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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Grey Highlands'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 · 10 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Grey Highlands' financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 89 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.
$164.4 millionten-year funding gap for tax-funded services at the benchmark level, against $36.5 million at the level the Municipality proposed
An asset management plan is a town's plan for keeping roads, bridges, buildings and vehicles in working order. Grey Highlands' 2025 plan, prepared by Hemson Consulting, values the Municipality's assets at $885.0 million (in 2025 dollars). It shows a ten-year "benchmark" gap of about $164.4 million between what tax-funded services need ($245.8 million) and the funding in place ($81.4 million). Closing it would take a tax levy increase of about 20%. The plan also shows a smaller gap of about $36.5 million to reach a lower "proposed level of service", which would take about 4.5% ($810,000) more levy a year. Staff recommended the 4.5% option, and the Mayor's 2026 draft budget builds it in. The plan also says water and wastewater rates would need to rise by about 5.5% a year.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$8,164,000of bridge capital work the 2023 inspection report puts within one year, out of a ten-year total of $19,196,000
In February 2024 staff gave Council the 2023 bridge inspection report. It says only 47.9% of the Municipality's structures are in good condition, and that capital work (repairs, rehabilitation and replacement done by a contractor) would cost $8,164,000 within a year, $6,622,500 over one to five years and $4,409,500 over six to ten years, for a total of $19,196,000. Staff wrote that the bridge operating budget was $42,200 a year and that the funding deficit should be addressed now. The Mayor's 2026 draft budget includes $2.45 million for bridge replacement, repair and engineering. The pages we read do not show how much of the $8,164,000 list was done in 2024 and 2025.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$20,151,616approved 2026 levy, with a blended tax increase of 5.9%
The levy is the amount raised from property taxes. The Mayor's January 2026 draft proposed a total levy of $20,274,116 and a blended tax rate increase of 6.3%. The approved 2026 budget has a levy of $20,151,616 and a blended increase of 5.9%, which is $122,500 lower than the draft (worked out by us). The draft's capital levy starts from a base of $2,490,966 and adds the asset plan's 4.5% ($810,000) plus "an additional contribution of $238,732". The Hemson plan said the 2025 budget tax levy was $18.1 million, so a levy of $20,151,616 is about $2.05 million, or 11%, higher (worked out by us), which is more than the 5.9% rate increase. We did not find the Municipality's explanation of the difference, and the budget documents are on a portal we could not open.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
In 2024, Grey Highlands collected $1.8M more in its own property tax than in 2023. That is a 13% jump, while prices went up about 2.4%. Only 9 of 89 similar towns raised theirs by more. Almost all of it came from a higher tax rate (up 8% for homes); the value of homes on the tax roll grew only 1.8%.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 4 sources
1 vetoof a council amendment in the 2026 budget (Road 170 gravel conversion, $163,019); override window cut from 15 days to 4
Under Ontario's strong mayor rules the Mayor writes the budget, council can amend it within 30 days, and the Mayor can veto amendments. Council can then override a veto. The Municipality's draft budget release says the override period is 15 days and that "Grey Highlands Council opted to shorten" it to 4 days. In the approved budget release, the Mayor vetoed one council amendment: to downgrade Road 170 to a gravel surface at a cost of $163,019. On February 18, 2026 Council did not get the vote needed to override, so Road 170 stays a hard surface and the budget was deemed approved.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
In 2019, Grey Highlands had $2.5M more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2024 it was −$3.2M. About 34% of that change ($2.0M) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 12 of 89 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
Grey Highlands spent about $507 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2024. The typical similar town spent $153. None of the 89 similar towns spent more.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 1 source
Each question in full
Needs an answerFound automatically from financial reports
Grey Highlands spent about $137 per home on council in 2024. The typical similar town spent $51. Only 8 of 89 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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Council per home: Grey Highlands $137; typical similar town $51; ranked 9th highest of 90.
