REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEES REPORTING DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL allowed in terms of Section 8(1)(f)(b)(i) of the Rules and Orders for consideration by the Council Agenda of the Council Meeting of the CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY which will be held in the Council Chamber, Sammy Marks Conference Centre, corner Madiba and Lilian Ngoyi Streets, Pretoria, on THURSDAY, 28 APRIL 2016, at 10:00, to consider the matter as set out in the agenda hereafter.

PAGES B. FROM THE SECTION 79 STANDING COMMITTEE:

PETITIONS: 20 APRIL 2016 ..................... 4 – 34 ALDERWOMAN AWMK MOSUPYOE-LETSHOLO SPEAKER 25 April 2016

2

F. REPORTS TO COUNCIL

The Speaker, in terms of Section 8(1)(f)(b)(i) of the Rules and Orders, proposes to Council that the reports contained in this agenda, from the Meeting of the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions held on 20 April 2016, be submitted for consideration, and subsequently requests the Chair of Chairs, Councillor RJ Kekana, to present the report to Council.

3

COUNCIL AGENDA: CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY: 28 APRIL 2016 REPORTS TO COUNCIL INDEX (The recommendations appear on the pages indicated in brackets)

Pages B. FROM THE SECTION 79 STANDING COMMITTEE:

PETITIONS: 20 APRIL 2016 1. Office of the Speaker

Petition submitted by Alderman GC Pretorius, requesting the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality to repeal the decision to subdivide and donate Erf 8259, Ward 39, Region 1….....…………. 4 - 16(9) (From the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions: 20 April 2016)

2. Office of the Speaker

Petition submitted by Teboho Mashilo, requesting the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality to reverse the Gazzeted Stand/Site NO.10832 awarded to the church at Nellmapius, Extension 13, Ward 86, Region 6…………………………………... 17 - 34(22) (From the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions: 20 April 2016)

*.*.*.*.*.*.*

4

COUNCIL AGENDA: CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY: 28 APRIL 2016

REPORTS TO COUNCIL

LS 8/2/4 (1808) MD MATSENA (012 358 8065) COUNCIL: 28 APRIL 2016 1. OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER:

PETITION SUBMITTED BY ALDERMAN GC PRETORIUS REQUESTING THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY TO REPEAL THE DECISION TO SUBDIVIDE AND DONATE ERF 8259, WARD 39, REGION 1 (From the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions: 20 April 2016)

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to request the petition committee to consider a petition about City of Tshwane Council to repeal the decision to subdivide and donate Erf 8259, Ward 39, Region 1.

2. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Strategic Objective 4 of the City of Tshwane: “To promote good governance and active citizenry.” 3. BACKGROUND

On the 24 March 2016 during Council Meeting, Alderman GC Pretorius submitted a petition on behalf of residents from Ward 39 in Region 1

Below is the version of the attached petition:

(Unaltered) “We, the undersigned members of the community of Ward 39 of Ext 2, hereby request the Mayor and Tshwane Municipal Council, to repeal the decision to subdivide and donate Erf 8259 based on the following facts:

• The Municipal Council failed to engage the community before donating the property.

• It is the foundation phase and the breeding ground of Itumeleng Madiba Primary School.

• The tree school was published on national television and the Mandela Administration came to our rescue.

• The site was visited by the first black President of South Africa, Dr Nelson Mandela; he visited erf 8259 and actually landed twice on 8259 visiting the initiative.”

5

4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Upon receipt of the petition, the following process was undertaken:-

4.1.1 Engagement with the petitioners

The petitioners were invited to attend the meeting on the 1 April 2016 for more clarity on the petition and discussion. The petitioners indicated that the land which was donated to the church was earmarked for library or clinic. They also stated that there is illegal connection of water and electricity. The petitioners also indicated that they were not consulted, when the land was donated to the church and they request the municipality to reverse the donation.

4.1.2 Engagement with the Ward Councilor: NS Katake

The petition was not submitted by the Ward Councillor in the first instance. Office of the Speaker informed the Ward Councillor regarding the petition accordingly. The ward councilor would also be invited to the petitions committee meeting for further comments.

4.1.3 Stakeholder department/s The petition was referred Corporate and Shared Services as well as Regional Executive Director: Region1. The departments were also invited to the preliminary meeting that was convened on the 1 April 2016. Region 01 indicated that they will investigate the illegal connection of water and electricity and submit the report before petitions committee meeting.

4.1.4 Proposal

After engagement with all relevant stakeholders, the office of the speaker proposes that the matter raised by the petitioners to reverse the council resolution is noted, however the committee would forward the petition to council for cognisance and decision. The petitions committee forward the petition to council because the petitioners alleges that they were not consulted when the decision was taken.

5. COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDER DEPARTMENTS 5.1 COMMENTS FROM THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: REGION 1

(Unaltered)

“During the preliminary meeting, the region indicated that they will investigate the illegal connection and submit the report before committee meeting.”

6

5.2 COMMENT FROM THE STRATEGIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: CORPORATE AND SHARED SERVICES

(Unaltered)

“The petitioners should note that the Corporate and Shared Services department cannot reverse the council decision.”

5.3 COMMENTS FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

(Unaltered)

“In terms of the municipal finance management Act, No. 56 of 2003, with reference or according to section 15; a municipality may, except where otherwise provided in this Act, incur expenditure only in terms of an approved budget; and within the limits of the amounts appropriated for the different votes in an approved budget. All financial implications which may emanate as a result of the petition must be managed within the limitations of the approved Medium-Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework of the relevant department.”

5.4 COMMENTS FROM THE STRATEGIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: GROUP

LEGAL SERVICES

(Unaltered)

“The petition is submitted in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, No. 32 of 2000 in accordance with section 17 (2) (a) that a municipality must establish appropriate mechanisms, processes and procedures to enable the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, and must for this purpose provide for the receipt, processing and consideration of petitions and complaints lodged by members of the local community. We submit that the submission of this petition is in accordance with the above legislative provision as entrenched.”

5.5 COMMENTS FROM THE SPEAKER’S OFFICE

(Unaltered) “This Petition seeks to repeal the Council Resolution of 31 August 2013 where a portion of ERF 8259 was donated to Revival of Christ Church. At its meeting as stated above Council resolved amongst others as follows: 1. That the required portion of ERF 8259,S0shanguve South Extension 2

measuring 6000sqm is not needed to provide the minimum level of basic municipalities

7

(Unaltered)

2. That Council consent to the donation of a portion of ERF 8259 Soshanguve South Extension 2 measuring 6000sqm in the extent to the Revival of Christ Church.

3. That Council consent to the subdivision of the property

4. That notice of the donation envisaged in recommendation will be given in

terms of Section 79(18) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1939(Ordinance 17 of 1939).Should any objections to or representation in respect of the proposed donation be received, the proposed donation together with such objections and/or representations, will be submitted to the Council for Consideration and a final decision. Should no objections and/or representations be received, the process be proceeded with in terms of the municipality’s Alienation Policy.

5. Also, Council when considering this report into cognisance the following

applicable legislation and/or policies :

• Municipal Finance Management Act

• Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations

• City of Tshwane Alienation Policy

• Supply Chain Management Regulations

It is clear from the report that served in Council and resolutions thereto, that it is only a portion of ERF8259 measuring 6000sqm has been donated to the church and that the said portion is not needed to provide the minimum level of basic municipal services.

The Council has complied with the resolutions and no objections and/or representations were ever received after all formalities were followed and appropriate notices were published.

Further, a request to review Council Resolution(s) can be exercised by members in term of the Council Rules and Orders, Section 14, which states as follows:

5.6 Review of Council’s resolution

1) A request by a member for the review of a resolution in terms of section 59(3) of the Municipal Systems Act may be submitted during the course of a meeting, and the request must state the reasons for the review.

2) A request contemplated in subsection (1), except for a request submitted in

writing by at least one quarter of the members, must be put to the vote without debate.

8

(Unaltered) 3) If a request in terms of subsection (2) has been carried, or if a request has

been submitted in writing by at least one quarter of the members, the Council must- a) Refer the matter to the Executive Mayor,[or] oversight committee; or b) Summarily confirm or revoke the resolution.

This Petition is in contravention of the Rules and Orders in terms of review of Council Resolution and Petitions Committee doesn’t have the power to review Council Resolutions. Also, all due process were followed by the Municipality herein. This Petition is not supported.”

6. COMMENTS FROM THE WARD 39 COUNCILLOR, COUNCILLOR NS KATAKE

The petition was not submitted by the Ward Councillor in the first instance. Office of the Speaker informed the Ward Councillor regarding the petition accordingly. The Ward Councillor will be invited to attend Petitions Committee meeting for further comments.

7. IMPLICATIONS 7.1 HUMAN RESOURCE None. 7.2 FINANCE None. 7.3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FACTORS None. 7.4 COMMUNICATION

Petitioner (s) will be invited to attend the scheduled Petitions Committee Meeting wherein a resolution will be taken or will be informed about the resolution thereof.

7.5 PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR MAYORAL COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS None.

9

8. CONCLUSION

The Petitions Committee is committed in facilitating the resolutions of petitions

received during the council meeting and from our community members. Relevant

departments were invited to the Petitions Committee meeting to clarify the

committee on this matter further.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED (TO THE SECTION 79 STANDING COMMITTEE: PETITIONS : 20 APRIL 2016): 1. That cognizance be taken of the content of this report. 2. That the petition to repeal the Council Resolution of 29 September 2013, not be

approved.

Before commencement of the discussion of this matter at the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions meeting of 20 April 2016, the petitioners were present and were given the opportunity to address the Committee.

During thorough discussion the Chairperson proposed that, since this resolution was taken by the Council, this matter be referred to the Council for further consideration, which proposal was accepted by the Committee.

The Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions therefore resolved to recommend as set out below. ANNEXURE:

A. Original copy of the petition. RECOMMENDED: That this matter be referred to the Council for further consideration.

17 LS 8/2/4 (1733) MD MATSENA (012 358 8065) COUNCIL: 28 APRIL 2016 2. OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER:

PETITION SUBMITTED BY TEBOHO MASHILO REQUESTING THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY TO REVERSE THE GAZZETED STAND/SITE NO.10832 AWARDED TO THE CHURCH AT NELLMAPIUS EXTENSION 13, WARD 86, REGION 6 (From the Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions: 20 April 2016)

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to request the petition committee to consider a petition about City of Tshwane Council to reverse the gazzeted stand awarded to the church in Nellmapius.

2. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Strategic Objective 4 of the City of Tshwane: “To promote good governance and active citizenry.” 3. BACKGROUND

Below is the version of the attached petition: (Unaltered)

“There is a site provided to a church by the Tshwane Municipality at stand/site No. 10832 Ingwazi street. According the site Map, the space is identified for Educational facility of (2211 per square meter)

We therefore urge and request the Tshwane Municipality to reverse the gazzeted/approval of the church in our neighboring area. We wish the municipality can afford us with the educational centre (see the attached map) as it is a service delivery than a church (which is a non-service delivery).

We do not have a problem with Christians, but this will make uncontrollable noise to residents as most of them are scholars and learners in various educational institutions.”

4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Upon receipt of the petition, the following process was undertaken:-

18 4.1.1 Engagement with the petitioners

The petitioners were engaged when they submit the petition and they indicated that the stand was donated to the church, which was earmarked for educational facilities. They also stated that the church goers will make a lot of uncontrollable noise. The petitioners also indicated that they were not consulted, when the land was donated to the church and they request the municipality to reverse the donations.

4.1.2 Engagement with the Ward Councilor: LP Morale

The petition was not submitted by the Ward Councillor in the first instance. Office of the Speaker informed the Ward Councillor regarding the petition accordingly. The ward councillor would also be invited for committee meeting for further comments.

4.1.3 Stakeholder department/s The petition was referred Corporate and Shared Services for consideration and comments. The department indicated that if the stand has already been donated to the church by council, they would not able to reverse the council decision, however the petitioners can submit they request to the council through ward Councillor.

4.1.4 Proposal

After engagement with all relevant stakeholders, the office of the speaker proposes that the matter raised by the petitioners to reverse the council resolution is noted, however the committee would forward the petition to council for cognisance and decision. The petitions committee forward the petition to council because the petitioners alleges that they were not consulted when the decision was taken.

5. COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDER DEPARTMENTS

5.1 COMMENT FROM THE STRATEGIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: CORPORATE

AND SHARED SERVICES

(Unaltered)

“The petitioners should note that the Corporate and Shared Services department cannot reverse the council decision.”

19 5.2 COMMENTS FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

(Unaltered)

“In terms of the municipal finance management Act, No. 56 of 2003, with reference or according to section 15; a municipality may, except where otherwise provided in this Act, incur expenditure only in terms of an approved budget; and within the limits of the amounts appropriated for the different votes in an approved budget. All financial implications which may emanate as a result of the petition must be managed within the limitations of the approved Medium-Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework of the relevant department.”

