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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Greater Napanee'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 · 6 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Greater Napanee's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 38 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.
$1,427,343estimated yearly payment on the $24,500,000 plant loan, at 4.14% over 30 years (staff report, April 14, 2026)
The town is rebuilding its sewage treatment plant (the wastewater pollution control plant). Staff put the whole project at $87,959,480. Grants are to pay for most of it: $14,042,397 from Canada and $34,819,094 from Ontario. The rest comes from savings (reserves) and a loan. In April 2026 staff asked council to apply for a $24,500,000 loan from Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation. At the rate staff quoted in April 2026 (4.14%, repaid over 30 years), the yearly payment would be about $1,427,343, with development charges (fees on new buildings) expected to cover 39% of it. The town says the project “will not be funded by the Town’s general tax base”, so water and sewer customers pay the rest. Staff recommended 5% rises in water and sewer charges for both 2025 and 2026, and a rate study is planned for 2026.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 7 sources
Oct 14, 2025date of the auditor’s report on the town’s 2023 statements
A town’s audited financial statements say what it earned, spent, owns and owes in a year, checked by an outside auditor. For the year ended December 31, 2023 the auditor’s report is dated October 14, 2025, almost two years later. The 2024 report is dated March 6, 2026 and council approved the 2024 statements on February 10, 2026. The 2025 statements went to council in draft on September 22, 2026, with the audit not yet complete. Both signed reports give a clean opinion (the statements “present fairly”). The treasurer’s February 2026 report says the 2023 audit was “complex, requiring extensive investigation, analysis and supplemental reporting”, but does not say what the problems were. The town’s website lists statements up to 2024.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 9 sources
$200,845.07final invoice for the sidewalk machine, June 29, 2023, taxes included (KPMG report, October 31, 2024)
In August 2022 staff ordered a Trackless MT7 sidewalk machine and attachments for $195,219 before taxes. It was not in the budget and no report went to council. The interim treasurer found the first invoice in March 2023. Council met in closed session on March 30, 2023, voted the same day to take $200,000 out of the 2023 capital budget and put it in reserves, and asked for an outside review. The machine arrived on June 29, 2023. KPMG’s forensic review (October 31, 2024) found that the old machine had failed badly and everyone interviewed agreed a new one was needed. KPMG said that if the purchase is treated as an emergency, the purchasing by-law “would not have been circumvented”, but the by-law did not say who could declare an emergency. A second KPMG review (November 11, 2024) listed gaps: no staff conflict-of-interest policy, little training and no whistleblower line. The town posted both reports. It has since passed a new purchasing by-law (in force January 1, 2026) and a staff conflict-of-interest policy (approved June 11, 2025).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 10 sources
$100,000price for about 9.0 acres of the former CN spur line (staff report, April 28, 2026)
The town owned about 9.0 acres of an old railway spur line north of Highway 401, a gift from CN Rail in 2012. Council declared it surplus (not needed) and the town told neighbouring owners. Staff say only one neighbour, Millspring Farms Inc., asked to buy it. On April 28, 2026 council voted 6 to 0 to sell it for $100,000 and to buy a strip of land beside Goodyear Road, for a future trail, at the same price per acre. The Ward 3 councillor filed written conflict declarations for this matter on March 10, March 24 and April 28, 2026, each mentioning family members. The first gives the reason as “related to family offering to purchase property”. The buyer is a company, and the forms name no one; we have not tried to find out who. The minutes say the councillor left the room for the discussion and vote.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
$227,000combined cost of two clean-up phases at 1388 Bridge Street (town news release, September 9, 2026)
A court ordered the owner of a rural property at 1388 Bridge Street to bring it into line with the town’s by-laws by June 1, 2026, or let the town do the work and bill the owner. In April staff said the clean-up would “exceed $50,000” and that the town had spent $22,000 on legal costs. On September 9 the town said two phases of clean-up cost $227,000 because more material turned up as the work went on. It says it will bill the owner and, if the bill is not paid, can add it to the property’s tax bill. The $227,000 does not include legal costs or staff time. A full report to council is promised when the work is done.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$1,427,343estimated yearly payment on the $24,500,000 plant loan, at 4.14% over 30 years (staff report, April 14, 2026)
The town is rebuilding its sewage treatment plant (the wastewater pollution control plant). Staff put the whole project at $87,959,480. Grants are to pay for most of it: $14,042,397 from Canada and $34,819,094 from Ontario. The rest comes from savings (reserves) and a loan. In April 2026 staff asked council to apply for a $24,500,000 loan from Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation. At the rate staff quoted in April 2026 (4.14%, repaid over 30 years), the yearly payment would be about $1,427,343, with development charges (fees on new buildings) expected to cover 39% of it. The town says the project “will not be funded by the Town’s general tax base”, so water and sewer customers pay the rest. Staff recommended 5% rises in water and sewer charges for both 2025 and 2026, and a rate study is planned for 2026.
