Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Read by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you Read by hand. We read Vaughan's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 12 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Vaughan's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 4 similar Ontario places. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$45.9Mto be taken from reserves in the 2026 operating budget, up from $29.2 million in 2025, with a 0.00% rate increase
The City's 2026 budget has a 0.00% property tax rate increase, down from 3.00% in 2025. The only new tax money is $3.8 million from growth (new buildings on the tax roll). At the same time the budget plans to take $45.9 million out of reserves (savings set aside for later) to help pay for the year, up from $29.2 million in 2025. Money going into reserves and debt payments falls from $59.0 million to $42.1 million. The budget itself says the City's infrastructure deficit (the repair bill for roads, pipes and buildings that is bigger than the money set aside) "is large and growing". A 0% rate also applies only to the City's share of the tax bill, which the City says is $1,936 of an average $7,113.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 7 sources
$18.8Mforecast development charge reserve at the end of 2028, down from $534.6 million at the start of 2025
Reserves are money set aside for later. The City's 2026 budget forecasts that all reserves fall from $1,277.9 million at the start of 2025 to $661.5 million at the end of 2028. The development charge reserve (fees paid by builders to cover the cost of growth) is forecast to go from $534.6 million to $18.8 million at the end of 2028. A reserve called Capital from Taxation is forecast to go below zero in 2027. Council cut development charge rates by 47 per cent in November 2024, and the City says collections in 2025 were lower than expected. Debt is forecast to rise from $96.6 million to $201.3 million by the end of 2030. The City says this stays well under its own debt limit. The audited 2025 statements, dated June 23, 2026, show the development charge reserve fund at $431.0 million at the end of 2025, down from $557.9 million a year earlier. The City received $39.2 million in development charges in 2025, compared with $108.8 million in 2024.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
67 of 161internal audit recommendations still "in progress" on March 12, 2026 (58% were fully implemented)
When the City's Internal Audit department finds a problem, management agrees to a "management action plan" with a target date. In its 2025 annual report, dated for the March 30, 2026 Audit Committee, Internal Audit says that of 161 recommendations approved by Council from February 2016 through December 2025, management had fully implemented 94 (58%) and 67 (42%) were still in progress. A year earlier the report counted 146 recommendations, 83 done and 63 in progress. The report gives reasons for many of the open items, such as software projects and staff departures. We did not find a count of how many open actions are past their first target dates.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
40%of the forecast facilities funding need covered by planned funding ($10.4M against $26.2M)
In its Recreation Services audit (Phase 1, May 2025), Internal Audit cites the City's asset management plan: the 20-year average forecast calls for facilities funding of $26.2M (over $11M of it for community centres), while the average annual funding over the next 10 years is estimated at $10.4M. The audit calls that "a funding coverage of only 40%" and says the gap "would likely have to be bridged by debentures or non-CCBF grants". It recommends a plan to secure the money. Management agreed but said it would work "within the confines of the annual Capital Expenditure Plan". The same report says over 90% of community centres were rated Very Good or Good in 2025.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
Over $200,000of prepaid bin money with no record of which new homes it belongs to, in the audit's words ("more than $200,000 in unclaimed inventory"), at the end of Q1 2025
Developers pay the City up front for recycling and organic bins for each new home. The City holds that money in two "deferred revenue" accounts (money received before it is earned) until the new owner collects the bins. The Solid Waste Management audit (May 2025) found $103,719.82 in the recycling account and $127,169.62 in the organic account at the end of Q1 2025, "more than $200,000 in unclaimed inventory". The City does not match payments to addresses, so the audit says it is impossible to know how old the money is or which homes have not collected bins. Management agreed to review the revenue question by Q1-2026 and the program by Q4-2026.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$32.3Mof speed-camera fines in the 2025 approved budget for one department; none in 2026
The City's 2025 budget presented its automated speed enforcement (ASE) program, with 10 cameras, as a way to raise money for safety work. The 2025 approved budget for one department carried $32.3 million of fines, $12.0 million of professional fees and a $17.7 million transfer to reserve. The 2026 budget has none of these. It says staff positions were cut because the program ended and calls it "terminated" and "cancelled". We did not find, in the documents we read, when or why it ended, what it cost, or what happened to the reserve transfer.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$14,194spent on newsletters and mailings by January to July 2026 in one office, against a yearly line of $1,273
Each member of Council has an office budget. The City posts a monthly report with each line's budget and spending. In the July 2026 reports (January to July), three members' spending on one line is already above that line's budget for the whole year: Councillor Chris Ainsworth on newsletters and mailings ($14,194 against a yearly line of $1,273), Councillor Marilyn Iafrate on newsletters and mailings ($9,058 against $7,957) and Councillor Gila Martow on advertising and branding ($4,408 against $2,590). The Council expense policy lets members move money between lines, but sets an advertising cap, and bars newsletters and advertising from August 1 of an election year. We looked at one month's reports only, and each office is under its total budget.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