$164.4 millionten-year funding gap for tax-funded services at the benchmark level, against $36.5 million at the level the Municipality proposed
An asset management plan is a town's plan for keeping roads, bridges, buildings and vehicles in working order. Grey Highlands' 2025 plan, prepared by Hemson Consulting, values the Municipality's assets at $885.0 million (in 2025 dollars). It shows a ten-year "benchmark" gap of about $164.4 million between what tax-funded services need ($245.8 million) and the funding in place ($81.4 million). Closing it would take a tax levy increase of about 20%. The plan also shows a smaller gap of about $36.5 million to reach a lower "proposed level of service", which would take about 4.5% ($810,000) more levy a year. Staff recommended the 4.5% option, and the Mayor's 2026 draft budget builds it in. The plan also says water and wastewater rates would need to rise by about 5.5% a year.
Why it matters
The plan sets how much road, bridge and building upkeep the Municipality aims to afford. The lower option holds the tax increase down, but residents can ask what service is accepted in exchange, such as which roads or buildings get less repair.
It could be because…
The benchmark is an industry yardstick. Council can choose a lower level of service that it can pay for, and the plan says the $36.5 million option is that choice.
Staff say the plan is a snapshot at one point in time that rests on long-term assumptions, and that the funding gap is reviewed each year at budget time.
The plan assumes grants (the Canada Community-Building Fund and Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund) continue, which lowers the tax need.
The gap is spread over ten years and replacement is not due all at once, so it does not mean assets will fail in the first year.
Questions you could ask
What service is given up under the $36.5 million option compared with the $164.4 million benchmark: which roads, bridges and buildings get less repair?
Will Council commit to the extra $810,000 a year for ten years, and what happens to the plan if a year's budget leaves it out?
How much of the plan relies on grants that are not guaranteed, and what is the plan if they fall?
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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"The Municipality's Asset Portfolio is Extensive and Valued at $885.0 Million" (replacement cost in 2025 dollars). About 22% ($191.8 million) of assets are rated poor or very poor, and about 25% ($223.8 million) fair.
"Benchmark Funding Gap for Tax Funded Services Totals about $164.4 million". Ten-year total need $245.8 M, ten-year funding $81.4 M. "2025 Estimated tax supported capital funding contribution = $3.2 million". "Closing the gap by the end of the 10-year period would require a tax levy increase equal to about 20%", or "$3.7 million in 2026 and onward". The slide notes the "2025 budget tax levy amounts to $18.1 million".
"Funding Gap to Meet Proposed Level of Service Totals about $36.5 million for Tax Funded Services". "10-Year lifecycle costs to meet proposed levels of service totals about $117.8 million". "Closing the gap by the end of the 10-year period would require a tax levy increase equal to about 4.5%", or "$810,000 in 2026 and onward". For water and wastewater: "Proposed Rate Increases of about 5.5% per Year to Meet Proposed Levels of Service".
The staff report says of the financing recommendation: "This represents a levy increase of 4.5% in the 2026 budget." It also says: "In the 2025 Budget, Council approved an increase to the capital tax levy of $964,534 or 6.2%".
$8,164,000of bridge capital work the 2023 inspection report puts within one year, out of a ten-year total of $19,196,000
In February 2024 staff gave Council the 2023 bridge inspection report. It says only 47.9% of the Municipality's structures are in good condition, and that capital work (repairs, rehabilitation and replacement done by a contractor) would cost $8,164,000 within a year, $6,622,500 over one to five years and $4,409,500 over six to ten years, for a total of $19,196,000. Staff wrote that the bridge operating budget was $42,200 a year and that the funding deficit should be addressed now. The Mayor's 2026 draft budget includes $2.45 million for bridge replacement, repair and engineering. The pages we read do not show how much of the $8,164,000 list was done in 2024 and 2025.
Why it matters
A bridge that is closed or load-limited cuts off roads, farms and emergency routes. Residents can ask whether the money matches the engineers' list, and what is being deferred.
It could be because…
The report is from February 2024. Bridge work in the 2024 and 2025 budgets may have already covered part of the first-year list.
The engineers say it may not be feasible to do all the work in the recommended time, and suggest cheaper options such as single-lane structures or using the Municipality's own crews.
The costs are estimates, before HST and before design and land costs, so the real figures may differ.