Why it matters
The loan payments start when the plant is finished, which staff expect in March 2028, and they last for decades. The town’s own report says the payments will limit what it can spend on other pipes and plants. Customers should know before then what their bills will look like.
It could be because…
Grants cover 56% of the cost, and the loan is only 28%. The town is using a cheaper Ontario loan stream meant for housing-related water projects.
The plant also makes room for new homes, so development charges are planned to pay about 39% of the yearly loan payment.
Staff say the $1,300,000 a year already put into the water and sewer budget for this project can carry the customers’ share.
Interest rates may be higher or lower in 2028. Staff call their figures an illustration and promise to bring back updated numbers.
Questions you could ask
What do bills look like in 2028 and after? What does the 2026 water and wastewater rate study recommend, and when will it be public?
If development charges bring in less than the 39% planned, who covers the gap?
Staff say the plant loan will limit money for other water and sewer work. Which pipe and plant projects are being put off to pay for it?
The tender was for no more than $75,516,380 before HST. Have change orders been added since, and is the $87,959,480 total still right?
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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Staff report SR-1282-2026. Council awarded the plant tender on May 7, 2025 to Peak Construction Ltd. “for the sum of no greater than 75,516,380 excluding HST”. Staff now ask council to apply for financing of $24,500,000, down from the earlier limit of $25,000,000, by using $500,000 more of reserves and borrowing $500,000 less. Construction is expected to finish in March 2028, when the construction loan turns into a long-term debenture (a loan repaid in instalments).
The funding slide in the same report gives these totals: total project cost $87,959,480; federal funding $14,042,397 (16%); provincial funding $34,819,094 (40%); reserves $12,257,985 (14%); PUC reserve $1,840,004 (2%); financed through debenture $25,000,000 (28%). It adds that the project “will not be funded by the Town’s general tax base”.
Staff estimate the yearly payment on the loan at about $1,427,343 (30-year payments at 4.14%, with the rate fixed for the first 10 years). They expect development charges to pay about 39% of it. They say the 2026 water and wastewater budget includes $1,300,000 for the project, and that sustaining it “will constrain the department’s flexibility” to fund other water and wastewater projects. The effect of the Province’s proposed cuts to development charges is “largely unknown”. Staff also say the town would still have over $4 Million of room under its yearly borrowing limit after this loan, and that a water and wastewater rate study is under way.
The town’s draft 2025 statements list capital commitments of $67,474,560 for “Construction of water pollution control plant” and say it “will be funded from Federal and Provincial grants, reserves and issuance of long-term debt”. The auditor notes cash of $44,195,151 at the end of 2025 (up from $15,454,172), mostly grant money received for the plant and not yet spent, and deferred revenue that includes about $23M of unspent plant grants.
Draft 2025 Utilities Budget: staff recommended a 5% increase in user rates for 2025, worth an extra $352K, partly to pay for plant loan repayments of up to $1.3M a year. For the average household (24.8 m3 each two months) the increase would be $10.76 on a bill of $225.97. The deck says a formal rate review study is planned for 2026 and that utilities reserves were over $8.6M.
Staff report SR-1115-2025: for 2026 staff recommended another 5% increase, worth $369,227 in revenue, because of higher costs for chemicals, materials and contracts, wages, and the plant loan. The draft 2026 utilities budget raises spending by $945,951 and revenue by $304,610 and sets aside $1.3 million for the plant loan.
November 25, 2025 minutes (resolution #493/25): council asked for public notice of the proposed 2026 water and sewer charges but said a by-law to approve the rates would not be considered until after it had received a full budget. We did not find the final rates by-law.
