Tweespruit is a small town under the Mantsopa Muncipality in Ladybrand, Free State.

Our Ratepayers Assoc was formed in April 09.  We have had one meeting with councillors after they just did not arrive for a meeting the previous week.

Six weeks ago a local farmer Mr M.Oelrich (a former M.E.C.for agriculture ) informed us that our sewerage works was disfunctional and that raw sewerage was flowing into one of his dams & then into the dam from which the town gets water!  I sent report to “Volksblad”newspaper who published the story.  I got abusive phone calls from councillors “who gives me the right to go to the media?”and from madam speaker “I an ordered to fax her the article?  My reply: “I am a pensioner,you get a huge salary,buy your own newspaper!”   Two days later Director of Enviro Sorb Company phones me & faxes daming report given to muncipality in Sept 2005, in 4yrs nothing done! Not even a fence erected around settlement dam 60metres from local school into which raw sewerage is deposited.

Last scheduled meeting with mun councillors, muncipality did not arrive.   On Tuesday 11 August Clr Tladi phones me & tells me meeting @ 17h00 cancelled, mayor demands meeting @ 12h00 the next day Wednesday 12 August at 12h 00 as Free State Premier would be in Ladybrand on the Friday 14 August! From 11h50 five members of Tweespruit Ratepayers Committee present untill 12h30.Mayor & councillors did not arrive.

Landline calls useless -never in offices-cell phones on voice mail-do not return calls? Have sent registed letters to Premier & District Mayor, asking for a WRITTEN acknowledgment and a WRITTEN reply ! After a month the Political Advisor to Madam District Mayor Mr Makhetha phones me and asks me what my problems are? He had NOT read our registed letter of two pages.   He was replying to our letter.  I stated we requested a WRITTEN REPLY! He replied I must listen, as he was replying.I asked if he was writing a reply as he was speaking.  His reply :”No,I am the phone.”  Then realized that Mr Makhetha did not understand what the word “written” implies??

