Alfred Nzo Municipality Housing Projects: Status Report

Meeting report

Alfred Nzo District Municipality Housing presentation
Mr Gordon Mpumza (Executive Mayor: Alfred Nzo District Municipality) explained that there were the Mount Frere, Mount Ayliff, Matatiele 500 and the Matatiele 306 Housing Projects. The Emergency Housing project was divided into Rural Project 500 and Temporal Housing. The municipality had been given R3.2 million for housing construction for the Emergency Housing project. Thirty five of the 50 pilot houses had been completed. In the Matatiele Housing Projects people were still living in temporary structures. In Mount Frere housing was not complete and contractors had been appointed to rectify houses, however this had not happened yet.

Ms Olona Njotini (Senior Regional Manager: Housing, East London) gave an account of the Matatiele 500 housing project saying that Sidomo Trust had been appointed to install services. However, the municipality was refusing to pay the Trust as they had abandoned site. The servicing was 90% complete. The provincial department was waiting for the municipality to submit an application to build new houses, so that the provincial department could approve it and place it on a subsidy. The provincial department was attempting to facilitate a meeting between the municipality and Sidumo Trust in order to rectify the situation. They had come to an agreement with the municipality whereby they would submit an application for new houses; they would pay outstanding debt and then cancel the contract with Sidumo Trust.

Matatiela 306 was complete. The department had visited the appointed contractors to find out if there was any wrongdoing on the part of the contractors. It was discovered that they had followed the plans, but that there was an issue with the appointed service provider to install services. The municipality had appointed the service provider and the provincial department had instructed then to find out what was the problem. The provincial department had not been informed of any developments in the matter. However people had moved into the houses. The only problem was to do with the storm water drainage and side drains. The municipality had attempted to contact the contractor that had installed the drains but thus far had not been successful. Before the issue could be rectified, there had to be an attempt at obtaining the records from the contractor.

The National Housing Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) had not played a major role in the project as the Committee had requested.

The Emergency Houses project was currently at the stage where the municipality had been given R3.3 million to build a hundred units. After the first hundred units had been built, the municipality was to come back for further funding. Of the first hundred, 34 units had been built. The main problem was that only one contractor had been appointed and this contributed to the delay. The provincial department thought that several contractors would be appointed to complete the project quickly. The provincial department was hoping that at the end of the financial year the rest of the houses would have been completed. Another problem was the delivery and supply of materials to these areas. It was agreed that bulk materials would be stored in zone centres. The supply of water was also a problem but the Alfred Nzo municipality had committed to supplying water to the sites. This project was a migration into the temporary structure project for those waiting for their houses to be built. If everything went smoothly those people would have their houses by mid-year.

Discussion
Mr D Mabena (ANC) was unconvinced that the people would be in houses by the middle of 2008.

Ms Nandipha Sishuba (Head of Department: Housing EL) agreed with the Committee that there had been inertia in dealing with those people who were living in tents. There was a delay in ensuring that the planning and building of houses were done timeously. However, the provincial department had then intervened and allowed a limited bidding process. The first bidding process resulted in no qualifying tenders. Only the Alfred Nzo received tenders that met the qualifying requirements. Tenders then had to be resubmitted. They had now engaged a company based in Kwazulu-Natal that would be building the temporary houses and showcasing these temporary houses. A social facilitator had been appointed and it was felt that communication should be institutionalised.

Mr Mabena referred to the Matatiele 306 project and asked if the contractor would be paid even though the services were installed incorrectly.

Ms Sisuba replied that they were referring to the Matatiele 500 project where there were only services and no houses.

Mr Mabena emphasised that houses in Matatiele had to be rectified.

Mr Mabena then referred to the Mount Frere and Ayliff projects that had appointed a land surveyor that found that the houses were situated incorrectly. He asked what was going to be done about this. 

Mayor Mpumza replied that in Mount Ayliff the matter had been rectified, however in Mount Frere the situation had not changed.

Mr Gawa wanted to know why only one contractor was appointed for the Emergency Houses project. He asked for clarity about the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

Ms Sishuba replied that there was interaction with the National Department because provincially and nationally there was a backlog. They had put together a working committee to address the question of EIAs. There was a new head of department in the province that had committed to unblock the projects, once he had received the list of EIA projects in the province.

Mr Sikhumbuza Yoka (Techinican: OR Tambo/Alfred Nzo District Municpality: Housing, East London) commented that the EIAs had been done on both the Mount Frere and Ayliff projects. However, because of the blockages, the approvals had since expired. They had appointed a consultant to get the process moving. In regard to the services, the municipalities had changed the sanitation from on site to water-borne that was a fully flush system. The on site design was suited for on site and not a fully flush system and now that had to be corrected.

Mr Vusi Rapiya (Project Manager: Housing Department) clarified that a full EIA would not be done but rather an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which he thought would be done by the end of February.

