3 - Mtubatuba – Municipalitymtubatuba.org.za/.../2014-15-3RD-QUARTERLY-REPORT… · Web viewThe...

1

Mtubatuba Local Municipality

3rd Quarterly Performance Report: 2014/15 Incorporating section 52 (MFMA) Report

4 May 2015Mtubatuba

Prepared by

Administrator

2

Background

Section 39, 40 and 41 of the Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (MSA) read together with Regulation 13 of the PMS Regulations, 2006 on one hand and section 52, 71 and 72 of Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (MFMA) read together with Regulation 31 of Municipal Budget and Reporting Regulations, 2008 (Budget & Reporting Regulations) on the other; provide the statutory framework for this Report and matters falling within the scope of the Report. This report should be read to meet the requirements of the above mentioned statutory provisions.

Section 41 of MSA sets out the Core Components of PMS. Section 41 (1) (e) read together with Regulation 13 (2) of the Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations, 2001 (MPPMR) deals particularly with the system to monitor performance with emphasis on:

regular reporting of the performance results to the Council early detection of under-performance corrective measures in instances of under-performance

The notion of quarterly reporting is largely derived from the said provisions; but, further reinforced by the provisions of Regulation 28 of what has become popularly known as the PMS Regulations, 2006 (Municipal Performance Regulations for Municipal Managers and Managers directly Accountable to Municipal Managers, 2006); read together with section 52 (d) of MFMA and Regulations 31 & 32 of the Budget & Reporting Regulations. In terms of the latter, there must be a quarterly report to Council and the report must be made public together with information to make it accessible to the Public. This report must be placed on the Municipal Website.

Although the report is written from the perspective of the Administrator as opposed to the Municipal Manager, the content of the report is consistent with what would been the content of the Municipal Manager’s Report for the purpose. It is intended to serve the same purpose.

On the 30 March 2015, I sent a reminder to both the Senior (AMM & HODs) and middle Managers on the timetable for the submission of their respective Performance Reports for the 3rd Quarter ending on the 31 March 2015. In terms of this reminder:

middle managers were to submit their respective operational reports to the HOD and copy me on/before 7 th April 2015

3

HODs to the Acting MM and copy me on/before 10th April 2015 Acting MM to me on/before 14th April 2015; including the submission of section 71 report to me and the Treasury.

All managers failed to submit their respective reports within the above stipulated timeframes; except the manager: SCM, manager: PMU & HOD for Corporate services. There has been no explanation for the failure to meet the timeframe. This is non-compliance. Some of the reports from senior managers were submitted as late as the 25 April 2015. Notwithstanding repeated reminders, none of the section 57 managers (HODs) has submitted any evidence (PoE) in support of their quarterly reports. The latter has made the writing of this report even more difficult in the sense that I have no evidence whatsoever to support the performance results below; risking claiming performance results that are not true. The Internal Auditors having been awaiting same for some time.

On the 25 April 2015, the Acting MM forwarded all departmental reports to me without any consolidation of such reports into the Institutional Report for his Office and the Municipality as the Institution. In the absence of the institutional report of the Acting Municipal Manager; this report shall serve the purposes of both sections 41 (1)(2) of MSA and 52 of MFMA.

This report is structured into three parts:

Summary of the Institutional SDBIP Report in terms of the five KPAs as extracted from the HODs reports of different departments of the municipality. In the absence of OPMS (Organisational Scorecard), this summary represent the performance results of the Municipal Manager and the Municipality;

The departmental performance results; based on the reports of the HODs. This performance data have not been verify/validated by PoE. This is the biggest risk in this report; relying on unverified performance results;

The Overview/analysis of the Performance information. This will deal with structural weaknesses of the SDBIP and reporting with a view to improve the quality of the performance information in the fourth quarter and the following financial year

4

Institutional SDBIP Results: 3rd Quarter

* This is not effective delivery

QUARTER 3: SUMMARY OF REPORTED RESULTS 31/03/2015KPA REFERENCES ANNUAL

TARGETSDBIP TARGETS PER Q.3

TOTAL TARGETS REPORTED ON

TARGETS ACHIEVED

TARGETS NOT ACHIVED

TARGETS WITH SOME PROGRESS

N/A Cash flow

COMMENT

Municipal transf. & Institutional Dev.