THE HENNENMAN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
HENNENMAN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 447
Hennenman
9445 Fax: (057) 5733 143
THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER
THE HONOURABLE SPEAKER
THE HONOURABLE MAYOR
Mathjabeng MUNICIPALITY
P.O. Box 708
WELKOM
Fax: (057) 353 2161 / 352 1267
PER FAX
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PRETORIA
FAX NO 012 323 0093
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY
PRETORIA
FAX NO 012 326 2715
THE MEC FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING
BLOEMFONTEIN
THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR –GENERAL
BLOEMFONTEIN
27 May 2008
Dear Sirs/Ms
DECLARATION OF DISPUTE
A. As you were informed in our earlier correspondence, the HENNENMAN
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION was formed during the past year by
Hennenman and Phomolong residents and mandated by these residents during
public meetings to address the concerns of residents in respect of the
deterioration of the basic services under the present Municipal administration.
You are hereby notified that the HENNENMAN RESIDENTS
ASSOCIATION has been specifically mandated at public meetings in
2
Hennenman to declare, as it hereby does, a dispute against the Mathjabeng
Municipality and which is based on the following grounds:
1. Sewerage
The dilapidated state of the sewerage works plant in Hennenman where
important components of the plants machinery are out of order, water
enters the Sand River, and all speak of incompetent management. Raw
sewerage is spilling onto the streets in Phomolong. This creates health
risks to all its residents. It is further placed on record that private
individuals had, out of their own accord and at their own expense,
repaired the sewerage truck in Phomolong as the Municipality failed in
its duty to do so. The fact that sewerage in an untreated form ends up
in the Sand River creates an ecological disaster waiting to happen. It
also contaminates the drinking water and serious health hazards exist
for all the residents in Hennenman and Phomolong alike.
2. Refuse removal
The community objects to the obviously disorganised and unhealthy
manner and the uncontrolled situation at the dumping sites in
Hennenman and specifically in Phomolong.
3. Infrastructure
Our problems with the general deterioration of the infrastructure
include, but are not limited to:
(a) The failure to properly maintain roads in Hennenman and in
Phomolong. Damage to the vehicles of residents occurs on a
regular basis due to potholes not being fixed in time despite
request being made for such repairs. Streets in Phomolong are
absolutely unusable by normal vehicles.
(b) The deterioration of sports facilities in Hennenman. Uniepark is
used by the residents of both Hennenman and Phomolong on a
regular basis but the facilities, especially the ablution facilities,
leaves a lot to be desired. It needs urgent repairs. .
(c) Street lights that are out of order. Private individuals are
replacing, as far as possible, light bulbs in Hennenman in order
to ensure well lit and safe streets. Once again this voluntary
work is being done at great personal expenses to the individuals
concerned.;
(d) The lack of control over the maintenance of sidewalks. Weeds
are taking over.;
(e) The deterioration of the Community hall is a disgrace. No
working electrical appliance exists any more. Tiles in the
3
entrance hall are broken and in some places making unsafe
bulges which will break at any time. The toilet facilities are an
absolute mess and are not in working order. The kitchen in the
community hall is totally dysfunctional.
(f) The deterioration of the cemetery facilities in Hennenman. No
taps are to be found on the premises as al taps have been
forcibly removed.
(g) Road signs are either missing or so faded that it can not be read
any longer. This causes great safety risks to both motorists and
pedestrians alike in Hennenman and Phomolong.
(h) Stray animals on the main entrance road from Kroonstad as well
as on the entrance road servicing the smallholdings are a cause
of concern. Stray animals on municipal sites such as those
grazing around the Fire Brigade constitute a health and safety
risk.
4. Erroneous accounts
The many erroneous accounts received by residents during the past
months (and even letters of demand by attorneys based on erroneous
figures and faulty readings) speak of incompetence on the part of the
technical and financial departments of the Municipality. Section 95(e)
of the Municipal Systems Act states ensure that persons liable for
payments receive regular and accurate accounts that indicate the basis
for calculating the amounts due. This is not the case in Hennenman.
5. Financial Reports
It is known that the Municipality has failed for the past three financial
years to receive an unqualified audit report due to incompetent
administration. It is not known what steps the Municipality took to
address issues raised by the Auditor-General in this audit reports. The
enormous amounts that are spend on travelling cost especially the
Mayor and Municipal Manager.
6. Budgets
No invitation was given to members of the public to comment on any
portion of the Municipal Budget as contemplated in Act 56 of 2003.
We reserve our rights in this regard and herewith request the
following:
6.1 As required by Chapter 4, section 17 (3) of the Municipal Finance
Management Act no 56, 2003:
measurable performance objectives for revenue from each source
and for each vote in the budget; (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 4
supporting table 10);
4
6.2 a projected cash flow for the budget year by revenue source,
broken down per month; (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 4 –
supporting table 9);
6.3 any proposed amendments to the Municipality’s IDP following the
annual review of the IDP in terms of section 34 of the Municipal
Systems Act;
6.4 particulars of the municipality’s investments; (MFMA Circular 28
– Annexure 4 – Supporting table 4 + 4a)
6.5 the proposed cost to the municipality for the budget year of the
salary, allowances and benefits of –
each political office-bearer of the municipality;
councillors of the municipality;
the municipal manager, the chief financial officer, each senior manager
of the municipality and any other official of the municipality having a
remuneration package greater than or equal to that of a senior
manager; (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 4 – supporting table 8 + 8a
+ 8b)
6.6 the total expenditure on salaries and wages be in balance on the
budget as opposed to the government guideline of maximum 35%.
