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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 East Gwillimbury'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 · 11 so far
Things worth asking about
We read East Gwillimbury's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 21 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.
Needs an answer
Needs an answer
These are unusual enough that residents deserve a clear answer from council.
East Gwillimbury spent $5.3M on running the town office in 2019 and $10.5M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time. Only 1 of 21 similar towns had faster growth here.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 3 sources
$6,088,966left in the development charge fund at the end of 2025, down from $32,168,164 (a fall of $26,079,198, worked out by us)
Development charges are fees the Town collects from builders to pay for the roads, parks and buildings that new homes need. The Town keeps them in a fund that can only be used for that purpose. At the end of 2024 the fund held $32,168,164. At the end of 2025 it held $6,088,966, after $29,511,383 was spent on approved projects, most of it on the new Health and Active Living Plaza. Builders paid in $5,153,965 during 2025, compared with $13,458,383 in 2024. The Town says development slowed in 2025 and that a slower pace means less charge revenue. It also shows a ten-year plan of more than $343 million in capital spending. The 2026 capital budget draws on development charges for only a small share.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$6,644,012investment income in 2025, against $500,000 in the 2025 budget (a gap of $6,144,012, worked out by us)
The Town keeps its savings in guaranteed investment certificates (GICs) and in principal protected notes (PPNs). A PPN is a bond-like product whose return depends on markets, with the original money promised back if held to the end. Investment income was $6,644,012 in 2025 and $4,841,408 in 2024, and has grown every year since 2021, when it was $907,082. The tax-supported budget for 2026 assumes $500,000, the same as for 2025. The statements show $65,945,830 of the $110,598,335 investment total is in PPNs. The Town has explained part of the rise: investments matured at higher rates.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
10 days and 15 dayspay suspensions the Integrity Commissioner recommended for the Mayor and for Councillor Johns
The Integrity Commissioner is an independent person who looks into complaints that a member of council broke the Code of Conduct. She can only recommend penalties. Council decides. The Town's site posts her reports on two members of council. In one, she found Mayor Virginia Hackson broke Code rule 10.1 by taking part in a January 21, 2025 item about a developer when she was owed over $3 million by one of its companies after selling it land. She recommended a formal reprimand and a 10-day suspension of pay. She did not ask a court to rule on the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. In the other, she found Councillor Brian Johns broke several Code rules with a September 24, 2025 letter about a development at 31 Sand Road. She recommended a formal reprimand, a 15-day pay suspension, a public apology to staff and training. We could not read council minutes, so we do not know what council decided.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$4,080,920spending that appears under recreation in the audited statement and under roads in the five-year review (worked out by us)
The audited statement of operations in the Town's 2025 report shows recreation and cultural services spending of $14,220,551 and transportation (roads) spending of $12,838,899. The five-year review at the back of the same report shows recreation at $10,139,631 and transportation at $16,919,819. The segment note prints $10,139,631 as the recreation total too, but the lines above it in that table add up to $14,220,551 (worked out by us). The gap, $4,080,920 (worked out by us), is the same amount in both places, moved from one line to the other. The overall total of $74,026,195 is the same in every table.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
At the end of 2024, $11.1M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 13% of everything billed. Only 3 of 21 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $8.7M.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$356,000final year of the Town's dedicated tax funding for running the Plaza, in the 2026 budget
The Plaza is a recreation, library and aquatics centre that opened in October 2025. The Town calls it a $100 million facility and says it was paid for from development charges and community capital contributions, with no tax money. To pay for running it, the Town added a dedicated amount to the tax levy over several years. The 2026 budget says 2026 is the final year of that extra funding, about $356,000 in 2026. The Town expects the Plaza's 2026 operating cost to be $2.8 million against about $1.1 million of extra revenue, and says the net cost is covered by money already set aside, with no further tax pressure. The Town has explained this clearly. What residents cannot yet see is how long the set-aside reserve lasts.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$30,390,017cash at the end of 2025, down from $58,343,010
A surplus is revenue less spending in a year. The Town reported a 2025 surplus of $47,433,311 but its cash went from $58,343,010 to $30,390,017. The cash flow statement shows where it went. Part of the surplus is not cash: $12,178,412 is roads and pipes handed over by builders, which count as revenue but bring in no money. The Town spent $42,096,675 on buying and building assets, and its obligatory reserve funds (money it holds for set purposes, such as development charges) fell by $23,861,892 as projects were paid for.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$12,914,134deficit shown in the 2025 budget column of the statements, against an actual surplus of $47,433,311
The statement of operations shows a budgeted 2025 deficit of $12,914,134 next to an actual surplus of $47,433,311. The Town explains this in note 3 of the statements. The budget Council votes on counts big building projects as spending in the year, while the audited statements record them as assets, and developer-contributed assets were not in the budget. The note walks from the budget Council approved to the one shown in the statements. Council's own approved budget had revenue of $135,893,648 and spending of $160,493,160 once transfers are counted.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
Each question in full
Needs an answerFound automatically from financial reports
East Gwillimbury spent $5.3M on running the town office in 2019 and $10.5M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time. Only 1 of 21 similar towns had faster growth here.