001-029 32 30 30 15 12 0 3 55%

Basic Service Delivery & Infrastructure

030-129 43 45 45 16 11 13 5 40%

Local Economic Development

064…-120 7 4 4 2 2 0 0 *

Financial Viability & Financial Man.

098-106 13 9 9 6 3 0 0 66%

Good Gov. & Community Part.

075-097b 24 18 19 9 6 0 4 Ref 94 was actioned in Q3 though it was a target for Q1 60%

Tota 119 106 107 48 34 13 1255.2%

5

l

45%

44%

11%

PERFORMANCE TARGETS

TARGET ACHIEVEDTARGET NOT ACHIEVEDTARGET N/A

6

Municipal tr

ansf. &

Insti

tutional Dev.

Basic Servi

ce Deliv

ery & In

frastr

ucture

Local E

conomic

Development

Financial V

iability &

Financial M

an.

Good Gov.

& Community Part.

05

1015202530

PERFORMANCE PER KPA

TARGET ACHIEVED TARGET NOT ACHIEVED TARGET N\A

Institutional SDBIP Result for Q3

1. The colours of columns above are self-explanatory. Green refers to performance targets that met/achieved within the target timeframe. Red refers to performance targets which were not met/achieved within the target timeframe. Yellow refers to performance targets on which there is substantial progress but not enough to complete target;

therefore the target is not met/achieved. For performance review and/or evaluation purposes, yellow results fall into the same category as “targets not met/achieved”.

7

Blue refers to targets which are either not due yet/not started yet or targets which were dropped as part of the Cash Flow turnaround as explained below. The targets in the blue column are for information and will have no effect on the performance soring.

References column (light grey) refers to the identity of the measurable performance objective target (output) in both the IDP and the Institutional SDBIP.

2. The annual targets for each KPA is the standard bearers (goal-post) for all quarterly targets and reports. The norm is that the quarterly targets should not be more than the annual targets. In the case of the above anomaly for Basic Services & Infrastructure, there will be investigation on the cause of the difference and report to the Council. The variance between the annual targets and quarterly targets is shaded in red for further investigation. The above blue column of N/A is meant to account for targets which are not due yet. In the case of Mtubatuba, this column included a number of projects/outputs which suffered as a result of the Cash-Flow exercise which was undertaken by the Administrator with the assistance of the Provincial Treasury. This exercise did contribute to financial discipline and recovery of the Municipality; so that it was able to pay all outstanding creditors including Government Grants. Perhaps we should remind all and sundry that one of the reasons why the Provincial Cabinet to took complete control of all bank accounts of Mtubatuba Municipality in August 2014 was the persistency of the cash flow crisis. At the close of the 2013/14 financial in June 2014, the Municipality’s creditors (other financial liabilities) book stood at R20.7 million and there was no money in the bank to pay them. Some of the creditors were as old as five years. By September 2014, we had cleared (paid) about R11.1 million of the old creditors. By December 2014, we had paid-off all the inherited old creditor, except COGTA grant, and still had a healthy balance in the bank; more than enough to cover all grants and current creditor.

3. The above table is the consolidated summary report of the Institutional SDBIP. The report reflects a total of 119 annual targets. There 106 targets for 3rd quarter; however, there were 107 targets reported on for the quarter 3. The reason for the additional target is that there was target for quarter 1 that was only implemented in quarter 3. Unfortunately the departmental reports do not always distinguish between the targets of the period of reporting and the targets which were carried over from the previous quarters and implemented during the period of reporting; hence the variance between the targets of the quarter and the targets reported on during the reporting period.

4. I am the first one to admit that the PMS functionality has not progressed much. This is not because of lack of training nor is it because of lack of couching. There were two main reasons for the persistency of this weakness: The management of the municipality has a solid negative attitude against any notion of PMS. It is deemed as the mechanism to police them. The management does view PMS as tool to help them to plan and execute better. Consequently, the management find it hard, if not impossible, to cascade the system to their subordinates. The other reason is that there is no culture of delivery at Mtuba

