review report on whether the Municipality’s PMS meets the system objectives and principles as set out in this framework and whether the system complies with the Systems Act, PMS Regulations and the MFMA. This report then needs to be considered by the audit committee and any recommendations on amendments or improvements to be made to the PMS, submitted to the Council for consideration.
The Municipal Systems Act requires the Municipality also annually evaluate its PMS. The review undertaken by the audit committee and its recommendations could serve as input into this wider municipal review of the PMS and it is proposed that after the full cycle of the annual review is complete; the Municipal Manager will initiate an evaluation report, taking into account the input provided by departments. The report will then be discussed by the Management Team and finally submitted to the Council for discussion and approval.
10.8.2Amendments to key performance indicators and targets
The Municipality will have to adopt a policy on amendments to indicators and targets. It is recommended that such amendments may be proposed but will be subject to the approval of the Executive Mayor in consultation with the Municipal Manager.
10.10.INTEGRATING PMS WITH THE COUNCIL’S EXISTING MANAGEMENT CYCLE
International best practice indicates that PMS stand the best chance to succeed if it is integrated with the current management cycle of the Municipality. The purpose of such a cycle would be to guide the integration of important processes such as the strategic planning or development process in terms of the IDP methodology, the annual budget process and the formal process of evaluating and assessing Council’s performance in terms of the approved PMS and this framework..
11. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The implementation of the PMS in terms of this framework would require co-ordination and it is recommended that at organisational level this be the task of the Manager: Corporate Services supported by the PIMSS Centre through the aid of the PMS Co-ordinator. This is not to say that it would be the said person’s responsibility to measure, analyse and report on performance but only to ensure that this happens and that material is collated and available for analyses and review as per this framework on behalf of the Municipal Manager.
At an individual level the responsibility for co-ordination, administration and record keeping should be the responsibility of the Assistant Manager responsible for human resource management.
The Municipality also needs to ensure that its internal audit section is capacitated to deal with the additional responsibilities it has in terms of performance management over and above its traditional financial audit responsibilities.
10.12 CONCLUSION
In conclusion it must be emphasised that there are no definitive solutions to managing municipal performance. The process of implementing a performance management system must be seen as a learning process, where the Municipality must continuously improve the way the system works to fulfil the objectives of the system and address the emerging challenges from a constantly changing environment.
SECTION F
APPROVAL PHASE
11.1 BACKGROUND
• The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Municipal Systems Act requires council to develop a service delivery plan to address the developmental needs and fulfil its developmental role at local government level.
• The document outlining how council intends to carry out its developmental role during its term of office will be in the form of the Integrated Development Plan, which is reviewed annually.
• Having further adhered to provisions of Sections 27 and 29 of the Systems Act, the IDP review process commenced in August 2006 after the adoption of the IDP review framework and process plan by Council.
• Council has in further compliance with legislation established structures that will ensure that its developmental role is achieved.
• In total two steering committee meetings, one management strategic retreat workshop (Spearheaded by the Municipal Manager), one Executive strategic Workshop (Lead by the Executive Mayor), One strategic retreat workshop for the entire district, District wide IDP/Budget Imbizos, Three session on the NSDP application and Contextualisation, One District Growth and Development Summit, Three representative forums meetings were held to solicit inputs and comments from relevant stakeholders regarding the reviewed IDP as presented.
11.2 DISCUSSION
• Section 34 of the Systems Act requires that a municipal council must review its integrated development plan annually in accordance with its performance measurements.
• The Executive Mayor managed also in terms of section 21 of the MFMA to co-ordinate the process for preparing the annual budget and reviewing the municipality’s IDP with a time schedule outlining key deadlines, and presented same at least 10 months prior to the start of the budget year for adoption by Council. Council adopted the IDP review framework and process plans on the 31 August 2006. Subsequent to that a draft IDP was approved on the 30 April 2007.
• A grace of 21 days was granted to the public to make inputs and forward comments on the draft IDP through print media.
• The inputs from the public from the district Imbizos and personal submissions were collated and presented to the various structures of the IDP in terms of the process plan, including the IDP representative Forum and subsequent to that the District wide strategic workshop for final integration.
• The Mayoral committee recommended the adoption and Council during its seating of the 31 May 2007 approved the reviewed IDP for the financial year 2007/08. [pic][pic][pic]
-----------------------
[1] FEDP was a government advisory body.
[2] For the purposes of this classification and the spatial rationale, settlement is defined to include all types of settlements (e.g. proclaimed towns and rural villages).
[3] Number of Beds refers to usable or functional or active beds per hospital
[4] Population should be those of the resident people within the local municipality and district. Cross reference to the DHIS is crucial and deviations to the data captured on the provincial database will need to be clearly explained. Any major cross boundary flow of patients should be explained in text.
[5] Estimated population per facility type. You may calculate per facility per local municipality if considered more relevant. Fro the District Average row, calculate average across local municipality.
[6] The notion of an institution is distinct from the term organisation (Hassen Mohamed, 1997). According to Bryant and White (1984), institutions are a “valued and persistent set of rules that shape patterns of human behaviour and relationships” while organisations are “groups consciously established to achieve specific purposes through a division of labour”.
[7] Ash Amin, 2006, Regional Policy in a Global Economy, Paper presented at the International Seminar ‘Comparing Regional Development Policies in Brazil and the European Union’, Brasilia, 23 March 2006
-----------------------
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Technical Support Forum
7 MM & 3 DH from Clusters
3DH representing the 3 Clusters
Social Cluster
Constituted by:
HOD-LM , DM
Provincial sector depts. District Heads
Economic Cluster
Constituted by:
HOD-LM, DM
& Provincial sector depts. District Heads
Infrastructure Cluster
Constituted by: HOD-LM , DM & Provincial Sector depts
District Heads
Provincial Level[pic][8]67&(O
t
v
x
y
prstuv
ÛÜáë“•™ ÈÉ:
• Education
• Health and Social Development.
• Sports, Arts and Culture
• Correctional Services
• Safety & Security
• Labour
Municipality
• Mayor’s Office
• Social Services
• Corporate Services
• PIMSS
Provincial Level
• Public Works
• Local Government and Housing
• DWAF
Municipality:
• Technical Services
• PIMSS
Provincial Level:
• Economic Development Environment and Tourism
• Agriculture
• Roads and Transport
Municipality Level
• Planning and Economic Development
• Finance
• PIMSS
COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE MAYOR/MAYORAL COMMITTEE
MUNICIPAL MANAGER/PIMSS CENTRE
REP FORUM
STEERING COMMITTEE
CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE
SOCIAL SERVICES
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEV.
FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES
TECHNICAL SERVICES
PROJECT TASK TEAMS
DISTRICT CLUSTERS
PROVINCIAL PERSPECTIVE: LIMPOPO PROVINCE
WATERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
[pic]
PERFORMANCE CHART
Setting Targets
Measurement
IDP
(5 year)
SDBIP
(Annually)
Workplans
Monthly/quarterly
Performance Management
Responsibility Level
Organisational
Departmental
Team/Individual
Performance Management and measurement in the Waterberg District Municipality
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- overview of starbucks
- starbucks overview of the company
- overview of photosynthesis
- overview of photosynthesis quizlet
- activity overview of photosynthesis
- brief overview of starbucks
- overview of photosynthesis review worksheet
- overview of philosophers beliefs
- overview of photosynthesis 4.2 answers
- overview of photosynthesis worksheet
- brief overview of a meeting
- section 4.2 overview of photosynthesis