EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
FINANCIAL PLAN, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
DEPARTMENT |
2003/2004 |
2004/2005 |
2005/2006 |
2006/2007 |
2007/2008 |
OWN FUNDS |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and Legal |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Development Planning |
11 500 000 |
12 362 500 |
13 289 688 |
14 286 414 |
15 357 895 |
Electricity |
70 500 000 |
75 787 500 |
81 471 563 |
87 581 930 |
94 150 574 |
Employment Equity |
1 000 000 |
1 075 000 |
1 155 625 |
1 242 297 |
1 335 469 |
Environment and Tourism |
5 000 000 |
5 375 000 |
5 778 125 |
6 211 484 |
6 677 346 |
Finance |
20 000 000 |
21 500 000 |
23 112 500 |
24 845 938 |
26 709 383 |
Health and Social Development |
20 500 000 |
22 037 500 |
23 690 313 |
25 467 086 |
27 377 117 |
Housing |
33 670 000 |
36 195 250 |
38 909 894 |
41 828 136 |
44 965 246 |
Pooled Funds |
51 469 302 |
55 329 500 |
59 479 212 |
63 940 153 |
68 735 665 |
LED |
20 060 000 |
21 564 500 |
23 181 838 |
24 920 475 |
26 789 511 |
Public Safety |
23 000 000 |
24 725 000 |
26 579 375 |
28 572 828 |
30 715 790 |
Roads, Transport and Civil Works |
124 126 260 |
133 435 730 |
143 443 409 |
154 201 665 |
165 766 790 |
Solid Waste |
44 500 000 |
47 837 500 |
51 425 313 |
55 282 211 |
59 428 377 |
SRAC |
13 700 000 |
14 727 500 |
15 832 063 |
17 019 467 |
18 295 927 |
Water and Wastewater |
64 110 000 |
68 918 250 |
74 087 119 |
79 643 653 |
85 616 927 |
TOTAL |
503 135 562 |
540 870 729 |
581 436 034 |
625 043 736 |
671 922 017 |
|
|
||||
EXTERNAL GRANT FUNDING |
|
|
|
|
|
MDF |
2 997 000 |
3 221 775 |
3 463 408 |
3 723 164 |
4 002 401 |
CMIP |
73 586 000 |
84 406 000 |
95 000 000 |
102 125 000 |
109 784 375 |
PHB |
303 852 407 |
326 641 338 |
351 139 438 |
377 474 896 |
405 785 513 |
Blue IQ |
64 850 000 |
69 713 750 |
74 942 281 |
80 562 952 |
86 605 174 |
PPP |
2 829 000 |
3 041 175 |
3 269 263 |
3 514 458 |
3 778 042 |
INEP |
8 686 000 |
8 686 000 |
9 500 000 |
10 212 500 |
10 978 438 |
Gautrans |
9 715 510 |
10 444 173 |
11 227 486 |
12 069 548 |
12 974 764 |
Sanral |
5 000 000 |
5 375 000 |
5 778 125 |
6 211 484 |
6 677 346 |
National (Other) |
1 700 000 |
1 827 500 |
1 964 563 |
2 111 905 |
2 270 298 |
Provincial (Other) |
7 650 000 |
8 223 750 |
8 840 531 |
9 503 571 |
10 216 339 |
Other |
18 201 795 |
19 566 930 |
21 034 449 |
22 612 033 |
24 307 936 |
|
499 067 712 |
541 147 390 |
586 159 545 |
630 121 511 |
677 380 624 |
|
|
||||
TOTAL |
1 002 203 274 |
1 082 018 120 |
1 167 595 579 |
1 255 165 247 |
1 349 302 640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EKURHULENI MULTI-YEAR BUDGET FORECASTING MODEL - EXTERNAL DEBT MODEL |
|||||
|
Budget #1 |
Forecast #2 |
Forecast #3 |
Forecast #4 |
Forecast #5 |
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
|
/ 2003 |
/ 2004 |
/ 2005 |
/ 2006 |
/ 2007 |
Total Council |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans taken up before 1st budget year |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of old loans at end of 'actual' year |
R 1 387 987 929 |
|
|
|
|
Interest - External (on loans taken up prior to budget year) |
R 158 455 753 |
R 171 763 372 |
R 159 825 904 |
R 148 525 344 |
R 124 444 894 |
Principal Repayment External (on loans taken up prior to budget year) |
R 134 681 631 |
R 71 120 545 |
R 60 857 200 |
R 203 799 363 |
R 66 709 713 |
Expenditure in budget year - "old" |
R 293 137 384 |
R 242 883 917 |
R 220 683 104 |
R 352 324 707 |
R 191 154 607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of "old" loans |
R 1 253 306 298 |
R 1 182 185 753 |
R 1 121 328 553 |
R 917 529 190 |
R 850 819 477 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans taken up in & after first budget year |
|
|
|
|
|
New external loan raised |
|
R 400 000 000 |
|
|
|
Interest due at end of following year |
|
R 53 323 199 |
R 50 430 176 |
R 47 133 414 |
R 43 376 568 |
Principal repayment due at end of following year |
|
R 20 730 157 |
R 23 623 179 |
