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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards'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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards' 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.
At the end of 2025, $1.7M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 29% of everything billed. None of the 21 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $1.5M.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$1,885,000estimated landfill closure and post-closure cost, against $790,708 set aside
Landfills have to be closed and watched for years after they stop taking garbage, and the law makes the owner pay. The Township's 2025 statements record a landfill obligation of $1,885,000. The statements say $790,708 is in reserves for that work. The reserve for solid waste disposal stayed at $305,000 in both 2024 and 2025. The statements show the whole $1,885,000 as unfunded, which means it will have to be raised from future taxes or fees. The estimate has moved a lot: $1,380,000 at the start of 2024 grew to $1,955,000 by the end of 2024, then fell by $70,000 in 2025 when the estimate changed.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$1,712,445taxes receivable at December 31, 2025 (2024: $1,466,963)
"Taxes receivable" is property tax billed but not yet paid. It was $1,312,085 at the end of 2023, $1,466,963 at the end of 2024 and $1,712,445 at the end of 2025. The Township told Council in April 2026 that 33 properties had paid $427,669 in arrears after notices, that 16 more were headed to tax sale on July 23 (the page does not print a year) unless paid, and that $1,225,460 was still to be recovered through the process. The tax sale process is the Township's own answer to how it collects.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$52,301.76legal and investigation costs from 2025 to April 7, 2026, as told to Council
A "strong mayor" is a mayor given extra powers by the province. The Township says it was told on April 10, 2025 that it would receive them. At the April 7, 2026 meeting, staff told Council that costs "from 2025 to present" for the Integrity Commissioner, the law firm Aird & Berlis and the Township's own solicitor totalled $52,301.76. Council said it felt money should go back into the Township's operations to replace what was spent on legal fees. The 2026 budget summary posted online shows totals by department only, so we cannot see a legal-fees line.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
2matters in the October 21, 2025 report that the investigator found were not properly closed
Council can meet in private only for certain reasons, and must first vote in public to do so, saying in general terms what it will discuss. The Township's closed meeting investigator reported on October 21, 2025 that the closed session of September 16, 2025 was not properly held: the motion gave no detail about the subject, and the investigator found part of the discussion was about meeting procedure, which did not fit the reason Council cited. The investigator also found that an email discussion among all of Council on September 25, 2025, about hiring lawyers, was itself a meeting that should have been held under the closed-meeting rules. A second report, on November 28, 2025, found no breach in a different complaint. The investigator recommended that the Township describe the subject of every closed session in its motion.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$600,048planned transfer from reserves in the 2026 budget (2025 actual: $92,519)
Reserves are savings set aside for later. The 2026 budget summary lists "Transfers from Reserves" of $600,048, against $92,519 in 2025 actual and $441,178 in the 2025 estimates. It plans total revenue of $7,225,301 and total expenses of $7,230,669, a planned shortfall of $5,368. The 2025 statements show reserves and reserve funds of $4,826,958 at the end of the year, of which the working funds were $3,184,582. In 2025 the budget planned to take $354,791 out of reserves for general operations, and instead $324,064 went in.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$847,305less spent in 2025 than budgeted (worked out by us)
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The Township's 2025 budget planned to spend $6,591,775 and collect $6,243,040, a planned shortfall of $348,735. The audited statements show spending of $5,744,470 and revenue of $5,968,353, a surplus of $223,883. By our own subtraction, spending came in $847,305 under budget and revenue came in $274,687 under budget. The same thing happened in 2024: a planned shortfall of $217,841 ended as a surplus of $642,348. Two lines explain part of it. Buying and building assets (capital spending) was budgeted at $456,922 and came to $202,002. Grants from Ontario were budgeted at $1,523,194 and came to $1,157,195. The Township explains in its notes that its capital budget is by project and can run over more than one year.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
180 dayspay suspension Council imposed on the Mayor on February 3, 2026
The Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer who looks into complaints under Council's Code of Conduct. Four of the five posted reports were readable. On May 26, 2025 the Commissioner found that Councillor Ted Browne breached the Code in remarks at a March 17, 2025 meeting, and recommended no further penalty after an apology. On November 5, 2025 the Commissioner found that Mayor David Mayville did not have the legal authority to issue a set of directives under strong mayor powers, found breaches of the Code, and recommended training. On January 30, 2026 the Commissioner recommended a 90-day suspension of pay for each of two sets of breaches, and on February 3, 2026 Council imposed a total suspension of 180 days. On August 7, 2026 the Commissioner found a further breach of Council's direction on how the Mayor may communicate with staff and recommended a reprimand, which Council passed on August 19, 2026. We could not read the report dated September 30, 2025, which is a scanned image, and we say nothing about it.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
The Township's minutes say the clerk gives Council a yearly statement of council remuneration "pursuant to Section 284" of the Municipal Act. The minutes say staff gave Council the statement for 2024 on March 4, 2025, and for 2025 on March 17, 2026. We did not find either statement posted on the Township's website pages that we read, so we have not filled in the pay table for this Township.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards spent about $277 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar town spent $194. Only 3 of 21 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
At the end of 2025, $1.7M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 29% of everything billed. None of the 21 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $1.5M.
