Questions and Replies

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

a) (i)(ii)(iii)

The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs does not own any land

b) (i)(ii)(iii)

The Department is still awaiting a response from entities reporting to me.

Reply:

The following response was provided by the Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality:

(1) (a) (i)(ii)

The municipality budgets for the maintenance and repair of (i) roads and (ii) storm-water infrastructure covering all wards. It doesn’t budget ward-wise.

The municipality budgeted a total amount of R 9 000,00 thousand for the past five years from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The year-wise budget amounts are detailed below in thousand Rand:

Roads and storm-water maintenance budget for 2012-2017 period

2012/13 (000 )	2013/14 (000 )	2014/15 (000 )	2015/16 (000 )	2016/17 (000 )	TOTAL (000 )
1 100,00	2 400,00	1 900,00	1 400,00	2 200,00	9 000,00

(1) (b)(i)(ii)

According to the municipality, it spent a total amount of R 2 500,00 thousand for the past five years from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The year-wise expenditure amounts are detailed below in thousand Rand:

Expenditure for roads and storm-water during 2012-2017 period

2012/13 (000 )	2013/14 (000 )	2014/15 (000 )	2015/16 (000 )	2016/17 (000 )	TOTAL (000 )
450,00	600,00	550,00	600,00	300,00	2 500,00

(2) According to the municipality, it allocated a total budget of R 1 800,00 thousand for the 2017-2018 financial year for maintenance and repair of roads and storm-water.

Reply:

The response from Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality is narrated underneath:

The Municipality appointed consultants to investigate the bridges. They had submitted the report to the Municipality. The answers are based on the report and Municipal comments.

(a) Central Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(b) Van Riebeeck Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(c) 4th Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(d) 1st Avenue in Edenvale

This was the only bridge that was closed as the visual inspection indicated damage to the deck overlay. It is a small bridge constructed with culverts, which is the reason for closing the bridge until it could be certified as stable/ safe by specialist consultant. However, the bridge was opened for traffic after getting certification from the consultant.

(i) The appointed consultant assessed the stability and safety of the mentioned bridges for any movement/ displacement that could have taken place. They checked the stability of the abutments, floor slabs, approach roads and discharge/ downstream apron slabs. They also checked the extent of the erosion of the embankments and any movement/ damage to the decks/ overlays.

(ii) The consultant’s finding confirmed that all the bridges were structurally stable. They recommended that the upstream and downstream embankments require extensive rehabilitation due to the erosion and/ or flood damage to the areas around the wing walls.

(iii) The estimated costs for the remedial measure or to rehabilitate the bridges are as bellow:

(a) Central Avenue bridge: R 63 000 000.00 (it may vary depending on which design option is acceptable to the Consultants and Department of Water and Sanitation)

(b) Van Riebeeck Avenue bridge : R 300 000.00

(c)4th Avenue bridge/canal: R 5 600 000.00

(d) 1st Avenue bridge: R 800 000.00

(iv) The process has already been started. In order to execute the remedial measures designed by Specialist Consultants, approval from GDARD and Department of Water and Sanitation is required. These approvals and authorization requests have been submitted and approval is awaited.

(aa) Yes it does. The process has already been started. The municipality is awaiting the approvals and authorization of the design requests have been submitted and approval is awaited form GDARD and Department of Water and Sanitation.

(bb) All the bridges have been declared stable and have been open for traffic for quite some time now.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

(i) According to the records at the disposal of the Department, we only received documentation in respect of interventions in Kannaland and eDumbe local Municipalities in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, respectively.

(ii) The dates on which the documentation was received were 10 February 2017 and 23 May 2017 for Kannaland Local Municipality, and 30 August 2017 for eDumbe Local Municipality.

(iii) The nature of the financial problem at Kannaland Local Municipality was that the audit finding from the Auditor General for the financial year ending in June 2016 indicated that the municipality received an adverse finding, and that subsequent facts had confirmed that the municipality was experiencing a serious financial crisis which resulted in it being unable to meet its financial obligations. Regarding eDumbe Local Municipality, the nature of the financial problem was that the municipality’s cash flow situation had seriously deteriorated to the extent that there were insufficient funds to pay for critical operational expenditure.

(iv) From the documentation submitted by the Western Cape Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Honourable Mr Anton Bredell, the initial step taken was the resolution by the Provincial Executive adopted on 07 December 2016 to request the Provincial Treasury to prepare an appropriate financial recovery plan for the Kannaland Local Municipality. In addition, his Department and the Provincial Treasury were requested by the Provincial Executive to develop and implement a targeted support package to address the needs of the municipality. Several subsequent steps have since been taken by the Provincial Executive to assist the municipality to overcome its shortcomings, and these include the preparation, finalization and adoption of the municipality’s financial recovery plan which is currently being implemented, as well as the Financial Management Grant funded by the Provincial Treasury.