R 26 919 942 |
R 30 676 789 |
Expenditure in budget year - "new" |
R 0 |
R 74 053 356 |
R 74 053 355 |
R 74 053 356 |
R 74 053 357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of "new" loans |
R 0 |
R 379 269 843 |
R 355 646 664 |
R 328 726 722 |
R 298 049 933 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined totals - all external loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest due |
R 158 455 753 |
R 225 086 571 |
R 210 256 080 |
R 195 658 758 |
R 167 821 462 |
Principal repayment due |
R 134 681 631 |
R 91 850 702 |
R 84 480 379 |
R 230 719 305 |
R 97 386 502 |
Expenditure in budget year - total |
R 293 137 384 |
R 316 937 273 |
R 294 736 459 |
R 426 378 063 |
R 265 207 964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of all external debt outstanding |
R 1 253 306 298 |
R 1 561 455 596 |
R 1 476 975 217 |
R 1 246 255 912 |
R 1 148 869 410 |
INSTITUTION |
DATE |
RATING SHORT TERM |
RATING LONG TERM |
New Republic Bank |
November 98 |
A2 |
BBB |
FBC Fidelity |
August 99 |
A2 |
BBB |
The occurrences above emphasize the fact that investments should be made in such a way not only to achieve the best investment at a competitive rate of interest, but also to ensure the best security is obtained.
The events as indicated above leaves one reluctant to invest Council’s funds at any institution with a rating below A.1, for the short term, 0 – 12 months, and A+ for the long term, 12 months and longer, as defined in the National Rating Definitions attached as Annexure A.
At present the following financial institutions comply with the criteria above:
INSTITUTION |
SHORT TERM |
LONG TERM |
SUPPORT |
Absa Group |
A1+ |
AA |
2 |
Boe Bank Limited |
A1 |
A+ |
2 |
First Rand Group |
A1+ |
AA |
2 |
Investec Group |
A1 |
A+ |
4 |
Nedcor Bank |
A1+ |
AA |
2 |
Nedcor Investment Bank |
A1 |
A+ |
3 |
Standard Bank |
A1+ |
AA |
2 |
GENSEC |
A1 |
A |
3 |
IBSA |
A1 |
A |
3 |
The rates offered on investments by some of these institutions are not very competitive which in the end compel one to invest large amounts with some of the institutions above, in order to maximize the potential interest to be earned. This practice also has the inherent danger of overexposure to some extent, which can result in relatively larger losses should one of those highly rated institutions develop difficulties.
It would be suggested that when long term investments need to be made, it be made with institutions with minimum long term ratings of A+.
With regard to short term investments which are regularly redeemed and re-invested to ensure sufficient cash flow, it would be suggested that these investments be done by the HOD: Finance or his nominee as is presently the case and that Council’s exposure to institutions which falls within the criteria above, be limited as follows:
A1+ short term ratings: 3% of the institutions total equity as published from time to time in the Fitch Banking Sector Report.
A1 short term ratings: 2% of the institutions total equity as published from time to time in the Fitch Banking Sector Report.
Since there are some of the institutions above, who do not deal directly with non-taxable organisations such as the Council, in certain investments such as Zero Bonds and promissory notes, which are usually required as security when an institution such as the Council negotiate a long term loan on the Capital market, it would be suggested that investments of such a nature (instrument in future be done by the HOD : Finance or his nominee in consultation with the Finance/Portfolio Councillor and Council Manager and that they obtain professional advice/assistance from an acknowledged/authorised financial advisor as approved by Council, if necessary.
It would also be suggested that Council retain its subscription with one of the reputable rating agencies in South Africa, in order to monitor the official ratings and to manage Council’s investments accordingly.
Borrowing Money for Re-investment
Money should not be borrowed for investment purposes.