GUELPH – County council recently approved a new speed camera revenue policy in an 11–5 vote, following much discussion and disagreement among councillors.
About $4 million in gross revenue has been generated to the end of March through the county’s automated speed enforcement (ASE) program.
The county’s share of that is $1.5 million.
“The policy was created specifically to address how we’re going to spend the revenue from it and also how we’re going to do the reporting,” administration, finance and human resources committee chair Earl Campbell stated during the April 24 meeting.
Shortly after the policy was presented, councillor Gregg Davidson, who has lobbied for speed cameras for years, brought forward an amendment.
It states the county “will use the road master action plan, the asset management plan, the automated speed enforcement data and speed management reviews to identify traffic studies and capital projects to improve road safety and measures to manage speed.
“Net proceeds from the ASE revenue may be put towards these studies and capital projects.”
This can include, but is not be limited to:
- installing speed radar signs;
- undertaking speed monitoring and traffic studies;
- installing and upgrading pedestrian crosswalks, traffic signals and guard rails;
- installing curbs;
- paving shoulders;
- narrowing lane widths; and
- constructing roundabouts.
The original ASE policy did not state anything about basing revenue usage on speed data, reviews, the master action plan or asset management plan.
Councillor Diane Ballantyne questioned the changes, stating she supports the “spirit” of the motion but not much else.
“The original … didn’t actually give us any criteria to utilize the funding,” Davidson explained.
“Utilizing the data and information we have is going to better help us to put in the safety measures needed in not only the community safety zones we currently have, but in other areas of the county that may need further updates.”
Councillor James Seeley said spending ASE revenue in community safety zones first should be a priority.
“At some point it’s going to be ‘we can’t do anything more, we’ve done all we can, slow down, stop speeding,’ then spend the money on building a roundabout,” he said.
“I can’t support it because … the order of the list implies that the other data is priority.”
Seeley spoke about the possibility of gaining feedback from local chief administrative officers (CAOs) and he suggested deferring the policy.
“If we do want that engagement from local tiers then adopting this policy today is premature,” he said.
Councillor Shawn Watters agreed with Seeley in terms of local priorities.
“In every location we’ve located those cameras there are problems there, because we are having excessive speeding,” Watters said.
“If you really want the buy-in from the community, you need to deal with those issues.”
Councillor Andy Lennox agreed with the amendment proposed by Davidson.
“It’s really important that we look at not just speeding in this situation but safety, safety in a broader sense,” he said.
“If we only look at speeding … then I think we’re missing the boat
“I really think we need these objective measures to properly prioritize where those safety dollars need to be spent the most, to save the most lives, reduce the most injuries and keep the people in our communities the most safe.”
Ballantyne explained when a policy gets into lists – in this case, on what the county will spend ASE revenue – it becomes “prescriptive” and then “unintentionally restrictive.”
Councillor Michael Dehn said, “I don’t like the idea of waiting and waiting … to make a decision … so I prefer we proceed with the amendment today.”
He noted the policy can be changed in the future if needed.
Campbell reminded council he is the “guilty party,” as he asked staff for the policy.
“They told me it was a little premature and I thought based on the dollars being generated and the public interest, that it was in our best interest to have a firm policy,” he said.
Ballantyne placed a motion on the floor to defer the policy, which ultimately failed.
Davidson’s amendment passed and the policy came down to a vote.
Councillors Seeley, O’Neill, Ballantyne, Watters and Mary Lloyd were opposed to the policy as amended, while the rest of council was in favour.
