Mossel Bay Property Owners Association (MPOA)

In South African law, municipalities are legally required to provide budgetary context when proposing rates increases, and public participation must be meaningful—not symbolic. Here's a breakdown of the key legislation, regulations, and principles that govern this:

📜 Key Laws and Regulations

1. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
• Section 152(1)(e): Mandates municipalities to encourage the involvement of communities in matters of local governance.
• Section 195(1)(e): Public administration must be transparent and provide timely, accessible information.

2. Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000
• Section 16 & 17: Requires municipalities to develop a culture of public participation and establish mechanisms for it.
• Section 25–29: Public participation is required in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), which must align with budget and rates decisions.
• Section 42: Community participation must be facilitated in the performance management system, which includes financial planning.

3. Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) 56 of 2003
• Section 22: Municipalities must publish the annual budget and invite public comment at least 90 days before the start of the financial year.
• Section 23: Requires consideration of public inputs before finalizing the budget.
• Section 24: The council must approve the budget before the start of the financial year.
• Section 15 & 16: No expenditure may be incurred unless it is in terms of an approved budget.

4. Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004
• Section 4(1): Municipalities may levy rates only by resolution of the council.
• Section 5: Requires public consultation before adopting a rates policy.
• Section 6 & 7: Rates must be levied in accordance with the approved budget and rates policy.
• Section 17: Public notice must be given of the council's intention to levy rates, including the amount and purpose.

5. Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) 3 of 2000
• Section 3: Requires fair administrative action, including adequate notice and reasons for decisions—such as rates increases.

⚖️ Implications for Municipal Practice
• A municipality cannot legally conduct public participation on rates increases without presenting the supporting budgetary rationale.
• Public participation must be informed, meaning residents must have access to the proposed budget, rates policy, and explanatory documents.
• Failure to provide this information may render the process procedurally unfair and open to legal challenge under PAJA.

Email from the Director of Corporate Services, Mossel Bay Municipality, regarding the September 2025 public participation session on the IDP and the 2026/27 budget and rate increases.

Good day Mr Smit,

Your correspondence has been referred to me. Before it can be forwarded to the relevant departments for input, I would like to confirm the financial year to which your letter pertains.

Currently, there is no draft budget or proposed tariffs available for the 2026/2027 financial year. In September 2025, the Municipality provided the community with an opportunity to submit input regarding the 2026/2027 budget. These submissions are currently being processed and will be presented to the Executive Directorate for consideration in terms of feasibility and prioritisation. Recommendations will then be submitted to the Budget Management Committee, which is expected to convene in February 2026.

The draft budget and proposed tariffs for 2026/2027 will thereafter be published for public comment. Although legislation requires municipalities to facilitate public participation at least 14 days before the Council meeting, Mossel Bay Municipality typically initiates this process two months in advance. The final budget for 2026/2027 will be approved and published by the Council by 30 May 2026.

Once there is clarity regarding the year you are referring to, an appropriate response can be provided.

Kind regards,
Anette Potgieter
Director of Corporate Services

Original e-mail Smit - Annette Potgieter Budget in Afrikaans.pdf

Statement Regarding Public Participation and Information Disclosure in Mossel Bay Walk-In Meetings

The Walk-In meetings convened by the Mossel Bay Municipality since the 2021–2022 financial year have consistently failed to meet the standards of meaningful public engagement as envisioned in the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000) and related participatory frameworks. The seven-page document distributed at these meetings lacks sufficient detail and fails to provide the necessary context, data, and proposals required for informed community participation.

In terms of section 16 of the Municipal Systems Act, municipalities are obligated to promote community involvement in decision-making processes. This includes providing adequate notice and access to relevant documentation. The absence of a comprehensive and detailed agenda or supporting documents at least 14 days prior to the meeting—as required for effective consultation—constitutes a procedural deficiency and undermines the principles of transparency and accountability.

For public participation to be substantive rather than symbolic, the community must be afforded reasonable time and access to information to prepare, engage, and respond. The failure to provide such documentation in advance renders these engagements ineffective and contrary to the spirit of cooperative governance.

Seven page document provided at the meeting

MPOA Document:
Municipality Loast R8m in one Single Event.pdf

Original Court File:
Case no-- 33-2023 MBM vs Steenkamp J and S (1).pdf

Here's a breakdown of the relevant legal architecture:

1. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
• Section 152 & 153: Municipalities are tasked with providing services in a sustainable manner and promoting social and economic development.
• Section 156(1): Municipalities may only administer functions assigned to them by national or provincial legislation.
• Implication: If a function is not constitutionally or legislatively assigned to a municipality, it cannot be funded through municipal budgets—i.e., ratepayer money.

2. Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA), Act 56 of 2003
• Section 15: Municipal funds may only be spent on approved budgeted items.
• Section 17(2): Budgets must reflect only legally mandated functions.
• Section 19 & 33: Capital projects and long-term contracts must be aligned with municipal functions and undergo feasibility and affordability checks.
• Implication: Spending on non-municipal functions is unlawful unless explicitly authorized and budgeted through proper channels.

3. Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, Act 32 of 2000
• Section 8 & 11: Municipalities may only perform functions assigned by law.
• Section 76–80: Service delivery mechanisms include partnerships, but must be legally compliant and transparent.
• Implication: External partnerships (e.g., with NGOs or private entities) may be used for functions outside municipal scope, but not funded by ratepayer money unless the function is legally assigned.

4. Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Act 1 of 1999 & Treasury Regulations
• Treasury Regulation 16: Governs Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs).
• Implication: PPPs must follow strict feasibility, approval, and procurement processes. They are often used for functions not directly assigned to municipalities.

💡 Practical Interpretation
If a community wants to support a function that is not legally assigned to the municipality—say, a provincial health initiative or national policing support—it cannot be funded through municipal rates. Instead, it must be:
•    Funded through donations, grants, or external partnerships.
•    Administered via legally compliant agreements, such as PPPs or service-level agreements.
•    Excluded from the municipal budget unless formally delegated by higher government.

Mossel Bay Municipality News Letter of August 2025.pdf



 

The Pact for the Future, adopted at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York in September 2024, is designed to accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

That agenda, as you probably know, is the global blueprint for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—from ending poverty and hunger to tackling climate change and promoting peace and justice.
Here's how the Pact ties in:

🔗 Key Connections to Agenda 2030

Renewed Commitments: The Pact reaffirms global dedication to the SDGs and calls for concrete action plans to meet them.

Global Governance Reform: It pushes for updates to international institutions to better support SDG implementation.

Digital and Climate Focus: Annexes like the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations address tech equity and sustainability—both central to Agenda 2030.

Inclusive Participation: The Summit included civil society, youth, and local authorities to ensure the Pact reflects diverse voices, just like the SDGs aim to leave no one behind.

So yes, the Pact for the Future is not just linked—it's a strategic boost to the Agenda 2030 movement. If you're curious, I can break down how specific SDGs are addressed in

Please submit your objection by 30 September 2025.

Mosselbay Municipality 2026_27 Draft IDP Budget Review Ward 10.pdf

Objection in Word:
Objections Closing date for Objections 30 September 2025.docx

Objection in PDF:
Objections Closing date for Objections 30 September 2025.pdf

Objection as send by e-mail:
e-mail Objection to Budget and IDP.pdf

Mossel Bay Municipality Reply Letter of 2025-10-08:
Mossel Bay Municipality Reply Letter Budget Objection 2026-27.pdf

Our Response to Mossel Bay Municipality Letter Dated 2025-10-08
1) Response to the Objection Reply from Mossel Bay Municipality.pdf
2) Annexure A.pdf
3) Annexure B.pdf 

Public Meeting - 16 September 2025 - Aalwyndal Link: https://vimeo.com/1119669844?fl=pl&fe=sh

We strongly oppose the adoption of the proposed Strategic Biodiversity Offset Framework Plan.

MOSSEL BAY NEWS - More than 120 members of the public, including the residents and property owners of Aalwyndal, gathered in the Mossel Bay Town Hall on Tuesday 16 September for a highly anticipated public information session about the potential development of the Aalwyndal area.


Objection to the Strategic Biodiversity Offset Framework Plan – Aalwyndal & Hartenbos Mossel Bay

Objection Closing date: 30 September 2025

Western Cape Department of Economic Development and Tourism (WCDEDT)
E-mail:
(-1)- Head of Department Jo-Ann Johnston:  ecohead@westerncape.gov.za
(-2)- Joe-Mark Arnold (Head of Communications): Joe-Mark.Arnold@westerncape.gov.za
(-3)- Cindy Rose Project Manager: Cindy.Rose@westerncape.gov.za
(-4)- Douglas MacFarlane Project Leader: Douglas.MacFarlane@westerncape.gov.za

Mossel Bay Municipality:
E-mail:
(-5) Jaco Roux - jroux@mosselbay.gov.za
(-6) Dirk Kotze - dkotze@mosselbay.gov.za
(-7) Colin Puren - cpuren@mosselbay.gov.za
(-8) Yolande Van der Berg - yvanderberg@mosselbay.gov.za

MGEV and MPOA:
E-mail:
(-9) admin@mgev.co.za

Eco-Pulse:
E-mail:
(-10) ecologic@mweb.co.za 

WHO IT MAY CONCERN

I am a Property Owner in Mossel Bay OR I am a South African (Any one have the Right to Object to this madness)

We strongly oppose the adoption of the proposed Strategic Biodiversity Offset Framework Plan. While conservation is a shared imperative, this framework unfairly burdens private landowners with disproportionate financial obligations and strips them of fundamental property rights. The imposition of annual levies reaching R16,500 per hectare, compulsory membership in a Master Homeowners Association, and rezoning mandates—without adequate public consultation or opt-out mechanisms—amounts to coercive governance.

This plan shifts the cost of ecological stewardship from developers to the broader community, creating a funding gap that is irresponsibly filled by ordinary residents. It weaponizes rezoning and servitude registration to enforce compliance, while offering minimal transparency or accountability in the management of conservation funds.