Oct 14, 2025date of the auditor’s report on the town’s 2023 statements
A town’s audited financial statements say what it earned, spent, owns and owes in a year, checked by an outside auditor. For the year ended December 31, 2023 the auditor’s report is dated October 14, 2025, almost two years later. The 2024 report is dated March 6, 2026 and council approved the 2024 statements on February 10, 2026. The 2025 statements went to council in draft on September 22, 2026, with the audit not yet complete. Both signed reports give a clean opinion (the statements “present fairly”). The treasurer’s February 2026 report says the 2023 audit was “complex, requiring extensive investigation, analysis and supplemental reporting”, but does not say what the problems were. The town’s website lists statements up to 2024.
Why it matters
Council sets taxes, water rates and borrowing using the last year’s numbers. When the audit is late, everyone decides on older numbers. The town is now taking on a $24,500,000 loan, which makes on-time, checked numbers matter more.
It could be because…
The 2023 statements were the first to use a new accounting rule for asset retirement obligations (the future cost of closing landfills and removing hazards). The auditor’s report flags the change, and a first-year change like that can take a long time.
Changes in senior staff in 2023 can slow down a year-end close while new people rebuild records.
The treasurer says the 2023 work built the base for a faster 2024 audit, and the 2025 audit has moved faster still.
The audit may have uncovered old errors that had to be fixed before the auditor could sign.
Questions you could ask
In plain terms, what made the 2023 audit take until October 2025, and were any earlier numbers changed as a result?
When will the signed 2025 statements be approved and posted on the town’s website?
Did the late 2023 audit delay the town’s yearly Financial Information Return to the Province or any grant claim?
Why did the town extend KPMG for 2025 and 2026 without asking other firms for bids, and what are the audit fees for 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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Independent auditor’s report on the 2023 statements: the statements “present fairly, in all material respects” the town’s position at December 31, 2023. It carries an “Emphasis of Matter” about the change in accounting policy for asset retirement obligations and says the opinion is not modified. It is signed in Kingston and dated October 14, 2025.
Independent auditor’s report on the 2024 statements: clean opinion (“present fairly, in all material respects”), signed in Kingston and dated March 6, 2026.
Report SR-1218-2026: staff ask council to appoint KPMG again for 2025 and 2026 without the usual request for proposals. They write that “The audit process for the 2023 fiscal year was complex, requiring extensive investigation, analysis and supplemental reporting” and refer to “the challenges experienced with the 2023 audit process”. They say the work on 2023 helped an “expediated” 2024 audit.
KPMG’s Audit Findings Report for the year ended December 31, 2025 is “Prepared as of September 15, 2026, for presentation to Council on September 22, 2026”. Remaining steps include “Obtaining evidence of Council’s approval of the financial statements” and “Receipt of signed management representation letter”. KPMG says it did not uncover any significant findings and that materiality was $675,000. The draft auditor’s report is clean.
The town’s list of payments shows $51,189.00 paid to KPMG LLP on 29-May-2026 for “AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STAT” (the description is cut off in the list).
The town’s list of payments shows $39,550.00 paid to KPMG LLP on 31-Jul-2026 for “INTERIM BILLING IN CONNECTION WITH AUDIT SERVIC” (the description is cut off in the list).
April 14, 2026 minutes: council authorized "the Treasurer to submit an application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) on behalf of Greater Napanee for financing capital works for the Wastewater Pollution Control Plant in the amount of $24,500,000" and "long term borrowing for such capital work through the issue of debenture to OILC."
Greater Napanee spent $3.5M on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $5.9M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 70% in 6 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%
+70%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+36%
+1%
2021
+30%
+4%
2022
+65%
+11%
2023
+68%
+16%
2024
+63%
+18%
2025
+70%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
When one area grows much faster than prices, it is either doing more (which may be great) or paying more for the same thing. Residents deserve to know which.
It could be because…
The 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
Why did the printed charges for garbage and recycling collection and processing go from $338,421 and $81,910 in 2019 to $682,628 and $545,278 in 2020: a bigger service, a new price, or a change in how costs were counted?
How much of the rise in the water and sewer plants and pipes since 2019 is higher running cost, and how much is the cost of owning newer assets (amortization)?
Now that curbside recycling has moved to producers, how much does the town really save in 2026 and 2027 after the lost provincial grants?
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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Garbage and recycling charges before the current contract. Waste Management of Canada Corporation charges for 2019: garbage collection and disposal $338,421 and recycling collection and processing $81,910.