Mr Gawa remarked that the recommendations were as problematic as the challenges. The most prioritised recommendation should be the improvement of communication between the Department and the municipality.

Mr Mabena agreed that he was concerned about the lack of communication between the Department and the Mayor.

Ms Ngele commented that the Department was not working with the Mayor as he was uninformed of the decisions that had been made.

Ms Sishuba replied that she would take responsibility for the lack of communication. There has been a gap in a formal report between the MEC and the Mayor. She thought that communications should be done formally.

Mr Rapiya added with reference to communication that municipal officials had been present at all the meetings. It would be their responsibility to report directly to the Mayor and provide updates. It seemed as if the officials were not doing this.

Mayor Mpumza commented on the issue of communication, saying that he was in constant contact with the other mayors involved with Thubelisha contractors. There was a meeting with the MEC and it was agreed that while there was an investigation about the Mount Frere and Ayliff projects, the building of housing had to continue. The MEC was frustrated. He was told that the contract of the provincial department official managing the Emergency Houses project, had not been extended. He had a problem with the new project manager as although the project was in Mount Ayliff, the project manager did not reside in the area. In his opinion that was disastrous. He felt that the project manager should be able to manage the project daily. He was aware of the meetings that had taken place, however, he was of the view that there had been no movement. Their objective was to construct houses. He was interested in the department stating that the issue of Matatiele had been addressed. He disagreed with this, saying that those houses could not be accessed. The key issue was that services were not provided for those houses. He was not convinced that there was progress. He did not know that a land surveyor found problems with the houses in Mount Frere. There were no sanitation services. He added that if progress were not made speedily, other problems would arise.

The Chairperson asked where the project manager was based.

Mayor Mpumza replied that he was told that the project manager resided in East London.

The Chairperson commented that when the Committee was there on an oversight visit in 2002, this issue had been raised. The Committee was told that it would be rectified. She was concerned that the problem had resurfaced.

Ms Sishuba clarified the situation. The provincial department had appointed project managers through a procurement process. They were deployed and coordinated by a consultant at department level. Those contracts had then expired which caused the provincial department to begin the procurement process again. Some managers were then rehired, others not. At present there was a performance audit commissioned by the provincial department to do an assessment of the work done by the project managers. Provincial treasury would be assisting. Support from the municipality level had been lacking and that caused the provincial department to put in place a service delivery model. There was the problem of too few project managers. Site supervisors were being appointed to ensure that there would be someone on site constantly overseeing the project. 

The Chairperson stressed that having project managers on site was critical to the successful completion of the project.

Ms Sishuba agreed with the Chairperson. She added that for each of the district municipalities, offices had been created that were there to serve as service delivery points. From those offices project managers and site inspectors were deployed. Site supervisors, however, were on site all the time and they were qualified to correctly oversee the project. The issue of proximity was important. A parallel process was capacity assessment to ascertain where the capacity gaps were and to fill those gaps. A proper project implementation plan would have to be created in order to ensure that progress was monitored correctly. She asked that the provincial department be given the opportunity to correctly implement the project implementation plan.

The Chairperson raised her concern with the contractors that were missing from sites. She wanted to know what mechanisms was being put in place to address this scenario.

Mr Philip Chauke (Chief Director: National Department of Housing) replied that the contractors had made a commitment to be physically there and after this meeting he would follow up to ensure that they were there. He was under the impression that the contractor was supposed to provide typically required expertise. He was not aware that they were to physically open up an office. He added that he would find out all this information and advise accordingly. The National Department did not want to overstretch the limited resources. Every stakeholder had to take responsibility in the project. A common thread was limited commitment from all involved parties. There should be a model that states that all capacities should be deployed. He committed to meeting with the local and provincial counterparts to align all decisions and ensure progress with the housing projects.

The Chairperson was happy that the provincial department was aware of the situation even though it was challenging. Furthermore timeframes should also be instituted. She advised that there should be engagement with the municipality to ensure that there was a project manager in the interim. She was not convinced that there was a plan.

Ms Sishuba agreed that all the activities would be aligned in the project implementation plan which included timeframes. She suggested that the provincial department working with the affected district municipalities, supported by the National Department, could finalise the project implementation plan. She asked that perhaps the Committee allow two weeks to finalise the project implementation plan. The plan would be sent to the Committee for review.

The Chairperson agreed to this suggestion. She added that the Department should not wait for the Committee to comment but should begin working the moment the project implementation plan was completed.

In closing, the Chairperson commented that since the Head of Department, Ms Sishuba and her team were new and were proposing possible solutions perhaps they should be allowed to do their job. There seemed to be level of preparedness. She added that perhaps emergency toilets and floodlights should be installed in those areas that required this.

The Mayor commented that he appreciated the idea of a project implementation plan and this Committee meeting had helped close the communication gaps that had occurred.

The Chairperson then adjourned the meeting