MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD ANNUAL REPORT: 1999/2000

Transcription

1 MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD ANNUAL REPORT: 1999/2000 The Speaker: National Assembly The Chairperson: National Council of Provinces The Speakers: Provincial Legislatures MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD: ANNUAL REPORT: 1 APRIL MARCH 2000 In terms of section 39 of the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998 the Municipal Demarcation Board hereby submits its annual report on its activities during the above-mentioned financial year as well as the audited financial statements. To ensure that Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures are provided with updated information on all the activities of the Board prior to the local elections on 5 December 2000, additional information on activities and statistics compiled after the end of the above-mentioned financial year, are also included. Yours sincerely DR. M O SUTCLIFFE CHAIRPERSON: MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD 1

2 MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD NARRATIVE REPORT ON THE 1999/2000 FINANCIAL YEAR 1. THE BOARD During the financial year one Board member, Me. Renee Hartslief, resigned. The Minister decided that the vacancy not be filled. The Board continued with its activities with one full time member, the Chairperson, and nine part-time members. The Board appointed various committees and technical teams to assist it in the demarcation process. Board meetings, Executive Committee meetings and meetings of committees of the Board have been held regularly to consider input from the public and to attend to the legal provisions. Full Board meetings were inter alia held on: 2 February 1999, 1 March 1999, 15 March 1999, 11 April 1999, 28 April 1999, 2 May 1999, 3 May 1999, 4/5 May 1999, 18/19 May 1999, 4/5/6 June 1999, 21 June 1999, 4/5 July 1999, 21 July 1999, 1/2 August 1999, 18 November 1999, 8 December 1999, 15 December 1999, 20 January 2000, 24 January 2000, 13/14 February 2000, 21 February 2000, 28 February 2000, and 5/6 March STAFF MATTERS The Board decided to appoint a core staff component consisting of a Manager, Deputy Manager: Corporate Services, Deputy Manager: Professional Services, Travel Coordinator/Office Administrator, Senior Financial Officer, Secretary, 2

3 Receptionist/Switchboard Operator, Office Organiser, Driver/Messenger and a Special Adviser. In the absence of a Manager the administration of the Board was initially managed by the Chairman of the Board with the assistance of appointed senior staff. After placing advertisements for the top management of the Board, the following appointments were made during the financial year: Dr. Lulama Zitha was appointed as Manager with effect from 1 November Mr. Hillary Monare was appointed as Deputy Manager: Professional Services with effect from 1 April Mr. Nkaniyso Buthelezi was appointed as Deputy Manager: Corporate services with effect from 1 February The remaining staff complement (6 staff members) were also appointed during the 1999/2000 financial year. During the period beginning after the 1999/2000 financial year the Board had to take certain disciplinary steps against the Manager. After a disciplinary inquiry, and given the seriousness of the charges being brought against Dr. Zitha, an independent chair of the disciplinary inquiry recommended that Dr. Zitha be dismissed. The Board concurred with this and Dr. Zitha was dismissed on 7 December After interviewing possible Managers, the Board appointed Mr. Hillary Monare as Manager of the Board with effect from 1 January After the 5 December 2000 elections and as a result of an institutional review, the Board retrenched two staff members and has appointed a number of persons to professional positions (GIS and Research). A full report in this regard will be submitted in the 2000/2001 financial report. 3. CONSULTANTS In February 1999, the Board advertised for consultants and consortia to assist it in the demarcation process. The first phase was primarily to undertake assessments of the status quo and to create an integrated GIS data base. GIS is essentially an information-management system, which is geographically or spatially based. It is a powerful computer-mapping system, which assists with the management of information based on locality. The common users of GIS are local municipalities, utility companies, commercial institutions such as banks, the transportation industry, and the agricultural and forestry sectors. The basic function of GIS is to analyse complex and interrelated data. The GIS process is highly effective and efficient, and supports improved decision-making. The end result of a GIS functioning is the production of maps. Consultants employed during this first phase were: Wendy Ovens (metropolitan areas), Themba Maluleka (Cross Boundary Areas), Vuyo Mahlati (District Councils), Nomi Sangweni (analysis of Section 24 and 25 factors), Ram Sewnath and Willy Govender from Dataworld (GIS and attribute data base) and four unemployed Masters level students (suggested by their Professors at the University of Natal and Durban- Westville) as data analysts. 3

4 The second phase was for the continuing operations of the Board and the Board decided not to appoint a single consortia to undertake all the Board s work. Instead, a core component was selected and it was decided that all other consultants (needed for investigations, hearings, planning work, facilitation work, etc.) would come from a national data base. In terms of all other consultants, the following process was employed: (i) an advert (published late May 1999) invited consultants to apply to the Board; (ii) their names were placed on a database; (iii) continual updates were made; and (iv) From these consultants were chosen as and when needed. This allowed the Board to assemble a diverse, geographically spread and representative group of consultants to assist it in its work. Consultant Firm Dimakatso Dimakatso Mohlabane Mohlabane David Schmidt Strategies for Change Agecy C.C. N.A. Baartman N.A. Baartman Solomon Legodi Solomon Legodi Yondela Silimela Yondela Silimela Reginald Moses Reginald Moses S.S Macandula S.S Macandula E.M. Maseko E.M. Maseko A.A. Ndlovana A.A. Ndlovana T. Tamasane T. Tamasane R. Allison R. Allison T.D. Goba T.D. Goba & Associates J.H. Lerm Hannes Lerm & Associates A.T. Ncongwane A.T. Ncongwane D.A. Ncongwane D.A. Ncongwane Nelson Rapotu Nelson Rapotu R. Maesela Maesela Prof Land Surveyors Gemey Abrahams Gemey Abrahams E.L. Potloane E.L. Potloane Arne Teubner Arne Teubner N.S. Kgopong N. Solly Kpopong Mamidze Rex African Renaissance Dev Consult NV Ralushai Far North Consultants C.C. S. Lindsay Setplan Minty Cossie Minty Cossie 4