8

Municipality. There is very firm and embedded culture of “trinkets and frills” at the municipality. This culture takes two dimensions: the past Councillors were more concerned with going to conference so that they can increase their monthly take-home salaries for personal improvement in the form of paying for cars and other frills. Managers capitalised on this weakness and kept Councillors busy on conferences and outcome-less workshops. The past Councillors did anything that would make him/her appear as delivering, even if it means building complete botch/bomb. They would build market stall next to an existing non-functional market stall; thus perpetuate white elephants. Some of these structures are in the flood-line. They would build a crèche for a friend. They would build a hall for his/her church. Managers capitalised on this weakness and gave them the projects to do just that. None of the Capital projects in the last 15 years were of any use to the economic growth of Mtubatuba; particularly CBD Centres in Greater Mtubatuba. There are capital assets in the total amount of about R29 million which are left to either private hands or sheer waste.

5. There is culture of protecting “our own” at Mtuba Municipality. Our-own means a persons who avail access to opportunities for personal improvement. In March 2014 when I submitted my first Recovery Plan to the then Mayor, there was opposition to it from all political corners of the Council. There was a salient view across the political spectrum that Recovery Plan is aiming at the former Municipal Manager. The former Mayor was told not take the Recovery Plan to the Council or any structure of the Council. When he took it to EXCO, there was no quorum. When the former Mayor submitted a report to the Council in June 2014on the doings, or lack thereof, the report was knocked out via a vote of No Confidence. To a large degree, the dissolution of the previous Council had its origin in the protection of “our own”.

6. I have no doubt the PMS functionality will improve if the standard of Council on Oversight is heightened. The oversight should focus on the ball in the form of Functions & Powers of Mtubatuba Local Municipality in terms of the Part B of Schedule 4 and Part B of Schedule 5 to the Constitution read together with section 84 of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998 and section 12 Notice. The reason we are all here at the Municipality is because of the contract to deliver; failing which there is no reason for our continued existence at the Municipality. Umasipala akusiyona indawo yokuqeda isizungu; nor a market place for sale/purchase of jobs!

Departmental SDBIP Results

9

Departments are the actual wheels of SDBIP. SDBIP would fall or rise on the performance and reports of the line-departments. The performance results/information that we reported under Institutional in the foregoing is largely derivative from the departmental reports and the PoE that we referred to earlier in the report can only come from the departments. The reality is that service delivery and support programmes of the Municipality, are in the departments. The following is a detailed analysis of the performance data from the departments. The data analysis must not be construed as criticism but as indicator that notwithstanding some PMS challenges, there is some progress in the sense that there are people in the system who are beginning to spot-light these challenges for correction. We place it on record that before this year (2015) managers had never written a performance report for performance review and audit. Some of them are genuinely in the deep-end. Unfortunately, they are not shouting for help, but rather build up an attitude against the system because of the perceived threat to their jobs.

Corporate Services Ref 001 (Report is not consisted with the main SDBIP. Project should have been completed in Sep 2014) Ref 002 (Quarterly projection is not consistent with the annual target) Ref 008 (Shall not be included in the institutional report) Ref 013 (Target is vague and without a completion date) Ref 015 (Project is not implemented effectively, the intended outcome is not achieved) Ref 026 (pending answers from the Acting HOD) Ref 028 (Target is vague and without a completion date)

10

References, Project, KPI, and Annual Target are well aligned and referenced according to the Adjusted SDBIP, however Ref 018c and Ref 097c does not appear on the SDBIP.

Number of REFs reported

Number of projects/target

s reported

Targets achieved

Targets partially achieved

Targets not achieved

N/A Cash flow

38 37 15 0 15 7Corporate Services: Performance score is 50%

Missing in the report:

Inadequate use of VIP system and the Payroll overarching control of the system Staff clocking machines still unutilised and there is no report why? Staff salary Dispute, Adjustment and salary deductions 2013 Organogram & TASK Levels misalignment Skills levels Audit JD & Evaluations Organogram Review & Work Study Registry functionality Office building state of disrepair

Community Services Ref 047(I) & (II) (KPI & Annual target vague & not consistent with the target Ref 048 (Does it means sports fields were not maintained in Q3)

11

Ref 048-051 annual targets vague; no specific date. The quarterly targets of the previous quarters (Q1 & Q2) were not done therefore they should have been carried forward to the Q3

Ref 069; this project has resulted in fruitless and wasteful expenditure due to poor management. The municipality has paid more than R1 million and only received about R200 000

R069, 070,071, 113, 114, 115 & 116: targets vague; referring to monthly reports without qualifying the performance results that will be reported on. There were no such reports received by the Administrator during the period.

