Municipality silent about settlement

Date: 20 June 2014 By: Andries van Zyl

Openness and transparency are apparently not high on the Makhado Municipality’s list of priorities when it comes to the current chaotic state of the municipal valuation roll process.

This is evident in their decision not to comment on questions regarding the settlement agreement reached between them and the appointed municipal valuers, Siyabuselela Trading Enterprise 275 CC, trading as Risuna Consultants and Valuers. The questions, among others, centred on what effect Risuna’s withdrawal from the tender contract has on the process and the taxpayer.

The settlement agreement was signed on 16 May, with a confidentiality undertaking between the two parties stating that it “is further agreed that the terms of this agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third save if any party to this agreement is required to disclose such terms as a matter of law.”

As already pointed out in the article on the front page, the Municipal Property Rates Act is very specific about the circumstances under which a designated municipal valuer can withdraw from a valuation roll contract, indicating that either misconduct or a breach of contract on the part of Risuna had occurred.

As for the terms set out in the confidential settlement agreement, these include:

* All the contracts signed and between the Makhado Municipality and Siyabuselela in respect of the above-mentioned tender are terminated and cancelled forthwith and with immediate effect.

* Siyabuselela shall endeavour to complete all outstanding work relating to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Objection Process, currently underway, on or before 19 May 2014.

* Makhado Municipality undertakes to pay Siyabuselela for all the completed work on the basis of invoices issued for the requisite quality work done and verified.

* Siyabuselela will furnish the Makhado Municipality with written proof that the valuation roll is completed, lawfully certified and signed by a qualified municipal valuer as specified in the tender.

The Makhado Municipality’s refusal to comment on the agreement makes it difficult to speculate about the circumstances that had led to the signing of this document. The 19 May deadline set out in the agreement has lapsed and uncertainty exists whether this term was met with regard to the objection process. The Zoutpansberger spoke to several people who had lodged objections; they confirmed that no one from either Risuna or the municipality had contacted them yet regarding their objection.

With regard to the third condition, the Zoutpansberger has requested the municipality twice to supply the tender amount that was awarded to Siyabuselela and the amount already paid over to them, despite their not completing the tender contract. The municipality is yet to answer these questions.

As for the fourth condition, it is obvious that the valuation roll process was not completed when the agreement was signed. The specific reference to “lawfully certified and signed by a qualified valuer as specified in the tender” also raises questions as to whether Siyabuselela and the company’s appointed municipal valuer, Mr Kulani Nkuna, are indeed registered as professional valuers by the South African Council for the Property Valuers Profession (SACPVP). The law is very specific that municipal valuations can only be completed by a registered professional valuer, or that (in cases where a private company such as Siyabuselela is appointed) the designated municipal valuer must be registered with the SACPVP. A media enquiry as to whether or not Siyabuselela and Mr Nkuna were registered when they tendered for and were awarded the contract in 2013 will hopefully be answered by the SACPVP within the next week.

Many residents may ask, in light of the latest developments regarding the valuation roll process, whether the roll in its entirety could be declared null and void. This would seem a difficult and expensive task as no one can object to the valuation roll as a whole, but only to individual property valuations. An Internet search of cases where ratepayers had successfully challenged the implementation of a municipal valuation roll, yielded the case between the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) vs The Council of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. 

SAPOA challenged the implementation of a discriminatory rate hike against certain business, commercial and industrial properties. Initially, the High Court dismissed SAPOA’s application, but they took it on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which then found in SAPOA’s favour.  The case centred mainly on the higher rates ratio imposed by the Metropolitan Municipality on certain properties. Some similarities with regard to Makhado (Louis Trichardt) exist concerning the valuation of properties at a much higher estimate than their current market value. As is the case in Makhado (Louis Trichardt), SAPOA also argued that certain properties had been valued much lower than their current market value. This led judge Navsa to state, among other things, in his verdict: “This, of course, reduced the Council’s revenue base and contributed to an income shortfall. The Council in more ways than one was the author of its own misfortune, which then became the misfortune of ratepayers.”

Viewed: 269

Andries van Zyl

Andries joined the Zoutpansberger and Limpopo Mirror in April 1993 as a darkroom assistant. Within a couple of months he moved over to the production side of the newspaper and eventually doubled as a reporter. In 1995 he left the newspaper group and travelled overseas for a couple of months. In 1996, Andries rejoined the Zoutpansberger as a reporter. In August 2002, he was appointed as News Editor of the Zoutpansberger, a position he holds until today.

More photos...