Budget & Expenditure
Budget vs Actual by Vote
Approved budget against year-to-date actual expenditure across major votes.
Why Budget vs Actual Discipline Matters
The approved budget is a legal authorisation, not a forecast. Under section 15 of the MFMA, an accounting officer may not incur expenditure except in terms of an approved budget and within the limits of the amounts appropriated per vote, so persistent under- or over-spending against a vote is both a service-delivery signal and a compliance breach waiting to be reported. AuditPro Core tracks year-to-date actuals against each vote in real time so deviations surface while they can still be corrected, not at year-end when the AGSA arrives.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Total Approved Budget
R 4.82 bn
▲ 6.1% vs prior year
YTD Actual Spend
R 3.41 bn
70.7% utilised
Votes Over Budget
2 of 6
Health, Roads
Aggregate Variance
−R 18.4 m
0.4% over phased target
Approved vs Actual by Vote (R m)
Vote Performance Detail
| Vote | Approved (R m) | Actual (R m) | Variance % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate Services | 612 | 558 | −8.8% |
| Health | 1340 | 1402 | +4.6% |
| Roads & Transport | 980 | 1015 | +3.6% |
| Community Services | 705 | 489 | −30.6% |
| Water & Sanitation | 860 | 611 | −29.0% |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Vote and appropriation
A vote is the level at which a council or legislature appropriates funds, usually a department or function. Spending authority is granted per vote, which is why monitoring must be done at that level rather than only on the consolidated bottom line.
Material variance
A variance is the gap between budgeted and actual spend, expressed in rand and as a percentage of the appropriation. Auditors focus on variances that are material or that reveal a pattern, because these point to unrealistic budgeting, poor cash management or unauthorised expenditure.
Unauthorised expenditure
Spending that exceeds a vote, or is for a purpose not provided for, is unauthorised expenditure in MFMA terms and must be disclosed and dealt with by council. Early detection of over-spending trends prevents a small overrun becoming a reportable irregularity.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Live reconciliation: actual expenditure from the general ledger is matched to each vote's appropriation continuously, so the year-to-date position is always current rather than reconstructed at reporting time.
- Exception workflow: votes breaching a configured spend threshold are flagged and routed to the responsible manager for explanation before they harden into unauthorised expenditure.
- Audit-ready export: the budget-versus-actual statement and supporting variance notes export in a format aligned to the regulated reporting tables for direct inclusion in monthly and annual reporting.
- Traceability to source: every actual amount drills back to the underlying transaction, giving auditors a clean trail from the dashboard figure to the source document.
Key Takeaways
- Monitor spend at vote level, not just in aggregate, because authority is granted per vote.
- Investigate material variances early; most unauthorised expenditure is avoidable with timely intervention.
- Treat large positive variances as seriously as overspends, as under-spending signals delivery failure.
- Keep the trail from each actual back to source to withstand AGSA scrutiny.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.