CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background
Process Followed
a. Pre-budget Departmental Readiness Workshops
b. Mapping departmental projects from the multi-year budget
c. Task Team Evaluation of the draft Multi-year Budget
d. Departmental Capital Budget Evaluation: One on one departmental Engagements
Analysis of the CIF Evaluation Process
a. Purpose of the analysis
b. CIF Project Categories
c. CIF Geographic Priority Areas
d. Methodology
Analysis of Findings
a. Analysis of the Departmental Project evaluation
b. Analysis based on the CIF project categories
c. Analysis based on the CIF geographic priority areas
d. Analysis of budget per CIF project category and per geographic priority area
Recommendation and Concluding Remarks
List of Tables:
Table 1 – Multi-year Capital Budget Mapping Schedule
Table 2 – Workshop Dates and Attendance: Departmental One on One Budget Evaluation Sessions
Table 3a – Summary of Budget % allocation per Project Category per Financial Year
Table 4a – Summary per financial year of the budget % split between the CIF Geographic Priority Areas
List of Diagrams:
Diagram 1 – CIF Implementation Programme
Diagram 2 – Project Categories and Budget allocation Split
Diagram 3 – Prioritization of the Geographic Priority Areas
Diagram 4a – 2015/16 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Diagram 4b – 2016/17 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Diagram 4c – 2017/18 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Diagram 4d – Bar Graph Illustrating the Comparison in Budget allocation per Project Category over MTREF
Diagram 5a – Summary of the 2015/16 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Diagram 5b – Summary of the 2016/17 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Diagram 5c – Summary of the 2017/18 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Diagram 5d – Summary Comparison of the Budget % allocation per Priority Area per Financial Year
Diagram 6a – Urban restructuring % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Diagram 6b – Upgrading and Renewal % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Diagram 6c – Economic Development % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Diagram 6d – Provides a comprehensive overview of the budget % split per priority area per category
List of Maps:
Map 1 – CIF Geographic Priority Areas
Map 2 – Geographic location of the 2015/16 financial year projects in relation to the CIF Priority Areas
Annexures:
A – 2014 Mapping process and Guidelines
B – Terms of Reference and minutes from the City Managers Work Group
C – Capital Prioritization Model: Prioritization Scoring and Weighting System
2
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF
1.
BACKGROUND
The drafting of the Capital Investment Framework (CIF) is a requirement in terms of Section 4(e) of the
Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations, 2001 as promulgated in terms of the
Municipal Systems Act. The CIF also fulfills the function of a Capital Expenditure Framework (CEF) as
required in terms of Section 21(n) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013. In
addition, the CIF also informs the Capital Expenditure Programme (CEP) as referred to by National
Treasury. The CIF also strives to meet Section 153(a) of the constitution, in which the developmental
duties of a municipality is stipulated to “structure and manage its administration and budgeting and
planning processes to give priority to the basic needs of the community, and to promote the social and
economic development of the community”1. The purpose of the CIF is therefore to strategically and
spatially guide, align and co-ordinate municipal capital expenditure across all sectors that will make
provision for balanced spending of the municipal budget so as to promote economic growth and meet
the infrastructure and services needs of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM) residents.
The implementation of the CIF must firstly be understood as following a process of Test, guide and align
with respect to changing the EMM departments approach to the budgeting process to taking cognizance
of the CIF and the need for departments to start aligning their budgets (Capital Projects). In summary
the CIF/budget evaluation process is geared towards making allowance for spatial rationalization to the
budget.
CIF Implementation Phasing:
Test: Testing the 2013/14 projects against the CIF and MSDF
Guide: Guide departments towards 2014/15 projects that will support the Capital Prioritisation Model
project categories and the geographic priority areas.
Align: Align 2015/16 projects with the CIF.
The 2012 implementation phase of the CIF looked towards testing the 2013/14 capital budget against
the draft CIF and approved MSDF. This involved the mapping of department’s projects as identified per
project category and then assessed for correlation with the CIF and MSDF.
For 2013 the CIF process moved towards guiding departmental capital projects that will support the CIF
geographic priority areas. The portfolio of evidence is therefore linked to the implementation of the CIF
with respect to the guiding of the 2014/15 CAPEX in accordance with the CIF.
The 2014 implementation of the CIF as part of the budget evaluation process started to aim for
improved alignment of departmental capital projects with the CIF priority areas and project categories.
The process also entailed that departments start to take ownership and responsibility for data inputs
into the draft multi-year capital budget.
3
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
2.
PROCESS FOLLOWED
This section outlines the CIF implementation process as part of the annual budget evaluation, which
includes the CIF programme, objective, participation and outcomes thereto. Diagram 1 provides an
overview of the CIF implementation process.
Diagram 1: Capital Investment Framework Implementation Programme
4
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
a. Pre-budget workshops held with departments (Departmental Readiness)
Objective:
Two departmental readiness workshops were held with various departments as per the
below table. The objective of the departmental readiness workshops was to advise
departments of the CIF/Budget evaluation process, advise and clarify as to the CIF
requirements in terms of the budget instruction letter, advise on the testing of the capital
prioritization model and data requirements thereto, and to inform departments of the
technical support that would be made available. Departments were also informed of the
amendments to the CIF and the application of the geographic priority areas to project
prioritization via a presentation. The Capital Prioritization user manual and presentation
reflecting changes to the CIF and multi-year capital budget data requirements as part of the
budget evaluation was emailed to the affected departments.
Workshop dates and attendance:
WORKSHOP
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
DEPARTMENTS
EPMO, Finance, CRM, Transport, Roads and
Storm-water, Water and Sanitation, ICT and
Energy
Human Settlements, EMPD, Health and Social
Development, Environmental Resource
Management, and SRAC
DATE
22 September 2014
25 September 2014
Technical support was provided to departments through the provision of the Arc-reader on
the intranet that reflected the CIF geographic priority areas, GIS staff to assist with mapping
data requirements, and the provision of the Capital Prioritization Model – scoring system
user manual was made available.
Outcomes:
The workshops were well attended by the departments. Response to the data requirements
of the CIF in terms of the Capital Prioritisation Model and geographic priority areas was well
received. Alignment of capital project with the CIF and National Treasury requirements was
emphasized to the departments. There were no notably negative comments or responses
from the departments. Inputs into the CPM scoring system were taken into account.
b. Mapping departmental projects from the multi-year budget
Objective:
Based on comment received from departments on the previous year’s mapping exercise it was
requested that the mapping workshops comprise of smaller groups to prevent unnecessary
waiting and to make allowance for individual departments to have more time with the allocated
5
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
GIS support. In this regard 4 mapping workshops were made available as opposed to the former
three workshops. Departments were further scheduled to meet with the GIS for either the
morning or afternoon session. The mapping schedule is attached as Table 1.
The overall objective and purpose of the mapping exercise was to meet National Treasury
requirements and assess departmental project alignment with the CIF by mapping the
department’s capital projects for the 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 draft multi-year budget.
