Local Government Financial Management Grant, Local Government Restructuring Grant; Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant:
NCOP Finance
10 October 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
FINANCE SELECT COMMITTEE
10 October 2006
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GRANT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING
GRANT; NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP GRANT: FIRST QUARTER PERFORMANCE;
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME
Chairperson: Mr T Ralane (ANC) (Free State)
Documents handed out:
National Treasury presentation on First Quarter
performance of Grants
Development Bank
of South Africa (DBSA) briefing: Sustainable Communities Programme
Neighbourhood
Development Partnership Grant
SUMMARY
The Treasury took the Committee through the first quarter performance of
the Local Government Financial Management Grant, the Local Government
Restructuring Grant and the Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant.
Performance outcomes were council resolutions committing to the reforms and the
conditions of the Grant.
The Local Government Financial Management Grant was being rolled out to every
municipality. With regards to transfers, Treasury had transferred R75 million
to 146 municipalities in July and in September a further R29 million would go
out to 57 municipalities. Treasury was following up on a daily basis trying to
get the remaining municipalities to meet the requirements to get their
disbursements. R41 million still had to be transferred to 80 municipalities.
Delays were due to non-responsiveness by the municipalities to the conditions
attached to the Grants, the non-submission of monthly reports and a lack of
information.
The objective of the Local Government Restructuring Grant was to support large
municipalities with restructuring. The Grant no longer existed for the outer
year of the MTEF, having been included in the Equitable Share. The conditions
attached to the Grant were that the municipality had to develop its own
restructuring plans. With regards to transfers, R445 million had been budgeted
(with R350 million set aside for this year and R95 million had been
rolled-over). Partial payment had been made to Tshwane, Cape Town, Emfuleni and
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality due to low levels of spending and only partial
compliance with conditions.
The Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant was meant to provide
municipalities with assistance to develop appropriate project proposals for
property developments in townships and new residential neighbourhoods that
included the construction or upgrading of community facilities and where
appropriate, attract private sector funding and input. The Grant had a dual
nature in that it funded technical assistance and capital grants.
To date 243 applications had been received from over 60 municipalities with an
aggregate request for R5.1 billion for a variety of projects that cost R47
billion in total. Some emerging issues were that township renewal was not
prioritised across the country and big cities were under-represented or not
represented at all.
The Development Bank of South Africa said that the Sustainable Communities
Programme was brand new and was still being piloted. It was a response to a
challenge by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the DBSA to create South
African examples of sustainable communities. Memoranda of Agreements had been
signed with all the municipalities except for Diepsloot. In Grabouw, the
service providers for comprehensive planning had been selected and DBSA funding
had already been committed for the Phalaborwa project.
MINUTES
The Chairperson said that the Department of Provincial and Local Government
was supposed to address the Committee but its presentation contained incomplete
information on the Municipal Infrastructure Grant. The Department would appear
before the Committee when they were ready.
Local Government Financial Management Grant briefing
Mr TV Pillay, the Treasury’s Chief Director of Local Government, said that
the objectives of the Local Government Financial Management Grant were to
provide for the preparation and implementation of the multi-year budgets for
municipalities, the implementation of accounting reforms and improvements in
internal and external reporting.
Performance outcomes were council resolutions committing to the reforms and the
conditions of the Grant. These appeared in the Division of Revenue Act (DORA)
framework and schedules as well as the allocations for the Grant. The priority
areas of the implementation were the preparation of the requisite plans and the
allocation of responsibility was a big issue especially during the roll-out of
the Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA). Not all municipalities had
delegated responsibilities to certain senior officials. Municipalities also had
to implement and approve the service delivery and budget implementation plans,
as well as establish senior management teams and steering committees.
From a strategic perspective, this ensured appropriate implementation
throughout the organisation. Some of the priorities were to bring Chief
Financial Officers (CFOs) and other officials in the planning, engineering and
infrastructure divisions into the steering committees.
Municipalities also had to meet financial commitments on a timely basis and
prepare for the quarterly section 71 (of the MFMA) reports on revenue and
expenditure. This was one of the key initiatives of the MFMA. There also had to
be the implementation and establishment of supply chain management systems and
policies as well as reporting on entities, finalising financial statements and
building capacity through graduate internship programmes.