5 Lamla Stemela Lamla Stemela K. Nkrumah-Abrese K. Nkrumah-Abrese J. Zingel JGZ Development H.F. Prinsloo CEBO Planning W.T. Edwards W.T. Edwards J.C.O. Bekker J.C.O. Bekker L.P. Motseki L.P. Motseki S. Mengezeleli S. Mengezeleli Litha Kunene Litha Kunene V. Maila Emendo TRP P. Ngobeni Pat Ngobeni Land Surveyors Amos Ndebele Insika Rural Development Trust L. Mokwena Kwena Project Management A. Mawelele A. Mawelele M. Sephiri M. Sephiri D. Nolte D. Nolte & Associates T.T. Maoka T.T. Maoka J.R.M. Alexander J.R.M. Alexander T.G. Mabanda T.G. Mabanda Sibongiseni Maseko Maseko Hlongwa & Associates Eric Mfengu Eric Mfengu Ernest Drewes Ernest Drewes Noko Ngaffe Noko Ngaffe Andrè Olivier Organisation Dev. Africa C.C. G.S. Cloete G.S. Cloete Osman Narker Narker & Associates C.C. A.M. Adam MCA Urban & Env. Planners Ian Goldman Khanya Managing Rural Change C.C. S. Machete S. Machete JGL Marais JGL Marais Doreen Atkinson Mc Intosh Xaba & Associates Tlou Pila Tlou Pila Loyiso Lugawe Loyiso Lugawe J.M. Msiza J.M. Msiza Mpho Mogale Mpho Mogale Jimmy Gotyana Rural Urban Consultants C. Linde C. Linde Lance Del Monte Metroplan A.A. Sebego Sebego Molema & Viljoen T. Mthembu Development Interface 5

6 Dr D.J. Bos Dr D.J. Bos Sita Mathiba Afro Concept Development Planners MTS Mbatha CDRF Brij Maharaj Dr B. Maharaj Vish Suparsad Suparsad Consultants N Sikutshwa Setplan Evelyn Sibaca Evelyn Sibaca NQ Machete NQ Machete T.K. Mokone T.K. Mokone N. Ndzombane Metroplan Shakira Lillah Shakira Lillah Charlie Jantjies Rural Urban Consultants Desmond Sweke Setplan Peter Jewell Peter Jewell Consulting Services Basil Sikhakhane Development Interface Johannes Moloi Moloi & Millar Dianne Scott Dianne Scott WM Mkhize WM Mkhize Bonga Malombo Zizamele Facilitation Services Thokozani Xaba McIntosh Xaba & Associates Bruce McCormack Bruce McCormack & Associates C.C. Victor K Marumo Victor K Marumo J.G.H. van Rooyen J.G.H. van Rooyen PJ Mokobane PJ Mokobane AN Bester AN Bester Theo Kotze Theo Kotze Ledile Molope Emendo TRP TL Malukane TL Malukane I. Hooyberg - Smuts I. Hooyberg - Smuts Jeffery J. Mc Carthy Jeffery J. Mc Carthy Lu Heidemann Research For Change C.C. Neo Maape NML Consulting Kevin Allan Kevin Allan Philnet Bhekikhaya Philnet Bhekikhaya Madlala Madlala Maphete Leeuw NML Consulting Cathy Oelfose Cathy Oelfose Andrew Smith Andson C.C. 6

7 Dr MM Khosa Centre for Arfican Research P. Montwedi P. Montwedi M.A. Hlahla MH Town & Regional Planners NK Luzipho BTN Championing Transformation N. Soldati N. Soldati Various Wankin & Associates Various Urban & Regional Development Planners I. Meyer Ivan Meyer Consulting Services C.C. A. Sempill Urban Projects Team N. Klug N. Klug P. Ramarumo Truly South African Amanda de Beer Amanda de Beer KPMG KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) Afripeak Afripeak Management (Pty) Ltd Management NC Steytler NC Steytler A Foflonker A Foflonker Various University of Western Cape (CLC) M Mohapi M Mohapi J. Mettler J. Mettler H.B. Isherwood Land Projects Consultants JP Mathe JP Mathe MJ Nemavhandu MJ Nemavhandu L Saayman L Saayman B Roberts B Roberts RJ Hansmann RJ Hansmann ZA Botes Geo-Dynamic Systems Julienne T Brown JT Brown WJ Kirkland WJ Kirkland C Damerell C Damerell In addition, the Board decided to place a cap on fees charged by consultants. For example, while the IEC applied to the Board to be used on an agency basis, their fees ranged from R450 per hour to R700 per hour. This compared with the rates charged by Board consultants which did not exceed R350 per hour. 7

