The organisational performance is evaluated by means of a municipal scorecard (Top-Layer SDBIP).
Performance objectives, as reflected in the municipal scorecard, are required to be practical, measurable and based in the key performance indicators.
The SDBIP is a tool that converts the IDP and budget into measurable criteria of how, where and when the strategies, objectives and normal business processes of the municipality are implemented.
It also allocates responsibility to directorates to deliver the services in terms of the IDP and the budget.
MFMA Circular No. 13 is a clarification of the Municipal Budget and Reporting Regulations, Schedule A 1, GenN 393 in GG32141 of 2009 and prescribes that the:
IDP and budget must be aligned;
budget must address the strategic priorities;
SDBIP should indicate what the municipality is going to do during the next 12 months; and
SDBIP should form the basis for measuring the performance against goals set during the budget / IDP processes.
The Top-Layer SDBIP 2019/20 was approved by the Executive Mayor, Cllr Adv Gesie Van Deventer on the 26 June 2019 in terms of section 53(1)(c)(ii) of the MFMA.
3.6.1 THE MUNICIPAL SCORECARD (TOP-LAYER SDBIP)
The municipal scorecard (Top-Layer SDBIP) consolidates service delivery targets set by Council / senior management and provides an overall picture of the performance of the municipality as a whole, reflecting performance in its strategic priorities for the 2019/20 financial year. The scorecard is the performance evaluation tool and is used during the informal and formal performance assessment of senior managers.
Components of the Top-Layer SDBIP include:
One-year detailed plan with the following components:
Monthly projections of revenue to be collected for each source;
Monthly projections of expenditure (operating and capital) and revenue for each vote;
Quarterly projections of service delivery targets and performance indicators for each vote;
Ward information for expenditure and service delivery; and
Detailed capital works plan broken down by ward over three years.
Top-Layer KPIs were prepared based on the following:
Key performance indicators (KPIs) for the programmes / activities identified to address the strategic objectives as documented in the IDP in co-operation with the community who identifies developmental priorities;
KPIs identified during the IDP and KPIs that need to be reported to key municipal stakeholders; and
KPIs to address the required national minimum reporting requirements.
3.6.2 AMENDMENT OF THE TOP-LAYER SDBIP
The TL SDBIP 2019/20 was reviewed once during the 2019/20 financial year and submitted to Council for approval on 29 January 2020.
3.6.3 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
The municipality utilises an electronic web-based, real time performance-based system on which KPI owners update actual performance on a monthly basis. KPI owners report on the results of the KPI by documenting the following information on the performance system:
The actual result in terms of the target set;
A performance comment; and
Actions to improve the performance by the submission of corrective measures to meet the set target for the reporting interval in question, if the target was not achieved.
It is the responsibility of every KPI owner to maintain a portfolio of evidence to support actual performance results updated and provide it to the Internal Auditor and Auditor General upon request during the quarterly and annual audit testing.
3.6.4 MONITORING OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY AND BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Municipal performance is measured as follows:
a) Mid-year assessment and submission of the mid-year report to the Mayor in terms of section 72(1)(a). In terms of section 72(1(a) of the MFMA, the Accounting Officer must by 25 January of each year assess the performance of the municipality during the first half of the financial year. A report on such an assessment must, in terms of Section 72(1(b) of the MFMA, be submitted to the Mayor, Provincial and National Treasury. Once the Mayor has considered the report, it must be submitted to Council by 31 January in terms of Section 54 of the MFMA.
b) Quarterly assessment i.t.o. section 52(d) of the MFMA to assess the performance of the municipality during the first half of the financial year.
The Executive Mayor, who must provide general political guidance over the fiscal and financial affairs of the municipality, is required by Section 52(d) of the MFMA to submit a report on the implementation of the budget and the financial state of affairs of the municipality, to the Council within 30 days after end of each quarter.
Actual performance was audited by the Internal Audit Department and the results of their findings were submitted to the Audit and Performance Audit Committee (APAC).
Quarter 1 (July to September 2019);
Quarter 2 (October to December 2019);
Quarter 3 (January to March 2020); and
Quarter 4 (April to June 2020).
Municipal Manager and Managers directly accountable to the Municipal Manager
The MSA prescribes that the municipality must enter into performance based agreements with the Municipal Manager and managers directly reporting to the Municipal Manager i.t.o. section 56.
Performance agreements must be reviewed annually and are published for public interest. This process and the format are further regulated by Regulation 805 (August 2006), MSA.
The performance agreements for the Municipal Manager and section 56 appointments for the 2019/20 financial year were signed on 30 July 2019 as prescribed. They include performance agreements for the:
Municipal Manager;
Chief Financial Officer;
Director: Corporate Services;
Director: Planning and Local Economic Development;
Director: Community and Protection Services; and
Director: Infrastructure Services.
