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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Dysart et al'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 · 7 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Dysart et al'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.
$1,251,686balance of the land loan at December 31, 2025, due March 1, 2027
The 2025 budget planned to buy $8,001,930 of new buildings, roads and equipment and to borrow $4,370,000 to help pay for it. The statements show $4,343,712 of purchases and $415,176 of new debt. The statements also show $861,620 of "unfunded capital" for transportation projects that "will be funded through a future debenture" (a debenture is a loan sold to investors or a lender). One existing loan, for land, had a balance of $1,251,686 at the end of 2025 and is due March 1, 2027. The Municipality's net financial assets (what it has in the bank and owed to it, less what it owes) fell from $1,256,768 to $249,169 in 2025.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$6,542,913asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2025, up from $4,342,412
The Municipality runs six landfill sites. The law and accounting rules make it record the future cost of closing them and looking after them for 25 years afterward. That total (the "asset retirement obligation") was $4,342,412 at the end of 2024 and is $6,542,913 at the end of 2025. Of the rise, $1,668,801 is a re-estimate of the landfill cost and $531,700 is "accretion" (interest added as the closing date gets closer). In 2024 the same re-estimate went the other way, down by $2,781,484. Spending on environmental services (sewers, waste and recycling) was $1,743,900 in 2024 and $4,291,087 in 2025, against a 2025 budget of $4,129,939. The increase of $2,200,501 in the obligation is worked out by us from the two printed balances.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$548,221"Rents and financial" in 2025, against a budget of $17,400
The statements break spending down by type. "Rents and financial" was budgeted at $17,400 for 2025 and came in at $548,221. In 2024 it was $150,671. The same table shows "Interest charges" of $84,230 in 2025 against $507,079 in 2024. Elsewhere the statements show "Accretion expense" of $531,700 in 2025 (from the landfill obligation). The statements do not say which line the accretion sits in. We noticed that the amount is close to the gap, but we cannot tell from the page whether they are the same money.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$635,464capital additions not previously recorded, found when 2024 was restated
The 2025 statements say the Municipality "restated its 2024 financial statements for tangible capital asset entries that were previously ommitted in error" (the word is spelled that way in the statements). The adjustments include capital additions of $635,464 not previously recorded and amortization (the yearly wearing-out charge) of $437,431 not previously recorded. The restated 2024 annual surplus is $3,162,303; it had been $3,174,827. The audit also changed hands. The 2025 statements were audited by Baker Tilly KDN LLP, who note that 2024 was audited by another auditor whose opinion was dated June 24, 2025. The 2025 opinion is dated July 30, 2026. The 2025 opinion is clean ("present fairly").
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$3.9 millionannual capital infrastructure deficit, per the Municipality's 2025 Asset Management Plan
The 2025 Asset Management Plan (the Municipality's plan for looking after what it owns) values the assets at $265 million. It says the average yearly amount needed to keep them in repair is $6.5 million and that the Municipality is putting about $2.6 million a year toward capital projects or reserves. It reports an annual capital infrastructure deficit of $3.9 million, a 0.99% reinvestment rate, and a backlog of $22.7 million of assets still in use past their expected life. The plan recommends a 2.2% yearly increase in revenue over 10 years for the tax-funded part and 5.1% for sewer revenue. Separately, the statements show reserves and reserve funds, including a "Development fund" of $7,401,391 at the end of 2025.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
Towns keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. Dysart et al had $7.8M saved at the end of 2024, up from $4.4M in 2019. That is 57% of one year's spending. Only 16 of 82 similar towns had less, compared with what they spend.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$617,383investment income in 2025, against a budget of $190,000
"Investment income" (interest earned on the Municipality's cash, investments and reserves) was budgeted at $190,000 for 2025 and came in at $617,383. It was $541,899 in 2024, so the budget looks low compared with the year before. At the end of 2025 the Municipality held cash and cash equivalents of $6,676,212 and investments of $3,337,176. Its own "Municipality" fund shows a deficit of $133,527 in the accumulated surplus note, and taxes receivable grew from $2,061,045 to $2,518,381.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$1,251,686balance of the land loan at December 31, 2025, due March 1, 2027
The 2025 budget planned to buy $8,001,930 of new buildings, roads and equipment and to borrow $4,370,000 to help pay for it. The statements show $4,343,712 of purchases and $415,176 of new debt. The statements also show $861,620 of "unfunded capital" for transportation projects that "will be funded through a future debenture" (a debenture is a loan sold to investors or a lender). One existing loan, for land, had a balance of $1,251,686 at the end of 2025 and is due March 1, 2027. The Municipality's net financial assets (what it has in the bank and owed to it, less what it owes) fell from $1,256,768 to $249,169 in 2025.
