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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Alnwick-Haldimand'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 · 8 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Alnwick-Haldimand's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 82 similar Ontario towns. 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.
$1,041,142of 2023 expense the 2024 statements say was recorded in error
The audited 2023 statements showed a deficit (spending more than came in) of $312,797. A year later, the 2024 statements say the 2023 result was wrong: the Township had booked $1,041,142 of "accretion" expense "in error". Accretion is the yearly growth of a future cost, here the cost of removing asbestos from Township buildings. With it taken out, 2023 became a surplus of $728,345. The 2023 statements said the asbestos cost was discounted, which is what makes accretion appear. The 2024 statements say it "has not been discounted". The auditor's opinion on both years was clean.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$97,532.93spent on HR services legal fees in 2025, against a budget of $60,000.00
In the 2026 budget book, the line "Admin - HR Services - Legal Fees" shows a 2025 budget of $60,000.00 and 2025 spending of $97,532.93. The general "Admin - Legal Fees" line shows a 2025 budget of $25,000.00 and spending of $49,439.45. Together the two lines came to $146,972.38 in 2025 (worked out by us). The Township says its employees joined a union in late 2024 and that it is negotiating a first collective agreement. In January 2026, Council cut a draft HR legal budget of $100,000 to $60,000.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
-$3,213.75the planned 2026 year-end balance of the roads capital reserve
A reserve is money saved up for a future purchase. The 2026 budget book plans to take $1,160,000.00 out of the "Roads Capital Funding" reserve, which held $889,586.25 at the end of 2025. The table shows the balance falling to -$3,213.75. The whole public works reserve falls from $1,166,312.80 to $380,012.80. Most of the draw pays for a $1,140,000.00 vehicle purchase in the public works capital budget. In 2025 the Township budgeted $600,000.00 for that vehicle line and spent $50,018.51. The Township says years of very small tax increases "led to ... a depletion of reserves".
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$3,024,719capital assets bought in 2024, against a budget of $4,204,878
In 2024 the Township planned to buy $4,204,878 of capital assets (things that last, such as vehicles and roads) and bought $3,024,719, which is $1,180,159 less (worked out by us). Total spending was $10,960,875 against a budget of $11,779,379, and the year ended with a surplus of $534,909 where the statements' budget column shows a deficit. The Township explains that the budget column is adjusted to accounting rules and that Council's own approved budget was balanced. In 2025 the public works vehicle line shows the same pattern: $600,000.00 budgeted, $50,018.51 spent.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$7,410,264estimated cost of removing asbestos from Township buildings, shown as unfunded
The Township owns several buildings with asbestos, and the law requires it to be removed before a building is demolished. The audited statements count the cost as a debt-like item (an "asset retirement obligation") of $7,410,264. That one item is larger than the Township's net debt of $6,627,481. The statements list it as "unfunded", meaning no money is set aside against it. The Township's reserves (savings set aside for future costs) were $5,570,391 at the end of 2024, and have many other jobs to do.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
5.09%approximate 2026 tax levy increase, 4.08% after assessment growth
The levy is the total the Township raises from property taxes. The approved 2026 budget raises it by about 5.09%. That includes a 2% infrastructure levy Council started in 2025. After 1.01% growth in the number and value of properties, the net increase is about 4.08%. On a home assessed at $313,000, taxes go from $2,082.73 to $2,188.75. The 2% levy goes into its own reserve, which grows from $170,727.90 to $352,141.28 in the budget table. The planned contribution of $181,413.38 is 2% of the $9,070,668.99 raised by taxation (worked out by us).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$119,251increase in the 2026 police bill, or 1.29% on property taxes
Policing is provided by the Ontario Provincial Police and billed to the Township. The 2026 budget raises $1,196,712.00 from taxation for the Police Services Board, up $119,251.00 (11.07%) from 2025. That is about 13.2% of all the tax money the budget raises (worked out by us). The Township says this increase alone adds 1.29% to property taxes.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
In 2019, Alnwick-Haldimand had $570K more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2024 it was −$6.6M. About 103% of that change ($7.4M) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 18 of 82 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$1,041,142of 2023 expense the 2024 statements say was recorded in error
The audited 2023 statements showed a deficit (spending more than came in) of $312,797. A year later, the 2024 statements say the 2023 result was wrong: the Township had booked $1,041,142 of "accretion" expense "in error". Accretion is the yearly growth of a future cost, here the cost of removing asbestos from Township buildings. With it taken out, 2023 became a surplus of $728,345. The 2023 statements said the asbestos cost was discounted, which is what makes accretion appear. The 2024 statements say it "has not been discounted". The auditor's opinion on both years was clean.
Why it matters
For a year, the public record said the Township had run a deficit in 2023 when it had a surplus. The correction is the right outcome, and the Township made it openly in a note. The question is what failed, and whether the same check would catch a similar slip.
It could be because…
2023 was the first year under a new accounting standard for asset retirement obligations (PS 3280), which was new to every Ontario municipality. First-year corrections are common.
Restating the earlier year in the next set of statements, with a note, is how the accounting rules say an error should be fixed. The auditor's report on 2024 is clean.
The error had no effect on cash. It changed an accounting figure for the cost of removing asbestos.
Questions you could ask
How was the $1,041,142 error found, and by whom: staff, the auditor, or someone else?
Did Council or the public see a 2023 year-end report showing a deficit, and was it told afterward that the deficit was an accounting error?
What check has been added so that the next new accounting standard is tested before the statements are signed?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations as first issued: "ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)" budget 491,997, actual 2023 (312,797). "TOTAL EXPENSES" 11,947,184.
Note 9, asset retirement obligation: opening balance as restated 7,410,264, "Accretion expense" 1,041,142, closing balance 8,451,406. Note 1(h): "The liability is discounted using a present value calculation, and adjusted yearly for accretion expense and any amounts paid."
The auditor's report on the 2023 statements says they "present fairly, in all material respects" the Township's position, and is dated October 10, 2024.
Note 19, prior period adjustment: "The Township has restated its 2023 consolidated financial statements to reverse accretion on asset retirement obligations that was previously recorded in error." 2023 annual surplus (deficit) as previously stated $ (312,797), add accretion expense previously recorded 1,041,142, 2023 annual surplus as restated $ 728,345. Closing 2023 asset retirement obligation $ 7,410,264 (previously recorded 8,451,406).
$97,532.93spent on HR services legal fees in 2025, against a budget of $60,000.00
In the 2026 budget book, the line "Admin - HR Services - Legal Fees" shows a 2025 budget of $60,000.00 and 2025 spending of $97,532.93. The general "Admin - Legal Fees" line shows a 2025 budget of $25,000.00 and spending of $49,439.45. Together the two lines came to $146,972.38 in 2025 (worked out by us). The Township says its employees joined a union in late 2024 and that it is negotiating a first collective agreement. In January 2026, Council cut a draft HR legal budget of $100,000 to $60,000.
Why it matters
Legal bills are hard to predict, and a first union contract can be legal-heavy. But the same line ran well over its budget and was then set at the same $60,000 for 2026. Taxpayers should know whether that is enough.
It could be because…
The Township says it is negotiating its first collective agreement with the union its employees joined in late 2024, and its 2025 budget book says funding was set aside for "CUPE negotiation (includes legal and contracted services)". First contracts often need a lot of legal advice.
Some legal work, such as a dispute that comes up mid-year, cannot be known when the budget is set.
Council looked at this line: it cut the 2026 draft from $100,000 to $60,000 in a public vote.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $97,532.93 was for the union negotiation and how much for other matters?
Was Council told during 2025 that this line was running over its $60,000 budget?
Is $60,000 enough for 2026 while the first contract is still being negotiated, and what happens if it is not?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Table 35, changes after the January 28, 2026 meeting: resolution 20260128-08, "Reduce HR Services – Legal Fees from $100,000 to $60,000", decrease $40,000.
"Township employees unionized in late 2024 under the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). The Township is in the process of negotiating its first collective agreement with CUPE Local 5574."
Changes made to the draft 2025 budget: "Funding allocated for CUPE negotiation (includes legal and contracted services)." Separately, the 2025 line "HR Services and Legal fees" was $16,000.00 budgeted and $10,929.40 spent in 2024, and $75,000.00 budgeted for 2025. This line groups costs differently from the 2026 book, so the two are not directly comparable.
-$3,213.75the planned 2026 year-end balance of the roads capital reserve
A reserve is money saved up for a future purchase. The 2026 budget book plans to take $1,160,000.00 out of the "Roads Capital Funding" reserve, which held $889,586.25 at the end of 2025. The table shows the balance falling to -$3,213.75. The whole public works reserve falls from $1,166,312.80 to $380,012.80. Most of the draw pays for a $1,140,000.00 vehicle purchase in the public works capital budget. In 2025 the Township budgeted $600,000.00 for that vehicle line and spent $50,018.51. The Township says years of very small tax increases "led to ... a depletion of reserves".
Why it matters
A reserve below zero means a plan spends money that has not been saved. It shows the Township's own account of why it created a new 2% infrastructure levy in 2025, and whether that levy is enough to rebuild the reserve.
It could be because…
The table is labelled "Proposed" and a negative balance may be a shortfall that other funds, a grant or a loan would cover.
The 2025 vehicle money was not spent, so the purchase may be a delayed one rather than a new one.
The Township says its small past levy increases drained reserves and that the new infrastructure levy is meant to rebuild them.
Questions you could ask
Where does the money come from if the roads reserve is $3,213.75 short at the end of 2026?
What is the $1,140,000.00 vehicle line buying, and why was only $50,018.51 of 2025's $600,000.00 spent?
How many years will the 2% infrastructure levy take to bring the roads reserve back to where it was?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Table 11, Public Works Reserve: "Roads Capital Funding" 2025 balance $889,586.25, proposed 2026 from reserves $1,160,000.00, proposed 2026 to reserves $267,200.00, 2026 balance -$3,213.75. "Totals" $1,166,312.80, $1,160,000.00, $373,700.00, $380,012.80.
Public works capital expenses: "PW - Capital Vehicle" 2025 budget $600,000.00, 2025 actual $50,018.51, 2026 budget $1,140,000.00. "Roads Projects" $950,200.00, $969,157.42, $970,200.00.
"Minimal tax levy increases of the past, including a 0% increase during the COVID-19 Pandemic, have led to departments, services, and infrastructure being under-funded to deliver the services and a depletion of reserves."
$3,024,719capital assets bought in 2024, against a budget of $4,204,878
In 2024 the Township planned to buy $4,204,878 of capital assets (things that last, such as vehicles and roads) and bought $3,024,719, which is $1,180,159 less (worked out by us). Total spending was $10,960,875 against a budget of $11,779,379, and the year ended with a surplus of $534,909 where the statements' budget column shows a deficit. The Township explains that the budget column is adjusted to accounting rules and that Council's own approved budget was balanced. In 2025 the public works vehicle line shows the same pattern: $600,000.00 budgeted, $50,018.51 spent.
Why it matters
Money that is budgeted but not spent can sit idle, or be spent later at higher prices. It also means a year-end surplus may be caused by delay rather than saving, which matters when Council decides how much tax to raise.
It could be because…
Vehicles and large projects are often ordered one year and delivered the next, so the money is not lost.
The statements say the budget column is adjusted to accounting rules, and Council's own budget was balanced at nil.
Waiting for a grant or a better price can be a deliberate choice.
Questions you could ask
Which 2024 capital projects were not finished, and were they carried into 2025?
Is the $600,000.00 for the 2025 vehicle line part of the $1,140,000.00 in the 2026 budget?
Does Council get a yearly list of approved capital items that were not bought?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Statement of change in net debt, 2024: "Purchase of tangible capital assets" budget (4,204,878), actual (3,024,719). "ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)" budget (289,438), actual 534,909.
Note 15: "The budget, approved by the Township differs from the budget reflected on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus as the approved budget has been adjusted to comply with PSA reporting requirements." "Council approved budgeted surplus" -; "Tangible capital asset additions" 4,204,878; annual surplus/(deficit) (289,438).
Table 20, public works capital expenses: "PW - Capital Vehicle" 2025 budget $600,000.00, 2025 actual $50,018.51. "Total Capital Expenses" $1,775,200.00 budgeted, $1,226,184.97 actual in 2025.
$7,410,264estimated cost of removing asbestos from Township buildings, shown as unfunded
The Township owns several buildings with asbestos, and the law requires it to be removed before a building is demolished. The audited statements count the cost as a debt-like item (an "asset retirement obligation") of $7,410,264. That one item is larger than the Township's net debt of $6,627,481. The statements list it as "unfunded", meaning no money is set aside against it. The Township's reserves (savings set aside for future costs) were $5,570,391 at the end of 2024, and have many other jobs to do.
Why it matters
The money is only needed if and when a building is torn down or heavily renovated, so this is not a bill due now. But it is a large future cost that explains why the Township's books show net debt even though it owns $31,792,713 of buildings, roads and equipment.
It could be because…
The cost only arises if a building is demolished. Many buildings may stand for decades.
The statements say the figure is not discounted, so it may be higher than the cost in today's money.
Most Ontario municipalities that own older buildings now report this kind of obligation, and few have set aside money against all of it.
Questions you could ask
Which buildings carry the $7,410,264, and how much of it belongs to each?
Has the Township had the estimate checked by an outside expert, and when?
Does the asset management plan say when the money would be needed and where it would come from?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The records that would answer this can be requested: Asbestos removal estimate, with wording you can copy.
The evidence
Statement of financial position, December 31, 2024: "Asset retirement obligation (note 8)" 7,410,264; "TOTAL LIABILITIES" 17,113,879; "NET DEBT" (6,627,481); "Tangible capital assets (note 6)" 31,792,713.
Note 8: "The Township owns and operates several buildings that are known to have asbestos, which represents a health hazard upon demolition of the building and there is a legal obligation to remove it." Closing balance 7,410,264.
Table 6, reserve contributions and withdrawals: "Totals" 2025 balance $5,519,245.02; proposed 2026 from reserves $2,649,915.28; proposed 2026 to reserves $3,078,800.96; 2026 balance $5,949,980.70. The table is headed "Proposed" in the approved book. The word asbestos does not appear anywhere in the budget book.
5.09%approximate 2026 tax levy increase, 4.08% after assessment growth
The levy is the total the Township raises from property taxes. The approved 2026 budget raises it by about 5.09%. That includes a 2% infrastructure levy Council started in 2025. After 1.01% growth in the number and value of properties, the net increase is about 4.08%. On a home assessed at $313,000, taxes go from $2,082.73 to $2,188.75. The 2% levy goes into its own reserve, which grows from $170,727.90 to $352,141.28 in the budget table. The planned contribution of $181,413.38 is 2% of the $9,070,668.99 raised by taxation (worked out by us).
Why it matters
The Township explains most of this itself, which is why it is a note. Residents can still ask what the infrastructure reserve will be spent on and when.
It could be because…
The Township says past levy increases were too small and left reserves, services and roads under-funded, and this is the catch-up.
Policing costs are a large part of the increase (see the police question).
Questions you could ask
Which projects is the infrastructure reserve meant to pay for, and in which years?
Will the roads reserve and the infrastructure reserve be reported together so residents can see the total set aside?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"The 2026 Draft Budget represents an approximate 5.09% tax levy increase ... This includes the 2% dedicated Infrastructure Levy implemented by Council in 2025. Factoring in assessment growth from MPAC of 1.01%, a net levy increase of approximately 4.08% has been approved." Table 1: residential assessment $313,000, 2025 taxes $2,082.73, 2026 taxes $2,188.75, annual increase $106.02, monthly increase $8.84.
"Building reserves based on these capital and asset management plans will mitigate future tax levy impacts. The 2% Infrastructure Levy created in 2025 will help fund these larger projects into the future."
$119,251increase in the 2026 police bill, or 1.29% on property taxes
Policing is provided by the Ontario Provincial Police and billed to the Township. The 2026 budget raises $1,196,712.00 from taxation for the Police Services Board, up $119,251.00 (11.07%) from 2025. That is about 13.2% of all the tax money the budget raises (worked out by us). The Township says this increase alone adds 1.29% to property taxes.
Why it matters
Policing is the largest single reason for the rise in 2026, and the Township has little say over the bill. Residents may want to know what the bill is made of and how to influence it.
It could be because…
OPP bills are set by the Province using a formula, and the Township cannot negotiate them.
The Township's table says the increase is "contracted services", which is the OPP contract.
Questions you could ask
What does the $1,229,312.00 police budget pay for, line by line, and how does it compare with last year's invoice?
How can residents give input to the joint detachment board that oversees local policing?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"Alnwick/Haldimand saw an increase of $119,251 for 2026, resulting in a 1.29% increase on property taxes."
In 2019, Alnwick-Haldimand had $570K more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2024 it was −$6.6M. About 103% of that change ($7.4M) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 18 of 82 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Alnwick-Haldimand went from having money in the bank to owing more than it has. What changed?
−$8.0M−$6.0M−$4.0M−$2.0M$0$2.0M$4.0M
−$6.6M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Net financial position
2019
$570K
2020
$2.4M
2021
$3.3M
2022
$413K
2023
−$7.6M
2024
−$6.6M
Why it matters
This number is one of the clearest signs of whether a town is living within its means. The accounting-rule part is a bill that will come due when the landfill closes, not money already spent. The rest is real borrowing and spending of savings.
It could be because…
A new accounting rule (asset retirement obligations, from 2023) added a large future cost to the books all at once.
Borrowing for a planned project, such as sewage lagoons, which is paid back over many years.
Questions you could ask
What is the plan and timeline for paying the landfill closing cost?
Without the accounting change, is the town's position getting better or worse?
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 Alnwick-Haldimand?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
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