8 In addition the Board appointed IDASA to set up, manage and operate a call centre (toll free line) to enhance communication and transparency. For the day to day running of the administration the Board also made use of temporary staff such as students. 4. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS As a new Constitutional body which replaced the previous nine advisory Provincial Demarcation Boards, the Board was initially dependent on the Department of Constitutional Development for limited accommodations and administrative support. In this regard the Board would like to express its appreciation to the Department. The names of Zam Titus, Chippy Olver, Fanie Louw, Kevin Naidoo, Jan Serfontein and Amalinda Kuiper deserve special recognition. During the second half of 1999 the Board moved to premises in Hatfield, Pretoria and had to go through a procurement process to establish infrastructure for its administration and Board activities. Due to the limited accommodation space available to the Board it had to make use of external facilities for workshops with stakeholders and meetings of Board Committees. 5. CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS Very productive meetings have been held with the following: National Parliamentary Portfolio Committee; Minister and officials of DCD; MECs; SALGA and its affiliates; Houses of Traditional Leaders; National Departments; Political parties in the legislatures; Key private sector agencies; Key NGOs. Stakeholder meetings were held on a regular basis to ensure that they were being kept abreast of the demarcation process. 6. COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICATIONS The Board maintained good relations with the media. The media played a very important role in the publication of the Board's official notices and communication with the public. Regular media briefings arranged by the Board were well attended. The Board inter alia, published the following: July 1999: Publication of nodal points for category A and C municipal areas. 8

9 August 1999: Publication of section 26 notice for Category A and C municipalities and possible cross boundary areas. October 1999: Advertisements to inform the public that the determination of Category A and C municipalities have been published in Provincial Gazettes. October 1999: Republication of section 26 notice for Category A and C municipalities after the Constitutional Court ruled that certain provisions in the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act were invalid. October 1999: Publication of section 26 notice for Category B municipal areas. November 1999: Publication of section 28 notice with details of public meetings held between 29 November and 2 December 1999 in respect of the determination of the boundaries of category B municipalities. March 2000: Advertisements to thank the public for their participation in the demarcation process and to invite them to participate in the ward delimitation process. In the 2000/2001 financial year advertisements were also published (in April 2000) pertaining to the delimitation of wards. A full report on the delimitation of wards will be provided in the next annual report. The radio was also an important instrument in complying with the Board's legal obligations: The contents of the section 26 notice for category A and C municipalities was conveyed to the public by Radio Sonder Grense, Umhlobo we Nene (Xhosa), Safm, Thobela FM (Northern Sotho) and Ukhozi FM (Zulu) on 12, 13, 16, 18 and 23 August The same radio stations were used to convey the contents of the section 26 notice in respect of Category B municipalities on 12, 14 and 16 October Numerous press briefings were also held to inform the public on the activities of the Board. A web site was set up ( to empower the public to get immediate access to information on demarcation activities and maps of new boundaries. The web site was actively used by municipalities, government institutions, the private sector and other interested persons, institutions and organisations. It had made a major contribution to saving costs on staff expenses, printing and other means of communication. Over 1 million visits to the Board s Web Site were recorded during the period October 1999 to February 2000 which was the peak period for the demarcation of outer boundaries of municipalities. Communication was also enhanced through a call centre facility. IDASA was contracted to operate a call centre and toll free line no on behalf of the Board. This empowered persons with no access to the internet to obtain information on all the activities of the Board. 9

10 7. AD HOC DEMARCATIONS The Board adopted the following approach to dealing with ad hoc demarcations: Ad hoc demarcations would only be considered if they are urgent, are minor, are for developmental reasons and are unlikely to be controversial. The following information had to be provided by applicants: a map of the relevant area, a point-to-point description, if a traditional authority/magisterial district is affected details of how it is affected, letters from affected municipalities indicating the concurrence of their councils with the proposed exclusions and/or inclusions and any other information which may be useful. During the past two financial years some 65 requests for ad-hoc boundary determinations were received of which 30 were approved by the Board. The Board believes the long and tedious process to deal with ad hoc determinations requires an amendment to the Act. 8. DETERMINATION OF CATEGORY A, B AND C MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES 8.1 THE DETERMINATION OF METROPOLITAN AND DISTRICT COUNCIL BOUNDARIES The Municipal Demarcation Board published a Section 26 notice on 10 August 1999 inviting views and representations on the determination of the boundaries of all category A (Metropolitan) municipalities; the boundaries of all category C (District) municipalities; and possible municipal boundaries extending across provincial boundaries. The Notice followed: the Board's issuing of a general Framework on nodal points for District and Metropolitan areas in South Africa and which was published on 28 June 1999; and Minister FS Mufamadi declaring on 06 August 1999 that Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria and East Rand would be metropolitan areas. By close of business on 1 September 1999, over 350 submissions had been received responding to the Board s Framework and the Section 26 notice. In addition, the Board continued to undertake its own investigations into the possible boundaries for Metropolitan and District councils in South Africa. After discussions in committees of the Board, and confirmed at the Board meeting on 5 September 1999, the Municipal Demarcation Board decided to make available to the public at large draft boundaries for Metropolitan and District council boundaries throughout South Africa. These boundaries and comments received by the Board were investigated over a few weeks by some 25 technical teams. 10