From the documentation submitted by the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Honourable Ms Nomusa Dube-Ncube, the step taken was the resolution by the Provincial Executive adopted on 19 July 2017 to intervene at eDumbe Local Municipality in terms of section 136(2) of the MFMA, read with section 139(1) of the Constitution, and to authorize the MEC to appoint a suitably qualified Financial Administrator to draft and implement a recovery plan in the municipality. Another step taken by the Provincial Executive was to issue a directive in terms of section 139(1)(a) of the Constitution to the Municipal Council to authorize the Financial Administrator to, among others, take all decisions in relation to the finances of the municipality and to report monthly thereon to it and the MEC.

Reply:

The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) did not refuse to provide R500 million funding request from the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality to mitigate the impact of the disaster as a result of drought. The NDMC in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, mainly Western Cape Provincial Disaster Management Centre and the Department of Water and Sanitation conducted disaster assessments in the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality to determine the drought projects to be funded within the disaster grants. It is important to indicate that the disaster grants are conditional and allocated in line with the grant frameworks and the Division of Revenue Act (Act No. 3 of 2017). The NDMC only funded projects that fell within the grant frameworks conditions. The Western Cape Provincial Disaster Management Centre and the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality were advised to refer other projects that are not in line with the conditions for the disaster grants to other existing programmes within government.

Additionally, the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality made a presentation to the NDMC where they indicated that they have reprioritized funds within their internal resources to address the drought conditions. Therefore, the funding request for the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality was granted based on the projects that complied with the grant framework conditions

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the Department. The Department has, however, since engaged the municipality in question to provide this information and therefore will submit to you as soon as it becomes available.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has, however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to obtain the relevant information from the municipalities. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has, however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to obtain the relevant information from the municipalities. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.

Reply:

The below response is based on the information provided by the Municipal Demarcation Board:

1. No.

2. The Municipal Demarcation Board conducted “formal investigations” in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998 on all the cases, which included the consideration of the capacity of municipalities.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has, however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to obtain the relevant information from the municipalities. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.

Reply:

The Department of Cooperative Governance (DCOG) established a multi-sectoral structure that coordinates the drought and water scarcity situation in the country. The National Joint Drought Coordination Committee (NJDCC) is operational and responsible for the coordination of drought and water scarcity conditions, response and intervention measures. The committee is made up of the following key stakeholders:

• • Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA),
  • Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF),
  • Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS),
  • Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR),
  • Department of Health (DOH),
  • Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA),
  • Department of Labour (DOL),
  • Department of Transport (DOT),
  • South African National Defense Force (SANDF)
  • Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) and
  • South African Weather Service (SAWS)
  • Provincial Disaster Management Centres

Additional to the NJDCC, the Provincial Intervention Task Teams (PITT), which comprise relevant organs of state within the three spheres of government, were established to directly engage and consult provinces and municipalities to interrogate their mitigation and response plans and also mobilise resources in line with each organ of state’s mandate. The Western Cape Province was visited and engaged to mobilise resources to address the drought and water scarcity situation. It is important to indicate that the Provincial Disaster Management Centers participates in the NJDCC to ensure proper coordination within sector departments, support to the municipalities and provide progress reports on the situation.

The NJDCC reports to the Inter-Ministerial Task Team (IMTT), led by the Minister of Cooperative Governance, Mr Des Van Rooyen, on drought and water scarcity conditions for political oversight and guidance response and recovery measures within the country. The department further coordinates and ensure integration through the MINMEC structure.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has, however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to obtain the relevant information from the municipalities. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.

Reply:

The below response is based on a report submitted to the :National Department of Cooperative Governance ("Department") by the Mopani District Municipality in the Limpopo Province.

(1) (i) Yes, the Kampersrus bulk water supply and Kampersrus sewer plant projects in the Mopani District Municipality in Limpopo Province were put out to tender.

(ii) Yes, the two projects above were advertised.

(aa) Kampersrus bulk water supply project was advertised on:

• Phase 1: 18 August 201 O;

• Phase 2: 20 August 2012; and

• Phase 3: 27 February 2015.

Kampersrus sewerage plant project was advertised on;

• 20 May 2013.

(bb) Outcome of the Kampersrus bulk water supply and Kampersrus sewer plant projects were as follows:

(i) Kampersrus bulk water supply project:

• Phase 1: Melrose Civil & Building Construction were appointed as contractors for this phase of the project;

• Phase 2: H&E Construction was appointed as contractor for this phase of the project; and

• Phase 3: Makasana Construction was appointed as contractor for this phase of the project.

