Context:
Sound, consistent financial structures are the basis of all planning, governance and accountability, but data-intensive and difficult-to-understand reporting is making a mockery of public participation, compounded by the limited time allowed to submit concerns.
The graphs that follow reflect the trends over the past 4 years and 4 budget years in ratios based on population and household numbers as a reflection of municipal efficiencies. The increase in municipal income (excluding capex grants) was approximately 13% p.a. over an 8-year horizon, and associated expenditure was approximately 12% p.a., versus an inflation rate of 3.3% to 6% over the same period.
*Analysis is based on published financial statements and ratios are calculated based on some actual and derived data. While statistical data will improved as more data is being released, the reflected trends however are likely to be maintained.
Outcomes:
- The Annual Report 23/24, Integrated Development Plan, and associated budget were reviewed, with 158 substantive concerns formally submitted to the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC);
- The submission of approximately 400 concerns re IDP & associated budgets;
- A proposal for the utilisation of infographics and trend analytics over five years, based on the underpinning revenue/cost/efficiency drivers, is incrementally being introduced;
- Large infrastructure expenditures and associated loan funding will be distributed via complex accounting principles over the lifespan of underlying assets, but in the final analysis, this will result in increased tariffs to fund the maintenance of the same infrastructure;
- Improved consumer meters (water and power) are being introduced with credit control measures to align with National Treasury guidelines;
- Requests for zero-based budgets (not rollover of current expenditure plus inflation) are being introduced within selective sections and will be expanded in the current year;
- Improvements in technology via MyCity are being introduced to ease access to services and information;
- Announcement that GM will not provide finance to enable the Go George public transport system to continue beyond the current grant funding phase, due to end December 2026;
- Indigent support is fully funded via national government grant funding, not municipal/ratepayer contributions;
- Replacement of a 40-year-old financial management system is in progress, which promises to ease access to information;
- Formal rejection of the IDP and associated budget for financial year 25/26 with associated positive media and membership responses.
Actions Planned:
- Integrated Transport system highlighted concerns regarding the financial structure of the Integrated Transport system (Go George and GIPTN). The first formal request was lodged in June 2023, and the last GM response was that the Integrated Transport Plan will be released in September 2025, which is being pursued with the Mayor, who recently publicly quoted from the report. In a meeting with Planning and Development, it was stated that the report is nearing completion for Council approval;
- Financial & Efficiency Indicators formally requested after repeated requests via MMC Finance and Chief Financial Officer failed to deliver the statistical data nor the actual ratios as prescribed by National Treasury remain outstanding and will be pursued with the CFO in an upcoming meeting in June;
- Questions raised based on the Annual Report 24 regarding key indicators legally required by National Treasury but not readily available to the public, and an alarming increase in outstanding debts which is beyond National Treasury guidelines, are to be pursued in the scheduled June meeting with the finance cluster;
- Responses to 158 questions based on the Annual Report which were formally lodged. eg
- The financial/business planning of large infrastructural projects (e.g., solar plants and water infrastructure) versus current rates, taxes, and tariffs was addressed in the Planning & Development meeting but will be further explored in the finance meeting, as substantial under-recovery seems to be the norm.
- IDP and budgets 25/26 pursue answers to concerns that led to the rejection of both documents and council approvals.
4 Responses
We are arguing about justifying a ridiculous increase in costs for people because some rich people moved in.
Isn’t that rather ridiculous? Should the municipality not be providing a service, rather than run a for profit organisation’s where they try to milk as much as possible from any potential rich people?
Henning
Municipal much appoint the best applicants for jobs!
Those workers sitting in the same positions for 20, plus years contribute to the stagnancy in development and they had shown to taxpayers that they ate only in their current positions for the salary!
Tom
Need a all inclusive, human- educating, job- creating, respectful, developing, nation- building, God- guiding, righteous, God-guiding, etc! Too much people invest in George, like the Municipality only wants to use citizens as only paying, for minimum service!
Tom
More offices at York hostel… 🙈
Gail