Outline of Presentation

Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) Expenditureas at end February 2013Portfolio Committee on Cogta16 April 2013

Outline of Presentation • National Overview of MIG Expenditure as at 28 February 2013 • Comparison of MIG Expenditure Between February 2013 and February 2012 • Challenges • Supporting Municipalities

National Overview of MIG Expenditure as at 28 February 2013 • As at 28 February 2013, R10 billion or 73 percent of the total MIG allocation was transferred to municipalities. • Municipalities spent 59 percent of the transferred funds which represent 43 percent of the total MIG annual allocation of R13,8 billion. • Municipalities in the Eastern Cape are the best overall spender having spent 55 percent of their total MIG annual allocation whilst those in the North West are the lowest - having only managed to spend 25 percent of their total MIG annual allocation.

Comparison of MIG Expenditure Between February 2013 and February 2012 • The MIG allocation increased by 17 % from the 2011/12 financial year to the 2012/2013 financial year, resulting in municipalities having received additional R2,4 billion to spend in the 2012/13 financial year. • As at end February 2012 R7,7 billion had been transferred to municipalities of which they spent 68 percent which represent 46 % of the total 2011/12 MIG allocation. • As at end February 2013, a total of R10 billion had been transferred to municipalities of which they spent 59% which represent 43 % of the total 2012/13 MIG allocation. • Municipal MIG spending performance regressed by 3% from 2011/12 to 2012/13.

National Overview of MIG expenditure as at 28 February 2013

National Overview of MIG expenditure as at 28 February 2012

Challenges (1/4) • The challenges which are outlined in the following 3 slides are based on the experiences and lessons from interactions with 92 MIG under spending municipalities during the 2012/13 financial year.

Challenges (2/4) • Institutional (administration and governance) • A large number of municipalities are faced with key positions vacant (e.g. Municipal Manager, CFO, Director – Technical Services) for a long time or others have people acting in these positions resulting in lack of decision making and accountability thus significantly delaying progress on projects • Municipalities are characterised by high staff turnover making the retention of institutional memory impossible and thereby necessitating the re-training of key staff members and resulting in further delays • Some municipal officials are totally lacking in accountability and delay progress by not following up on necessary processes pertaining to project implementation

Challenges (3/4) • Planning and Procurement • Municipalities fail to prioritise projects and get necessary documents to initiate projects on time. • e.g. technical reports not submitted or inputs by sector departments not considered timeously • Often the lack of understanding of Supply Chain Management procedures and lack of commitment to processes and timelines result in further delays. • e.g. Bid evaluation committees and bid adjudication committees are not sitting regularly thereby negatively impacting on decision making processes and delaying project initiation and implementation.

Challenges (4/4) • Project and Financial Management • There is often no oversight or management of consultants /contractors on the part of the relevant municipal officials.

Supporting Municipalities (1/2) • Some HR issues impacting on the institutional (administration and governance) matters include the following: • Supporting municipalities to develop and implement recruitment and retention strategies. • Monitoring municipalities to fill vacancies in terms of the Municipal Structures Act. • Planning and Procurement: • District Appraisal sessions convened by the MIG national unit help municipalities to commit their allocations well in advance of the forthcoming financial year in order to get projects in construction at the commencement of the municipal financial year. • MISA is deploying engineers to assist with infrastructure planning in municipalities (this deployment is done following the diagnostic conducted, which revealed challenges of infrastructure delivery) • The Provincial Treasuries will be requested to provide support around procurement issues.

Supporting Municipalities (2/2) • Project and Financial Management: The DCoG to continue providing advise to those municipalities (in the context of MIG) to appropriately manage their projects from both project and financial management perspectives. Thanks!

ANNEXURE MIG EXPENDITURE PER MUNICIPALITY PER PROVINCE AS AT END FEBRUARY 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (EASTERN CAPE) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (FREE STATE) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (FREE STATE) February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (GAUTENG) – February 2013

Municipal Infrastructure Grant Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (KWAZULU NATAL) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (KWAZULU NATAL) – February 2013

Municipal Infrastructure Grant Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (LIMPOPO) February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (LIMPOPO) – February 2013

Municipal Infrastructure Grant Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (MPUMALANGA) February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (MPUMALANGA) – February 2013

Municipal Infrastructure Grant Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (NORTHERN CAPE) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (NORTHERN CAPE) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (NORTH WEST) – February 2013

MIG Per Municipality Per Province (WESTERN CAPE) – February 2013

MIG Expenditure Per Municipality Per Province (WESTERN CAPE) – February 2013

THANK YOU

Outline of Presentation