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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Guelph'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 · 8 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Guelph's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 3 similar Ontario places. 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.
36%of target held by the tax-funded contingency reserves at the end of 2025 (50% a year earlier)
A reserve is money a city sets aside for later. The City keeps contingency reserves (rainy day accounts) so it can pay for a surprise, or spread a big tax increase over several years. At the end of 2025, the tax-funded ones held 36 per cent of the target the City set for itself, down from 50 per cent a year earlier. The City says there was no surplus in 2025 to refill them, and that a small deficit was paid out of them instead. Council has already said it wants them back to at least 75 per cent of target.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$12.6 milliondevelopment charges collected in 2025, against $53.8 million forecast
Development charges are fees builders pay when they build, to help pay for roads, pipes, libraries and other things growth needs. The City forecast $53.8 million for 2025 from its own study and collected $12.6 million. Taken together, the City’s 17 development charge funds ended 2025 at negative $12.3 million once planned spending is counted, down from a positive $38.7 million. The City covers some of the gap by lending between its own reserve funds, and in the first three months of 2026 it collected $69 thousand.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
30.1%estimated direct debt as a share of operating revenue, against the 30% line S&P uses for its lowest-risk band (City limit: 55%)
The City issued its first new debt since 2021 in 2025: $58.0 million in June and $34.0 million in December, to pay for the South End Community Centre, the new Baker District library and parkade, and nearby servicing. Debt on the City’s statements rose from $107,370 thousand to $191,244 thousand. A staff report estimates debt at 30.1 per cent of operating revenue; the credit rater S&P treats below 30 per cent as the lowest-risk band. Both the City and S&P say more borrowing is coming. The City still holds an AAA rating.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$456.9 millionunspent capital budget carried into 2026 before commitments
The capital budget pays for buildings, roads, pipes and vehicles. In 2025 the City spent $207.9 million, and 76.7 per cent of its capital budget was spent or committed, short of its 80 per cent target by $42.5 million. It carried $456.9 million into 2026 and added $371.2 million, for $828.1 million. By March 31, 2026 it had spent $25.7 million of $810.4 million available. The City says the big buildings are within budget and that purchasing took too long.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$2,316,614Building Services deficit in 2025, 42.1% of its budget; Parking Services $1,009,017
Some city services are paid by the fees they charge, not by property tax. In 2025, Building Services finished $2,316,614 short (42.1 per cent of its budget) and Parking Services $1,009,017 short (21.9 per cent). Building permit revenue was $3.2 million lower than budgeted because fewer homes are being started. Parking’s own rainy-day reserve held only $70,760, so staff proposed paying that deficit from a reserve meant for parking capital projects, which is not what policy says. A fee study was due to go to council in June 2026.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
3.36%confirmed 2026 City services tax increase, against the Mayor’s 2.5% direction and 2.85% proposal
Guelph uses a four-year budget (2024 to 2027) that is confirmed each year. In April 2025 the Mayor directed staff to aim for a City services tax increase of not more than 2.5 per cent. His own proposal on November 13, 2025 was 2.85 per cent. Council then approved five amendments on November 26, 2025, which took it to 3.36 per cent. On December 16, 2025 the Mayor used strong-mayor powers to amend the budget again, and some of that cost lands in 2027. The City publishes each step, so this is context, not a gap.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
32 of 91council and committee meetings held in closed session in 2025 (45 of 115 in 2024)
Councils may meet in private only for reasons listed in the Municipal Act, such as land deals, legal advice or hiring. In 2025 Guelph’s council and its committees held 91 meetings and 32 were closed, down from 45 closed of 115 in 2024. The City says the drop came mainly from fewer closed meetings of the committee that recruited and reviewed the Chief Administrative Officer (14 in 2024, 2 in 2025). We could not read the minutes, so we do not know what was reported back in public.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
36%of target held by the tax-funded contingency reserves at the end of 2025 (50% a year earlier)
A reserve is money a city sets aside for later. The City keeps contingency reserves (rainy day accounts) so it can pay for a surprise, or spread a big tax increase over several years. At the end of 2025, the tax-funded ones held 36 per cent of the target the City set for itself, down from 50 per cent a year earlier. The City says there was no surplus in 2025 to refill them, and that a small deficit was paid out of them instead. Council has already said it wants them back to at least 75 per cent of target.
Why it matters
When these accounts are low, a bad year (a hard winter, a lawsuit, a shortfall in fees) has nowhere to go but the tax bill or cuts. The City itself lists low contingency reserves as a risk in its 2026 budget, and its first-quarter report for 2026 says there is a risk of going over budget.
