Individual declaration of disputes with the Kouga Municipality

Many ratepayers and residents of Jeffreys Bay have ongoing disputes with the Kouga Municipality (KM) over issues such as property valuation, sewage removal, water quality, rates and services payments, and so on. In most cases the KM deals with these disputes in their own good time, or fails to deal with them at all, while the ratepayer keeps paying and waiting for a resolution of a sometimes urgent problem.

A widespread rates boycott would need the support of many thousands of residents, many of whom do not have a current, specific problem with KM. In addition, a widespread rates boycott  would not solve specific problems, but would address governance in the km as a whole.

For these reasons, the Jeffreys Bay Residents Association (JBRA) is recommending that individual ratepayers and residents with a specific problem formally declare a dispute with the KM through legal channels. Once the dispute has been declared, the KM must formally respond to the dispute in writing through their legal department, and all disputed payments, levies and fines may be held in suspension until the resolution of the dispute.  For example, if you believe that your assessed rates are too high, and you have good grounds for this belief, then payment of the rates in dispute may be suspended until the resolution of the dispute.

The JBRA has reached an agreement with Blignault & Vennote, a firm of attorneys in St Francis road, Jeffreys Bay, to formally file a letter of dispute with the KM on behalf of a JBRA member for the amount of R80.  The resident will provide  name and address and details of the dispute to the attorney, who will then draft and deliver a registered letter to the Kouga Municipal offices, and will keep the letter on file at the attorney’s offices.  The dispute will also be logged on the Mobilitate website.

The R80 does not include further legal advice, or an assessment of the merits of the case. Any further legal costs relating to the dispute will be for the account of the resident raising the dispute.

The contact details for Blignault & Vennote are as follows:

Ernie Blignault BA.LLB.(Stell)

082 550 0391   042 293 2211

Blignault_vennote@telkomsa.net

PO Box 1500

Jeffreys Bay

6330

Verklaring van dispute met die Kouga Munisipaliteit deur individuele.

Baie belastingbetalers en inwoners van Jeffreysbaai het nimmereindigende dispute met die Kouga Munisipaliteit. Dit betrek sake soos eiendomswaardasie, rioolverwydering, water kwaliteit, tariewe en dienste betalings, ens. In die meeste gevalle word hierdie probleme op die goeie langdradige tempo van die Munisipaliteit hateer, indien ooit. Intussen moet die belastingbetaler aanhou betaal en wag op 'n oplossing van 'n probleem wat ernstig kan wees, of wat vir hom/haar ernstig is.

'n Effektiewe algemene belasting boikot vereis die samewerking van talle duisende inwoners, van wie die meeste waarskynlik nie 'n huidige spesifieke probleem het met die KM nie. Verder, 'n algemene belasting boikot se funksie sal hoofsaaklik wees om die wanadministrasie van die KM in die algemeen mee aan te vat.

Om hierie redes het die Jeffreysbaai se Inwonersvereniging (JBIV) die volgende roete daargestel vir die hantering deur individue en inwoners met dispute. Dit is om binne die reels van die reg formeel 'n dispuut te verklaar met KM. Nadat die dispuut verklaar is, moet KM formeel reageer, dit is 'n skriftelike reaksie op u brief van hul regsdepartement. Deur die dispuut te verklaar word aksie oor  alle betalings, heffings en boetes gestop tot die dispuut uitgeklaar en opgelos is. 'n Voorbeeld is, indien u op goeie gronde glo dat u aangeslane eiendomsbelasting te hoog is, dan word die betaling van u heffing opgeskort totdat die dispuut heeltemal opgelos is.

Die JBIV het 'n ooreenkoms aangegaan met Blignault & Vennote, 'n prokureursfirma in St Francisweg, Jeffreysbaai om 'n formele brief van dispuut te stuur aan die KM namens 'n JBIV lid, waarvan die koste R80 beloop. Die inwoner verskaf hul naam, adres en details van die dispuut aan die prokureur wat dan die brief skryf en lewer aan die KM kantore. Hulle liaseer ook 'n kopie van die brief in hulle kantore. Die dispuut word ook op Mobilitate webwerf aangeteken. Die fooi van R80 sluit nie verdure regsadvies in of 'n opinie oor die meriete van die saak nie. Koste van verdere regshulp is vir die rekening van die inwoner.

