Last week’s report on the chaos in the municipality’s financial affairs has as yet elicited no official response from the municipality. Questions were sent to the municipal spokesperson, Mr Louis Bobodi, but no answers have been forthcoming so far. However, he has indicated that he has received the questions and is attending to them.

In the meantime, documents in the possession of Zoutpansberger seem to indicate that the chaos is set to continue. These documents indicate that the new property tax, which was supposed to be implemented from July 1 this year, will only be implemented later. Three possible dates have been set forward. Initially, the decision was taken to implement the new rates only in February of next year. The acting municipal manager, Mr Hitler Maluleke, was requested to consult a legal firm on the legal implications of this decision. In the firm’s response, it indicates that this deferred collection might be in conflict with the implementation plan in terms of section 69(3) of the Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA) and the cash flow projection in terms of section 17(3)(c) of the MFMA, which would be irregular.

In addition, the lawyer indicates another irregularity, which concerns the current collecting of property rates “in continuation of the situation that existed prior to 1 July 2008 i.e. at the 2007/2008 rates. It must be pointed out that any attempt to do so is irregular. There vests no right or authority in the municipality to recover property rates for which there is no provision in the existing budget”. It goes on to point out that rates must be levied over the course of a financial year, which is a period of 12 months. “There cannot be two sets of rates for the same financial year”.

The municipality is trying to find “special circumstances” for not levying the rates over the specified period, for which the law makes provision. However, the reason advanced by the municipality is that further consultation must take place. In his response, the lawyer says: “I am afraid that the reasons advanced for such a decision namely the absence of proper community participation is unconvincing and does not constitute special circumstances … To say that there must be further consultation suggests that the initial consultation was inadequate”.