6.7 Repairs and maintenance to infrastructure being adjusted in the
budget to the guidelines stipulated by the government to be no less
than 15% of total budget.
6.8 With the budget, a breakdown of the expenses listed under General
Expenses to be provided.
2. As required by Chapter 5, section 34 (a) (i) of Municipal Systems
Act 2000; Assessment of Performance measurements in terms of
section 41:
No measuring or review performance reports have been measured or
reviewed as required by Section 41 (1) (c) (ii) of Municipal Systems
Act 2000.
Key performance indicators and performance targets have not been
made known to the public as required by Section 44 of the Municipal
Systems Act 2000. (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 5)
Annual reports on the previous Financial year and the Auditor
Generals reports thereon have not been presented by the Mayor to the
public as required by Section 46 of the Municipal Systems Act 2000.
Alignment of Budget with Integrated Development Plan – showing
REVENUE, OPEX and CAPEX. (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 4 –
supporting table 1 + 2 + 3)
Grant allocations (MFMA Circular 28 – Annexure 4 – Supporting table
5)
DRAFT TARRIFS:
Service tariffs are intended to fund the cost incurred to provide
municipal services by a municipality, to the community.
As intended by the various Acts, specifically the Municipal Systems
5
Act, section 74, and a detailed presentation are required that reflects
the costs reasonably associated with rendering these services and
including:
1. capital costs,
2. operating costs,
3. maintenance costs,
4. admin costs
5. replacement costs and
6. interest charges, if any.
Further we would appreciate information on the following:
When was the budget published for comment?
How was the public informed of their right to comment on the
budget?
B. The Residents Association informs you that we believe that the deterioration
in the service levels is due to sheer incompetence and not to a shortage of
financial resources. However, if a shortage of funds are a relevant factor, we -
(a) assume that the Municipality will be able to provide proof of
complying with all aspects of section 135(3) of the Municipal
Financial Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 56 of 2003) (although the
Municipality is not known to have publicly announced a serious
financial problem as contemplated in that section). The question must
also be raised as to whether the Municipality had done everything in its
power to access Government and public sector funding, which we
doubt;
C. You are further informed that unless -
(a) appropriate action is taken and clear progress is made by your
Municipality in addressing the various complaints within fourteen days
from date hereof, and of which the Association expects to be informed;
(b) the Municipality, within the mentioned period and as part of the
appropriate mechanisms, processes and procedures to enable the local
community to participate in the affairs of the municipality which the
Municipality is obliged to create in terms of the section 17(2) of the
Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000), establish a
standing monitoring committee, consisting of both Association
members and Municipal Councillors/Officials, in order to assess the
quality of services in Hennenman and Phomolong on a continuous
basis;
(c) the Municipality agrees to an independent performance audit of its
various departments,
6
appropriate action will be taken by the residents. Such action may include, but
is not limited to, the withholding payment of the tariffs and charges payable in
respect of:
(i) Property assessment rates.
(ii) Reclaiming the costs incurred by individuals to do necessary repair
and maintenance work which should have been done by the
Municipality
It is hereby confirmed that residents do not intend to refrain from paying these
tariffs and charges but instead to deposit same in a trust bank account pending
the outcome of the dispute. We are not going to accept any interest charges on
the accounts of the residents who are deposit their money in the trust account,
because this account will also generate interest. Once the residents start to
withhold their rates and taxes, we will present the Chief Financial Officer with
a list of the residents who pay their rates and taxes into the trust account on a
monthly basis. Appropriate deductions will, however, be made in respect of
any expenditure incurred in procuring the services of contractors should your
Municipality fail to continue rendering any basic municipal service.
You are referred to section 102(2) of the said Municipal Systems Act which
provides that you are prohibited from applying credit control and debt
collection until such time as a dispute has been resolved.
D. Finally, we place on record that this extraordinary action will be taken
(a) as a last resort by a unified Hennenman public after -
(i) various complaints were laid by the residents and this
Association and community members about the state of
services and requests were made for a systematic program on
the part of the Municipality to tackle and finally solve all
deficiencies; and
(ii) various requests were made for consultations by this
Association which were, contrary to sections 5 (1)(b) and
17(2)(d) of the said Municipal Systems Act, never reacted to;
(b) as a clear vote of no confidence by the public in the competency and
quality of the administration of the Municipality. Please note that the
public does not have any desire to interfere in the running of local
government services but are now forced to do so;
(c) with the intent of arresting the further deterioration in local government
services in our area and not with any ulterior motives in mind, especially
not any motives aimed at inciting conflict with any particular councillor or
staff member or motives of a political nature.
(d) This dispute could be altered at any given time as new disputes arise.
7
Yours faithfully,
_____________________
IA DE VILLIERS
(CHAIRPERSON)
______________________
______________________
On behalf of the HENNENMAN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Committee Members:
IA De Villiers 082 570 1031
J Kemp 082 555 1268
JJ Calitz 083 281 1168
A Greyling 082 909 2132
W Badenhorst 082 925 5562
8
RECEIPT OF :
DECLARATION OF DISPUTE
From the
HENNENMAN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
(Letter dated 27 May 2008)
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Name of person accepting dispute
…………………………………………………
Signature
…………………………………………………
Date
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Name of person accepting dispute
…………………………………………………
Signature
…………………………………………………
Date