Die kontakdetails vir Blignault & Vennote is as volg:

Ernie Blignault BA.LLB.(Stell)

082 550 0391   042 293 2211

Blignault_vennote@telkomsa.net

Posbus 1500

Jeffreysbaai

6330

A Framework for Utilising Residents’ Skills in the Kouga Region

I (Trevor Watkins) developed this proposal in October 2011, after discussions with Glen Buchner and Dries van Heerden, on a way to assist the KM without costing a huge amount. The proposal was presented to the Acting Municipal Manager and the Mayor, on several occasions. No response was ever received.

Introduction

The Kouga Municipality (KM) is faced with formidable challenges – a fact that has been honestly acknowledged by the mayor and municipal manager. The KM is not alone in facing these challenges. Virtually every municipality in the country is compromised. Towns, cities and states all around the world are having to deal with reduced incomes, spiralling costs and rampant corruption.

This document contains a proposal to address these challenges using the existing skills and knowledge that already exist within our local population, without compromising the integrity of the democratic structures currently in place. These proposals will require sympathetic consideration, compromise and cooperation from all sides of the great South African divide. But South Africans have shown themselves capable of this cooperation in the past, given the right leadership.

Perhaps we can begin another phase of our journey on the great South African project right here in Kouga – perhaps we can bring about a municipal Codesa of our own.

The Reality

• The responsibility for the governance of Kouga rests with 29 elected councillors. The ANC has 15 councillors and the DA has 14. Consequently, the ANC councillors are the governing party, and appoint the Mayor, mayoral committee and senior members of the municipality.
• Councillors are elected because the voters believe they will best represent their interests. Councillors do not necessarily have the specific management and technical skills required to run a municipality.
• The KM finances are in a bad way, with expenditure exceeding income, and many creditors not being paid.
• The KM is overstaffed, with staff expenditures well above the national norm.
• The Kouga infrastructure is weak or failing in many areas, and requires urgent attention.
• There are numerous cases of corruption pending within the KM. Oversight processes are weak.
• There is a large reservoir of management, engineering, and legal skills within the KM area, due to the large number of retirees living in the area. These skills have not been effectively utilised in the past.
• The KM area has distinct first world and third world components, whose interests are often at odds with each other. The KM council must look after the interests of ALL its residents.
• The KM cannot currently afford to hire expensive management consultants to address the many issues highlighted above.

The Challenge

The challenge, which this document attempts to address, is how to effectively and cheaply deploy the existing skills in the area in order to improve municipal services, without compromising the authority and responsibility of the elected representatives.

Any proposed solution which appears as a takeover of KM responsibilities, which disrespects the current officials, which is perceived as political or racist in any way, will predictably be rejected.  Any proposal which sidelines the roles and responsibilities of the councillors will never be accepted by the councillors.

Conversely, the KM must commit to cooperate fully with residents offering to share their time and skills, and must commit to seriously consider any recommendations which may arise. If carefully considered ideas and plans are simply dismissed or ignored, then this process will quickly fail.

The Proposal

In cooperation with the KM and Kouga businesses, a new not-for-profit entity is established to provide consulting services to the KM. For the sake of convenience let this entity be known as the KM Consulting Group (KMCG) within this document (Any other name can be chosen at a later date).

• The KMCG will be registered as a legal entity, such as a CC or company or NPO, a board of directors will be appointed, and a voluntary staff recruited from local businessmen and residents.
• The objective of KMCG is to provide consulting services to the KM at little or no cost, utilising the voluntary services of skilled retirees.
• The KMCG will maintain a database of skills in the local population which may be called upon.
• The KMCG will require some startup funding and support from the local community. Facilities such as meeting rooms, photocopy facilities, printing and stationery will be sourced from local businesses.
• The KM will present specific issues, questions or problems to the board of KMCG, who will then setup project teams to investigate these issues and propose a solution in the form of a written report.
• The KM will ensure that all the information and access to staff required by the project team is provided in good time. Where this access is not forthcoming, the project will be suspended.
• The KM will consider these reports, request modifications or explanations, then present the finalised reports to the KM management or the council for action.
• The KMCG project team will remain available to advise the KM on implementation of any accepted project.
• Each project team will prepare a detailed plan and budget for the consulting exercise, costing all work at market-related rates. Each project will require approval from the KMCG board before commencing. The Rand value of each consulting project will be carefully calculated and recorded.
• The KM will not be charged for a consulting project. Thus no tender or purchase procedures will be required before commencing the project. However, the KM must show the cost of each consulting project as an asset in its financial reports.
• The KMCG board and staff and consultants will receive no remuneration for their services, which are entirely voluntary. Out of pocket expenses will be reimbursed on presentation of documentation, where possible. Nevertheless, strict hourly recordkeeping will be maintained in order to correctly evaluate the cost of the project and its performance against budget.
• The objective of each consulting project is to offer specific practical advice on specific problems identified by the KM. The advice must avoid generalisation, politics, personal references, and ambiguity. The project report will contain a detailed breakdown of costs, staffing, materials, etc required for successful execution of the recommendations.