Ref 10A and 10B does not appear on the adjusted SDBIP, Management of Leaves appear on Ref 5a on the adjusted SDBIP.

All the other References, Project, KPI , Annual Target are well aligned and referenced according to the Adjusted SDBIP N/A Cash flow projects were not reported on therefore they are excluded on the total projects/targets reported on



s reported

Targets achieved



N/A Cash flow

18 22 13-4 (see below)

0 5+4+4 9-4 (048-051)

**27 **27 (069, 113, 114 & 127) Community Services: Performance score is41%

Green= 9 targets; red= 13 targets we have adjusted the number of targets reported on during the quarter from 18 to 22

This department has reported that 13 of the targets were met/achieved, our review established that:

That Ref. 069, 113, 114 & 127 (4 targets) were not met/achieved hence deducting them from the green and adding them to red.

4 targets (Ref 048-051) were included in the blue as being not due for the quarter3. These targets were not met in Q1 &Q2 when they were due for implementation. They are still due for implementation

Missing in the report

12

Progress, if any, on the Intervention in terms of sections 28 (4) and 31L of NEMA and section 31A of ECA by the National Minister of Environmental Affairs in Mtubatuba regarding unlicensed waste disposal sites (Nordale & St. Lucia).

The state of the Landfill sites (St. Lucia & Nordale) and the efficacy the Operation of the sites Lack of O&M plan for the operation of the waste management sites (landfills) Landfill sites operation plants & equipment’s. The inadequacy of the current model of refuse collection (compactor trucks, public space skips, domestic waste bins and

collection roaster) Cemetery management & operations Parks & Gardens ( service providers & in-source services) Traffic Management & Fire Service Black bins (60) laying in desolate state or left in derelict state on the municipal premises grounds. Public toilets Control & safety of municipal community and trading facilities/assets of the value of R29.2 million.

13

Finance No references though they all reflect the projects and targets as set in the adjusted SDBIP. N/A Cash flow projects were not reported on therefore they are excluded on the total projects/targets reported on Notwithstanding some gaps, this was the only department which made a reasonable attempt at submitting a performance

report that was both variant and informative. It also reported on the challenges (skills levels and revenue section) in the department. I was disappointed that CFO did not report on the implementation/progress on AG Action Plan and the Risk Register



s reported

Targets achieved



N/A Cash flow

15 10 0 5 5**20 **20

This report must be read together with the report below on Financial Performance which gives a snapshot overview of the finances of the Municipality as at 31 March 2015.

Finance: Performance score is 66%

This is the highest performance score in the municipality. This level of performance does attest the efficacy of the suitably qualified functionaries. The middle levels in Finance are qualified for their jobs. There might still a need of some

financial/accounting skills, but the base is there. My rating of this department in February and June 2014 was 30%; an improvement indeed. The quality of both budget and section 71 report have improved in the last 9 months. Thanks to the Provincial Treasury for the support and assistance. Revenue collection remain the main challenge in the department. We have however introduced some intervention in this regard which will be reported on separately. My other worry with this

department is the wide spread of the use of Consultant in the daily operations of the department; however, the department is largely functional.

14

Technical Services Ref 039 (budget on the Report differs from the SDBIP budget and need to be reconsidered) Project/Output were revised on the report, they are not exactly the same as in the SDBIP but they still reflect the same target

e.g. ref 32, 33, 39, 40, etc. Targets are vague in some instances that it becomes impossible to determine whether or not the target was met (see Ref

032) Ref 39 has been duplicated, the first Ref 39 should have been 38 It must be noted that it happens that one Reference can have more than on project/Target e.g. Ref 40… Ref 36 & 37 have been scratched out without any explanation in the report. It is this type of conduct in Mtubatuba

Municipality which defeat the very purpose of performance planning. The AG has made an adverse finding against such behaviour. (e.g. R&M: Office Buildings (KwaMsane Office Refurbishment)



s reported

Targets achieved



N/A Cash flow

20 31 6 12 9 3

Technical Services: Performance score is 22%: poorest performer in the municipality. There has been an intervention in the department which will be reported on to the Council in separate report.