9 formalCode of Conduct complaints received in the 2022-2026 term, plus 15 informal ones
The Integrity Commissioner (a part-time officer who reports to Council) looks into complaints that a member broke the Code of Ethical Conduct or the conflict-of-interest law. In the 2022-2026 term the office received 9 formal and 15 informal complaints. One formal complaint under the conflict-of-interest law was investigated, and the Commissioner decided not to ask a court to rule on it. In 2024 the office reported three investigations in which a Code breach was sustained. The Commissioner's report says no complaint may be received from Nomination Day (August 21, 2026) to Voting Day (October 26, 2026), and that a matter still open on Nomination Day was terminated and can only be restarted by a new written request within six weeks after Voting Day. The City's budget says it is working on "low engagement" with the office.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$101.1M vs $46,960,910the 2024 general government budget in the budget book and in the audited statements
General government means the costs of running the City itself (Council, the City Manager, finance, legal, IT). The 2024 budget book prints a budget of $101.1 million for this function on the same accounting basis as the audited statements. The audited 2024 statements print a 2024 budget of $46,960,910 for the same function and actual spending of $51,167,709. The statements say that the indirect costs of program support are allocated to the functions that use them. The budget books do not say whether they do the same. Without that, the two sets of numbers cannot be compared line by line. In the audited 2025 statements, the budget column for general government is $149,697,808 and actual spending is $77,651,539, up from $51,167,709 in 2024.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
18%change orders as a share of the original contract cost, against the City's flat 10% cushion
Internal Audit reviewed the construction of the Carrville Community Centre, Library and District Park (opened June 30, 2025). The City sets aside a flat 10% of the contract amount for surprises, on every project. On Carrville, the audit says change orders reached 18% of the original contract cost, mostly because of unsuitable soil and a high water table. A set-aside of $2.4 million for items not yet priced ran out when $1.294 million of it paid for pumping and filtering water, so security and IT equipment needed change orders instead. The audit says the spending was justified and properly bought. Management agreed to change how it sets aside money for risk. We did not find the original contract amount or the final project cost in these documents.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$45.9Mto be taken from reserves in the 2026 operating budget, up from $29.2 million in 2025, with a 0.00% rate increase
The City's 2026 budget has a 0.00% property tax rate increase, down from 3.00% in 2025. The only new tax money is $3.8 million from growth (new buildings on the tax roll). At the same time the budget plans to take $45.9 million out of reserves (savings set aside for later) to help pay for the year, up from $29.2 million in 2025. Money going into reserves and debt payments falls from $59.0 million to $42.1 million. The budget itself says the City's infrastructure deficit (the repair bill for roads, pipes and buildings that is bigger than the money set aside) "is large and growing". A 0% rate also applies only to the City's share of the tax bill, which the City says is $1,936 of an average $7,113.
Why it matters
A freeze in an election year is welcome to people who pay the bill. But reserves can only be spent once. If they are used to cover running costs, the gap has to be filled later by higher taxes, fewer services or more debt.
It could be because…
Part of the fall in reserve contributions lines up with the speed-camera program ending: the 2025 budget for the Transportation and Fleet department included a $17.7 million transfer to reserve that is gone from 2026. The budget book does not itself link the two, so this is our observation, not the City's statement.
Reserve transfers into the operating budget can pay for one-time items, which would not repeat every year.
The City says it expects technology, business change and staff engagement to produce efficiencies that keep service levels and reserve contributions in place.
Growth in the tax base (1.5% a year, the City says) brings in new money without a rate increase.
Questions you could ask
What one-time items are paid for by the $45.9 million of reserve transfers in the 2026 operating budget, and which reserves does the money come from?
If the 2027 budget has to replace those transfers with tax money, what rate increase would that mean?
How much of the fall from $59.0 million to $42.1 million in reserve contributions and debt payments is the speed-camera transfer, and how much is a real cut?
How is the City's own warning that its infrastructure deficit is "large and growing" reflected in a year with no rate increase?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Mayor's message says: "there will be no property tax increase and no service cuts in this year's budget."
The multi-year table prints Incremental Tax Rate of 3.00% for the 2025 approved budget and 0.00% for the 2026 proposed budget. "Revenue from Assessment Growth" is 3.8 ($ million) for 2026 and "Revenue from Incremental Tax Rate" is 0.0. Net Levy is 251.2 ($ million) in 2025 and 255.0 in 2026. The text says: "In 2026, the administration will capitalize on technology investments, business transformation and staff engagement to help generate efficiencies in order to maintain service levels and contributions to reserves".
