This week’s Audit Committee Meeting gave everyone the opportunity to get clarity on how the revenue that comes from Red Light Cameras and Automated Speed Cameras is allocated. There was considerable confusion in the media and in social media posts that needed to be dealt with right away. I will get to that. But first, of note, our Auditor General releases her reports early so that committee members have time to read them (not every Auditor General does that.) However, the nine days between when the report was released and when the audit was actually tabled for discussion created so much confusion. The Auditor General is now rethinking whether her early release is actually beneficial.
As for the audit itself, in summary, the City’s Auditor General recommended that the revenue allocations from traffic cameras need to be better understood by Council. She was clear that there was no staff wrongdoing or siphoning of the money for other uses or purposes without an explainable rationale. Staff followed Council direction and made an assumption based on a 19-year pattern of Red-Light Camera revenue allocation. And, in fact, funding allocated overall to road safety has been in excess of the revenue that was generated by the cameras installed after 2019. It just wasn’t clear to councillors how or why our finance staff maintained the traditional 19-year average allocation of Red-Light Camera revenue to the City’s operating budget when there was a motion in 2019 to use the money from any new Red-Light cameras for the Road Safety Action Plan. Our CFO explained exactly why that was done. You can watch his explanation at this link.
To be fair to staff, all of the allocations from Red-Light and Speed Camera revenues have been reported to the public numerous times in different ways in a public forum. To be fair to councillors (and the media), the city budget is complex, the Budget binder is hundreds of pages long, so sometimes everyone needs to have specific line items more clearly spelled out. Staff could, in future, review or consult with councillors regarding their thinking about historical allocations to see if their assumptions are correct or still applicable. Motions that were put forward 6 years ago are not fresh in councillors’ minds. However, residents can be assured that there was no wrongdoing. It is just that clarity is required. Staff committed to doing that going forward.