11 Parallel to, and a necessary part of this process was the investigation of possible Cross Boundary municipalities. In communications with the Minister, the Board was encouraged to make known its own determinations on possible Cross Boundary areas in order that these could be dealt with through a single piece of legislation and after consultation with the governments concerned. The Board s preliminary view was that there were a number of areas which could become Cross Boundary Municipalities. The board pointed out that the finalisation of Metropolitan and District Council boundaries to a large extent was dependent on a degree of certainty about: The revenue base of municipalities Staffing Future major governmental plans In this regard, the Board published its views on the financing of municipalities. Between 6 and 14 October 1999 the boundaries of Category A and C municipalities and possible cross boundary areas were published in Provincial Gazettes. In addition to its communications with stakeholders, the Board provided, at some 55 selected venues, copies of the maps of the boundaries of District/Metropolitan municipalities. On 15 October 1999 the Constitutional Court found the following sections of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998 to be unconstitutional: Sec.4 Sec.5 Sec. 6(2) Sec. 13 Sec. 24(1) The Constitutional Court judgement clearly stated that, in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to determine the boundaries of the categories of municipalities, the Municipal Demarcation Board must not only apply the criteria for determining municipal boundaries, but it must of necessity, apply the criteria for determining when an area should have a particular category of municipality. Such necessity arises from the fact that the determination of boundaries cannot take place in isolation it can only occur in relation to the boundaries of a specific category, or categories, of municipality. Without determining the category of municipality, the determination of a boundary becomes a meaningless exercise. The Court argued that the task of applying the criteria when an area should have particular category of municipality naturally falls on the Demarcation Board. On the question as to whether it is possible to excise amongst others sections 4 and 5 of the Structures Act and as to whether the remaining provisions of the Act give effect to the purpose of the Act the Constitutional Court answered in the affirmative. These 11

12 two questions relate to the application of the criteria, which, the court found, the Minister has no power under the Constitution to apply. The Court also found that section 2 and 3 of the Structures Act, read with section 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act provide sufficient criteria to enable the Board to carry out its functions. In reacting to the court s judgement, the Board published afresh Section 26 Notices inviting comment from the public at large around the determination of Category A and Category C municipalities. Based on its earlier research, the Board believed that only the following areas were real contenders as category A (Metropolitan) municipalities: Definites: Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban; Probables: Pretoria and East Rand Possible: Port Elizabeth. The Board commissioned a specific study into whether or not Port Elizabeth meets the criteria as laid down in the Municipal Structures Act, which study indicated it did meet the criteria. The Board also consulted with its major stakeholders around the decision on which areas should be metropolitan areas. At its meeting on November , the Municipal Demarcation Board applied the relevant criteria in Section 2 of the Municipal Structures Act and determined that the following areas would be category A areas: Greater Johannesburg Greater Cape Town Greater Durban Greater East Rand Greater Pretoria Greater Port Elizabeth As at the 15 th November 1999, 827 Category A and C submissions were received by the Demarcation Board. Of these, 525 were nodal or boundary submissions and 302 were submitted as objections. The number of submissions received varied from province to province. The greatest number of submissions were received from the Western Cape with 35% (279 submissions), followed by Gauteng with 17% (139 submissions), and KwaZulu/ Natal with 13% (110 submissions). The percentage of submissions received drops significantly from here with the Eastern Cape accounting for 9% (78 submissions), Mpumalanga accounting for 7% (62 submissions), the Northern Cape accounting for 6% (49 submissions) and the Free State accounting for 5% (41 submissions). The Northern Province accounted for 4% (35 submissions) and the North West for 4% (31 submissions). Of the 302 objections, it is important to note that 181 objections were received from Helderberg, 33 from Midrand and 5 from Centurion. Although recorded separately when received by the Board it is significant that most submissions received from these 12

13 three areas were single line s or single line copies faxed through to the Board with no substantiation of the objection. After having considered all views and representations the Board determined the boundaries of all Category A and C municipalities and the applicable Section 21 notice was published in the provincial Gazettes from November Objections were to be submitted by 31 January THE DETERMINATION OF CATEGORY B BOUNDARIES A detailed description of each phase for determining the category B boundaries is outlined below. Phase 1: Policy Formulation From the outset of the process, a small team of consultants was appointed to examine the legislative guidelines and the implications thereof for the drafting of a framework for determining category B municipalities. The following legislation was examined in detail: Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No 107 of 1996 Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, No 27 of 1998 Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, No 117 of 1998 The White Paper on Local Government, March 1998 A document was released on the Internet indicating the Board s initial thinking with respect to category B municipalities. It highlighted some key considerations namely settlement types, the rationalisation of municipalities, manageable size and the Board s initial approach to the use of district management areas. This document was refined considerably after a more detailed examination of the legislation, spatial and functional analysis and the broad aspects of financial and administrative capacity. The draft published towards the end of October 1999 contained the following extract of the guiding principles: Rationalisation of Municipalities The demarcation of Category B municipalities needs to proceed in terms of the factors as described in Section 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act. Some degree of rationalisation of municipalities is required. It was the Board s view that, in the light of this, key principles for the rationalisation (and/or amalgamation) of municipalities should include the following: Geographical contiguity: Because municipal government is so closely tied to local identity and accessibility to local representatives, rationalisation should generally follow nearest-neighbour principles that is, there be geographically coherent consolidated Category B municipalities, and not leap frog amalgamations of areas. Not only are geographically fragmented municipalities impractical from a service delivery perspective, but the important function of local government in building a local, developmental identity and sense of common civic purpose, is undermined. 13