Kampersrus sewerage plant project:

• Dala Mintirho JV appointed as contractors for the project (ii) Details of each project plans are as follows:

Kampersrus bulk water supply project:

• Phase 1: Construction of (a) 5,8 km of 160 mm diameter PVC line (b) 15 km of 110 mm diameter uPVC line. (c) 2Ml/day Water Treatment Package Plant (d) Booster Pump Station;

• Phase 2: Construction of (a) 650m of 160mm uPVC class 16 pipeline. (b) 2400m of 160mm class 12 pipeline (c) 3400m of 150mm K9 Ductile Iron Pipe (d) Pump installations at pump house. (e) 0,56 ML Pressed Steel Tank;

and

• Phase 3: Construction of (a) 8,3 km of 110 mm uPVC pipe (b) 1,2 km of 160mm uPVC pipe (c) 2 x 0,56 ML c/w pressed steel tanks (d) clear water pump station (e) installation of relocated package.

Kampersrus sewerage plant project:

• Construction of (a) one biological reactor, two settling tanks, one inlet and two pump stations, one RAS pump station, sludge drying beds, chlorine dosing room, maturation ponds, electrical and mechanical works.

(2) Status of the Kampersrus bulk water supply and Kampersrus sewerage plant projects:

(a) The Kampersrus bulk water supply has a water treatment plant capacity of two megaliters per day (2 Ml/day) and bulk lines, while the Kampersrus sewerage plant has a capacity of two megaliters per day (2 Ml/day).

(b) Status of the Kampersrus bulk water supply project: Bulk lines and Water Treatment works have been completed, however, the municipality is still awaiting the connection to the raw water abstraction point. The physical progress is currently at 98%; and

Status of the Kampersrus sewerage plant: The waste water treatment works have been completed and is awaiting upgrading of the transformer and electricity connection by Eskom. The physical progress is currently at 98%.

(c) Yes, public participation were followed in each case.

(d) Cost implications of each project:

Kampersrus bulk water supply project:
• Phase 1: R 6,318, 196.35;

• Phase 2: R 8,741,431.65;

• Phase 3: R14,365,674.28; and

Kampersrus sewerage plant project:

• R38, 749,585.14


Find here: Recommendation

Reply:

Find here: Reply

Reply:

Find attached, the two reports as requested Hon M Waters (referred to as Annexures A and B).

Reply:

The following information was provided by the Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality:

(a) The municipality originally budgeted (i) R 10,00 million in 2014-15, (ii) R 5,50 million in 2015-16 and (iii) R 8,00 million in 2016-17 financial years, for the upgrading of the stormwater system.

The annual budgets were subsequently adjusted to (i) R 10,00 million in 2014-15, (ii) R 11,50 million in 2015-16 and (iii) R 8,70 million in 2016-17 financial years.

(b) The municipality spent (i) R 1,36 million in 2014-15, (ii) R 8,07 million in 2015-16 and (iii) R 8,38 million in 2016-17 financial years.

Reply:

A comprehensive report on the support provided to the Thabazimbi Local Municipality is still to be generated, and I have requested a meeting with the recently appointed MEC for COGHSTA, Mr. Ndou, to receive a report on progress to date with regard to the support given to the Municipality. A progress report will then be submitted when made available.

Reply:

The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) provided the response as follows:

Municipal Councillors are implicated in 15 criminal cases listed in a table below:

Police Station	Case No.	No. of Suspect involved	Status
Beaufort West	465/01/2016	1	DPP declined to prosecute
Witbank	700/07/2016	4	On trial
Belfast	90/06/2012	1	Under investigation
Midrand	140/05/2017	1	The case was handed for decision and a prosecutor to be assigned.
Germiston	223/06/2017	1	Under investigation
Clanwilliam	152/08/2012	4	Suspects were convicted and sentenced during October 2016.
Stellenbosch	251/12/2011	3	Decision of the NDP on the representation awaited.
Stellenbosch	451/02/2011	2	The case is at SCCU for decision since 2013, J175 awaited.
Ladysmith	132/06/2017	5	Under investigation.
Ventersdorp	63/07/2001	2	Court docket.
Potchefstroom	426/05/2013	2	Docket with DPP for decision.
Parkweg Reitz	03/08/2011 65/08/2013	4	Docket was handed to prosecutor for further decision.
Pofadder	15/11/2014	2	Under investigation.
Garies	22/02/2016	4	Under investigation.

a) We are still awaiting a response from the DPCI with regard to the details in which the Councillors are from which municipalities.

b) Awaiting a response from the DPCI.

c) Revealing the names of implicated Councillors may compromise some of the investigations.

d) The status of each investigation is provided as per the response above.

Reply:

Department of Cooperative Governance

1. Officials granted permission to have businesses and/or to do business dealings:

1. 2014 – 2015 2
2. 2015 – 2016 4
3. 2016 – 2017 9

2. Officials granted permission to have businesses and/or to do business dealings and doing business with Government:

1. 2014 – 2015 0
2. 2015 – 2016 1
3. 2016 – 2017 1

  (a) The employee was working as an Online and Face-to-Face Tutor at the University of South Africa (UNISA)

   (b) She worked for eight months from February 2016 to September 2016

  (c) Approximately R5 000 per month.