Why are so many property taxes unpaid?
$0$500K$1.0M$1.5M$2.0M
$1.7M
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Unpaid property tax at year end
2019
$1.1M
2020
$1.2M
2021
$1.2M
2022
$1.2M
2023
$1.3M
2024
$1.5M
2025
$1.7M
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Taxes receivable: 2019 $1.1M, 2020 $1.2M, 2021 $1.2M, 2022 $1.2M, 2023 $1.3M, 2024 $1.5M, 2025 $1.7M. Of the 2025 total, $871K was from earlier years.
$1,885,000estimated landfill closure and post-closure cost, against $790,708 set aside
Landfills have to be closed and watched for years after they stop taking garbage, and the law makes the owner pay. The Township's 2025 statements record a landfill obligation of $1,885,000. The statements say $790,708 is in reserves for that work. The reserve for solid waste disposal stayed at $305,000 in both 2024 and 2025. The statements show the whole $1,885,000 as unfunded, which means it will have to be raised from future taxes or fees. The estimate has moved a lot: $1,380,000 at the start of 2024 grew to $1,955,000 by the end of 2024, then fell by $70,000 in 2025 when the estimate changed.
Why it matters
This is the largest bill the Township has already committed to but has not saved for. It is spread over many years, so it is not a crisis. But the Township is small, and the way it chooses to save for the bill affects every tax bill for decades.
It could be because…
Post-closure care runs 23 to 25 years, so the money is not needed all at once.
The Township says some closure costs are "incurred on an ongoing basis and are included in the yearly fiscal operating budget", so part of the cost may be paid as it goes.
The estimate is a guess about the far future and will change, as it did in 2024 and 2025.
Questions you could ask
Does the Township have a plan, with yearly amounts, to fund the $1,885,000?
Why did the solid waste disposal reserve stay at $305,000 for two years?
What changed in the estimate in 2025 to cut it by $70,000?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of financial position: "Asset retirement obligations - landfills" $ 1,885,000 in 2025 and $ 1,955,000 in 2024. Under accumulated surplus: "Unfunded - asset retirement obligations - landfills (Note 2)" (1,885,000) and (1,955,000).
Note 6: "There is currently $ 790,708 in reserves set aside for either closure or post closure activities." The estimated total undiscounted expenses for closure and the 25 year post closure period "amount to approximately $ 1,885,000." Some closure costs "are incurred on an ongoing basis and are included in the yearly fiscal operating budget." Expected years of post closure care: 23, 25 and 25 across the three sites. Note 2: "Amounts to be recovered represent the requirement of the Township to raise funds in subsequent periods to finance unfunded liabilities, comprised of the landfill closure and post closure liabilities."
Note 15: "Landfill closure and post closure costs" $ 1,955,000 (2025) and $ 1,715,000 (2024); "Decrease in change of estimate" (70,000); total $ 1,885,000 and $ 1,955,000. Schedule of reserves: "Solid waste disposal" 305,000 in 2025 and 305,000 in 2024.
Note 15: "Landfill closure and post closure costs" $ 1,715,000 (2024) and $ 1,380,000 (2023); "Accretion expense" 240,000 and 335,000; total $ 1,955,000 and $ 1,715,000.