The appraisal of the actual performance in terms of the signed agreements takes place twice per annum as regulated. The 2018/19 annual - and 2019/20 mid-year performance assessment for senior managers took place on 09 March 2020. The appraisals were done by an evaluation panel in terms of Regulation 805.
The panel consisted of the following:
Adv. Gesie van Deventer; Executive Mayor (for the evaluation of the Municipal Manager only);
Mr. Roy van Rooyen, Ward Committee Member nominated by the Executive Mayor (for the evaluation of the Municipal Manager only);
Geraldine Mettler, Municipal Manager of Stellenbosch Municipality;
Mr. Henry Prins, Municipal Manager of Cape Winelands District Municipality;
Cllr. Nyaniso Jindela, Deputy Executive Mayor and Chairperson on Human Settlements Portfolio;
Cllr. Quintin Smit;
Cllr. Patricia Crawley;
Cllr. Xoliswa Mdemka;
Cllr. Aldrigde Frazenburg;
Cllr. Esther Groenewald;
Dr Len Mortimer, Audit and Performance Audit Committee Chairperson of Stellenbosch Municipality.
Other Municipal Personnel
The municipality has implemented individual performance to employees on the three highest levels of management.
3.6.5 SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE
3.6.5.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the key service achievements of the municipality that came to completion during 2019/20 in terms of the deliverables achieved compared to the key performance objectives and indicators in the IDP.
In order to improve on performance planning, implementation, measurement and reporting, the municipality implemented the following actions;
Departmental operational plans were developed for monitoring and reporting operational programmes. An electronic performance management system is operational within the municipality.
The same system forms the basis of performance evaluations of the Directors and the Municipal Manager; and the municipality endeavoured during the development of the TL SDBIP as well as with the development of the Departmental SDBIP that the “SMART” principle be adhered to in the setting of indicators and objectives. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that targets were specific and time bound, thus making it measurable.
Table 3:1: Performance Management System Checklist Performance
Management Policy
All MSA s57/56 Performance
contracts signed
Audit Committee
Municipal Public Accounts
Committee (MPAC)
Quarterly Performance
Reporting to Council
Annual Performance
Reporting to Council
In place? √ √ √ √ √ √
3.6.5.2 Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (Top-Layer)
The purpose of performance reporting is to report specifically on the implementation and achievement of IDP outcomes. This section should provide an overview on the achievement of a municipality in terms of the strategic intent and deliverables achieved as stated in the IDP. The Top-Layer (strategic) SDBIP is the municipality’s strategic plan and shows the strategic alignment between the different documents (IDP, Budget and Performance Agreements).
The organisational performance is evaluated by means of a Municipal Scorecard (TL SDBIP) at organisational level and through the Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (SDBIP) at departmental levels.
The SDBIP is a plan that converts the IDP and Budget into measurable indicators on how, where and when the strategies, objectives and normal business processes of the municipality are implemented. It also allocates responsibilities to directorates to deliver the services in terms of the IDP and Budget.
The MFMA Circular No.13 prescribes that:
The IDP and budget must be aligned;
The budget must address the strategic priorities;
The SDBIP should indicate what the municipality is going to do during next the 12 months; and
The SDBIP should form the basis for measuring the performance against goals set during the budget / IDP processes.
The TL SDBIP was prepared as described in the paragraphs below and approved by the Executive Mayor on 26 June 2019. However, the TL SDBIP 2019/20 was revised in January 2020. These revisions were made in line with the adjustment budget, internal audit findings and recommendations made by the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA).
In the paragraphs below, the performance achieved is illustrated against the Top-Layer SDBIP according to the IDP strategic objectives. The following table explains the method by which the overall assessment of actual performance against targets set for the key performance indicators (KPI’s) of the SDBIP is measured:
Table 3:2: Performance Assessment Criteria
The TL SDBIP (the Municipal Scorecard) consolidate service delivery targets set by Council / Senior Management and provide an overall picture of performance for the municipality as a whole, reflecting performance on its strategic priorities. The TL SDBIP is a detailed one-year plan and the necessary components should include:
Monthly projections of revenue to be collected for each source;
Expected revenue to be collected not billed;
Monthly projections of expenditure (operating and capital) and revenue for each vote;
Quarterly projections of service delivery targets and performance indicators for each vote;
Non-financial measurable performance objectives in the form of targets and indicators; and
Detailed capital project plan broken down by ward over three years.
Color Category Explanation
KPI Not Yet Measured KPIs with no targets or actual results for the selected period
KPI Not Met Actual vs. target less than 75%
KPI Almost Met Actual vs. target between 75% and 100%
KPI Met Actual vs. target 100% achieved
KPI Well Met Actual vs. target more than 100% and less than 150% achieved
KPI Extremely Well Met Actual vs. target more than 150% achieved
3.6.5.3 Overall performance per Municipal Strategic Focus Area
The following graph and table illustrates the municipality’s overall performance per Municipal Strategic Focus Area (SFA).
Table 3:3: Overall performance per SFA- 01 July 2019 – 30 June 2020