The revenue table prints Reserve Transfers of 26.5 ($ million) for 2024 actual, 29.2 for the 2025 approved budget and 45.9 for the 2026 proposed budget, within total revenues of 434.4.
The expenditure table prints Reserve Contributions and Long-Term Debt of 99.8 ($ million) for 2024 actual, 59.0 for the 2025 approved budget and 42.1 for the 2026 proposed budget.
The Budget Variance page says: "The Corporate AMP for core and non-core assets suggest the City's infrastructure deficit is large and growing." (AMP means asset management plan.)
The Transportation and Fleet Management Services table prints, for the 2025 approved budget, Fines 32.3, Professional Fees 12.0 and Transfer to Reserve 17.7 ($ million). The 2026 proposed budget column shows a dash for Fines and for Transfer to Reserve and 0.1 for Professional Fees.
The City says it keeps "approximately $1,936 of an average $7,113 annual property tax bill (based on a home with an assessed value of $950,000)", with 53% ($3,724) to York Region and 20% ($1,454) to the Province for education.
$18.8Mforecast development charge reserve at the end of 2028, down from $534.6 million at the start of 2025
Reserves are money set aside for later. The City's 2026 budget forecasts that all reserves fall from $1,277.9 million at the start of 2025 to $661.5 million at the end of 2028. The development charge reserve (fees paid by builders to cover the cost of growth) is forecast to go from $534.6 million to $18.8 million at the end of 2028. A reserve called Capital from Taxation is forecast to go below zero in 2027. Council cut development charge rates by 47 per cent in November 2024, and the City says collections in 2025 were lower than expected. Debt is forecast to rise from $96.6 million to $201.3 million by the end of 2030. The City says this stays well under its own debt limit. The audited 2025 statements, dated June 23, 2026, show the development charge reserve fund at $431.0 million at the end of 2025, down from $557.9 million a year earlier. The City received $39.2 million in development charges in 2025, compared with $108.8 million in 2024.
Why it matters
Development charges are meant to be spent on new roads, pipes and community centres as the city grows. A forecast that runs the account close to zero shows how little cushion is left if builders slow down or costs rise. The shortfall would be covered by new debt, delayed projects or taxes.
It could be because…
Development charges are collected to be spent. The City names growth projects they pay for: the Black Creek Renewal project, the Kirby Road Extension and the North Maple Regional Park.
The forecast has the reserve recovering to $285.2 million by 2030, which suggests the City expects collections to pick up or spending to ease.
The City's debt stays below its self-imposed limit of 10% of own-source revenue (the table shows a peak ratio of 4.4%), and well below the provincial 25% limit.
A forecast is a plan under today's assumptions and the City says it will reassess pressures each year.
The audited balance and the budget forecast are counted differently, so they do not match exactly. The audited end-of-2025 balance ($431.0 million) is above the forecast's $385.6 million, so the first year came in better than the forecast.
Questions you could ask
What happens to projects in the 2026-2030 capital plan if development charge collections stay at the 2025 level?
Why does the reserve forecast show Capital from Taxation going below zero in 2027, and what would cover it?
Were the 47 per cent rate cut and its effect on the reserve forecast put to Council together, and where is that report?
What is the plan for the $201.3 million of debt forecast for 2030, and which projects does it pay for?
Development charge receipts fell from $108.8 million in 2024 to $39.2 million in 2025. Does the 2027 budget assume they recover, and by how much?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Reserve Balance Forecast prints Development Charges of 534.6 ($ million) for the 2025 opening balance, 385.6 for the end of 2025, 180.4 for 2026, 60.8 for 2027, 18.8 for 2028, 66.9 for 2029 and 285.2 for 2030. The Grand Total is 1,277.9 opening, 1,121.7 for 2025, 864.8 for 2026, 713.8 for 2027, 661.5 for 2028 and 706.8 for 2029 (the columns run from the 2025 opening balance to the end of 2030). Capital from Taxation is 16.4 opening, 10.1, 2.7, (0.7), (7.5), (9.4) and (9.1).
The Background page says: "On Nov. 19, 2024, Vaughan Council passed a series of policies related to Development Charges which reduced current Development Charge rates by 47 per cent as a measure to incentivize new development." It also says: "The City's Development Charge collections in 2025 were lower than expected."
The Debt Repayment Schedule prints an opening balance of 96.6 ($ million) in 2025 and an ending balance of 201.3 in 2030 after additional debt issued or guaranteed of 202.0 over 2025 to 2035. The Debt Servicing Ratio table shows 1.9% in 2025 rising to 4.4% in 2032, against a self-imposed limit of 10.0% and a legislated limit of 25.0%.
