Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs B

2015-07-07

THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.

SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 2015/1837

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 MAY 2015

QUESTION

Mr L J Basson (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) What are the details of the agreement signed between Madibeng Local Municipality and Eskom with regard to money owed for electricity provision;

(2) (a) what amount has been paid to Eskom by the specified municipality and (b) on which dates were the payments made since the agreement was reached;

(3) (a) what is the current outstanding balance owed to Eskom by the specified municipality, (b) when will it be settled, (c) what is the interest payable on the account and (d) what are the conditions of the settlement agreement on the specified municipality’s account;

(4) whether any of the specified municipality’s equitable share has been withheld; if so, (a) why and (b) when will it be paid;

(5) whether any of the specified municipality’s equitable share was used to pay outstanding accounts; if so, (a) which accounts were paid, (b) what amounts were paid, (c) on which dates were the payments made and (d) what is the balance of the equitable share? NW2058E

REPLY:

This information was provided by the Madibeng Municipality.

The agreement signed between Madibeng Municipality and Eskom provides for:
1.1 The undertaking by the municipality to pay Eskom with interests,
1.2 The repayment schedule,
1.3 The servicing of the current account in full, and servicing of the account as and when it is due and payable.

2. (a) R60 million was paid to Eskom; (b) on the 12th of May 2015.

3. (a) R40 million is still outstanding; (b) The balance will be settled at the end of July 2015; (c) the interest charged on the amount is R1.2 million; (d) R60 million was supposed to be paid to Eskom on receipt of the equitable share of municipality on 27 March 2015 and the remaining balance of R20 million to be settled over four (4) months in equal installments;

4. Yes. (a) R116 million of the municipality’s equitable share was withheld as a result of the debts to Eskom and Water Boards; (b) It has already been paid.

5. Yes, the equitable share was used to pay some of the outstanding accounts; Response to both (a) and (b), R60 million to Eskom; R10 million to the City of Tshwane; R3 072 166.44 to Magalies Water Board; R1 500 000.00 to Sandspruit and R1 200 000.00 to the Department of Water and Sanitation; (c) The payments were made as at the 14th of May 2015; (d) The remaining balance is R40 277 833.55.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 1795

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 MAY 2015

1795. Dr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) Which municipalities in North West in each separate financial year of (a) 2011-12, (b) 20120-13, (c) 2013-14 and (d) 2014-15 received (i) a clean, (ii) a qualified, (iii) an unqualified and (iv) no audit report;

(2) Whether he will make a statement on the matter? NW2014E

Reply:

Audit Opinion	(a)2011/12	(b)2012/13	(c)2013/14	(d)2014/15
(i) Financially unqualified with no other matters (Clean)	None	None	None	The financial year 2014/2015 is only on the 301th June 2015, hence no audit report yet.
(ii) Qualified	1.Moses Kotane LM 2.Rustenberg LM	1.Madibeng LM 2.Rustenberg LM 3.Ratlou LM 4. .Dr Ruth Mompati DM	1.Madibeng LM 2.Rustenberg LM 3.Moretele LM 4.Kgetlengrivier LM 5.Ratlou LM 6.Mafikeng LM 7.Ramotshere Moilwa LM 8.Kagisano-Molopo LM 9.City of Matlosana LM
(iii)Financially Unqualified	1.Bojanala DM 2.Ratlou LM 3.Dr Ruth Mompati DM 4.Dr Kenneth Kaunda DM 5.Tlokwe LM	1.Bojanala DM 2.Moses Kotane LM 3.Naledi LM 4.Dr Kenneth Kaunda DM 5.Tlokwe LM	1.Bojanala DM 2.Moses Kotane LM 3.Naledi LM 4.Dr Kenneth Kaunda DM 5.Tlokwe LM
(iv)No audit report			1. Ngaka Modiri Molema DM

(2) Please refer to the attached Press Statement issued on 03 June 2015 on the occasion of the announcement of the audit results for the 2014/15 year by the Auditor-General.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 1759

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 MAY 2015

1759. Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

Whether any criminal charges were laid against any municipal managers of the eight metropolitan municipalities in the (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14 financial years; if so, in respect of each specified case (i) what is the CAS number, (ii) who is the complainant and (iii) what is the nature of the charge? NW1977E

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the Department. We have, however, requested the eight metropolitan municipalities to provide this information.