Table 1: Multi–year Capital Budget Mapping Workshop Schedule
MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET MAPPING SCHEDULE
29-Sep-14
Time
Energy
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
Real Estate (all sections)
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
DEMS
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
Roads and Stormwater
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
30-Sep-14
Time
Water and Sanitation
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
Environment
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
ICT
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
SRAC
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
1-Oct-14
Time
Health and Social Developm.
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
Transport
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
Customer Relations Man.
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
Human Settlements
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
2-Oct-14
Time
Waste Management
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
Economic Development
morning session 9:00am - 12:00pm
fleet management
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
EMPD
afternoon session 13:30pm - 16:30pm
6
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
The below table illustrates differentiations in the approach to the mapping process for 2014 as
compared to the 2013 mapping process.
2013 Mapping Process
Mapping session was held after departments
submitted their draft multi-year capital budget
to Finance.
City Planning GIS populated project locality,
GPS co-ordinates and GIS codes (shape file
number) into the draft budget.
2014 Mapping Process
Mapping session was held while departments
were in the process of compiling their multi-year
capital budgets (before submission to Finance)
Departments were responsible for populating
project locality and the allocated GIS code into
the multi – year budget spreadsheet.
GIS provided the GIS codes (shape file number)
to departmental project leaders and populated
the GPS co-ordinates where a project property
description was made available.
Four smaller workshops were held
Three workshops were held
T
he objective of the workshop:
 To map departments capital projects on the draft multi-year capital budget (2015/16,
2016/17 and 2017/18) to a specific property locality as per requirement from
National Treasury in terms of SA Form 36.
 To map the projects area of influence.
 City Planning GIS to generate shape files (each with a unique code identifiable to a
department and then the specific departmental project) for each departmental
project reflected on the draft multi-year capital budget.
 The GIS division to provide departments with GPS co-ordinates and precise locality
(where requested). To note that the GIS do provide a clean-up of the GPS coordinates as part of the cleanup for data for analysis.
 For departmental project leaders to take ownership of the data through accurately
identifying project locality and area and influence, obtaining a shape file number
per project, and ultimately for population of the data into the draft multi-year
capital budget.
 For departments to provide a locality for sub-projects for all large projects that have
been broken down into sub-projects. (Breakdown of large vote numbers would also
require that the funding be broken down to the sub-project level).
 Identification of the projects alignment in terms of the CIF geographic priority areas.
 The Specialist Project team was tasked with utilizing the Arc-reader to assess
departmental input in terms of project locality and area of influence as per the CIF
geographic priority areas, assessment of the project categories and capital
prioritization model.
 The Specialist Project together with consultant Demacon were also on standby to
provide guidance to departments regarding the CPM data requirements.
7
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Workshop dates and Attendance:
WORKSHOP
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Workshop 3
Workshop 4
DEPARTMENTS
Energy, Real Estate (Parks and
Facilities), DEMS, Roads and
Storm-water
Environment, and SRAC
Transport, CRM, and Human
Settlements
Waste Management and EMPD
DATE
29 September 2013
30 September 2013
01 October 2013
02 October 2013
Outcomes:
The workshops for the mapping of capital budget projects were relatively well attended by the
affected departments, whereby 11 departments out of a required 16 departments attended the
session to map new projects and/or make amendments to existing projects on the capital
budget.
The departments whilst understanding the purpose of the mapping as part of the CIF
assessment were not in all regards able to provide a breakdown of large capital projects and/or
indicate the locality to a specific erf /erven /township or road per financial year. The reasons for
this are related in some circumstances to the projects still being in the feasibility stage during
which a locality would still be determined, or were the project was based on an as and when
required basis, which was the case with some of the service department projects. In certain
scenarios the inability to provide specific locality information raised concerns as to the
departments’ readiness to roll out the project. The inability of a department to map a property
to a specific locality therefore also impacted on the mapping of the specific projects area of
influence. The result was that certain projects could not be mapped to specific locality, but the
area of influence was indicated as the entire region or CCA. This was found to be case for
general as and when projects. Determination of the area of influence was at times not indicated
in cases where the department could provide a specific locality or where the department could
not specify the projects exact area of influence due to a lack of standardized level of service
criteria. This resulted in the following outcomes in the mapping process:
Results
Projects that could not be pinpointed to a specific
locality where mapped to the relevant
departments corporate office or to the CCA or
region affected.
Remarks
Departments with as and when projects and
which lacked access to a comprehensive list of
locality for council own buildings and/or were
not able to provide a specific property
description where not able to map projects to
an exact locality and therefore resorted to
mapping capital projects to the departments
corporate office.
The inability of a department to provide exact
co-ordinates distorts the mapping of capital
8
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
projects for assessment in terms of alignment
and actual expenditure as monitored spatially.
It has been noted during the mapping exercise
that the mapping of a capital project is an easy
alternative and therefore does not prompt the
department in working towards providing
more accurate mapping data to the detailed
level of an erf/erven, township or street.
The provision of inaccurate property descriptions Departments are requires to responsibility for
that could not be linked to the GIS were not all and any data that is populated into the
mapped.
draft-multi-year capital budget. This includes
mapping data. Departments that do not check
their mapping data with the GIS end up
providing incorrect information which then
cannot be picked up by the GIS server for
mapping. Such projects are then marked as
unmapped projects.
Shape files for certain projects only reflect the The mapping exercise as part of the budget
area of influence and omit a specific locality in process, requires departments to provide two
terms of an erf/erven/township or road, and vice sets of data, namely:
versa.
1. Locality – Erf, Erven, Township, street etc.
2. Area of influence – level of service (area
which is to be service by the project)
General projects/programmes do not provide
a breakdown of projects to a specific locality
and instead indicate only the area of influence
as the service area, CCA, Region or in certain
cases the entire metro.
Alternatively some departments are only able
to provide a locality and cannot reflect the
area of influence.
During the analysis phase this impacts on the
determination of the CIF geographic priority
area that will benefit from the project.
Most departments were able however to provide There needs to be more consistency across all
either a property description or the area of of the departments in the mapping
influence or both in some instances, which would information provided.
allow for assessment of the project in terms of the
CIF.
Approximately 205 projects could not be mapped Unmapped projects are due to either incorrect
out of a list of 1023 projects, therefore indicating mapping information provided or lack of a
that approximately 80% of departmental projects property description. This impacts on the
were mapped based on information provided by accuracy of the CIF/Budget analysis in terms of
departments.
where projects are located spatially, effective
monitoring of expenditure spatially against the
9
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Issuing and Populating GIS codes for shapefiles
CIF
priority
areas,
assessing
EMM
departmental project alignment, effective
determination of a projects correct project
category, and outcomes for the testing of the
proposed capital prioritization model scoring
system.
Departments were required to attend the
mapping sessions to submit mapping data per
project in order for the GIS to generate shape
files and with that a unique GIS code to
reference the shape file. Project leaders w
here responsible for obtaining the GIS code
and populating into the draft-multi-year
capital budget.