With regards to transfers, Treasury had transferred R75 million to 146
municipalities in July. This Grant was being rolled out to every municipality,
and in September a further R29 million to 57 municipalities. The reason for the
staggered payments was that there were three conditions attached to the
allocation: a council resolution, a commitment and an implementation plan. 146
municipalities met these conditions easily but the others did not meet all of
the requirements.
Treasury was following up on a daily basis trying to get the remaining
municipalities to meet the requirements to get their disbursements. R41 million
still had to be transferred to 80 municipalities. Delays were due to
non-responsiveness by the municipalities to the conditions attached to the
Grants, the non-submission of monthly reports and a lack of information.
In terms of expenditure, the Eastern Cape, Limpopo, Kwa-Zulu Natal, the
Northern Cape and the Western Cape all had spending of less than 40%. The
reporting at September showed slow spending in 24 municipalities, non-reporting
in 56 with 203 being compliant with their reporting arrangements. Over the last
two or three months, more municipalities had become compliant.
Treasury was also conducting workshops for the training of councillors and
officials in the municipalities to help them understand the MFMA better. A
six-module DVD had been developed and a workshop had already been held this
last quarter and 30 people attended it. There were nine capacity building
sessions with Provincial Treasuries, which 175 people attended. Joint workshops
were also held with the Department of Local Government. A roving advisor had
been attached to the Eastern Cape about three weeks previously, joining other
roving advisors in the North West, Mpumalanga and the Free State.
Other presentations were made in capacity building workshops with donors and to
the Debt Issuers Association on the MFMA to encourage them to lend to
municipalities that were in a position to borrow money. Presentations were also
made to the Department of Water Affairs and the Water Boards on the pricing
processes.
Treasury was also working on a number of regulations, guides and projects
including the Draft Regulations on Competencies that dealt with section 83 of
the MFMA and it would be published soon for public comment. These regulations
had a phase-in period of five years. The regulations on Debt Disclosure were
also largely complete and would soon be published for public comment as well.
Treasury had assisted three municipalities in obtaining credit ratings while
looking at promoting reforms in some municipalities. There were capital
investment planning projects in Mangaung, Tshwane and Polokwane.
Work-in-progress included the asset transfer framework for municipalities in
terms of section 14 of the MFMA and four guiding circulars were issued on the
refinements made to the implementation priorities.
Local Government Restructuring Grant briefing
The objective of the Restructuring Grant was to support large
municipalities with restructuring. The Grant no longer existed for the outer
year of the MTEF having been included in the Equitable Share. The conditions
attached to the Grant were that the municipality had to develop its own
restructuring plans; finalise all the contractual obligations on the plans;
adopt a resolution committing to the implementation of the plans and to show
progress in quarterly reports. Transfers would depend on the progressive
implementation and achievement of agreed milestones. All Grant agreements would
continue until 2008.
Some of the indicators were institutional and organisational such an optimal
staff complement, economic development including innovative programmes and
financial, including credit ratings, debt and revenue ratios and infrastructure
levels.
With regards to transfers, R445 million had been budgeted (with R350 million
set aside for this year and R95 million had been rolled-over). Partial payment
had been made to Tshwane, Cape Town, Emfuleni and Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipality due to low levels of spending and only partial compliance with
conditions. Treasury had transferred R160 million for the quarter (July –
September 2006).
Measures instituted by the Treasury included getting feedback on the evaluation
of performance on a quarterly basis. Visits had been made to Tshwane, Cape
Town, Emfuleni and Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and addressed issues
relating to the Grant’s conditions, low levels of spending and the
non-compliance with reporting requirements. There were improvements in the submission
of, the quality and content of reports. The municipalities had to confirm their
commitment and were given notice of Treasury’s intention to withhold
allocations. Treasury continued to follow up on outstanding matters during this
quarter.
Discussion
The Chairperson asked how much it cost Treasury to follow up daily on
the municipalities. The Committee also wanted a list of all the non-performing
municipalities to call them in to explain themselves. The Committee also wanted
to monitor those municipalities that paid performance bonuses to undeserving
individuals. Provincial Treasuries had to be called in to find out what the
extent of their interaction with the section 71 reports was.
