ActionSA cannot support this budget, as it places a greater financial burden on residents while failing to deliver corresponding improvements in service delivery. For years, households in Ekurhuleni have faced rising tariffs and rates, yet continue to experience declining levels of water, electricity, refuse removal, and road maintenance.
Firstly, we raise serious concerns regarding the process that informed the development of this budget. The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) consultation process, which is meant to provide the foundation for budget priorities, was fundamentally flawed.
A significant number of scheduled IDP meetings collapsed, effectively denying communities the opportunity to participate in decisions on how public funds are allocated. The engagements with business were similarly inadequate and failed to meet the standard of meaningful consultation.
This is significant, because a budget derived from a failed consultation process cannot claim full legitimacy. The residents of Ekurhuleni did not endorse this budget, and many were not afforded the opportunity to participate.
A review of the likely priorities and concerns they would have raised explains why the administration may have had little incentive to facilitate meaningful public engagement. Above-inflation tariff hikes on water, electricity, and sanitation are being forced onto households already battling unemployment and the cost of living.
Yet across Bedfordview, Benoni, Etwatwa, Germiston, and Kempton Park, residents still go days without water and electricity. Refuse piles up. Traffic lights don’t work. This is not a city that works.
The key issue is what this budget means for the average household in Ekurhuleni, because that is the standard by which it should be judged. Beyond the presentations, strategic frameworks, and terminology around “agility” and “impactful services,” the critical question is the extent to which the financial burden on residents will increase.
The budget document indicates that the administration is proposing annual water tariff increases of 14% for the entire Medium-Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework period. This translates to a 14% increase in the 2026/27 financial year, followed by 14% in 2027/28, and again in 2028/29, amounting to three consecutive years of tariff adjustments at the same rate.
Based on the proposed increases, a household currently paying R500 per month for water would see this rise to approximately R740 per month by the 2028/29 financial year. This represents a cumulative increase of 48% over three years for a basic essential service.
The administration’s own report acknowledges, “financial stability characterised by the lack of optimal collection, revenue leakages and weak liquidity position.” The city is losing significant volumes of water due to deteriorating infrastructure, yet it proposes to respond by imposing a 14% tariff increase on the water that does reach residents.
In Tembisa, Katlehong, Etwatwa, and Duduza communities where many households are already forced to choose between water and other basic necessities, the administration is proposing an additional 14% increase. This approach does not reflect responsible governance. It constitutes a sustained increase in the financial burden on residents who have the least capacity to absorb it, effectively eroding the household budgets of the City’s most vulnerable communities.
The proposed electricity tariff increases ranges between 8.76% and 9.01%, subject to NERSA approval. This exceeds the projected consumer price index of 3.7% by more than double. According to the report, electricity revenue is expected to rise from R27.521 billion to R29.267 billion, reflecting an additional R1.746 billion to be collected from consumers. Over the same period, bulk electricity purchases from Eskom are projected to increase from R22.646 billion to R24.357 billion, an increase of R1.711 billion.
ERWAT proposes a sewerage tariff increase of 8.35%, which is more than double the projected consumer price index of 3.7%. Despite this, the City’s Green Drop scores remain a concern.
Residents are being charged higher rates for a sanitation system that continues to discharge pollutants into rivers and streams. This raises a fundamental question regarding value for money and the link between tariff increases and service delivery outcomes. ActionSA stands for a government that puts residents first, not political deals. We will not be complicit in rubber-stamping a budget that ignores the reality on the ground.
For these reasons, ActionSA rejects this budget. We call on this council to go back, reprioritise, and bring forward a plan that restores water, electricity, roads, and safety before asking residents to pay more.
ActionSA Will Not Endorse a Budget Sacrificing Residents for Political Deals