Missing in the report

Lack of O & M plan Lack of Basic Operational Systems all round

15

Staff skills challenges Poor contract management (some consultants wanting) Poor project budgeting and cash flow management Lack of budget control skills

Overview of the departmental Performance reports

When we were preparing management for the adjustment budget review of the SDBIP, we emphasised that a good target must have a number or percentage and a date. We gave a few examples for each portfolio as example. With the hindsight of the 3 rd quarterly reports, this principle was not carried through into some parts of the SDBIP. The following are the common weaknesses:

A performance report should have the qualities of being a variance and informative report. The variance report will show what was planned for the period (planned deliverables) under review and what was delivered/achieved (actuals) at the end of the reporting cycle; what the variance is between the planned deliverables and the actuals, including the reasons for the variance. The informative part of the report should provide a narrative of the overview of the performance successes and failures; including the systemic or structural challenges underlying the reasons for the failures or under-performance. The narrative shall as matter of course include the summary of the performance targets and results. This particularly so for the Municipal Manager’s institutional report; but no less so for the departmental reports. All departmental reports except Finance report, did a tick-box type of reporting. The reports are not informative.

The performance reports are void of the financial information (budget & expenditure) relating to the project/programme being reported on which means managers implements projects/programmes without due considerations to the financial/cash flow implications of their activities. There is no relationship between performance reports and the figures which come out the section 71 report for the same period. Senior managers must have access to the real financial information on the system.

Performance results are not spatially referenced in terms of the ward (s) in which the delivery took place; thus denying the ward committee members the opportunity to interrogate and test the results against their everyday experience of the knowledge of the reality in the ward.

16

In the foregoing we have indicated the degree of vagueness of targets. There were number of instances when the target was either anything or nothing. There were no specific numbers nor specific dates. If the target is something like 12 monthly reports; the target must qualify the issues/matters to be reported on and the Structure/Office to which the reports are to be made. There is a need to avoid setting a target of “report” but rather state the intended performance results to be reported on.

There were many instances when there was a complete dissonance between the KPI and the Target; such as the KPI indicating a “number of units” and the target being 30% or the converse. Worst still, was when the quarterly targets/projections are not consistent with annual targets. The cause of this weakness is not the lack of knowledge as the PMS Unit of COGTA has had a number of sessions with the management on PMS. The cause could only be unwillingness of the managers to apply themselves when preparing SDBIP. Perhaps, it is the attitude that PMS/SDBIP is a “tick-box compliance issue” and not the only framework of delivery and the only basis of one’s job.

Performance Reports lack the following: The reason for the variance (under-performance) The remedial action to address the variance to achieve the intended results Performance comparison between the current performance and performance of the same period in the last financial

year. The expenditure during the Quarter against the budget and the target for the Quarter (same weakness for Annual

budget/target) CFO did not report on Component 1 & 2 of the financial monthly projections in the SDBIP

All performance report did not report on the following: AG Findings Action Plan Risk Register The bottom slice of SDBIP; thus extend PMS to lower levels in the Municipality (MFMA Secular 13)

Departmental Functionality Finance: Generally functional; there is even spread of the basic/primary skills from the middle level to the top. The

management (senior & middle) suitably qualified for the job. There is room for operational issue-specific skills and improvement thereof. Internal controls still leave a lot to be desired. Notwithstanding the positive outcome of my assessment of the department, there is still too much reliance on Consultants for operating/routine activities, including the Financial

17

System-Pastel Evolution. 2014 AFS prepared by a Consultant. The Consultant still have a huge presence in the daily activities/operations of the department.

Corporate Services: Lack of operational system (policies, controls, procedures, VIP access, staff attendance, etc.). In some instances, policies are but not implemented. There is little due diligence on the management of Personnel information to draw the attention of the MM & Council on the gaps. There are discrepancies between the job adverts and the qualification of the job incumbent. Qualifications not verified. Notwithstanding that Electronic Staff Attendance System was procured in the 1st Quarter of 2014/15, it is still not implemented; and there is no report on it. Registry Office more of a post box for correspondences from outside than documents/records management system and there is no action plan to get the Registry functional. No strategic/tactical role in identifying skills miss-mash in the organisation. Some pockets of competent staff but under-utilised; and not given the necessary authority/confidence to intervene in cases of HR non-compliance.

Technical Services: Poorly resourced (human resources) at all levels. Complete lack of operational system. Lack of civil construction operational management experience; thus lack of skills to plan Operations & Maintenance of civil engineering nature. This department lacks both the Contract management skills and budget management skills which are critical in the operations of the department. Projects overruns are common in the department. Consultants’ reports are not reviewed and critiqued for verification and veracity. Projects Construction Programmes are not monitored and adhered to as part of Project Implementation Controls. Managers/Senior Managers sign any document that lands on their decks; thus making the Administrator a dumping ground of the mess of the Consultants. This department poses the biggest risk to the Institution

Community Services: Near-dysfunctional, if not completely dysfunctional. The institutional and technical complexes of the functions and operations of the department are beyond the comprehension of the management. Issues are “out of the management depth” or the management is “out of breath”. The biggest weakness is at the top; thus affecting negatively the lower levels in the department. The department was plunged into a wasteful project (Sebola Cameras) negligently against the advice of the section Head. There are absolutely no internal controls in the department. The department collects refuse/litter from one corner of the Municipality and dump it on another corner of the Municipality (dump sites as opposed to Landfill sites). Refer to draft 2015/16 for proposed interventions in this regard.

Planning: Under construction

18

Financial Performance

Main reasons of Provincial Intervention: Poor Audit Outcomes for 2011/12 and 2012/13 Going Concern status (technical insolvency) Government Grants not cash-backed Cash flow predicament/crisis

The Audit Outcome for 2013/14 was “Unqualified Opinion” from the AG.

19

FINANCIAL YEAR: 2014 - 2015

PERIOD: 31 MARCH 2015

CONSOLIDATED REPORT - STATEMENT OF BUDGET vs ACTUAL

No Item Description Q3 Actual YTD Actual Adjusted Budget

Original Budget

Variance %

Operating Revenue1 Property Rates 5 398 535 16 013 592 21 733 977 23 584 717 73.7

2 Property Rates - Penalties - - - - -

3 Service Charges 1 398 263 3 870 883 5 038 891 5 692 214 76.8

4 Other Revenue 1 006 881 3 247 375 4 089 546 11 495 828 79.4

5 Interest 1 925 314 5 467 310 5 784 479 4 734 649 94.5

6 Transfers - Operational 25 214 661 88 238 152 89 224 000 88 972 000 98.9

Total Revenue Generated 34 943 654 116 837 312 125 870 893 134 479 408 92.8

Less: Revenue Forgone - - - - -

Total Operating Revenue 34 943 654 116 837 312 125 870 893 134 479 408 92.8

Operating Expenditure1 Employee Related Costs 10 758 147 33 320 670 45 858 990 43 017 073 72.7

2 Remuneration of Councillors 1 182 597 5 809 783 10 501 853 10 501 853 55.3

3 Repairs & Maintenace 1 709 291 3 040 143 9 131 647 10 348 250 33.3

4 Contracted Services 2 844 395 7 600 521 10 247 426 11 632 000 74.2

5 Depreciation & Impairment - 24 107 482 12 949 717 12 949 717 186.2

6 Interest Charges 4 299 17 421 2 240 600 2 240 600 0.8

7 Other Expenditure 3 304 471 13 395 342 21 547 637 20 237 158 62.2

8 Grants Expenditure 337 273 1 736 033 4 312 682 3 790 682 40.3

Total Operating Expenditure 20 140 473 89 027 395 116 790 552 114 717 333 76.2

Surplus/Deficit - Before Capital Receipts 14 803 181 27 809 917 9 080 341 19 762 075 -

Transfers - Capital 4 487 346 15 729 876 32 109 373 31 624 000 49.0

Expenditure - Capital Budget 6 852 254 15 459 596 36 508 728 45 807 200 42.3

Net Surplus/Deficit-After Capital Receipts 12 438 273 28 080 197 4 680 986 5 578 875 -