Project Examples

An illustrative list of possible projects is given below:

1. 2012 Budget development
2. Sewage plant engineering options
3. Revenue boosting alternatives
4. Potential cost savings in KM
5. Staffing reduction processes
6. Improved tender controls
7. Financial monitoring proposal
8. Low cost housing planning
9. Employment strategies for Kouga
10. Alternative health strategies for Kouga
11. Infrastructure maintenance strategies on a low budget
12. Paradise Beach Swamp drainage strategies

Conclusion

The purpose of this proposal is to suggest a strategy whereby the many unused skills available in the Kouga region can be usefully deployed to the benefit of the Kouga Municipality and the inhabitants of the area.  The proposal does not infringe on the autonomy of the KM or the council, will not add any financial burden to the already hard-pressed KM finances, but will provide them with a source of expert advice on the many difficult problems they face. It will require a major contribution of time and effort from some sectors of the population, who are already quite heavily taxed.  It will require mutual respect and cooperation from all parties.

However, if it leads to an improvement in the conditions in our small corner of paradise, it will be worth it.

Trevor Watkins

Sunday, 16 October 2011

10 IDP issues for 2011

Paul Hjul and Trevor Watkins prepared the following list of 10 items on behalf of the Jeffreys Bay Residents Association (JBRA). This list was submitted at the IDP meetings in Ward 8 and Ward 11.  

I.      JOBS

Kouga desperately needs a structural adjustment of the region’s employment situation: 

• Obstacles to job creation need to be eliminated, 
• job creating initiatives need to find root and
• the municipality needs to reduce its wage bill 

The Kouga municipality simply cannot afford to serve as an employment safety net for a select section of
the population.

II.     ATTRACTIVE TOWN

The CBD of Jeffrey’s Bay urgently requires revitalization. The improvement of the image of the CBD is vital to preserving an edge in tourism and attracting business ventures which create jobs. If Jeffrey’s Bay is felt to be a slum the limited current prosperity of the town will evaporate.

III.    TOURISM STRATEGY

The municipality and local businesses have spent large amounts of money on promoting tourism for which there are no visible returns. A comprehensive working strategy to preserve and grow our tourism sector
is needed.

IV.     BLUE FLAG

As the towns greatest single asset, the beaches need to be maintained and be seen to be maintained at the highest standards. Blue Flag status at Dolphin Beach must be a non-negotiable.

V.      TRANSPARENT LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Without efficient and transparent local government Jeffrey’s Bay cannot succeed as a town. There is a dire need for improvements in the way the municipality functions particularly with regard to issues of efficiency,
transparency and accountability.

VI.     FAIR AND EQUITABLE RATES

The residents of Jeffrey’s Bay understand the need for municipal rates and charges, but these charges must be levelled in a fair and equitable manner, and swiftly corrected when this is not the case.

VII.    CLEAN WATER

Despite the fact that potable water is a basic human right the residents of Jeffrey’s Bay frequently face brown mush flowing through their taps followed by a white stream of heavy chlorine. The municipality must rectify our water delivery infrastructure and repair or replace various pipes which deprive people of access to potable
water.

VIII.   SEWAGE

The sewage works serving Jeffrey’s Bay is a disgrace and a new treatment facility can no longer be postponed.

IX.     ROADS

Proper safe roads are vital to the town and the maintenance and repair of roads must be continuously done. It is wholly unsatisfactory for gaping potholes to plague our streets and threaten motorists and pedestrians safety.