It was found that most departments that did
attend the mapping session failed to complete
the field for the GIS code or in other instances
did not attend the mapping session to
generate shape files for new projects and
obtain a GIS code for administrative and
reference purposes.
Poor and inconsistent population of mapping
fields within the draft multi-year capital placed
the responsibility onto the GIS to enter in the
GIS code reference numbers where shape files
were created, and map locality by generating
new shape files where property descriptions
have been provided into the spreadsheet, but
for which no shape file had been generated
yet.
2014 Mapping process and Guidelines attached as Annexure “A”.
c. Task Team Evaluation of the draft Multi-year capital Budget
Objective:
In terms of the budget process it was required that the draft departmental Capital project
budget submission be assessed per department between from 27 to 28 October by the ratified
CIF Operational Task Team (Terms of Reference and minutes from the City Managers Work
Group are attached Annexure “B”). The Operational Task Team comprised of Finance, EPMO,
Economic Development, Human Settlements, Environmental Resource Management, Real
Estate, Strategy and Corporate Planning, and the City Planning Department. The Economic
Development Department did not partake in the 2014 CIF/Budget evaluation process. The
budget evaluation process included the prioritization of projects in terms of alignment with the
Capital Investment Framework. The aforementioned key departments identified for
10
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
participation in the evaluation process met as a unit to run through the draft multi-year capital
budget in order to assess the departmental projects, and alignment of departmental budget
requirements with the EMM spatial vision and available budget allocation. From City Planning’s
side the evaluation was based on the CIF geographic priority areas and testing of the capital
prioritization modes scoring system which takes into cognizance project locality in terms of the
priority areas.
The following evaluation criterion is taken into account during the CIF/Budget Evaluation
Process:
 Changes in the budget
 Changes in funding per financial year
 Locality
 Project status (readiness)
 Alignment with the IDP and ward prioritized needs
 Compliance with environmental legislation
Workshop dates and Attendance:
WORKSHOP
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
DEPARTMENTS
DATE
Finance, Strategy and Corporate 27 October 2014
Planning, Environmental
Resource Management, Human
Settlements, EPMO, Real Estate
and City Planning
Finance, Strategy and Corporate 28 October 2014
Planning, Environmental
Resource Management, Human
Settlements, EPMO, Real Estate
and City Planning
Outcomes:
The CIF/Budget evaluation sessions afforded the Operational Task Team the opportunity to
evaluate the draft multi-year capital budget against set criteria, which included the evaluation of
the capital projects against alignment with the CIF geographic priority areas. The key
departments flagged projects that were outside of the CIF priority areas, inconsistencies with
the mapping information, projects with multiple locations but under one vote number, budget
allocation inquiries, EIA compliance, project status (planning and readiness), current
commitments, and alignment of project initiatives. These matters were captured for redress
with the affected departments.
11
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
d. Departmental Capital Budget Evaluation: Departmental One on One Sessions
Objective:
The joint sitting of the Operational Task Team for the CIF/Budget evaluation was followed on by
the one on one departmental sessions as was held from 3 to 6 November. The one on one
sessions with departments afford the Operational Task team the opportunity flag points of
concern, highlight issues for redress and obtain clarity from the responsible project leaders as
was identified during the CIF/Budget evaluation. In turn project leaders were afforded the
opportunity to defend and motivate capital project budget submissions or negotiate workable
changes.
Table 2: Workshop dates and attendance of the Departmental one on one sessions
3-Nov-14 Attended
SESSION 1 - DEPARTMENTS REQUIRED
Disaster and Emergency Services
EMPD
ICT
Transport




4-Nov-14
SESSION 2 - DEPARTMENTS REQUIRED
Health and Social Development
Human Settlements
Economic Development
Environmental Resource Management




5-Nov-14
SESSION 3 - DEPARTMENTS REQUIRED
SRAC
Fleet Management
Waste Management
Energy

not required


6-Nov-14
SESSION 4 - DEPARTMENTS REQUIRED
CRM
Roads and Stormwater
Water and Sanitation
Real Estate




12
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Outcomes:
The Operational Task Team was afforded the opportunity to address matters of concern
identified during the CIF/Budget evaluation process with the relevant departmental project
leaders. On the part of departmental attendance, the one on one departmental sessions were
well attended and the process flowed with interactive discussions with the departments. All the
required departments attended the sessions. Fleet Management was not required to attend due
to the fact the department did not have any major capital projects reflected on the draft budget
or issues for redress. It must be noted that during this process that none of the projects were
actively removed from the CAPEX and rather resulted in the re-allocation of funds over the three
year multi -year capital budget. Attendance and involvement of the Operational Task Team
members was well-attended with the exception of the Economic Development Department.
The sessions were overall an interactive and transparent process. The process yielded in certain
circumstances that departmental project leaders needed to breakdown large vote numbers
(especially where multiple localities were mapped under one vote), alignment of the budget
with project readiness, and to meet with other affected departments on matters relating to
project alignment.
3.
ANALYSIS OF THE CIF/BUDGET EVALUATION PROCESS
a.
Purpose of the analysis
The purpose of the analysis is based on assessing the outcome of the CIF evaluation process as
prescribed in Section 2 of the document in identify achievements in the alignment of the multiyear capital budget with the CIF project categories derived from the Capital Prioritisation Model
and the geographic priority areas that give directive to the spatial strategy of the EMM. The
2014 analysis of the budget evaluation also included assessment of the testing conducted for
the CPM proposed scoring system against the draft 2015/16 to 2017/18 multi-year capital
budget.
This therefore requires the testing of alignment with the multi-year capital budget against the
CIF project categories and the geographic priority areas to indicate if the guiding to alignment
implementation phase of the CIF is starting yield results in this regard. The analysis will also
provide an overall assessment of the CPM scoring system in order to flush constraints,
inconstancies and identify success points for optimization.
13
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
The analysis is geared towards informing the following questions as related to benchmarking the
impact of the CIF with respect to the multi-year capital budget as follows:
i. The number of projects removed from the budget or for
which funding was moved to the outer years of the budget.
ii. What is the budget percentage split between the CIF
project categories as compared between the 2014/15 to
2017/18 budget?
iii. What is the budget percentage split between the CIF
geographic priority area categories for the 2015/16 Budget?
iv. What is the budget percentage split between the CIF
geographic priority areas as calculated per project
category?
v. How did the different departmental capital projects score
against each other?
vi. Which departmental projects scored in the highest as
compared to 20 lowest scoring projects (comparison to be
made per scoring scenario)?
vii. Number of capital projects that did not score highly within
the allocated project category?
viii. Level of information provided by departments as part of
the scoring criteria
This section of the report will outline the methodology followed in the analysis process and the
outcome findings of the CIF evaluation process.
Before delving into the methodology that was followed in the analysis of the CIF/Budget
evaluation process, the CIF capital projects must be defined and the geographic priority areas
outlined as primary tools in the implementation of the CIF and as forming the basis of the data
for assessment.
b. CIF Project Categories:
The CIF project categories are derived from National Treasury and form part of the Capital
Prioritization Model. Departments are required to indicate the project category per project on
the MTREF as per the National Treasury Definitions. Diagram 2 illustrates the project categories
as step 1 of the CPM and the proposed budget split allocation between the project categories.