Reply:

1. (a)Yes.

(b) Hotel accommodation, car rental, shuttle services, carports and TWF service fees. The BAS system is not designed to generate the item report for each service paid to TWF.

(c) From 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 financial years TWF was paid a total amount of R 59 282 836, 57.

2. (a) Detailed report is attached.

   (b) Detailed report is attached.

   (c) The total amount of R5 614 025, 89 for international air tickets from 2014/2015 financial year to 2017/2018 year was paid to Travel With Flair.

Reply:

(a)(b)(i)(aa)(aaa)(bb)(aaa)

The financial statements of the Department of Cooperative Governance is prepared in terms of the modified cash basis of accounting principles applicable to National Government Departments and do not provide for valuation of current and non-current assets. As prescribed, the Department has no investments.

The Entities

MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD

(a)(b)(ii)(aa)(bbb)

VALUATION OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS
Property, Plant & Equipment
	Cost	Accumulated Depreciation	Carrying Value
Furniture and Fittings	2 098 693.04	1 211 552.92	887 140.12
Office Equipment	983 938.70	854 870.86	129 067.84
Computer Equipment	2 637 746.27	1 304 066.99	1 333 679.28
Vehicles	656 315.37	353 030.95	303 284.42
Lease hold improvements	2 503 940.03	1 543 861.01	960 079.02
	8 880 633.41	5 267 382.73	3 613 250.68
Computer Software	Cost	Accumulated Depreciation	Carrying Value
	1 896 172.43	1 056 177.56	839 994.87
	1 896 172.43	1 056 177.56	839 994.87
Warranties			18 546.08
Total Value of Non-Current assets as at 31 August 2017	4 471 791.63
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS
Finance-Petty Cash Control			1 908.10
Finance-Bank ABSA/01 Main			57 464.20
Finance-Bank ABSA/04 Call Account			8 223 039.61	*
Total Cash & Cash Equivalents			8 282 411.91
Inventory Account			194 781.99
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS AS AT 31 AUGUST 2017	8 477 193.90
TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS AS AT 31 AUGUST 2017	12 948 985.53
* The positive cash balance is held in a current account and the entire balance is available on call.

(a)(b)(ii)(bbb)(bb)(bbb)

The MDB does not have unlisted investments.

SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION

See the link: http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2877-SALGA.pdf

SOUTH AFRICAN CITIES NETWORK

(a)(b)(ii)(aa)(bbb)

The valuation for current and non-current assets.

Current assets	0-3 Months	3-6 Months	6-12 Months	12 Months
Equipment	169,551	169,551	169,551	508,652
Non-current assets
Trade and other receivables	4,875	4,875	4,875	14,625
Accrued income	2,542,043	2,542,043	2,542,043	7,626,129
Cash and cash equivalent	2,054,708	2,054,708	2,054,708.23	6,164,125

(a)(b)(ii)(bbb)(bb)(bbb)

The SACN does not have unlisted investments.

Reply:

1. According to the answer provided to PQ 4251 on 21 December 2015, there is no information that was requested from Ekurhuleni over and above the information provided in the reply. For ease of reference, we hereby attach the 21 December 2015 reply.

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

(1) Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Council disaster management vehicles did not respond and arrive on the scene at about 11:30 pm.

Section 49(1) of the Disaster Management Act, Act 57 of 2002 requires municipalities to immediatelyinitiate efforts to assess the severity and magnitude of a disaster. Assessments are conducted in line with disaster management plans developed in terms of section 43. As per legislative requirements and disaster management plans, City of Ekurhuleni Disaster & Emergency Management Services (DEMS) Department`s operational preparedness and response to incidents starts when the first early warning message is received.

In the case of the severe thunderstorm that occurred on 09 November 2016, the first warning message from the South African Weather Service (SAWS) was received at 14:15 followed by another one at 16:32. Immediately after the receipt of the first warning, the municipality`s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were activated. These SOP include notifying stakeholders such as the senior disaster management officials, station manager and councilors on the DEMS database about the warning from SAWS and informing them of the activation of the Joint Operations Centre (JOC). Following the occurrence of the storm (which occurred at approximately 17:00), Disaster Management Officials and the Emergency Services Station Managers immediately began to assess the impact of storm all areas including Edenvale.

(2)(a) Ekurhuleni does not have a disaster management depot and is not legally obligated to have a depot.

(b) Legally the municipality is required to establish a disaster management centre in terms of section 43 of the Disaster Management Act, Act 57 of 2002. It must be noted that the offices in Bedfordview are the headquarters of the Disaster and Emergency Management Services (DEMS) department that includes the Disaster Management Division and the Disaster Management Centre.