We reject the notion that biodiversity protection must come at the expense of affordability, autonomy, and fairness. Conservation must be collaborative—not punitive. This framework, as it stands, is deeply flawed and must be reconsidered.


Your Name:
Your e-mail
Your Cell Number:

One:

Rates must remain affordable for ratepayers. Annual increases should be carefully managed to stay below inflation, or at the very least, align with the Consumer Price Index.

Over the past five years, municipal rates in Mossel Bay have increased by 100%—a staggering 80% above inflation. This pattern of excessive escalation is unacceptable and must be actively opposed by ratepayers.

Two:

Be a responsible steward of the public trust and the funds entrusted to the care of the municipality.

Read the letters to treasury about the steardship of ratespayers public trust money

(Letter 1)
(Letter 2)
(Letter 3)

The questions asked in the second and third letter is still unanswered after 6 months from Treasury and the Municipality

Three

Municipal funds must be used responsibly and with clear purpose. Community resources should not be squandered on ventures or partnerships such as SAPS-related systems or power generation initiatives. These are highly specialized domains that lie beyond the core mandate of a municipality. Ratepayers rightly expect their contributions to be directed toward dependable service delivery—not diverted into costly experiments better handled by national authorities or private sector experts.

The Joint Operations Centre (JOC) initiative has proven to be a complete failure, resulting in an enormous cost to the public.
The MPOA official complaint about the 2025/26 Budget Electric power generation not a municipal function.

Feedback received since the last communication on 5 August 2025 with the Title:
-- Invitation: Mossel Bay Property Owners Unification - Pre-Meeting Discussion -

Feedback from Social Media Platforms and WhatsApp Groups

The following concerns have emerged prominently:

A) Pier Aucamp - Hartenbos

Mr. Aucamp highlights a serious issue regarding missing property plans at the municipality. If the municipality does not have updated plans linked to your property, it cannot be legally transferred to a new owner. The current municipal stance is to require new plans-at the owner's expense-regardless of the property's age or whether any improvements have been made. For example, Mr. Aucamp had to pay over R30,000 to have new plans drawn up for his property, originally built in the 1950s.
Recommendation: All property owners should verify whether the municipality has their property plans on file. If not, this should be reported to the Mossel Bay Property Owners Association (MPOA). Addressing this issue should be a top priority for the proposed Property Owners Unification Movement.

B) Solar Plant Development - Hartenbos Surge Farm:
Concerns have been raised about the proposed R1.2 billion solar plant development. Despite its scale, the project remains vague and undefined, with no clear updates provided to ratepayers. The lack of transparency and communication from the municipality regarding the feasibility and progress of the initiative is deeply troubling.

Concern: Mossel Bay ratepayers are calling for greater clarity and accountability on this major development.

Feedback from the selected 20 leaders for the Mossel Bay Property Owners Unification - Pre-Meeting Discussion movement:

1) Thenis Stein - See detailed e-mail attached

The attached proposal remains pertinent for securing broad-based community support. When comparing PHES to Hartenbos's hybrid system, the economic advantage is evident. In the absence of a formal community structure, the concept is being shared to facilitate participation in the tender process and should be favourably received by decision-makers.
Further analysis of the News24 article on the Hartenbos solar farm raises serious concerns. Findings indicate that electricity supplied via the solar installation costs approximately 210% more than Eskom's listed price. Theunis, an engineer with over 30 years of experience in energy production, believes the project was politically motivated. In his professional view, wind energy would have been a more efficient and cost-effective solution for Mossel Bay's energy needs.
Importantly, the Mossel Bay Municipality was made aware of this recommendation in a report submitted via email in June 2023.

2) Adv. Gerrit Coetzee - See e-mail attached

I respectfully request the opportunity to elaborate further under my designated segment on the proposed Senate application to the Constitutional Court. This will allow me to align the concept with existing Constitutional outcomes and present it within the broader strategic framework and endorsement of the MGEV/MPOA's guiding principles.
Advocate Gerrit Coetzee has been responded to, with a request from our side to kindly provide his feedback and guidance. We sincerely thank him for his valued support and meaningful contributions to the planned movement, which continue to strengthen our shared vision and strategic direction.

Kind regards,
Johan Gräbe
On behalf of the:
Mossel Bay Ratepayers and Property Owners Associations Unification Initiative

1) e-mail from Thenis Stein.pdf

Attachments to e-mail of Thenis Stein.
1a) Mos. Mun. Power Supply advice - By PHES - 28 July 2023.pdf
1b) Mos. Mun. Power Supply cost per kwh.pdf
1c)Original Document with Formulas – Excel File: Mossel Bay Municipality Power Supply Cost per kWh.xlsx

2) e-mail from Adv. Gerrit Coetzee.pdf 

Request from Government

White Paper on Local Government 1998 Review.pdf

Proposed Plan from Mosselbay Property Owners Assosiation

Eden Proof of Concept Rescue Plan for South Africa.pdf

Recording Of the On-Line meeting:

https://vimeo.com/1096812081
Password: NTU2025