1 / 28

CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR

CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR. Presentation to the NCOP 20th April 2010. CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTATION. PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION LEGISLATIVE MANDATE STATUS OF THE REPORT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

andie
Download Presentation

CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE 2007 /2008 FINANCIAL YEAR Presentation to the NCOP 20th April 2010

  2. CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTATION • PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION • LEGISLATIVE MANDATE • STATUS OF THE REPORT • PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY • HIGHLIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE IN 2007/08 F/Y • CHALLENGES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND • RECOMMENDATIONS BY TECHNICAL MUNIMEC

  3. 1. Purpose of the presentation • Present to the members of the NCOP the performance of Eastern Cape municipalities as reflected in the s.47 Report for 2007–08 by the MEC • Give an outline on recommendations made by the Technical MUNIMEC and adopted by the MUNIMMEC on ways to improve Municipal performance reporting

  4. 2. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE • This Report is compiled in terms of s.47 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000 • To a large extent it is based on Annual Performance reports of individual municipalities as required by s.46 supra • National Treasury Circular No. 11 of 2003 • s.43 read with s.105 of the Municipal Systems Act • s. 41(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Republic of SA

  5. 3. STATUS OF THE S. 47 REPORT • 44 Reports submitted for 2007/8 as against 40 in 2006/7 – 09% improvement • Authenticity of the Reports • 30 were signed by both the Mayor and the MM • 05 by the Mayor only • 04 by the MM only and • 05 unsigned • s.47 Report was published in the Provincial Gazette as is required in terms of s.47(2)(c) of the Municipal Systems Act • Report submitted to the Provincial Legislature, NCOP & the Minister for COGTA to enable the compilation of s.48 Report for submission to Parliament

  6. 3. STATUS OF S. 47 REPORT – Cont. • All municipalities were provided with 2 copies – for the Mayor and the MM for their information and attention • The report reflected on weaknesses and strengths and proposed remedial actions to be taken by the MEC • Detailed information per each municipality, per KPI, per Quality Standard is available and was made available during feedback visits or on request • The reporting Format was work-shopped to all municipalities to strictly adhere to for the 2008/9 F/Y

  7. 4. Performance Assessment Methodology • All municipalities submit s.46 Performance Assessment Reports – Dates of receipt of which are recorded • The assessment of s.46 reports goes through three (3) phases: • The preliminary assessment – sometimes leads to returning the report to the municipality with comments • The Technical Assessment by teams with technical expertise from within the department • Final assessment – producing a consolidated provincial performance of local government

  8. 4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development

  9. 4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators (13) revealed the following situation: • A drop in performance in most DM areas including NMBMM compared to 2006/07. • Cacadu and OR Tambo were the only district municipal areas that showed a slight improvement in performance when compared with the previous year. • Cacadu District Area from 38% in 2006/07 to 42% in 2007/08 • OR Tambo District from 16% in 2006/7 to 32% in 2007/8; • The progress observed in OR Tambo DM area was due to the fact that most municipalities in this district did not submit their reports in 2006/7 Financial Year.

  10. 4. Performance highlights- Institutional Transformation and Organizational Development

  11. 4.2 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS-BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY

  12. 4.2 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS-BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators (23) revealed the following situation: • Most municipalities made progress with regard to basic service delivery in 2007/08; • The performance was still by no means satisfactory as evidenced by the fact that not a single district area managed to achieve an average of 50% performance rate. • Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality had the highest average score of 70% followed by Chris Hani DM area with an average score of 44%. • Alfred Nzo and OR Tambo DM areas were the worst performing districts at 35% and 32% respectively.

  13. 4.2 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS-BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY

  14. 4.3 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  15. 4.3 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • The performance of municipalities across all the Indicators revealed the following situation • Despite the progress observed, the average performance across all districts was still below 50%. • Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Amathole and Alfred Nzo DMs were the best performing municipalities overall, yet they only scored between 40-45%. • Location also appeared to play a role in performance as the best performing municipalities were all in the urban areas. • Support provided to municipalities in respect of LED had therefore to focus on the rural municipalities. • Municipalities were persuaded to strive to mainstream LED in all their infrastructure development projects.

  16. 4.3 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  17. 4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY

  18. 4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (10) revealed the following situation: • Though not yet satisfactory, the overall performance of municipalities improved in all DM areas as well as in Nelson Mandela Bay.; • NMBMM’s overall achievement rate was 80% which was “exceptional” with an unqualified AG report; • The next best was the Ukhahlamba DM area with an overall achievement of 62%; • Chris-Hani and OR Tambo district areas performed the worst at 44% and 28% respectively.

  19. 4.4 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND VIABILITY

  20. 4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  21. 4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (08) revealed the following situation: • Despite the progress observed during 2007/08, the overall performance in the District Municipalities areas was still bellow 50%; • Amathole, Cacadu, OR Tambo, Ukhahlamba and Alfred Nzo Districts reported progress in their performance compared to 2006/07. • Chris Hani District and Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality performance regressed compared to 2006/07 Financial Years.

  22. 4.5 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  23. 4.6 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

  24. 4.6 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- CROSS CUTTING ISSUES • The performance assessment of municipalities across all the Indicators (04) revealed the following situation: • There had been progress across all district municipalities including the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality. • The worst performing Districts were: OR Tambo (53%) and Ukhahlamba (54%); • Nelson Mandela Bay Metro was the best performing municipality with an “exceptional” achievement rate of (85%).

  25. 4.6 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS- CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

  26. 5. Challenges in municipal performance assessment process; • Late submission of reports by municipalities to the department; • Non cooperation of some municipalities regarding preliminary assessment feedback – non submission of vital information • Lack of uniformity in the reporting format – non-adherence to the format; • Some reports were not signed by either the Mayor and/MM

  27. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS BY T.MUNIMEC that were ADOPTed BY MUNIMEC • The new reporting format for Section 46 report developed by the Department should be used by ALL municipalities as from 2008/09 Financial Year; • Municipalities should fully cooperate with the Department and support the preliminary and final performance assessment processes set as follows: • Draft reports sent to the Department by latest February end; • Final reports (adopted by council) sent to the Department for final performance assessment by latest May end; • Municipalities should avail themselves for a detailed feedback by Department officials on the 2007/08 performance assessment

  28. THANK YOU

More Related