$1,712,445taxes receivable at December 31, 2025 (2024: $1,466,963)
"Taxes receivable" is property tax billed but not yet paid. It was $1,312,085 at the end of 2023, $1,466,963 at the end of 2024 and $1,712,445 at the end of 2025. The Township told Council in April 2026 that 33 properties had paid $427,669 in arrears after notices, that 16 more were headed to tax sale on July 23 (the page does not print a year) unless paid, and that $1,225,460 was still to be recovered through the process. The tax sale process is the Township's own answer to how it collects.
Why it matters
Unpaid taxes are money the Township has counted as income but does not have. A small township pays the county and school boards their share whether or not it collects. Growing arrears can also mean more households in trouble, so how the Township collects matters.
It could be because…
Tax sale in Ontario is a slow legal process, so arrears can sit for years before they are recovered.
Some of the balance may be the current year's taxes that were due but not yet paid on December 31.
Tax sales are paying off: in the update to Council, 33 properties paid their arrears.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $1,712,445 is from earlier years, and how much is the current year's tax?
How much of the $1,225,460 was collected after the July 23 tax sale date?
How much does the Township count as unlikely to be collected?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of financial position: "Taxes receivable" 1,712,445 at December 31, 2025 and 1,466,963 at December 31, 2024.
Minutes of April 7, 2026: "The report indicated that 33 properties paid their tax arrears, totalling $427,669. Of the remaining 22 properties, 16 will be proceeding to tax sale on July 23 if not paid in full by that date" and "the amount still to be recovered through this process is $1,225,460."
$52,301.76legal and investigation costs from 2025 to April 7, 2026, as told to Council
A "strong mayor" is a mayor given extra powers by the province. The Township says it was told on April 10, 2025 that it would receive them. At the April 7, 2026 meeting, staff told Council that costs "from 2025 to present" for the Integrity Commissioner, the law firm Aird & Berlis and the Township's own solicitor totalled $52,301.76. Council said it felt money should go back into the Township's operations to replace what was spent on legal fees. The 2026 budget summary posted online shows totals by department only, so we cannot see a legal-fees line.
Why it matters
For a township of this size it is a lot of money. Residents pay these costs whoever is right in the dispute behind them.
It could be because…
The Integrity Commissioner and the closed-meeting investigator are required by law, so some of this is the cost of oversight working as designed.
Council asked for outside legal advice in 2025 to understand new powers, which may save money later.
Part of the cost might be covered by insurance.
Questions you could ask
What are the legal and investigation costs for the full year 2025, and for 2026 to date, by firm?
Is there a legal fees line in the 2026 budget, and how much is in it?
Did the Township's insurer cover any 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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Minutes of April 7, 2026: "2025 to present costs, including those for the Integrity Commissioner, Aird & Berlis, and the Township Solicitor, totalled $52,301.76." Council "felt the funds should be directed back into municipal operations to replace monies spent on legal fees since the implementation of the strong mayor powers."
"On April 10, 2025, the Township of Killaloe, Hagarty, and Richards received official communication from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, announcing that Strong Mayor Powers would be granted to our Municipality."
2matters in the October 21, 2025 report that the investigator found were not properly closed
Council can meet in private only for certain reasons, and must first vote in public to do so, saying in general terms what it will discuss. The Township's closed meeting investigator reported on October 21, 2025 that the closed session of September 16, 2025 was not properly held: the motion gave no detail about the subject, and the investigator found part of the discussion was about meeting procedure, which did not fit the reason Council cited. The investigator also found that an email discussion among all of Council on September 25, 2025, about hiring lawyers, was itself a meeting that should have been held under the closed-meeting rules. A second report, on November 28, 2025, found no breach in a different complaint. The investigator recommended that the Township describe the subject of every closed session in its motion.
Why it matters
Closed meetings are one of the few places where voters cannot watch their council decide things. The rules exist so the public can at least know what was discussed. The Township's own investigator found two lapses within ten days in September 2025.
It could be because…
The motion used a check-box form, a common shortcut in small councils that can be fixed with a better form.
A council in a hurry to get legal advice may not have thought of an email thread as a meeting.
The second report found no breach, so the problem may be one of learning the rules.
Questions you could ask
Did Council pass the resolution the Municipal Act requires after the October 21, 2025 report, and what did it say?
Has the Township changed its closed-session motion form?
Does Council still use email to decide matters?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"We find that the meeting of September 16, 2025, was not properly held in closed session, as it did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act. Specifically, we find that the resolution to move into closed session was deficient, and that the cited exception did not apply to the specific discussions that were held." The report also finds the email thread of September 25, 2025 "was an improper closed session meeting" and recommends that the Township "adopt a practice of identifying the subject matter of a closed meeting discussion in the resolution to move into closed".
"We found no breach of the Municipal Act and as such no recommendations are required." The report adds three points for Council to consider about waiving privilege over legal advice.
$600,048planned transfer from reserves in the 2026 budget (2025 actual: $92,519)
Reserves are savings set aside for later. The 2026 budget summary lists "Transfers from Reserves" of $600,048, against $92,519 in 2025 actual and $441,178 in the 2025 estimates. It plans total revenue of $7,225,301 and total expenses of $7,230,669, a planned shortfall of $5,368. The 2025 statements show reserves and reserve funds of $4,826,958 at the end of the year, of which the working funds were $3,184,582. In 2025 the budget planned to take $354,791 out of reserves for general operations, and instead $324,064 went in.
Why it matters
A budget that leans on savings to avoid raising tax can hide a gap between what services cost and what taxes pay. Using reserves for roads and buildings is what they are for. But if the draw is for everyday costs, the same gap returns next year.
It could be because…
Reserves are meant for capital work. The 2026 draw may pay for road or building projects that slipped from 2025, when the actual draw was far below plan.
The 2025 budget also planned a draw ($354,791) that did not happen, so the planned draw may again not be needed.
The reserves are large compared with the draw, so it may be a deliberate use of savings.
Questions you could ask
Which 2026 projects or costs does the $600,048 pay for?
How much of it is for everyday operating costs rather than capital projects?
Will the Township post a fuller 2026 budget with project lists?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
2026 Municipal Budget, columns "2026 Department Estimates", "2025 Actual" and "2025 Department Estimates": "Transfers from Reserves" 600,048, 92,519 and 441,178. "Total Revenue" $ 7,225,301, $ 5,949,425 and $ 6,638,273. "Total Expenses" $ 7,230,669, $ 5,949,193 and $ 6,643,409. "Revenue (deficit) for the year" $ -5,368 for 2026.
Schedule of general operations: "Transfer from (to) reserves" 354,791 in the 2025 budget column and (324,064) in the 2025 actual column. Schedule of reserves and reserve funds: total reserves and reserve funds $ 4,826,958 at the end of 2025; "Working funds" $ 3,184,582.
$847,305less spent in 2025 than budgeted (worked out by us)
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The Township's 2025 budget planned to spend $6,591,775 and collect $6,243,040, a planned shortfall of $348,735. The audited statements show spending of $5,744,470 and revenue of $5,968,353, a surplus of $223,883. By our own subtraction, spending came in $847,305 under budget and revenue came in $274,687 under budget. The same thing happened in 2024: a planned shortfall of $217,841 ended as a surplus of $642,348. Two lines explain part of it. Buying and building assets (capital spending) was budgeted at $456,922 and came to $202,002. Grants from Ontario were budgeted at $1,523,194 and came to $1,157,195. The Township explains in its notes that its capital budget is by project and can run over more than one year.
Why it matters
The budget is the promise made to taxpayers about what the year will cost. If it plans a shortfall that does not happen, residents may be asked for more tax than the year needed, or work that was promised may be late. The Township still has a clean opinion and its reserves grew, so nothing here suggests money went missing. The open question is how much of the gap is projects that were delayed rather than saved.
It could be because…
Capital projects that were budgeted in 2025 but not finished may carry over into 2026. The statements say a capital budget "may be carried out over one or more years".
Restricted grants are counted as revenue only when the money is spent, so a delayed project also lowers the grant revenue. The statements say restricted money is held as deferred revenue until used.
A cautious budget that plans for a shortfall can be a way of keeping the tax rate steady while leaving room for surprises.
Questions you could ask
Which projects were in the 2025 capital budget but not finished, and how much of the money for them carries into 2026?
How much of the Ontario grant gap is money received but not yet spent (held as deferred revenue)?
Does Council plan the budget with a shortfall on purpose, and if so, why?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations, 2025 budget, 2025 actual and 2024 actual. Total revenue $ 6,243,040, $ 5,968,353 and $ 6,126,388. Total expenses $ 6,591,775, $ 5,744,470 and $ 5,484,040. "Transportation services" expenses $ 2,209,311, $ 1,878,685 and $ 1,698,206. "Excess (shortfall) of revenue over expenses" $ (348,735), $ 223,883 and $ 642,348. Government transfers, Ontario: 1,523,194, 1,157,195 and 1,610,632.
Statement of changes in net financial assets: "Acquisition of tangible capital assets" (456,922) in the 2025 budget column and (202,002) in the 2025 actual column (2024 actual (547,497)).
Note 8, Budget figures: "The budget established for capital investment in tangible capital assets is on a project-oriented basis, the costs of which may be carried out over one or more years and, therefore, may not be comparable with current year's actual expenditure amounts."
Note 5(b), deferred revenue from obligatory reserve funds: balance at the beginning of 2025 $ 110,661, "OCIF component based" 305,734, "Used to purchase tangible capital assets" (171,783), balance at the end of the year $ 330,902.
Statement of operations, 2024 budget, 2024 actual and 2023 actual: "Excess (shortfall) of revenue over expenses" $ (217,841), $ 642,348 and $ (773,776).
180 dayspay suspension Council imposed on the Mayor on February 3, 2026
The Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer who looks into complaints under Council's Code of Conduct. Four of the five posted reports were readable. On May 26, 2025 the Commissioner found that Councillor Ted Browne breached the Code in remarks at a March 17, 2025 meeting, and recommended no further penalty after an apology. On November 5, 2025 the Commissioner found that Mayor David Mayville did not have the legal authority to issue a set of directives under strong mayor powers, found breaches of the Code, and recommended training. On January 30, 2026 the Commissioner recommended a 90-day suspension of pay for each of two sets of breaches, and on February 3, 2026 Council imposed a total suspension of 180 days. On August 7, 2026 the Commissioner found a further breach of Council's direction on how the Mayor may communicate with staff and recommended a reprimand, which Council passed on August 19, 2026. We could not read the report dated September 30, 2025, which is a scanned image, and we say nothing about it.
Why it matters
These are findings by an official body, not our opinion. Council has acted on them, and they are part of what voters have to judge before the October 26, 2026 election.
It could be because…
The Commissioner said the Mayor's emails in the August 2026 report were not offensive and the breach was about following Council's direction.
The Councillor's report was resolved by an apology the Commissioner found sufficient.
Strong mayor powers are new and the Commissioner said "some misinterpretation is to be expected".
Questions you could ask
Has the Mayor completed the training the Commissioner recommended?
What did the Integrity Commissioner cost in total, by report?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
"Our finding is that the Mayor did not have the legal authority to issue any of the Directives." The Commissioner "recommends that Council direct the Mayor to obtain training on Strong Mayor powers".
Council resolution: "Council therefore imposes an additional 90-day suspension of Mayor David Mayville's remuneration, for a total suspension of 180 days, in accordance with the Integrity Commissioner's recommendation".
"The Integrity Commissioner finds that the Member breached section 6.3(c) of the Code of Conduct by communicating directly with staff." The Commissioner found "The communications were not offensively worded or significant" and recommended that Council issue a reprimand.
"The Member breached provisions of the Code of Conduct related to treating other members of Council without abuse, using profanity and behaving with decorum." The Commissioner "does not recommend any further penalty or sanction."
The Township's minutes say the clerk gives Council a yearly statement of council remuneration "pursuant to Section 284" of the Municipal Act. The minutes say staff gave Council the statement for 2024 on March 4, 2025, and for 2025 on March 17, 2026. We did not find either statement posted on the Township's website pages that we read, so we have not filled in the pay table for this Township.
Why it matters
Council pay is public money, and a statement that exists but is hard to find is not much use to a voter before an election.
It could be because…
The statement may be posted somewhere we did not look, or available on request at the office.
The Township may attach it to the agenda or minutes in a form not linked from the minutes page.
Questions you could ask
Where are the 2024 and 2025 statements of council remuneration posted?
Can the Township post each year's statement beside the audited statements?
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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Minutes of March 17, 2026, New Business: a staff member "advised that pursuant to Section 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001, she has presented to Council the Statement of Council Remuneration for the year 2025."
Minutes of March 4, 2025: "pursuant to Section 284 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 she provided Council with a copy of the Statement of Council Remuneration for 2024."
Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards spent about $277 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar town spent $194. Only 3 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 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Garbage, dump and recycling per home: Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards $277; typical similar town $194; ranked 4th highest of 22.
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