uMhlathuze Local Municipality Customer Satisfaction Survey ...in a north-east direction towards the...

REPORT

2017

DMS1214686 (MS Word) DMS1214687 (DPF version)

20

15

20

15

Customer Satisfaction Survey

uMhlathuze Local Municipality Customer Satisfaction Survey, 2017

2 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 INTRODUCTION 3

1. BACKGROUND AND MUNICIPAL PROFILE 3

1.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3

1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 4

1.3 MUNICIPALITY’S CORE VALUES 5

SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY 6

2.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY 6

2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7

2.3 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 8-12

2.4 CATERGORIZATION OF AREAS 13

SECTION 3 FINDINGS OF THE 2017 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY 14

3.1 RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO SERVICE 14

3.2 CLEAN GOVERANCE 15

Question 3- Question 8 15-20

3.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 21 Question 9 - Question 14 21-27 3.4 BASIC SERVICES 28

Overview of Basic Services per Ward 28

Question 15 - Question 29 29-51

3.5 COMMUNICATION 52


3.6 CUSTOMER CARE 60


3.7 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 66


3.8 KEY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY 80-91

SECTION 4 CONCLUSION 91


3 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Section One: Background and Municipal Profile

1.1 LOCACTION AND DESCRIPTION

The City of uMhlathuze is situated on the north-east coast of the province of

KwaZulu-Natal, about 180 kilometres north-east of Durban. The uMhlathuze area

covers 795 km² and incorporates Richards Bay, Empangeni, eSikhaleni, Ngwelezane,

eNseleni, Felixton and Vulindlela, as well as the traditional areas under Traditional

Councils namely, Dube, Mkhwanazi, Khoza, and Zungu (Madlebe). The population is

estimated at 334459 (2011 Census). The municipality borders a coastline that spans

approximately 45 kilometres. The N2 highway traverses the uMhlathuze Municipality

in a north-east direction towards the Swaziland border and south-west towards

Durban. It effectively forms a division between Empangeni and Richards Bay. The

R34 Provincial Main Road passes through Empangeni towards Melmoth.

Since its establishment in December 2000, the Municipality has in 2016, after the

local government elections subsequently been affected by the re-determination of

municipal boundaries which changed its geographical setting to include areas

which were previously under the then Ntambanana Municipality. As such it

encompasses the towns of Empangeni, Richards Bay, eSikhaleni, Ngwelezane,

eNseleni, Vulindlela, Felixton, Heatonville and Bhuchanana as well as the Traditional

Authority areas under Amakhosi Dube, Mkhwanazi, Khoza, Mbuyazi, Zungu,

Mthembu, Biyela and Cebekhulu. UMhlathuze Local Municipality has been divided

into 34 municipal wards since the 2016 local government elections

There are several natural and man-made phenomenons that have shaped and

continue to shape the landscape of uMhlathuze Municipality. The area is inundated

with a system of wetlands and natural water features such as Lakes Cubhu, Mzingazi,

Nsezi and Nhlabane. Major rivers include the Mhlathuze, Nsezi and Ntambanana.

The main access into the municipal area is via the N2 in a north south direction and

in an east west direction, the R34 from Ntambanana. Other significant roads in the

area include the MR431 (that provides a northerly entry into Richards Bay from the

N2) as well as the Old Main Road that straddle the N2. Railway lines are prevalent in

the municipal area but do not provide a passenger service, only a

commercial/industrial service is provided.

The municipality has the benefit of about 45km of coastline of which about 80% is in

its natural state. Linked to its coastal locality is the Richards Bay deep-water port that

has been instrumental in the spatial development of the area in the past and will

impact on the areas’ future spatial development. There is one airport and a couple

of land strips in the municipal area. uMhlathuze is contributing 48% towards GDP

within the King Cetshwayo District


4 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

1.2.1 Statistical Premise The data used in this section was gleaned from the 2017-2021 Review phase of the

IDP with the 2011 National Census and 2016 Community Survey being the

sourcebook for information.

1.2.2 Population Development Dynamics

Table 1: POPULATION DEVELOPMENT OF uMHLATHUZE

Name Status Population

Census

1996-10-09

Population

Census

2001-10-09

Population

Census

2011-10-09

Population

Estimate

2016-03-06

uMhlathuze Local Municipality 196,894 289,190 334,459 370,579

Area: 793.8 km² – Density: 466.8/km² [2016] – Change: +2.35%/year [2011 → 2016]

*Source: Statistics South Africa.

Explanation: The 2016 population figures refer to the Community Survey 2016.

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwixlI3SjKrVAhVJChoKHbU1DMcQjRwIBw&url=http://www.kznonline.gov.za/index.php/city-of-umhlathuze-local-municipality&psig=AFQjCNGqPpIROPgreUjlVXqDtN9100s4hQ&ust=1501266758641123


5 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

1.3 Municipality’s Core Values

Mission Statement

Job creation and inclusive economic growth through accelerated economic

development and transformation;

Enhancing industry based skills development and strategic support to

education priority programmes;

Community based initiatives to improve quality of citizens health and

wellbeing;

Creating safer city through integrated and community based public safety;

Planned and accelerated traditional development interventions;

Promotion and maintenance of spatial equity and transformation;

Optimal management of natural resources and commitment to sustainable

environmental management;

Use of Information, Communication and Technology Systems (ICT) to improve

productivity and efficiencies in line with Smart City principles; and

Good governance, capable and developmental municipality

Vision

The Port City of uMhlathuze offering improved quality of life for all its citizens through

sustainable development and Inclusive Economic growth

Goals and Objectives

The following is a summary of the municipal goals and objectives.

Good Governance

Sustainable Infrastructure and Service Delivery

Social and Economic Development

Institutional Development

Sound Financial Management


6 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Section Two: Introduction and Purpose of the Survey

2.1 Introduction to the Survey This survey was conducted on behalf of uMhlathuze Local Municipality as part of

their initiative to evaluate customer satisfaction of the service delivered within the

Municipal Functional areas. The Back to Basics initiative of COGTA is promulgated on

the vision of getting municipalities and civil servants to be service orientated, to strive

for excellence in service delivery and to commit to continuous service delivery

improvement.

Local government has a critical role to play in creating a stable environment to

enable good Governance. An essential part of such an endeavor is sound

municipal service delivery. To adhere to developmental government vision

statements, regular service assessments are required to support local government in

identifying key community and business service areas.

2.1.2. Constitutional Mandate of the Municipality:

The mandate for the municipality originates from the constitutional duties that are

provided in section 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (objects of

local government) and these are:

To provide democratic and accountable government for local communities

To ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner

To provide social and economic development

To promote a safe and healthy environment

To encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations

in the matters of local government

2.1.3. Purpose of the Survey:

The primary purpose of the research among the households of the municipality was

to measure their satisfaction levels on municipal service delivery. The survey will be

one of the implements used by the municipality to assess the effectiveness of service

delivery as well as to provide ward inputs into the Public Participation Process.

3216 interviews were conducted amongst a representative sample from

uMhlathuze’s 34 wards and different dwelling types, to generate information and to

gauge the perceptions of residents about service delivery, governance,

development priorities and communication preferences The results were recorded

for the 34 wards .

The study will contribute to improving communication between uMhlathuze

Municipality and its customers, which in turn will assist the municipality in determining


7 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

the social, economic and material needs of the community and in improvingthe

quality of their lives.

Overall, the assessment for the household’s measured satisfaction levels in broad

categories, namely:

Clean Governance (Corruption, bribery and fraud)

Public Participation (IDP/ Budget Processes)

Basic Services (Water, Electricity, Refuse collection, Sanitation; Roads and

low-income housing.)

Communication (Communication frequency and approaches; Accessibility

of Information and Content review of the uMhlathuze Newsletter)

Customer Care (Staff attitude and responses; Helpdesks, Turnaround times /

Feedback)

Community Facilities (Libraries; Sports Facilities; Community Halls / Parks/

Playgrounds; Fire & rescue services; Motor vehicle licensing; Traffic Law

Enforcement; After-Hours Municipal Emergency Services.)

Planning and Local Economic Development

2.2 Research Methodology

1. 3216 residences were visited in an intensive survey.

2. The following steps were completed:

3. Recruitment of enumerators

4. Finalizing data collection survey forms.

5. Appointing and training enumerators to complete field forms from within the

community.

6. Collection of field data from sample through visits of enumerators.

7. Data capturing of data collection survey forms.

8. Quality control.

9. Analysis.

10. Report.

Key considerations were as follows:

Sample study must be representative of the population of the Municipality

Coverage of each ward in the Municipality

Use of Quantitative and Qualitative methods

Voluntary participation


8 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

2.3 Household Survey

2.3.1 Survey Population

2.3.1.1 Sample units The sample population comprised a specified number of households from each of

the 34 wards of uMhlathuze Municipality, both formal and Informal dwelling types

were included in the survey. 2.3.1.2 Sample elements

Respondents were heads of households or their spouses. The following criteria were

used as for household qualification:

Head of household or spouse

A South African by birth

Resident within the dwelling

Beneficiary of uMhlathuze municipal services


9 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

2.3.1.3 Survey area The survey area comprised the 34 Wards of Umhlathuze Municipality as shown in the

map below.

