Minutes.2010 05 25

Ref no.
3/5/2/5
2010-05-28
MINUTES
MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING
2010-05-25
at 17:00
AND CONTINUED ON
2010-05-26
AT 09:00
TIK5: MINUTES: MAYCO.2010-05-25/TS

MINUTES
MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING
2010-05-25 AND CONTINUED ON 2010-05-26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
1. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1&16
2. COMMUNICATION BY THE CHAIRPERSON 2
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
3.1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 2010-04-30 2
3.2 MINUTES OF A MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 2010-04-28 2
4. REPORT BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER RE OUTSTANDING RESOLUTIONS TAKEN AT THE
PREVIOUS MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING(S) 3
5. REPORTS FROM MAYORAL COMMITTEE AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING/S

5.1 NON-DELEGATED MATTERS
5.1.1 BULK INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS PAYABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 2007:
CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL OPINION 17
5.1.2 CHURCH SITES: KAYAMANDI 23
5.1.3 PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT: ERF 874, KAYAMANDI: CONSIDERATION OF
SECTION 124 OBJECTIONS 27
5.2 DELEGATED MATTERS
5.2.1 SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SHELTERS IN STELLENBOSCH
MUNICIPALITY 35
5.2.2 MONTHLY BUDGET STATEMENTS REPORTING: MARCH 2010 37
5.2.3 INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF BIODIVERSITY: 2010 38
5.2.4 AIR POLLUTION PROJECT 40
5.2.5 WAIVING OF FEES: TOTALSPORTS LADIES RACE HELD ON WOMEN’S DAY, 09 AUGUST
2009 BY STILLWATER SPORT & ENTERTAINMENT 43
5.2.6 MOBILE KITCHEN 48
5.2.7 ILLEGAL STRUCTURE ON SIDEWALK OF ECCLESSIA BUILDING, PLEIN STREET 50
5.2.8 ELECTRICITY LOSSES 54
5.2.9 ANIMAL BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT PROJECT 56
6. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

6.1.1 2007-2011 IDP (2ND GENERATION) 4
6.1.2 DRAFT MEDIUM TERM REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK
(COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DRAFT BUDGET) 2010 – 2013 6
6.1.3 APPROVAL OF TARIFF STRUCTURE: PROPERTY RELATED TRANSACTIONS 12
6.1.4 WRITING-OFF OF IRRECOVERABLE DEBT 14

6.2.1 MONTHLY BUDGET STATEMENTS REPORTING: APRIL 2010 58
7. MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

7.1 DOG AND ANIMAL CONTROL OPERATIONS 59
7.2 VOLUNTEER WILDFIRE SERVICES AWARENESS DAY 61
7.3 SUMMARY REPORT: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS IN SWOOPIESHOOGTE KLAPMUTS 63
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

8. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR
NONE 65
NONE 65
9. MOTIONS AND QUESTIONS RECEIVED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

NONE 65
10. CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS OF EXIGENCY

NONE 65
11. MATTER/S TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

SEE PINK DOCUMENTATION 65
1
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MAYORAL COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBER, TOWN HOUSE, PLEIN STREET, STELLENBOSCH ON TUESDAY,
2010-05-25 AT 17:00
PRESENT Executive Mayor, Alderman CP Jooste [Chairperson]
Councillors PW Biscombe
L de Villiers
ME Linders (Ms)
JP Serdyn (Ms)
K Shubani
P Winsnes (Ms)
OFFICIALS Acting Municipal Manager

Chief Financial Officer
Corporate Strategy Executive
Director: Community Services
Acting Director: Civil Engineering Services (P Hartzenberg)
Acting Director: Corporate Services (K Ford)
Acting Director: Electrical Engineering Services (J Hames)
Acting Director: Planning and Development (B de la Bat)
Acting Director: Public Safety (L Morta)
Deputy Director: Budget Office
Manager: Property Management
Head: Administration
Senior Administrative Officer
Committee Clerk (T Samuels (Ms))
Interpreter
**********************************************************
1. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE (3/5/2/2)
MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 1
RESOLVED (nem com)
that leave of absence be granted to Deputy Executive Mayor, Councillor

J Andrews, subject thereto that he submit reasons, in writing, for his absence.
(SAO)
2
MINUTES MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING 2010-05-25
2. COMMUNICATION BY THE CHAIRPERSON (3/5/2/2)
2.1 The Chairperson, Alderman CP Jooste solicited the consent of the Mayco
members to only deal with the items (6.1.1 to 6.1.4) that need to be
recommended to Council for consideration. He mentioned that the meeting
will adjourn thereafter and same will be continued on 2010-05-26 at 09:00 in
order to conclude the remainder of the agenda.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
3.1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON

2010-04-30 (3/5/2/5)
The above-mentioned minutes were distributed previously.
FOR CONFIRMATION
MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 3.1

RESOLVED (nem com)
that the Minutes of a Special Mayoral Committee Meeting held on

2010-04-30, be confirmed.
(SAO)
3.2 MINUTES OF A MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 2010-04-28

(3/5/2/5)
The above-mentioned minutes were distributed previously.
FOR CONFIRMATION

RESOLVED (nem com)
that the Minutes of the Mayoral Committee Meeting held on

2010-04-28, be confirmed.
(SAO)
3
4. REPORT BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER RE OUTSTANDING

RESOLUTIONS TAKEN AT PREVIOUS MAYORAL COMMITTEE
MEETING(S)
(3/5/2/5)
The report on outstanding resolutions is attached as APPENDIX 1.
FOR INFORMATION

RESOLVED (nem com)
that the report by the Acting Municipal Manager on resolutions taken at

previous Mayoral Committee meetings, be noted.
(Acting MM)
4
6. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER
6.1 NON- DELEGATED MATTERS
6.1.1 2007-2011 IDP (2nd GENERATION)
File number : 9/1/211
Reported by : Acting Municipal Manager
Compiled by : Corporate Strategy Executive
Delegated authority : Council

______________________________________________________________
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
To submit the new IDP for 2007-2011 (Revision 3) to Mayco for

recommendation to Council for approval.
2. BACKGROUND
The main Act that regulates integrated development planning is the

Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000) and more specifically
Chapter 5. Section 25 of this Act prescribes that a Municipal Council
must, within a prescribed period after the start of its elected term,
adopt a single, inclusive and strategic plan for the development of the
municipality which:
(a) links, integrates and co-ordinates plans and takes into account
proposals for the development of the municipality;
(b) aligns the resources and capacity of the municipality with the
implementation of the plan;
(c) forms the policy framework and general basis on which annual
budgets must be based;
(d) complies with the provisions of this Chapter; and
(e) is compatible with National and Provincial development plans and

planning requirements binding on the municipality in terms of
legislation.
3. DISCUSSION
The draft IDP and Budget were submitted to Council at a special

meeting on 06 May 2010. At this meeting the IDP was approved as a
draft for the purposes of further consultation and refinement.
The draft IDP and Budget were advertised for public inputs on
07 May 2010 in all the local newspapers and copies of the document
were made available at all municipal offices, libraries and ward
5
offices. The deadline for inputs was 16:00 on Wednesday,

19 May 2010.
Refinement work was done on the IDP document that served before
Council on 06 May 2010, especially with respect to inputs from the
respective Directors and the public.
The new updated IDP document is (under separate cover as

APPENDIX 1)
4. COMMENTS BY RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS
All the Departments were involved in the compilation of the IDP.
RECOMMENDED
that Mayco recommend to Council that the Second Generation IDP

(Revision 3) for 2007-2011, be approved in terms of Section 25(1) of the
Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000).
MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 6.1.1
RECOMMENDED
that Council approve the Second Generation IDP (Revision 3) for 2007-2011
in terms of Section 25(1) of the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000).
(-)
6
6.1.2 DRAFT MEDIUM TERM REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK

2010 – 2013 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DRAFT BUDGET)
File number : 5/1/1/2009/2010
Report by : Acting Municipal Manager
Compiled by : Chief Financial Officer
Delegated Authority : Council

______________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is three fold:-
(a) For the Mayoral Committee to consider the

views/submissions of the local community in terms of
Section 23 (1) (a) of the Municipal Finance Management
Act, (Act 56 of 2003), herein after called the MFMA and to
allow the Executive Mayor to respond/deal with same in
terms of section 23 (2) (a)-(b);
(b) To consider and recommend the Budget related and other

Policies (Appendices 1 - 10) to Council for
approval/adoption; and
(c) To consider and recommend the Medium Term Revenue

and Expenditure Framework (Budget) for 2010 - 2013,
(inclusive of the resolution/s relating to rates and tariffs), the
associated schedules and appendices to Council for
approval in terms of Section 24 of the MFMA.
2. BACKGROUND
Section 16(2) of the MFMA stipulates “that the mayor of the

municipality must table the Draft Annual Budget at a Council meeting
at least 90 days before the start of the financial year”. By implication
this means that the budget must be provisionally approved by 30
March, where after it must be submitted to the relevant government
departments and advertised for public/stakeholders comment. The
Draft Budget was however only approved by Council on 6 May 2010
with the resultant effect of the Provincial Treasury not being able to
include same as part of the LGMTEC 3 engagement which is the
formal Draft Budget engagement. The public participation process
was extended to 19 May 2010 as a result of the late approval to allow
for meaningful engagement of the Draft Budget.
2.1 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Section 23 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (Act No 56 of

2003) prescribes to municipalities the process to be followed when
the Annual Budget is tabled, as follows:
7
(1) “The municipal council must consider any views of the

local community; and the National Treasury, the relevant
provincial treasury and any provincial or national organs of
state or municipalities which made submissions on the
budget.
After considering all budget submissions, the Council must

give the Executive Mayor an opportunity to respond to the
submissions; and if necessary, to revise the budget and
table amendments for consideration by Council”
2.2 SUMMARY OF VIEWS RECEIVED FROM COMMUNITY