The same charges for 2020: garbage collection and disposal $682,628 and recycling collection and processing $545,278. The audited statements show environmental services expense (water, sewer and waste, with amortization) of $4,359,502 in 2019 and $5,768,997 in 2020.
Report SR-1109-2025: the Waste Management contract dates from December 2019 (see the amending agreement on page 161). From January 1, 2026 the town no longer collects curbside recycling because Ontario moved it to producers. The change cuts the town’s collection cost by about $459,000 in 2026. The garbage levy on homes falls from $200 to $150, cutting revenue by $306,500, against a $504,000 lower recycling cost. Lost grants and phased-in garbage price rises leave a net 2026 change of about $25,000.
Draft 2025 statements, statement of operations: environmental services expense $7,228,221 in 2025 and $6,880,559 in 2024. Segment note: environmental services took in user charges of $9,012,220 and total revenue of $9,680,322 against expenses of $7,228,221, a surplus of $2,452,101 (2024 surplus: $2,134,006). Amortization within it was $1,345,067.
Draft 2025 statements, notes: Waste Management charges in 2025 were $788,284 for garbage (2024 - $759,073) and $511,533 for recycling (2024 - $633,604), under an agreement that runs to December 31, 2029. Unfinanced landfill closure and post-closure costs stand at $2,794,053 (2024: $3,397,896).
2025 Utilities Budget presentation: “Historical rate increases have typically been slightly above inflationary costs with an intent to slowly close the gap on asset depreciation.” The rate rises on the history chart include 1.85%, 1.90%, 2.00%, 2.10% and 3.00%, with 5.00% proposed for 2025. A comparison with eight other municipalities found four above and four below the town’s rates.
Report SR-1115-2025 for 2026 rates: staff recommended 5% more for water and sewer charges because of higher costs for chemicals, materials and contracted services, wages, capital work and the plant loan. The draft 2026 utilities budget raises expenses by $945,951 and revenues by $304,610.
$200,845.07final invoice for the sidewalk machine, June 29, 2023, taxes included (KPMG report, October 31, 2024)
In August 2022 staff ordered a Trackless MT7 sidewalk machine and attachments for $195,219 before taxes. It was not in the budget and no report went to council. The interim treasurer found the first invoice in March 2023. Council met in closed session on March 30, 2023, voted the same day to take $200,000 out of the 2023 capital budget and put it in reserves, and asked for an outside review. The machine arrived on June 29, 2023. KPMG’s forensic review (October 31, 2024) found that the old machine had failed badly and everyone interviewed agreed a new one was needed. KPMG said that if the purchase is treated as an emergency, the purchasing by-law “would not have been circumvented”, but the by-law did not say who could declare an emergency. A second KPMG review (November 11, 2024) listed gaps: no staff conflict-of-interest policy, little training and no whistleblower line. The town posted both reports. It has since passed a new purchasing by-law (in force January 1, 2026) and a staff conflict-of-interest policy (approved June 11, 2025).
Why it matters
Council is the town’s board. A purchase of about $200,000 that council hears about months later means it lost the chance to ask questions first. The reviewers found a gap in the rules more than a broken rule. Residents can fairly ask whether the gaps they listed are now closed.
It could be because…
The old machine had a major frame failure in 2022 and was, in the public works manager’s words, “in the shop more than it was in use”. A sidewalk that cannot be cleared exposes the town to claims.
Machines like this have long delivery times, so waiting until the fall to ask council could have left the town without a machine in winter 2022-23.
The order was dated August 17, 2022, two days before nomination day (August 19, 2022), when the outgoing council’s powers were about to be limited by law. KPMG noted the timing and drew no conclusion from it.
The by-law did not say who could declare an emergency. The town’s 2025 by-law now does.
Questions you could ask
Which of KPMG’s suggestions (a whistleblower line, training, a standard way to file procurement records) have been carried out, and has council had a report on it?
The November 11, 2024 review on the town’s website is headed “DRAFT”. Is there a final version?
What did the two reviews cost in total? Is the $129,353.92 paid to KPMG on June 19, 2026 for these reviews, and were other amounts paid earlier?
How often has the new emergency-purchase rule (CAO only above $50,000, with a public report) been used since January 1, 2026?