Figure 2. Map of Umhlathuze Local Municipality

2.3.2 Household sample plan and design 2.3.2.1 Sampling methodology and sample size A stratified multi stage sample design was used. The questionnaires were divided into

the 34 wards. Each enumerator was issued with a specified number of forms with

individual targets to achieve the overall target of 3210 questionnaires. A random

sample selection procedure was followed. Forms were completed using face to

face contact. No telephone interviews were conducted.

3216 households from the uMhlathuze Municipality as indicated in the following

table were surveyed:



10 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

% OF TOTAL

Area for survey Number of

questionnaires

1 2782 2.98% Meerensee 50 , Mzingazi 50 100

2 3470 3.72% Meerensee (part of) 20 , Arboretum Ext. 20 , Wildenweide 40 , Veldenvlei (park of) 40

120

3 4072 4.36%

Arboretum 100: Albizia, Alberta, Acacia Canopy, Apiesdoring, Appelblaar, Bosvlier, Boerboon, Bauhinia Bend, Boekenhout, Erica, Eikeboom, Essenwood Way, Euphorbia, Enkerldoringdraai, Flametree, Figtree Forest, Gazania, Geelhoutkruin, Greyvillia, Haakdoringrug, Hardekool, Hiccup Nut, Klapperkop, Kiaatkim, Kiepersolkolk, Mkhulu Crescent, Msimbithi, Maroelamoot, Naboomnek, Nyalaberry, Ouhoutoord, Olienhoutkoppie, Quibeba, Raphia Palm, Raasblaarlaagte, Rooi Els, Rhus Lancea, Shady Syringa, Strelitzia, Soetdoringsekel, Sycamore Spread, Tambotietwyg, Tipuana, Via Richardia, Vaarlandswilg, Witstinkhout, Waterberry Wood, Wonderboom, Wag ‘n Bietjie, Van Wykshout, Ysterhout; Veldenvlei (part of) 40: Buttercup Cord, Cycad, Cantua, Chinkerinchee, Coral Shower, Canterberry Bell , Clover Crevice, Croton Curve, Disa Dives, Weigelia

140

4 2801 3.00% Mandlazini 50, Birdswood 40, Veldenvlei (part of) 10 100

5 2487 2.67% eNseleni: Mkhoma 20, Mkhamangwe 15, Mathunzi 15, Mayini 20, Bhejane 20

90

6 3548 3.80% eNseleni: Bhejane 30, Izikhonkwane 30, Mazimazana 30, eNseleni Township 30

120

7 2616 2.80% eNseleni: Ovondlo 30, Kwa Tsheka 30 & eNseleni Township 30 90

8 2326 2.49% eNseleni: Ezikhaleni 40 & eNseleni Township 40 80

9 4113 4.41% Dumisani Makhaye Village 80 , Empangeni Rail 30 , Gemini 30 140

10 2512 2.69% Kwadlangwezwa: Mvuzemvuze 20, Msasandla 20, Thatha Falazi 30, Mangezi 20

90

11 1514 1.62% Kwadlangwezwa: Ongoye Mission 5, Sihuzu 5, Matholonjeni 5, Manzamnyama 5, Nsiwa 10, Nhlangenyuke 10, Thondo 10 50

12 1886 2.02% eSikhaleni: Mandlankala 40, Mcabango 30, 70

13 2687 2.88% eSikhaleni: Madaka, Mabuyeni, Mpembeni, Gubhethuka 90 90

14 3263 3.50% eSikhaleni: Gobandlovu 40, Dube Village 40, Diphini 30 110

15 3367 3.61% eSikhaleni: Ndindima, Bhekizwe, Ncombo, eSikhaleni College 110 110

16 1704 1.83% eSikhaleni: H2 near Circuit Office 20 , Dube Village 20 , Mkhobosa 20 60

17 3346 3.59% eSikhaleni: H2 80 , Ediphini (Mzingwenya) 110 110

18 1405 1.51% eSikhaleni: Port Durnford 30 , Nyembe 10 , ePhayindini 10 50

19 3198 3.43% eSikhaleni: J1 Esikhaleni 30, Nximbini 30, Mavuka 25, Thango 25 110

20 2281 2.44% eSikhaleni: J2 Esikhaleni 40, Mzingwenya 40 80

21 2684 2.88% eSikhaleni: H1 eSikhaleni 50, H2 (half) 40 90

22 2550 2.73% eSikhaleni: H2 Kwa Mcwabe area 20, Kwandaya 20, Aquafresh 20, Shendelembuzi 10, Qwizumentshiso 10, Zimele 10

90

23 3642 3.90% Empangeni / Felixton: Zidedele 20, Felixton 30, Garden Clinic 30, Empangeni airport 30, Dover and farms 20 130

24 2830 3.03% Empangeni / Ngwelezane: Bingoma 20, Hillview 20, Qalakabusha 20, oDondolo 20, Matshana 20

100

25 2261 2.42% Ngwelezane: Mankwanyaneni 10, Matshana 10, Nkosazane 10, Mtengu 10, Qhubandaba 10, Sigisi 10, Macekeni 10, Mhlanga 10

80

26 2908 3.12% Brackenham 50, Aquadene 50 100

27 2785 2.98% Ngwelezane B Section 100 100


11 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

% OF TOTAL

Area for survey Number of

questionnaires

28 3114 3.34% Ngwelezane: Bomvini 30, Mshayezafe 30, eMabhasini 30, Maromeni 20

110

29 3368 3.61% Ngwelezane: Niwe 30, Ndabayakhe 30, Nqutshini 30, uMhlanga 30 120

30 2933 3.14% University Zululand Area: Vulindlela Township 30, Unizul 40, Nkonjane 30

100

31 1926 2.06% Ntambanana (Ex ward 5) 70 70



34 1743 1.87% Ntambanana 60 60

TOTAL 92314

uMhlathuze Local Municipality (Incl Ntambanana) 3210

2.3.2.3 Data collection methodology

The survey of households was conducted through face-to-face interviews.

2.3.3 Research instrument The survey questionnaires (research instrument) used contained 56 individual

questions which were supplied by the municipality.

2.3.4 Fieldwork The fieldwork was conducted by several well-trained fieldworker teams. Most

enumerators owed their selection of interviewees to the fact that they lived in the

survey areas and/or to their experience and previous involvement in fieldwork. Strict

interviewer control was exercised and back checks were conducted. To support

enumerators in their task, they were all provided with detailed training highlighting,

inter alia, the following:

Objective and Purpose of the Survey

Communication and Presentation Skills

How to conduct interviews

Familiarization with individual sample size per allocated ward

Completed questionnaires returned by enumerators were checked by supervisors

and the field manager appointed for the survey. Questionnaires not complying with

sample requirements were either returned by the field managers to the enumerator

for correction or, where possible, were followed up by the supervisor. Once the

questionnaires had been completed satisfactorily they were handed to SPDA back

office for editing. This process entailed a thorough scrutiny of the questionnaires by

SPDA to determine whether the data recorded were reliable. This was followed by

data coding, capturing, cleaning and storing.


12 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

2.3.5 Local Economic Empowerment

One of the key objectives of the survey was to ensure the participation and

involvement of local youth, in ensuring skills transfer and capacity building at

Umhlathuze. A comprehensive training session was carried out prior to

commencement of the survey. Enumerators were compensated for returning

thoroughly completed survey forms, and the employment process was governed by

contract.

2.3.6 Coding, data capturing and tabulation Survey forms from each ward were colour coded for ease of reconciliation.

Data capture was carried out in the offices of SPDA in Durban using XLT Databases.

2.3.7 Quality control and validity To minimise errors the following steps were taken:

Questionnaires were tested with Enumerators.

Intensive training of enumerators.

Employment of competent data capture clerks

2.3.8 Data Collection Methodology

Survey forms were collected from the Enumerators and reconciled using

the issue register.


13 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

2.4 CATERGORIZATION OF TRADITIONAL AND URBAN AREAS

Traditional Wards (495 Households)

Location Required no of

Questionnaires

Actual No of

Questionnaires

Ward 5 eNseleni 90 90

Ward 10 Kwadlangwezwa 90 90

Ward 11 Kwadlangwezwa 50 54

Ward 13 eSikhaleni 90 90

Ward 18 eSikhaleni 50 50

Ward 29 Ngwelezne 120 121

Total 490 495

Urban Wards (900 Households)

Ward Location Required no of

Questionnaires

Actual No of

Questionnaires

Ward 2 Meerensee 120 120 Ward 3 Arboretum 140 140 Ward 9 Dumisani 140 141 Ward 16 eSikhaleni 60 60 Ward 17 eSikhaleni 110 102 Ward 23 Empangeni 130 135 Ward 26 Brackenham 100 100 Ward 27 Ngwelezane 100 102 Total 900 900

Urban / Traditional (1710 Households)

Ward Location Required no of

Questionnaires

Actual No of

Questionnaires

Ward 1 Meerensee 100 104 Ward 4 Mandlazini 100 100 Ward 6 eNeseleni 120 113 Ward 7 eNeseleni 90 92 Ward 8 eNeseleni 80 80 Ward 12 eSikhaleni 70 70

Ward 14 eSikhaleni 110 109 Ward 15 eSikhaleni 110 110 Ward 19 eSikhaleni 110 111 Ward 20 eSikhaleni 80 80 Ward 21 eSikhaleni 90 90 Ward 22 eSikhaleni 90 90

Ward 24 Empangeni 100 100 Ward 25 Ngwelezane 80 81 Ward 30 UniZul 100 100 Ward 31 Ntambanana (Ex ward 5) 70 70 Ward 32 Ntambanana (Ex ward 8) 80 80 Ward 33 Ntambanana (Ex ward 8) 70 70

Ward 34 Ntambanana 60 60 Total 1710 1710


14 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Section Three: Findings of the Customer Satisfaction Survey

A total of 3216 households responded to the fifty-six survey questions. The

satisfaction levels of these households regarding the services are illustrated

throughout this report.

The following basic services were regarded as high priority: water supply,

sanitation/sewerage, electricity supply, domestic refuse removal, condition of

roads, communication with the community,

Municipal assistance, health care, sports facilities, licensing services, law

enforcement visibility and after-hours emergency services are regarded as

secondary services. Most of these services are also identified to be National Key

Performance Indicators.

The graph that follows, illustrate the number of responses to the survey’s fifty six

questions concerning satisfaction with particular services.

3.1 RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO SERVICE DISTRIBUTION

Sanitation, 3216

Refuse, 3021 Innoculations, 2179

Health, 554

Electricity, 1211

Gravel Rds, 3068

Tarred Rds, 2584

Communication, 2599

Newsletter, 1540

IDP, 736

Help Desk, 2728

Complaints, 2398

Sports Facilities, 3038

Community Facilities, 1744

Motor Vehicle Licencing, 1772

Traffic Law, 2085

A/H Water, 2134

A/H Sewerage, 2871

A/H Electricity, 2427

A/H Law Enforce, 2652 A/H Fire & Rescue,

2388

Water, 2424

RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO DISTRIBUTION OF

SERVICES



15 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.2. CLEAN GOVERNANCE

QUESTION 3

Do you feel that the City of uMhlathuze officials are corrupt?

A large majority of individuals (68%) indicated that the City of uMhlathuze officials

are not corrupt.

32% indicated that corruption existed.

Urban and Traditional Areas Results – Perception on Corruption within COU

YES NO

URBAN 25.1% 74.9%

TRADITIONAL 38.1 68.9%

YES, 1005, 32%

NO , 2150, 68%

DO YOU FEEL THAT THE COU OFFICIALS ARE CORRUPT

(TOTAL OF 3155 RESPONDANTS )

YES NO



16 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 4

Have you been asked to pay a bribe by a municipal official of the City of

uMhlathuze?

92 % of the respondents indicated that they have not been asked for a bribe, while

8% indicated that they were asked to pay a bribe.

Urban and Traditional Areas Results – Bribery within COU

YES NO

URBAN 14.6% 85.4%

TRADITIONAL 5.2% 94.8%

A fraction of the respondents in both Traditional and Urban areas indicated that

they had been asked to pay a bribe. Most respondents indicated that they were not

asked to pay a bribe.

YES, 259, 8%

NO , 2921, 92%

HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO PAY A BRIBE BY A MUNICIPAL

OFFICIAL


YES NO



17 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 5

Have you ever paid a bribe to a municipal official of the City of uMhlathuze?

5% of respondents indicated that they had a paid a bribe whilst 95% confirmed that

they were not asked to pay a bribe.

Urban and Traditional Areas Results – Tender Fraud

YES NO

URBAN 5.2% 94.8%

TRADITIONAL 4.6% 95.4%

A fraction of the respondents in both Traditional and Urban areas indicated that

they had paid bribes. Majority of the respondents indicated that they did not pay

bribes.

YES, 146, 5%

NO , 3034, 95%

HAVE YOU EVER PAID A BRIBE TO A COU OFFICIAL?


YES NO



18 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 6

Have you ever heard of cases of tender fraud at the City of uMhlathuze?

82 % of the respondents indicated that they have not heard of cases of tender

fraud, whilst 18% indicated that they did hear of tender fraud.

Urban and Traditional Results

YES NO

URBAN 13% 87%

TRADITIONAL 20% 80%

Over 80 % of the respondents in both Traditional and Urban areas indicated that

they have not heard of cases of tender fraud, although some respondents indicated

that they did hear of such cases.

YES, 575, 18%

NO , 2596, 82%

TENDER FRAUD AMONGST MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS

(Total of 3171 respondants )

YES NO



19 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 7

Do you think that the City of uMhlathuze is doing enough to take a stand against

fraud and corruption?

55 % of the respondents indicated that the municipality is doing enough to prevent

fraud and corruption while 45% disagree with this.


YES NO

URBAN 65% 35%

TRADITIONAL 35% 65%

65 % of the respondents in the Urban Areas indicated that the municipality is doing

enough to prevent fraud and corruption while 35% in the Traditional areas share the

same sentiment.

YES, 1733, 55% NO , 1426, 45%

DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITY OF UMHLATHUZE IS DOING

ENOUGH TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST FRAUD AND CORRUPTION?

(Total of 3159 respondants )

YES NO



20 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 8

Would you like to do more as a citizen to combat fraud and corruption?

72% of respondents want to contribute to combatting fraud and corruption.


YES NO

URBAN 61% 40%

TRADITIONAL 63% 37%

61 % of the respondents in the Urban Areas indicated that they would like to more to prevent

fraud and corruption while 63% in the Traditional areas indicated the same.

YES, 2283, 72% NO , 866, 28%

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION TO FRAUD AND CORRUPTION


YES NO



21 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

QUESTION 9

How well are you informed of the IDP / Budget process to address your needs?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the rating of the IDP Process within the

Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results reveal that over 50% of the

respondants are satisfied with the IDP Process within the municipality.

TYPE OF SERVICE MUNICIPAL URBAN TRADITIONAL

EXCELLENT 27% 32% 30%

SATISFACTORY 33% 33% 20%

NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

24% 29% 19%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

16% 6% 31%

The figure below demonstrates that 60% of the 2991 respondants within the

Municipality are satisfied with the IDP Process . However 46% is not satisfied.

821, 27%

973, 33%

708, 24%

489, 16%

HOW WELL ARE YOU INFORMED OF THE IDP/ BUDGET

PROCESS?

(2991 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely satisfactory

Totally Unsatisfactory



22 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 10

Have you attended any IDP /Budget meeting in the last 18 months?

The figure above demonstrates that 56% of the respondants within the overall

municipal area attend IDP meetings


YES NO

URBAN 48% 52%

TRADITIONAL 50% 50%

The table above demonstrates that over 50% of the respondants in the Traditional

and urban areas do not attend IDP meetings .

YES, 1198, 56%

NO , 946, 44%

ATTENDANCE OF IDP MEETINGS


YES NO



23 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

The figure above demonstrates that 51% of the respondants within the overall

municipal area attend Budget meetings


YES NO

URBAN 35% 65%

TRADITIONAL 39% 61%

The table above demonstrates that over 60% of the respondants in the Traditional

and urban areas do not attend Budget meetings .

YES, 1044, 51% NO , 1004, 49%

ATTENDANCE OF BUDGET MEETINGS


YES NO



24 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 11

Over the past 18 months, how well would you rate the performance of the

municipality on informing the community about ward community meetings?

The following Table provides a comparitive on the rating of how well citizens are

informed of ward meetings within the Municipal Urban and Traditional Areas. The

results demonstrate that over 60% of the respondants are informed about the ward

committee meetings.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

26% 30% 16%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

10% 6% 9%


Municipality have been informed about ward committee meetings

1001, 32%

1013, 32%

813, 26%

327, 10%

COMMUNICATION ON WARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

(3154 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





25 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 12

How many Ward Public meetings did you attend in the last eighteen months?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the rating of constituents attendance

of Ward Committee Meetings in the last 18 months within the Municipal , Urban and

Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that over 70% of the respondants

attend ward committee meetings.

NO OF MEETINGS MUNICIPAL URBAN TRADITIONAL

13-18 MEETINGS 13% 11% 15%

9-12 MEETINGS 20% 23% 8%

4-8 MEETINGS 25% 23% 26%

1-3 MEETINGS 24% 15% 33%

DO NOT ATTEND

MEETINGS

17% 28% 18%

The figure below demonstrates that 83% of the 3177 respondants have attended

Ward committee meetings in the last 18 months within the Municipality.

421, 13%

647, 21%

792, 25% 769, 24%

548, 17%

ATTENDANCE OF WARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

(3177 RESPONDENTS)

13-18 meetings

9-12 meetings

4-8 meetings

1-3 meetings

Do not attend meetings



26 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 13

How satisfied are you with the prioritisation of issues raised during IDP meetings?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the rating of citizens satisfaction with

regard to priority of issues at IDP Meetings, within the municipal , Urban and

Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that over 40% of the respondants are

satisfied.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

18% 14% 16%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

13% 7% 14%

DO NOT ATTEND

MEETINGS

17% 23% 26%


Municipality are satisfied with the priority of issues at Ward Committee meetings .

723, 29%

825, 34%

522, 21%

390, 16% 0, 0%

SATISFACTION OF CONSTITUENTS WITH REGARD TO

PRIORITISING ISSUES WITHIN THE WARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

(2981 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory



Do not attend meetings



27 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 14

Over the last eighteen months, how would you rate the performance of the

Municipality on consulting with the community and leading discussion on key social,

economic and environmental issues which could impact on the local area?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the rating of the municipality’s

performance on consulting with the community and leading discussion on key

social,economic and environmental issues that will impact the community,within the

Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results demonstrate that over 40% of the

respondants are satisfied with the performance in these areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

25% 30% 35%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

16% 8% 16%


Municipality are satisfied with the Municipality’s performance in this regard.


28 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.4. BASIC SERVICES

OVERVIEW OF BASIC SERVICES WITHIN WARDS

The following Table highlights the Wards that are utilising Yard Taps, Community

Supply < 200m, VIPs and Sandpit Latrine. It also apprises us of those wards that do

not have Refuse Removal and Toilets.

779, 25%

957, 30%

905, 29%

491, 16%

COMMUNICATION ON WARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

(3149 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





29 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 15

What type of water supply service do you have?

The water supply service currently delivered to the community by the City of

uMhlathuze is categorized in terms of National regulations. The categories are

divided and measured as follows: house connections, yard connections, communal

supply within 200 metres distance (RDP level); communal supply further than

200 metres distance, boreholes. The aim is to improve and upgrade the standard of

water supply services level. The survey recorded customer satisfaction with the

WARD NO YARD TAP COMM

SUPPLY

<200

VIPs SANDPIT

LATRINE

NO

REFUSE

SERVICE

NO

TOILETS

4 52% 40% 3%

5 97% 97% 98%

6 96% 94% 39%

7 99% 98% 71%

8 96% 94% 61%

10 66% 74% 97%

11 72% 98% 100%

12 91% 87% 4%

13 84% 91% 80%

14 87% 79%

15 88% 50% 96% 46%

16 87% 82% 70%

17 63% 60% 9%

18 100% 92% 100%

19 50% 50% 39%

22 80% 74% 38%

24 48% 35% 39%

25 83% 64%

28 47% 46% 47%

29 97% 90% 39%

30 65% 44% 65%

31 34% 40% 74%

32 66%

33 58% 86% 58%

34 97% 56% 100% 6%



30 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

current service delivered to the community. The following figure illustrates the type of

water supply service rendered to the 3216 households that were approached during

the survey. 3234 responses were solicited.

TYPE OF CONNECTION IN

GREATER MUNICIPAL AREA

RESPONDANTS

HOUSE CONNECTION 1229

YARD TAP 1677

COMM.SUPPLY <200M 220

COMM.SUPPLY >200M 22

BOREHOLE 47

NO SUPPLY 39

1677 Households are currently utilising a Yard Tap, while 39 households have no

water supply. The dominant form of water supply remains the yard tap (52 %) and

house connection (39%)

TRADITIONAL AREAS RESPONSE

The following represents the type of water service rendered to respondants in

Traditional Areas.

510 Households within the Traditional areas responded to the survey as illustrated

below. 452 Households ( 89%) indicated that they utilised a Yard Tap. There is

currently no water supply for 18 households.

HOUSE

CONNECTION,

1229, 38%

YARD TAP, 1677,

52%

COMM SUPPLY

<200M, 220, 7%

COMM SUPPLY >

200M, 22, 1% BOREHOLE, 47,

1% NO SUPPLY, 39,

1%

TYPE OF WATER SERVICE (Total of 3234 Respondants )

HOUSE CONNECTION

YARD TAP

COMM SUPPLY <200M

COMM SUPPLY >

200MBOREHOLE



31 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

1677 Households are currently utilising a Yard Tap, while 39 households have no

water supply. The dominant form of water supply remains the yard tap (52 %) and

house connection (39%)

HOUSE

CONNECTION,

1229, 38%

YARD TAP, 1677,

52%

COMM SUPPLY

<200M, 220, 7%

COMM SUPPLY >

200M, 22, 1%

BOREHOLE, 47,

1% NO SUPPLY, 39,

1%

TYPE OF WATER SERVICE (Total of 3234 Respondants )

HOUSE CONNECTION

YARD TAP

COMM SUPPLY

<200M

COMM SUPPLY >

200M

TYPE OF CONNECTION

RESPONDENTS

HOUSE CONNECTION 10

YARD TAP 452


COMM.SUPPLY >200M 5

BOREHOLE 6

NO SUPPLY 18



32 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

TRADITIONAL AREAS RESPONSE

The following represents the type of water service rendered to respondants in

Traditional Areas.

510 Households within the Traditional areas responded to the survey as illustrated

below. 452 Households ( 89%) indicated that they utilised a Yard Tap. There is

currently no water supply for 18 households .

TYPE OF CONNECTION

RESPONDENTS

HOUSE CONNECTION 10

YARD TAP 452


COMM.SUPPLY >200M 5

BOREHOLE 6

NO SUPPLY 18

The dominant form of water supply remains the yard tap constituting 89 % of the

responses in the Traditional areas.

HOUSE

CONNECTION, 10,

2%

YARD TAP, 452,

89%

COMM SUPPLY

<200M, 19, 4%

COMM SUPPLY >

200M, 5, 1%

BOREHOLE, 6, 1% NO SUPPLY, 18,

3%

TYPE OF WATER SERVICE USED IN TRADITIONAL AREAS

( 510 RESPONDANTS)

HOUSE CONNECTION

YARD TAP

COMM SUPPLY <200M

COMM SUPPLY > 200M

BOREHOLE

NO SUPPLY



33 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Urban Areas

The following represents the type of water service rendered to respondants in Urban

Areas.

888 Households within the Urban areas responded to the survey as illustrated below.

194 Households ( 22%) indicated that they utilised a Yard Tap. The dominant form of

water supply is the house connection.

The Table and Chart illustrates Types of Water supply services that are currently

being utilised by respondents.

TYPE OF CONNECTION

IN URBAN AREAS

NO OF

RESPONDENTS

HOUSE CONNECTION 676

YARD TAP 194


COMM.SUPPLY >200M 2

BOREHOLE 0

NO SUPPLY 4

The dominant form of water supply remains the house connection constituting 76 %

of the responses in the Urban areas.

HOUSE

CONNECTION

76%

YARD TAP

22%

COMM SUPPLY

<200M

1%

COMM SUPPLY >

200M

0%

BOREHOLE

0%

NO SUPPLY

1%

TYPE OF WATER SERVICE USED IN URBAN AREAS

(888 RESPONDANTS )

HOUSE CONNECTION

YARD TAP

COMM SUPPLY <200M

COMM SUPPLY > 200M

BOREHOLE

NO SUPPLY



34 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 16

How would you rate your water supply service?

The following figure illustrates the water supply rating of households . A total of 3149

households responded to rate the water service rendered .

1344 households (45% )indicated that the service was excellent ; 1057 households

(36%) indicated Satisfactory ; 364 households (12%) indicated Satisfactory and 202

households (7%) indicated that the service was totally unsatisfactory.

The majority of respondants 81% were satisfied with the water supply within the

municipal area.

The Table and Chart illustrates Water supply service ratings.

SERVICE RATING NO OF RESPONDENTS %AGE

EXCELLENT 1435 46%

SATISFACTORY 996 32%

NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

443 14%

TOTALLY UNSATIS FACTORY 275 9%

Excellent, 1435,

45%

Satisfactory, 996,

32%

Not Completely

satisfactory, 443,

14%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

275, 9%

Water Supply Rating (Total Of 3149 Respondants)

Excellent

Satisfactory





35 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Traditional Areas

A total of 503 households responded to rate the water service rendered .

322 households (64% )indicated that there service was excellent ; 98 households

(19.5%) indicated Satisfactory ; 40 households (8%) indicated that it was Not

Completely Satisfactory and 43 households (9%) indicated that the service was

totally unsatisfactory. The majority of respondants 64% were satisfied with the water

supply in the area.

Urban Areas

A total of 875 households responded to rate the water service rendered .


(35%) indicated Satisfactory ; 102 households (12%) indicated that it was Not

Completely Satisfactory and 43 households (5%) indicated that the service was

totally unsatisfactory.

The majority of respondants 83% were satisfied with the water supply in the area.

The Comparitive Table illustrates both Urban and Traditional Water supply Service

Ratings.

URBAN % TRADITIONAL %

EXCELLENT 48% 64% SATISFACTORY 35% 19% NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY 12% 8%

TOTALLY UNSATIS FACTORY 5% 9%


36 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 17

Is the water supply to your home regular or does it get interrupted on a regular

basis?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the rating of the municipality’s Water

interuptions within the Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results indicate

that over 70% of the respondants are satified with limited interuptions in these areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

17% 9% 11%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

9% 5% 8%

The following figure illustrates the interruption of the water supply service at

households . A total of 3118 households responded.



households (9%) indicated that the service was totally unsatisfactory

Excellent, 1285,

41%

Satisfactory,

1033, 33%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

521, 17%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

279, 9%

WATER SUPPLY INTERRUPTION TO YOUR HOME

(TOTAL OF 3118 RESPONDANTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory




37 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 18

What type of sanitation /sewerage service do you have?

The following figure illustrates the type of sanitation service rendered to households .

A total of 3191 households responded to sanitation services rendered within the

Municipal Area .

1268 households (40% )indicated that they utilised the flushing toilet ; 1334

households (42%) indicated that they utilised VIPs ; 419 households (13%) indicated

that they used the sandpit latrine and 170 households (4%) indicated that there was

no toilet facilities.

The dominant form of sanitation or sewerage service is the flushing toilet system.

TYPE OF SEWERAGE NO OF RESPONDENTS %AGE

FLUSHING TOILET 1268 40%

VIP 1334 42%

SANDPIT 419 13%

NO TOILET 170 5%

FLUSH TOILET ,

1268, 40%

VIPS, 1334, 42%

SANDPIT, 419,

13%

NO TOILET, 170,

5%

TYPE OF SANITATION (TOTAL OF 3191 RESPONDANTS )

FLUSH TOILET

VIPS

SANDPIT

NO TOILET



38 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Traditional Areas

A total of 509 households in the Traditional areas responded to rate the sanitation

services rendered . The type of sanitation service rendered to households in the

Traditional Areas is as follows :

17 households (3% )indicated that they utilised the flushing toilet ; 404 households

(79%) indicated that they utilised VIPs ; 58 households (11) indicated that they used

the sandpit latrine and 30 households (7%) indicated that there was no toilet

facilities.

The dominant form of sanitation or sewerage service is the VIPS in the Traditional

Areas.

Urban Areas

A total of 883 households responded to sanitation services rendered . The type of

sanitation service rendered to households in the Urban Areas is as follows :

689 households (78% )indicated that they utilised the flushing toilet ; 109 households

(12%) indicated that they utilised VIPs ; 67 households (8%) indicated that they used

the sandpit latrine and 18 households (2 %) indicated that there was no toilet

facilities.

The Comparitive Table illustrates both Urban and Traditional Sewerage /Sanitation

Service available.

TYPE OF SEWERAGE URBAN USE TRADITIONAL USE

FLUSHING TOILET 78% 3%

VIP 12% 79%

SANDPIT 8% 11%

NO TOILET 2% 7%


39 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 19

How would you rate your sanitation /sewerage service?

The following figure illustrates the sanitation service rating of households . A total of

3000 households responded to rate the sanitation service rendered within the

Muninicipality.




Traditional Areas

A total of 414 households responded to rate the sanitation service rendered . The

type of sanitation service rendered to households in the Traditional Areas is as follows

:




Excellent

38%

Satisfactory

28%

Not Completely

satisfactory

17%

Totally

Unsatisfactory

17%

SANITATION SERVICE RATING


Excellent

Satisfactory





40 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Urban Areas

A total of 875 households responded to rate the sanitation service rendered . The

type of sanitation service rendered to households in the Urban Areas is as follows :

412 households (47% )indicated that the service was excellent ; 274 households

(31%) indicated Satisfactory ;116 households (13%) indicated Satisfactory and 73


The following Table provides a comparitive of Sanitation services that were

rendered to constituents in the Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas.


EXCELLENT 38% 47% 21% SATISFACTORY 28% 31% 39% NOT COMPLETELY


TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY 17% 9% 19%


41 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 20

What type of refuse removal service do you have?

The following Table provides a comparitive of Refuse Removal services rendered to

Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas.

TYPE OF REFUSE REM MUNICIPAL URBAN TRADITIONAL 240 L BIN 38% 74% 3% BLACK BAGS 10% 13% 5% COMMUNAL BIN 19% 6% 25% NO SERVICE 33% 7% 67%

The Traditional Areas lack refuse removal services , with 67% of respondants

indicating that there was no service available.

The following figure illustrates the type of refuse removal service rendered to

households within the Municipal Area. A total of 3168 households responded to rate

the refuse removal services rendered .

As indicated below, 1195 households (38% )indicated that they utilised the 240L bin ;

326 households (10%) indicated that they utilised black bags ; 610 households (19%)

indicated that they used the communal bin and 10370 households (33%) indicated

that there was no refuse facilities.

240 L Bin, 1195, 38%

BLK Bags, 326, 10%

Communal Bin, 610, 19%

No Service, 1037, 33%

TYPE OF REFUSE REMOVAL

( Total of 3168 Respondants)

240 L Bin

BLK Bags

Communal Bin

No Service



42 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 21

How would you rate your refuse removal service?

The following Table provides a comparitive of Refuse Removal Services rendered to

Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas.


EXCELLENT 31% 46% 16% SATISFACTORY 29% 35% 16% NOT COMPLETELY


TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY 26% 7% 60%

The general consensus for refuse removal services is satifactory amongst the greater

municipal area and Urban areas , however the rate of dissatisfaction in the

Traditional areas is 69% .

A total of 3048 households responded to rate the refuse removal service rendered .




Excellent, 952,

31%

Satisfactory,

884, 29%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

422, 14%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

790, 26%

REFUSE REMOVAL RATING


Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory

Totally

Unsatisfactory



43 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Traditional Areas

A total of 457 households responded to rate the refuse removal service rendered .

71 households (16% )indicated that there service was excellent ; 71 households (16%)

indicated Satisfactory ; 41 households (9%) indicated Satisfactory and 274


Urban Areas

A total of 876 households responded to rate the refuse removal service rendered.

402 households (46%) indicated that there service was excellent; 304 households

(35%) indicated Satisfactory; 106 households (12%) indicated Satisfactory and 64


Excellent, 71,

15% Satisfactory, 71,

16%

Not Completely

satisfactory, 41,

9%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

274, 60%

REFUSE REMOVAL RATING TRADITIONAL AREAS


Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory

Totally

Unsatisfactory

Excellent, 402,

46%

Satisfactory,

304, 35%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

106, 12%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

64, 7%

REFUSE REMOVAL RATING URBAN AREAS


Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory




44 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 22

How would you rate your electrical power supply service?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the Rating of Electrical Power Supply

Services rendered to Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome

demonstrates that a large majority of respondants are satisfied with this service.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

12% 11% 8%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

13% 6% 23%


Municipality are satisfied with this service.

Excellent,

1223, 40%

Satisfactory,

1089, 35%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

368, 12%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

388, 13%

RATING OF ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY

(3068 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory




45 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Traditional Areas

The figure below demonstrates that 69% of 456 respondants within the Traditional

Areas are satisfied with this service.

Urban Areas

The figure below demonstrates that 83% of 872 respondants within the Urban Areas

are satisfied with this service.

Excellent

25%

Satisfactory

44%

Not Completely

satisfactory

8%

Totally

Unsatisfactory

23%

RATING OF ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY IN TRADITIONAL AREAS

( 538 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory


Excellent

49%

Satisfactory

34%

Not Completely

satisfactory

11%

Totally

Unsatisfactory

6%

RATING OF ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY IN URBAN AREAS

( 872 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory






46 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 23

Are the streets and roads in your area predominantly tarred?

The following Table provides a comparitive of Tarred streets and roads in the

Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that 92% of

respondents in the Traditional areas (463 respondents) do not have tarred streets

and roads while 76% of respondents in the urban areas (656 respondents)

havetarred streets and roads . The overall municipal results ( 3139 respondents)

demonstrates that less than 50 % ,(1398)of respondents have tarred streets and

roads.

YES NO

URBAN 76% 24%

TRADITIONAL 8% 92%

MUNICIPAL 45% 55%

The figure above indicates that 55% of the roads and streets in the municipal areas

are not tarred.

YES, 1398, 45%

NO , 1741, 55%

ARE THE STREETS AND ROADS IN YOUR AREA PREDOMINANTLY

TARRED?

TOTAL OF 3139 RESPONDANTS )

YES NO



47 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 24

If no, how would you rate the condition of gravel roads (traditional areas) in

your immedite areas?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the Rating of the Condition of Gravel

Roads within the Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome

demonstrates that a large majority of respondants in the greater municipal area

(63%)and Traditional areas(79%) are dissatisfied with the condition of gravel roads.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

42% 42% 42%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

21% 8% 37%


Municipality are dissatisfied with this service.

Excellent, 547,

21%

Satisfactory,

410, 16%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

1090, 42%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

537, 21%

RATING OF CONDITION OF GRAVEL ROADS

(2584 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory




48 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 25

If yes , how would you rate the condition of tarred streets in your area?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the Rating of the Condition of Tarred

Roads within the Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results demonstrate

that a large majority of respondants, over 50% are satisfied with the condition of

tarred roads.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

28% 24% 26%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

18% 11% 2%


Municipality are satisfied with the condition of tarred roads.

Excellent, 724,

28%

Satisfactory,

670, 26%

Not Completely

satisfactory,

726, 28%

Totally

Unsatisfactory,

479, 18%

Rating of Condition of Tarred Roads

(2599 Respondents)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completely

satisfactory




49 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 26

Does the municipality respond quickly to damages by repairing the

damaged roads and bridges quickly ?

The following Table provides a comparitive result based on the above question

within the Municipal ;Urban and Traditional Areas. The results demonstrate that over

50% of the respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with the

condition of tarred roads, whilst 59% of respondents in the Traditional areas

disagree.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

29% 22% 19%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

20% 8% 40%


Municipality are satisfied with the response time to repair roads and bridges in the

municipality.

Excellent, 716, 23%

Satisfactory, 864, 27%

Not Completely satisfactory,

925, 29%

Totally Unsatisfactory,

645, 21%

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY RESPOND QUICKLY TO DAMAGES BY

REPAIRING THE DAMAGED ROADS AND BRIDGES QUICKLY ?

(3150 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not Completelysatisfactory




50 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 27

In your opinion how would you rate the provision and maintainance of the

storm water drainage system by the municiplaity ?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the above question within the

Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that over 50%

of the respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with service

delivery in this regard. Whilst 74% of respondents disagree in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

23% 19% 7%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

26% 11% 67%


Municipality are satisfied with the service that the municipality provides.

Excellent, 716, 23%


Not Completely satisfactory, 925,

29%


645, 21%

IN YOUR OPINION HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE PROVISION

AND MAINTAINANCE OF THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE

SYSTEM BY THE MUNICIPLAITY ?

(3020 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





51 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 28

In your opinion how would you rate the municipality on the priority they put

with regards to the provision of low cost housing?


Municipal ;Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that over 50%






NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

16% 16% 21%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

28% 8% 49%



Excellent, 720, 24%



15%


827, 28%

IN YOUR OPINION HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE

MUNICIPALITY ON THE PRIORITY THEY PUT WITH REGARDS

TO THE PROVISION OF LOW COST HOUSING?

(2993 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





52 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 29

How would you rate the quality of houses provided by the municipality ?


Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that over 50%






NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

11% 11% 13%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

14% 10% 29%

NOT APPLICABLE 16% 3% 20%



Excellent, 845, 28%



11%


424, 14%

Not Applicable, 490, 17%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF HOUSES

PROVIDED BY THE MUNICIPALITY ? (2982 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory



Not Applicable



53 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.5. COMMUNICATION

QUESTION 30

Over the past 18 months have you had any contact with the municipality?

The following Table provides a comparitive of the above mentioned question within

the Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that 67% of

respondents in the Traditional areas (333 respondents) have not had contact with

the municipality while 67% of respondents in the urban areas (574 respondents) have

had contact with the municipality in the last 18 months.

The overall municipal results ( 3080 respondents) demonstrate that less than 50 %

,(1540)of respondents have had contact with the municipality in the last 18 months .

YES NO

URBAN 67% 33%

TRADITIONAL 33% 67%

MUNICIPAL 50% 50%


Municipality have made contact with the municipalityin the last 18 months.

YES, 1540, 50%

NO , 1540, 50%

(OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

THE MUNICIPALITY?TOTAL OF 3080 RESPONDANTS )

YES NO



54 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 31

How does the municipality communicate with you?

The following figure illustrates the modes of communication used by the Municipality.

3323 respondents expressed the forms of communication that they found

favourable. The modes of communication reported on during the survey are the

following: Umhlathuze Newsletter, Personal Contact, Ward Committee, Telephone,

Radio and no contact. The outcome of the results demonstrates that 46% of the

respondents receive their communication from the Ward Committees, while 12%

indicated that there was no communication.

COMMUNICATION RESPONDANTS

%AGE

NEWSLETTER 736 22%

PERSONAL CONTACT 504 15%

WARD COMMITTEE 1522 46%

TELEPHONIC 150 5%

RADIO 22 1%

NO CONTACT 389 12%

The figure illustrates 3323 respondants modes of communication within the

municipality.

Newsletter, 736,

22%

Personal Contact,

504, 15% Ward Committee,

1522, 46%

Telephonic, 150,

4%

Radio, 22, 1% No Contact, 389,

12%

HOW DOES THE MUNICIPALITY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU?

(3323 RESPONDENTS)

Newsletter

Personal Contact

Ward Committee

Telephonic

Radio

No Contact



55 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

The following Table provides a comparitive of the types of communication utilised

by respondants within the Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results

demonstrate that the telephone and radio are not the preferred forms of

communication. The Ward Committee stands out as the most suitable form of

communication. The Umhlathuze Newsletter also scores high (45%) in the Urban

areas.

TYPE OF

COMMUNICATION

MUNICIPAL URBAN TRADITIONAL

NEWSLETTER 22% 45% 10%

PERSONAL CONTACT 15% 7% 3%

WARD COMMITTEE 46% 35% 51%

TELEPHONIC 5% 7% 1%

RADIO 1% 1% 2%

NO CONTACT 12% 5% 33%


56 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 32

Does the municipality keep you informed about services ?


Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The results demonstrate that over 60% of the

respondents in the Municipal , urban and Traditional areas are satisfied with service

delivery in this regard.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

26% 11% 30%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

12% 10% 10%



Excellent, 716, 23%



26%


387, 12%

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY KEEP YOU INFORMED ABOUT ITS

SERVICES? (3107 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





57 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 33

Does the municipality provide you with all the facts to make informed

decisions ?


Municipal ; Urban and Traditional Areas. The results demonstrate that over 50% of the






NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

27% 15% 30%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

14% 8% 18%



Excellent, 709, 23%



27%


435, 14%

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY PROVIDE YOU WITH ALL THE FACTS

TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS? (3117 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





58 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 34

Does the municipality ensure that the information you are entitled to is

accessible ?








NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

26% 12% 31%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

13% 9% 15%



Excellent, 764, 25%



26%


414, 13%

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION

THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IS ACCESSIBLE?

(3087 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





59 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 35

How would you rate the communication between the municipality and you ?








NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

21% 13% 23%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

13% 10% 16%


Municipality are satisfied with the communication between the municipality and

them.

Excellent, 808, 26%



21%


401, 13%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE

MUNICIPALITY AND YOU? (3078 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





60 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 36

How would you rate the suitability of information in the Umhlathuze Newsletter ?



respondents in the Municipal , urban and Traditional areas are satisfied with the

information in the Umhlathuze Newsletter. However 47% of the respondants in the

Traditional areas donot receive the Nwesletter.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 10% 8%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

5% 7% 4%

DO NOT RECEIVE

THE NEWSLETTER

27% 6% 47%


Municipality are satisfied with the information in the uMhlathuze Newsletter. However

27% of the respondants do not receive the Newsletter.

Excellent, 751, 24%



14%


164, 5%

Do not receive the Newsletter,

837, 27%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE SUITABILITY OF INFORMATION

IN THE UMHLATHUZE NEWSLETTER ?

(3111 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not CompletelysatisfactoryTotally Unsatisfactory

Do not receive theNewsletter



61 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.6. CUSTOMER CARE

QUESTION 37

Over the past 18 months have you had any contact with the municipality?

( By telephone or personal visit)


the Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The outcome demonstrates that 75% of

respondents in the Traditional areas (376 respondents) have not had contact with

the municipality while 66% of respondents in the urban areas (569 respondents) have

had contact with the municipality in the last 18 months. The overall municipal results

( 3097 respondents) indicate that less than 50 % ,(1489)of respondents have had

contact with the municipality in the last 18 months by telephone or personal visit. .

YES NO

URBAN 66% 34%

TRADITIONAL 25% 75%

MUNICIPAL 48% 52%


Municipality have made contact with the municipality in the last 18 months via

telephone or personal visit.

YES, 1489, 48% NO , 1608, 52%

OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

THE MUNICIPALITY VIA TELEPHONE OR PERSONAL VISIT?


YES NO



62 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 38

How would you rate the distance that you travel to the municipal offices for

queries and/or paying your municipal account ?




distance that they travel to the municipality




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 15% 18%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

10% 1% 10%


Municipality are satisfied with the distance that they travel to the municipality.

Excellent, 1160, 38%



14%


294, 10%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE DISTANCE THAT YOU TRAVEL TO

THE MUNICIPAL OFFICES FOR QUERIES AND/OR PAYING YOUR

MUNICIPAL ACCOUNT? (3058 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





63 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 39

How would you rate the assistance you receive from help desks when you

have queries?








NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 11% 13%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

9% 5% 16%


Municipality are satisfied with the assisstance received at help desks.




14%


271, 9%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE ASSISSTANCE YOU RECEIVE FROM

THE HELP DESKS WHEN YOU HAVE QUERIES?

(3038 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





64 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 40

How would you rate the willingness of the staff to assist?


Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The results indicate that over 70% of the






NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

16% 11% 15%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

9% 7% 14%


Municipality are satisfied with the willingness of staff to assist.




16%


271, 9%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WILLINGNESS OF STAFF TO

ASSIST?

(3038 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





65 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 41

How would you rate the attitude of staff?




attitude of staff.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 11% 14%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

10% 7% 21%


Municipality are satisfied with the attitude of staff.




14%


299, 10%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE ATTITUDE OF STAFF?

(2917 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





66 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 42

How would you rate the accuracy and turnaround time of feedback?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with service delivery in

this regard. While 47% of respondents are dissatisfied in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

19% 13% 22%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

14% 8% 27%


Municipality are satisfied with the assisstance received at help desks.




19%


425, 14%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE ACCURACY AND TURNAROUND

TIME OF FEEDBACK? (2959 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





67 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.7. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

QUESTION 43

To what extent do you make use of existing municipal sports facilities?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas that use sports facilities ,while 56% of

respondents in the Traditional areas don’t have facilities.


FREQUENTLY 19% 21% 11%

SOMETIMES 38% 35% 11%

NEVER 24% 37% 22%

THERE ARE NO

FACILITIES

19% 7% 56%


Municipality are utilise municipal sports facilities.

Frequently, 571, 19%

Sometimes, 1173, 38%

Never, 735, 24%

No facilities, 598, 19%

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU MAKE USE OF MUNICIPAL

SPORTS FACILITIES ? (3077 RESPONDENTS)

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

No facilities



68 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 44

How would you rate the standard of municipal sports facilities that you have

used?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with municipal sports

facilities, whilst 55% of respondents are dissatisfied with the standard in the

Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

28% 31% 12%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

22% 11% 55%


Municipality are satisfied with the standard of municipal sports facilities.

Excellent, 543, 19%



28%


612, 22%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE STANDARD OF MUNICIPAL

SPORTS FACILITIES USED? (2802 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





69 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 45

To what extent do you make use of existing municipal community facilities?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas that use municipal community

facilities ,while 61% of respondents in the Traditional areas don’t have facilities.




NEVER 15% 26% 7%

THERE ARE NO

FACILITIES

21% 7% 61%


Municipality are utilise municipal sports facilities, whereas 21% do not have facilities.


Sometimes, 1286, 41%

Never, 454, 15%

No facilities, 662, 21%

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU MAKE USE OF MUNICIPAL

COMMUNITY FACILITIES? (3117 RESPONDENTS)

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

No facilities



70 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 46

How would you rate the standard of existing municipal community facilities?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with the standard of

municipal community facilites , whereas 55% of respondents in the Traditional areas

are dissatisfied with the standard of facilities.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

22% 34% 5%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

18% 7% 50%


Municipality are satisfied with the current municipal facilities .

Excellent, 769, 26%



22%


540, 18%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE STANDARD OF MUNICIPAL

COMMUNITY FACILITIES USED? (2952 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





71 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 47

How would you rate the standard of fire and rescue services?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with the standard of fire

and rescue services , whereas 25% of respondents are dissatisfied with the standard

of these services in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

11% 16% 7%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

7% 7% 18%



Municipality are satisfied with the standard of fire and rescue services .

Excellent, 874, 29%



11%


227, 7%


HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE STANDARD OF FIRE AND RESCUE


Excellent

Satisfactory



Not Applicable



72 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 48

How would you rate the standard of motor vehicle licencing services?




motor licencing services , whereas 21% of respondents are not satisfied with the

standard of these services in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

11% 22% 2%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

7% 14% 4%



Municipality are satisfied with the standard of motor licencing services .

Excellent, 764, 25%



11%


228, 8%


HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE STANDARD OF MOTOR LICENCING


Excellent

Satisfactory



Not Applicable



73 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 49

How would you rate the uMhlathuze traffic law enforcement visibility?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas are satisfied with the visibilty of law

enforcement , whereas 74% of respondents are dissatisfied with this in the Traditional

areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

12% 14% 3%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

30% 11% 74%


Municipality are satisfied with the visibilty of traffic law enforcement .

Excellent, 847, 32%



14%


540, 20%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE UMHLATHUZE TRAFFIC LAW

ENFORCEMENT VISIBILITY? (3045 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





74 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 50

AFTER HOUR EMEGENCY SERVICES

How would you rate the after hour municipal emergency services?


Municipal area. The results indicate that over 60% of the respondents within the

Municipality are satisfied with the after hours emegency services that is provided.

TYPE OF

SERVICE

WATER SEWERAGE ELECTRICITY LAW

ENFORCEMENT

FIRE &

RESCUE

EXCELLENT 43% 33% 44% 30% 38%

SATISFACTORY 36% 34% 36% 37% 36%

NOT

COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 16% 11% 18% 14%

TOTALLY

UNSATIS

FACTORY

7% 18% 9% 15% 13%

The figure below outlines the number of respondants that responded per

emergency service within the Municipality.

WATER; 2871;

SEWERAGE; 2427;

ELECTRICITY; 2652;

LAW ENFORCEMENT;

2388;

FIRE & RESCUE; 2439;

THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS PER EMERGENCY

SERVICE?

WATER

SEWERAGE

ELECTRICITY

LAW ENFORCEMENT

FIRE & RESCUE



75 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 51

In your opinion, are there sufficient parks and playgrounds in your area?


the Municipal , Urban and Traditional Areas. The results indicate that 93% of

respondents in the Traditional areas (441 respondents) and 54% of respondents in

the urban areas (454 respondents) don’t believe that there are a sufficient number

of parks and playgrounds in the municipality.

Of the 2989 respondents , 77% (1489) respndents indicated that there isn’t sufficient

parks and playgrounds in their area.

YES NO

URBAN 46% 54%

TRADITIONAL 7% 93%

MUNICIPAL 23% 77%


Municipality indicated that there is sufficient parks and playgrounds in their area.

YES, 676, 23%

NO , 2313, 77%

IN YOUR OPINION IS THERE SUFFICIENT PARKS AND

PLAYGROUNDS IN YOUR AREA?


YES NO



76 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 52

In your opinion, are the parks/playground well situated/located, and are they

accessible to the majority of the community?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas stated that parks and playgrounds

are well situated / located, and that they are accessible to them , whereas 71% of

respondents in the Traditional areas do not agree with this.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

33% 33% 24%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

25% 7% 47%


Municipality indicated that that the parks and playgrounds are not well

situated/located, and that they are not accessible to them.

Excellent, 438, 15%


Not completly Satisfactory, 951,

33%


725, 25%

IN YOUR OPINION, ARE THE PARKS/PLAYGROUND WELL

SITUATED/LOCATED, AND ARE THEY ACCESSIBLE TO THE

MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY? (2882 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory





77 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 53

How often did a member of your household make use of parks and

playgrounds in the last two months?



respondents in the Municipal and urban areas stated that they made use of the

parks and playgrounds in the last two months, and 20% of respondents in the

Traditional areas have also done so. 65% of the respondents in the Traditional areas

indicated that there are no facilities.




NEVER 22% 30% 15%

THERE ARE NO

FACILITIES

33% 10% 65%


Municipality indicated that that they use the parks and playgrounds frequently.

32% Indicated that there are no facilities.


Sometimes, 965, 32%

Never, 664, 22%

There are no facilities, 986,

32%

HOW OFTEN DID A MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD MAKE

USE OF PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IN THE LAST TWO

MONTHS? (3031 RESPONDENTS)

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

There are no facilities



78 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 54

How would you rate the way the municipality approves and enforces building

plans?




approving and enforcing building plans , whereas 21% of respondents are not

satisfied with the standard of these services in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 13% 6%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

9% 5% 15%

NOT SURE 37% 23% 60%


Municipality are satisfied with the way the municipality approves and enforces

building plans .

Excellent, 536, 17%



14%


277, 9%

Not Sure, 1164, 37%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WAY THE MUNICIPALITY

APPROVES AND ENFORCES BUILDING PLANS? (3117

RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not CompletelysatisfactoryTotallyUnsatisfactoryNot Sure



79 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 55

How would you rate the standard of service delivery of the municipality in

respect of building plans and land use application?




service delivery in this area , while 61% of respondents are unsure about the standard

of these services in the Traditional areas.




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

14% 11% 5%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

9% 8% 13%

NOT SURE 40% 24% 61%


Municipality are satisfied with the service that the municipality renders with regard

to building plans and land use application. 23% is not satisfied and 40 % are not

sure.

Excellent, 529, 17%



14%


276, 9%

Not Sure, 1244, 40%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE STANDARD OF SERVICE DELIVERY

OF THE MUNICIPALITY IN RESPECT OF BUILDING PLANS AND

LAND USE APPLICATION? (3122 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory

Not CompletelysatisfactoryTotally Unsatisfactory

Not Sure



80 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

QUESTION 56

In your opinion, is your municipality sufficiently supporting and promoting

economic development of uMhlathuze Municipality?




service delivery in this area , while 59% of respondents in the Traditional areas are

unsure about the standard of these services .




NOT COMPLETELY

SATISFACTORY

11% 12% 4%

TOTALLY UNSATIS

FACTORY

10% 6% 16%

NOT SURE 38% 25% 59%


Municipality are satisfied with the service that the municipality renders with regard

to economic development. 21% is not satisfied and 38 % are unsure.

Excellent, 639, 21%

Satisfactory, 636, 20% Not Completely

satisfactory, 341, 11%


321, 10%

Not Sure, 1191, 38%

IN YOUR OPINION, IS YOUR MUNICIPALITY SUFFICIENTLY

SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF

UMHLATHUZE MUNICIPALITY? (3128 RESPONDENTS)

Excellent

Satisfactory



Not Sure



81 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

3.8 KEY COMMENTS FROM THE uMHLATHUZE COMMUNITY

* Figure within brackets denote the actual no of respondents

WARD 1

Job opportunities [5]

Municipality does not respond quickly [2]

Small businesses [4]

Water quality [10]

Electricity too high [10]

Need more information on IDP budget [3]

Rates are high [4]

Crime is high [3]

Potholes [3]

Corruption is high [2]

Very happy with municipality [39]

WARD 2

No notification about water & electricity cuts [14]

Rates too high [12]

Crime on the increase [2]

Electricity too expensive [3]

Water too expensive [2]

Sewage problem [5]

WARD 3


Sports ground required [2]

Streetlights [3]

Replace broken garbage bins [5]

WARD 4

Housing required [31]


Improve toilets [32]

Need Library [44]

Tar roads [13]

Playgrounds [24]

Streetlights [2]

Electricity [3]

Parks [15]

Schools [6]


82 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Water too expensive [4]

Hall needed [2]

WARD 5

Jobs opportunity [3]

No tar roads [2]

No drains [2]

Municipality doesn’t inform community about meetings [2]

WARD 6

Job opportunity [56]

Improve water [23]

Improve transport, too expensive [17]

Need more visible policing [9]

No electricity [15]

RDP houses required [39]

Road upgrade [38]

Mobile clinic required [2]

Need streetlights [4]

Toilets required [7]

Require pension [3]

Security of eNseleni [7]

Require bins [9]

Need scholar transport [2]

Municipality does not inform on water cuts [21]

Municipality corruption is high [7]

Garbage not removed for weeks [11]

WARD 7

Need job opportunities [29]

Water shortage [11]

RDP houses [17]

Roads upgrade [4]

Corruption when hiring [7]

Electricity shortage [6]

Crime increase [4]

Sewage problems [8]

Sports ground required [6]


83 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 8


Sports grounds [12]

Not happy with councillor [20]

Roads upgrade [30]

Refuse removal [5]

No notice of water cuts [19]

Electricity [11]

Transport [10]

Streetlights [14]


Overpopulation (migrants) [9]

WARD 9


Jobs [6]

Water [5]

Leaking Taps [9]

Electricity [6]

Street names [3]

Streetlights [6]

Street humps [4]

Rates are too high [9]

Shelter at bus stop [2]

Refuse removal [5]

Removal bins broken, need replacement [9]

Drainage problems [2]

Leaking toilets [6]

Roads need upgrade [7]

Meter reading an issue [2]

Unfinished cable and pipework [3]

WARD 10



Water supplied to homes [19]

Electricity required [11]


Roads upgrade [10]

Mobile clinics [5]

Driveway to homes needed [7]

Sports field [7]

Shelter at bus stops [3]


84 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 11

Jobs opportunities [2]

Roads upgrade [5]

Water required [4]

Electricity needed [2]


No sports facilities and parks [2]

WARD 12



Water/tap in yard [7]

Electricity [4]


Roads need upgrade [2]

Crime and drugs an issue [2]

Sports ground required[1]

WARD 13



Water required [11]

Electricity required [4]

Community hall needed [28]

Library required [15]

Markets needed [4]

Sports facilities required [24]

Power stations needed [2]

Clinics required [5]

Roads upgrade [32]

Training for starting a business [4]

Bins required [6]

Parks needed [3]

Streetlights [4]

Crèche [5]

Toilets needed [6]

Shelters [2]

Bursary [3]

Bridge for children [2]


85 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 14


Roads upgrade [7]

Service delivery needed [3]

Water damage to houses [2]

Sports facilities needed [5]

Traffic officers asks for bribes [5]

Municipality has meetings on Sunday- church [3]

Toilets needed [5]

Clinic required [2]

Refuse removal [6]

WARD 15



Refuse contact details [4]

Playground [2]

Libraries [2]

WARD 16


Job opportunity [3]

Water [5]

Electricity [4]

Community hall [5]

Sport grounds required [5]

Roads upgrade [10]

Toilets needed [9]

Yard is water logged after rain [7]

Streetlights [6]

Community bins [5]

Libraries [2]

Need meter boxes [4]

Clinic required [3]

No visible traffic policing [2]

Transport needed [2]


86 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 17



Municipality doesn’t respond to needs [7]

Sewage problems [4]

Flooded homes after rains [6]

Not notified about meetings [2]

Parks [2]

Tar roads [6]

Streetlights [7]

Dustbins [7]

Toilets needed [5]

Municipality is corrupt [4]

No service delivery [1]

WARD 18

No comments received.

WARD 19



Roads upgrade 15]

Sporting and training facilities [4]

Not informed about meetings [1]

Water is polluted [9]

Water shortage [23]

Dustbins need replacing [4]

Service delivery needed [9]

Toilets needed [4]

High rates [32]

Pipes bad condition [6]

Bursary [1]

Speed humps [1]

WARD 20


Roads upgrade [22]

Playgrounds [5]

High rates [16]

Pipe leakage [10]

Need to fix meters [5]

Poor service delivery [6]

Streetlights [2]


87 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Bins [5]

Water [8]

Electricity [6]

Sports-ground needed [2]

Water pressure is low [8]

Plastic garbage bags needed [9]

WARD 21

Housing [3]

Water polluted [2]

Water and electricity rates too high [15]

Municipal response very poorly to reports [8]

No notice to water outage [3]

Please cut the trees [2]

Refuse removal [2]

Streetlights [3]

Electricity department- poor workmanship (hazard to children) [2]

Clinic needed [2]

Upgrade facilities at playground [2]

WARD 22



Roads upgrade required [4]

WARD 23

Proud of municipality [1]

No access to playgrounds [2]

WARD 24



Leadership programmes [2]

Meter readings not accurate [4]

Tar roads [14]

Refuse removal [4]

Facilities – playground [14]

Problem with water supply [7]

Municipality need to stand against fraud and corruption [5]

Councillor doing a great job [5]

Poor communication between municipality & people [8]

Unfair hiring [2]

Build more sports facilities [11]


88 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Better service delivery [4]

Bursary [4]

Post office and community hall [7]

Clean up the park [2]

Redirect rain water [5]

Speed humps [3]

Need crèche and clinics [4]

Streetlights [4]

Clear and cut trees [3]

Electricity expensive [5]

Thank municipality for building homes and toilets [2]

Rude staff at municipality [2]

Very happy with improvements [9]

WARD 25



Water leaks [8]

More police visibility required - crime [6]

Rain damaging RDP houses [2]

Tar roads [11]

Build bridges for children to walk to school [4]

Need toilets [8]

Repair RDP houses [6]

Clinics [8]

Schools [17]

Sport facilities [4]

Need taps [5]

Ward committee does not do their jobs [3]

Need community hall [8]

Need bins and communal bins [4]

Need library [4]

Crèche [6]

Need a garage in our area [2]

Help with obtaining drivers licence [2]


89 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 26

Houses [5]

Jobs [2]

Sewerage problem [2]

Parks and recreation [12]

High rates for water and electricity [3]

Youth centres [2]

Refuse removal [3]

Clinic required [3]

Feedback from municipality for pipelines [2]

Illegal dumping [2]

Hall maintenance [4]

Roads [2]

Need bins [2]

Want community meeting with municipality [3]

Speed humps [2]

Plans for the community development [3]

Corruption levels increased [2]

WARD 27



Repair to RDP houses [6]

Better communication between municipality and citizens [12]

Fraud, corruption and crime [7]

Pleased with municipality [6]

Sewer pipes need maintenance [4]

Municipality abuse power, violate basic human rights [3]

Water supply [7]

Sanitation [3]

Health services [3]

Roads are clean [2]

Want free water [2]

Roads need maintenance [8]

Slow response of municipality on complaints [3]

Workshops need to be held to bring awareness on what the municipality

offers [4]

Refuse removal [2]


90 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

WARD 28

Road repair required [12]

Corruption nepotism [6]

Water metre leakage [8]

Need taps [3]

Leaking taps [4]

Sports-ground maintenance required [5]

Refuse removal [3]

Notification of electricity bill [2]

Communal bins [3]

Crime increase [2]

Sewerage problems [2]

WARD 29

Housing require [52]


Build community halls [13]

Build library [7]

Build sport grounds [25]

Build playgrounds [9]

Build crèche [12]

Fix the roads [49]

Bursaries [7]

Food parcel child head homes [7]

Electricity [12]

Skills development [26]

Crime increase [7]

Communal bins [29]

Streetlight [7]

Need clinic [7]

Driveway to their houses [24]

Not happy with the water metre [3]

Funding for sporting tournaments [4]

Sewerage systems [2]

No notifications when water shutdowns [11]

Toilets [14]

Repair to RDP houses [6]

Water is expensive [4]

Need taps [5]

Water metre leaking [2]

Refuse removal [5]

Cutting and removal of trees [3]

Need a bridge to be built [7]


91 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

Ward councillor don’t help [4]

WARD 30


No notification of water and electricity shutoff [29]

Roads upgrade [9]

Only see municipal officials when it is time to vote [4]

Electricity is too expensive [19]

Corruption in hiring [6]

Improve the standard of electricity service [17]

Improve the standard of water service [7]

Streetlights [2]

Sport grounds [2]

Plastic refuse bags [2]

Sewerage is blocked [5]

Water leakage [2]

WARD 31


Roads upgrade [7]

Water services [15]

Clinic [12]

Municipality is corrupt [9]

Park and sports grounds [7]

Orphans need assistance [3]

Better ambulance services [2]

Improve health services [2]

Drainage system for rainwater [2]

WARD 32

No comment.

WARD 33



Better roads [7]

Provide sport grounds [13]

Provide parks [8]

Water [15]

Need toilets [14]

Libraries [5]

Gym [8]

Water only opened once a week – Sunday [17]


92 | P a g e D M S 1 2 1 4 6 8 6

No community with ward council [18]

Provide electricity [2]

Environment is not good [2]

Don’t want to vote because they don’t see improvement [7]

Increase in crime [2]

Empty promises [3]

No service delivery [19]

Renovate the hall [2]

Bins required [2]

WARD 34


Sport grounds [3]

Gym [2]

Parks [2]

Load shedding [2]

Need toilets [3]

Tar roads [3]

Section Four: Conclusion

The uMhlathuze Local Municipality is encouraged to continue on its path of

noticeable progress with attention given to the observations listed hereunder:

Should the uMhlathuze Local Municipality intend to improve the satisfaction

scores reflected in this report, it is recommended that close attention and

precedence be given to remarks recorded under ‘’ Key Comments’’

The ward committees at present are proving to be an effective form of

municipal communication and should be enhanced / improved, followed by

the municipal newsletter.

Public Participation processes according to the results should be given

greater momentum.

Basic services primarily water supply; sanitation and refuse removal requires

further improvements and prioritisation.

Road maintenance and road access especially in the traditional areas needs

attention

Developmental local government programmes should be boosted

particularly around social and economic upliftment, job creation and

empowerment of the youth through the hosting of more Local Economic

Development programmes.

uMhlathuze Local Municipality Customer Satisfaction Survey ...in a north-east direction towards the...

Documents

Transcript of uMhlathuze Local Municipality Customer Satisfaction Survey ...in a north-east direction towards the...