Mr Pillay said that list of slow spenders and non-performing municipalities
would be provided to the Committee by the end of the month after giving them
another opportunity to respond to Treasury's requests.
Mr E Sogoni (ANC) (Gauteng) said that the MFMA was going to be phased in over
time depending on the ability of municipalities to comply with its regulations.
At what stage was the whole process now? There were many capacity problems in
municipalities. In those areas without CFOs, how did the Treasury ensure that
the requirements of the Grants were met? Reporting on entities in
municipalities was poor. Had the municipalities supplied the Treasury with a
list of entities in their areas and if they complied with the reporting
arrangements? How far had the training of councillors proceeded?
Mr Pillay said that the first year broad implementation schedule identified 50
high, 107 medium and 127 low capacity municipalities. The Minister issued
regulations to the effect that certain sections of the MFMA were phased in.
However, all municipalities had to comply with section 71. They had had
meetings with Provincial Treasuries asking them to collect the information from
their municipalities and publishing it. The high and medium capacity
municipalities were well under way in implementing the entire MFMA and the low
capacity ones would come ‘’on-stream” in the coming year.
He said that their initial research showed that there were 84 – 87 municipal
entities. This number was down to 83. Using the relevant sections of the MFMA,
information was gathered from the municipalities on the type of entities in
their areas; their main functions; their date of establishment; the form of
their ownership; whether feasibility studies were carried out; the extent of
the entities’ annual budgets and their funding sources.
What Treasury did not do (which they should have) was to map the primary bank
account of the entities with the municipality for verification purposes. This
was happening now to look at what extent the entities were in line with the
MFMA. Gaps existed in determining funding sources but Treasury was insisting on
getting signatures of municipal managers next to the list so that it could be
published and verified. The Auditor-General (AG) was also aware of these
developments. It was interesting that a number of these entities were being
deregistered. They wanted to get the list completed within two weeks and then
published on the Treasury website.
With regards to training, a training guide for the councillors was issued via
the municipal managers’ office and each councillor had to sign for a guide.
Part 11 of the guide dealt specifically with which report councillors had to
use in their oversight, what audits were and why the Auditor General's report
was important, amongst other things. Another part dealt with staff performance
bonuses. This was just one part of the guide, which was comprehensive.
The danger with training however was that some service providers were providing
substandard training. Therefore, Treasury was validating all of the training
material. They were registering two of the level six training modules and
registering another six with Wits University Business School.
The Chairperson added that it seemed as though there was support among the
Members for the retention of the Restructuring Grant in its current form. It
should be monitored this year and next year to make sure that the requirements
and the indicators were met before moving it to the Equitable Share.
Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (NDPG) briefing
Ms Li Pernegger, the Treasury’s Chief Director for the Neighbourhood
Development Project, said that according to DORA, the Neighbourhood Development
Partnership Grant was meant to provide municipalities with assistance to
develop appropriate project proposals for property developments in townships and
new residential neighbourhoods that included the construction or upgrading of
community facilities and where appropriate, attract private sector funding and
input.
The Grant was to fund township projects that provided community infrastructure
and create a platform for commercial investment that supported project
partnerships that improved quality of life and facilitated private sector
investment, facilitated the mobilisation of ‘’dead capital’ in residential
stock and enabled ongoing economic development.
The Grant had a dual nature in that it funded technical assistance and capital
grants. In the first year R50 million was set aside, R950 million in the second
year and R1.5 billion in the third year. The aim was for the Grant to be in
synergy with other grants and had local government focus with no duplication.
The unit was established in July and operated with mainly outsourced staff.
To date 243 applications had been received from over 60 municipalities with an
aggregate request for R5.1 billion for a variety of projects that cost R47
billion in total. Multi-purpose Community Centres (MPCCs) and precinct
development formed 66% of the bids by value. Non-eligible applications formed
21% of the bids and others were for various community facilities.