14 Capacity development: Another objective of rationalisation / amalgamation should be to develop a minimum critical mass of municipal capacity (staff, assets, finances), especially where vulnerable and under capacitated TLCs and TRCs currently exist. Very small municipalities lack the potential to develop the specialised and dedicated capacity that is necessary to effect good town planning, engineering and development management and general service delivery in a country which is undergoing significant modernisation and change in its settlement systems. Moreover, accessing capital markets and the ability to provide higher order services (such as libraries) is considerably weakened especially in small town and rural contexts where municipalities are too small. Resource sharing: Wherever possible, current TLC s, TRC s and/or other areas should be combined with a view to realising fiscally sustainable units, with weaker areas being paired with stronger areas so as to achieve a sharing of existing or potential resources. Unless this is done, there is every possibility that many of the smaller or weaker authorities will collapse; or islands of exclusive development may emerge up against which under-serviced and unplanned settlements are likely to emerge. Neither the likely waste of the infrastructure of collapsed local authority areas nor the preservation of islands of privilege abutted by under-serviced areas will contribute towards a rational settlement landscape and use of scarce national development resources. Manageable Size A statistically derived indicator of 3 500km² and persons was suggested as the probable norm for Category B municipalities. However, deviations from such a norm are possible given the uneven geographical distribution of population and economic activity throughout the country. Illustratively, there are some cities / large town, which need to be treated as functional units with populations in excess of 1 million. At the other end of the scale, there are sparsely settled rural/small town areas where a population of would require undesirably extensive geographical areas. The Board s empirical research suggests that population of less than are generally undesirable for Category B municipalities given the objectives of realising economies of agglomeration and scale in municipalities. On the other hand, given the need for geographical coherence and local identity, areas greater than km² are also desirable. It should however also be recognised that there will often be an inverse relationship between the geographical size and population size of Category B municipalities. Sparsely settled areas of the country will have Category Bs of relatively large geographical area, but relatively small population size. Densely settles areas (eg cities) will be relatively small in geographical size but will have large populations. This is a logical result of the uneven pattern of population distribution and settlement size that occurs throughout the world. Functionality Category B municipalities should be aggregates of places with significant internal linkages. Such linkages are evident in shopping and work travel patterns. Patterns of 14

15 social interaction, economic interdependencies, and shared transportation networks amongst other considerations. However, functional linkages are never entirely discrete and there will always be some degree of functional linkage across Category B municipal boundaries. The idea is to maximise the internal linkage whilst minimising the external linkages. It is recognised that in any alignment of wall-to-wall (or near wall-to-wall) boundaries for Category B municipalities, tradeoffs must arise as to whether some X might be allocated to adjacent municipal areas Y or Z. In such circumstances, a most important consideration is the functional links between places that is to say, whether such a place X is interdependent or whether it interacts more with the places in areas Y or Z. To some extent, functional interdependence is a result of geographical proximity (or distance), but not always. Illustratively, the alignment of transportation routes and physical features (such as a coast) can alter patterns of functional interdependence of some places into a more linear than a circular pattern. In yet other cases, places which may be close together as the crow files are divided by an impassable mountain range. As a result they interact very little. Maximising the internal functional linkages between places can therefore mean a different matter than simple distance between places. For this reason, the jig-saw puzzle of boundaries which make up the logical Category B pattern will not necessary be geometrically similar from District council to District Council and from Province to Province. But having said this, functionally is usually an additional qualifying factor to, or an elaboration upon, the principle of geographical coherence as described above. The above mentioned framework was developed with due regard to the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act and provided the Board with a means to evaluate broad areas for demarcation purposes. However, in the evaluation of submissions in terms of section 26 of the Act the Board specifically took into account the factors provided for in section 25 of the Act. The above framework was presented at a Stakeholder meeting on the 4 November In addition, the document was released on the Internet. Legal Process Section 26 Notice In terms of section 26 (1) of the Local Government Municipal Demarcation act No 27 of 1998, before the Board considers any determination of a municipal boundary in terms of section 21 of the Act, it must publish a notice in a newspaper circulating in the area concerned. The notice must state the Boards intention to consider boundaries and inviting written representations and views from the public. The stipulated period for such responses may not be less than 21 days. The section 26 notice for category B municipalities was published on 11 October 1999 with the closing date on the 2 November The Board received two hundred and nineteen submissions with the majority emanating from the larger provinces of the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Kwa 15

