Jamestown Residents Petition

This premium content has been made freely available

Public Enterprises

31 July 2020
Chairperson: Mr Khaya Magaxa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Jamestown Residents Petition

The Committee was called to deal with a petition presented by Dr Leon Schreiber, Democratic Alliance Member of Parliament, on behalf of the community of Jamestown, Stellenbosch, which had faced delays in the provision and maintenance of their streetlight infrastructure. Representatives from Eskom and the Stellenbosch Municipality were asked in a virtual meeting to provide information on why the delay had occurred in the handover of responsibility for the streetlights from Eskom to the municipality.

After the presentations by each party involved, and with Eskom committing to resolving the matter as quickly as possible, Members voiced their opinion that this issue need not have been escalated to the national level and brought before the Committee, as it appeared that all parties were in agreement. In the absence of any serious issues over the transfer of the street light maintenance responsibility, it was agreed that the Committee give the parties space to allow the process to be concluded. 

Meeting report

Jamestown residents’ submission

Dr Leon Schreiber (DA) introduced the petition and said that, as previously mentioned by the Chairperson, there would usually be a visit to the community, but because of the lockdown regulations this would not be possible.

He introduced Mr Deon Louw, Director of Infrastructure at Stellenbosch municipality, would provide the Committee with background and technical details. He also introduced Ward Councillor for Ward 21, Mr Rikus Badenhorst -- the ward in which Jamestown was located, Public Relations (PR) Councillor Manie Pieterson, Rene van Rooyen and Dale Simons from the Jamestown Ratepayer Association, and Gerado Williams from the Jamestown Neighbourhood Watch.

Dr Schreiber said he had joined the Stellenbosch municipal constituency in May 2019 after the national elections. The municipality encompassed the communities of Franschhoek, Klapmuts, Kylemore, Pniel and Wemmershoek.  The issue of street light infrastructure and maintenance had emerged quickly. He later learnt that there was a distinction between certain areas where the municipality had responsibility for maintenance and matters regarding street light infrastructure, but there were a few areas that were exceptions, where street light infrastructure and maintenance were the responsibility of Eskom. These areas included the Jamestown and Mountainview area, which this specific petition concerned. There were, however, areas which were in addition to the petition. For the record, these other areas which were affected were the Klapmuts area, Kylemore, La Motte and Wemmershoek.

Dr Schreiber said that in summary, the question before the Committee was why, despite discussions between Stellenbosch Municipality and Eskom to ensure that the areas listed would have their the control and maintenance functions transferred from Eskom to the Stellenbosch municipality, this had not occurred. There had been a serious delay, as could be seen from Eskom’s presentation, which showed that discussions had been on-going for at least a year, and possibly longer. This petition presented to the Committee was to get this delayed process expedited.

Jamestown and Mountainview were viewed as a pilot for this type of transfer. The take home point was that there was a pressing need to expedite this process to provide working street lights to an area which was facing increased crime because of not having this basic infrastructure. The Stellenbosch Municipality, unlike many municipalities, had significant capacity to “lighten the load” of an institution such as Eskom.  It had the technical, financial, and other wherewithal required to take over this function successfully. In the process, it was advantageous for Eskom, as they would be relieved of some of the pressure under which they operated and, at the same time, it would allow Stellenbosch municipality to address some of the long-standing issues facing communities. 

Stellenbosch Municipality’s submission

Mr Deon Louw, Director of Infrastructure, briefed the Committee on the costs that Stellenbosch Municipality incurred on the street lights in Jamestown that were provided by Eskom. There was both an energy rate and a maintenance rate charged on the street lights. The actual asset belonged to the municipality, but currently the street lights within the Eskom-licensed area were maintained by Eskom. The problem was that there were many street lights which were not working. For example, a third of the street lights in Kylemore, as well as in Jamestown, were not working.

The problem was that the energy was measured by the metered amount used, but in terms of the number of lights. Currently, the municipality was paying the new tariff of R62.25 per month per light. The cost of energy was R1.37 per kilowatt-hour, but if the streetlights were not working, the municipality still paid the amount as if they were working. The municipality had entered an arrangement with Eskom to see if the municipality could take over the maintenance of the streetlights, and then they would be measured in terms of a kilowatt-hour meter. It made more sense, as the municipality was closer to the actual lights and received complaints from the public to fix them.

The municipality had started a process with Eskom according to which Jamestown was stage 1, and they would continue to transfer responsibility of the maintenance in the other areas – Klapmuts, Kylemore, La Motte and Wemmershoek. This encompassed roughly 1 000 street light units, and the municipality was comfortable to oversee the maintenance of them.  As the street lights were an asset that the municipality owned, there was no need for asset transfer. It was only a matter of equipping the street lights with their own meters -- the municipality would pay for the energy consumption, but take over the maintenance of the lights. In summary, the municipality was paying for lights that were not working and if the municipality was responsible for their maintenance, it would be able to respond to the public more quickly regarding maintenance issues.