X.      ADDRESSING EFFECTS OF INADEQUATE HOUSING PLANNING

Many of Jeffrey’s Bay’s infrastructure problems are a result of a failure by the municipal authorities to ensure that proper housing and similar development planning took place. The municipality now has a major infrastructure backlog, and our original infrastructure is required to take the strain for a built environment that is more than double the size of what the infrastructure was designed to support.

Fire Services Levy

RESIDENTS of the Kouga will have to pay a so-called fire levy as from July next year. That is if the Kouga local municipality Council vote in favour of a recommendation put forward by the Mayoral Committee. The purpose of the levy will be to subsidize fire services within the Kouga. The proposal was adopted by Mayor Booi Koerat and his mayoral committee in September and it will be tabled at the next council meeting.

The exact amount to be paid still needs to be determined, but if adopted in its current form, residents of Jeffreys Bay, Humansdorp, St.Francis Bay and Hankey will pay double the amount that residents of Thornhill, Patensie, Loerie and Oyster Bay will pay. Indigent consumers will be exempted.

Stakeholders however, question the municipality’s capability to properly use the funds collected for special subsidies for the intended purpose.

St. Francis Bay DA Councilor Ben Rheeder allege that of the three levies for special services that residents of the Kouga currently pay, two are not handled as prescribed in the Municipal Systems Act and the Municipal Property Rates Act.

Rheeder, in a motion put forward in the council meeting on Friday, December 9, said that the St Francis Bay Sewerage Levy and the Environmental levy are not properly ring-fenced as required by legislation and the funds collected are not used for the purpose the levies were created for. He said “The prescribed legislation was ignored for the past four financial years.”

Rheeder insisted that the Municipal Manager and the Chief Financial Officer  provide the next Finance Committee and Council with a plan to pay the last four years collected sewerage levy funds into the correct account and that these funds be used for extending  the St Francis Bay waterborne sewer system.

Bloemfontein has spoken: A ratespayers strike is not a protected course in itself

South African municipal authorities are in a terrible state and residents, rates-payers (many of whom are residents) and businesses operating within particular municipalities have developed hostility towards paying monies which are perceived to be or are maladministered.

Ultimately the residents and ratespayers of the municipality within which Kroonstad finds itself formed an association which like many other residents and ratespayers associations embarked on a rates strike. One of the striking members, a Ms Rademan, found that the municipality had terminated her electricity supply even though she had paid her electricity bill (it seems this is a postpaid account). Subsequently Ms Rademan (presumably with the support of some form of the association) approached the magistrates court to compel the reconnection of her electricity. The case has moved through the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled last week Thursday (1st December) and effectively confirmed both the reasoning and the finding of the Bloemfontein High Court which set aside a decision by the magistrate for the Kroonstad district which gave Ms Rademan reprieve. An advantage of the manner in which this case has been handled is that we have two good judgments, one in English and one in Afrikaans. Unfortunately for Ms Rademan she is finding herself with costs from three courts and these costs do grow.

The judgment which bears the reference Rademan v Moqhaka Municipality & others (173/11) [2011] ZASCA 244 (01 December 2011) is a judgment which any person considering withholding monies from the municipality should consider. The reasoning of the Supreme Court of Appeal is crisp and its findings above any real criticism when regard is had to the relevant statutory provisions. Of course there is always the possibility of a Constitutional Court challenge on the basis that the legislation is unconstitutional.

I don’t believe that the Constitutional Court will find the relevant provisions of the Municipal Systems Act unconstitutional for two reasons: Firstly the Constitution does not contain any provisions requiring meaningful representation before taxation or that the government failing in critical duties may justify certain steps - in so far as this may be viewed as a flaw in the Constitution itself I align myself for fairly complex reasons with the view, in so far as certain political interests advocate the inclusion of such a provision in order to enhance “accountability” I do not. Secondly the Constitutional Court has already in Pretoria City Council v Walker 1998 (2) SA 363 (CC) placed its flag on the mask against a dissent into anarchy. A feature strongly endorsed by the Rademan decision is the fact that municipal rates are “part of the civic and contractual responsibilities” of ratespayers and that “for a municipality to be able to properly and efficiently

One area of the law which this case does not address and which is relevant to Kouga ratespayers is whether a ratespayer must pay the rates assessed by the municipality according to inflated property values of whether they may pay rates on a lower valuation of the property if the second valuation is in order – this is a major issue due to the assessment on the market value of property. I suspect that the statutory basis for rates determination will entail a pay first argue later policy and that the municipal authorities will not endorse a policy by which a ratespayer may pay on a lower assessment.