16 Zulu Natal. A poor response was received from the provinces of the North West, Mpumalanga and the Northern Province. The table outlined below provides more detail with respect to the number of submissions received per province: Province Number of Submissions Percentage of National Western Cape Northern Cape Eastern Cape Free State Kwa Zulu Natal Mpumalanga Northern Province North West Gauteng Total % Subsequent to the closing date for the 26 notice submissions, the Board received an additional thirty-seven contributions. Again, these have been assessed and all relevant information included in the demarcation process. Every submission was assessed in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and the Board's category B policy framework. On the whole, a substantial effort was made on the part of the public and demarcation stakeholders to complete the questionnaire provided by the Board, to consult relevant stakeholders in the area and to provide the required information. Valuable information on municipal finance and administrative resources was identified and were extracted during December 1999 into a database to assist with the drafting of notices in terms of section 12 of the Municipal Structures Act, Category B submissions, which were deemed to meet the criteria as outlined in the legislation and policy framework, were carefully considered when preparing the boundaries for category B areas. Phase 3: Boundary Assessment In order to facilitate the process of category B boundary determination, the Board prepared a number of boundary options for examination. With the exception of the Western Cape and one example in the Northern Province, only one category B option was prepared. In order to adequately map the boundaries, additional data sets were purchased and or obtained by the Board, for example the 1: topographical information and the environmental database were acquired from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. A number of workshops were held in which the category B framework and sections 24 and 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act No 27 of 1998 were applied in the preparation of the boundary options. In addition, cognisance was also taken, in the drafting phase, of the information obtained from the section 26 submissions. The draft boundaries were published on the Internet for public comment. Section 27 of the Local Government Municipal Demarcation Act No 27 of 1998 outlines the process to be followed by the Board when deliberating boundaries. It states that when the period for the written representations and views has expired, the Board must consider all representations and views submitted to it. Thereafter, it may take a 16

17 decision on the boundary determination or, before it takes such a decision, the Board may hold a public meeting, conduct a formal investigation or do both. It should be mentioned that the Board is not obliged to hold public meetings or undertake an investigation but may do so at its discretion. For the purpose of further public participation in addition to the 21 days provided for in section 26 and the 30 days provided for in section 21 of the Act, the Board decided to conduct both investigations and hold public meetings. In this process views and representations were obtained in addition to the information already at the disposal of the Board on which determinations could have been made. Public Hearings One hundred and forty seven hearings were held throughout South Africa. The table below indicates the number of hearings plus the approximate attendance per province: Province No of Hearings Total Attendance Average Attendance Gauteng North West Northern Province Mpumalanga Free State Northern Cape Eastern Cape Western Cape Kwa Zulu Natal Total Given the intention of the hearings, which was to enhance public participation and to gather public views and comments on the boundary options, it was decided by the Board to use community facilitators as chairpersons. Consultants provided technical assistance to the chairpersons. The Board appointed IDASA to provide suitable chairpersons, secure the venues and project-manage certain aspects of the hearing logistics. An intensive training session was held with both chairpersons and support consultants. Comprehensive documentation packs were provided such as relevant legislation, policy approaches, base information, maps etc. On the whole, the Board believes the hearing process was successful, although there were some weaknesses. A number of important issues will, however, require attention for the ward boundary hearings. Firstly, there were a number of organisational considerations. It would appear that some of the chairs required more in depth training than what was offered for the category B process. The category B hearings tended to focus on one geographic area, which appeared to cause confusion for people attending from elsewhere in the district. The Board s policy was to hold the hearings in disadvantaged areas. Whilst this appears to have been successful in many instances, the quality of the venues varied greatly often contributing to the late commencement of the hearing. Secondly, concerns were raised with respect to the communication aspect of the hearings. Throughout the country there were complaints that people were not aware of the hearings in spite of all the MEC s, municipalities, SALGA affiliates, House of Traditional Leaders, political parties having been contacted. In addition, the dates, 17

18 times and venues were widely advertised in the press. There were insufficient understanding of the legal provisions pertaining to category A, B, C municipalities and DMAs. In some areas, people experienced difficulties in reading the maps and queried the statistics used by the Board. Boundary Investigations The investigations were undertaken on a provincial basis with leaders appointed per province. A meeting was held in Pretoria with the provincial leaders to explain the Category B framework, the terms of reference for the investigation and the expected reporting procedures. Base information such as staffing and financial information was gathered from most municipalities. Each boundary was examined to confirm the configuration of the existing TLC/TRCs in the proposed category B municipalities and to confirm that settlements towards the edges of the boundaries are appropriately located according to their functional linkages. The information from the section 26 submissions was once again assessed and the outcomes from the public hearings made available to the investigation consultants. The Board held a workshop on the 8 December 1999, which was attended by the leading provincial investigating consultants. The findings of the investigations were presented and recommended boundary changes discussed by the Board. Boundary amendments were also identified for category A and C municipalities to accommodate the category B configurations. A report was prepared per category B municipality highlighting the following: The location of the Category B municipality Boundary considerations Rationalisation of Municipalities (Geographical contiguity and coherence, Capacity Development and Resource sharing Manageable size Functionality Conclusions/Recommendation The draft reports were released on the Internet on 22 December These reports varied in quality and the Board has decided not to continue producing such reports as on a number of occasions information considered by the Board was not dealt with in these reports. Phase 4: Boundary Determination The Municipal Demarcation Board Meeting to consider B-municipal boundaries was held on 15 December The purpose of the meeting was to determine the category B boundaries throughout South Africa. Again, the Board applied the category A, and C and B boundary frameworks in addition to section 24 and 25 of the Local Government: Municipal Demarcations Act, No 27 of 1998 in the assessment of boundaries. A number of category A and C boundaries were redetermined as a result of the category B boundary process. 18