5.3 COMMENTS FROM THE STRATEGIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: GROUP

LEGAL SERVICES

(Unaltered)

“The petition is submitted in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, No. 32 of 2000 in accordance with section 17 (2) (a) that a municipality must establish appropriate mechanisms, processes and procedures to enable the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, and must for this purpose provide for the receipt, processing and consideration of petitions and complaints lodged by members of the local community. We submit that the submission of this petition is in accordance with the above legislative provision as entrenched.”

5.4 COMMENTS FROM THE SPEAKERS OFFICE

(Unaltered)

“This Petition seeks to repeal the Council Resolution of 29 September 2013 where ERF10832 was donated to Good News of Hope Ministries Church. At its meeting as stated above Council resolved amongst others as follows:

1. That ERF10832, Nelllmapius Extension measuring 2216sqm in Extension 13 is not needed to provide the minimum level of basic municipal services.

2. That Council consent to the donation of a portion of ERF10832, Nellmapius Extension 13 measuring 2216sqm in the extent to the Good News of Hope Ministries church for religious purposes.

3. That notice of the donation envisaged in recommendation will be given in terms of Section 79(18) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1939(Ordinance 17 of 1939).Should any objections to or representation in respect of the proposed donation be received, the proposed donation together with such objections and/or representations, will be submitted to the Council for Consideration and a final decision. Should no objections and/or representations be received, the process be proceeded with in terms of the municipality’s Alienation Policy.

20

(Unaltered)

Also, Council when considering this report took into cognisance the following applicable legislation and/or policies:

• Municipal Finance Management Act

• Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations

• City of Tshwane Alienation Policy

• Supply Chain Management Regulations

The Council has complied with the resolutions and no objections and/or representations were ever received after all formalities were followed and appropriate notices were published.

Further, a request to review Council Resolution(s) can be exercised by members in term of the Council Rules and Orders, Section 14, which states as follows: ’14. Review of Council’s resolution

1) A request by a member for the review of a resolution in terms of section 59(3)

of the Municipal Systems Act may be submitted during the course of a meeting, and the request must state the reasons for the review.

2) A request contemplated in subsection (1), except for a request submitted in

writing by at least one quarter of the members, must be put to the vote without debate.

3) If a request in terms of subsection (2) has been carried, or if a request has

been submitted in writing by at least one quarter of the members, the Council must- a) Refer the matter to the Executive Mayor,[or] oversight committee; or b) Summarily confirm or revoke the resolution.

This Petition is in contravention of the Rules and Orders in terms of review of Council Resolution and Petitions Committee doesn’t have the power to review Council Resolutions. Also, all due process were followed by the Municipality herein. This Petition is not supported.”

6. COMMENTS FROM THE WARD 86 COUNCILLOR, COUNCILLOR LP MORALE

The petition was not submitted by the Ward Councillor in the first instance. Office of the Speaker informed the Ward Councillor regarding the petition accordingly. The Ward Councillor will be invited to attend Petitions Committee meeting for further comments.

21 7. IMPLICATIONS 7.1 HUMAN RESOURCE None. 7.2 FINANCE None. 7.3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FACTORS None. 7.4 COMMUNICATION

Petitioner (s) will be invited to attend the scheduled Petitions Committee Meeting wherein a resolution will be taken or will be informed about the resolution thereof.

7.5 PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR MAYORAL COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS None. 8. CONCLUSION

The Petitions Committee is committed in facilitating the resolutions of petitions

received during the council meetings and from our community members.

Relevant departments were invited to the Petitions Committee meeting to clarify

the committee on this matter further.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED (TO THE SECTION 79 STANDING COMMITTEE: PETITIONS : 20 APRIL 2016): 1. That cognizance be taken of the content of this report. 2. That the petition to repeal the Council Resolution of 29 September 2013, not be

approved. During thorough discussion the Chairperson proposed that, since this resolution was taken by the Council, this matter be referred to the Council for further consideration, which proposal was accepted by the Committee.

The Section 79 Standing Committee: Petitions therefore resolved to recommend as set out below.

22 ANNEXURE:

A. Original copy of the petition.

RECOMMENDED: That this matter be referred to the Council for further consideration.