INCLUSIVE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS
Only 1 submission was received in terms of the formal communicated

budget notice and 2 more inputs via a meeting with the SRA and an
email to the CFO, following the extensive public participation drive
which included public meetings within the Greater Stellenbosch area
apart from the budget being advertised on the municipality’s web
page and hard copies being available at all libraries and
administrative buildings.
The submission of the Stellenbosch Ratepayer’s Association deals

with the immediate reduction of property rates by 25 percent and the
proposed electricity increase limited to 20 percent.
The De Zalze Golf Estate’s submission deals with proposals made in

August of 2009 in which amendments to the rates policy were
requested(submission attach for ease of reference).
The third submission deals with a comment from a Franschoek

resident following the public meeting held on 10 May 2010 in which
the draft budget is considered to be fair considering the state of the
SA economy.
The Executive Mayor’s Response…………….........
3. DISCUSSION
Using the Integrated Development Plan as the guiding tool for budget
compilation, the message directed to all municipalities from the
President during his 2010 State of the Nation address still resonates
throughout the local government sphere. A call was made for more
services and delivering same efficiently and effectively within a tight
resource envelope. The financial resources to fund the Operational
Budget will and must consist of realistically anticipated revenue
generated from property taxes, service charges and other income.
We were however mindful of estimated headline inflation for
2010/2011 of around 5.7% during the extensive income modelling
exercise and the principles of main economical services being cost
reflective, salary costs, bulk purchases, delivering quality services to
8
our communities and our ability to service infrastructure assets, were

some of the main considerations.
This budget is based on the above guiding principles and all main
services except electricity are within acceptable norms given the
current state of the economy. The nationally advertised electricity
tariff increase of 24.9% was approved by NERSA with effect from 1
April 2010. This will result in the municipality having to pay around
28.9% more for its bulk purchases from ESCOM with effect from 1
July 2010.
A further constraint on the already tight resource envelope is the

ability of all consumers to pay for services rendered as the high
unemployment rate and effects of the economic recession are still felt
throughout the community of the Greater Stellenbosch Area. We are
going to have to manage our limited resources smarter and
investigate and expand on other financial resources.
4. BUDGET RELATED POLICIES
The following Revised Budget and related Policies are attached for
consideration and adoption:
Rates Policy - Revised (APPENDIX 1) – (blue documentation)
Supply Chain Management Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 2)

(white documentation)
Budget Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 3) (yellow documentation)
Grants in Aid Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 4) (pink documentation)
Travel and Subsistence Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 5)

(white documentation)
Indigent Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 6) (blue documentation)
Tariff Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 7) (yellow documentation)
Credit Control and Debt Recovery Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 8)

(pink documentation)
Petty Cash Policy – Revised (APPENDIX 9) (blue documentation)
Funds and Reserves Policy – New Addition (APPENDIX 10)

(yellow documentation)
A report by the Accounting Officer in line with the budget and

reporting regulations is attached as APPENDIX 11 (white
documentation)– SECTION A. The report serves as an overview of
the budget, budget assumptions used as well as further detail on
funding sources and income streams to ensure the principle of a fully
funded budget.
9
5. CAPITAL BUDGET 2010/2011 – 2012/2013
Although the capital budget is infrastructure orientated and

addresses the very urgent need to upgrade/refurbish Council’s
infrastructure as addressed by the different master plans, it does
however speak to the IDP (Integrated Development Plan) and the
needs of the community.
The capital needs (in the form of financial resources) as identified by

the various directorates far exceeds Council’s own financial
resources and can not be fully financed from council’s reserves
(CRR). From a prudent perspective and to ensure continued financial
viability, an amount of R 54 841 000 was identified as funding
available from the Capital Replacement Reserve (CRR) for
2010/2011.
It is therefore incumbent on this Council to consider and in

principle approve the financing of other critical needs not
accommodated by own funds, by means of external funding. It is
imperative when considering the long term sustainability of our
operations that Council act accordingly.
The detailed Capital Budget for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and

2012/2013 is attached as APPENDIX 11 – SECTION B.
6. OPERATING BUDGET 2010/2011 – 2012/2013
The basis of the operating budget is aligned to the principle of total

potential income (less income forgone as an expense where
applicable) from all our services as well as a projection of total direct
income. The extent, to which tariffs and levies are to increase, was in
the main influenced by:
(i) The tariff increase in bulk purchases (water and electricity)
(ii) Salary costs
(iii) Service delivery challenges
(iv) Repairs and maintenance
(v) The socio economic conditions of the community
(vi) The projected growth of the Greater Stellenbosch Area
Taking all of these issues into consideration and to ensure the

sustainability of our operations from realistically anticipated income
flows, the following tariff increases are proposed for 2011/2012:
Electricity 24.9%
Sanitation 6.9%
10
Refuse removal 6%
Water 6% for all domestic consumers with

consumption up to 30 kl and 12% from 31 kl 6
% for all other categories of consumers
Rates No increase in the rate– the increase in

rates revenue is however the result of growth,
planned interim valuations in 2010/2011and
applying rates as per Council’ Rates Policy.
Council’s attention is further drawn to the fact that the proposed

electricity tariff was influenced by the increase in electricity bulk
purchases for the 2010/2011 financial year from ESCOM as
approved by NERSA (National Electricity Regulator of South Africa)
for implementation by all municipalities. The impact of the proposed
tariff increases on the monthly services account for the various
consumer categories is summarized in APPENDIX 12 (pink
documentation).
The Municipal Property Rates Act (Act No.6 of 2004) was

implemented 1 July 2009 and a detailed explanation on the
application of the rate on different categories of property/owners, is
attached as APPENDIX 13 (blue documentation).
An overall summary as well as detail per vote and department of the

operating budget for 2010/2011 is included in APPENDIX 11 –
SECTION C.
7. TARIFFS
Council’s attention is further drawn to the fact that the Tariff List
attached as APPENDIX 14 (yellow documentation) includes Sundry
Tariffs as a basket of services and charges, i.e. Land Use
Management Fees, Development contributions, Technical Charges,
etc. The proposed tariff list must be consulted for the detail.
8. OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The additional information as prescribed by the Budget and reporting

regulations are attached as APPENDIX 15 (white documentation).
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the proposed additional Policy and amendments to existing

Budget related Policies as set out in APPENDICES 1 - 10, be
approved;
(b) that the three year Capital Budget for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and
2012/2013, as set out in APPENDIX 11 – SECTION B be approved;
11
(c) that the Annual Budget Tables as prescribed by the Budgeting and
Reporting Regulations, as set out in APPENDIX 11 – SECTION C be
approved; and
(d) that the proposed rates on properties in WCO24, tariffs and tariff
structures for water, electricity, refuse, sewerage and other municipal
services, as set out in APPENDIX 13 & 14, be approved.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the proposed additional Policy and amendments to existing

Budget related Policies as set out in APPENDICES 1 - 10, be
approved;
(b) that the three year Capital Budget for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and
2012/2013, as set out in APPENDIX 11 – SECTION B be approved;
(c) that the Annual Budget Tables as prescribed by the Budgeting and
Reporting Regulations, as set out in APPENDIX 11 – SECTION C be
approved; and
(d) that the proposed rates on properties in WCO24, tariffs and tariff
structures for water, electricity, refuse, sewerage and other municipal
services, as set out in APPENDIX 13 & 14, be approved.
(-)
12
6.1.3 APPROVAL OF TARIFF STRUCTURE: PROPERTY RELATED

TRANSACTIONS
File number : Unknown

______________________________________________________________
To propose a tariff structure (new) for property related transactions to

Mayco for consideration and to recommend same to Council for
approval.
2. DISCUSSION
In the past all property related transactions were valued on an ad hoc

basis, except for a few tariffs which were approved by Council, e.g. a
tariff of R 50.00 (once-off) for encroachments.
With the advent of the MFMA as well as the Asset Transfer

Regulations, read with Council’s Supply Chain Management Policy
all values had to be valued by independent valuers. This does not
only hinder service delivery (it may take up to 6 months to obtain
valuations), but sometimes the cost of obtaining such valuations from
a cost analysis perspective outweighs the benefits.
A valuer was recently appointed to determine valuations for access

servitudes in Franschhoek. The valuations hereof was ± R10 000,
whilst the fee per valuation was R800 – 00 and R1300 – 00
respectively!
In the absence of a tariff structure, applications to consider

encroachments onto Council owned land are being approved at a fee
of only R50 – 00 per application not being cost reflective of the
associated administrative processes!
RECOMMENDED
that Mayco consider and recommend the tariff structure (APPENDIX 1) to

Council for approval to form part of Council’s tariff list for implementation.
RECOMMENDED
that the tariff structure (APPENDIX 1) be approved by Council to form part of

Council’s tariff list for implementation.
13
24TH COUNCIL MEETING: 2010-05-06: ITEM 7.23
RESOLVED (nem con)
that Council approve the tariff structure (APPENDIX 1) to form part of

Council’s tariff list for implementation and that same be advertised for public
comment.
FURTHER COMMENTS FROM RELEVANT DEPARTMENT
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No comments had been received from the public in terms of the advertised
tariff structure.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council take note that no comments were received from the
public in terms of the Tariff Structure for Property related
transactions; and
(b) that Council approves the tariff structure for immediate

implementation.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council take note that no comments were received from the
public in terms of the Tariff Structure for Property related
transactions; and
(b) that Council approves the tariff structure for immediate

implementation.
(-)
14
6.1.4 WRITING-OFF OF IRRECOVERABLE DEBT (PHASE 1)
File number : Unknown

______________________________________________________________
The purpose of the item is:
For Mayco to consider and recommend to Council the writing off of

Irrecoverable Debt as per the attached schedules.
2. DISCUSSION
Council recently approved the Irrecoverable Debt policy which

provides a framework for the writing off of irrecoverable debt.
This policy requires that all irrecoverable debt above a threshold of R

5 000.00 be recommended to Council for approval.
Council currently grants a subsidy to all indigent households

qualifying as per the requirements set out in Council’s Indigent
Policy. Some of these households have historic debt that has
accumulated over the years and the free basic subsidy being granted
is not meant to off set arrears.
This results in Council carrying debt on its books that is in actual fact
irrecoverable and leads to the debtor’s book being overstated.
In order for Council to ensure that the Indigent Policy is implemented

effectively and that this impact on the individual household is such
that it brings relief to the poorest of our society, it is incumbent that
the irrecoverable debt of indigent households be written off by
Council.
3. Other Cases
3.1 NE Properties
Council took transfer of NE Properties from Distell. The debt in the

main relates to historic debt as a result of the tenants not being able
to pay due unemployment, etc. The problem of arrears is
compounded by the following; access to the property to effect a
complete rewire to accommodate pre-paid electricity meters.
Irrecoverable Debt: R 946 631.99.

