'We must pay to build our city': Joburg defends R200 electricity surcharge

The DA caucus in the City of Johannesburg has criticised the council's decision to implement a R200 electricity surcharge, calling it an "absurd" burden on residents.

DA caucus leader Belinda Kayser-Echeozonjoku says her party sounded warning bells when the idea was introduced in council, having warned the governing ANC/EFF/PA coalition against the move.

"In March and again in May, the DA warned that an increase of 12.7% and the additional service charge on prepaid customers was and would continue to be unfair.  Residents are outraged that their electricity purchases are being used to accommodate the surcharge." 

Kayser-Echeozonjoku said there had not been any detailed communication on how the increase would be administered.

"The DA remains adamant that residents should not bear the brunt of the city’s inability to manage finances. Residents cannot be taken for granted and this surcharge adds an additional burden amid the ongoing collapse of service delivery." 

In a letter TimesLIVE has seen, the DA caucus leader tells finance MMC Dada Morero that there was no clarity on whether this was a monthly or per purchase charge. She said residents were concerned that some residential meters were being charged at the business rate and that there has been no public notice or education on the business surcharge.

"Residents feel this is deceptive from the city side. Public comments were not properly considered and, in some cases, ignored. Once more, Joburg’s administrative failure adds to the burden on residents," she said.

However, finance director and spokesperson Stanley Itshegetseng said it was  unfair of the DA to grandstand as though it did not take part in the decision-making behind the tariff.

"Should we respond to grandstanding? The DA is aware of processes and channels to be used to query matters with the executive. Instead of applying for a question and answer through council, they resort to public letters. Is that fair?

"We all agreed and it was presented in council for deliberation, adoption or non-adoption. If there is no agreement and there is a stalemate in council, there is a voting process afforded by democracy which allows for a majority decision to prevail," he said.

He said the recourse for residents only applies for those who cannot afford the hike.

"The city has an ESP [expanded social package] for residents who fall between a certain income threshold, are unemployed or are pensioners. If you pass the means test and qualify, you are exonerated from paying.

"There seems to be a culture that is developing just by looking at our growing debt book, that people tend not to pay for one reason or another. If you can afford you must pay, we must be all hands on deck in terms of building the city," he said.

Itshegetseng responded to claims that the city did not communicate effectively, saying it could  be rectified.

"If there is a roadshow that we need to do as the city, to speak to our citizens and to unpack this, we will do that. But it can't be that we are accused of not communicating with the public."

He said City Power has also sent out communications on the matter.

The spokesperson maintained that all protocol was followed.

Despite this, the DA has called for a review of the decision that has caused a public outcry from residents.

"We have written to the MMC for finance to urgently review or do away with this electricity tariff surcharge and provide clarity on the business surcharge and how it will be utilised to the benefit of residents."

Itshegetseng said it was the responsibility of all residents to pay for services utilised in the city.

"Electricity also goes into street lighting for the common use of consumers - when these things are not working, residents complain and say there is no service delivery. Yet nobody is paying for it.

"With vandalism that has increased, people steal the lights and cables on a continuous basis - at some point we need to ask who is covering those costs. It is the city."

Itshegetseng said those who lived in townhouse or estates paid for services for their units but also pay for amenities and street lights in the common areas.

"My understanding is that the principle is the same."

TimesLIVE