(3)(a) The City`s disaster management response plans were followed during the flooding. As per legislative requirements and disaster management plans, City of Ekurhuleni Disaster & Emergency Management Services (DEMS) Department`s operational preparedness and response to incidents starts when the first early warning message is received disaster management department.

(i) For the Roads and Storm Water Department, the City of Ekurhuleni annually provides maintenance budgets per region as well as per depot. In the case of Edenvale Roads and Storm Water Depot, the regional amount allocated for 2016/17 for Stormwater maintenance was R1, 327,000. The allocation for maintenance for the depot was R2, 124,000. For 2017/18 financial year, the regional allocation is R1, 381,477 and the allocation for the depot is R2, 200,048. In addition, the DEMS department made available R10 million (R10, 000,000) to the Roads & Stormwater department to rehabilitate some of the damaged infrastructure (i.e. Roads & Stormwater).

(ii) No amount was made available for Water & Sanitation department since the infrastructure there were no significant damages.

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

(1)(a)The plan is to do the following:

• Upgrade the spruit into a rectangular reinforced concrete lined canal with energy dissipators between Francoise Road and Van Riebeeck Avenue (2300m) to accommodate 1:50 year flood event.
• Stabilise the slopes of the spruit using Gabions between Van Riebeeck and 1st Avenue (450m).
• Increase all culvert capacities to accommodate at least 1:50 year flood event.
• Construct an attenuation pond that will be used as a dry retention structure to attenuate the difference between 1:50 and 1:100-year flood event.
• Construct an impermeable clay bund/berm covered with reinforced grass adjacent to some properties.

(b) The approximately cost for the Upgrades is R 400 million.

Attenuation Facility - R 100 million (300 000 cubic meters of water)

10 x Bridges - R 100 million

Channelizing of the Spruit - R 120 million

Road Upgrades - R 80 million

(c) There are no discussions amongst the spheres of government on contributions.

(d) The City of Ekurhuleni has submitted an application to the National Department of Water and Sanitation for a water use license. The City of Ekurhuleni has implemented 2 phases of the project thus far. The approximate time required to upgrade the Spruit at current budget allocations will be more than 10 years but will obviously remain dependent on the availability of budget.

(2) (a) The Environmental Impact Assessment, River Assessment Study, Hydrology and Hydraulic Study, detailed assessment report of the flood damages, Geotechnical Investigation, Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Survey, Water Use Application, Environmental Management Plan, Stormwater Management Plan.

(b) Various Consulting Engineers appointed by the City of Ekurhuleni.

(c) The Eastleigh Spruit will require attenuation facilities, bridge upgrades and channelising of the existing system to prevent flood damages in the future.

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

(a) Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality did not receive any funds from National government.

(b) Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality did not receive any funds from National government.

(c) See response above.

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

(1) The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality is only aware of 2 phases, of which the first phase has been implemented. The property owners of the erven to be bought, to extend the existing Buurendal retention dam resisted the sale of their properties to the City of Ekurhuleni. The Roads and stormwater department concentrated on the planning and construction of many other retention dams in the catchment area to reduce the flood peak.

(2) The existing dam caters for a 1:10 year recurrence interval.

(3) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable

(4) Not certain which station is being referred to here.

Reply:

The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) interacted with the Eastern Cape Provincial Disaster Management Centre (PDMC) in order to obtain a response to this Parliamentary Question. The reply from the Eastern Cape PDMC is as outlined below:

a) No. The KSD Municipality does not have functional firefighting vehicles and other relevant equipment. The under mentioned vehicles, outlined in Table 1, are part of the existing firefighting fleet, but are not functional due to mechanical breakdowns:

Type of vehicle	Purpose of vehicle
2 x Medium Fire Pumpers	Structural / building fires
1 x Light Rescue	Motor Vehicle Accidents
2 x Light Delivery Vehicle (LDV) firefighting skid units-	Veldfires

b) The KSDLM’s Fire Service could not respond due to the following reasons:

(i) Both the Medium firefighting Pumpers as per above table were not operational due to mechanical breakdowns; and,

(ii) Only one (1) of the two (2) LDV firefighting Skid units was operational but had experienced a problem with the pump on the day of the reported fire incident. It must, however, be noted that this vehicle is not suitable for the use of Structural / Building Fires but only for veldfires.

Reply:

The following information was provided the CRL Rights Commission and the outstanding one will be submitted as soon as it becomes available:

1. The chief executive officer of the CRL Rights Commission is appointed on a five (5) year fixed term contract and (b) the chief financial officer of entities reporting to him are employed on a permanent basis. The Chief Financial Officer is appointed on a permanent basis.

(2)(a) Mr. Edward Mafadza and (b)(i) the CEO was appointed on 1 November 2016 and (ii) each officer’s contract will end on​​​ 30 October 2021.

Reply:

This question does not fall within the CoGTA mandate and should therefore be re-directed to South African Police Services as the competent authority.

Reply:

The below response is based on a report submitted to the Department of Cooperative Governance (“Department”) by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in the Gauteng Province.

1. No, the MEC responsible for Local Government in the Gauteng Province did not commission an investigation into the matter.

a) The matter was referred to the Ekurhuleni City Metropolitan Municipality for investigation.

The matter was resolved through a disciplinary process and the individual in question was dismissed.

(b) As the MEC abides by the decision of the municipality in this regard, no further action is necessary from the part of the MEC.

 (i) Not applicable.

 (ii) Not applicable.

2. Not applicable.

Reply:

1. (a) The table below provides the information required as at August 2017

Sphere	Participation Target	Actual Participation	Cumulative Participation (1 April – 30 August 2017)	(b) Total value in rands
(i) National	237 265	212 723	226 879	653 956 252
(ii) Eastern Cape	42 600	42 669	44 314	133 128 086
(ii) Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality	2500	1961	2080	6 243 884

2) All CWP participants sign contracts as part of their initial enrolment in the programme. The process of enrolment, including the signing of contracts by participants, is facilitated by Implementing Agents (IAs) appointed to implement the programme on behalf of the department at each of the CWP sites.

3) Potential participants have to meet three primary criteria before they can be enrolled in the programme: a) They have to be poor; b) They have to be unemployed or under-employed, i.e., employed on a part time basis and being available to work two days a week in the CWP; and c) They have to reside in a ward that has been prioritized by Council for CWP implementation (on the basis of poverty and unemployment levels).

The process of recruiting CWP participants involves a number of stakeholders: i) the IAs are responsible for recruiting participants who meet the criteria outlined above, ii) the Ward Councilors for the designated wards confirm (or otherwise) that the potential participant resides in their ward and indeed, meets the other two criteria and is not better off compared to other potential participants residing in the ward, ii) the Municipal representative on the multi-stakeholder Local Reference Committee (LRC) checks whether the potential participant is registered on the Municipality’s Indigent Register and iv) the LRC which decides on participant prioritization or selection criteria in instances where the number of qualifying potential participants exceeds the target participation rate for the particular site.

In deciding on prioritization or selection criteria, the LRC must adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness and non-discrimination, as outlined in the Recruitment Guidelines for Public Employment Programmes (PEPs) developed by the Department of Public Works’ Expanded Public Works Programme – the coordinating department for all PEPs, including the CWP.

4) (a) During the introductory visit to a new CWP municipality, a presentation

is made to the Municipal Council by the respective provincial CoGTA, IA and DCoG on the CWP - covering its objectives, the various role players, the municipality’s own role in the programme and the initial work opportunity target assigned to the Municipality by DCoG on the basis of the available budget. The Council of the CWP Municipality is then requested to determine the wards that are to be prioritized for roll out in the municipality. This is formalised through a council resolution which also states who the CWP champion in the municipality is going to be. In most instances, on the initial introductory visit, the Council only expresses an “in principle” endorsement of the CWP in their municipality and the desire for the CWP to be rolled out to all their wards. However, a full discussion on the matter is often deferred to a follow-up full sitting of Council where the CWP is further discussed, often without other external stakeholders. In that meeting, the CWP is formally endorsed and a municipal champion named through a council resolution. The outcome of the Council meeting is then communicated to DCoG in writing.

(b) Municipalities (Local and Metropolitan) to which the CWP is introduced are always advised to prioritize those wards where unemployment and poverty levels are highest and where socio-economic conditions are most depressed.

According to the information received from the Province of the Eastern Cape, the CWP in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality is being implemented in the 42 wards listed below:

4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60.

5) The budget allocated to each sphere for the past three financial years since 1 April 2017 (Wage and Non-Wage) is as outlined below:

Sphere	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18
National	908 613 593	927 569 451	1 191 628 422	1 356 541 631
Eastern Cape CoGTA	191 867 433	166 199 184	168 319 861	224 845 074
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality	16 540 296	19 352 968	30 935 317	33 065 452

Reply:

1. (a) Three years and seven months

(b) In all nine provinces of the country

(c) The total amount of money paid to the foundation for Project Management Fee and Procurement of tools and materials is R587 333 670.71. See the details in the table below:

FINANCIAL YEAR	PM FEE	PROCUREMENT	TOTAL
2014/15	53,392,167.98	25,022,206.18	78,414,374.16
2015/16	81,716,774.27	153,442,903.24	235,159,677.51
2016/17	67,692,466.15	36,921,905.83	104,614,371.98
2017/18	17,919,303.78	151,225,943.28	169,145,247.06
TOTAL	220,720,712.18	366,612,958.53	587,333,670.71

2) Yes, Dhladhla Foundation was appointed through a formal supply chain process. The Ministry is willing to provide the supporting documentation only when the process of the Promotion of Access to Information Act is followed.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the Department, but has been sought from the Provinces. The information will be provided to the Honourable Member as soon as it becomes available.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the Department, but has been sought from the Provinces. The information will be provided to the Honourable Member as soon as it becomes available.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the Department, but has been sought from the Provinces. The information will be provided to the Honourable Member as soon as it becomes available.

Reply:

By way of background, the redetermination of boundaries by the Municipal Demarcation Board during 2013 and 2015 resulted in a decrease of 21 local municipalities from 278 to 257 municipalities (districts, locals and metros). These major determinations were either as a result of amalgamations or the splitting of municipalities and subsequent incorporation into neighbouring municipalities. As a result of the above, there were 26 municipalities whose boundaries were changed post the 3 August 2016 local government elections.

In preparing a response for the Honourable Member, the Departments of Cooperative Governance engaged the 26 affected municipalities through provincial departments responsible for local government.

It must be noted that even those municipalities that indicated that they had made purchases, did not supply all information as requested. The status of responses as provided to the Department is as follows:

No	Name of Municipality	1(a) Vehicles	1(b) Yellow Machines	1(b)(i) Type of Vehicle	1(b)(i)(ii) Number of Quotations Received	1(b)(i)(iii) Date when Council was approached	1(b)(iv) Who approached Suppliers
(i)	Rand West City Local Municipality	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable
(ii)	The Big 5 Hlabisa Local Municipality City of Mbombela.	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable
(iii)		Not Applicable	1 x Vacuum Tanker; 1 x Vacuum Tanker; 1 x Truck with a mounted Crane; 1 x Hooklift Truck (Waste Management); 1 x 22 Seater Bus (Waste Management); 1 x Fire Engine; 2 x 10m3	Not Applicable	Information not supplied	Information not supplied	Information not supplied
(iv)	Inkosi Langalibalele Local Municipality	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable
(v)	Alfred Duma Local Municipality	Toyota Fortuner.	Information not supplied	Information not supplied	Information not supplied	Information not supplied	Information not supplied
(vi)	Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable
vii) (	Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality	Refer to attached Annexure A.	Refer to attached Annexure A.	Refer to attached Annexure A.	Refer to attached Annexure A.	Refer to attached Annexure A.	Refer to attached Annexure A.
(viii)	Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable

The following Municipalities did not submit any response:

NO.	NAME OF MUNICIPALITY
	Umdoni Local Municipality
	Ray Nkonyeni Local Municipality
	Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma Local Municipality
	Mthonjaneni Local Municipality
	Umhlathuze Local Municipality
	City Of Mbombela Local Municipality
	Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
	Ventersdorp/Tlokwe Local Municipality
	Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality
	Thulamela Local Municipality
	Makhado Local Municipality
	Musina Local Municipality
	Blouberg Local Municipality
	Molemolle Local Municipality
	Polokwane Local Municipality
	Fetakgomo/Greater Tubatse Local Municipality
	Modimolle/Mookgopong Local Municipality
	Lim 345 Local Municipality
	Walter Sisulu Local Municipality

2. Yes

This information is not available at present. Copies of this information will be furnished to the Honourable Member as soon as all the information is received from each of these municipalities.

3. This information is not available at present since not all municipalities submitted the required information. A more comprehensive response in this regard will be furnished to the Honourable Member as soon as all the information is received from each of this municipalities.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32).

(a) The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A

b& c) An investigation was not instituted by the MEC responsible for Local Government, the matter was referred to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

 

 

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32). The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. (a) The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

(b) As stated above, an investigation was not instituted by the MEC responsible for Local Government, the matter was first referred to the municipality. In the event the municipality was not able to address the matter, an investigation would have been initiated.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32). The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned. In light of the above, investigation report was therefore not tabled.

3. As stated above, the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

4. In light of the above, investigation report is therefore not available.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32). The matter relating to the tender was also referred to the SIU for investigation. The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

3. In light of the above, investigation report is therefore not available.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32).

(a) The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. (a) The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

(b) In light of the above, investigation report is therefore not available.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32).

(a) The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

(b) & (c) An investigation was not instituted by the MEC responsible for Local Government, the matter was referred to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

 

 

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32). The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. (a) The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned.

(b) As stated above, an investigation was not instituted by the MEC responsible for Local Government, the matter was first referred to the municipality. In the event the municipality was not able to address the matter, an investigation would have been initiated.

Reply:

1. Yes, my predecessor wrote to the MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng requesting him to commission an investigation, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32). The correspondence to the MEC is attached as Annexure A.

2. The MEC responsible for Local Government in Gauteng referred the matter to the municipality. The municipality dealt with the matter through a disciplinary process and the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned. In light of the above, investigation report was therefore not tabled.