Note 6(b) prints obligatory reserve funds (deferred revenue) of $767,320,263 at December 31, 2024, of which Development Charges Act $557,893,448. The continuity schedule shows $108,798,837 received, $(116,120,537) recognized as revenue and $22,523,758 of interest allocated to development charges in 2024.
Note 6(b) prints Development Charges Act obligatory reserve funds of $430,986,849 at December 31, 2025 and $557,893,448 at December 31, 2024. The continuity schedule shows an opening balance of $557,893,448, $39,186,775 received, $(180,077,143) recognized as revenue and $13,983,769 of interest allocated, closing at $430,986,849.
67 of 161internal audit recommendations still "in progress" on March 12, 2026 (58% were fully implemented)
When the City's Internal Audit department finds a problem, management agrees to a "management action plan" with a target date. In its 2025 annual report, dated for the March 30, 2026 Audit Committee, Internal Audit says that of 161 recommendations approved by Council from February 2016 through December 2025, management had fully implemented 94 (58%) and 67 (42%) were still in progress. A year earlier the report counted 146 recommendations, 83 done and 63 in progress. The report gives reasons for many of the open items, such as software projects and staff departures. We did not find a count of how many open actions are past their first target dates.
Why it matters
Audits only help residents if the fixes happen. Some of the open items touch money controls (vendor payments, the accommodation tax) and public safety systems. A single published list of open actions with original and current dates would let anyone check progress.
It could be because…
Many fixes need new software or system changes that legitimately take years, and the report explains several of them.
Newer audits (2025) have had little time to finish, so a share of the open items are simply recent.
Management says it is on track for several of the open items, and Internal Audit checks each new completion date for reasonableness.
A report can count as "in progress" while part of the work is done (for example, 22 of 24 Parks Operations action items are complete).
Questions you could ask
How many of the 67 open actions are past the date management first gave, and how many have had their dates moved?
Will the City publish the full list of open audit actions, with first and current target dates, on its website?
Did the time-and-labour system for Vaughan Fire and Rescue Service go live in May 2026 as planned?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The report says: "The scope of this update includes 24 audit reports containing 161 recommendations approved by Council from February 2016 through December 2025. As of March 12th, 2026, management has fully implemented 94 of those MAPs, or 58%. A total of 67 MAPs, or 42% are in progress."
The year before, the report said: "The scope of this update includes 21 outstanding audit reports containing 146 recommendations", and that as of May 12th, 2025, management had fully implemented 83 of those MAPs, or 57%, and 63 MAPs, or 43%, were in progress.
On the oldest item: "The Corporate Overtime Audit report was presented to FA&A on February 1st, 2016. The report contained five recommendations." The remaining open plan is to automate time and labour management; the report says the chosen solution "is on track to go live in May 2026", and that Recreation Services and Vaughan Public Libraries are still gathering requirements, with a new system planned for late 2026 for the libraries and early 2027 for Recreation.
On the Vendor Master File Audit (presented June 13th, 2022): one of seven recommendations is open. The report says the automation "was paused due to the departure of a key OCIO resource" and "remains scheduled for completion in Q4 2026, subject to resource availability", with interim manual controls in place.
On the Municipal Accommodation Tax Audit (presented February 5th, 2024): "The report contained four recommendations. Three recommendations remain outstanding." On the IT Asset Management and Contracts Audit, it says "the target completion dates of 5 in-progress recommendations have been extended" because of "resourcing and budgetary constraints".
40%of the forecast facilities funding need covered by planned funding ($10.4M against $26.2M)
In its Recreation Services audit (Phase 1, May 2025), Internal Audit cites the City's asset management plan: the 20-year average forecast calls for facilities funding of $26.2M (over $11M of it for community centres), while the average annual funding over the next 10 years is estimated at $10.4M. The audit calls that "a funding coverage of only 40%" and says the gap "would likely have to be bridged by debentures or non-CCBF grants". It recommends a plan to secure the money. Management agreed but said it would work "within the confines of the annual Capital Expenditure Plan". The same report says over 90% of community centres were rated Very Good or Good in 2025.
Why it matters
Buildings worth over $335M to replace need steady upkeep. If planned funding is well below the need, the gap is paid later by borrowing, grants or higher taxes, or by deferring repairs. It connects to the City's reserve levels in other findings on this page.
It could be because…
The forecast counts only reserve contributions, taxes and the federal Canada Community-Building Fund, not grants or debt the City may use.
Community centres are mostly in good condition, so some spending can be put off safely.
Recent renovations at three community centres began in Fall 2022 and extend their remaining service life.
Questions you could ask
How much of the community centre and facilities need does the 2026 budget and 2027-2030 capital plan fund each year?
Which repairs or replacements are being put off because planned funding is below the need?