19 The Section 21 notices appeared in the relevant Provincial Gazettes from December The closing date for objections to the boundaries was 31 January CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS AND REDETERMINATIONS OF CATEGORY A, B AND C BOUNDARIES 9.1 OBJECTIONS As at the 15 th February 2000 a total of 2353 submissions and objections had been received by the Demarcation Board. The table below illustrates the total number of objections received by province and divides this total between submissions and objections. Province Cat A&C Submissions Received Cat B Submissions Received Cat A, B & C Objections Received TOTAL % Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng KZN Mpumalanga North West Northern Cape Northern Province Western Cape National TOTAL Note: In Gauteng the total included 8 objections regarding Meyerton; In Mpumalanga the total included 120 objections regarding Marloth Park and 6 regarding Bethal; In the Western Cape the total included 10 objections from Helderberg, 12 objections in regard to Paarl and 8 objections in regard to Franschoek. 9.2 REDETERMINATIONS After all objections have been duly considered the Board redetermined the the boundaries of all category A, B and C municipalities and also published its proposed proposed boundaries for cross boundary municipalities. A number of district management areas were also declared. 19

20 The final determination resulted in the following number of municipalities per category: Category A 6 Of which 2 are cross boundary metropolitan municipalities. Category B 232 Of which 8 are cross boundary local municipalities Category C 46 Of which 7 are cross boundary district municipalities DMAs 26 Of which 1 (Kruger Park) falls in two provinces The relevant notices were published in Provincial Gazettes as follows: PROVINCE NOTICE PROVINCIAL GAZETTE DATE OF PUBLICATION NUMBER NUMBER NORTHERN CAPE FEB 2000 NORTHERN FEB 2000 PROVINCE MPUMALANGA FEB 2000 EASTERN CAPE FEB 2000 NORTH WEST FEB 2000 GAUTENG MARCH 2000 FREE STATE FEB 2000 KZN M.N MARCH 2000 W CAPE PN MARCH CORRECTIONS Due to technical and other problems various boundaries had to be republished in the 2000/2001 financial year and prior to the 5 December 2000 local elections. 10. CROSS BOUNDARY AREAS After receiving the concurrence of the relevant legislatures and after the Crossboundary Act, 2000 was promulgated the Board determined the boundaries of 2 cross boundary metropolitan municipalities, 8 cross boundary local municipalities and 7 cross boundary district municipalities. The legal provisions to deal with cross boundary areas are very cumbersome and the Board recommends that they be reviewed. 11. DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AREAS In terms of section 6 of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998 (Act No.117 of 1998) the Municipal Demarcation Board, after having consulted the Minister and the MECs responsible for local government in the provinces, declared various areas that must have municipalities of both category C and category B as district management areas. The Boards final declaration was published in Government Gazette of 29 September DELIMITATION OF WARDS 20

21 In the interests of transparency, the MDB released a Discussion Document dealing with not only the process to be embarked upon in finalizing ward boundaries, but data on the number of registered voters and existing councillors in each of these municipal areas. These data allowed all stakeholders to debate these issues in anticipation of the formula for the number of councillors. After the Minster published the formula for the number of councillors on 5 April 1999 the MECs responsible for local government published the number of councillors in Provincial Gazettes. The Board delimited wards during the 2000/2001 financial year and a report in this regard will be submitted in the next annual report. However, as statistics are already available, they will be provided later in this report. 13. ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPACITY OF MUNICIPALITIES AND POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. The Constitution and Municipal Structures Act grant to municipalities a wide range of functions and powers. As part of its responsibility, the MDB must make recommendations to the MECs on the capacity of each of the new municipalities to perform these functions and powers. The Board together with other stakeholders attended to its legal obligations in this regard and would do more work in the 2000/2001 financial year on which a report will be submitted in the 2000/2001 annual report. Clearly, given South Africa s legacy, it will take some years before the system is running smoothly and municipalities have all reached a basic level of service delivery. 14. TRADITIONAL LEADERS Many hours had to be spent addressing the concerns of traditional leaders. In many cases Traditional leaders complained about matter not related to demarcation but to Constitutional provisions which cannot be solved by the Board. 15. LITIGATION A number of notices were served on the Board. This matter will be dealt with in the 2000/2001 annual report. Cheadle, Haysom and Thompson Attorneys were appointed as the Board's attorneys to oppose the applications. 16. ALIGNMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND FUCTIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY BOUNDARIES A report on the co-operation with Departments to align their functional service delivery boundaries with municipal boundaries will be submitted in the 2000/2001 annual report. 17. STATISTICS POPULATION: NATIONAL AND RURAL PER PROVINCE 21