3. As stated above, the outcome was the dismissal of the employee concerned. Further, the municipality received condonation from National Treasury as per Section 32 of the MFMA.

4. In light of the above, investigation report is therefore not available.

Reply:

1. Yes, the department keeps repositories of data on municipal performance, capacity, viability and sustainability

(a) Various units in the department contribute to the repositories, based on their specific areas of responsibility, e.g. financial information, public participation, MIG spending, service delivery protests, and the appointment of section 56 employees.

(b) (i) information is consolidated into excel spreadsheets;

    (ii) annually as it becomes available.

2. No, the information is not accessible to the general public through an open application programming interface;

(a) The department is still working on designs for such an open interface and is collaborating with National Treasury, DPME and StatsSA in the reporting reforms project to reduce the reporting burden of municipalities in this regard.

Reply:

The information is not readily available in the department and requests were made to the Provincial Departments of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. However, only six provinces provided information in this regard:

PROVINCE	How many municipalities across the country have municipal owned entities	(2)
		(a) Who appoints the board members	(b) how long is the term of each specified board	(c) When was each current board appointed	(d) How many members of each board are female
Western Cape	City of Cape Town	City of Cape Town and Western Cape Government	It’s presumed to be a fixed term board	Various dates – see list attached	5 of 11 members are female
Gauteng	City of Tshwane	The Board is appointed by the City of Tshwane as the shareholder	The appointment of the Board is aligned to the five-year political term of Council	1 October 2012	Tshwane Economic Development Agency – 3 female members
				10 April 2012	Housing Company Tshwane – 1 female member
	City of Johannesburg	City of Joburg	1 year	16 March 2017	City Power – 3 female members
					Joburg Water- 4 female members
					Pikitup – 4 female members
					Johannesburg Social Housing Company – 1 female member
					Joburg Development Agency – 2 female members
					Joburg Market – 2 female members
					Joburg Property Company – 3 female members
					Joburg Roads Agency – 5 female members
					Metrobus – 3 female members
					Joburg City Parks & Zoo – 3 female members
					Joburg City Theatres – 7 female members
					Metro Trading Company – 5 female members
	City of Ekurhuleni	Council	3 years	1 May 2015	Brakpan Bus Company – 1 female member (resigned)
					Ekurhuleni Housing Company – 4 female members
					East Rand Water Care Company – 2 female members
	West Rand DM	Executive Mayor	3 years	April 2017	West Rand Development Agency – 2 female members
	Sedibeng DM	Council	Not specified	February 2015	Vaal River City Tourism Promotion Company – 1 female member
North West	Dr KKDM Economic Agency (SOC) Ltd.	The Council of the Parent Municipality	3 years	1 January 2016	2 female members (1 resigned)
	Rustenburg LM	Executive Mayor or the Council after an advertisement in the local newspapers	2 years	-	1 female member
	Lekwa-Teemane Development Agency	Council	3 years	In the process of appointing new board (recently terminated board was appointed Nov 2010 and term expired Oct 2013, however they remained an interim board until July 2017)	-
Mpumalanga	The City of Mbombela inherited the Umjindi Local Economic Development Agency after the amalgamation of Mbombela LM and Umjindi LM	City of Mbombela	24 months	New board in process of being appointed	New board in process of being appointed
	Thabachweu Local Economic Development Agency (THALEDA)	Council	3 yrs	20th October 2014 (An extension for a further one year was granted after the term of office expired in September 2017)	1 female member
Free State	No response from the province
Northern Cape	No municipality in the Northern Cape has a municipal-owned entity	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
KwaZulu-Natal	Umhlosinga Development Agency	The respective District Municipality	5 years	26 March 2013	0
	Zululand Development Agency		3 years	01 April 2016	3 female members
	Uthungulu Fresh Produce Market (King Cetshwayo)		5 years	2015	3 female members
	ILembe Management Development Enterprise		3 years	02 October 2015	3 female members
	UGu South Coast Development Agency		3 years	10 July 2015	3 female members
	Harry Gwala Development Agency		3 years	01 April 2015	0
	UMgungundlovu Development Agency		3 years	01 July 2016	3 female members
	Umzinyathi Development Agency		3 years	16 October 2016	2 female members
	UThukela Development Agency		3 years	14 July 2017	1 female member
	Amajuba Development Agency (The Municipal Council is yet to Endorse the Board and conduct the inauguration)		Nil - Awaiting Council Endorsement	2015	0
	Durban ICC		5 years	2014	1 female member
	Durban Marine Theme Park trading as Ushaka Marine world		5 years	2013	2 female members
	Safe City Pietermaritzburg		5 years	2015	2 female members
	Ugu South Coast Tourism		5 years	2015	3 female members
	Uthukela Water		5 years	2014	unknown
Limpopo	No response from the province
Eastern Cape	No response from the province