Does the City expect to borrow or seek grants to close the gap, and has it published that plan?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The audit says: "The Facilities Service Capital Asset Management Plan 20-year average forecast calls for a funding need of $26.2M (over $11M of that is for Community Centres). In comparison, the average annual funding over the next ten years is estimated to be $10.4M, representing a funding coverage of only 40%. This significant gap would likely have to be bridged by debentures or non-CCBF grants." A footnote says the funding in the forecast is limited to annual reserve contributions, capital from taxation and the Canada Community-Building Fund.
The audit says the plan "estimates the replacement value of the City's Community Centres to be over $335M" and that the 2025 plan "rated the condition of over 90% of the Community Centres as either Very Good or Good", with none rated poor.
Management response: "Management agrees with this recommendation." Facility Management "will work within the confines of the annual Capital Expenditure Plan, using lifecycle management strategies to maintain current Levels of Service".
Over $200,000of prepaid bin money with no record of which new homes it belongs to, in the audit's words ("more than $200,000 in unclaimed inventory"), at the end of Q1 2025
Developers pay the City up front for recycling and organic bins for each new home. The City holds that money in two "deferred revenue" accounts (money received before it is earned) until the new owner collects the bins. The Solid Waste Management audit (May 2025) found $103,719.82 in the recycling account and $127,169.62 in the organic account at the end of Q1 2025, "more than $200,000 in unclaimed inventory". The City does not match payments to addresses, so the audit says it is impossible to know how old the money is or which homes have not collected bins. Management agreed to review the revenue question by Q1-2026 and the program by Q4-2026.
Why it matters
The money is the City's own record of an obligation to deliver bins. If it cannot say which homes are owed bins, some residents may never get them, which also affects the City's waste diversion goals. Old balances may also never be counted as revenue.
It could be because…
Many new homes may not be occupied yet, so the balance can be normal timing between payment and move-in.
The City has no way yet to age the balances, so part of the money may be recent.
Management agreed with the findings and set review dates, and the 2025 annual report says the three remaining Solid Waste recommendations are on track.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $230,889 is more than a year old, and how many homes have not collected their bins?
Did the Q1-2026 review decide when the unclaimed money will be counted as revenue?
Will the City deliver bins to each new home, or end the prepaid program?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The audit says: "at the end of Q1 2025, there was $103,719.82 in the Recycling Bin deferred revenue account and $127,169.62 in the Organic Bin deferred revenue account." It says management does not reconcile by address, so "there is no way of knowing the addresses of the new homes who have not picked up their prepaid bins nor the total number of addresses outstanding".
The summary says: "We have found that there is more than $200,000 in unclaimed inventory and there is not a process in place to match prepaid transactions to addresses."
Management response: it "agrees with the recommendations". Environmental Services will evaluate the prepaid bin program or, "if warranted, determine appropriate steps to discontinue the program. (Q4-2026)", and will review the revenue implications with Financial Services (Q1-2026).
The 2025 annual report says the Solid Waste Management Audit "contained nine recommendations. The three remaining recommendations are on track to be completed by their targeted due dates."
Vaughan spent $28.3M on roads and snow in 2019 and $51.3M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of roads and snow grow 81% in 6 years?
Roads and snow
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%+100%
+81%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Roads and snow
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+41%
+1%
2021
+51%
+4%
2022
+7%
+11%
2023
+24%
+16%
2024
+25%
+18%
2025
+81%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
When one area grows much faster than prices, it is either doing more (which may be great) or paying more for the same thing. Residents deserve to know which.
It could be because…
The city added a service, a building or staff that residents asked for.
Costs were moved from another area, so the total did not really change.
Accounting rules changed how costs are sorted.
Large one-time costs, like a study, lawsuit or repair, landed in one year.
Questions you could ask
How much of the 2025 rise in roads and snow spending was speed-camera costs, and how much was winter work or new roads and pavement markings?
What did the City spend on winter control in 2025, compared with 2024?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Transportation and Fleet Management Services table prints, for the 2025 approved budget, Fines 32.3, Professional Fees 12.0 and Transfer to Reserve 17.7 ($ million). The 2026 book calls the speed-camera program "terminated" and "cancelled" (book pages 94 and 257).
The measures table prints Winter Maintenance Cost per Lane Kilometre of $5,799 for 2023, $5,032.16 for 2024 and $5,400.00 for 2025 projected, and Total Road Lane Kilometres Serviced of 2,180, 2,100 and 2,138. The 2026 budget request says pavement marking assets are "overdue for maintenance and have historically not been considered in the budget".