Why it matters
A loan that comes due all at once has to be paid off or replaced with a new loan. Residents should be able to see how the Municipality plans to do that, and how much new borrowing is coming for roads, because debt payments come out of future taxes.
It could be because…
Projects planned for 2025 were delayed, so the borrowing was not needed yet. The statements show purchases of $4,343,712 against a plan of $8,001,930.
The land loan may simply be renewed with the bank when it comes due, which is common for a term loan.
The Municipality held $6,676,212 in cash at the end of 2025 and $3,337,176 in investments, so it may pay part of the loan from savings.
The budget in the statements is adjusted to a different accounting basis, so the borrowing line is a plan, not a promise.
Questions you could ask
How and when will the land loan due March 1, 2027 be paid off or replaced, and at what interest rate?
How much new borrowing for transportation projects does Council expect over the next few years, and what will it cost in interest?
Why was only $415,176 of the planned $4,370,000 borrowed in 2025?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
page 20 (PDF), note 10 Budget Figures: "Tangible capital asset additions" 8,001,930; "Long term debt proceeds" (4,370,000).
page 22-23 (PDF), note 13(a) and 13(b): "Unfunded capital - See (b) below" (861,620); "Unfunded capital is for various transportation projects and will be funded through a future debenture."
page 18 (PDF), note 8(a) Long Term Debt: term facility "to be used for the purchase of land", interest at 5.68%, "due March 1, 2027", 2025 balance 1,251,686.
$6,542,913asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2025, up from $4,342,412
The Municipality runs six landfill sites. The law and accounting rules make it record the future cost of closing them and looking after them for 25 years afterward. That total (the "asset retirement obligation") was $4,342,412 at the end of 2024 and is $6,542,913 at the end of 2025. Of the rise, $1,668,801 is a re-estimate of the landfill cost and $531,700 is "accretion" (interest added as the closing date gets closer). In 2024 the same re-estimate went the other way, down by $2,781,484. Spending on environmental services (sewers, waste and recycling) was $1,743,900 in 2024 and $4,291,087 in 2025, against a 2025 budget of $4,129,939. The increase of $2,200,501 in the obligation is worked out by us from the two printed balances.
Why it matters
These are real costs the Municipality will have to pay one day, and the statements list the "unfunded asset retirement obligation" of $6,542,913 as a reduction of the surplus. Large swings in a number residents cannot check make it hard to know how much to set aside each year.
It could be because…
The estimate depends on the discount rate and inflation rate used, and small changes in those can move the total by millions. The statements say they used a discount rate of 4.25% and an inflation rate of 4.28% in 2025.
Landfill costs for five sites that close over the next 29 years are hard to predict, so large re-estimates in either direction may be normal for this kind of accounting.
Part of the jump in environmental spending between 2024 and 2025 may just be the 2024 downward re-estimate making 2024 look low.
Questions you could ask
What changed in the landfill cost estimate in 2025 (rates, closing dates or cost per site), and who prepared it?
Does Council set money aside each year toward closing the landfill sites, and where in the budget is it?