YTD Actual vs Budget

QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT

20



CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PER VOTE

No Item DescriptionOriginal Budget

Adjusted Budget Q3 Actual YTD Actual Variance %

1 Executive & Council - - - - - 2 Budget and Treasury - - - - - 3 Corporate Services 1 077 200 877 200 138 028 417 609 47.64 Technical and Planning 41 700 000 33 601 528 5 995 317 14 173 577 42.25 Community & Social Services 3 030 000 2 030 000 718 910 868 410 42.8

Total Capital Expenditure per Vote 45 807 200 36 508 728 6 852 255 15 459 596 42.3

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY TYPE

No Item DescriptionOriginal Budget

Adjusted Budget Q3 Actual YTD Actual Variance %

1 Furniture & Fittings 300 000 100 000 2 839 2 839 2.8 2 Office Equipment 317 200 317 200 600 213 280 67.2 3 Computer Equipment 160 000 160 000 134 589 201 490 125.9 4 Motor Vehicles 2 100 000 1 300 000 841 592 841 592 64.7 5 Other Assets 230 000 530 000 - 149 500 28.2 6 Community Halls 6 100 000 1 980 000 1 141 313 1 417 419 71.6 7 Market Stalls & Other 1 000 000 3 279 602 306 460 922 247 28.1 8 Community Creches - - - - - 9 Sports Fields 4 100 000 5 597 514 1 066 065 2 049 818 36.6

10 Other Buildings - - - - - 11 Infrastructure - Roads & Storm Water 23 000 000 20 144 412 2 890 961 8 257 904 41.0 12 Electrification 8 500 000 3 100 000 467 836 1 403 509 45.3 13 Other Infrastructure - - - -

Total Capital Expenditure by Type 45 807 200 36 508 728 6 852 254 15 459 596 42.3

Sources of Funding Own Funds 5 507 200 Conditional Grants 31 001 528

Total Funding Available 36 508 728


Remarks

Remarks

21



CONDITIONAL GRANTS

No Item DescriptionOpening

Balance 01 July '14

YTD Receipts

Q3 Actual Spent

YTD Expenditure

YTD Closing Balance

1 Corridor Development Funding 6 482 506 - - - 6 482 506

2 Municipal Infrastructure Grant - 29 524 000 4 607 279 15 640 642 13 883 358

3 MTB Library Computer Assistance 65 189 252 000 91 800 182 270 134 919

4 Sports and Recreation: Maintenance 166 704 - 36 720 112 317 54 387

5 Rural Electrification 485 373 1 500 000 - 485 373 1 500 000

6 Municipal Finance Management Grant - 1 800 000 271 678 1 134 572 665 428

7 Municipal Systems Improvement Grant - 934 000 136 800 558 925 375 075

8 Sports and Recreation: Infrastructure 525 000 525 000 - - 1 050 000

9 Expanded Public Works Programme 5 455 1 059 000 231 703 885 500 178 955

10 Low Cost Housing Grant 1 232 377 - - - 1 232 377

Total Conditional Grants 8 962 604 35 594 000 5 375 980 18 999 599 25 557 005


22



OUTSTANDING CREDITORS

No Details Current 30 Days 60 Days 90 Days 120 Days 150 Days 180 Days Total

Trade Creditors 3 360 822 363 076 214 300 122 436 32 055 - 880 375 4 973 064

Total Creditors Outstanding 4 973 064


24



CASH & INVESTMENTS

No Account Description Bank Name Opening Balance - Beginning of the Quarter

Closing Balance - End of the Quarter

Primary Bank Account FNB 29 605 879.81 50 562 549.67

Salaries Account FNB 50 854.97 51 787.58

National Electrification Account FNB 82 836.46 84 355.56

MIG Account FNB 30 284.66 30 373.79

Eskom Deposit Account FNB 191 600.00 191 600.00

Traffic Fines Account FNB 227 962.00 269 908.00

Petty Cash Account FNB 36 177.30 31 145.99

- - - -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

Total Cash & Investments 30 225 595.20 51 221 720.59


25

By AdministratorMtubatuba: 04 May 2015

3 - Mtubatuba – Municipalitymtubatuba.org.za/.../2014-15-3RD-QUARTERLY-REPORT… · Web viewThe...

Documents

Transcript of 3 - Mtubatuba – Municipalitymtubatuba.org.za/.../2014-15-3RD-QUARTERLY-REPORT… · Web viewThe...