Mr Rikus Badenhorst, Ward Councillor: Ward 21, said that when he became ward councillor in 2016, one of the first major issues in Jamestown was that the street lights were off for very long periods in very large sections of streets. Jamestown was a small town on the outskirts of Stellenbosch. It was a small, close-knit community, but was vulnerable in the sense that street lighting impacted on its security. It had been difficult to explain to members of the public that the electricity of Jamestown was supplied by Eskom and the infrastructure was owned by the municipality, but that the municipality could not repair the infrastructure when the lights went off. The transfer would allow the municipality to act faster when the community asked for the streetlights to be repaired.

The second issue was that there was a well laid out reconstruction and development housing programme called Mountainview, which was south of Jamestown. This reconstruction and development programme (RDP) had been developed in 2017. All the title deeds had been handed over to the recipients of the approximately 180 houses in this development and despite having Eskom electricity, they had never had street lights. The ward committee had used its own allocation to purchase LED lights to put on existing electricity poles. It had tried to get the connection from Eskom for those lights for two years those, but they had been switched on only three or four months ago.

That was the type of issue that the ward committee had to deal with when the municipality was not in control of the maintenance of the infrastructure and the metering of the street lights. The Mountainview RDP had been the first runner-up in the 2019 national competition for the most integrated housing development in South Africa. It was a proud community, but had been left without lights for so long.

Eskom Submission

Ms Rene Darby, Eskom Senior Manager: Western Cape, agreed with Mr Louw’s proposal for the handover of the maintenance of the street lights to the municipality. In October 2019, Eskom had agreed with moving forward with the handover, and had set an implementation date of 1 April 2020. The municipality had indicated that due to COVID-19, there had been delays over what could be done, but the intent was there, as was the understanding of the importance of street lights to communities. Eskom would take direction from the municipality in terms of the timing of when the municipality could take the streetlights over in the Jamestown area. This area would be used as a pilot to move forward in other areas within the Stellenbosch Municipality.

She confirmed that the handover of the street lights and their maintenance would take place between Eskom and the municipality. She asked Mr Louw to confirm a new date for implementation.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that he felt there was no serious problem between the two parties. It was just a matter of ensuring that the process of transferring the maintenance of the street lights was fast-tracked. Regarding Eskom’s presentation and response, it seemed that there were no contradictions between the two parties involved.

Ms C Phiri (ANC) agreed, and said that from what the Committee had heard there were no burning issues or disagreements between both parties. It was just a matter of implementation. She urged Eskom to fast track the handover of maintenance to the municipality as quickly as possible. She asked both parties to provide the Committee with a date of implementation.

Ms O Maotwe (EFF) said that there did not seem to be an issue at all, and asked why the Committee had been asked to convene. The only issue was “people not doing what they were supposed to do.” She asked why local government issues had been raised to the national level -- it was not an issue of national importance. She asked the Committee to not “promote mediocrity.”

Dr Schreiber responded that he concurred, but wanted to add that in the documents that he had received from Eskom, it had been indicated that Eskom had received a letter on 19 February 2019, requesting that the issue of the street lights be addressed. The fact that it had not been resolved was the reason that the community had wished the matter to be escalated to this level. The solution should have come much sooner. However, as expressed by Ms Phiri and regarding the delay, it was important that Eskom should provide a date for implementation, so that they could be held accountable. He asked Mr Louw what the date could be from the municipality’s side. Given the failure to expedite the process, a firm undertaking was needed to hold both parties accountable and make sure the transfer happened. He added that this would ensure that Eskom would not “drag its feet any longer.”

Ms R Komane (EFF) agreed with had been said, and added that the Committee must learn to respect the three spheres of government. It was waste of time for the matter to be brought before the Committee. Apart from the fact that Eskom had not acted according to the timeframes given to them by the municipality, there was no further issue. She emphasised that this platform should not be abused, and that the Committee should not intrude on spaces where they were not needed. The Committee should give the stakeholders and all parties a fair chance to implement the process. It should encourage communication between the three spheres of government. As much as the Committee wanted to know the dates of implementation, it was very premature for this matter to appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson asked Eskom to provide the Committee with a reason for the delay.

Mr Andre de Ruyter, Group Chief Executive: Eskom, said that Eskom had made good progress in addressing the matter and wished to respond to the perception that Eskom had been dragging its feet. He felt that that perception was not quite correct. Eskom had received a letter dated 13 February 2019, and had issued a response letter on 18 July, and a meeting had followed on 18 October. In further discussions with the municipality, it had been acknowledged that Eskom had responded, but due to Covid-19 the municipality had not proceeded with the takeover of the street light maintenance and servicing.

He asked for the matter to be taken up between Eskom and the municipality, as he believed the two parties to be essentially in agreement. The only thing left to decide was the most expeditious way of implementing the requests and agreements. Eskom could give the Committee the undertaking that from Eskom’s side, it would do so as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson said that he believed all parties to be “on the same wavelength,” and that the Committee should allow the process to happen. He acknowledged Eskom’s commitment to handling the matter, and said it should be concluded as soon as possible.  He agreed that the issue should not have escalated to this level and all parties should have been afforded more time to complete their work. The Committee would give the process space to be concluded

All Committee Members agreed.

The meeting was adjourned.
 





 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: