{"id":869152,"date":"2026-08-06T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=869152"},"modified":"2026-08-06T13:57:11","modified_gmt":"2026-08-06T11:57:11","slug":"minimum-r1-4-million-salaries-for-managers-in-south-africas-collapsing-municipalities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/government\/869152\/minimum-r1-4-million-salaries-for-managers-in-south-africas-collapsing-municipalities\/","title":{"rendered":"Minimum R1.4 million salaries for managers in South Africa’s collapsing municipalities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

South Africa’s municipal managers can expect to earn at least R1.4 million, with a maximum set at over R3.8 million, despite the collapse of many local areas in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) has gazetted the latest determinations for municipal manager salaries in South Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gazette lays out the minimum and maximum salaries municipal managers can earn in the country, based on a point allocation determined by various factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These include a municipality’s total population, the income it produces, and its total equitable municipal share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The calculations are done using audited financial results, the 2022 census data, and current equitable share allocations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These factors are weighted on a scale, with points awarded for each metric, which then determines a municipality’s grade from 1 to 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gazette explains that the payment structure is designed so that salaries are both cost-effective and externally competitive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The document also outlines salary increases for managers who remain in their roles, encouraging retention within local government administrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to outlining pay structures, the gazette requires municipalities to appoint managers who meet the minimum competencies and qualifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on these statistics, municipal managers in larger or metropolitan areas can expect to earn higher salaries than those in smaller municipalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the Johannesburg municipal manager, Floyd Brink, would earn between R3.4 million and R3.8 million, based on the points system, which ranks the metro as a Grade 10 municipality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ekurhuleni’s municipal manager, Kagiso Lerutla, would earn between R3.1 million and R3.4 million per year, as the area is ranked Grade 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high earnings for these municipal managers are largely due to the income which they generate from their large populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Municipal managers in smaller or rural areas could earn between R1.4 million and R1.6 million, depending on how long they stay in the position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would reflect the salaries of managers in grade 1 municipalities, which have small populations and generate very little income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Widespread municipal collapse<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The recent salary information for municipal managers indicates that they will earn at least R1.4 million per year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This comes as South Africa is seeing municipalities collapse around the country, as outlined recently by the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its report on audited municipal finances for the 2025 financial year, the office of the AGSA noted that only 15% of municipalities received clean audits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The body also said that none of South Africa’s metros achieved a clean audit, with most being unqualified with findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It said that the only metros with good financial health indicators were Cape Town and Ethekwini, while Ekurhuleni and Mangaung were the most distressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poor financial health of several metro areas comes as their managers are among the highest-paid in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AGSA said these problems are more prevalent in smaller municipalities, which lack accountability, leading to poor service delivery and financial performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The absence of adequate institutional capability, compounded by persistent governance failures, increases the vulnerability of communities to the adverse effects of poor municipal management,” it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The poor responsiveness and disregard for accountability at the municipal level have had tangible consequences.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The auditor general also noted worrying patterns in several municipalities and reported 516 material irregularities before the end of 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within these material irregularities, the AGSA noted 305 cases of financial losses, and 110 cases which posed substantial harm to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those posing a risk to the public included failures to ensure safe drinking water, mismanagement of landfill sites, and pollution of water resources, among other irregularities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These irregularities largely represent failures from municipalities to safeguard public resources and efficiently provide services to residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Municipal Managers salary determinations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Municipality grade<\/strong><\/td>Minimum points<\/strong><\/td>Maximum points<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1<\/td>1<\/td>26<\/td><\/tr>
2<\/td>27<\/td>47<\/td><\/tr>
3<\/td>48<\/td>60<\/td><\/tr>
4<\/td>61<\/td>70<\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td>71<\/td>78<\/td><\/tr>
6<\/td>79<\/td>85<\/td><\/tr>
7<\/td>86<\/td>91<\/td><\/tr>
8<\/td>92<\/td>96<\/td><\/tr>
9<\/td>97<\/td>98<\/td><\/tr>
10<\/td>99<\/td>100<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Municipal manager’s salary ranges<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Grade<\/strong><\/td>Minimum<\/strong><\/td>Lower<\/strong><\/td>Midpoint<\/strong><\/td>Upper<\/strong><\/td>Maximum<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1<\/td>R1,483,544<\/td>R1,519,149<\/td>R1,555,608\u00a0<\/td>R1,592 943<\/td>R1,631,174<\/td><\/tr>
2<\/td>R1,631,174<\/td>R1,670,322\u00a0<\/td>R1,710,409<\/td>R1,751 460\u00a0<\/td>R1,793,494<\/td><\/tr>
3<\/td>R1,793,494\u00a0<\/td>R1,836,538\u00a0<\/td>R1,880,615\u00a0<\/td>R1,925 750<\/td>R1,971,967<\/td><\/tr>
4<\/td>R1,971,967\u00a0<\/td>R2,019 295<\/td>R2,067,758<\/td>R2,117 384<\/td>R2,168,202<\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td>R2,168,202\u00a0<\/td>R2,220 238<\/td>R2,273,524<\/td>R2,328 089\u00a0<\/td>R2,383,963<\/td><\/tr>
6<\/td>R2,383,963<\/td>R2,441,177\u00a0<\/td>R2,499,766<\/td>R2,559,761\u00a0<\/td>R2,621,194<\/td><\/tr>
7<\/td>R2,621,194<\/td>R2,684,103<\/td>R2,748,522\u00a0<\/td>R2,814,486<\/td>R2,882,034<\/td><\/tr>
8<\/td>R2,882,034\u00a0<\/td>R2,951,203\u00a0<\/td>R3,022,031<\/td>R3,094,561<\/td>R3,168,830<\/td><\/tr>
9<\/td>R3,168,830\u00a0<\/td>R3,244,882<\/td>R3,322,759\u00a0<\/td>R3,402,505<\/td>R3,484,166<\/td><\/tr>
10<\/td>R3,484,166<\/td>R3,567,786\u00a0<\/td>R3,653,412\u00a0<\/td>R3,741,094<\/td>R3,830,880<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n