The Honourable Member will be provided with the requested information as soon as it is submitted to us.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 2015/1758

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 MAY 2015

1758. Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

Whether any action has been taken with regard to the evidence provided to the office of the Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal in July 2014, relating to irregular expenditure and corruption in respect of a security tender in the Harry Gwala District Municipality that was inflated to R22 million; if not, why not; if so, (a) what action has been taken, (b) when was it initiated and (c) who is investigating the matter? NW1976E

REPLY

The response below was provided by the province:

The matter has not been reported to the MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in KwaZulu Natal. However, because of the department’s commitment with regard to the fight against fraud, corruption and maladministration, upon receipt of all the necessary details, the department will conduct an assessment on Supply Chain Management process validity regarding the award of the security tender in question and verify the legitimacy on the escalation of the contract amount to R22 million.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 1757

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 MAY 2015

Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) Whether the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) made any recommendation and/or proposal regarding the Siyenza Group, or any of its affiliated companies, to the Amathole District Municipality; if so, (a) on what basis and/or criterion was the recommendation made, (b) when was the recommendation made and (c) which official within MISA made the recommendation;

(2) whether a competitive tender or bidding process was followed in awarding the contract to Siyenza Group in the Northern Cape; if not, why not; if so, (a) when was it advertised, (b) how many bids were received and (c) on what basis was the decision made to award it to Siyenza Group;

(3) why the contract awarded to the Siyenza Group to build toilets in the Northern Cape is behind schedule? NW1975E

Reply:

MISA did not make any specific recommendation or proposal to Amathole District Municipality for the appointment of Siyenza Group. The municipality wrote a letter to MISA on 08 April 2014 requesting to participate in the MISA contract for the implementation of the bucket eradication project in the Northern Cape. This request was made in terms of Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Regulations, read with Regulation 16A6.6 of the PFMA Treasury Regulations. On 11 April 2014, MISA responded to the letter confirming that MISA has contracts that were concluded through a competitive bidding process with two companies for the implementation of a bucket eradication project in the Northern Cape, viz. Siyenza Group and Xigombe Business Enterprise, and further indicated that MISA had no objection to the municipality’s request. MISA then attached both contracts, appointment letters, bid documents, evaluation and adjudication reports to the letter to Amathole District Municipality. The objective of supplying these documents was to provide the municipality with the necessary information on the contracts between MISA and the two companies.
Yes, a competitive bidding process was followed.
(a) The bid was advertised on 03 of November 2013 in the Sunday Times and City Press.
(b) Twenty bids were received for the tender.
(c) The tender was awarded to two bidders, namely Siyenza Group and Xigombe Business Enterprise, based on the fact that both bidders scored the highest points during the bid evaluation process.

3. The change in the scope of work from dry sanitation to a water borne sanitation system necessitated the construction of water and sanitation reticulation systems, bulk services infrastructure and a pump station, which was not included in the original planning. This construction necessitated engineering designs that delayed the start of the project by two months. Extremely hard rock conditions experienced during construction necessitated blasting on some of the sites contributing to further delays in the project. The change in scope to a water borne system meant that trenches had to be excavated for water and sewage pipes, and a large percentage of the excavated material was hard rock. The project was further delayed by another two months due to delays in the transfer of funds from the Department of Water and Sanitation. The delay was caused by the transfer of the sanitation programme from the Department of Human Settlements to the newly constituted Department of Water and Sanitation after the elections in 2014. The transition process involved fresh engagements between MISA and the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding the continuation of the project.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER PQ 2015/1730

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 May 2015

QUESTION

1730. Mr C D Matsepe (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) Why did the (a) Ekurhuleni Metro and/or the (b) City Manager of the Metro not submit responding affidavits in the court case pertaining to the illegal contract of the City Manager;

(2) (a) how many cases pertaining to the illegal contract of the current City Manager has the Ekurhuleni Metro lost and (b) what was the cost in each case;

(3) can he provide a copy of the contract of the current City Manager’s contract; if so, when?

REPLY:

The following response is based on the information provided by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (“the Municipality”).

The Municipality submitted answering affidavit in respect of the first, second, third and fifth respondents to the court and the attorneys of the applicant on 13 March 2015.

(2) The Municipality has not lost any case pertaining to the illegal contracts of the current municipal manager. This is the only case of alleged illegal contract in the Municipality which is currently before court. The total cost could not be ascertained since the case is still pending before court.

(3) Whilst I am able to attach the minutes of the Council, in Committee meeting dated 27 September 2012, I am unable to attach the municipal managers’ contract without further legal clarity which is currently being sought from the municipality.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 2015/1729

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 MAY 2015

1729. Mr C D Matsepe (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) What are the reasons for the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality’s standing and tender committee meetings not being open to the public and media as is the case with the portfolio committee meetings in Parliament;

(2) on what legislative provisions does the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality reply when it precludes the public and the media from the specified meetings? NW1947E

Reply:

The following response is based on the information provided by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.

Relating to the Standing Committee meetings:

In accordance with the Standing Order of the Ekurhuleni Municipal Council, all meetings of Council and its Committees are open to the public and media subject to Section 20(1) and (3) of the Municipal Systems Act. The circumstances under which a meeting of Council or any of its Standing Committees, including those envisaged under Section 60 of the Municipal Structures Act may be closed to the public and media are clearly elaborated in law whereby it must be reasonable and justifiable to exclude the public from a Committee meeting when it would be considering a matter that:

(a) should be discussed behind closed doors to avoid prejudicing a person unfairly; or

(b) is confidential in terms of legislation.

In relation to the Tender Committee meetings:

The Executive Mayor announced in the recent State of the City Address that the meeting will be open to the public.

It must however be emphasised that there is a responsibility on Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality to further safeguard any trade information of any bidder that may be confidential.

(2) The response is based on the provisions of Section 20(1) and (2) of the Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 2015/1728

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 MAY 2015

1728. Mr M Waters (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

What are the names of the councilors in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality that voted (a) for, (b) against and (c) abstained in confirming the appointment of the current City Manager?

NW1946E

Reply:

The following response is based on the information provided by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.

As is required by legislation, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality confirmed that the appointment of the current City Manager was approved after the normal voting process related to any resolution of Council. The municipalities further indicated that they do not use names or electric voting system as such they are unable to provide the names of councilors that voted for, against or abstained in confirming the appointment of the current City Manager.

It should be noted that the approval of the appointment of the current City Manager subject to an application pending in the court of law.

Reply received: June 2015

QUESTION NUMBER PQ 2015/1718

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 May 2015

DUE TO PARLIAMENT: 29 May 2015

QUESTION

Mr W M Madisha (Cope) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

Whether his department has any plans to invite members of the national, provincial and local government, as convenience and locality permit, to accompany him and officials from his department to visit townships and informal settlements to gauge collectively how people lived there, the deprivation they suffered and the services they did not receive so that he will encourage all three tiers of government to cooperate extensively in respect of the jurisdiction that each has to create a better life for people on the other side of the South African divide; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) where will these visits take place? NW1936E

REPLY:

We regularly engage in visits to all parts of South Africa in order to understand challenges, what is being done about them and how different departments could assist. Members of all spheres of government engage in these activities as part of their responsibilities.

Improving the living conditions of all South Africans is the core mission of Government as a whole and indeed of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NUMBER PQ 2015/1629

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 08 May 2015

DUE TO PARLIAMENT: 22 May 2015

QUESTION

Mr C D Matsepe (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

Whether, since his reply to oral question 123 on 15 September 2014, he has taken or will take action on the recommendation of the Pikoli forensic report on the integrated public transport system in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality;

Why is the specified municipality still spending more than R184 million in over expenditure on the integrated public transport system when the system is non-operational?