Residents of Trompsburg have asked for a document that will allow them to set up a ratepayers’ association.  This is a standard document, and will shortly be placed on the website for anyone else who is interested in starting a ratepayers’ association.

Villiers has now joined the list of towns that have declared a dispute with their municipality and have begun paying their rates into a trust fund.

Heilbron’s problems consist of a municipality that has just had its furniture repossessed because it has been unable to pay its bills, among other problems. One of the more pressing problems was the complete failure of the town’s fire-fighting capacity. The residents have called a dispute with the municipality, and in early June called a meeting with various members of the municipality to discuss problems with service delivery. Here is a letter written as a result of that meeting:

June 12th 2009
Sir
INTRODUCTION
The Heilbron Grondeienaars en Inwoners Vereniging is a legally structured and constituted association representing a number of landowners and inhabitants of Heilbron. A dispute was declared with the Ngwathe Local Municipality during December 2008. As a result of this and after several meetings between die parties during which possible solutions in respect of the concerns raised by HGIV were discussed, the Ngwathe Municipality accepted a Rehabilitation Program as proposed by HGIV.
THE COORDINATION MEETING
The said association organised a Coordination Meeting between the different role players in an effort to assist the Municipality in expediting the actions proposed in the Rehabilitation Program regarding the sewerage works and the streets.
The following persons were invited and accepted the invitation
1. P.F. Botha LGH Municipal Infrastructure Bloemfontein Cel: 051 407 6703
2. M. Mahlatsi Ngwathe Municipal Manager Tel: 056 811 2131
3. A. Schoonwinkel Councillor (DA) Cel: 084 549 3384
4. P. v.d. Merwe Councillor (VF+) Tel: 058 852 2041
5. G. Nel DWAF Tel: 051 405 9204
6. J. Earle Proper Consulting (Engineering consultant of the Board) Cel: 082 784 8476
7. J. Kelder NBU Cel: 083 208 9314
8. F. Malherbe HGIV Cel: 083 635 1386
9. E. Laubscher HGIV Cel: 082 416 8950
At the meeting an unfortunate situation developed in that Mr Mahlatsi arrived at the meeting with a delegation of councillors, directors and municipal employees, demanding that the Speaker should be the chairperson. The HGIV chairperson, Mr F Malherbe, declined the demand where after the Municipal Manager, with his delegation, walked out of the meeting.
Mr P.F. Botha and his assistant, delegates from the Provincial Local Government and Housing, also left the meeting.
Since it is etiquette that the organisation , who arranges a meeting, also decides on the contents of the agenda and it’s chairperson as a rule normally presides over such meeting, HGIV finds the conduct of the municipal and the provincial delegation unacceptable. We condemn the action in the strongest terms and we expect an excuse from the relevant persons.
If an excuse is not forthcoming, HGIV will view the incident as an indication of a non-cooperative attitude from the side of the municipality and province. Such a conclusion may have a detrimental effect on future cooperation between the ratepayers and the Local Government, which is the last thing HGIV desires as it’s attitude has all along been one of co-operation and the maintaining of a good relationship with all the role players in it’s efforts to enhance service delivery in the greater Heilbron.
Yours faithfully
__________________
F. MALHERBE
CHAIRPERSON

The main problem in Frankfort and surrounding towns is sewage that is not being handled correctly (or at all) and is landing up in rivers and streams. The residents of Frankfort have now declared a dispute and are putting their rates into a trust account.

Summary of activity from Bethlehem: (submitted by Danie Eichstad)

Gedurende die vorige bedeling reeds was daar in Bethlehem ‘n behoefte om belastingbetalers te verenig oor sake waar die munisipaliteit nie aan die verwagtinge voldoen het nie.

Met die stigting van die vereniging is daar wyslik besluit om lidmaatskap nie te beperk tot belastingbetalers nie, maar om alle inwoners in te sluit. Ons het 530 lede het waarvan 97 belastingbetalers aktief deelneem aan die weerhouding van eiendomsbelasting op ons afsonderlike bankrekening.