Why did the cost of running the town office grow 100% in 5 years?
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%+100%
+100%
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+28%
+1%
2021
+40%
+4%
2022
+65%
+11%
2023
+90%
+16%
2024
+100%
+18%
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 town 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 did the extra $5.3M a year pay for?
Why did office and administration go from $2.9M to $6.4M?
Was each increase approved by council as a separate decision, or did it happen through the yearly 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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Running the town office: 2019 $5.3M, 2020 $6.7M, 2021 $7.4M, 2022 $8.7M, 2023 $10.0M, 2024 $10.5M.
East Gwillimbury spent about $104 per home on council in 2024. The typical similar town spent $58. Only 1 of 21 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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Council per home: East Gwillimbury $104; typical similar town $58; ranked 2nd highest of 22.
$6,088,966left in the development charge fund at the end of 2025, down from $32,168,164 (a fall of $26,079,198, worked out by us)
Development charges are fees the Town collects from builders to pay for the roads, parks and buildings that new homes need. The Town keeps them in a fund that can only be used for that purpose. At the end of 2024 the fund held $32,168,164. At the end of 2025 it held $6,088,966, after $29,511,383 was spent on approved projects, most of it on the new Health and Active Living Plaza. Builders paid in $5,153,965 during 2025, compared with $13,458,383 in 2024. The Town says development slowed in 2025 and that a slower pace means less charge revenue. It also shows a ten-year plan of more than $343 million in capital spending. The 2026 capital budget draws on development charges for only a small share.
Why it matters
A fund that is nearly empty cannot start the next growth project. If new building stays slow, the Town may need to pay for growth work from reserves or taxes, or wait. Residents can ask which it will be.
It could be because…
The fund exists to be spent. Emptying it on the Plaza, which the Town calls its largest project ever, is what it was collected for.
Much growth infrastructure is built by developers and handed to the Town, so it does not come out of this fund. The Town recorded $12,178,412 of such contributed assets in 2025.
New charges will come in again when building picks up. The Town says some assumptions of developer work are expected in 2026.
The 2026 capital plan leans mostly on reserves, not development charges, so the Town may already have planned around a low balance.
Questions you could ask
How much does the Town expect to collect in development charges in 2026 and 2027, and what growth projects are waiting on that money?
If the fund stays low, will the Town pay for growth projects from reserves, from taxes, or by delaying them?
What does the Town's current development charge background study assume about the pace of building?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Town's own explanation: "In 2025, $29.5 million in DCs were invested in Town-managed growth-related projects. Of this, $27.1 million was spent on the construction of the Health and Active Living Plaza, the largest capital project in East Gwillimbury's history."
The Town on slower development: it says development "was seen in the Town throughout 2025 with relatively lower levels of development than have been seen over the last ten years" and that with fewer new units there is "an associated reduction in development charge revenue".
The Town says Council reviewed a ten-year capital forecast (2025-2034) of "over $343 million in planned investments", and that the 2025 Asset Management Plan says future capital needs "will place increasing pressure on reserve balances".
$6,644,012investment income in 2025, against $500,000 in the 2025 budget (a gap of $6,144,012, worked out by us)
The Town keeps its savings in guaranteed investment certificates (GICs) and in principal protected notes (PPNs). A PPN is a bond-like product whose return depends on markets, with the original money promised back if held to the end. Investment income was $6,644,012 in 2025 and $4,841,408 in 2024, and has grown every year since 2021, when it was $907,082. The tax-supported budget for 2026 assumes $500,000, the same as for 2025. The statements show $65,945,830 of the $110,598,335 investment total is in PPNs. The Town has explained part of the rise: investments matured at higher rates.
Why it matters
If the investment income is real and repeating, it could be easing the tax bill, or building reserves, and residents might expect to see which. If it is partly one-time market gains, it should not be counted on. The budget does not say which.