RESPONSE

According to the information received from the municipality:

(1) Yes, action has been taken on the recommendations of the Pikoli forensic report. The National Treasury is conducting a forensic investigation on the integrated public transport system as a whole, as per the City Manager’s request. The forensic investigation is currently underway and has not yet been finalised.

(2) The amount that the Capex (PTI) Grant was over-expended is R126 million as derived from the Financial Management System and not the R184 million as stated by the Honourable Member. The expenditure in question related to the construction, maintenance and upgrade of the necessary infrastructure, including but not limited to services and roadways in Koyana, Stanford and John Tallant Roads.

The other expenditure related to the installation of the CCTV Cameras and optic fiber for monitoring of operations as well as the detection, prevention of crime and law enforcement purposes. It must be noted that the infrastructure and systems referred to above is necessary and must have been installed before bus operations commenced. Therefore, it must be noted that the commencement of the bus operations depends on the conclusion of various processes, such as the finalization of negotiations with taxi and bus operators.

Furthermore, the new leadership in the municipality could take further steps in this regard.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 2015/1627

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 08 MAY 2015

1627. Mr B M Bhanga (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

What (a) is the total cost of all benefits provided to King Goodwill Zwelithini by the Government in the 2014-15 financial year and (b) are the future plans regarding additional assistance to King Goodwill Zwelithini’s royal household? NW1844E

Reply:

The Honourable Member is requested to note that the information requested is not readily available within the Department. The information has been requested from the KwaZulu Natal Provincial Government and would be provided as soon as it becomes available.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 1549

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 APRIL 2015

Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

(1) With reference to his reply to question 1242 on 13 April 2015, (a) in which municipalities were the 5 500 bucket toilets situated and (b) how many (i) were in each municipality and (ii) new toilets have been built in each municipality;

(2) what are the names of all the companies who bid for the contract under the trading name Siyenza Group;

(3) what is the Taj Consortium (Pty) Ltd’s rating with the Construction Industry Development Board;

(4) whether the work will be finished by 30 June 2015; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will it be finished;

(5) whether, besides the contract awarded by the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency and by the Amathole District Municipality, the Siyenza Group has been awarded any other contracts by municipalities or municipal entities; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

(1)

Due to a decision by the Inter Ministerial Committee overseeing this project to change the scope of work from replacing buckets with dry sanitation systems to replacing buckets with water borne sanitation systems, the number of units to be installed had to be reduced from 5 500 to 3 081. This is because the cost of installing water borne sanitation systems is much higher than the cost of installing dry sanitation systems. The municipalities in which the bucket toilets are being replaced are Dikgatong, Ga-segonyana, Tsantsabane, Khara Hais, Renosterberg, Thembelihle, Siyancuma, Siyathemba Local Municipalities and Namakwa District Municipality.

The table below shows:

the number of bucket toilets originally planned to be replaced in each municipality at the initial planning stage of the project (5500 in total)
the number of bucket toilets planned to be replaced when more detailed planning was done (5 090 in total)
the number of bucket toilets planned to be replaced when the scope of the project was changed from dry sanitation to water borne sanitation
the number of bucket toilets replaced to date
the number of bucket toilets still to be replaced during the remainder of the project.

District Municipality	Local Municipality	Number initially planned	Number from more detailed planning	Number planned after change to water-borne	Number of buckets replaced to date	Number still to be built in remainder of project
Francis Baard	Dikgatlong	226	332	233	37	196
Francis Baard	Molelwane	50	50	85	85	0
John Taolo Gaetsewe	Ga-segonyana	459	500	498	498	0
ZF Mgcawu	Tsantsabane	1015	1291	1296	328	968
ZF Mgcawu	Khara Hais	2915	1648	308	308	0
Pixley Ka Seme	Ronesterberg	20	20	21	21	0
	Thembelihle	56	52	56	56	0
	Siyancuma	499	884	409	127	282
	Siyathemba	260	163	175	14	161
Namakwa		0	200	0	0	0
Total		5 500	5140	3081	1474	1607

As shown in the table above, 1 474 new water borne toilets have been installed to date to replace bucket toilets. This means that a total of 1 607 units will be installed during the remaining period to bring the total number of new toilets to the revised target of 3 081.

