The City of Johannesburg’s newly approved R97.1 billion budget has drawn sharp scrutiny from civil society organisations, which warn that financial constraints could undermine service delivery even as residents confront rising utility tariffs.
Speaking after the budget’s adoption, the executive director of JoburgCAN and a member of the Johannesburg working group for finance and governance acknowledged positive adjustments—most notably a doubling of the maintenance allocation from 4% to 8% of asset value, in line with National Treasury recommendations. However, she cautioned that the metro may lack the liquidity required to implement its planned initiatives.
“We don’t believe the budget will deliver a massive improvement for most residents,” the spokesperson said. “While we welcome certain changes, the city simply may not have enough cash on hand to follow through on its promises.”
The budget process unfolded against warnings from the Deputy Mayor and Member of the Mayoral Committee for Finance, who highlighted the necessity of tariff increases to address the city’s growing debt burden and extensive infrastructure deficits.
A central concern raised by the civil society representative relates to personnel expenditure. Approximately 30% of the city’s budget is allocated to staff costs. While the Politically Facilitated Agreement—which secures a living wage for lower-income municipal workers—is supported as essential for workforce motivation, the spokesperson questioned the addition of more than 1,500 senior management positions.
She also challenged the rationale that executives leading city entities such as City Power, Joburg Water, Pikitup, and the Johannesburg Property Company require remuneration aligned with private-sector benchmarks. “These individuals have been promoted from within the public sector,” she noted. “This isn’t a case of competing for external talent; it’s about internal career progression.”
Although the salary for the head of one major entity was reduced by nearly R1 million, it remains above R4 million per annum. With 13 city entities compensating leadership at comparable levels, the representative argued that such expenditure is unsustainable given the city’s fiscal pressures.
On the matter of public engagement, the spokesperson stated that civil society groups have consistently submitted detailed comments on the Integrated Development Plan, budget, and tariff proposals, and have repeatedly requested early access to draft documents to contribute meaningfully to policy design. “That access has never been granted,” she said. While some community input was reflected in the final budget, she expressed concern that public participation is not being fully integrated into decision-making.
The representative also commented on the Presidential Johannesburg Working Group on finance and governance, which was recently restructured after its initial operations proved ineffective. She pointed out that persistent governance failures—flagged by both the Auditor-General and the Minister of Finance, including accountability shortfalls and a prolonged billing crisis—remain unaddressed. A detailed submission on the billing crisis, she added, has remained with relevant municipal teams for close to a year without substantive action.
While presidential-level involvement brings political visibility, the spokesperson explained that the working group’s scope is confined to projects already embedded in the city’s Integrated Development Plan, limiting its capacity to introduce new interventions. Initial expectations had drawn comparisons to the eThekwini presidential intervention, which delivered visible urban beautification outcomes. However, stakeholders now recognise that Johannesburg’s challenges—rooted in governance, finance, and infrastructure—are far more systemic.
Encouragingly, Treasury-led municipal services trading reforms, including the ring-fencing of specific budgets, are underway. The representative suggested that if ring-fencing successfully consolidates operations under entities like Joburg Water, response times for repairs such as fixing leaks could improve. Yet comparable resource allocations have not been extended to the Johannesburg Roads Agency. Residents frequently note that while burst pipes cause immediate disruption, the more enduring frustration lies in the six- to twelve-month delays often experienced before roads are reinstated and potholes filled—visible symbols of the city’s service delivery challenges.
Finally, while the city’s budget forecasts improved revenue collection, the civil society spokesperson highlighted a critical obstacle: many households either cannot afford to pay or have ceased payments due to dissatisfaction with service quality. “The fundamental issue is ensuring people pay what they owe,” she said, stressing that long-term fiscal stability hinges on both efficient revenue management and restored public confidence in municipal services.