IDP / Budget questions

Questions

1. Has CAM in the past year conduct a comprehensive review of current revenue sources that are heavily based on electricity and water usage and explore new avenues as was asked last year?
2. Has CAM reviewed departments that should be revenue generators and not cost centres to reduce cross subsidisation.
3. What has CAM put in place to reduce re-active maintenance and spend with pro-active planning?
4. What portion of the current budget is allocated to non-core services, and why as the majority of the budget is funded by Ratepayers and not grants?
5. Why is CAM funding so many capital and infrastructure projects solely through ratepayer funds instead of actively seeking and leveraging additional external funding sources?
6. 40% of capital budget to go toward renewals/upgrades, and 8% of PPE value to go toward repairs and maintenance. Are we meeting or exceeding these guidelines? If not, what are the implications for long-term sustainability?
7. Can we get a breakdown of cost per department and compare it to actual service delivery output and include per town?
8. Can we see a cost-benefit breakdown of the Karwyderskraal waste transfer strategy against local creating a new waste site via applications for a grant? Was any consideration made to apply for a grant?
9. Contracted services account for 8% of operational costs. Which departments use external consultants the most and why aren’t these functions internalized?
10. Community Development vs Infrastructure. A lot of focus is placed on: Youth Development, Beautification, Social Projects, Play parks, Resorts.  How are projects in these areas prioritized versus more pressing infrastructure needs like water pressure or roads?
11. Contributions made to: Shipwreck Museum, Save House, Ons Huis, Radio Station, Elim.  What criteria are used to determine these donations? Are they reassessed annually for impact and relevance? How are they increased over and above critical infrastructure?
12. What is the long-term plan to maintain new projects if current infrastructure cannot be maintained?
13. What’s the current recovery rate? What new strategies are being used to improve collections and avoid debt write-offs? What strategies like prepaid water meters are planned and when?
14. Can we see the Long-Term Financial Planning Policy? Does it include a pipeline for external grant funding opportunities over the next 5 years?
15. Which sector (Water, Electricity, Roads) plans have active funding proposals linked to them? Have any had grant applications?
16. Is there a long-term asset maintenance and upgrade forecast? Is this used to motivate grant applications like WSIG or disaster recovery funds?
17. Why has CAM not applied for available grants such as the Water Services Infrastructure Grant (WSIG) or the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG) to address water infrastructure needs?
18. What grants are we planning to apply for in 2026–2028? Is there a rolling grant pipeline aligned to the capital plan?
19. Does CAM have a long-term grant acquisition strategy?
20. Has CAM lost grants over the past years due to the lack of fully utilising the grant or no delivery? Does this not have an impact on future grants and the reduction in the funding amount?
21. What specific infrastructure plans are there for Napier with regards roads and storm water?
22. There seems to be a lack of infrastructure long-term planning and means to measure. What has been allocated into the budget to provide for pro-active planning towards this?
23. Electricity: 11.32%, Water: 6.5%, Sanitation: 6.5%, Refuse: 11%, Property Rates: 4.4%–4.5% (only one aligned with CPI) Continued above-CPI increases are not sustainable, especially when household incomes are not growing. Can the municipality present a cost-cutting strategy or list of internal savings initiatives to justify above-inflation increases?
24. Post Employment Health Care Benefits. an annual increase of 12.5% per year, which is far above CPI and salary increases. What is the basis for this increase? How many retirees are covered and how is this liability managed long-term? Is this in line with the Post-Employment Benefits Actuarial Valuation?
25. Salary increases of 5.015% which is above CPI. Why is this the case?
26. Why was an adjustment budget done in February, and now another before the new financial year? What necessitated this frequency?
27. Why can the sewerage pump not be prioritised into at the maximum an 18 month budget?
28. What changes from last year’s IDP and budget affect Ward 1?
29. What from last year’s IDP and budget will be delivered to Ward 1 and what is it’s value?
30. What from the last years IPD and budget forecast for 2025/26 is still in?
31. How can Cecil Street be moved out again after how many years?
32. Can CAM clarify how the reference to Napier attracting retirees and new residents under Section 5.3.2 (Tourism) aligns with tourism objectives vs general residential or economic development?
33. When will the taxi pickup/drop-off points in Napier be implemented, as referenced in last year’s IDP?
34. What happened to the R870,000 allocated for Napier Site B upgrades this year? Has it been spent or reallocated?
35. What portion of the budget supports vulnerable residents, including toilet provision and prepaid water access for each shack in informal settlements?
36. The IDP refers to a document “Napier Small Town Regeneration Strategy (2016)”. Who in the municipality has read and can explain the “Napier Small Town Regeneration Strategy (2016)” as referenced in IDP documents?
37. What percentage of last year’s IDP KPIs (Section 10.1) have been achieved?
38. How can sewerage connections (13,241) exceed water connections (13,209)? Are some properties connected to sewer but not water?
39. Are KPI targets for billed connections driving subdivision approvals? Is there pressure to approve developments to meet targets rather than actual service demand?
40. Why is there a lack of planning of future land use, economic development and infrastructure planning?
41. Who currently holds the fencing tender, and why are fencing costs consistently high across years?
42. Can CAM explain who will be charged for SSEG and possible costs?
43. Why have tariffs not be reviewed extensively for this years budget? One of CAM’s values is “fairness” which is not reflected through service charges such as sewerage and others.