Council has an asset management plan and 2026 capital program that cover bridges, so this report is one input among several.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $8,164,000 first-year list has been done or paid for since February 2024, and which structures are still waiting?
Which of the eight bridges with load postings are on the replacement list, and when are they planned?
Does the $2.45 million for bridges in 2026 cover the first-year list or only part of it?
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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"Capital Works Costs and Timeframes": less than 1 year $8,164,000; 1 - 5 years $6,622,500; 6 - 10 years $4,409,500; Total $19,196,000. "Within the next year, eight structures have been identified as requiring rehabilitation and six structures have been identified for replacement." "Burnside has noted that it may not be feasible to complete all of the capital work requirements within the recommended timeframe." The report adds that "The municipality currently has 8 bridges with load postings" and that current roadside safety needs cost an estimated $2,549,000.
The Financial Impact section says the Municipality's Asset Management Plan, based on 2018/2019 inspection data, identified a total replacement cost of $68.1 million with an annual funding deficit of $1.0 million (worked across two PDF pages). "The updated total replacement cost based on 2022/2023 inspections is $82.4 million." "The current operating budget for bridges totals $42,200". The report says "Addressing the funding deficient for bridge replacement and rehabilitation now is essential".
$20,151,616approved 2026 levy, with a blended tax increase of 5.9%
The levy is the amount raised from property taxes. The Mayor's January 2026 draft proposed a total levy of $20,274,116 and a blended tax rate increase of 6.3%. The approved 2026 budget has a levy of $20,151,616 and a blended increase of 5.9%, which is $122,500 lower than the draft (worked out by us). The draft's capital levy starts from a base of $2,490,966 and adds the asset plan's 4.5% ($810,000) plus "an additional contribution of $238,732". The Hemson plan said the 2025 budget tax levy was $18.1 million, so a levy of $20,151,616 is about $2.05 million, or 11%, higher (worked out by us), which is more than the 5.9% rate increase. We did not find the Municipality's explanation of the difference, and the budget documents are on a portal we could not open.
Why it matters
Residents see the rate increase on their bill. The levy and the rate differ because new buildings add to the tax base. Residents can ask what part of the rise is growth, what part is higher rates, and what the extra $238,732 for capital is for.
It could be because…
A levy can rise faster than the rate because new homes and businesses add to the tax base. A rise in the levy does not itself mean existing households pay that much more.
The $18.1 million and the $20,151,616 may not measure exactly the same thing (for example, what is counted as levy). We could not read the budget to check.
The extra $238,732 may be a planned top-up to a reserve or to cover a project the asset plan did not include.
The Municipality lowered the levy by $122,500 between the draft and the approved budget, which shows Council made changes.
Questions you could ask
How much of the 2026 levy increase comes from growth in the tax base and how much from the rate?
What is the extra $238,732 of capital levy for, and is it in the approved budget?
What did Council's amendments change between the $20,274,116 draft and the $20,151,616 approved levy?
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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"The draft proposes a total levy of $20,274,116 for 2026, representing a blended rate increase of 6.3%." "The capital levy calculation references a base 2025 capital levy of $2,490,966, adding 4.5% ($810,000) per the Asset Management Plan, with an additional contribution of $238,732."
Slide notes: "2025 budget tax levy amounts to $18.1 million." The slide on the proposed level of service adds that closing the gap "would require a tax levy increase equal to about 4.5%", or "$810,000 in 2026 and onward".
In 2024, Grey Highlands collected $1.8M more in its own property tax than in 2023. That is a 13% jump, while prices went up about 2.4%. Only 9 of 89 similar towns raised theirs by more. Almost all of it came from a higher tax rate (up 8% for homes); the value of homes on the tax roll grew only 1.8%.
Why did Grey Highlands' property tax go up 13% in 2024?
$0$5.0M$10M$15M$20M
$16M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Town property tax
2019
$10.9M
2020
$11.8M
2021
$12M
2022
$13.3M
2023
$14.2M
2024
$16M
Why it matters
A big one-year jump usually means something changed: a new cost, a service that grew, savings being rebuilt, or a problem from earlier years being paid for now. Residents should be able to see exactly which. Spread across every home, it is about $443 more each year.