$32.3Mof speed-camera fines in the 2025 approved budget for one department; none in 2026
The City's 2025 budget presented its automated speed enforcement (ASE) program, with 10 cameras, as a way to raise money for safety work. The 2025 approved budget for one department carried $32.3 million of fines, $12.0 million of professional fees and a $17.7 million transfer to reserve. The 2026 budget has none of these. It says staff positions were cut because the program ended and calls it "terminated" and "cancelled". We did not find, in the documents we read, when or why it ended, what it cost, or what happened to the reserve transfer.
Why it matters
A large budget line that appears for one year and disappears is worth a plain explanation. It also changes the City's year-to-year figures (the Public Works budget falls from $100.8 million to $70.7 million in the 2026 book) and may affect the automatic cost-growth questions for roads.
It could be because…
The program may have ended because of a decision by another level of government. We did not find the reason in the documents we read, so we cannot say.
If the cameras never ran, the budgeted fines may never have been collected or spent, so the effect on real spending could be small.
Fines and costs may have been designed to cancel out (the 2025 book says returns "offset costs").
Questions you could ask
When and why did the City end its automated speed enforcement program?
How much was spent on the program in 2024 and 2025, and how much was collected?
What is the status of the $17.7 million reserve transfer and the $12.0 million of professional fees in the 2025 budget?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The 2025 budget says: "An example is the implementation of the Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) Program"; "The initiative was approved by Council in the 2023 Budget"; "The initial implementation will include 10 ASE cameras that will generate returns to offset costs".
For the Transportation and Fleet Management Services department, the 2025 approved budget column prints Fines 32.3, Professional Fees 12.0, Transfer to Reserve 17.7 and total Expenditures 67.4 ($ million); 2024 actuals show total Expenditures of 32.3.
A footnote says: "The decrease in the budget from 2025 to 2026 budget is due to the conclusion of the Automated Speed Enforcement Program." Public Works is 100.8 ($ million) for 2025 and 70.7 for 2026.
The By-law department page says: "The reduction of 7 FTEs is due to the termination of the Automated Speed Enforcement program." Another department page says: "The 2026 position related to the Automated Speed Enforcement program was removed when the program was cancelled."
$14,194spent on newsletters and mailings by January to July 2026 in one office, against a yearly line of $1,273
Each member of Council has an office budget. The City posts a monthly report with each line's budget and spending. In the July 2026 reports (January to July), three members' spending on one line is already above that line's budget for the whole year: Councillor Chris Ainsworth on newsletters and mailings ($14,194 against a yearly line of $1,273), Councillor Marilyn Iafrate on newsletters and mailings ($9,058 against $7,957) and Councillor Gila Martow on advertising and branding ($4,408 against $2,590). The Council expense policy lets members move money between lines, but sets an advertising cap, and bars newsletters and advertising from August 1 of an election year. We looked at one month's reports only, and each office is under its total budget.
Why it matters
Newsletters and advertising paid by the City are allowed to share City business, but they cannot be campaign material. In an election year the line between the two is thin, so the rules set a cut-off date and a cap.
It could be because…
The policy says each member has discretion over how the office budget is allocated, so a line can be overspent if others are underspent. Each of these offices is under its total year-to-date budget.
The lines may have been set low in the budget and the member may have moved money to match plans, or an annual mailing may have been paid up front.
The advertising cap in the policy is $7,000 a year per member, and Councillor Martow's $4,408 is under it.
Questions you could ask
Did Councillors Ainsworth, Iafrate and Martow move money between lines, and where is that recorded?
What do the August to October 2026 reports show for newsletters and advertising, after the August 1 cut-off?
Who checks newsletters for "promises and intentions" before they are paid for?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Councillor Chris Ainsworth, July 2026 year-to-date report: line 7126 Newsletters & Mailings has a 2026 budget of 1,273 and a year-to-date actual of 14,194. Total Expense is 455,823 budgeted and 243,828 actual.
Councillor Marilyn Iafrate, July 2026 year-to-date report: line 7126 Newsletters & Mailings has a 2026 budget of 7,957 and a year-to-date actual of 9,058. Total Expense is 450,896 budgeted and 258,435 actual.
Councillor Gila Martow, July 2026 year-to-date report: line 7135 Advertising/Branding has a 2026 budget of 2,590 and a year-to-date actual of 4,408. Total Expense is 449,607 budgeted and 224,969 actual.
Policy 06.C.02 says members must "Stay within the total annual budget for each office and within specific limits specified in the expense categories" (5.1.6) and have "discretion over the allocation of their budget" (7.1.4). The annual maximum for advertisements is "$7,000 per Member of Council and $10,000 for the Mayor" (10.1.10). Members "cannot place any advertising from August 1 of an election year" (10.1.11), and printing and distributing newsletters after August 1 in an election year is ineligible (10.16.5). "Promises and intentions" are not permitted in newsletters in an election year (10.16.10).