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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
KPMG, Forensic Review of the Trackless Procurement: the interim treasurer found a first invoice for $22,939 dated February 1, 2023, tied to purchase order 35737 dated August 17, 2022. The order also covered a “Trackless MT7” for $158,299 and other parts, for a total of $195,219 excluding taxes. Finance staff were at first unable to find the approvals.
KPMG reviewed the public council minutes from August 9, 2022 to February 13, 2023 and the closed-session minutes from June 2022 to May 2023 and “did not observe any reports on the Trackless procurement being made to Council” before March 30, 2023. That day council passed a motion that the $200,000 for the “Sidewalk Plow” be removed from capital expenses and included as a $200,000 transfer to reserves.
KPMG: the machine shipped on June 29, 2023, and invoice U00671 for $200,845.07 (including taxes) was approved for payment on July 6, 2023. The town chose to complete the purchase after a risk review.
KPMG notes that the purchase order was issued on August 17, 2022, “immediately before” the period (from nomination day, August 19, 2022) when much of council’s power passed to the CAO. It draws no conclusion from this.
KPMG’s conclusion: the by-law “does not specify who would holds the position of ‘Emergency Authorized Person’”. Where the purchase “could be considered an ‘Emergency’ procurement” and it was not feasible to involve purchasing staff, the by-law “would not have been circumvented”. KPMG also records that all parties agreed a new sidewalk machine was needed.
KPMG, Procurement Process Review (page headers read “DRAFT”): it lists 15 possible risks that someone could exploit gaps in the buying process (KPMG calls them fraud risks). Its suggestions include a standalone conflict-of-interest policy for staff (the town had none), regular training on buying rules, conflicts of interest and spotting fraud, and an anonymous whistleblower program (“We did not see evidence of any whistleblower mechanism”).
Procurement By-law 2025-0084, passed December 9, 2025 and in force January 1, 2026: a department head may make emergency purchases up to $10,000, a general manager up to $50,000 and the CAO over $50,000. Each must report to council in the next public report with the details and source of funding.
The town’s Policies page lists the Staff Conflict of Interest Policy, a Municipal Credit Card Policy and other finance policies. We did not find a whistleblower or fraud-reporting policy on it.
The town’s payments list for June 18 to July 21, 2026 shows a payment of $129,353.92 to KPMG LLP on 19-Jun-2026 described as “FORENSIC REVIEW OF THE PRO” (the description is cut off in the list).
$100,000price for about 9.0 acres of the former CN spur line (staff report, April 28, 2026)
The town owned about 9.0 acres of an old railway spur line north of Highway 401, a gift from CN Rail in 2012. Council declared it surplus (not needed) and the town told neighbouring owners. Staff say only one neighbour, Millspring Farms Inc., asked to buy it. On April 28, 2026 council voted 6 to 0 to sell it for $100,000 and to buy a strip of land beside Goodyear Road, for a future trail, at the same price per acre. The Ward 3 councillor filed written conflict declarations for this matter on March 10, March 24 and April 28, 2026, each mentioning family members. The first gives the reason as “related to family offering to purchase property”. The buyer is a company, and the forms name no one; we have not tried to find out who. The minutes say the councillor left the room for the discussion and vote.
Why it matters
The town’s land sale by-law lets it skip an appraisal when old rail land is sold to a neighbour. That is allowed, but it means residents cannot see how the price was tested. The conflict declarations show the rules working; what is left is how the price and the buyer were checked.
It could be because…
The land is landlocked, a thin strip that few people besides neighbours would want, and the by-law exempts former railway land sold to neighbours from an appraisal.
Staff based the price on what the 2012 transfer cost the town ($44,641.21 for the whole line, adjusted for inflation) and say $100,000 is above that.
The councillor declared the interest in writing at each meeting and left the room, which is what the rules require.
A family link to the buyer does not by itself mean a worse deal: the land is a strip only neighbours could use, and the price was set by staff, not by the councillor.
Questions you could ask
Were any other offers or expressions of interest received for the land, from neighbours or anyone else?
Was the land, or the steel rail on it, valued by anyone before the price was set? How was $11,111.11 an acre chosen for both the sale and the trail strip?
Does the town plan to change its land sale by-law so that a sale where a councillor has declared a conflict gets a second look, such as a valuation?
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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Closed-session direction report SR-1263-2026: “The lands were declared surplus on October 28th and public notice was issued November 3rd. Notices to abutting property owners were sent and only one property owner voiced desire to acquire the lands, being Millspring Farms Inc.”
Staff report SR-1303-2026: sale of about 9.0 acres to Millspring Farms Inc. for $100,000, “as is, where is”, with a 40-year environmental indemnity. The town buys a 10 m by 900 m strip beside Goodyear Road (about 2.2 acres) at $11,111.11 an acre, estimated at $24,444.44, and expects net proceeds of about $65,555.56. The report says the 2012 transfer from CN was a gift with town costs of $44,641.21 (“appraisal (unable to be located in Town records)”), and that the sale follows the Sale of Land By-law 2025-0048, which exempts former railway lands sold to abutting owners from appraisal.
April 28, 2026 minutes: “Councillor Davey declared a conflict on Item 8.4.” The councillor left the meeting at 9:20 p.m. “due to the declared conflict of interest”. Resolution #201/26 to sell the land and buy the trail strip was carried: for, Richardson, Calver, Schenk, Hicks, Norrie and Martin; against, none. The councillor returned at 9:40 p.m. A resident told council that day the steel rails might hold value.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, received January 28, 2026: Councillor Ward 3 Shawn Davey; meeting 10 Mar 2026 (closed session); item 6.1 “CN Spur Line”; reason “Related to family offering to purchase property”.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, received March 20, 2026: Councillor Ward 3 Shawn Davey; meeting 24 Mar 2026 (closed session); item 6.1 “CN Rail Spur Line”; reason “Family members involved with possible purchase of concerned land.”
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, received April 28, 2026: Councillor Ward 3 Shawn Davey; meeting 28 Apr 2026 (regular session); item 8.4 “CN Rail Spur Line”; reason “Conflict due to family members involved in situation”.
$227,000combined cost of two clean-up phases at 1388 Bridge Street (town news release, September 9, 2026)
A court ordered the owner of a rural property at 1388 Bridge Street to bring it into line with the town’s by-laws by June 1, 2026, or let the town do the work and bill the owner. In April staff said the clean-up would “exceed $50,000” and that the town had spent $22,000 on legal costs. On September 9 the town said two phases of clean-up cost $227,000 because more material turned up as the work went on. It says it will bill the owner and, if the bill is not paid, can add it to the property’s tax bill. The $227,000 does not include legal costs or staff time. A full report to council is promised when the work is done.
Why it matters
The town paid the contractor first, so the $227,000 is the town’s risk until it is paid back. If the owner cannot pay, the money has to come from the tax bill of that property, which can take years to collect, or from other taxpayers.
It could be because…
The court order lets the town do the work and bill the owner, and the CAO says council has been clear that taxpayers should not pay.
Staff’s April figure was a floor (“will exceed”), not a firm price. The town says more material than expected was found, including propane and acetylene tanks.
The court deadline left little time, so council let staff use three quotes instead of a full request for proposals.
Costs added to a tax bill are normally collected when the property is sold or the taxes are paid.
Questions you could ask
What is the final cost of all phases, and how many quotes were received for each?
How much of the $227,000 has the owner paid, and what happens if it stays unpaid?
Which budget line paid the contractor until the owner pays, and what did the legal work cost in total?
Will there be a third phase, and what will it 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 Greater Napanee?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Staff report SR-1294-2026: the town “has spent $22,000 in legal costs on the court action” and “staff time … estimated at tens of thousands of dollars”. Staff estimate the clean-up “will exceed $50,000” and ask council to let staff seek three quotes rather than a full RFP because of the court timeline. Clean-up costs would be billed to the owner “through its property tax bill”.
News release: “The combined cost of both phases totaled $227,000, including taxes and disposal fees.” Phase 2 removed more than 180 tonnes of material and Phase 1 more than 30 trailers. “Final costs exceeded initial estimates as additional materials requiring removal were discovered throughout the cleanup process.” The total “does not account for legal expenses, staff time”. If the bill goes unpaid, the town can add it to the owner’s tax bill. A third phase may follow if permits are not obtained.
August 25, 2026 minutes: a councillor asked for more public information on the clean-up and its costs. The CAO said he will bring a full report once the project is complete. “Contractor costs will be billed back to the property owner, but the Town will not be able to recoup the lost capacity associated with overseeing the work.”
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