Skip to main content

Unfortunately, you can't participate in this project anymore because it has been archived

Comment on the City’s draft Budget for 2025-2026

The full amended draft budget for the period July 2025 – June 2026 is out for public comment until Friday, 13 June 2025.

Comment Period: 28 May 2025 – 13 July 2025

Phases

Phases overview

Phase 1: Comment on the City’s draft Budget for 2025-2026

Comment on the City’s draft Budget for 2025-2026

Comment on the City’s draft Budget for 2025-2026

28 March 2025 22:00 - 3 June 2025 22:00

Purpose of the draft Budget 2025-2026

We invite you to comment on the entire Budget, which includes proposed amendments to the 2022-2027 Integrated Development Plan (IDP), corporate scorecards and the 2025-26 draft budget. You can view the proposed tariff highlights in the advert at the bottom of this page.

Useful links:

The City’s draft Budget 2025/2026 documents - please see Annexure 6 for proposed tariffs
What is a budget and how does it work?
View the review of the amendments of the 2022-2027 IDP
Draft Budget 2025-2026 Advert (English | Afrikaans)
Draft Budget 2025-2026 Summary Presentation

Notice is hereby given in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000; the Municipal Finance Management Act No. 56 of 2003; and the Municipal Property Rates Act No. 6 of 2004 that the proposed amendments to the 2022-2027 IDP document and the draft Budget for 2025/26 is available for comment.

Further notice is given in accordance with section 21A and section 21 of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act, No. 32 of 2000, that you are invited to submit comments to the City in respect of the proposed draft budget.

Public meetings

We will be hosting public meetings and focus group sessions at various venues around Cape Town. Interested and affected residents are invited to join us to discuss the proposed budget.

Please contact your Subcouncil office for further information on the meetings.

Advert - Draft Budget 2025-26 (English).pdf

(306.1 KB)

Advert - Draft Budget 2025-26 (isiXhosa).pdf

(330.6 KB)

Advert - Draft Budget 2025-26 (Afrikaans).pdf

(283.5 KB)

39 issues

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago Grounds for Objection I am writing to formally object to the proposed rate increase for the following reasons: 1. Disproportionate Impact on Long-term Residents The proposed increase places an unsustainable financial burden on long-term residents, particularly retirees on fixed incomes who have contributed to this community for decades. Many of these residents: Survive on limited pension funds that have not increased at a rate matching inflation Have no means to supplement their income to meet these escalating costs Risk being forced from homes they've owned for generations due to unaffordable rates 2. Inequitable Distribution of Tax Burden While established residents face steep increases, there appears to be a significant gap in revenue collection from informal settlements: The formal tax base is shrinking while being asked to shoulder larger increases According to municipal service delivery reports, resources are increasingly directed to areas with minimal revenue contribution Evidence suggests informal economic structures exist within these settlements, including rental payments that never reach municipal coffers 3. Lack of Transparency in Rate Allocation Before implementing such substantial increases, residents deserve: Clear accounting of how current rates are being allocated Transparency regarding revenue collection efforts across all areas Evidence that the municipality has exhausted all revenue collection options before increasing the burden on compliant ratepayers 4. Growing Voter Dissatisfaction It would be remiss not to highlight the political implications of the proposed rate increases: Long-time loyal voters are expressing significant frustration with what they perceive as unbalanced fiscal policies Community surveys indicate growing support for opposition parties specifically around municipal financial management issues The upcoming municipal elections will likely reflect this discontent if meaningful concessions are not made to address these concerns Retired residents in particular represent a high-turnout voting demographic whose support should not be taken for granted Constructive Proposals I recognize the municipality faces challenges in service delivery across diverse communities. Therefore, I propose consideration of the following approaches that have shown success elsewhere: Graduated Rate Implementation: Phase increases over 3-5 years rather than imposing a shock increase Enhanced Protection for Vulnerable Residents: Expand rate rebate programs specifically for pensioners and long-term residents whose rates exceed a certain percentage of their income Formalization Pathways: Implement a program similar to Brazil's PROFAVELA that provides incremental formalization of informal settlements with corresponding incremental tax responsibilities Community Contribution Systems: Consider Thailand's Baan Mankong model that creates community-based infrastructure development with matching municipal support Conclusion While I understand the municipality's need for sustainable revenue, the proposed approach risks displacing established community members while failing to address systemic revenue collection challenges. I respectfully request that the Council revisit this proposal with consideration for more equitable and sustainable solutions. The current administration has an opportunity to demonstrate responsiveness to constituent concerns by finding a more balanced approach to municipal funding—one that secures both financial stability and continued electoral support.

unknown author1 year ago I wish to formally object to the proposed 425.92% increase in Network Capacity Charges, particularly as it relates to Maximum Export Capacity for renewable energy generators. This unprecedented increase, when coupled with existing Shared Network Charges (22.31% Increase), creates a significant disincentive for the development of new renewable energy projects within the City of Cape Town. Large-scale renewable energy generation projects rely on predictable and economically viable network cost structures to attract investment and achieve bankability. The proposed tariff changes severely undermine the financial feasibility of such projects by disproportionately penalising generators for accessing and utilising the municipal grid. This is counterproductive to the City’s stated goals of promoting energy security, transitioning to a low-carbon economy, and encouraging private sector participation in clean energy. I urge the City to reconsider the scale and structure of the proposed Network Capacity Charge and Shared Network Cost increases and to engage meaningfully with stakeholders in the renewable energy sector to develop a more balanced and enabling tariff framework.

Linda Boshoff1 year ago It is with a respect for the tough task it must be to craft a budget that I submit my comments. Us ratepayers and tax payers are a small group that is beeing squeezed relentlessly. With the National Budget deficit one could only assume that the provinces do not receive the desired budgets to properly run and grow the regions. I do however not think that it is feasible to expect that we the ratepayers must now fund the infrastructure developements and housing that I would expect to be endevours that should be funded by National Government. Securty is also another big contributing amount to the proposed budget and we painfully apreciate the need for it, but you see my point. Is Cape Town soley responsible for funding everything needed to continue to be the thriving destination of choice. I do not have clever alternative income generating suggestions that will magically rain funds down on Cape Town, I am just a normal citizen, trying to make ends meet. It is clear that the thinking behind the budget is for growth, upliftment, safety and security. All the best to you.

unknown author1 year ago Hi Like for like my increase for 2025 will be 13.4% (R767) - All media briefings from Mr Hill-Lewis are so far removed from the truth!! How is this a fair increase if CPI is around 3%? What is fair about linking water & sewerage to the value of your property? Please do away with this wealth tax - because it is all it is!! I urge the City to relook at this budget and make it an affordable one for your middle class citizens. You fought hard against the VAT increase - now please do the same for your citizens and voters! Regards Johann

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago If every man and woman aged 20 to 55 years living in an informal settlement, anywhere in RSA, pays a nominal amount of R30 per month, the accessible, working minority won't have to be bled dry for the majority who don't earn enough. The constant raising of tariffs, fees, charges and levies will turn hard-working citizens away (from the City and from the ruling party making these decisions). The challenge of HOW one gets the monthly R30 from millions of people is for some genius economics student in university or high school to figure out. But, the way things are going now, will not work out well. I am against the proposed increases - it is high time to share the load.

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

Ian Arendse 1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

Henri du Toit1 year ago

unknown author1 year ago

Filters

Total posts: 39

There are 39 projects available.

No values available.

Selected zero tag filters.