It could be because…
A low budget number is a cautious choice, because interest rates and market returns move.
Much of the income may be interest earned inside the development charge and other reserve funds. That interest is added to those funds and is not available to cut taxes. Note 8 shows $1,094,562 of it for development charges alone.
Part may be one-time gains from selling PPNs. The Town's statements show gains of $2,317,915 moved into the statement of operations.
Higher interest on investments as they matured is the reason the Town gives for the rise.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $6,644,012 earned in 2025 stayed in reserve funds, how much went to the tax-supported budget, and how much was one-time gains on sales of notes?
Why does the tax-supported budget still assume $500,000 when income has been several times that for two years?
What is the Town's investment policy limit for principal protected notes, and what happens to a note sold before its end date?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Town's explanation of the rise: investments "maturing at higher rates than in the previous year"; and, on its notes, "If held to maturity, the fair value of PPNs will always be equal to or greater than carrying value. The original principal will not be lost."
Consolidated Statement of Accumulated Remeasurement Gains and Losses, 2025: "Realized gains, reclassified to the consolidated statement of operations" (2,317,915); unrealized gains 2,358,876; accumulated gains at end of year 2,956,796.
10 days and 15 dayspay suspensions the Integrity Commissioner recommended for the Mayor and for Councillor Johns
The Integrity Commissioner is an independent person who looks into complaints that a member of council broke the Code of Conduct. She can only recommend penalties. Council decides. The Town's site posts her reports on two members of council. In one, she found Mayor Virginia Hackson broke Code rule 10.1 by taking part in a January 21, 2025 item about a developer when she was owed over $3 million by one of its companies after selling it land. She recommended a formal reprimand and a 10-day suspension of pay. She did not ask a court to rule on the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. In the other, she found Councillor Brian Johns broke several Code rules with a September 24, 2025 letter about a development at 31 Sand Road. She recommended a formal reprimand, a 15-day pay suspension, a public apology to staff and training. We could not read council minutes, so we do not know what council decided.
Why it matters
Penalties only count if Council votes on them in public. Residents can ask whether each recommendation was adopted, changed or set aside, and what the pay suspensions would have cost.
It could be because…
Council may have voted on both reports in public and carried out the penalties. We could not read the minutes to check.
In the Mayor's case, the Commissioner found the Mayor did not know of the link between the two developer projects until January 2025, sought her advice that month, declared an interest in one of the two items, and apologized. She noted it was the first breach she had found against the Mayor and that no decision was made on the item.
The Commissioner decided there was not enough evidence that the Mayor's interest reached the other developer projects, and so did not go to court.
In Councillor Johns's case, the Commissioner noted he cooperated and that he stopped public comment on legal advice.
Questions you could ask
On what dates did Council vote on each of the two reports, and what did it decide on each recommendation?
Was each pay suspension carried out, and was an apology posted?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Report on Complaint #200325, summary: "I find that the Respondent violated the Code at Rule 10 and recommend a sanction as set out below." The Respondent is Mayor Virginia Hackson. The Commissioner says she will not apply to a judge under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
The report says the Respondent sold 18880 2nd Concession Road to Riverview Hills Assets Ltd. "on December 15, 2023 for the stated price of $2" and "took a vendor take-back mortgage over the property for $3 million at 4% interest and for a five-year term."
The report finds the Respondent "breached s. 10.1 of the Code through her participation in the council meeting on January 2025", and recommends "a Formal Reprimand" and "A suspension of Remuneration for a period of 10 days." It records her reply: "I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for my oversight in not declaring the pecuniary interest".
Report on Complaint #102625, summary: "I found that the Respondent violated Rules 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.2(b), 9.2, 9.3, 14.1, and 14.4 of the Council Code of Conduct." The Respondent is Councillor Brian Johns, and the letter is dated September 24, 2025. The Commissioner found he did not breach the confidentiality rules.
Recommendations to Council: "1. Issue a formal reprimand to Councillor Brian Johns; 2. Suspend the remuneration paid to Councillor Brian Johns for a period of 15 days"; a public social media apology to affected staff kept visible for a minimum of thirty (30) days; and education or training within six (6) weeks of the decision of Council.
$4,080,920spending that appears under recreation in the audited statement and under roads in the five-year review (worked out by us)
The audited statement of operations in the Town's 2025 report shows recreation and cultural services spending of $14,220,551 and transportation (roads) spending of $12,838,899. The five-year review at the back of the same report shows recreation at $10,139,631 and transportation at $16,919,819. The segment note prints $10,139,631 as the recreation total too, but the lines above it in that table add up to $14,220,551 (worked out by us). The gap, $4,080,920 (worked out by us), is the same amount in both places, moved from one line to the other. The overall total of $74,026,195 is the same in every table.
Why it matters
The extra $4,080,920 sits on a different line depending on which table a reader looks at. A resident comparing the cost of the new recreation plaza with the cost of roads could draw the opposite conclusion.
It could be because…
A late change in how some costs were grouped may have reached the audited statement of operations and not the segment note total or the five-year review. The five-year review is outside the audit opinion.
A typing slip in the five-year review and one total line in the segment note is possible.
The audited statements carry a clean opinion, and the total expenses agree everywhere, so this looks like a labelling difference and not missing money.
Questions you could ask
Which split of the $4,080,920 between recreation and roads is the correct one for 2025?
Will the Town correct the five-year review and the segment note total, or explain the difference?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, 2025 actual expenses: Transportation services 12,838,899; Recreation and cultural services 14,220,551; Total Expenses 74,026,195.
Note 18, Segmented Information, Recreation and Cultural Services, 2025 expenses by item: 8,029,487; 2,843,607; 546,290; 147,482; 2,585,006; 68,679. The total line for 2025 prints 10,139,631 (2024: 10,999,614). These six lines add to 14,220,551 (worked out by us).
Five Year Financial Review, Expenses by Function, 2025: Transportation services 16,919,819; Recreation and cultural services 10,139,631; Total Expense by Function 74,026,195.
Independent Auditor's Report: the opinion covers the financial statements, and "Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information", which includes the rest of the Annual Report.
East Gwillimbury spent $9.7M on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $14.1M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 45% in 5 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
+0%+10%+20%+30%+40%+50%
+45%
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+6%
+1%
2021
+19%
+4%
2022
+30%
+11%
2023
+38%
+16%
2024
+45%
+18%
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 town 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 did the extra $4.3M a year pay for?
Why did water pipes go from $5.3M to $7.3M?
Was each increase approved by council as a separate decision, or did it happen through the yearly 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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
At the end of 2024, $11.1M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 13% of everything billed. Only 3 of 21 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $8.7M.
Why are so many property taxes unpaid?
$0$2.0M$4.0M$6.0M$8.0M$10M$12M
$11.1M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Unpaid property tax at year end
2019
$5.9M
2020
$6.4M
2021
$6.0M
2022
$7.0M
2023
$8.7M
2024
$11.1M
Why it matters
When taxes go unpaid, everyone else carries the cost, and the town may borrow to cover the gap. The Province's financial indicators treat 10% to 15% as a moderate risk and more than 15% as a high risk. Collection is the town's job, so a rising number is worth asking about.
It could be because…
The final tax bill was due late in the year, so some payments simply arrived in January.
A few large properties are in dispute or being sold for back taxes.
Hard times for residents, which the town may be handling with payment plans.
Questions you could ask
How much is more than one year overdue, and from how many properties?
Are the rules for chasing unpaid taxes applied the same way to everyone?
Has the town registered tax arrears certificates on properties about two years behind? If still unpaid a year after that, Ontario law lets the town sell the property.
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Taxes receivable: 2019 $5.9M, 2020 $6.4M, 2021 $6.0M, 2022 $7.0M, 2023 $8.7M, 2024 $11.1M. Of the 2024 total, – was from earlier years.
$356,000final year of the Town's dedicated tax funding for running the Plaza, in the 2026 budget
The Plaza is a recreation, library and aquatics centre that opened in October 2025. The Town calls it a $100 million facility and says it was paid for from development charges and community capital contributions, with no tax money. To pay for running it, the Town added a dedicated amount to the tax levy over several years. The 2026 budget says 2026 is the final year of that extra funding, about $356,000 in 2026. The Town expects the Plaza's 2026 operating cost to be $2.8 million against about $1.1 million of extra revenue, and says the net cost is covered by money already set aside, with no further tax pressure. The Town has explained this clearly. What residents cannot yet see is how long the set-aside reserve lasts.
Why it matters
A new building costs money every year it is open, not just when it is built. Residents can ask how long the set-aside money covers the Plaza, and what happens after.
It could be because…
The Town built up the reserve over several years so that the full cost never lands on one year's tax bill, which is what the multi-year plan says.
Revenue from aquatics, memberships and rentals may grow once the Plaza has a full year of use, as the Town expects.
The 2026 tax levy rose for several reasons, not only the Plaza: asset replacement, community safety and growth also count.
Questions you could ask
How large is the set-aside Plaza reserve today, and how many years of the Plaza's net cost does it cover?
After 2026, what does the Town expect the Plaza's net yearly cost to be if user fees come in below the $1.1 million expected?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Town says the Plaza is a "new $100 million facility" and that "The construction of the HALP and park was funded by development as well as community capital contributions."
2026 budget, Transfers: "For 2026 the final funding required is approximately $356,000. In 2026 the net contribution to reserves is $218,000, taking into account the annualized revenue and expenses."
Parks, Recreation and Culture: "Operating expenditures related to the HALP in this department are $2.8 million in 2026." "The increase related to a full year of revenue from the HALP is estimated at $1.1 million in 2026". "The net budget for the HALP is funded from dedicated contributions to reserve and do not create any further tax levy pressures."
Taxation in the tax-supported summary: 2026 budget (37,490,193); 2025 budget (35,616,410); variance (1,873,783), 5%. The Town says "A further $1.375 million is the required tax levy increase to cover increased costs, as well as dedicated increases for asset management, community safety, and the operation of the new HALP."
$30,390,017cash at the end of 2025, down from $58,343,010
A surplus is revenue less spending in a year. The Town reported a 2025 surplus of $47,433,311 but its cash went from $58,343,010 to $30,390,017. The cash flow statement shows where it went. Part of the surplus is not cash: $12,178,412 is roads and pipes handed over by builders, which count as revenue but bring in no money. The Town spent $42,096,675 on buying and building assets, and its obligatory reserve funds (money it holds for set purposes, such as development charges) fell by $23,861,892 as projects were paid for.
Why it matters
A surplus on paper does not mean money in the bank. Residents can see from this that cash has fallen by nearly half in one year, and ask what level the Town wants to keep.
It could be because…
The cash was spent on the Plaza and other capital work it was meant for.
The Town still holds $110,598,335 in investments on top of cash, so cash alone understates what it has.
Questions you could ask
What is the lowest cash balance the Town's policy allows, and how much of the $110,598,335 in investments could be turned to cash within the 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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, 2025: Annual surplus 47,433,311; contributed tangible capital assets (12,178,412); obligatory reserve funds (23,861,892); acquisition of tangible capital assets (42,096,675); increase (decrease) in cash (27,952,993); cash, beginning of year 58,343,010; cash, end of year 30,390,017.
The Town's explanation: "After all activities, cash decreased by $28.0 million in 2025." The change "reflects planned investment in infrastructure and the use of accumulated reserves to support Town operations and capital projects."
$12,914,134deficit shown in the 2025 budget column of the statements, against an actual surplus of $47,433,311
The statement of operations shows a budgeted 2025 deficit of $12,914,134 next to an actual surplus of $47,433,311. The Town explains this in note 3 of the statements. The budget Council votes on counts big building projects as spending in the year, while the audited statements record them as assets, and developer-contributed assets were not in the budget. The note walks from the budget Council approved to the one shown in the statements. Council's own approved budget had revenue of $135,893,648 and spending of $160,493,160 once transfers are counted.
Why it matters
A budget that shows a deficit on paper can look alarming, and a large surplus can look like a windfall. Note 3 shows both are mostly how the numbers are presented, which is useful for residents to know.
It could be because…
The Town builds large projects over several years, so the budget counts the whole spend while the statements count assets.
Developer-contributed assets are revenue in the statements ($12,178,412 in 2025) but were never in the approved budget.
Questions you could ask
Does the Town publish a year-end report that compares the budget Council actually approved with the actual spending, on the same basis?
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 East Gwillimbury?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, 2025: Total Revenue budget 135,893,648, actual 121,295,061; Total Expenses budget 148,807,782, actual 74,026,195; Annual surplus (deficit) budget (12,914,134), actual 47,433,311.
Note 3, Budget Reconciliation: the approved budget "differs from the budget in the consolidated statement of operations and accumulated surplus. The difference is due primarily to the capitalization of tangible capital assets." Operating fund and capital budget revenue $ 135,893,648, expenses $ 135,893,656; transfer to/from other funds 24,599,504; Total Council approved budget 135,893,648 and 160,493,160; less tangible capital assets capitalized (11,685,378); adjusted budget 148,807,782.
Note 1(l), Budget figures: "neither the cost of the contributed tangible capital assets nor the revenue was included in the original Council approved budget", and the budget figures "are not audited".
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