(2) The consortium that bid for the contract under the trading name Siyenza Group comprised the following companies:

Blue Nightingale Trading 397
Taj Consortium
Forge Strategic Marketing and Management
UNN Surveys CC.

(3) Taj Consortium has a 5CE grading with the Construction Industry Development Board.

(4) The work will not be finished by 30 June 2015 as originally planned.

The project has experienced numerous delays due to mainly the following reasons:

The change in the scope of work from dry sanitation to water borne systems necessitated the construction of water and sanitation reticulation systems, bulk services infrastructure and a pump station, which was not included in the original planning. This construction necessitated engineering designs that delayed the start of the project by two months.
Extremely hard rock conditions experienced during construction necessitated blasting on some of the sites contributing to further delays in the project. The change in scope to water borne systems meant that trenches had to be excavated for water and sewage pipes, and a large percentage of the excavated material was hard rock.
The project was further delayed by another two months due to late transfer of funds from the Department of Water and Sanitation. The delayed transfer of funds was caused by the transfer of the sanitation programme from the Department of Human Settlements to the Department of Water and Sanitation after the elections in 2014. The resulting transition involved fresh engagements between MISA and the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding the continuation of the project.

The project is now scheduled for completion by 30 November 2015.

(5) Neither CoGTA nor MISA has a database of all awards of contracts by all municipalities and municipal entities. We are, therefore, not in a position to indicate whether the Siyenza Group has been awarded any other contracts by other municipalities or municipal entities.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NUMBER 1542

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 APRIL 2015

Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

Whether he supports the use by municipalities of section 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations of 2005 for the procurement of large infrastructure contracts of millions of rand; if not, what steps will he take to stop the use of section 32 in such instances; if so, why;

Whether he will take any action with regard to the use of section 32 by the Amathole District Municipality to award a contract worth R631 million?

Reply:

Section 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations of 2005 (herein under referred to as ‘Treasury Regulation’) states that an accounting officer or accounting authority may, on behalf of the department, constitutional institution or public entity, participate in any contract arranged by means of a competitive bidding process by any other organ of state, subject to the written approval of such organ of state and the relevant contractors.

There are both positive and negative consequences to the use of section 32 of the as is Treasury Regulations for large infrastructure contracts or for any other contracts. On the positive side, it results in savings on time and costs by streamlining tendering procedures. On the negative side, a potential contractor or supplier could argue that it has been disadvantaged because its decision not to compete in the tender process might have been different had it been aware that another organ of state would also participate in the tender at a later stage.

In addition, in the construction sector, the location of the project may be a key factor in the decision of a contractor to compete or not for a tender. The addition of another project in a second location through the use of this Treasury Regulation might then be viewed as unfair by contractors wishing to implement projects in the second location, who did not participate in the initial tender.

I have written to the Minister of Finance to bring this matter to his attention, for him to consider a possible review or clarification of the use of this Treasury Regulation, particularly for construction contracts.

This matter is under review at present, I will comment further once this process is completed.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NUMBER: PQ2015/1533

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 APRIL 2015

Mr K J Mileham (DA) to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

With reference to his reply to question 1205 on 11 September 2014, what is the current backlog information for each of the 27 district municipalities as at 31 March 2015.

REPLY:

The current backlog information as at 31 March 2015 is as per the official statistical information provided under the Census 2011. However, sector departments are in a process of updating this information for water, sanitation, electricity and waste management as part of the actions under Medium Term Strategic Framework, Outcome 9, Sub-outcome 1 – Members of society have sustainable reliable access to basic services. This will inform the pipeline and the costs of projects to be delivered by 2019.

2015-07-07

What's wrong with this page?