The CIF implementation aims to achieve increased alignment of the budget with the identified
budget split between the project categories in order to strike a balance between projects which
are backlog eradication focused, renewal and extension of infrastructure focused as compared
to projects which are revenue generating for the metro.
14
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 2: Project Categories and Proposed Budget Allocation Split
The CIF capital project categories are defined as follows:
•
Urban Restructuring - Eradication of Historical Backlogs (Physical Infrastructure):
Eradication of Infrastructure for existing backlogs.
Eradication of Historical Backlogs (Social Facilities): Eradication of Infrastructure for
existing backlogs.
•
Upgrading and Renewal – Renewal of Existing Assets: Remaining useful life is extended due
to aging of infrastructure. This does not mean the capacity is extended.
Upgrading of Existing Assets – to extend existing bulk capacity: To extend bulk capacity
purely for existing network.
•
Economic Development – Upgrading of Existing Assets – to stimulate new Economic
Growth: To extend bulk purely for new development where growth will be stimulated.
Income Generating: Purely Income Generating Projects.
The CIF categories are based on definitions that were derived by National Treasury and are
used to demarcate projects for the purpose of assisting municipalities to determine the
budget % allocation per category.
c. CIF Geographic Priority Areas:
The CIF geographic priority areas comprise of three priority areas as follows:
The geographic priority areas are geared towards providing strategic and spatial guidance in
terms of Prioritisation and alignment of the budget allocation across all sectors. The geographic
priority areas provide a spatial rational for the budget in terms focusing funding to achieve
strategic spatial formation. Departments are required to therefore provide a property
description per project. Projects are mapped by the GIS specialist in relation to the three priority
areas. Map 1 illustrates the spatial placement of the three priority areas and Diagram 3
indicates the spatial priority of the three priority areas as aligned to the implementation time
frame of the GDS.
15
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Map 1: CIF Geographic Priority Areas
Diagram 3: CIF Geographic Priority Areas –
Prioritization of Areas
d. Methodology
In testing the outcomes of the CIF evaluation process on the multi-year capital budget in
achieving increased alignment with the CIF the following process was followed:
The draft 2015/16 to 2017/18 multi-year capital budget spreadsheet was utilized as the
base data for the analyses.
The data outcomes that would inform the CIF evaluation process was established as
follows:
• List of projects that were moved to the outer years of the MTREF
• Budget % per priority area over the MTREF period
• Budget % per CIF project category pre and post evaluation
• Budget % per CIF project category and per geographic priority area for 2014/15
• CPM scoring system
 Assessment of how different departmental capital projects scored
against each other.
16
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16

•
Identification of projects that scored higher in another scenario as
opposed to the allocated project category.
 Level of information populated as part of the scoring critiria
Utilization of maps, tables and graphs to illustrate findings
The draft multi-year spreadsheet was populated by the GIS to include the GIS codes and
geographic priority area code based on the mapping data provided by departments.
The 2013 assessment made use of 8 locality codes to describe the locality of projects in
relation to the priority areas. The 2014 assessment has reduced the number of codes to
5. The priority area codes were revised as follows for the 2014 CIF implementation
assessment:
1 = Projects that intersect Priority area 1 (All projects that fall directly within or will
serve priority area 1, even if such a project is located within another priority area
or falls just outside of the priority area)
2 = Projects that intersect Priority area 2 (All projects that fall directly within or will
serve priority area 2, even if such a project is located within another priority area
or falls just outside of the priority area)
3 = Projects that intersect Priority area 3 (All projects that fall directly within or will
serve priority area 3, even if such a project is located within another priority area
or falls just outside of the priority area)
4 = Projects that fall outside of a priority area completely and does not serve any of
the priority areas
5 = Projects that fall outside of the urban edge
0 = Unmapped
The draft 2015/16 to 2017/18 multi-year capital budget spreadsheet was further
reviewed to ensure more accuracy in the data sets that would be utilized for analysis. The
following information was re-assessed in the draft multi-year capital budget spreadsheet
as was provided by the departments with capital projects for the MTREF period:
• The accuracy of the CIF project category allocated per project was assess and
changes highlighted in red.
• The number of projects that were mapped versus the number of projects that
could not be mapped.
• GIS was requested to map and allocate GIS codes for new shape-files for all
projects that were not mapped as part of the mapping sessions, but for which a
locality had been provided in the budget spreadsheet. Approximately a total of
number 205 projects could not be mapped out of a total of 1023 projects, which
derives 80% accuracy in the findings based on number of projects mapped for
the evaluation process. The mapped projects were run through the GIS to
determine the projects locality in relation to the geographic priority areas.
• The priority areas were rechecked by the Specialist Project Division to determine
accuracy in the mapping and source out errors that would impact on the
precision of findings.
17
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Once a more accurate data set was established the analysis phase commenced that included
the drafting of pivot tables, charts, and graphs.
Requests for maps were placed to the GIS division.
The testing of the CPM scoring derived with the assistance of consultant Demacon. The
testing firstly included placing the scoring criteria into the draft multi-year budget for
population by departments. Departments were informed of the testing CPM scoring and
were advised on the criteria for completion. A user manual to assist departments was also
provided in order to guide departments. The CPM scoring methodology, process and findings
are discussed in more detail in a report attached as Annexure “C”.
4.
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
a. Analysis of the Departmental Project evaluation
This section of the findings is purposed to indicate which projects were either removed from the
budget or for which funding was moved to the outer years of the MTREF due to matters
pertaining to project readiness and alignment. Findings in this regard can only be reflected after
the multi-year has served at IBALCO and the Budget Steering Committee.
b. Analysis based on the CIF project categories
This section aims to analyze the impact of the CIF evaluation on the multi-year capital budget
process by assessing the budget % change per CIF project category. The objective is to ensure
compliance with National Treasury requirements to budget no less than 40% for Upgrading and
renewal, and for the budget to start reflecting an increase in funding towards Economic
Development, whilst still allocating funding to Urban Restructuring in working towards the
eradication of historical backlogs. The CIF proposes the following budget percentage split
between the project categories as follows:
Urban Restructuring – 30%
Upgrading and Renewal – 40%
Economic Development – 29%
Local Interventions – 1%
In the 2013/14 test of the CIF evaluation it was identified that the greater percentage of the
budget at 49% was allocated to Upgrading and Renewal. The test on the 2013/14 also reflected
a budget percentage allocation of 38% to Urban restructuring and 12% to Economic
development. The 2013/14 findings therefore indicated that the 2013/14 budget allocation
towards projects that would contribute to economic development was low in comparison to the
29% advised within the CIF. This indicated a need to encourage and support more projects that
would cater for economic development as a means to promote economic growth and revenue
18
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
generation for the Council, whilst at the same time ensuring continued budget allocation in
addressing historical backlogs, and maintenance and provision of infrastructure.