Unaddressed or Inadequately Addressed Weaknesses from the SWOT Analysis

1. Ageing Infrastructure

•  Mentioned as a weakness.
•  No clear multi-year replacement strategy or ring-fenced infrastructure renewal budget across sectors.
• E.g. water infrastructure, pump stations, and roads remain underfunded or delayed despite known failures.

2. Inconsistent Application of Policies

•  Listed as a weakness.
•  No measurable performance indicators or corrective actions provided to ensure policy alignment or enforcement.
• No internal audit feedback, SOP rollout plan, or training indicated in IDP.

3. Low Staff Morale / Lack of Discipline

•  Stated under weaknesses.
•  Not supported by any action plan in the HR or Institutional sections.
• No staff satisfaction survey data, morale improvement targets, or formal strategies mentioned.

4. Limited Training Budget (WSP not fully implemented)

•  Weakness identified.
•  There is no detailed Workplace Skills Plan (WSP) rollout shown or budget line dedicated to training.
• Only general statements under institutional development — no budget traceable to correcting this.

5. Lack of Synergy Between Directors and Subordinates

•  Listed under internal weaknesses.
•  Not reflected in the IDP’s institutional objectives or remedial strategies.
• No evidence of team building, cross-functional alignment, or change management processes.

6. Lack of a Capital Expenditure Framework & Development Charges Calculator

•  Noted in the SWOT.
•  No follow-through plan provided in the budget or financial plan sections.
• This tool is vital for planning infrastructure and allocating cost for growth or new development, but it remains absent.

7. Non-Compliance at Landfill Sites

•  Identified as a weakness.
•  Little mention of corrective action, timelines, or budget for full compliance in the 2025/26 plan.
• Regulatory risk remains, especially with the move to Karwyderskraal and withdrawal from Bredasdorp.

8. Favouritism Towards Certain Wards

•  Highlighted in SWOT as a major concern.
•  No evidence of equitable ward-based budgeting or transparent project allocation across all wards.
• Ward 1, for instance, shows multiple stalled or unfunded projects.

9. Slow or Non-Responsiveness to Service Delivery Requests

•  Cited by both the SWOT and community needs section.
•  No improvement indicators in the performance section or commitments in public engagement strategy.
• Public complaints handling, SLA tracking, or escalation pathways are not visible.

10. No Integrated Housing Plan

•  Flagged as a structural weakness.
•  Still absent in the IDP.
• Housing issues persist (e.g. Napier Site B, informal settlements), but no updated housing pipeline is provided, nor clarity on subsidy allocations.

11. Office Accommodation and Safety Standards

•  Raised in SWOT (e.g. buildings inaccessible for disabled, no evacuation drills).
•  Not discussed further under capital budgets, institutional development, or health and safety compliance.

12. No Investment Strategy

•  Clearly listed as a weakness.
•  No investment framework, investor incentive programme, or sector targeting strategy is visible.
• Missed economic development opportunity, especially in tourism and agriculture.

13. Abuse of Travel Allowances, Overtime

•  Cited as internal misconduct.
•  Budget notes cost containment in general but does not specify internal audits, disciplinary action, or savings achieved on these.

14. Backlog of Masterplans

•  Flagged in SWOT.
•  The IDP refers vaguely to some sector plans but provides no full schedule for updating or implementing them (e.g., stormwater, road upgrades, landfill compliance).

15. “Poor political and administrative interface”

• Listed clearly as a weakness in the SWOT analysis.
• Not addressed with any action plan in the IDP or budget.
• No strategy for:
  • Clarifying decision-making roles between politicians and administration.
  • Managing tension or alignment between council and staff.
  • Formalizing reporting, oversight, or checks and balances.

Impact: This leads to governance inefficiencies, mistrust, and reactive service delivery. It’s often the root of projects being reprioritized, delayed, or implemented unevenly.

16. “Public participation inconsistent or limited”

• Included in SWOT.
• No measurable deliverables in the IDP to improve this.
• No feedback loop is shown: how community input is evaluated, adopted, or rejected.
• Public inputs in previous years (e.g. Napier sewerage pump vs fencing) appear ignored or poorly prioritized.
• IDP meetings held — but community impact and reflection in budget is not traceable.

17. What the IDP and Budget Should Include — but Doesn’t

A Public Participation Framework with:

• A timeline of consultations.
• Mechanisms for feedback (e.g., “You said, we did” reports).
• A structure for ward-level planning inputs and ward-level reporting back.
• Digital engagement strategies (especially for youth, working adults).

A Political-Administration Protocol:

• To define decision-making boundaries between councillors, the mayor, and the administration.
• To prevent political interference in staff functions and to ensure council resolutions are implemented properly and transparently.

Participation Monitoring:

• A KPI tracking public participation quality (not just meeting attendance).
• Feedback metrics — “How many of last year’s community inputs were adopted into the IDP or budget?”