15
3.2 Other Cases
This category consists of cases where tracing proved to be to costly

with little probability of recovering outstanding amounts, or where the
companies have closed, the owners are untraceable or that the
owners are deceased.
These cases are depicted in APPENDX 2.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Mayco recommend to Council that the irrecoverable indigent

debt as per the attached summary APPENDIX 1 (the attached
summary is linked to a detailed list, which is available at the office of
the CFO) , the amount stipulated above for NE Properties and the
other irrecoverable debt as set out in APPENDIX 2, be written off;
and
(b) that the Electrical Engineering Directorate attend to the installation of

the pre-paid meters at NE properties as a matter of urgency.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Mayco recommend to Council that the irrecoverable indigent

debt as per the attached summary APPENDIX 1 (the attached
summary is linked to a detailed list, which is available at the office of
the CFO), the amount stipulated above for NE Properties and the
other irrecoverable debt as set out in APPENDIX 2, be written off;
and
(b) that the Electrical Engineering Directorate attend to the installation of

the pre-paid meters at NE properties as a matter of urgency.
(-)
Meeting adjourned at 18:00.
CONFIRMED
CHAIRPERSON
16
CONTINUED ON 2010-05-26
The meeting resumed at 09:00 on Wednesday, 26 May 2010.
PRESENT Executive Mayor, Alderman CP Jooste [Chairperson]

Deputy Executive Mayor, Councillor J Andrews (from 09:25)
Councillors PW Biscombe
ME Linders (Ms)
JP Serdyn (Ms)
K Shubani
P Winsnes (Ms)
OFFICIALS Acting Municipal Manager

Chief Financial Officer
Director: Community Services
Acting Director: Civil Engineering Services (P Hartzenberg)
Acting Director: Corporate Services (K Ford)
Acting Director: Electrical Engineering Services (J Hames)
Acting Director: Planning and Development (B de la Bat)
Acting Director: Public Safety (L Morta)
Acting Corporate Strategy Executive (V Bowers)
Manager: Property Management
Head: Administration
Senior Administrative Officer
Committee Clerk (T Samuels (Ms))
Interpreter
**********************************************************
1. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE (3/5/2/2)

RESOLVED (nem com)
that leave of absence be granted to Councillor L de Villiers.
(SAO)
17
5. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING AND

STANDING COMMMITTEE MEETINGS
5.1.1 BULK INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS PAYABLE WITH EFFECT

FROM 1 JULY 2007: CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL OPINION
File number : 7/2/2/1
Compiled by : Manager: Property Management

_________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is to consider a legal opinion (16 April

2009) obtained from Adv. J Jamie S.C on the issue of Bulk
Infrastructure Contributions payable with effect from 1 July 2007, and
to consider a way forward.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Council Resolutions: increase of tariffs
On 29 May 2007 Council resolved by majority vote as follows.
“(a) that the current approved formulae for the application of

Bulk Infrastructure Contribution Levy (Dev. Levies), be
escalated by a factor of 3,5 in order to align Stellenbosch’s
levies with other municipal levies with immediate effect;
(b) that this increase be included as basis for BICL in the

2007/2008 budget and tariffs;
(c) that developers be permitted to provide bulk services in lieu

of BICL with the approval of the Director: Civil Engineering
Services and in terms of a service agreement; and
(d) that Council approve the schedule of rate of bulk

infrastructure contribution levies (detail attached as
APPENDIX 1) and that same be implemented with
immediate effect”.
Subsequent to the above decision a number of Developers

indicated their unhappiness with the drastic increase, as this would
critically impact on the feasibility of their projects, as their
developments were based on the old tariff structure. One of the
Developers threatens Council to take the matter on review.
18
After consultation with the (then) Portfolio Chairperson of Finance,

and the (then) Municipal Manager regarding the interpretation of the
above resolution, i.e. whether the new tariff structure was indeed
applicable on developments approved prior to 1 July 2007, it was
decided to refer the matter to Council, with the view of obtaining
clarity.
For this purpose an agenda item served before Council on 27

November 2007. Having considered the report, Council unanimously
resolved as follows:
“(a) that the new tariff structure for pro rate bulk infrastructure
contribution levies, as approved by Council on 2007-05-29
and as set out in APPENDIX 1, be applicable to all
new developments, i.e developments approved after
2007-06-30;
(b) that the CFO together with the Directors Electrical, Civil
Engineering and Corporate Services submit
recommendations on how to deal with developments
approved before 1 July 2007 to the next meeting of the
Standing Committee, Engineering Services and Integrated
Human Settlements, to be held on 2007-12-05; and
(c) that the said recommendations be submitted to MAYCO in

order to finalise this matter”.
Pursuant to the above resolution the matter again served before

Mayco on 21 May 2008. Mayco, however resolved that the matter be
referred back to the relevant Standing Committee.
On 08 October 2008 the matter came before the Engineering

Services Standing Committee, but at the request of the then
Municipal Manager, the matter was withdrawn from the agenda.
Eventually, on 08 December 2008, a motion was put before Mayco

by Councillor J.C Anthony, proposing that the new tariff structure be
applied as follows:
“(a) that the new Bulk Infrastructure Contribution Levies rate

structure as approved by Council on 29 May 2009 be
applicable to all developments approved after
30 June 2007 as per council resolution (a) and (c) of the
meeting of 2007-11-27.
(b) that it be confirmed that these new rates be defined as not

applicable to:
(i) developments approved before 30 June and for which

rates had been quoted before the implementation of the
19
new BICL rate structures in the 2007/2008 budgetary

cycle;
(ii) developments which were approved before 30 June

2007, where no development contracts were in place and
where rates had been quoted during the feasibility
phases of the developments;
(iii) developments which were approved before 30 June

2007, and where development contracts had been
concluded, and in which contracts the BICL rates and
increases thereof are clearly stated, and where the
required contributions had not yet been paid over to
Council; and
(c) that all developments be informed of this resolution as per

enquiry, including those who are awaiting a ruling on the
matter; and
(d) that the developments affected by the new rates as set out
in (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) be refunded to the extent that
excessive payments were made”.
No decision was taken on 8 December. On 23 January 2009 Mayco

considered the matter and unanimously accepted the above
recommendations, “subject thereto that a legal opinion be
obtained, confirming that such decision is indeed lawful, legally
sound implementable”.
The effect of the above resolution was that, until such time as a
legal opinion, confirming that such decisions are indeed lawful,
legally sound and implementable, is obtained, the resolution
could not be implemented.
Similarly, if the opinion indicated that he above resolution was not

legally sound and implementable, the above resolution would be of
no force and affect.
2.2 Interim arrangement: Service Agreements
Subsequent to the initial Council resolution dated 27 November

2007, referring the matter to Mayco “in order to finalise the matter”,
various Service Agreements were concluded with Developers in
relation to developments that were approved prior to 1 July 2007. As
this matter was never finalized, all these agreements were concluded
with an interim arrangement whereby the Developer would pay
according to the old tariff structure (pre- July 2007), but provide the
necessary guarantees regarding the difference in tariff, should
council indeed decide that all developers had to pay in terms of the
“new” tariff structure.
20
One of the Developers in fact sought interim relief form the High
Court, awaiting a formal Review Application. The interim relief sought
by the developer, i.e. in line with the interim arrangements agreed
with other developers, was indeed granted by the High Court. The
actual Review Application is still to be heard by the High Court.
3. DISCUSSION
3.1 Legal Opinion
A legal opinion has indeed been obtained on 16 April 2009 from Adv.
I Jamie SC, a copy of which is attached as APPENDIX 1.
The opinion, however, has not yet been considered by Mayco.
The legal opinion deal in great detail with the issue of delegations
and whether Council could “delegate” the matter to Mayco “to finalise
the matter”. Please note that the intention was never to delegate the
matter, but merely to refer the matter to Mayco to indicate their
interpretation on the matter, as it was Mayco who originally
considered the matter and then recommended the increase in tariffs.
Be that as it may, Adv. Jamie S.C concluded that Council was not in
a position to “delegate” this matter to Mayco (27 November 2008
decision) and subsequently Mayco could not “consider” the matter,
as they purportedly did on 2009-01-23.
3.2 Financial implications
Subsequent to the tariff increase on 1 July 2007, Service

Agreements have been concluded in relation to the following
developments, indicating the difference between the “old tariff”
(i.e. the tariff structure applicable on 30 June 2007) and “new tariff”
(2008/9 financial year).
Old tariff New tariff Difference

Description
of Development
Erf 510/77, Jamestown R 155 578 R 544 565 R 388 987
Welgevonden, project 13 R 335 193 R 1 273 733 R 938 540
Joubert Trust R 145 353 R 552 342 R 496 989
Welgevonden, project 8 R 616 418 R 2 343 330 R1 726 912
Mountain Retreat Amor* R1 239 099 R 4 708 576 R3 469 477
Kylemore: Phase 2 R 154 143 R 585 746 R 431 602
Shelfline, Klapmuts* R 810 482 R 3 287 201 R2 476 719
Total R3 456 266 R13 295 493 R9 839 227
*Draft Agreements in place, not yet signed.
Should Council approve the motion that served before the

Mayoral Committee on 23 January 2009, the effective loss for
Council would be ±R9 839 227 (based on 2008/9 tariff structure)
21
Should Council however, decide to approve a 50% discount to

Developers, where bulk-infrastructure quotations where furnished
before 1 July 2007, and where Services Agreements have
subsequently been concluded (including the two where final draft
agreements have been agreed upon), the financial loss would be
± R4.9M. Similarly, should a 25% discount be approved, the
financial loss would be R±4.45M.
4.1 CFO
None
4.2 Engineering Services
None
4.3 Legal services
Hereto attached as APPENDIX 2, a copy of a memo received from

the Acting Chief Legal Executive.
5. CONCLUSION
Adv. Jamie concluded (see par. 22.3)”that, given that the legal
opinion has now been obtained, Mayco will presumably reconsider
the matter and reach a final conclusion. It may well be, if Mayco
accepts the present opinion, that it will decline to exercise the
authority purportedly conferred upon it by Council on
27 November 2007. If it does so decline, that will be the end of the
matter and there will be no resolution, whether directly or indirectly
authorized by Council, that will contradict and change the latter’s
resolution of 29 May 2007”.
For the aforesaid reasons, Jamie advise “that it is unnecessary to

take any further steps in respect of this matter, at least until Mayco
has reconsidered the matter based on the advise contained in
the present opinion”.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Mayco take note of the legal opinion, indicating that Mayco is not
in a position to make a decision in this regard, as tariffs may only be
considered by Council;
(b) that Mayco consider whether to advise Council on a way forward, i.e.
to reconsider the matter or to merely accept the legal opinion, i.e. that
the 2007/08 tariff structure be made applicable on all developments,
whether approved prior to 1 July 2007 or not.
FOR CONSIDERATION
22
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING:

2010-05-11: ITEM 6.1.1.1
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the comment of the CFO (attached as APPENDIX 3) be noted;

and
(b) that, in the light of a legal opinion, the 2007/2008 tariff structure as
approved by Council, be applied.

RECOMMENDED
(a) that the comment of the CFO (attached as APPENDIX 3) be noted;

and
(b) that, in the light of a legal opinion, the 2007/2008 tariff structure as
approved by Council, be applied.
(-)
23
5.1.2 CHURCH SITES: KAYAMANDI
File number : 7/2/2/1 Church sites

______________________________________________________________
To consider the alienation of church plots in Kayamandi.
2. BACKGROUND
Due to a huge demand for church plots in the Stellenbosch Municipal

area, Council requested that a report be tabled regarding the
availability of church plots, indicating where vacant plots with the
correct zoning are, or if there are other plots that can be rezoned for
church purposes. Attached as APPENDIX 1 is a list of plots in
Kayamandi that has been identified by the Planning Department that
may be used as Church plots.
3. DISCUSSION
Three of the mentioned plots do not have the correct zoning and one
(erf 718) is already sold.
None
5. CONCLUSION
From the list it seems that only 2 plots are ready to be sold, and three
can possibly be rezoned for church purposes. It is therefore
necessary that plots in Watergang, Klapmuts, Franschhoek and
Kylemore also be identified.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that as a first phase the 2 plots with Institutional II zoning be made
available by means of a tender process;
(b) that application be made to the Planning Department for the rezoning
of the 3 mentioned plots with a street zoning;
(c) that the Planning Department be requested to table a report

regarding all possible church plots in the Municipal area of
Stellenbosch; and
24
(d) that the Director: Corporate Services be mandated to approve

evaluation criteria for the plots mentioned in (a).
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 2008-06-10:

ITEM 5.1.1.5
RECOMMENDED
(a) that as a first phase the 2 plots with Institutional II zoning be made
available by means of a tender process;
of the 3 mentioned plots with a street zoning;
(c) that the Planning Department be requested to table a report

regarding all possible church plots in the Municipal area of
Stellenbosch;
(d) that the Specification Committee determine and recommend the

evaluation criteria; and
(e) that the Kayamandi community be sensitized on the numerous

application for church sites in Kayamandi.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that as a first phase the 2 plots (Erf 298 and Erf 312) with Institutional
II zoning be made available by means of a tender process taking into
account the stipulations of Section 14 of the MFMA ;
of the three (3) mentioned plots with a street zoning;
(c) that the Planning Department together with the Director: Corporate
Services be requested to table a report regarding possible church
plots in the areas: Klapmuts, Kayamandi, Jamestown, Cloetesville,
Kylemore, Idas Valley and Franschhoek;
(d) that the Specification Committee determine and recommend the

evaluation criteria;
(e) that the Kayamandi community be sensitized on the numerous

meetings regarding church sites in Kayamandi through a public
participation process; and
(f) that Mayco members make a site inspection for them to acquaint
themselves with the possible sites before the Council Meeting
scheduled for 2008-06-24.
25
COMMENTS BY MANAGER: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Following the above resolution a number of meetings between Mayco

members and various church leaders was scheduled, however no feedback
regarding these meetings were given to the administration, as a result this
matter was never finally considered as per the recommendations above.
It is therefore
RECOMMENDED
(c) that the Director: Planning & Development be requested to table a

report regarding possible church plots in the areas: Klapmuts,
Kayamandi, Jamestown, Cloetesville, Kylemore, Idas Valley and
Franschhoek; and
(d) that the Municipal Manager be authorised to determine the evaluation

criteria;

2010-05-11: ITEM 6.1.1.3
RECOMMENDED
(c) that the Director: Planning & Development be requested to table a

report regarding possible church plots in the areas: Klapmuts,
Franschhoek; and
(d) that the Municipal Manager be authorised to determine the evaluation

criteria.
26
RECOMMENDED
(c) that the Acting Director: Planning & Development be requested to

table a report regarding possible church plots in the areas: Klapmuts,
Franschhoek;
(d) that the Acting Municipal Manager be authorised to determine the

evaluation criteria; and
(e) that the sales agreements be subject to a 3-year revert back clause
in the absence of building structures.
(-)
27
5.1.3 PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT: ERF 874, KAYAMANDI:

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 124 OBJECTIONS
File number : 7/2/2/1/ERF 874 KAYAMANDI

______________________________________________________________
To consider objections, following the Section 124 Notice.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Initial application
During February 2001, the Stellenbosch Gemeente (Community

Development Department) requested Stellenbosch Municipality
(Planning Department) for a 90 day option to purchase erf 874,
Kayamandi, measuring 3946 m².
This application was presented to the Planning and Development

Committee meeting on 2001-04-03, who resolved as follows:
“(a) to approve in principle the allocation of a portion of Erf 874

to the Stellenbosch Gemeente for the purpose of
developing a multi-purpose community facility;
(b) that the Department of Planning and Development enter

into discussions with the applicant to determine
development proposals and that a report be tables in due
course; and
(c) that this property related matter be referred to the

Corporate Services Committee for finalization.”
The matter was then referred to the Corporate Services Committee

on 2001-04-10, where it was recommended that a sub-committee be
appointed to enter into discussions with the applicant and any other
group/institution as to determine the development proposals.
The Mayoral Committee considered the matter on

2001-04-23, where it was recommend that the Corporate Services
recommendations be approved.
Council considered the matter on 2001-04-24, where it was resolved:

28
“(a) that the word “Subcommittee” in recommendation (b) of the

Corporate Services Committee be replaced with “Kayamandi
Project Committee”;
(b) that the word “and” after “applicant” in recommendation (b), be

substituted with “as well as with”,
(c) that Council support the project subject thereto that the
necessary advertisements be placed in the press; and
(d) that the project be discussed with the Kayamandi community”.
On 2001-05-23 the Project Management Committee: Kayamandi

considered the matter, and resolved as follows:
“(a) that the long-term leasing of a portion of the above-mentioned

property for the erection of a multi-function community centre,
be approved;
(b) that a joint management structure for the said community

centre, which includes representatives from the Kayamandi
community, be formed; and
(c) that the church be requested to submit a master plan with

detail regarding the size of the development and the final mix
of uses as well as a maintenance and operational plan”.
The applicant was accordingly informed on 2001-05-30. In terms of

this letter, the applicant was informed that the Stellenbosch Town
Council has approved the development of a community centre on a
portion of erf 874, the detail to be finalized (per lease agreement?).
On 2001-09-26 that matter was again discussed by the Project

Management Committee: Kayamandi, where they resolved, inter
alia:
“(a) that the proposed community centre on a portion of erf 874 be

proceeded with;
(b) that six A-political members of the community be nominated

on a Committee to advise the church on any development;
and
(c) that the aforementioned six names be provided to Mr G de

Beer (Stellenbosch Gemeente), the Senior Town Planner (E
van der Merwe) and this Committee as soon as possible”.
2.2 Subsequent correspondence
On 2002-11-05, the Director: Planning and Development issued a

letter (To whom it may concern), confirming that Stellenbosch
Municipality has reached agreement with Legacy Community
29
Development on the use of a portion of erf 874. In terms hereof

Legacy Community Development was exempt from any payments for
the use of the land, but was responsible for payment of services.
During 2002 the Community Centre was erected.
On 2005-02-15, the Director: Civil Engineering Services confirmed in

a letter to Stellenbosch Gemeente, that their application to use the
remainder of the erf for garden purposes, was approved, subject to
certain conditions.
On 30 August 2006 Stellenbosch Gemeente presented a letter to

Corporate Services, requesting to confirm inter alia, the
following:
2.2.1 that the Operational Plan (as presented with the letter) be
used as a basis of agreement for the management and use
of erf 874;
2.2.2 that Stellenbosch Municipality remains the owner of erf

874;
2.2.3 that the centre, which was built during 2002, will be used
by Stellenbosch Gemeente in terms of the Operational
Plan;
2.2.4 Stellenbosch Gemeente is responsible for the maintenance

of the building;
2.2.5 any further development would be in line with the

Operational Plan; and
2.2.6 the Management of the centre will be as per the structure

presented in the Operational Plan.
They further requested clarification on the following:
(a) The term of the “agreement”, i.e. 99 years.
(b) Lease payable, i.e. R12 p.a.
Following this letter, it became clear that a formal lease agreement

has never been entered into between the parties.
A draft lease agreement was compiled and forwarded to

Stellenbosch Gemeente for their perusal.
A further letter was received from Stellenbosch Gemeente during

August 2007, requesting that the arrangement between Stellenbosch
Gemeente and Stellenbosch Municipality be formalized by way of an
agreement.
30
From the above it is clear:
(a) that, although Council has approved the development of erf

874, Kayamandi, by Stellenbosch Gemeente on 2001-04-24, it
was subject thereto that:
(i) the Kayamandi Project Committee enter into discussions

with the applicant to determine development proposals
and that a report be tabled in due course;
(ii) that the property related matter be referred to Corporate

Services Committee for finalization; and
(iii) that it would be subject to the necessary advertisement

(in terms of Section 124 of the Municipal Ordinance
20/1974);
(b) that the Kayamandi Project Committee, without the necessary

mandate/authority, has approved the development;
(c) that the proposed transaction was never advertised for public
input;
(d) that a formal lease agreement was never concluded between

the parties; and
(e) that, following the “approval” by the Kayamandi Project

Committee, Stellenbosch Gemeente has indeed erected the
building on erf 874.
3.1 CFO
Given the fact that the public has been given an opportunity to
comment, the recommendations contained in the report is supported.
3.2 Chief Legal Advisor
The recommendations contained in the report is supported.
4. CONCLUSION
Although no formal lease agreement has been entered into between

the parties,
it is clear from the various correspondence / resolutions referred to in

paragraph 2, that their application to use erf 874, was approved (be it
in principle, subject to advertising).
The administration failed to conclude a lease agreement and on the

basis of their application being “approved”, Stellenbosch Gemeente
31
engaged in the construction of the Centre and subsequently

managed the property since 2002.
This informal arrangement, however, need to be formalized by way of

a long term lease agreement to give legal certainty to Stellenbosch
Gemeente, but also to confirm their obligations in relation to the lease
of the property.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council confirm/ratify the resolution of the Kayamandi Project

Committee, dated 2001-05-23, approving a long-term leasing of
erf 874, Kayamandi, to Stellenbosch Gemeente, for the purpose of a
community centre;
(b) that the Director: Corporate Services be mandated to negotiate a

long-term Lease Agreement with Stellenbosch Gemeente including a
reasonable lease amount payable by Stellenbosch Gemeente;
(c) that the draft lease agreement as per (b) above, be advertised for
public inputs;
(d) that should any objection be received as a consequence of the

advertisement contemplated in I above, such objections be referred
to Council, before a final decision is made; and
(e) that should no objections be received, the Director: Corporate

Services, in consultation with the CFO, be mandated to finalise a
long term lease agreement, including a fair lease amount.

2007-11-13: ITEM 5.1.1.4
RECOMMENDED

community centre;
(b) that the Director Corporate Services be mandated to negotiate a long-

term Lease Agreement with Stellenbosch Gemeente including a
(c) that the draft lease agreement as per (b) above, be advertised for
public inputs;
(d) that should any objection be received as a consequence of the

advertisement contemplated in I above, such objections be referred to
Council, before a final decision is made; and
32
(e) that should no objections be received, the Director: Corporate

Services, in consultation with the CFO, be mandated to finalise a long
term lease agreement, including a fair lease amount.
COMMENTS BY ACTING DIRECTOR: CORPORATE SERVICES
The proposed lease was advertised in the Eikestadnuus and 2 letters of

objections/comments were received (both from the KCA). The said letters are
attached as APPENDICES 1 & 2 (previously circulated). My understanding
of the objection is that the KCA request that full Council must consider the
item and not MAYCO.
STRATEGIC, FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

MEETING: 2008-11-11: ITEM 6.1.1.2
RESOLVED (nem con)
(a) that this matter be referred back in order to allow the administration to
provide the following additional information:
(i) names of the 6 A-political members of the community to be

nominated on a Committee to advise the church on any
development;
(ii) the operational plan to be used as a basis of agreement for

the management and use of erf 874; and
(b) that this matter be re-submitted at the next meeting of this Committee
for consideration.
FURTHER COMMENTS BY DIRECTOR: CORPORATE SERVICES
Attached as APPENDIX 3 (previously circulated) is a copy of the

Operational and Management Plan of the Legacy Centre.
We are not in possession of the names of the 6 A-political members of the

community due thereto that the Kayamandi Project Centre must nominate
such members.
According to the management, the following people are involved in the day to
day run of business:
(i) Representative of Council : Councillor Oliphant

(ii) Crèche : Maria Bosi
(iii) HIV/AIDS projects : Tsepiso Mohaheng
33
(iv) Children Club : Monica Budani

Ikhaya Lempilo
Luyanda Lupondo
(v) Gardens : Cobus Smit
(vi) Needle work : Gwen Kruger

(b) Representative from the SAPS and Child Welfare
(viii) Stellenbosch Congregation : Louise Fourie
Joseph Selela
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council take note of the objection(s) received; and
(b) that the matter be referred to full Council, to make a final decision.
STRATEGIC, FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

MEETING: 2008-12-04: ITEM 5.1.1.1
RESOLVED (nem con)
that this matter be held in abeyance and be re-submitted at the next meeting
of this Committee.
STRATEGIC AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING:

2009-02-10: ITEM 6.1.1.1
RESOLVED (nem con)
that this matter be referred back in order to allow the administration to arrange
a site visit whereafter this matter shall be further debated with
recommendations to Mayco.
COMMENTS BY MANAGER: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
A site meeting has been scheduled in collaboration with the portfolio

chairperson for 30th of April 2009 at 10.00.
Subsequent to this meeting, the matter has not yet been considered.
FOR CONSIDERATION
34

2010-05-11: ITEM 6.1.1.4
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council take note of the objection(s) received; and
(b) that the matter be referred to full Council to make a final decision.
RECOMMENDED

community centre; and
(b) that the Acting Municipal Manager be mandated to negotiate a long-

term Lease Agreement with Stellenbosch Gemeente including a
(-)
35
5.2.1 SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SHELTERS IN

STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY
File number : 2009/Bus Shelters /98/ Public transport

shelters
Compiled by : Acting Director: Civil Engineering

Services
Delegated Authority : Mayoral Committee

______________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is to inform the Portfolio Council of the

progress on the installation of public transport shelters in
Stellenbosch Municipality.
2. BACKGROUND
On 28 December 2009 the Municipal Manager of Stellenbosch

resolved that Inside Outdoor Construction be appointed to supply and
install public transport shelters in Stellenbosch Municipality.
3. DISCUSSION
This project is part of the integrated transport plan of improving the

utilization of public transport. This initiative will contribute towards the
provision of friendly infrastructure for the Stellenbosch community
This will also improve the quality and safety of public transport
infrastructure.
The type of the structure used is a 6-sheet panel shelter with a

moulded PVC roof. For more details about the structure, refer to
APPENDIX 1. The following criterion was used to identify the location
of these shelters:
The stops must be on an approved public transport route
(i) Volume of people using the stop
(ii) High proportion of school children using the stop
(iii) The taxi/bus frequency at a stop
Furthermore, the location of these shelters was identified with the

assistance of the ward councillors. These shelters will contribute
towards the enhancement of its surroundings and provides a user
36
friendly environment for community using public transport. This will

also promote and encourage the use of public transport. It is
envisaged to provide additional shelters in the following year as
budget becomes available.
At this stage; seven shelters have been provided. Photographs of the

shelters are indicated in APPENDIX 2. The following is the short
discussion on progress of the works in different public transport
stops.
(i) Raithby – Winery Road (Refer Figure 1)
(ii) Raithby – Watson Way (Refer Figure 2)
(iii) Raithby – Primary School (Refer Figure 3)
(iv) Raithby – Watson Way (Refer Figure 4)
(v) Kylemore – Gouws Blom Primary School (Refer Figure 5)
(vi) Kylemore – Rooi Street (Refer Figure 6)
(vii) Wemmershoek – Main Road (Refer Figure 7)
(viii) Franschhoek – Pick ‘n Pay (Refer Figure 8)
FOR INFORMATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-05:

ITEM 5.1.1.1
RECOMMENDED
that the progress on the installation of public transport shelters in

Stellenbosch Municipality, be noted.
RESOLVED (nem con)
that the progress on the installation of public transport shelters in

Stellenbosch Municipality, be noted.
(Acting DCES)
37
5.2.2 MONTHLY BUDGET STATEMENTS REPORTING: MARCH 2010
File number : 8/1/Financial

______________________________________________________________
To comply with the requirements of Section 71 of the Municipal

Finance Management Act Nr. 56 of 2003, by reporting on the state of
the Municipality’s budget.
2. DISCUSSION
The Financial Services Monthly Report for March 2010 is attached as

APPENDIX 1.
RECOMMENDED
that the Mayoral Committee takes cognizance of the content of the monthly
budget statements reports for March 2010.

2010-05-11: ITEM 5.1.1.1
RECOMMENDED
that the content of the monthly budget statements reporting for March 2010,
be noted.
RESOLVED (nem con)
that the content of the monthly budget statements reporting for March 2010,
be noted.
(CFO)
38
5.2.3 INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF BIODIVERSITY: 2010
File number : 11/2/6/International Year of Biodiversity
Compiled by : Director: Community Services
Delegated authority : Mayoral Committee

______________________________________________________________
To inform the Standing Committee and Mayco about biodiversity and

to ensure that Stellenbosch Municipality puts emphasis on this
important matter.
2. BACKGROUND
The United Nations (UN) declared 2010 as the International Year of

Biodiversity and hence our government aims to create awareness
around the importance of biodiversity, its meaning and impact on our
lives, and our responsibility in terms of conserving our heritage.
3. DISCUSSION
The Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 has been promulgated by the

previous President, Mr Thabo Mbeki, and provides a national
framework for managing and conservation of species and
environments within which they exist, sustainable harvesting and
utilization of our biological resources, equitable sharing of our
biological resources and the establishment of the South African
National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) for matters relating to
biodiversity conservation.
The conservation of biodiversity is a responsibility of each citizen of

South Africa. It is important because our lives depend on it. Without
our environment, we will not have food on the table, fresh air to
breath, clean water to drink, medicines, etc. These facts have a
knock on effect on our daily living with consequences like increased
poverty, loss of plants for the production of materials mentioned
above, etc.
Due to the announcement made by the UN, the department found it

important to create internal awareness of the matter in order for more
informed decisions to be made in the daily operations of the
municipality.
None solicited.
39
5. CONCLUSION
It is incumbent on all of us to consider Biodiversity in all our decision-

making, especially where development of land is considered, there is
potential pollution of our natural resources and loss of biodiversity is
a risk.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Biodiversity Conservation be mainstreamed within our

organization through the establishment of directorate based KPA’s
which complies with national legislation for the 2010/2011
performance contracts of all Section 57 appointees; and
(b) that the Director: Community Services makes provision on the

2010/2011 Operational Budget for environmental awareness
campaigns for all environmental calendar days.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING:

2010-05-12: ITEM 4.2.1.1
RECOMMENDED


RESOLVED (nem con)


(DCS)
40
5.2.4 AIR POLLUTION PROJECT
Compiled by : Acting Director: Public Safety

______________________________________________________________
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To introduce a new initiative from the Directorate regarding

compliance to the National Environmental Air Quality Act, 39 of 2004.
2. BACKGROUND
Stellenbosch Municipality partook in the drafting process with regard

to the Air Quality Management Plan which had been commissioned
by the Cape Winelands District Municipality, in June 2008, by
Gondwana Environmental Solutions, in terms of Section 15 and 16 of
Act, 39 of 2004.
The Office of the Municipal Manager received a letter from the Legal
Resource Centre requesting Stellenbosch Municipal Council to
comply with the prescriptions of Act, 39 of 2004. A copy of the letter
is attached hereto as APPENDIX 1.
Although it is a new discipline, the Directorate: Public Safety is able

to deal with said legal compliance, without any grave financial
implications to the organization, seeing that Jonathan May, is a
qualified environmental officer.
During our meeting on the 27th January 2010 in a joint meeting

between the Cape Winelands District Municipality, concerned
citizens, Tatib Foundation and the Legal Resource Centre, the
following suggestions had been tabled:
2.1 Long term strategy
That the Air Quality Management consultant, Gondwana

Environmental Solutions be contacted to complete the draft of the Air
Quality Management Plan for Stellenbosch Municipality. That the
Acting Municipal Manager decides on the appointment of an
Environmental Officer in terms of the Act.
That the functions and KPAs of said person be defined and inserted
into the microstructure. That the necessary co-operative agreements
with the District Municipalities as well as Provincial Departments be
formalized as soon as possible.
41
2.2 Short-term strategy
That the Municipal Manager empowers the Directorate: Public Safety

personnel to investigate the complaints which have been lodged with
the Legal Resource Centre and the Tatib Foundation, in co-operation
with the Health Services of Cape Winelands District Municipality.
That consultancy fees be made available for investigation of said
allegations in co-operation with other government stakeholders,
according to the already approved budget.
FURTHER COMMENTS FROM RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS
NONE
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council endorse the initiative in terms of the National

Environmental Air Quality Act, 39 of 2004;
(b) that the administration be mandated to investigate all ancillary costs

associated with the implementation of said project and that same be
submitted to Council for finalization; and
(c) that the administration submit regular progress reports in this regard
to Council.

2010-04-14: ITEM 4.2.1.4
RESOLVED (nem con)
of this Committee.
FOR CONSIDERATON

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.2
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council endorse the initiative in terms of the National

Environmental Air Quality Act, 39 of 2004;
(b) that the Administration be mandated to investigate all ancillary costs

submitted to Council for finalization; and
42
(c) that the Administration submit regular progress reports in this regard
to Council.
RESOLVED (nem con)
(a) that Council take note of the initiative in terms of the National
Environmental Air Quality Act, 39 of 2004; and
(b) that the Administration be mandated to investigate all ancillary costs

submitted to Council for finalization.
(Acting DPS)
43
5.2.5 WAIVING OF FEES: TOTALSPORTS LADIES RACE HELD ON WOMEN’S

DAY, 09 AUGUST 2009 BY STILLWATER SPORT & ENTERTAINMENT
File number : 5/17/11/1

______________________________________________________________
To request Council to consider the waiving of fees for services

rendered by Stellenbosch Municipality to Stillwater Sport &
Entertainment and associated bodies for the annual Totalsports
Ladies Race held on Women’s Day on 09 August 2009 as well as for
services rendered the previous year.
2. BACKGROUND
The Totalsports Ladies Race is an annual event on the national

calendar of running and Women’s day celebration. This event was
successfully hosted by Stillwater Sport & Entertainment in the
Western Cape over the last nine (9) years. In 2008 this prestigious
event was moved to Stellenbosch on Women’s Day as part of the
national celebrations and attracted more than 5 000 ladies who came
together to run and walk either 5 or 10 km. The event organizers
approached the Mayor of Stellenbosch to set up a partnership in the
hosting of the 2009 Totalsports Ladies Race. This partnership will lay
the foundation for future events as part of the women’s day
celebration. A follow up meeting was held to discuss the different role
players from the municipality, services required and what type of
realistic goals could be achieved through this event for the people of
Stellenbosch and the surrounding areas.
3. DISCUSSION
Key Strategies
The main focus of this event is to raise funds of which the spin offs
would be used for projects identified. However, due to the time factor
the general feeling was that it would be difficult to do anything
meaningful this year. Notwithstanding this, organizations/ women who
could benefit from the spin offs would be:
(i) Safe House

(ii) Women on Farms
(iii) Advice to women
44
(iv) Possibly by way of pamphlets

(v) Distributed on the day of the event or in the Goody Bags
(vi) Procedures in obtaining legal help
(vii) Contact numbers
(viii) Restraining orders (How to go about)
(ix) Employment for local unemployed women through database
in cleaning up afterwards.
3. LOGISTICS
An Events Plan was submitted by Stillwater Sport & Entertainment

(SSE) to cover the roles and responsibilities, Traffic Plan, Disaster
Management Plan and Waste Management. Letters to residents along
the route informing them about the event as well as affected churches
were dealt with by SSE. A Venue Operations Centre (VOC) was
established at a central point at Coetzenburg Stadium.
The event started outside the Town Hall in Plein Street at 08h30 on
Sunday, 09 August 2009 and was officially opened by the Executive
Mayor in celebration of Women’s Day and finished at the University of
Stellenbosch track, Coetzenberg. The event again attracted more
than 5 000 ladies.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Traffic Department has requested payment for services rendered

from Stillwater Sport & Entertainment which amounts to R37 090, 00
and is still outstanding.
These costs exclude the hiring of the Town hall and other related
costs. Stillwater Sport & Entertainment has requested Council to
consider the waiving of related fees attached as APPENDIX 1.The
cost of traffic services can have a major impact on the viability of an
event.
SHORT SURVEY OF TYPICAL EVENTS FOR WHICH PAYMENT

WAS RECEIVED FOR SERVICES RENDERED
An investigation of typical events for which payment over the last 12

months (July 2008 – June 2009) were received for traffic services
rendered amounted to R56 190, 00.
(i) Totalsport Ladies Race (Outstanding 2008) R22 965

(ii) Tour De Vino R7 075
(iii) Klein Joostenberg Funride R2 875
(iv) Winelands Marathon R6 375
(v) Tour De Winelands R7 075
45
(vi) Bouckaert- Soenen Paarl Funride R3 855

(vii) Wingerd Breakfast Ride R635
(viii) Medallion Tour R22 475
(ix) Cape Argus Pick ’n Pay MTB Challenge R4 555
(x) Giro Del Capo Cycle Race R355
(xi) Strand Athletic 21,1km Road Race R915
These excludes the events from the university, schools, Welfare

organisations, churches and other government institutions for which
services are rendered free of charge.
4.1 FINANCIAL SERVICES
Item was circulated for comments.
4.2 LEGAL SERVICES
Item was circulated for comments.
5. CONCLUSION
The directorate wish to state that the 2009 Ladies Race was ‘n huge
success and has united communities from all over in the Women’s
Day celebration as can be seen from the photos.
It should be noted that this item was ready for submission during
August 2009, but held back awaiting approval of the then Municipal
Manager Mr I Kenned for the item to serve.
46
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council considers the waiving of fees for services rendered to
Stillwater Sport & Entertainment by the Traffic Department for the
Ladies Race held on Women’s Day, 9 August 2009 to the amount of
R37 090, 00;
(b) that Council consider the waiving of fees for services rendered to
R22 965; and
(c) that Council also considers the waiving of fees for future services
rendered to Still Water Sport & Entertainment by the Traffic
Department on Women’s Day as this event will become an annual
event.

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.4
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Council considers the waiving of fees for services rendered to
R37 090, 00;
(b) that Council consider the waiving of fees for services rendered to
R22 965; and
(c) that all applicable fees shall be charged for future events.
47
RESOLVED (nem con)
that this item be referred back to the Administration for the input of Financial
Services (CFO).
(Acting DPS)
48
5.2.6 MOBILE KITCHEN

______________________________________________________________
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To submit this application to Council for consideration.
2. BACKGROUND
Corporate Strategy received an application from Mr Larry van

Noordwyk for approval of a Mobile Kitchen, which would operate
within WCO24, between 22h00 to 05h00 the morning. A copy of his
application is attached hereto in APPENDIX 1.
Said kitchen would be fully equipped for the preparation of all kinds of
takeaways, but is not limited to hamburgers, steak rolls, chip rolls etc.
Although his application is silent on the area of operation, he has

indicated that he would stand anywhere designated by the law
enforcement department.
He has however suggested that standing in Merriman Ave., the

Bergzicht Taxi Rank as well as the toll parking behind the Townhall
will be his preference.
He has also indicated that he would seek the necessary approvals

from the District Municipal Health Services if his application is
successful.
3. DISCUSSION
The Head: Law Enforcement has indicated that said operation cannot
be approved by the department as it is contrary to our by-laws which
are in operation within Stellenbosch Municipal district, which is
attached hereto as APPENDIX 2.
He has also indicated that we are in the process of revision of our by-
laws and will not be able to accommodate said application at this
stage.
RECOMMENDED
that Council consider the application submitted.

49

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.6
RECOMMENDED
that the application for a mobile kitchen, not be approved.
RESOLVED (nem con)
that the application for a mobile kitchen, not be approved.
(Acting DPS)
50
5.2.7 ILLEGAL STRUCTURE ON SIDEWALK OF ECCLESSIA BUILDING, PLEIN

STREET
File number : 8/1/Engineering and Technical Services
Compiled by : Acting Director: Technical Services

______________________________________________________________
To obtain Council’s approval in terms of Section 126(b) of the

Municipal Ordinance 20 of 1974, in order to demolish an illegal
structure that was built on municipal property in front of the Ecclessia
Building in Plein Street, Stellenbosch.
2. BACKGROUND
During early July 2009 the owner of the Ecclesia Building started with
the construction of a new structure/platform on the sidewalk (a
portion of the existing road reserve) of Plein Street without the
permission of the Stellenbosch Municipality. Although the Municipal
building control section served several notices to stop the illegal
construction immediately no co-operation was received from the
owner.
According to the owner the purpose of the structure was to provide

easier access for disabled individuals with wheelchairs to the building
and the adjacent shops. The Department, in light hereof and to
comply with the “Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1991, decided to
evaluate the structure to the prescribed specifications as determined
in the said Act.
3. DISCUSSION
Discussions were held between the Municipality and the appointed

Architect of the project prior to the submission of building plans and
the implementation of the project. The respective internal
departments (Heritage and Building Control) also expressed their
concern for the level difference of the sidewalk as put forward by the
architect. These recommendations were ignored and construction
proceeded without any written approval from the Municipality.
The existing illegal structure consists of a platform that is 30m long

and 1.7m wide. The platform is built flush to the building with a much
higher on a level than the original level. This higher level was created
to give direct access for wheelchair users into the Ecclesia and
51
surrounding buildings. A ramp was constructed at the eastern section

of the platform with steps (0.7m wide) along the rest of the platform.
The surface structure of the platform is paved with cobble stones that
provides and uneven texture and pattern. This situation is
unacceptable and has created an environment that is not conducive
for wheelchair users and other disabled persons.
The width of the platform is wide enough to accommodate two

wheelchairs that pass one another on the ramp and there is enough
space for a wheelchair to make a U-turn at the end of the platform.
The widths of the rest of the sidewalk as measured between the trees
and newly constructed stairs is less than the minimum required
measurements for wheelchair users and the width between the trees
and road is the same as the required minimum width (900mm) but
with a dangerous height difference between the sidewalk and road
which can lead to unnecessary accidents and subsequent claims. All
these measurements were done according to the Department of
Transport (DOT) “Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Guidelines”.
This situation as described contradicts the “Persons with Disabilities

Act, 1995” which states that it is pivotal to create a barrier-free
environment for all road users. The Department of Transport’s (DOT)
guideline document for the design of pedestrian and bicycles facilities
advocates that all new infrastructures in the built environment must
comply with universal accessibility. The said platform only provides
access and accommodates pedestrians and wheelchair users for the
specific buildings and therefore compromises the purpose and use of
the sidewalk for universal accessibility adjacent to the southern
section of Plein Street.
The National Department of Transport (DOT) has published a

guideline document for the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
This document advocates that all new infrastructure in the built
environment must comply with universal accessibility. The
Stellenbosch Municipality‘s Electricity, Human Resources, Civil
Engineering and Housing Departments are located in the mentioned
building. Subsequently a high volume of members of the public
(including various types of disabled people) visit this building on a
daily basis. It is thus imperative that universal accessibility be
provided to this building. The design and construction of the platform
with specific reference to the interface between the ramp and the
stairs lead to an uneven obstacle that jeopardises safe and universal
access. As a precautionary measure the municipality has placed a
temporary delineator at this position in order to warn pedestrians.
In order to rectify the unsatisfactory situation this directorate entered

into discussions with the building’s owner and requested that new
proposals be submitted that conform to the standards and
requirements as provided for in terms of the applicable legislation.
Although a new design was submitted to the Technical Services
Directorate, for evaluation Council’s attention is drawn to the fact that
52
the new proposal however still reflects the same scenario with no real
change as to improve the quality and aesthetics of the platform.
4.1 Planning & Development
The applicant/owner did not submit any building plans for evaluation
and no power of attorney from the municipality was obtained in
respect of the utilization of municipal owned land.
The proposal was presented to the Stellenbosch Heritage Committee

for comment. The recommendation of the Committee was as follows:
“That the application not be supported and that wheelchair access be

provided to the entrance halls of the individual shops.”
5. CONCLUSION
The structure/platform was constructed without the approval of the

former Stellenbosch Aesthetics Committee and without any approved
building plans. The owner was on numerous occasions notified and
was served with a notice to cease the unauthorized building work on
municipal property. Despite the aforementioned and many requests
to stop, the builder refused to adhere to these notices and proceeded
to complete the building work.
Council’s attention is drawn to the fact that a similar situation

occurred in lower Plein Street, whereby the owner/developer gave his
full co-operation in rectifying the pedestrian walkway to the required
standards. In order to prevent a precedent the same rule should
apply mutatis mutandis.
The said structure, in the opinion of this department, does not fulfill its
purpose and it is not even wheelchair friendly. Ad-hoc and
unauthorized building work of this nature severely compromises the
function of Councils pavement systems that should cater of non-
motorized, pedestrians, wheelchairs and other disabled users alike.
Since the department does not comprise of the delegated authority,

Council’s approval is sought to demolish and rectify the illegal
structure that was built on municipal property in front of the Ecclesia
Building in Plein Street as provided for in terms of Section 126(b) of
the Municipal Ordinance 20 of 1974.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the Acting Director: Civil Engineering Services be authorized to

institute legal action in terms of Section 126(b) of the Municipal
Ordinance, 20 of 1974, against the owner of Ecclesia building,
instructing him (the owner) to demolish the illegal structure erected
53
on municipal property in front of the Ecclesia building in Plein Street;

and
(b) that damage caused to the original sidewalk be rectified by an

accredited contractor in accordance with the Design Guidelines and
Minimum Standards for Civil Engineering Services to the satisfaction
of the Director: Civil Engineering Services.

ITEM 6.1.1.2
RECOMMENDED

and

RESOLVED (nem con)

and

(Acting DCES)
54
5.2.8 ELECTRICITY LOSSES
File number : 1/6/2/1/1
Compiled by : Acting Director: Electrical

Engineering Services

______________________________________________________________
To explain the electricity losses to Council.
2. BACKGROUND
In the 2009/2010 Annual Report the Auditor General reports the

electricity losses at 7.8% which translate into R7.85m.
At a budget discussion with Mayco on 3 March 2010, the portfolio

chair for finance requested a report on the losses.
3. DISCUSSION
Electricity losses have 2 components, i.e Technical losses (System

losses) and Non-technical losses.
The Technical losses are those losses as a result of the equipment

used on the network and how it is put together. The technical losses
contribute around 3 – 4% of the total losses.
The Non-technical losses are those losses which occur as a result of

incorrect meter readings, billing and most prominently, theft of
electricity. In 2007 an organogram was designed to establish a
Revenue Protection section that would attempt to reduce these
losses, but unfortunately there were never enough funds to populate
the structure. This division also envisaged that the meter readers
would be incorporated, but due to their dual responsibility at finance
this never took off.
The department, from time to time and as funding becomes available,

made use of an outside contractor to do some audits on its metering
equipment. This had assisted the situation but it is unfortunately done
on an ad-hoc basis.
It is recognized in the industry that 10% losses can be described as

“acceptable”. During one survey it was found that some Municipality’s
electrical losses go as high as 33%.
55
In order to give the proper focus to this matter, the Revenue

Protection Division will have to be populated. This will have a direct
salary/wage impact of R1.5M on the budget. A 2% reduction in
losses would cover this outlay sufficiently.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
The issue of unfunded vacancies is not a healthy practice and cannot

be accommodated within the salary bill. There is a need to re-
engineer/reorganize the entire micro structure in a bid to ensure that
the principle of structure follow strategy is achieved.
The funded vacancies on the current structure (post levels 4 & 6) can
to a great extent address losses that can be controlled.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The direct Salary costs to populate the section would be around

R1.5. This would be covered by a 2% reduction in losses. There
would also be other costs, i.e vehicles, tools, etc.
6. CONCLUSION
In order to contain and further reduce the electricity losses, it will be

imperative that the unfunded vacancies in the Revenue Protection
section be filled.
FOR CONSIDERATION

ITEM 6.1.1.1
RECOMMENDED
that the vacancies in the Revenue Protection Section be funded in addition to

the current funded vacancies in the Directorate.
RECOMMENDED
that this item be referred back to the Administration in view of lack of funding
for vacancies.
(Acting DEES)
56
5.2.9 ANIMAL BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT PROJECT
File number : 17/14/2/11x12/3/4

______________________________________________________________
To submit the above-mentioned project to Council for approval.
2. BACKGROUND
We have received notices from both members of the public as well as

the District Municipality that the animals in rural areas and informal
settlements are causing problems for both the inhabitants of informal
settlements and surrounding areas.
The problems range from animals eating people’s vegetation and

garden plants, to stray dogs killing live stock on farms. The District
Municipality also cautioned us that the animals in the informal
settlements are causing serious health problems for the other
inhabitants.
Our investigations and site inspections proved that some of the

allegations were indeed true and the law enforcement officials then
issued notices on certain owners of animals to desist from their
conduct. Several meeting with law enforcement personnel had also
been held. The problem is still continuing which leads us to try and
implement this project as a desperate measure to deal with the
problem.
3. DISCUSSION
The Manager: Law Enforcement indicated that she has discussed co-
operation with the City of Cape Town as we do not have the
operational capacity to deal with the problem.
The Executive Director for Community Safety, Richard Bosman

indicated that he would avail his personnel and vehicles so that we
can safely remove the animals which are causing the problem,
because we do not have the capacity to deal with it.
Representatives from the SPCA, Animal Welfare and the District

Municipality are also going to work in co-operation with Stellenbosch
Municipality to deal with the transport and impoundment of the
animals.
57
RECOMMENDED
that the project attached hereto as APPENDIX 1, be approved by Council,

before implementation.