How much of the rise in environmental services spending is the accounting re-estimate, and how much is cash spent on services?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
page 24 (PDF), note 17(a): "The Municipality owns and operates six landfill sites. One site is closed and the other five sites are expected to close over the next 29 years." Discount rate of 4.25% and inflation rate of 4.28%.
$548,221"Rents and financial" in 2025, against a budget of $17,400
The statements break spending down by type. "Rents and financial" was budgeted at $17,400 for 2025 and came in at $548,221. In 2024 it was $150,671. The same table shows "Interest charges" of $84,230 in 2025 against $507,079 in 2024. Elsewhere the statements show "Accretion expense" of $531,700 in 2025 (from the landfill obligation). The statements do not say which line the accretion sits in. We noticed that the amount is close to the gap, but we cannot tell from the page whether they are the same money.
Why it matters
A line that is more than thirty times its budget deserves a one-sentence explanation. If it is an accounting entry, residents should be told so, so it is not mistaken for rent or bank fees.
It could be because…
The landfill accretion expense may be recorded in this line. The 2024 "Interest charges" figure of $507,079 and the 2025 "Rents and financial" figure both look like they could include it, but the statements do not say.
The budget for these lines may have been set before the accounting rules for retirement obligations were applied, so the budgeted $17,400 may not have included such an entry.
Bank fees, equipment rentals or credit card fees may have grown.
Questions you could ask
What makes up the $548,221 in "Rents and financial" in 2025?
Is the landfill accretion expense recorded in this line or in "Interest charges"?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
page 21 (PDF), note 11 Expenses by Object: "Rents and financial" budget 17,400, actual 2025 548,221, actual 2024 150,671; "Interest charges" actual 2025 84,230, actual 2024 507,079.
$635,464capital additions not previously recorded, found when 2024 was restated
The 2025 statements say the Municipality "restated its 2024 financial statements for tangible capital asset entries that were previously ommitted in error" (the word is spelled that way in the statements). The adjustments include capital additions of $635,464 not previously recorded and amortization (the yearly wearing-out charge) of $437,431 not previously recorded. The restated 2024 annual surplus is $3,162,303; it had been $3,174,827. The audit also changed hands. The 2025 statements were audited by Baker Tilly KDN LLP, who note that 2024 was audited by another auditor whose opinion was dated June 24, 2025. The 2025 opinion is dated July 30, 2026. The 2025 opinion is clean ("present fairly").
Why it matters
A restatement means a number that was published was wrong. This one changed the surplus very little, but it changed the value of the Municipality's assets, which drives what it plans to spend on replacing them. A later audit date can be innocent, but residents are owed a reason.
It could be because…
A new auditor reviewing the asset records in detail may well find old omissions. Restating is the correct fix, and the clean opinion says the 2025 numbers are fair.
The change of auditor may explain the later date, as a new firm needs more time in its first year.
The effect on the 2024 annual surplus was small ($3,174,827 as stated before, $3,162,303 restated).
Questions you could ask
How were the omitted capital entries found, and over how many years did they build up?
Why was the 2025 audit report dated July 30, 2026, and when did Council receive and approve the statements?
Did the Municipality change auditors by choice or at the end of a contract, and was the auditor chosen by a public process?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
page 14 (PDF), note 2 Prior Period Adjustment: "restated its 2024 financial statements for tangible capital asset entries that were previously ommitted in error"; "Capital additions not previously recorded" 635,464; "Accumulated amortization not previously recorded" (437,431); "2024 annual surplus as previously stated" 3,174,827; "2024 annual surplus as restated" 3,162,303.
page 4 (PDF), Independent Auditor's Report, Other Matter: 2024 statements "were audited by another auditor who expressed an unmodified opinion on those statements on June 24, 2025." Opinion: statements "present fairly"; report signed "July 30, 2026".