It could be because…
Costs the town cannot control went up, such as policing, insurance or county charges.
The town kept taxes too low in earlier years and is catching up.
The town is rebuilding savings or paying for a big project like a bridge or equipment.
Questions you could ask
What were the three biggest reasons for the 2024 increase, in dollars?
Is a similar increase planned for next 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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Town property tax: $14,203,387 in 2023, $16,013,903 in 2024.
Grey Highlands spent $2.4M on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $3.9M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 60% in 5 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%
+60%
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+4%
+1%
2021
+24%
+4%
2022
+39%
+11%
2023
+66%
+16%
2024
+60%
+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 $1.5M a year pay for?
Why did garbage pickup go from $447K to $969K?
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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Grey Highlands spent about $3,258 per home on long-term debt in 2024. The typical similar town spent $1,201. Only 9 of 89 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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Long-term debt per home: Grey Highlands $3,258; typical similar town $1,201; ranked 10th highest of 90.
1 vetoof a council amendment in the 2026 budget (Road 170 gravel conversion, $163,019); override window cut from 15 days to 4
Under Ontario's strong mayor rules the Mayor writes the budget, council can amend it within 30 days, and the Mayor can veto amendments. Council can then override a veto. The Municipality's draft budget release says the override period is 15 days and that "Grey Highlands Council opted to shorten" it to 4 days. In the approved budget release, the Mayor vetoed one council amendment: to downgrade Road 170 to a gravel surface at a cost of $163,019. On February 18, 2026 Council did not get the vote needed to override, so Road 170 stays a hard surface and the budget was deemed approved.
Why it matters
A shorter window lets a budget be finished sooner, but it also gives council members less time to weigh a veto and talk to residents. Residents can see how the new powers worked in practice.
It could be because…
The rules let council shorten the override period, and a shorter period gets the budget in place earlier in the year.
A veto is a power the Province gave the Mayor, and using it on one item is within the rules.
Council's vote on the override was public and lost for want of the needed majority, which is how the rules are meant to work.
We did not read the minutes, so we cannot say how many other amendments Council passed without a veto.
Questions you could ask
Why did Council shorten the override period to 4 days, and who proposed it?
What savings or other effect was the Road 170 amendment meant to have, and what does keeping a hard surface cost over the life of the road?
Will the same shortened override period apply to the 2027 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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"Under O. Reg. 530/22, the Mayor prepares and proposes the annual municipal budget, initiating a statutory process which includes a 30-day review/amendment period, a 10 day Mayoral veto window, and a 15 day member override period, which Grey Highlands Council opted to shorten to 4 days."
"The vetoed amendment proposed that Capital Item 2026-23 — Road 170 (WBL to Durham Road B) be downgraded to a gravel surface at a cost of $163,019." "At the February 18, 2026 Council meeting, Council had the opportunity to override the Mayor's veto with a majority vote but did not achieve the required majority to override the Mayor's veto." "As a result, Road 170 will remain a hard surface".
In 2019, Grey Highlands had $2.5M more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2024 it was −$3.2M. About 34% of that change ($2.0M) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 12 of 89 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Grey Highlands went from having money in the bank to owing more than it has. What changed?
−$8.0M−$6.0M−$4.0M−$2.0M$0$2.0M$4.0M
−$3.2M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Net financial position
2019
$2.5M
2020
$2.1M
2021
−$894K
2022
−$988K
2023
−$6.6M
2024
−$3.2M
Why it matters
This number is one of the clearest signs of whether a town is living within its means. The accounting-rule part is a bill that will come due when the landfill closes, not money already spent. The rest is real borrowing and spending of savings.
It could be because…
A new accounting rule (asset retirement obligations, from 2023) added a large future cost to the books all at once.
Borrowing for a planned project, such as sewage lagoons, which is paid back over many years.
Questions you could ask
What is the plan and timeline for paying the landfill closing cost?
Without the accounting change, is the town's position getting better or worse?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Grey Highlands spent about $507 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2024. The typical similar town spent $153. None of the 89 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 Grey Highlands?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Garbage, dump and recycling per home: Grey Highlands $507; typical similar town $153; ranked 1st highest of 90.
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