9 formalCode of Conduct complaints received in the 2022-2026 term, plus 15 informal ones
The Integrity Commissioner (a part-time officer who reports to Council) looks into complaints that a member broke the Code of Ethical Conduct or the conflict-of-interest law. In the 2022-2026 term the office received 9 formal and 15 informal complaints. One formal complaint under the conflict-of-interest law was investigated, and the Commissioner decided not to ask a court to rule on it. In 2024 the office reported three investigations in which a Code breach was sustained. The Commissioner's report says no complaint may be received from Nomination Day (August 21, 2026) to Voting Day (October 26, 2026), and that a matter still open on Nomination Day was terminated and can only be restarted by a new written request within six weeks after Voting Day. The City's budget says it is working on "low engagement" with the office.
Why it matters
A rule that pauses complaints during the campaign protects candidates from last-minute attacks. It also means that complaints about conduct during the campaign cannot be filed until after the vote. Voters should know how that works before they decide.
It could be because…
The pause is a rule in the Municipal Act and the City's complaint protocol (the Commissioner's report says it is consistent with both). We did not read the Act ourselves.
The Commissioner says some complaints and inquiries are about matters outside the office's powers, such as staff or Council decisions.
The term report shows 6 matters in 2026 that ended at preliminary review or were dismissed. We read only the term report, not the reports behind it.
Questions you could ask
Where can residents read the reports behind the three sustained findings in 2024, and what sanctions did Council impose?
Who can residents contact about conduct during the campaign between August 21 and October 26, 2026?
What is the City doing about the "low engagement" with the Integrity Commissioner's office that its budget mentions?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"During the 2022-2026 term, this Office received 9 formal complaints and 15 informal complaints under the Code. Two of the formal complaints requested a review of allegations under the MCIA. Only one of these continued to investigation and concluded in a decision not to make an application to the court". The office also responded to 42 requests for advice and 203 general ethics-related inquiries.
Table B (disposition of complaints, by year, a graphic table) shows "Investigation completed - sustained" 3 in 2024 and "Investigation completed - not sustained" 2 in 2025, with 6 in "Preliminary review / dismissed" for 2026 to date.
"On March 10, 2026, the Divisional Court dismissed two applications for judicial review brought by a Member of Council in respect of two investigations conducted by this Office". The report does not name the member.
"no complaint may be received and no report may be made to Council during the period beginning on Nomination Day (August 21, 2026) and ending on Voting Day (October 26, 2026)". A matter begun but not completed before Nomination Day "was terminated, and may be recommenced only where the complainant makes a further written request within six weeks after Voting Day."
The Integrity Commissioner's page of reports lists, for the current term, a 2024 "Formal Code of Conduct Complaint Investigation Report 071624 1 and 2" and the term report. We did not open the 2024 report, because the eScribe portal blocks scripted downloads.
The Office of the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar page prints Net Operating of 0.6 ($ million) for 2025 and 2026, and Key Results that include: "address low engagement with the Integrity Commissioner's Office".
$101.1M vs $46,960,910the 2024 general government budget in the budget book and in the audited statements
General government means the costs of running the City itself (Council, the City Manager, finance, legal, IT). The 2024 budget book prints a budget of $101.1 million for this function on the same accounting basis as the audited statements. The audited 2024 statements print a 2024 budget of $46,960,910 for the same function and actual spending of $51,167,709. The statements say that the indirect costs of program support are allocated to the functions that use them. The budget books do not say whether they do the same. Without that, the two sets of numbers cannot be compared line by line. In the audited 2025 statements, the budget column for general government is $149,697,808 and actual spending is $77,651,539, up from $51,167,709 in 2024.
Why it matters
Residents comparing 'what the city spends to run itself' will get very different answers depending on which document they read. A clear note on how costs are allocated would settle it.
It could be because…
The audited statements allocate program-support costs to the functions they serve, which would shrink general government. This is the likely reason but the budget book does not confirm that it differs.
The budget book's function table includes items such as post-employment benefits and capital costs that the statements treat differently.
Questions you could ask
How are program-support costs allocated to functions in the budget book, and why does that differ from the audited statements?
Which of the two is the better measure of what it costs to run the City itself?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"2024 Budget (Full Accrual Basis)" prints General Government of 101.1 ($ million), Transportation Services 37.2 and total expenses 567.3. The text above it says the table presents the budget by function "the same way the actual results are reported in the financial statements."
Note 14(h) says: "The recoveries are the indirect costs for program support. The costs have been allocated to the segment based on a percentage of the total expenses incurred."
The Consolidated Statement of Operations prints General government, net expenses of $149,697,808 budget, $77,651,539 for 2025 and $51,167,709 for 2024.