22 Province Population Rural Percentage Eastern Cape % Free State % Gauteng % KwaZulu-Natal % Mpumalanga % North West % Northern Cape % Northern Province % Western Cape % RATIONALISATION The 843 municipalities established during 1995/96 have been rationalised to 284 as follows: 6 (A Category) Metropolitan areas (Johannesburg, Pretoria, East Rand, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town) 47 (C category) District Municipalities 231 (B category) Local Municipalities MUNICIPALITIES PER PROVINCE PROVINCE Met-ros (A) Crossboundary Metros (A) Local (B) Crossboundary Local (B) District (C) Cross- boun-dary District (C) Eastern Cape Free State 20 5 Gauteng KwaZulu-Natal Mpumalanga North-West Northern Cape Northern Province Western Cape Sub total TOTAL: 284 MUNICIPALITIES Notes Some metro, district and local municipalities extend across provincial boundaries. They are called cross-boundary municipalities. Pretoria (Tshwane) for example is a metropolitan municipality but its boundary extends across the provincial boundary between Gauteng and North West. Although Pretoria is one municipality it was proclaimed as a Metropolitan municipality in two provinces. 22

23 Gauteng has in effect 3 metropolitan municipalities but shares 2 of the 3 with other provinces (Mpumalanga and North West). The same applies to cross-boundary District and Local Municipalities. NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS AND WARDS: 1995/96 AND 5 DECEMBER 2000 LOCAL ELECTIONS Prov-ince WARD PR TOTAL TOTAL Wards Cross Boundary Municipalities included EC FS GT CBLC2,CBLC8,East Rand, Pretoria MP CBDC4,CBDC6 NC CBDC1,CBDC7 NP CBLC3,CBLC5 NW WC KZN Total STATISTICS PER MUNICIPALITY Council Common Section 12 Numb er of Ward s Number of Councillors (Ward and PR) Number of Councillo rs to DC Port Port Nelson Mandela Elizabeth Elizabeth EC05b1 Umzimkulu Umzimkulu (ECO5b1) EC05b2 Mount Ayliff Umzimvubu (EC05b2) EC101 Graaff- Camdeboo Reinet (EC101) EC102 Somerset Blue Crane Route East EC103 Jansenville Ikwezi EC104 Grahamstow Makana n EC105 Port Alfred Ndlambe EC106 Kirkwood Sunday's River Valley EC107 Willowmore Baviaans EC108 Humansdorp Kouga EC109 Kareedouw Kou-Kamma EC121 Idutywa Mbhashe EC122 Butterworth Mnquma EC123 Komga Great Kei EC124 Stutterheim Amahlati EC125 East London Buffalo City EC126 Peddie Ngqushwa EC127 Alice Nkonkobe EC128 Adelaide Nxuba EC131 Cradock Inxuba Yethemba

24 Council Common Section 12 Numb er of Ward s Number of Councillors (Ward and PR) Number of Councillo rs to DC EC132 Tarkastad Tsolwana EC133 Molteno Inkwanca EC134 Queenstown Lukanji EC135 Cofimvaba Intsika Yethu EC136 Lady Frere Emalahleni EC137 Engcobo Engcobo EC138 Elliot Sakhisizwe EC141 Mount Fletcher Elundini EC142 Barkly East Senqu EC143 Aliwal North Malethswai (EC143) EC144 Burgersdorp Gariep EC151 Bizana Mbizana EC152 Ntabankulu Ntabankulu EC153 Flagstaff Ingquza EC154 Port St Johns Port St Johns (EC154) EC155 Libode Nyandeni EC156 Qumbu Mhlontlo EC157 Umtata King Sabata Dalindyebo DC10 Western Western (DC10) 27 District DC12 Amatola Amatole 73 District DC13 Stormberg District North East (DC13) 38 DC14 Drakensberg Ukwahlamba 23 District DC15 Transkei O.R.Tambo 53 District DC44 E.G. Kei (DC44) 27 ECDMA Aberdeen Plain ECDMA Mount Zebra ECDMA 14 NP Oviston Nature Reserve 0 1 ECDMA O Conners Camp FS161 Koffiefontei n Letsemeng Local FS162 Trompsburg Kopanong Local FS163 Zastron Mohokare Local FS171 Dewetsdorp Naledi Local FS172 Bloemfontei Mangaung Local n FS173 Ladybrand Mantsopa Local

25 Council Common Section 12 Numb er of Ward s Number of Councillors (Ward and PR) Number of Councillo rs to DC FS181 Theunissen Masilonyana Local FS182 Dealesville Tokologo Local FS183 Hoopstad Tswelopele Local FS184 Welkom Matjhabeng Local FS185 Bothaville Nala Local FS191 Senekal Setsoto Local FS192 Bethlehem Dihlabeng Local FS193 Reitz Nketoana Local FS194 Qwa-Qwa Maluti a Phofung Local FS195 Vrede Phumelela Local FS201 Kroonstad Moqhaka Local FS203 Parys Ngwathe Local FS204 Sasolburg Metsimaholo Local FS205 Frankfort Mafube Local DC16 Xhariep District DC17 Motheo District DC18 Lejweleputswa District DC19 Thabo Mofutsanyane District DC20 FSDMA1 9 Golden Gate Highlands NP East Rand East Rand Johannes burg Johannesbur g Northern Free State District Greater East Rand Metro City of Johannesburg