How Ekurhuleni passed its budget at the fourth attempt

The Ekurhuleni city council finally passed the city’s budget on its fourth attempt on Tuesday.

Three previous attempts to get the budget through failed after political parties with significant numbers in the council including the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the Democratic Alliance (DA) and ActionSA rejected it.

However, in a surprise turn of events this week the ANC, which leads the governing coalition, managed to convince all the parties, with the exception of the EFF, to back the budget.

Fourteen political parties represented in council gave the budget the green light.

The change of heart from political parties which previously rejected the budget came as a result of concessions made by the ANC.

DA council whip Lucky Dinake said the previous budget wasn’t resident-centred and the “priorities were a bit off”.

“Our support for the budget came at the end of extensive discussions. We were able to secure some concessions that we think make the budget better for residents.”

One of the victories claimed by the DA was a decrease in the property valuation tariff.

“The decrease in rates in this budget has put about R76m back into the pockets of residents, which was a big one for us. We also got the executive to commit to ringfencing money for infrastructure protection and development in the city, which hadn’t been done in the budget.

“We also got a commitment that there would be a freeze on luxury spending, which means no international travel, no vehicles for politicians, and we thought that was really important. You need to put this money where it works best for residents.”

The decrease in rates in this budget has put about R76m back into the pockets of residents, which was a big one for us.

—  DA council whip Lucky Dinake

Finance MMC Jongizizwe Dlabathi said the budget was passed after three attempts because the ANC did not stop engaging political parties in council.

“We had to appreciate ... the things that made political parties not support our budget.” Dlabathi said.

He said his party engaged with political parties, which helped them to appreciate their inputs, which were taken into consideration and assessed against principles of the budget.

Dlabathi said the process of approving the budget was a “give and take” process and though there were no material changes to the budget, it was safe for his executive to consider requests made by others.

“We then made concessions. One political party asked for us to reduce the tariff on the property rates, which is in line with our own political commitment of doing away with the high cost of living. We did not have difficulty with reducing what we initially proposed as 2%, to 1.5% in line with the proposal.”

ActionSA reportedly asked for the inclusion of funding to accommodate insourcing, which the MMC referred to as internal capacity building.

“They said we must reduce contracted services and add more money towards employee costs. We did that to some extent to meet them halfway. These are some concessions that were made, which are not fundamentally opposed to the principles of the budget, but they sought to strengthen the budget itself.”

Dlabathi condemned the EFF for being the only political party to reject the budget.

“I had made a call during my budget speech that when it comes to the budget, it’s egos and political interests aside, It must be about the communities that we are serving. If the budget is compliant, we should not disagree with its approval.”

“It’s quite disappointing that a party like the EFF, which claims to represent poor communities, is the one that is finding it difficult to accept a budget that is pro-poor.”

The finance MMC said they extended an invitation to the EFF, but this was “sadly” not responded to.

Meanwhile, the EFF remained steadfast in its rejection of the budget.

The party’s Gauteng provincial leadership claimed in a statement that the contents of the budget had not changed, except for the “political calculations of those who have now chosen to support it”.

“The EFF voted against this budget for a fourth time because the concerns that informed our opposition were never addressed. The budget remains disconnected from the realities of declining service delivery, deteriorating infrastructure, over reliance on contracted services, and a municipality that continues to struggle with financial sustainability.”