However the political considerations behind the law are still open to debate. Is it correct that residents and ratespayers have no recourse against the municipality who simply misuses their funds? The view of the courts appears to be that the law itself is the recourse and in exchange for the protection which the Rule of Law brings we surrender our right to self-help in the form of a rates strike; of course we can turn to our courts (we have a Constitutional right of access to legal recourse after all) but the record suggests that litigation by many follows debt collection, commerce and evading conviction for criminal behaviour and not the maintaining a democracy. Perhaps South African’s are not sufficiently prepared to litigate about important issues and principles, being too afraid of descending into the perceived (and possibly real) litigant society of the USA and the unfortunate cynicism that may emerge on finding that whilst poor unsatisfactory and shoddy legal services may be obtained easily, quality litigation is both costly and inconvenient - unless you happen to be a public official facing criminal charges. (Just ask the President, whose office repeatedly demonstrates the shoddiest of work while his personal criminal defence team extract massive fees paid by the fiscus.) Sadly certain government entities are more afraid of certain well connected entities than they are of the law itself – rather keep particular business or party interests happy than comply with the law, after all who is going to take you to court and even if they succeed it is public monies that are spent; and this may include Kouga. In addition to the courts we also have recourse through the municipal council’s legislative mandate, we can lobby for a municipal policy which allows the creation of a holding trust for ratespayers funds in dispute. The municipality would be well served by a policy which sees the proper declaration and resolution of individual and collective disputes instead of a general disquiet that currently exists.

 

Suffice it to state that unless a policy creating space for the entrustment of monies by ratespayers as a withholding rates unless specific issues are addressed is created a rates strike by ratespayers simply will not succeed and Kouga not only have a right but a legal duty to break the strike by cutting services. Of course the prospects that some ratespayers purporting to be in a rates strike are simply acting on a pretext which undermines service delivery could see an improvement for residents as the municipality will have more funds. Unfortunately the issue is one upon which measurement of the management and administrative structures are important, further as many municipalities have demonstrated the two dominant political organizations in Kouga both appear to set course on policies which are as prejudicial to the poor as they are idiotic. In the present instance  the Kouga Municipality has bizarrely embarked on terminating access to tenants without complying with the prescripts of the Constitutional Court decision in Joseph & others v City of Johannesburg & others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) which requires that 14 days notice be given before terminating access to electricity and that the municipality must make it possible for tenants to enter into a relationship with the municipality for services. Unfortunately this is a subject on which the concept and principles of sub iudice prevent me from commenting at this time.

 

[Small category note: I have included a tag “legal opinion” although this is not to suggest that this piece is or should be viewed as a legal opinion, but rather that it has a bearing on an issue relating to the seeking of or reliance on legal opinions. A legal opinion can be sought from one of the many legal practitioners within the Kouga municipality] 

Ward 11 office finally in use

Ward 11 in Jeffreys Bay has had a ward committee office standing idle for the last 18 months or so. This was the subject of a news report in the Our Times about 2 months ago. Despite many assurances from both the councillor and the municipality, the offices remained unfinished and unused.

The Jeffreys Bay Residents Association committee meets once a month, and has often battled to find a suitable venue with easy wheelchair access for one of our members.  Although we have often used a room at the Jeffreys Bay Golf Club, this was not available for our November meeting. The JBRA chairman decided to investigate the use of the Ward office. Tertius Snyders of the Kouga Municipality was very helpful when contacted. Within 3 days he had arranged to clean up the offices and arrange a duplicate key. The ward 11 councillor, Mercia Ungerer, agreed to allow the use of the office for the residents association.

So, after many months of standing idle, the brand new ward 11 office hosted its first meeting last Thursday, 17th November 2011. Let's hope that these offices become a hive of activity, serving the needs of the residents of Jeffreys Bay Central and C Place.

The office has no furniture at all. If anyone has a few spare tables and chairs available, they can be put to good use.

 Members of the committee outside the office in Kwagga Street, C Place.

The committee hard at work packing the newsletter in the main office.

PS. There is a similar office in ward 8 near Noorsekloof, which has also been idle for many months.