Analysis conducted on the 2014/15 budget after the CIF budget evaluation reflected a 30%
budget allocation for Urban Restructuring and Economic Development Respectively, and a 40%
budget allocation for Upgrading and Renewal projects. The 2014/15 analysis indicated that the
percentage of funding per project category had aligned with the budget percentage split
proposed within the CIF.
In terms of analyzing the influence of the CIF evaluation process on the multi-year budget in
achieving improved alignment with the budget allocation, the budget % allocation was assessed
per CIF project category over the financial years 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 respectively. It
must be noted that the percentage figures will be subject to change after an assessment of the
final budget, which will provide a more accurate reflection of the post CIF evaluation of the
budget during the CIF/Budget evaluation process.
Diagram 4a illustrates the CIF evaluation for the 2015/16 budget. The findings reflect a budget
% allocation of 24% for Economic Development, 32% for Urban Restructuring, and 44% for
Upgrading and renewal. The budget % allocation split for the 2015/16 Financial year in
comparison to the 2014/15 financial year reflects an increase in budget allocation for Upgrading
and Renewal and Urban Restructuring projects, with a 6% drop in the budget allocation for
Economic Development Projects.
Diagram 4a – 2015/16 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Sum of Revised Budget
2015/16
32%
24%
0%
Economic
Development
local intervention
44%
Upgrading and
Renewal
Urban Restructuring
19
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 4b illustrates the 2016/17 budget percentage allocation split after the CIF evaluation. For the
2016/17 analysis of the budget % allocation split per project category the findings revealed a budget %
allocation of 27% for Economic Development Projects, 42% budget allocation for Upgrading and
Renewal projects, and a 31% budget allocation for Urban Restructuring projects. The 2016/17 budget
percentage allocation as compared to the 2015/16 budget percentage allocation for 2015/16 reveals a
2% increase for Economic Development, a 1% decrease for Urban Restructuring projects and a 2%
decrease for Upgrading and Renewal projects.
Diagram 4b - 2016/17 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Sum of Revised Budget
2016/17
Economic
Development
27%
31%
local intervention
42%
Upgrading and
Renewal
Urban Restructuring
0%
20
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 4c illustrates the 2017/18 percentage budget allocation split between the project categories
after the CIF evaluation. The CIF budget percenage allocation split for Economic Development reflects a
29% budget allocation, 23% budget allocation for Urban Restructuring, and 47% budget allocation for
Upgrading and Renewal projects. It must be noted that 8% drop in the budget allocation for Urban
Restructuring projects is in part a result of reduced accuracy in the project locality data provided for
projects that fall within the outer years of the MTREF, which makes it difficult to discern if the project
will benefit a PDA. Large general votes that are defined under upgrading and renewal may very well
disperse funding to PDA areas. However the lack of information only leaves the project discription for
determination of the project category that distorts data accuracy and findings for the outer financial
year.
Diagram 4c - 2017/18 Budget Percentage allocation per Project Category
Sum of New Budget 2017/18
23%
47%
Economic
Development
29%
local intervention
Upgrading and
Renewal
Urban Restructuring
1%
Table 3a as illustrated by the bar graph and corresponding diagram 4d provides a comprehensive
overview for comparison of the budget % allocations per project category per financial year as taken
from the 2013/14 to 2017/18 capital budget. Both the table and graph reveal a pattern of budgeting
per CIF project category from past to present.
For Upgrading and Renewal the budget percentage allocation split went from a nearly 50% budget
allocation to a 40% allocation in 2014/15. The outer financial year reflect a subtle increase in the
budget allocation for Upgrading and Renewal projects, but remains relatively consistent through to
the 2016/17 financial year. Subtle fluctuations in the budget % allocation can be attributed to
changes in a projects phasing. The 7% increase in the budget allocation for Upgrading and Renewal
projects from the 2014/15 budget to the 2017/18 budget may be as a result of poor information
21
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
availability and general votes that make accurate project category determination problematic. The
percentages in terms meeting the budget percentage allocation as per the CIF and National Treasury
requirements is positive in that the budget percentage allocation for Upgrading and Renewal remains
within the 40% percentile.
The budget percentage allocation split for Urban Restructuring projects as analyzed from 2013/14 to
2017/18 reflects a decline in the budget allocation from 38% in 2013/14 to 30% in 2014/15. Table 3a
and diagram 4d indicate that from 2014/15 through to 2016/17 the budget allocation for Urban
Restructuring projects remains relatively steady. The 8% decrease in the budget allocation for the
2017/18 financial as compared to the 2016/17 budget allocation of 31% reverts back to the data
constraints as described under the assessment of the Upgrading and Renewal project category that in
comparison reflected a much higher budget % allocation for 2017/18. It is noted however that
greater emphasis needs to be placed data refinement and viability for the 2017/18 budget. In
addition, the 2017/18 budget must be carefully monitored to ensure that urban restructuring
projects are sufficiently budgeted for and aligns with the CIF.
Ananlysis of the budget percentage allocation percentages as reflected in table 3a and diagram 4d
for Economic Development projects compared from the 2013/14 to 2017/18 Financial years reflect a
markable increase of 18% in the budget allocation for Economic Development projects from 2013/14
to 2014/15. The 2015/16 budget allocation reflects a 6% decline in the budget allocation for
Economic Development projects as compared to the 2014/16 budget, but with a steady incline in the
budget allocation by a 5% in the 2017/18 financial year as indicated by the 29% budget allocation.
The 6% decline in the 2015/16 budget can be attributed to economic development projects that are
still at the planning phase and projects that will be require more funding for project implementation
in the outer years. Overall the Economic Development projects remain within the 20% percentile and
meet the CIF budget % allocation in the 2017/18 financial year. The budget percentage allocation
split across the MTREF period needs to be strengthened in order to make allowance for more income
generating projects for the Metro, whilst keeping in mind issues such as project readiness.
Local interventions have been identified for the 2015/16 to 2017/18 multi-year budget, with a 1%
budget allocation in the 2017/18 financial year due to increased funds required in this financial year
for project implementation.
Table 3a – Summary of Budget Percentage Allocation per Project Category per Financial Year
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Upgrading and
49
40
44
42
47
Renewal
Urban
38
30
32
31
23
Restructuring
Economic
12
30
24
27
29
Development
Local
1
Interventions
22
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 4d: Bar graph showing comparison in Budget Allocation between Project Categories per Financial
Year
50
49
47
44
45
40
42
40
38
35
30 30
32
31
27
30
23
24
25
29
Urban Restructuring
Economic Development
20
15
Upgrading and Renewal
Local Interventions
12
10
5
0
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
c. Analysis based on the CIF geographic priority areas
In Section 3d a brief description is provided on the purpose of the CIF geographic priority areas
in providing a spatial rationale to the budget process in prioritizing projects for alignment with
the EMMs spatial strategy. There is further description in Section 3d that describes the three
priority areas and outlines the eight codes to describe the locality of a project in relation to the
priority areas. The locality codes listed under section 3d where therefore also utilized in the
evaluation process. The purpose of the analysis is to assess the budget % allocation in terms of
the priority areas that totals 466km2 of the EMMs surface areas and as a % split over the 5
locality code descriptions.