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.5
RECOMMENDED
that the project attached hereto as APPENDIX 1, be approved by Council,

before implementation.
RESOLVED (nem con)
(a) that the project attached hereto as APPENDIX 1, be approved by

Council, before implementation; and
(b) that the Acting Municipal Manager be commissioned to explore close

co-operation with adjacent municipalities in this regard.
(Acting DPS)
58
6.2.1 MONTHLY BUDGET STATEMENTS REPORTING: APRIL 2010
File number : 8/1/Financial
Report by : Chief Financial Officer
Compiled by : Deputy Director Finance: Budget Office

_____________________________________________________________
To comply with the requirements of Section 71 of the Municipal

Finance Management Act Nr. 56 of 2003, by reporting on the state of
the Municipality’s budget.
2. DISCUSSION
The Financial Services Monthly Report for March 2010 is attached as

APPENDIX 1.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the content of the report be noted,
(b) that the directors responsible for sources of direct income as

identified in this report ensures that the processes in place are
aligned to improving revenue collection in accordance with the
Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan, and
(c) that overtime be limited to essential services only and the Accounting
Officer report to the Mayoral Committee on this matter.
RESOLVED (nem con)
(a) that the content of the report be noted,
(b) that the directors responsible for sources of direct income as

identified in this report ensures that the processes in place are
aligned to improving revenue collection in accordance with the
Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan, and
(c) that overtime be limited to essential services only and the Accounting
Officer report to the Mayoral Committee on this matter.
(CFO)
59
7. MATTERS FOR INFORMATION
7.1 DOG AND ANIMAL CONTROL OPERATIONS
File number : 17/14/2/MN
Report by : Acting Director: Community Safety
Compiled by : Manager: Law Enforcement

______________________________________________________________
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To inform Council about the Joint Co-operative initiative between

Stellenbosch Municipality, Department of Agriculture and the
Franschhoek SPCA, this had run from the 24th February 2010 to the
31st March 2010.
2. BACKGROUND
Stellenbosch law enforcement had several complaints regarding sick

and unattended dogs which not only caused safety but also health
problems. Complaints ranged from dogs barking uncontrollably to
dogs killing live stock.
The Directorate: Public Safety thus embarked on an initiative to

euthanise ill and stray animals within the various areas in co-
operation with said organizations.
The programme related to the initiative is attached hereto as

APPENDIX 1.
The task team consisted of nine law enforcement officials, and a

member of the SPCA, the Department of Agriculture and Animal
Welfare. The schedule of animals humanely euthanised is attached
hereto as APPENDIX 2.
3. DISCUSSION
The Head Law Enforcement has indicated that it had been a very
successful project. Stray and surrendered dogs were dealt with
effectively and no animal had suffered.
FURTHER COMMENTS FROM RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS

The Acting Director: Public Safety appreciates and supports this initiative to
ensure co-operation between Stellenbosch Municipality, Elsenburg
Agriculture, Elsenburg community group, Franschhoek SPCA and
Stellenbosch Animal Welfare.
FOR INFORMATION
60

2010-04-14: ITEM 4.2.1.5
RESOLVED (nem con)
of this Committee.

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.3
RECOMMENDED
that the dog and animal control operations, be noted.
RESOLVED (nem con)
that the dog and animal control operations, be noted.
(Acting DPS)
61
7.2 VOLUNTEER WILDFIRE SERVICES AWARENESS DAY

______________________________________________________________
To report on the activities of the Law Enforcement personnel during

the Volunteer Wildfire Services Awareness Day.
2. BACKGROUND
During the week of the 18th of April 2010 the department had been
contacted by the organizers of the Volunteer Wildfire Services
Awareness Day, for assistance in the form of visible policing during
their event.
A few Principal Inspectors from the department then suggested that

we use the opportunity to market the organization during said day, by
erecting a stand displaying the legislative functions of the
department.
On said day Cecil Abrahams, Andre De Villiers, Renold Matthyse,

John Abrahams and Johannes Davids used their initiative and
erected a gazebo displaying the law enforcement equipment.
Said officials also used the opportunity to interact with members of

the public to ensure that their functions in terms of law are
communicated to persons attending the function.
62
3. DISCUSSION
The Manager: Law Enforcement indicated that the conveners had

been so impressed with their initiatives that they sent a letter of
recommendation, which is attached hereto as APPENDIX 1.
FOR INFORMATION

2010-05-12: ITEM 5.2.1.7
RECOMMENDED
that the activities of the Law Enforcement personnel during the Volunteer
Wildfire Services Awareness Day, be noted.
RECOMMENDED
that the activities of the Law Enforcement personnel during the Volunteer
Wildfire Services Awareness Day, be noted.
(Acting DPS)
63
7.3 SUMMARY REPORT: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS IN

SWOOPIESHOOGTE KLAPMUTS
File number : 17/4/3/Klapmuts
Compiled by : Director: Community Services

______________________________________________________________
To provide Mayco with information on the social development

situation of the people living in Swoopieshoogte Klapmuts (next to
Mandela Park).
2. BACKGROUND
During the Mayoral Committee Meeting held on 17 February 2010,

Mayco requested the Director Community Services to conduct an
investigation into the living conditions of the 15 families squatting at
Swoopieshoogte and to make suggestions as to interventions to be
taken to assist the families.
3. DISCUSSION
All 15 families were interviewed on 23 February 2010. A summary

report is attached as APPENDIX 1.
Community Services
The interviews, investigation and summary report was done and

prepared by the Department of Community Development in the
Municipal Manager’s Office. Thank you to them for a job well done.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that Mayco take note of the decision taken by the Executive Mayor
and recommend to Council to condone the decision; and
(b) that the possibility be investigated to set up a fund in terms of Section

12 of the MFMA and that a policy be drafted to guide the expenditure
of such monies.
64
RESOLVED (nem con)
that this matter be referred back in order to allow the Administration to engage
in further discussions relating to this matter and that same be re-submitted at a
next meeting of this Committee for consideration.
FURTHER COMMENTS BY RELEVANT DIRECTOR
This item was for information only. This report was drafted on request of
Mayco when the issue of Swoopieshoogte was tabled at the beginning of April
2010. The Director: Community Services was requested to conduct a survey
on the social development needs of the people living in Swoopieshoogte. This
was done and the results are contained in the report for information. The
Department of Community Development has started to implement ways to
assist the members of the public.
FOR INFORMATION
RECOMMENDED
that the Summary Report: Social Development needs in Swoopieshoogte

Klapmuts, be noted.
(Acting DPS)
65
8. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR
NONE
NONE
9. MOTIONS AND QUESTIONS RECEIVED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER
NONE
10. CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS OF EXIGENCY
NONE
11. MATTER/S TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE
See pink documentation.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00.
CONFIRMED
CHAIRPERSON
TIK5: MINUTES: MAYCO.2010-05-26/TS

Minutes.2010 05 25

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Minutes.2010 05 25

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ref no.

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING

TIK5: MINUTES: MAYCO.2010-05-25/TS

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING

2010-05-25 AND CONTINUED ON 2010-05-26

5. REPORTS FROM MAYORAL COMMITTEE AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING/S

6. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

6.2 DELEGATED MATTERS

7. MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

9. MOTIONS AND QUESTIONS RECEIVED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

10. CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS OF EXIGENCY

11. MATTER/S TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

PRESENT Executive Mayor, Alderman CP Jooste [Chairperson]

OFFICIALS Acting Municipal Manager

1. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE (3/5/2/2)

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 1

RESOLVED (nem com)

that leave of absence be granted to Deputy Executive Mayor, Councillor

2. COMMUNICATION BY THE CHAIRPERSON (3/5/2/2)

3.1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON

The above-mentioned minutes were distributed previously.

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 3.1

that the Minutes of a Special Mayoral Committee Meeting held on

3.2 MINUTES OF A MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 2010-04-28

The above-mentioned minutes were distributed previously.

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 3.2

that the Minutes of the Mayoral Committee Meeting held on

4. REPORT BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER RE OUTSTANDING

The report on outstanding resolutions is attached as APPENDIX 1.

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 4

that the report by the Acting Municipal Manager on resolutions taken at

6. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

6.1 NON- DELEGATED MATTERS

6.1.1 2007-2011 IDP (2nd GENERATION)

File number : 9/1/211

Reported by : Acting Municipal Manager

Compiled by : Corporate Strategy Executive

Delegated authority : Council

To submit the new IDP for 2007-2011 (Revision 3) to Mayco for

The main Act that regulates integrated development planning is the

(d) complies with the provisions of this Chapter; and

(e) is compatible with National and Provincial development plans and

The draft IDP and Budget were submitted to Council at a special

offices. The deadline for inputs was 16:00 on Wednesday,

The new updated IDP document is (under separate cover as

4. COMMENTS BY RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS

All the Departments were involved in the compilation of the IDP.

that Mayco recommend to Council that the Second Generation IDP

MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEETING: 2010-05-25: ITEM 6.1.1

6.1.2 DRAFT MEDIUM TERM REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK

File number : 5/1/1/2009/2010

Report by : Acting Municipal Manager

Compiled by : Chief Financial Officer

Delegated Authority : Council

The purpose of this report is three fold:-

(a) For the Mayoral Committee to consider the

(b) To consider and recommend the Budget related and other

(c) To consider and recommend the Medium Term Revenue

Section 16(2) of the MFMA stipulates “that the mayor of the

2.1 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Section 23 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (Act No 56 of