It could be because…
The reserves were drawn down on purpose. The City says large budget increases were phased in over several years, and a reserve is there to be used.
The City has said how it will respond: staff will send any future year-end surplus to these reserves first and will bring a plan to rebuild them in the 2028 to 2031 budget.
Only $3.6 million of the $8.4 million budgeted to come out of these reserves in 2025 was actually needed, so the position is not as weak as the budget assumed.
Questions you could ask
What is the tax-funded contingency reserve balance in dollars today, and in which year does the City expect to reach the 75 per cent of target that council asked for?
If 2026 ends in a deficit, which reserve will pay for it, given that the first-quarter report already flags a risk of going over budget?
Will the 2027 budget put money into these reserves, or will they stay low until the 2028 to 2031 budget?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The report says: “The year-end available balance in the tax-supported corporate contingency reserves was 36 per cent of target balance, compared to 50 per cent in 2024.” Table 2 shows corporate contingency reserves available balances of 17.9 ($ millions) in 2025 and 24.3 in 2024, a change of (6.4).
The report adds: “The approved target is eight to ten per cent of own-source revenues” and “This group of reserves was drawn upon quite significantly throughout the Multi-Year Budget (MYB) as large operating budget increases were phased in over multiple years.” It says staff “will develop a strategy to rebuild these contingency reserves through the 2028-2031 multi-year budget.”
Staff report: “There was no surplus for the 2025 year-end to help replenish the tax supported contingency reserves”. They recommend funding the tax supported deficit of $1,699,274 from the Tax Rate Operating Contingency Reserve (180). The report also says a total of $8.4 million in tax supported contingency reserve funding was budgeted for 2025, with only $3.6 million in actual transfers required.
The same report quotes the council decision of November 27, 2024 that staff replenish these reserves “as a first priority through the allocation of year-end surplus until such point that they reach a minimum of 75 per cent of target over the multi-year budget period”.
Under “Risks and Considerations” the City’s budget page says: “Low contingency reserve balances increase the City’s vulnerability and decrease flexibility to phase-in new pressures.”
$12.6 milliondevelopment charges collected in 2025, against $53.8 million forecast
Development charges are fees builders pay when they build, to help pay for roads, pipes, libraries and other things growth needs. The City forecast $53.8 million for 2025 from its own study and collected $12.6 million. Taken together, the City’s 17 development charge funds ended 2025 at negative $12.3 million once planned spending is counted, down from a positive $38.7 million. The City covers some of the gap by lending between its own reserve funds, and in the first three months of 2026 it collected $69 thousand.
Why it matters
If builders pay less than planned, either projects are put off, or the tax and water bills carry more of the cost of growth. The City also says a new provincial rule that moves the payment date to when a home is occupied could cost it $10 million to $20 million a year in timing.
It could be because…
The $53.8 million came from a 2023 study written before provincial rules on exemptions and timing changed. The City says the lower 2025 collection was already built into its 2026 budget ($11.7 million).
Much of the shortfall is timing: under the new rule the fee is paid later, when a home is occupied, not when the permit is issued.
Part of the change in the fund balances comes from an accounting change (see the restatement below), not from cash that went missing.
The City says it expects to put off growth-related projects through its 2027 budget process, so spending will follow the lower income.
Questions you could ask
How much growth-related work has been put off because of low development charges, and which projects are they?
How much has been lent between reserve funds to cover the gap, and when will it be paid back?
If growth stays slow, does the City plan to cover more of the cost from property taxes and water rates, and by how much?
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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The records that would answer this can be requested: Loans between reserve funds, with wording you can copy.
The evidence
The report says: “A total of $12.6 million in development charges (DCs) were collected in 2025 compared with $53.8 million dollars forecasted based on the DC Background Study and Growth Forecast.”
Table 5 shows development charge reserve funds at (12.3) ($ millions) in 2025 and 38.7 in 2024, a change of (51.0). The report says: “The total closing balance of all 17 DC reserve funds is negative $12.3 million after all unspent commitments have been deducted.” It also says the non-tax supported capital reserve funds are “being used as an informal lender to tax-supported capital and DC reserve funds as those balances are low or negative.”
The City’s explanation: collections “was anticipated in the 2026 Budget Confirmation as the projected 2025 collections were revised down to $11.7 million.” On the new provincial timing rule it says “The annual impact is estimated to be between $10 million and $20 million, depending on the level of development activity”.
The first-quarter 2026 report says: “Development Charge (DC) collections are only 0.3 per cent or $69 thousand of budgeted collections at the end of Q1.” It adds that “Significant growth-related capital deferrals are anticipated through the 2027 budget confirmation process”.
Note 2 says the City changed how it counts development charge revenue for debt-financed projects and restated 2024: “Increase in Deferred Contributions of $42,465” and “Decrease in closing accumulated surplus of $42,465” (in thousands of dollars). The auditor’s report draws attention to the restatement and does not modify its opinion.
30.1%estimated direct debt as a share of operating revenue, against the 30% line S&P uses for its lowest-risk band (City limit: 55%)
The City issued its first new debt since 2021 in 2025: $58.0 million in June and $34.0 million in December, to pay for the South End Community Centre, the new Baker District library and parkade, and nearby servicing. Debt on the City’s statements rose from $107,370 thousand to $191,244 thousand. A staff report estimates debt at 30.1 per cent of operating revenue; the credit rater S&P treats below 30 per cent as the lowest-risk band. Both the City and S&P say more borrowing is coming. The City still holds an AAA rating.
Why it matters
Debt is paid back from future taxes, water bills and development charges. A rating downgrade would raise the interest the City pays on new borrowing for years.
It could be because…
Borrowing for buildings that last decades is normal, and the City says it waited in 2023 and 2024 while interest rates were high and used its reserves in the meantime.
The City says the debt is within its own limit (55 per cent) and within the provincial limit, and that the AAA rating was confirmed.
The two reports measure debt differently. The audited statements put debt at 25.3 per cent of total consolidated revenue, while the staff report estimates 30.1 per cent of operating revenue using estimated revenue.
Questions you could ask
How much new debt does the City plan to issue in 2026 and 2027, and what will the 30 per cent measure be after each issue?
Which measure does the City treat as its main limit: the 25.3 per cent in the audited report, or the 30.1 per cent in the reserves report, and why do they differ?
If the rating fell one step, what would it add to the interest on the planned borrowing?
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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The report says the two debenture issues “nearly doubled the outstanding debt”. It also says: “Direct debt to operating revenue is estimated at 30.1 per cent at the end of 2025”, that a threshold of below 30 per cent is the lowest risk category, and that “moving above this threshold does increase the possibility of the City’s credit rating being downgraded.”
In June 2025, $58.0 million of serial debentures were issued for the South End Community Centre and the Baker District Infrastructure. In December 2025, the City issued $34.0 million for the Baker District Library and Parkade. Total debt outstanding at the end of 2025 was $184.5 million.
The statement of financial position shows Debt (Note 11) of 191,244 in 2025 and 107,370 in 2024 (in thousands of dollars). Note 11(b) shows debenture repayments of 39,329 in 2026 and 11,153 in 2027, total 183,744.
The Treasurer’s report says consolidated debt outstanding as a share of revenue “increased in 2025 to 25.3 per cent (2024 – 15.9 per cent)”, below the City’s limit of 55.0 per cent, and “This metric will also be impacted in future years as the City issues more debt to finance large capital projects.”
The capital report says the S&P report “does caution that the road ahead shows signs of downward rating pressure due to a large capital plan in 2026-2027 increasing the City’s reliance on debt in the medium term.”
The first-quarter 2026 report says the City “is expected to refinance $26.1 million of refundable serial debentures in 2026”, ahead of a balloon payment due in July 2026.
$456.9 millionunspent capital budget carried into 2026 before commitments
The capital budget pays for buildings, roads, pipes and vehicles. In 2025 the City spent $207.9 million, and 76.7 per cent of its capital budget was spent or committed, short of its 80 per cent target by $42.5 million. It carried $456.9 million into 2026 and added $371.2 million, for $828.1 million. By March 31, 2026 it had spent $25.7 million of $810.4 million available. The City says the big buildings are within budget and that purchasing took too long.
Why it matters
Money approved but not spent is not working for residents, and delayed projects tend to cost more. The City also says staff are being asked to deliver a program larger than any other recent year while low development charges force deferrals.
It could be because…
Large projects are bought in steps, and the City counts spending only when a purchase order is issued, which is the last step. Two big tenders (about $45 million for a water treatment upgrade and $13.5 million for Speedvale Avenue) were awarded just after year-end.
The City says all its largest (Tier 1) projects are within their original or revised budget, schedule and scope.
The $810.4 million in the 2026 report is lower than $828.1 million because the City reviewed and cut unspent 2025 budgets in early 2026.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $810.4 million does the City expect to spend by the end of 2026, and which projects will be deferred if it cannot?
What did the early-2026 review of unspent budgets cut, and how much of the $17.7 million drop from $828.1 million to $810.4 million is cuts and how much is spending?
Will the new council get a list of projects that were awarded but not yet started when it takes office?
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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The report says: “The City reached 76.7 per cent spent or committed, which is a shortfall of $42.5 million against the 80 per cent target.” Total spending on capital projects in 2025 was $207.9 million, and this leaves $300.2 million of approved budgets yet to be executed.
The report says “Going into 2026 not having met the 80 per cent target results in a carry-over opening budget of $456.9 million before commitments with an additional 2026 budget approval of $371.2 million for a total available budget of $828.1 million.”
On the cause: “As complex project procurement has been increasing, it has been straining the procurement division capacity to deliver.” It says processing times “exceeded what would be considered reasonable” for much of 2025, and that normal turnaround was reached by the end of the third quarter. Just under $45 million for the Tertiary Treatment Process Facility was carried over uncommitted.
The first-quarter 2026 report says the capital budget available to be executed in 2026 is $810.4 million, with $25.7 million spent and 62.4 per cent committed or spent. An additional $253.4 million must be executed to reach the 80 per cent target.
$2,316,614Building Services deficit in 2025, 42.1% of its budget; Parking Services $1,009,017
Some city services are paid by the fees they charge, not by property tax. In 2025, Building Services finished $2,316,614 short (42.1 per cent of its budget) and Parking Services $1,009,017 short (21.9 per cent). Building permit revenue was $3.2 million lower than budgeted because fewer homes are being started. Parking’s own rainy-day reserve held only $70,760, so staff proposed paying that deficit from a reserve meant for parking capital projects, which is not what policy says. A fee study was due to go to council in June 2026.
Why it matters
If fees do not cover costs, the gap is covered from reserves that were meant for other things, and that cannot go on. The City says the building reserve will drop to about $1.3 million and that it may have to borrow between funds in 2026.
It could be because…
Building permit revenue follows home building, which fell across Ontario. The City says it is not a local management failure: it points to lower pre-sales, tariffs, construction costs and changes to provincial rules.
Building permit reserves exist to cover exactly this kind of dip, and the City funded the deficit from its OBC Stabilization Reserve Fund in line with policy.
Parking demand is down partly because of the move from gated access to licence plate recognition, which the City names as one cause.
Questions you could ask
What did the June 2026 building fee study recommend, and what will permit fees be in the 2027 budget?
How will the Parking deficit be repaid to the Parking Capital reserve fund, and which parking capital projects are delayed?
If building permit revenue stays low in 2026, where does the money come from once the reserve is at about $1.3 million?
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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Table 1 shows Building Services total approved gross expenditure of 5,500,805 with a year-end variance of (2,316,614), (42.1%), and Parking Services net budget of 4,605,328 with (1,009,017), (21.9%). The total non-tax supported deficit is (1,558,034).
The report says “Ontario Building Code (OBC), revenues were $3.2 million lower than budgeted” and that “a consultant was engaged to complete a fee study, with results being presented to council in June 2026.” Parking revenue “was $350 thousand below budget due to lower parkade demand and the transition from gated access to the license plate recognition system.”
The report says policy “states that deficits should be funded from the Parking Contingency reserve (106), however, staff recommend funding from the Capital reserve fund due to the minimal balance of $70,760 available in the contingency reserve.” It adds that the Water Contingency reserve “will be 25 per cent of target after the year-end transfer.”
On the building reserve: “This will leave approximately $1.3 million in the reserve fund. There is a likelihood of interfund borrowing being required in 2026 due to continued slower growth”.
The reserves report says the Parking Contingency reserve (106) is at 26 per cent of the target balance “after Parking experienced a deficit in 2024 and 2025.”
Guelph spent $37.3M on running the city office in 2019 and $58.7M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of running the city office grow 57% in 6 years?
Running the city office
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%
+57%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Running the city office
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+14%
+1%
2021
+25%
+4%
2022
+27%
+11%
2023
+45%
+16%
2024
+50%
+18%
2025
+57%
+21%
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 city 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 $21.4M a year pay for?
Why did office and administration go from $25.8M to $46.3M?
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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Running the city office: 2019 $37.3M, 2020 $42.6M, 2021 $46.7M, 2022 $47.4M, 2023 $53.9M, 2024 $56M, 2025 $58.7M.
3.36%confirmed 2026 City services tax increase, against the Mayor’s 2.5% direction and 2.85% proposal
Guelph uses a four-year budget (2024 to 2027) that is confirmed each year. In April 2025 the Mayor directed staff to aim for a City services tax increase of not more than 2.5 per cent. His own proposal on November 13, 2025 was 2.85 per cent. Council then approved five amendments on November 26, 2025, which took it to 3.36 per cent. On December 16, 2025 the Mayor used strong-mayor powers to amend the budget again, and some of that cost lands in 2027. The City publishes each step, so this is context, not a gap.
Why it matters
Residents can see the full path, but the headline numbers differ by step (2.5, 2.85, 3.36), and costs moved to later years do not disappear. The City’s own forecast for the 2027 City services tax increase is higher than 2026.
It could be because…
Council is allowed to amend the Mayor’s budget, and it did so in public on November 26, 2025. The Mayor is allowed to amend again under the Municipal Act, and the decision is posted.
A one-time draw from a reserve in 2026 (the City says $300,882 for bike lane snow removal) is a normal way to spread a cost over two years.
The 2027 forecast is only a forecast, and a new council will set the 2027 budget after the October 26, 2026 election.
Questions you could ask
What is the total cost, in dollars, of everything the 2026 budget moved into 2027 (reserve draws, phased-in items, the hospital levy paid over two years), and is it all in the 4.72 per cent forecast?
How much of the gap between the original 5.90 per cent plan and the 3.36 per cent result came from service cuts, and which 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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Mayoral Direction of April 1, 2025 directed staff to prepare a budget with “A total property tax impact of not more than 2.5% for the City Services portion of the budget”.
Table 7 lists the council amendments of November 26, 2025: daytime space 850,000; transfer to the 100RE reserve 250,000; bi-centennial 47,000; Transit route 98 enhancements effective November 1, 2026 642,235. It ends at “2026 confirmed City services budget” of 11,807,654, a 3.36% levy impact.
The Mayoral Decision of December 16, 2025 increases the operating budget by $650,000 for bike lane snow removal, “of which $349,118 will be funded by increasing the 2026 tax levy and $300,882 will be funded from the Environment and Utility Contingency reserve (198) one-time in 2026, resulting in the remaining $300,000 tax levy impact in 2027”.
Table 1 shows tax levy City services of 4.51% (2026 forecast), 3.36% (2026 confirmed) and 4.72% (2027 forecast). The page also says that in November 2023 the 2026 budget was first approved at “a tax levy increase for City Services totaling of 5.90 per cent compared to 2025”.
32 of 91council and committee meetings held in closed session in 2025 (45 of 115 in 2024)
Councils may meet in private only for reasons listed in the Municipal Act, such as land deals, legal advice or hiring. In 2025 Guelph’s council and its committees held 91 meetings and 32 were closed, down from 45 closed of 115 in 2024. The City says the drop came mainly from fewer closed meetings of the committee that recruited and reviewed the Chief Administrative Officer (14 in 2024, 2 in 2025). We could not read the minutes, so we do not know what was reported back in public.
Why it matters
Closed meetings are allowed, but they are where residents cannot watch. The public can ask for an investigation, so it helps to know how decisions made in private are reported in open session.
It could be because…
Many closed meetings are routine: land purchases, lawsuits, labour talks and personnel matters are all legitimate reasons under the Act.
The City says most of the fall from 2024 to 2025 is the end of the CAO recruitment work, and the two meetings in 2025 are the remainder.
Guelph has a closed meeting protocol that, it says, goes beyond what the Act requires, and an outside investigator (Local Authority Services Ltd., through Aird and Berlis LLP) that anyone can ask to review a closed meeting.
Questions you could ask
How many of the 32 closed meetings in 2025 ended with a public report-back or a public vote, and where are those recorded?
Has anyone asked the closed meeting investigator to review a Guelph meeting since 2022, and are the reports 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 Guelph?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The report says: “There was also a decrease in the number of closed meetings held in 2025, with a total of 32 compared to 45 closed meetings in 2024.” It reports a total of 91 unique meetings held in 2025, down from 115 meetings in 2024, and says the CAO Recruitment, Selection and Performance Sub-committee closed meetings “decreased to 2 meetings in 2025, from 14 in 2024.”
The City’s accountability page says council “has appointed Local Authority Services Ltd. as Guelph’s closed meeting investigator”, which has appointed Aird and Berlis LLP, and that the investigator will “report publicly on the results of that investigation.”
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