$3.9 millionannual capital infrastructure deficit, per the Municipality's 2025 Asset Management Plan
The 2025 Asset Management Plan (the Municipality's plan for looking after what it owns) values the assets at $265 million. It says the average yearly amount needed to keep them in repair is $6.5 million and that the Municipality is putting about $2.6 million a year toward capital projects or reserves. It reports an annual capital infrastructure deficit of $3.9 million, a 0.99% reinvestment rate, and a backlog of $22.7 million of assets still in use past their expected life. The plan recommends a 2.2% yearly increase in revenue over 10 years for the tax-funded part and 5.1% for sewer revenue. Separately, the statements show reserves and reserve funds, including a "Development fund" of $7,401,391 at the end of 2025.
Why it matters
Putting off repairs makes them cost more later. Residents deserve to know whether Council plans to follow the plan's recommended tax increases, and whether the reserves can fill part of the gap.
It could be because…
The plan says it is unlikely that all of the $22.7 million of old assets need immediate replacement, and that condition assessments would refine the number.
Reserves and grants may be used for capital work beyond the $2.6 million the plan counts.
The plan itself says a phase-in of 10 years is its recommended path, so a gap today is expected.
Questions you could ask
Has Council adopted the plan's recommended phase-in of yearly revenue increases? If not, what is its plan?
What is the Development fund of $7,401,391 for, and can it be used for the infrastructure gap?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
PDF page 3, key statistics: "Annual capital infrastructure deficit" $3.9 million; "Actual Reinvestment Rate" 0.99%; replacement cost $265 million.
PDF page 7, executive summary: average annual capital requirement "totals $6.5 million"; "approximately $2.6 million" committed; "infrastructure backlog of $22.7 million"; "2.2% annual increase in revenues over a 10-year phase-in period"; "5.1% annual increase" for waste water revenues.
Towns keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. Dysart et al had $7.8M saved at the end of 2024, up from $4.4M in 2019. That is 57% of one year's spending. Only 16 of 82 similar towns had less, compared with what they spend.
Does Dysart et al have enough saved for repairs and emergencies?
$0$2.0M$4.0M$6.0M$8.0M
$7.8M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Savings (reserves)
2019
$4.4M
2020
$4.7M
2021
$5.1M
2022
$6.9M
2023
$6.7M
2024
$7.8M
Why it matters
With little saved, a broken bridge or a storm has to be paid for with a sudden tax increase or a loan. Low savings can also mean past budgets were balanced by spending savings instead of facing the real cost.
It could be because…
The town spent savings on purpose, on projects that were planned and saved up for.
Some savings were used to match grant money, which brings in more than it costs.
The town has a plan to rebuild its savings.
Questions you could ask
Does the town have a written reserve policy with a target amount?
What were the savings spent on between 2019 and 2024?
What is the plan to rebuild them, and by when?
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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$617,383investment income in 2025, against a budget of $190,000
"Investment income" (interest earned on the Municipality's cash, investments and reserves) was budgeted at $190,000 for 2025 and came in at $617,383. It was $541,899 in 2024, so the budget looks low compared with the year before. At the end of 2025 the Municipality held cash and cash equivalents of $6,676,212 and investments of $3,337,176. Its own "Municipality" fund shows a deficit of $133,527 in the accumulated surplus note, and taxes receivable grew from $2,061,045 to $2,518,381.
Why it matters
A budget that understates income can make a tax increase look more necessary than it was. Budgeting low on purpose may reflect caution, but residents are entitled to know.
It could be because…
Interest rates were higher than when the budget was set, and the Municipality held more cash than planned because borrowing and projects were delayed.
Part of the income is interest on reserve funds that is added to those funds and so cannot be used to lower taxes.
Budgeting investment income low is a common and careful practice.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $617,383 was earned on reserve funds, and how much was available for the general budget?
Will the 2027 budget count the higher interest income, and will that lower the tax 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 Dysart et al?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
page 7 (PDF), statement of operations: "Investment income" budget 190,000, actual 2025 617,383, actual 2024 541,899.
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