Sedert 1994 is die bedinging met die munisipaliteit verskerp en het periodieke vergaderings mettertyd plaasgevind tussen die DIV bestuur en die Munisipale bestuur. Aanvanklik het hulle ons tevrede gehou met mooi praatjies en selfs enkele diensleweringsprobleme bevredigend aangespreek. Ons het egter begin om ‘n studie te maak van die verslae van die Ouditeur-Generaal en vinnig agtergekom dat ons besig is om op ‘n reuse afgrond af te stuur weens onbekwaamheid, swak bestuur en geldvermorsing. Niks word ook gedoen om die swak betaalkoers in die swart woongebiede te verbeter nie (16% met ‘n verlies van ongeveer R2 miljoen per maand!) terwyl enorme bedrae slegte skuld as gevolg hiervan jaarliks afgeskryf word. Geen mening kan in die verslae uitgespreek word nie weens swak dokumentasie en die munisipaliteit is nie in staat om as lopende saak diens te lewer aan die gemeenskap nie. Hulle erken dit self in die verslag!

Gesprekke het dus al van die begin van hierdie eeu tot in 2008 voortgegaan sonder noemenswaardige resultate. Ons het die munisipaliteit drie maande kans gegee om hulle sake in orde te kry. Op 26 Augustus 2008 het ons die situasie aan die gemeenskap geskets tydens ‘n openbare vergadering en ‘n mandaat gekry om op 27 Augustus 2008 ‘n dispuut te verklaar. Afskrifte hiervan is ook aan die provinsiale en nasionale owerhede gestuur. Lede het eiendomsbelasting op ons afsonderlike bankrekening begin inbetaal en selfs prominente sakemense ondersteun ons. Die bedrag op hierdie wyse teruggehou het nou al gegroei tot
R618 000 en neem maandeliks met ongeveer R50 000 toe.

Hewige briefwisseling met die munisipaliteit het hierop gevolg met weinig resultate. In opdrag van die nasionale departement van Finansies, het die provinsie twee vergaderings geinisieer (op 19 Februarie 2009 en 27 Maart 2009) in ‘n poging om die dispuut op te los. Die munisipaliteit was wel teenwoordig (nie die munisipale bestuurder nie), maar ondanks ons pogings om behoorlike uitkomsgerigte struktuur te vestig, was beide maar net gesprekswinkels (talkshops).
‘n verslag oor die huidige stand van ons dispute is onlangs aan die provinsie gestuur om aan die LUR en Premier voor te lê. Nog geen reaksie is ontvang nie.

Ons het die munisipaliteit meegedeel dat ons bereid is om die belastinggeld op lewensnoodsaaklikhede (brandweer, water riool en vullisverwydering) aan te wend mits hulle volle erkenning daaraan verleen en ons lede vrywaar. Geen reaksie is egter tot dusver ontvang nie.

Intussen is ons lede se krag gesny en gedagvaar vir die teruggehoude eiendomsbelasting. Tydelike interdikte is wel verkry om eersgenoemde te stop, maar finale hofbeslissings behoort eers gedurende Augustus 2009 bekend te wees.

This is a very active association. Bethlehem is in dispute with their municipality and are paying rates into a trust account. There are many issues of serious concern with regard to municipal affairs, such as tender irregularities, poor recovery of debt (only a 16% payment rate in the township), lack of communication, non-performance of ward committees. The RA is ready to pay over the rates as soon as they are satisfied that the problems are being solved. However, lack of willingness to solve problems from the point of view of the municipality has led the RA to believe that the dispute must continue.

This is the letter written by the Bethlehem RA about the write-off of arrears:

WRITE-OFF OF R100 MILLION OF DEBTORS

This is a matter of great concern to the DRA. The debtors book is 82% of the total budget and you are writing off almost half of it! This is a direct income loss and the willing taxpayers have to make up for it.
~ How long is this amount of R100 million outstanding?
~ What measures have been taken to prevent it from prescription (verjaring)?
~ Why could this debt not be collected?
~ If it is connected to the indigent, why is it not covered by grants from government?
~ What measures have been taken to ensure that indigent people do not over-utilise grants for services?
~ What amounts have meen written off in the past three years?
~ What measures have been taken to prevent this to repeat each year?
~ When will you have your systems in place to monitor and report the improvement of the payment rate in each ward?
~ How are you going to implement this write-off?

The misuse of taxpayers money is one of our main reasons for declaring a dispute with the municipality and we will appreciate your direct and clear answers on our questions to inform our members likewise.
Sincerely
Danie Eichstädt
(Chairperson – Dohlabeng Residents Association)
082 336 2353