18%change orders as a share of the original contract cost, against the City's flat 10% cushion
Internal Audit reviewed the construction of the Carrville Community Centre, Library and District Park (opened June 30, 2025). The City sets aside a flat 10% of the contract amount for surprises, on every project. On Carrville, the audit says change orders reached 18% of the original contract cost, mostly because of unsuitable soil and a high water table. A set-aside of $2.4 million for items not yet priced ran out when $1.294 million of it paid for pumping and filtering water, so security and IT equipment needed change orders instead. The audit says the spending was justified and properly bought. Management agreed to change how it sets aside money for risk. We did not find the original contract amount or the final project cost in these documents.
Why it matters
Residents paid for a large new building, and a flat 10% cushion was not enough when the ground was worse than expected. The question is whether future projects will plan for known risks, and what Carrville finally cost compared with its budget. The 2022 first-phase audit also left two recommendations open, on late-delivery penalties and design standards.
It could be because…
Soil and groundwater problems are hard to predict, even after site studies, and the audit says the costs were justified and properly bought.
A larger cushion on every project would tie up public money that may never be needed, which the audit also notes.
Management agreed to a risk-based method, so later projects may be planned more closely.
Questions you could ask
What was Carrville's original construction contract amount, and what did it cost in the end, change orders included?
Will the City publish what each change-order category (soil, water, security, IT) cost, so future projects can be compared?
Will the new risk-based contingency method be in place before the next large community building is budgeted?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The audit says: "At the start of the project, a $2.4 million cash allowance was established, including $500,000 for anticipated dewatering and filtration. However, due to the unforeseen volume of water encountered, $1.294 million of the allowance was ultimately used for dewatering and filtration." It adds: "While the expenditures were justified and appropriately procured".
The audit says: "Currently, the City estimates project contingency at a flat 10% of the original contract amount for all project types, across the City." It adds: "At the time of this report, change orders amount to 18% of the original contract cost", mostly from "unexpected unsuitable soils" and "ongoing dewatering and filtration efforts".
The audit found a billing delay: "the billing for a large portion of backfill was not received until the end of the project - this amounted to $821,616", although delivery tickets were reviewed to confirm the work. It also notes "four different Infrastructure Development project managers" over the project.
Management response: it "agrees with the recommendations" and will develop a risk-based way to set aside money for surprises, piloted "starting in Q3-2026, with full implementation targeted for Q2-2027". On cash allowances it will provide training and updated guidelines "by Q1-2026".
The 2025 annual report on the first-phase audit (presented September 19th, 2022): "The report contained seven recommendations. Two of the audit recommendations remain outstanding." Management says a formal framework for liquidated damages (penalties for late work) is still being developed.
Vaughan spent $69.2M on running the city office in 2019 and $131M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of running the city office grow 89% in 6 years?
Running the city office
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%+100%
+89%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Running the city office
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+34%
+1%
2021
+13%
+4%
2022
+41%
+11%
2023
+41%
+16%
2024
+48%
+18%
2025
+89%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
Money spent running the office is money not spent on roads, water or safety. When office costs grow much faster than the services people see, it is fair to ask what the extra money is buying.
It could be because…
The city added a service, a building or staff that residents asked for.
Costs were moved from another area, so the total did not really change.
Accounting rules changed how costs are sorted.
Large one-time costs, like a study, lawsuit or repair, landed in one year.
Questions you could ask
What caused the one-year rise in 2025 in the Province's general government figure, from $102,077,708 to $130,604,431?
Were staff or costs moved between functions in the 2025 budget (the budget book's general government salaries line goes from $52.1 million to $70.8 million, while transportation falls from $37.3 million to $13.7 million)?
Why did the audited cost of general government rise from $51.2 million in 2024 to $77.7 million in 2025, and why is the 2025 budget in the statements $149.7 million?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Vaughan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Running the city office: 2019 $69.2M, 2020 $92.5M, 2021 $78M, 2022 $97.4M, 2023 $97.6M, 2024 $102M, 2025 $131M.
Audited statements print General government expenses of $51,167,709 for 2024. Note 14(h) says program-support costs are allocated to the functions that use them: "The recoveries are the indirect costs for program support."
The City's staffing table prints total FTEs (full-time equivalent staff) of 1,827.4 for 2024, 1,884.3 for 2025 and 1,889.6 for 2026. The Gross Expenditures table prints Labour of 245.1 ($ million) for 2024 actual, 272.1 for 2025 and 295.5 for 2026. The text says: "The 2026 Budget features a high investment in capacity building within the organization to address growth and development pressures."
The 2025 budget's function table prints General Government "Salaries & Benefits" of 70.8 ($ million) and Transportation 13.7. We did not find a note that explains the move between functions.
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy