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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Chapple'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 · 9 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Chapple's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 29 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.
$242,897.88gap between two 2024 roads totals in the same budget book (worked out by us)
The 2025 budget book shows 2024 figures twice: once on its summary page and once in the line-by-line pages. They do not match. The summary says roads spending in 2024 was $600,659.52. The roads detail page says $843,557.40, a gap of $242,897.88 (worked out by us). The summary says 2024 capital works (buying and building long-lasting things) cost $889,302.56. The capital project list says $88,274.83. The summary says 2024 revenue was $3,749,678.93. The detail pages say $4,110,951.43. The whole revenue gap, $361,272.50 (worked out by us), sits in property tax: $2,356,103.07 on the summary and $2,717,375.57 on the tax page. The 2024 budget column also differs (for example roads: $1,037,514.46 and $1,038,514.46).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 7 sources
June 17, 2025date Council adopted the 2025 budget by-law
A budget is the plan for the year's spending and taxes. The audited statements say Council adopted the 2025 financial plan by by-law on June 17, 2025. By then more than five months of the year had passed. The Township's finance page lists budgets for 2019 to 2025 but we did not find a 2026 budget there on October 10, 2026, with the year about three quarters over.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$566,550borrowed in 2024 at 6.85%; $442,504 still owed at the end of 2025
In 2024 the Township borrowed $566,550 from CAT Financial, an equipment lender, at 6.85% a year, repayable at $11,178 a month until September 2029. The 2025 budget book calls the yearly payment of $134,139.72 the payment on a "2024 Motor Grader". At the end of 2025 $442,504 was still owed, and interest on the debt was $34,064, up from $10,790. At the same time the Township held cash and investments of $5,338,826 at the end of 2025 (worked out by us: $2,232,762 and $3,106,064). Most of that is set aside: of the cash, $1,222,923 was restricted by Council resolution and $199,469 by funding agreements, leaving $810,370 unrestricted. In 2025 investment income was $359,564.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
$1,035,858.11planned draw on reserves and earlier surpluses in the 2025 budget
Reserves are savings set aside for named purposes. The 2025 budget balanced itself by drawing $1,035,858.11 from reserves and from earlier surpluses, of which $358,121.00 was labelled "Surplus". The audited statements agree: they print a planned deficit of $358,121 and transfers from reserves of $677,737, and the budget book's lines for reserves add to the same amounts. In the end the reserve funds fell from $4,622,247 to $4,329,680, which is $292,567 (worked out by us). The year closed with an annual surplus of $434,997 against a budgeted $196,397. The Township bought $774,803 of capital assets against a planned $1,026,894.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$435,887landfill closure obligation (worked out by us), against a $190,295 reserve
A landfill has to be closed and looked after when it is full. The Township's statements record this future cost as a debt-like item called an asset retirement obligation. For its two landfills it is $199,495 (Richardson) and $236,392 (Shenston), together $435,887 (worked out by us). Counting buildings, the obligation is $515,869. The estimated total future cost, not reduced to today's value, is $350,000 and $575,000 for the two landfills. The Township's reserve for landfill closures is $190,295. The statements expect the work to be spread over 37 and 35 years.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$226,250of the 2025 waste-site budget the Township says came from derailment cleanup
The 2025 budget plans $306,250 of waste-site revenue, against a 2024 budget of $80,000 and 2024 actual income of $207,287.76. The Township's own comment beside the line says "$226,250 rc'd from CN - potash/Emo Train Derailment". The budget book also notes the $226,250 difference from the 2024 budget. The audited statements show user fees of $470,636 in 2025, against a budget of $440,750 and $367,869 in 2024. The Township has explained where the money came from. What is not shown is how much of it was one-time, and what happens to it.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$147,500audit ($75,000) plus legal and survey ($72,500) in the 2025 budget (worked out by us)
In the 2025 budget, "Audit Administration" is $75,000, up from a 2024 budget of $65,000, after the 2024 spending reached $73,177.66. The Township's comment says "auditors - MNP". "Legal/Survey" is $72,500, up from a 2024 budget of $50,000 and 2024 actual spending of $2,237.53. The comment says $7500 is for legal costs for the Brigham Road south extension and $65,000 is for an Assessment Review Board matter. Together these lines are $147,500 (worked out by us). In the audited statements, general government spending in 2025 was $518,480 against a budget of $559,579.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$184,115.01water treatment plant capital in the 2025 budget, after $194,982.70 budgeted and unspent in 2024
The 2024 budget set aside $194,982.70 for the water treatment plant and none was spent that year. The 2025 budget set aside $184,115.01 for the plant, paid by a federal infrastructure grant (ICIP). The revenue budget counts $156,674.79 of ICIP Green Stream grant for "WTP projects in Capital". The audited statements show only $20,736 (federal) and $17,278 (provincial) of ICIP Green Stream money recognized in 2025, and $43,736 added to water mains and networks.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$242,897.88gap between two 2024 roads totals in the same budget book (worked out by us)
The 2025 budget book shows 2024 figures twice: once on its summary page and once in the line-by-line pages. They do not match. The summary says roads spending in 2024 was $600,659.52. The roads detail page says $843,557.40, a gap of $242,897.88 (worked out by us). The summary says 2024 capital works (buying and building long-lasting things) cost $889,302.56. The capital project list says $88,274.83. The summary says 2024 revenue was $3,749,678.93. The detail pages say $4,110,951.43. The whole revenue gap, $361,272.50 (worked out by us), sits in property tax: $2,356,103.07 on the summary and $2,717,375.57 on the tax page. The 2024 budget column also differs (for example roads: $1,037,514.46 and $1,038,514.46).
Why it matters
A budget book is how residents see what last year really cost before they judge next year's plan. When two pages of the same book disagree by hundreds of thousands of dollars, a reader cannot tell which one to trust, and the 2025 budget was built on those numbers.
It could be because…
The summary page may have been filled in from the accounts at one date and the detail pages at another, before and after year-end entries.
Part of the capital gap may be a purchase that sits outside the capital project list. The audited 2025 statements show $754,305 of machinery and equipment added in 2024, and the 2025 budget carries a payment on a 2024 motor grader.
The summary page may be built on a different basis (for example, leaving out items paid from restricted funds) and the book does not say so.
The audited statements are the final word on 2024; the budget book's "2024 Actual" column may simply be an early draft.
Questions you could ask
Which 2024 roads total is right: $600,659.52 or $843,557.40, and which 2024 property tax total: $2,356,103.07 or $2,717,375.57?
Why does the 2024 capital column on the summary ($889,302.56) differ from the capital project list ($88,274.83)?
Will the 2026 budget book tie its summary pages to its detail pages and to the audited statements?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
2025 Budget Summary, operating expenditures: "Transportation" 2024 Budget 1,037,514.46, 2024 Actual 600,659.52, 2025 Budget 1,315,730.24. "Capital Works" 2024 Budget 1,408,504.47, 2024 Actual 889,302.56, 2025 Budget 1,026,893.94. "Total of Operating Budget" 5,182,291.49, 3,785,480.97 and 5,202,603.19.
"Total Public Works Operating Budget": 2024 Budget 1,038,514.46, 2024 Actual 843,557.40, 2025 Budget 1,315,730.24. The same page lists "2024 Motor Grader (principle + interest payment for 2025)" 134,139.72, with the comment "CAT lease Annual payment $134,139.72".
June 17, 2025date Council adopted the 2025 budget by-law
A budget is the plan for the year's spending and taxes. The audited statements say Council adopted the 2025 financial plan by by-law on June 17, 2025. By then more than five months of the year had passed. The Township's finance page lists budgets for 2019 to 2025 but we did not find a 2026 budget there on October 10, 2026, with the year about three quarters over.
Why it matters
Until a budget is adopted, residents cannot see what Council has agreed to spend, and Council has less to measure spending against.
It could be because…
Many small northern townships wait for the Province's grant announcements and the final tax assessment before setting rates. We did not check whether Chapple says so.
Council may have approved an interim tax bill earlier in the year to cover the first months. We did not find one.
The 2026 budget may have been adopted and not yet posted on the website.
Questions you could ask
What date did Council adopt the 2026 budget, or when will it?
Why was the 2025 budget adopted in June, and what spending authority did the Township use before then?
Will the 2026 budget be posted before the October 26, 2026 election?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 18, Budget Reconciliation: "The Financial Plan (Budget) By-Law adopted by Council on June 17, 2025 was not prepared on a basis consistent with that used to report actual results (Public Sector Accounting Standards)."
The Municipal Budgets list on the finance page shows "2025 Budget" and "2024 Budget" as its newest entries. We found no 2026 budget on the page when we read it on October 10, 2026.
$566,550borrowed in 2024 at 6.85%; $442,504 still owed at the end of 2025
In 2024 the Township borrowed $566,550 from CAT Financial, an equipment lender, at 6.85% a year, repayable at $11,178 a month until September 2029. The 2025 budget book calls the yearly payment of $134,139.72 the payment on a "2024 Motor Grader". At the end of 2025 $442,504 was still owed, and interest on the debt was $34,064, up from $10,790. At the same time the Township held cash and investments of $5,338,826 at the end of 2025 (worked out by us: $2,232,762 and $3,106,064). Most of that is set aside: of the cash, $1,222,923 was restricted by Council resolution and $199,469 by funding agreements, leaving $810,370 unrestricted. In 2025 investment income was $359,564.
Why it matters
Borrowing costs interest. If savings sit in the bank while a loan runs at 6.85%, residents may ask whether the savings could have paid for the purchase, or whether they earn more than the loan costs. Much of the savings are restricted, so the answer may be sound, but the documents do not say.
It could be because…
Much of the cash and investments back reserve funds, and Council may not want to spend them on equipment it can pay for over five years.
The Township's investments may earn about as much as the loan costs. Investment income was $359,564 in 2025, but we could not tell the rate from the notes.
At the end of 2024 only $306,750 of the cash was unrestricted, so borrowing may have kept the day-to-day account from running low.
The loan may have carried a lower payment than a lump sum would have cost in lost investment income.
Questions you could ask
Why did Council choose a 6.85% loan over paying from reserves or investments, and was the choice put to a vote?
What rate do the Township's investments earn, compared with 6.85%?
Could the loan be repaid early, and what would that cost?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of cash flows, financing activities: "Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt" 2025 nil, 2024 566,550; "Repayment of demand debt" (100,076) in 2025, (107,120) in 2024.
Note 5, Long-term debt: "CAT Financial loan with interest at 6.85%, equipment loan, repayable in monthly installments of $11,178 principal and interest, maturing September 2029." Balance 442,504 (2024 542,581). Repayments 2026 to 2029: principal 442,504, interest 60,519, total 503,023. "Interest on long-term debt amounted to $34,064 (2024 - $10,790)."
$1,035,858.11planned draw on reserves and earlier surpluses in the 2025 budget
Reserves are savings set aside for named purposes. The 2025 budget balanced itself by drawing $1,035,858.11 from reserves and from earlier surpluses, of which $358,121.00 was labelled "Surplus". The audited statements agree: they print a planned deficit of $358,121 and transfers from reserves of $677,737, and the budget book's lines for reserves add to the same amounts. In the end the reserve funds fell from $4,622,247 to $4,329,680, which is $292,567 (worked out by us). The year closed with an annual surplus of $434,997 against a budgeted $196,397. The Township bought $774,803 of capital assets against a planned $1,026,894.
Why it matters
A budget that plans to spend savings looks like a township living beyond its means. If the planned draw is much bigger than the real one, the budget may be asking taxpayers for more than needed, or it may be set too high for projects that slip. Under-spending is not a problem in itself, but residents should know whether the plan matches what the Township expects to do.
It could be because…
Projects planned for 2025 may have slipped to 2026, for example the water treatment plant work (see the separate question on it).
Budgets set in June (see the separate question on timing) are written with best guesses, and income such as interest and waste fees came in above plan.
The audited statements are on a different basis from the budget: they include amortization (the yearly wearing-out of assets) which the budget leaves out, so the surplus and the planned deficit are not directly comparable.
Questions you could ask
Which of the 2025 reserve draws were actually made, and which projects slipped to 2026?
How does Council decide how much of a planned draw on reserves to put in a budget?
Will the 2026 budget show last year's planned draw next to the amount actually used?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Summary - 2025 Contributions into Budget from Reserves: "Surplus" 358,121.00; "Wood Gundy Renaissance HISA" 270,000.00; "Assessment at Risk Reserve" 32,000.00; "OCIF - HISA Reserve" 160,429.55; "Roads Reserve" 103,841.69; "Gas Tax Reserve" 37,480.43; "NORDS Fund Reserve" 73,985.44. "Contributions into Budget from Reserves" 1,035,858.11 (2024 Budget 679,500.21, 2024 Actual 370,327.98). "Contributions to Reserves" in the expenses table: 195,874.84.
Note 18, Budget Reconciliation: "Financial plan (budget) by-law deficit for the year" (358,121); "Transfers to reserves" 195,875; "Transfers from reserves" (677,737); "Budgeted capital additions" 1,026,894; "Budget surplus per consolidated statement of operations" 196,397. The column adds to 196,397.
Note 9, Accumulated surplus: "Reserve funds" total 4,329,680 (2024 4,622,247), made of "Replacement of capital assets" 2,973,906 (2024 3,407,536), "Landfill closures" 190,295, "Other" 403,231, "Sick leave" 45,413 and "Chapple Community Development Fund" 716,835. The 2025 reserve lines add to 4,329,680.
$435,887landfill closure obligation (worked out by us), against a $190,295 reserve
A landfill has to be closed and looked after when it is full. The Township's statements record this future cost as a debt-like item called an asset retirement obligation. For its two landfills it is $199,495 (Richardson) and $236,392 (Shenston), together $435,887 (worked out by us). Counting buildings, the obligation is $515,869. The estimated total future cost, not reduced to today's value, is $350,000 and $575,000 for the two landfills. The Township's reserve for landfill closures is $190,295. The statements expect the work to be spread over 37 and 35 years.
Why it matters
A reserve set up for a future cost lets today's ratepayers share it. If the reserve stays far below the cost, the bill moves to later taxpayers, or other savings have to cover it. The Township's accumulated surplus note lists the whole $515,869 as a deficit it must fund.
It could be because…
The costs fall decades from now, and the reserve and investment income may grow before then.
Other reserves, such as the $2,973,906 reserve for replacing capital assets, could be used when the time comes.
The waste site may keep bringing in revenue that the Township plans to add to the reserve (see the separate question on waste-site income).
Questions you could ask
Does Council have a plan to build the landfill closure reserve toward the estimated cost, and by when?
Is any part of waste-site income set aside for closure each year?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 6, Asset retirement obligations: Richardson Landfill balance end of year 199,495 (2024 187,496); estimated total undiscounted future expenditures $350,000 "to be incurred over 37 years". Shenston Landfill balance 236,392 (2024 222,172); undiscounted $575,000 "over 35 years". Buildings balance 79,982 (2024 75,172); undiscounted $125,170.
Budget "Summary - 2025 Contributions into Budget from Reserves": "Landfill Closure Reserve (waste)" shown as nil for 2024 Budget, 2024 Actual and 2025 Budget.
$226,250of the 2025 waste-site budget the Township says came from derailment cleanup
The 2025 budget plans $306,250 of waste-site revenue, against a 2024 budget of $80,000 and 2024 actual income of $207,287.76. The Township's own comment beside the line says "$226,250 rc'd from CN - potash/Emo Train Derailment". The budget book also notes the $226,250 difference from the 2024 budget. The audited statements show user fees of $470,636 in 2025, against a budget of $440,750 and $367,869 in 2024. The Township has explained where the money came from. What is not shown is how much of it was one-time, and what happens to it.
Why it matters
One-time income can make a year look healthier than it is. If a budget counts on it as normal revenue, a gap opens when the cleanup ends. It also fills landfill space, which matters because the Township owes $435,887 for closing its two landfills (199,495 for Richardson plus 236,392 for Shenston, worked out by us).
It could be because…
The Township may use the money to pay for waste-site costs, upgrades or the closure reserve; we did not find where it went.
The budget may show the amount in one year only because it was a one-off, which is what the comment suggests.
Income from one-time cleanup waste can help to keep ordinary fees low.
Questions you could ask
How much cleanup income did the Township receive in 2024, 2025 and 2026, and is more expected?
Where was the money put: operating, the landfill closure reserve, or something else?
How much landfill space did the cleanup waste use?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Waste Disposal Services revenue, "REVENUE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE": 2024 Budget 80,000.00, 2024 Actual 207,287.76, 2025 Budget 306,250.00, with the comment "$226,250 rc'd from CN - potash/Emo Train Derailment". The next line, "Waste Disposal - Penalty & Interest", carries the comment "2024 includes contaminated - Couchiching Cleanup".
$147,500audit ($75,000) plus legal and survey ($72,500) in the 2025 budget (worked out by us)
In the 2025 budget, "Audit Administration" is $75,000, up from a 2024 budget of $65,000, after the 2024 spending reached $73,177.66. The Township's comment says "auditors - MNP". "Legal/Survey" is $72,500, up from a 2024 budget of $50,000 and 2024 actual spending of $2,237.53. The comment says $7500 is for legal costs for the Brigham Road south extension and $65,000 is for an Assessment Review Board matter. Together these lines are $147,500 (worked out by us). In the audited statements, general government spending in 2025 was $518,480 against a budget of $559,579.
Why it matters
For a township with $3.9 million of revenue, $147,500 on two professional-fee lines is a visible share of the budget. Audit fees and legal costs are usually set by outside firms, so Council has less say, and residents may want to know what the money buys. The 2025 result was under budget in general government, which suggests the full amount may not have been used.
It could be because…
The audit line may cover more than the yearly audit: for example extra work on the new accounting rules for landfill and other asset retirement obligations.
The legal line is mostly one assessment matter that may end soon, and the 2024 budget of $50,000 went largely unspent.
The audited 2025 statements show general government spending under budget, so some of these lines may have come in lower.
Questions you could ask
What did the Township actually spend on audit and on legal and survey costs in 2025?
What does the $75,000 audit line cover beyond the yearly audit?
Is the $65,000 legal amount a one-time cost, and when is the matter expected to end?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Administration budget: "AUDIT ADMINISTRATION" 2024 Budget 65,000.00, 2024 Actual 73,177.66, 2025 Budget 75,000.00, comment "auditors - MNP". "LEGAL/SURVEY" 2024 Budget 50,000.00, 2024 Actual 2,237.53, 2025 Budget 72,500.00. The comment beside it says $7500 is for the Brigham Road south extension and $65,000 for an Assessment Review Board matter.
$184,115.01water treatment plant capital in the 2025 budget, after $194,982.70 budgeted and unspent in 2024
The 2024 budget set aside $194,982.70 for the water treatment plant and none was spent that year. The 2025 budget set aside $184,115.01 for the plant, paid by a federal infrastructure grant (ICIP). The revenue budget counts $156,674.79 of ICIP Green Stream grant for "WTP projects in Capital". The audited statements show only $20,736 (federal) and $17,278 (provincial) of ICIP Green Stream money recognized in 2025, and $43,736 added to water mains and networks.
Why it matters
Grant money usually has to be spent on a named project by a deadline, or it may be lost. If a project is budgeted two years in a row and spending lags, residents will want to know that the plant is being looked after and that the grant is not at risk.
It could be because…
Work on a plant often takes more than one year to design, tender and build, and grant money is claimed as costs are paid.
The grant may have been approved late, so the work started in 2026.
Some water work may be in other lines, such as the $43,736 added to water mains and networks.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $184,115.01 was spent on the water treatment plant in 2025, and what is left to do?
When does the grant money have to be used by?
Is the Township planning to put the unspent amount into the 2026 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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Capital: "Water Treatment Plant" 2024 Budget 194,982.70, 2024 Actual nil, 2025 Budget 184,115.01. Project table: "Water Treatment Plant", source of funds "ICIP Grant Federal Funding", 184,115.01.
Chapple spent about $438 per home on snow ploughing in 2025. The typical similar town spent $117. Only 1 of 29 similar towns spent more.
Why it matters
Spending more than neighbours is not wrong by itself. It might buy better service. But it is the first place to look for costs that could be lower, such as contracts that were not competitively bid.
It could be because…
Geography: more roads, more snow, a bigger area or a landfill of its own.
Accounting: some towns record the same cost in a different category.
A one-time cost in this year.
Questions you could ask
What makes this cost higher here than in similar towns?
When were the main contracts in this area last put out to competitive tender?
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 Chapple?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Snow ploughing per home: Chapple $438; typical similar town $117; ranked 2nd highest of 30.
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