Diagram 5a as supported by map 2 and table 4a reflects the budget % spilt over the geographic
priority areas for the 2015/16 financial year. Codes 1 to 5 reflect all identified capital projects that fall
either directly within a one of the priority areas or intersects with one or more of the priority areas.
Diagram 5a as supported by the summary table 4a and corresponding diagram 5d indicates that for
the 2015/16 budget approximately 88% of the budget allocation comes from capital that either fall
directly within one of the three priority areas or boasts an area influence that will serve one or more
of the priority areas. It is important to note that due to the projects area of influence extending
across at times across more than one priority area this makes is difficult to indicate the exact budget
% split per priority area. Further assessment of the pie chart for the 2015/16 budget split between
the priority areas indicates a 69% budget allocation for projects fall within and serve priority area 1
23
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
exclusively or one or more of the other priority areas simultaneously. Code 2 which represents
projects influencing priority area 2 reflects the second highest budget allocation split at 13%, with a
6% budget allocation for priority area 3. Diagram 5a also indicates that 7% of the budget is allocated
towards projects that have no impact on any of the CIF priority areas, and that 5% of the budget is
allocated to projects that could not mapped.
Diagram 5a – Summary of the 2015/16 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Sum of Revised Budget 2015/16
6%
0%
5%
7%
unmapped
13%
Priority Area 1
Priority Area 2
69%
Priority Area 3
Outside Priority Area
Outside of Urban Edge
Corresponding map 2 geographically illustrates the locality of the 2015/16 multi-year capital projects per
department. The map starts to reflect where departments are budgeting spatially in relation to the spatial
priority of the EMM and in relation to one another. This gives indication of alignment of departmental
projects and alignment with the CIF priority areas.
Based on diagram 5a and map 2 it is evident that the bulk of departments budgeting is occurring within and
or directly serving the CIF priority areas. The also starts reflect constraints with the mapping data provided
especially where departments locate major projects to the corporate office. This is evident through the GIS
when a departments projects overlap spatially numerous times at one locality.
24
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Map 2: Geographic location of the 2015/16 financial year projects in relation to the CIF Priority Areas
25
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 5b as supported by table 4a and diagram 5d reflects that budget % allocation split between the CIF
priority areas as per the locality codes for the 2016/17 budget. Diagram 5b reflects that 91% of the budget
has been allocated between the CIF priority areas for projects that intersect and or serve one or more of the
priority areas. This reflects an increase in the budget allocation to the priority areas as compared to the
2015/16 budget. With regard to projects that serve priority area 1 diagram 5b reflects a 65% budget
allocation, which is 5% lower than the 2015/16 budget allocation of 69% for priority area 1. The 2016/17
budget further reflects a 17% budget allocation for priority area 2 and 9% for priority area 3, which yields a
4% and 3% increase respectively for the outer CIF priority areas. Further findings include a 3% decrease in the
budget allocation for projects that fall outside of the priority areas, whilst the budget allocation for
unmapped projects remains steady at 5%. .
Diagram 5b – Summary of the 2016/17 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Sum of Revised Budget 2016/17
0%
9%
5%
4%
0
17%
1
2
65%
3
4
5
Diagram 5c as supported by table 4a and diagram 5d illustrates the budget % split between the CIF
geographic areas per locality code for the 2017/18 financial year. The table and diagrams reflect an 89%
budget allocation for projects that serve the CIF priority areas. 70% of the budget allocation split if for priority
area 1, which accumulates from projects that either fall within the priority area, serves priority area 1 and
other priority areas and outside areas simultaneously. The 2017/18 budget allocation for priority area 1
increased from the 2016/17 budget allocation to reflect the highest budget allocation for priority area 1 as
compared the preceding financial year budgets. With regard to the percentage of budget allocation for
priority areas 2 and 3, there is a 10% budget allocation for priority area 2 and a 9% budget allocation for
priority area 3. A comparison with the 2016/17 budget indicates a 7% decrease in the budget allocation for
priority area 2 in the 2017/18 budget. The budget allocation for projects that do not serve a priority area
remains relatively steady with a 1% increase in budget allocation as compared to the 2016/17 Financial year.
The assessment of the 2017/18 budget indicates that 6% of the budget was allocated to projects that could
26
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
not be mapped and therefore could not be linked to a priority area. The 1% increase in the unmapped
projects is minimal, but starts to reflect a possible increase in the accuracy of data findings for the outer
financial year.
Diagram 5c - Summary of the 2017/18 Budget % Split between the CIF Geographic Priority areas
Sum of New Budget 2017/18
5% 0%
6%
9%
0
10%
1
2
70%
3
4
5
Table 4a and diagram 5d provides an overview of the budget % allocations and rand values as split over the
CIF priority areas as illustrated by the locality codes 0 through to 5 per financial year from 2015/16 to
2017/18. In summary the total budget allocation split is calculated between the locality codes 0 to 5 that
reflect projects located within or holding an area of influence in one of the CIF areas or fall outside a priority
area or falling outside of the urban edge. On average 89% of the budget allocation for capital projects over
the MTREF period is for projects that will serve the priority areas. Projects located outside of a priority area
and that do not reflect an area of influence in the priority areas reflects an average budget allocation of 5% as
calculated over the MTREF. The average budget allocation over the MTREF period for priority area 2 and 3 is
13% and 8%. Therefore, the projects located outside of the priority areas averages at 5% of the budget
allocation over the multi-year capital budget.
The high budget allocation for priority area 1 is positive in terms of alignment with the CIF priority areas and
spatial targeting through focusing increased into these areas. It must however be noted that the high budget
allocation for priority area 1 must be understood as comprising of funding from projects that either fall within
and or serve priority area 1 in addition to serving other priority areas and even areas that fall outside of a
priority area concurrently due to the fact that the assessment of projects locality in relation to the priority
areas takes into account the projects area of influence.
Assessment of the budget allocation for projects that could not be mapped revealed a reduction in the
budget allocation for unmapped projects. The reason for the reduction could be premised on mapping
information being made available for big budget projects. There is still a concern that the big budget projects
27
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
and as and when general votes are being mapped to the departments corporate office. Mapping of projects
to a corporate office distorts the analysis in terms of assessing alignment and budget allocation spatially.
Table 4a: Summary per financial year of the budget % split between the CIF Geographic Priority Areas
PRIORITY AREA
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
1 = Priority Area 1
69
65%
70%
2 = Priority Area 2
13%
17%
10%
3 = Priority Area 3
6%
9%
9%
4 = Outside of the Priority Areas
7%
4%
5%
5 = Outside of the Urban Edge
0%
0%
0%
0 = Unmapped
5%
5%
6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
Diagram 5d: Summary per financial year of the budget % split between the CIF Geographic Priority Areas
0 = Unmapped
5 = Outside of the Urban Edge
4 = Outside of the Priority Areas
3 = Priority Area 3
2 = Priority Area 2
6%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
5%
4%
7%
2017/18
2016/17
9%
9%
6%
2015/16
10%
17%
13%
70%
65%
69%
1 = Priority Area 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
d. Analysis of budget per CIF project category and per geographic priority area
The assessment of the CIF evaluation has thus fair included the independent assessment of the
budget % calculation of the project categories and the budget % split over the CIF geographic
priority areas per financial year. Section 4d therefore aims to assess the collective through
comparing the budget % split allocation of the project categories from the 2015/16 financial
year as calculated between the locality codes that determine project locality in relation to the
CIF priority areas. The objective is to identify what % of the budget is being allocated per priority
areas based on the project categories in order to determine firstly, whether there is possible
28
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
under spending of a project category within the priority areas, and secondly, to determine
where the project categories are budgeted for spatially in relation to the priority areas.
Diagram 6a indicates that 54% of the Urban Restructuring budget was allocated to projects that
serve priority area 1, and where 20% has been allocated to projects that serve priority area 2
and 5% for projects that serve priority area 3. There is a reflected 16% allocation of the total
Urban Restructuring budget that has been allocated to projects that serve areas which fall
outside of a priority area. For projects that could not be mapped, but were identified as Urban
Restructuring projects, there was a 5% budget allocation, which also highlights the number of
projects for Urban Restructuring that could not be demarcated in relation to a priority area.
Therefore 79% out of the total budget allocation for Urban Restructuring projects serve the CIF
priority areas.
Diagram 6a: Urban restructuring % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Urban Restructuring
0
1
2
3
4
5
0%
16%
5%
5%
20%
54%
29
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 6b indicates that 71% of the Upgrading and Renewal budget was allocated to projects
that serve priority area 1, and where 13% has been allocated to projects that serve priority area
2 and 6% for projects that serve priority area 3. There is a reflected 3% allocation of the total
Upgrading and Renewal budget that has been allocated to projects that serve areas which fall
outside of a priority area. For projects that could not be mapped, but were identified as
Upgrading and Renewal projects, there was a 7% budget allocation, which also highlights the
number of projects for Upgrading and Renewal that could not be demarcated in relation to a
priority area. Therefore 90% out of the total budget allocation for Upgrading and Renewal
projects serve the CIF priority areas.
Diagram 6b: Upgrading and Renewal % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Upgrading and Renewal
0
1
3%
6%
2
3
4
5
0%
7%
13%
71%
30
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Diagram 6c indicates that 83% of the Economic Development budget was allocated to projects
that serve priority area 1, and where 5% has been allocated to projects that serve priority area 2
and 7% for projects that serve priority area 3. There is a reflected 3% allocation of the total
Economic Development budget that has been allocated to projects that serve areas which fall
outside of a priority area. For projects that could not be mapped, but were identified as
Economic Development projects, there was a 2% budget allocation, which also highlights the
number of projects for the Economic Development project category that could not be
demarcated in relation to a priority area. Therefore 95% out of the total budget allocation for
Economic Development projects serve the CIF priority areas.
Diagram 6c: Economic Development % budget split between the CIF priority areas
Economic Development
0
1
2
3
3% 0%
4
5
2%
7%
5%
83%
Diagram 6d provides an overview summary of the budget % allocation split over the CIF priority areas based
on the locality codes per CIF project category for the 2015/16 budget. The budget % allocation for projects
that are located within or have an area of influence within the CIF geographic priority area 1 was determined
as 71% and 54% for Upgrading and Renewal and Urban Restructuring respectively. With 83% of the Economic
Development budget having been allocated to projects falling within or having an area of influence within
geographic priority area 1. Therefore, the three project categories have all demonstrated a greater than 70%
budget allocation (of the total budget allocation per project category) for projects that are located within or
have an area of influence within one of the priority areas. The Economic Development category
demonstrated the highest percentage allocation to the CIF priority areas as based out of the proportion of
31
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
budget allocation to Economic Development projects. Upgrading and Renewal however boasted the largest
rand value contribution to the priority areas despite indicating the second highest percentage of budget
allocation.
The assessment has also identified that the proportional budget % allocation for projects that fall outside of
the priority areas is significantly lower at 3% for Economic Development and 3% for Upgrading and Renewal
as compared to the higher proportional budget % allocation figures reflected for projects that intersect with a
priority area. Urban Restructuring reflected the highest proportion of budget allocation at 16% for projects
that fall outside of a priority area. Urban Restructuring however, reflected a proportional budget % allocation
of 16% for projects that could not be mapped and therefore could not be demarcated in terms of location to
the CIF geographic priority areas. It must also be noted that in viewing the proportion of budget % allocation
split over the locality codes per project category, the % figures must be read in terms of overall budget
allocation per category. For example Upgrading and Renewal has been allocated the highest proportion of
the 2015/16 budget as compared to the lower proportion of budget allocation for Economic Development
projects.
The high proportional budget % allocations per category and for projects that intersect one of the CIF priority
areas is viewed positively in that budget per category is providing sufficient budget for projects that support
the CIF priority areas in achieving spatial transformation through targeting the spatial allocation of the
budget.
Diagram 6d: Provides a comprehensive overview of the budget % split per priority area and per category
2E+09
1.8E+09
1.6E+09
1.4E+09
1.2E+09
Economic Development
1E+09
Upgrading and Renewal
800000000
Urban Restructuring
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
32
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONARY REMARKS
With regard to the CIF evaluation process followed and the outcome findings from the analysis of the
evaluation process the following recommendations are advised:
 Engagement with departments as preparation and advisement of CIF requirements prior to
the budget process must be continued as vital to the pre CIF evaluation. This will assist
departments in preparing for the budget and CIF evaluation process.
 The provision of the Arc-reader on the intranet as a means to provide departments with
access to the CIF priority areas should be continued as a useful tool to disseminate
information to EMM departments. The purpose of making the CIF priority areas accessible to
the departments on the intranet is aimed assisting the departments with assessment of
proposed projects alignment with the CIF priority areas as part of project prioritization and
alignment. In addition, departments should utilize the Arc-Reader on the intranet to
determine a projects priority area. Currently, the GIS division is still taking responsibility for
the populating of the priority areas. It is however, recommended that for pre-planning
purposes that the priority areas remain available on the intranet for use as and when required
by departments throughout the year.
 Departments are to be encouraged to provide a breakdown of large capital projects and
identify project localities and category as part of the business plan. In terms of the
requirements from National Treasury with regard to SA form 36, provision of a locality for all
projects is necessary. Engagement with departments in early 2015 on the CIF requirements as
part of the upcoming budget process for 2015/16 should be communicated to departments in
an effort to encourage departments to prepare for the CIF requirements well in advance. In
working towards better alignment of the capital budget with the CIF geographic priority areas,
departments will be required to provide a projects locality, and where no locality is provided
for projects that are not yet committed, consideration to exclude the project in this regard
may be a consequence in adopting more stringent measures to obtain better alignment.
 Project programming must also be considered as part of the budget process with guidance
from EPMO. This can potentially assist in avoiding duplications in budgeting amongst
departments and discourage the use of large general as and when required votes.
 The identification of project categories by the departments need to be guided by making the
project category definitions available as part of the budget instruction letter, with the
provision of additional guidance notes in this regard.
 With regard to departments also providing a capital projects area of influence, individual
engagement with departments will need to be held to discuss the purpose of mapping a
projects area of influence in terms of the CIF geographic priority areas and for agreement with
the respective departments on how the area of influence will be mapped based on the nature
of the project. Therefore, departments can agree to a predetermined set of service level
standards. This will assist the GIS in mapping specific projects area of influence during the
mapping sessions.
33
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16








Continued engagement between the key departments (Finance, Human Settlements,
Environment, EPMO, Economic Development and City Planning) both pre and post CIF and
budget evaluation.
Departments to be timeously notified of the individual evaluations per department.
The utilization of the GIS codes for individual departmental projects proved useful in
evaluating the projects locality and area of influence in relation to the CIF geographic areas.
A number of departments did not take responsibility for the mapping data that was required
by the CIF such as the GIS code, GPS co-ordinates, and property description. In some cases no
information was provided. Departments were commonly found to only complete the property
description. The development of an electronic data base as linked directly to the capital
budget needs to be established, and which system should force departments to complete the
necessary fields required for the mapping of capital projects.
Subjectivity needs to be removed from the CPM scoring criteria.
The Urban Restructuring scenario of the CPM scoring and weighting system must be relooked
at given that the largest percentage of inconsistency emanated from findings around this
scenario. Changes to the scoring system will also require retesting against the multi-year
capital budget projects.
There is therefore an identified need to establish an electronic database for the CIF and
budget process that is accessible by departments. This will allow for increased transparency
and quick access to information. Editing rights can be limited to departments as and when
required.
Departments will need to be met with individually in order to clean up mapping data for
project locality and area of influence. Data inaccuracies and gaps need to be addressed to
ensure increased viability of data obtained for mapping on the current multi-year budget.
Further recommendation and concluding remarks from the GIS perspective has been provided on the
mapping process as follows:
 Each department must know whether they want to map their project to a property,
township, CCA, ward or own polygon, point or line prior to sitting with GIS.
 The person/s sitting with GIS must know about the projects that need to be captured. We
can’t help them when they are the ‘wrong person’ for a project/s and sometimes don’t even
know why they came to the budget meeting and to GIS.
 In future single properties will be mapped as points and not as polygons, as the properties
captured were done as polygons, but GIS info received was captured as points. Must
standardise.
 Breakdown of vote numbers must be done prior to GIS starting to map. Changes later cause
confusion and make numbering extremely difficult.
 Also, mapping should only be done once finance has finalised their spread sheet. Continuous
changes cause confusion. Mapping of departmental projects before the submission of the
consolidated draft multi-year budget resulted in projects being placed onto the draft budget
that were not taken into account during the mapping sessions. This results in a reduction in
the number of mapped projects for assessment against the CIF.
 It is highly advisable that finance work from a single database and not a spread sheet. We
must all access the same data at the same time and not different versions or copies that need
to be collated later.
34
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16









As capturing is done by a number of people with their own version of the spread sheet,
filtering, cutting and pasting and making spread sheet changes cause mistakes when trying to
merge the info into one spread sheet again. To find mismatches is not easy.
Initial capturing will not include the three year budget breakdown again, as finance move and
split monies afterwards, which make our capturing a futile exercise.
Actual years and amounts and additional fields will only be linked to the final spread sheet/
database.
Clear distinction whether numbering must be done by department only or also by section or
division.
No numbering for row items will be done if the info of location will be forwarded later. Many
times this does not happen and we have gaps in our numbers in the GIS OR finance must
allocate a UNIQUE number to each row we must use in the GIS.
It was clear that in most cases the departments did not use different property descriptions
per financial year, but just did a copy and paste.
GIS and departments must be given more time to capture properly before mapping must be
done.
Once mapping is done and budget items keep on changing it is not always easy to do the
mapping again to include the changes.
Most of the time small changes (like adding a project) has a ripple effect and necessitate
certain analysis to be done from scratch. Queries that run through a thousand projects are
many times the same for one or two projects (same process). In effect, we are wasting time
and upsetting the GIS Specialists for doing the same things again and again (which changes
sometimes can’t be seen on the map).
The key departments contributed the evaluation process as appointed representative members
to the ratified CIF Operational Task Team. The Operational Task Team members that
participated in the CIF/Budget evaluation were requested to provide comments and
recommendations pertaining to the overall evaluation process.
Comments:
 The process was noted as adding value with regard to affording departments the
rationale behind the budget submissions, and for the Operational Task Team to raise
matters of concerns and redress with the departments on a one on one basis.
 The Task Team “stressed the importance of proper specific planning and compliance
with requirements from National Treasury”.
 Need to stringently address department’s reluctance to breakdown large generic
votes, as this will hinder the department’s ability to shift funding between projects.
 Need to address the magnitude by which a department’s draft budget submission
exceeds what is realistically available.
 The capital needs to be increased (especially as compared to the size of the capital
budget allocation for other metros).
 Making allowance for departments to be able to shift funding for approved votes and
as subject to set conditions laid out by the CFO and for processing through the
Operational Task Team.
35
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16
Recommendations:






Suggested changes to the CPM scoring criteria under the environmental variable.
Project readiness to be included as part of the Capital Prioritization Model.
Cognizance to be taken of the EPMO project stage gates.
Programme budgeting needs to be looked into (budget broken down per programme
to assist with increased alignment between departments).
“As and when and the capping concept affects departments”.
Consideration to perhaps guide the budget split also per community needs, precincts,
and project integration.
In conclusion the workshops held as part of the CIF requirements and implementation that formed part of
the budget evaluation process proved successful in attendance and revealed a positive response amongst the
departments, which is evident in that approximately 80% of the capital projects were mapped. It must be
noted that there is however that despite the relatively high percentage of projects mapped there was a 10%
reduction recorded in the number of mapped projects as compared to the 2013 mapping exercise. This can
be attributed in part to the mapping sessions taking place during the timeframe allocated to departments to
draft their department capital budgets for submission to the Finance Department.
The analysis of the CIF evaluation process also revealed that the evaluation process as being fruitful in
establishing improved budget % allocations between the CIF project categories to balance future expenditure
between promoting economic growth and reducing backlogs, whilst meeting National Treasury requirements
to budget a minimum of 40% towards Upgrading and Renewal Projects. In addition findings reflect that an
average of 80% of the budget allocation as calculated for the MTREF period is for projects that will serve the
priority areas. In terms of the analysis the outcome findings reflect increased alignment with the CIF.
36
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIF 2015/16