Some of the high-level observations were that some of the applications
demonstrated visionary ‘big bang’ and ambitious township redevelopment. There
were many sports and community facilities projects and many were related to
broader development strategic aims of the local governments’ own infrastructure
development programmes. Private sector interest was also emerging especially in
the bigger townships.
Other observations were that some applications were not compliant due to a lack
of alignment with NDPG goals, no council resolutions or they were not related
to township development. Other emerging issues were that township renewal was
not prioritised across the country and big cities were under-represented or not
represented at all. There were many applications for former ‘white’ nodes on
the basis of changed demography. Project management capacity in local
government areas was also poor.
A shortlist of the best 35 projects was adopted in principle by the Treasury
NDPG Reference Group and further verification, budget adjustments and
allocations and conditions was underway for those 35 projects.
Development Bank of South Africa on Sustainable Communities Programme
Mr Gwede Mantashe, the DBSA Executive Manager of Strategic Initiatives,
said that the programme was brand new and was still being piloted. It was a
response to a challenge by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the DBSA to
create South African examples of sustainable communities including aspects like
social, environmental and economic sustainability while meeting fundamental
human needs.
Sustainability principles dealt with the sense of justice, limits, place,
history, craft and nature. The six projects were Ba-Phalaborwa in Phalaborwa;
Thaba Cheuw in Mpumalanga; Diepsloot in Gauteng; Ngangelizwe and Motherwell in
the Eastern Cape and Grabouw in the Western Cape.
Memoranda of Agreements had been signed with all the municipalities except for
Diepsloot. In Grabouw, the service providers for comprehensive planning had
been selected and DBSA funding had already been committed for the Phalaborwa
project. They were also finalising partnership agreements with some private
sector companies. This helped to secure markets and opportunities with reduced
risk. There would be risk-sharing and co-funding as well as community ownership
and broad-based beneficiaries. These would be job creation and labour intensive
projects.
Mr X Ndungane, the DBSA Project Manager, then described what was happening in
the Phalaborwa project which could be used as a template for application to
other areas if it succeeded. He said that there were two main problems that
made it hard to improve service delivery in the area. Firstly, there were large
distances between areas and the town was growing outwards due to the fact that
the land in the middle was tribal land and no-one wanted to deal with this
issue.
They had identified that planning was poor in the municipality so the first
project dealt with improving the planning capacity and the second project was
to develop the town. The third project was one with Unilever which began about
seven months ago. They had reached an agreement where community-owned shops and
distribution facilities would be developed.
Discussion
Mr Z Kolweni (ANC) (North West) said that the NDPG sounded very good but
how would rural areas be developed without accelerating migration to the urban
areas and was there not a danger of the development gap between the urban and
rural areas widening?
Ms Pernegger replied that they very aware of the tension between rural and
urban development. The bias towards urban development in the NDPG was because
most beneficiaries were in urban areas. However, there were a few rural
development projects included in those top 35 projects.
The Chairperson asked how much of this year’s R50 million allocation had been
spent. What was the duration of the Grant and were they planning to pilot any
projects? If they were going to simply start the projects without piloting any
of the projects, how were they going to deal with the problem of the lack of
capacity in municipalities? How were the DBSA and the Treasury going to make
sure that there was no duplication in the implementation of the Grants they
administered?
Ms Pernegger replied that they had set aside R80 million for technical assistance
so they had actually overspent their budget. There would have to be an internal
discussion in the Treasury to decide how to deal with this. This Grant was not
going to be a short-running one. It was meant to last for quite a long time.
They were not going to pilot any projects as there was a “lot of substance”
within them already. Capacity problems within municipalities were acknowledged
but they were fortunate in that the technical assistance fund could fund
project management for the duration of the project.
The objective of the NDPG was not to duplicate the work of any other grant but
there had to be some co-operation with other agencies. They had discussions
with the DBSA as some of their projects were in that top 35 and they were
looking at ways to fund some of the DBSA’s projects. Therefore there was a
solidifying working relationship between them.
Mr Sogoni asked why the DBSA did not sign a memorandum of agreement with
Gauteng.
Mr Mantashe replied that for some reason it was “just hard to deal with
Johannesburg.” He said that if it was up to him, he would have removed it out
of the pilot projects but all of the sites had been identified when he took
office.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.