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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 King'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 King's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 23 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.
$18,602,143surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $37,486
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The 2025 budget in the statements planned a surplus of $37,486. The audited result is $18,602,143. The year before, the statements' budget planned a deficit of $1,766,030 and the result was a surplus of $36,798,997. Worked out by us, 2025 revenue came in $21,300,125 above the budget and spending $2,735,468 above it. Three lines explain most of the revenue gap: money from developers (budgeted at nothing, $9,490,225 received), government grants ($651,719 budgeted, $5,624,440 received) and user fees ($8,535,148 budgeted, $11,958,763 received). The Township explains part of the gap: it budgets on a cash-style "fund" basis and converts to the statements' accrual basis afterwards, and on its own budget basis it ended 2025 with a $139 thousand deficit.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$13,833,929property taxes unpaid at December 31, 2025, up from $7,225,326 in 2021
Taxes receivable is the property tax that has been billed and not yet paid. It was $7,225,326 at the end of 2021 and $13,833,929 at the end of 2025. As a share of the year's levy that is 8% in 2021 and 14% in 2025. The Township says the share has historically been over the 10% industry standard and that staff will work on targets. Penalties and interest on late taxes came in $651,430 above budget in 2025 because of the higher balance.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$63,770,490investments at December 31, 2025, against cash of $6,619,634
Cash fell from $54,474,692 at the end of 2024 to $6,619,634 at the end of 2025, while investments rose from $35,169,250 to $63,770,490. Of the 2025 total, $38,500,000 is held as principal protected notes (bank-issued notes that promise to return the money invested) recorded at fair value, with an unrealized gain of $3,470,490. The Township's own list shows 13 purchases from May 2024 to August 2025. Worked out by us, five of the 13 mature in 2034 or later (the latest in December 2039). The Township says staff "prioritized investment purchases during the year to lock-in high interest rates". It also has an unused $5,000,000 bank credit line.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$9,452,587negative balance in the parks and recreation development charge fund in 2024, per the Township
The Zancor Centre, King's new township-wide recreation centre, opened in 2025. The Township's budget book says the parks and recreation development charge fund (money collected from builders to pay for parks) had a negative balance of $9,452,587 in 2024, and plans $5,000,000 of debt in 2026 to cover the shortfall. In the first year of operations the Township reports that aquatics programs ran at a 30% fill rate against 70% budgeted, a shortfall of $385,206, and that hydro use was $447,237 over budget. On its own operating basis the Township ended 2025 with a $139 thousand deficit. It also reports that RecPass memberships rose from 500 to 1600.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$137,718,582assets under construction not yet amortized at December 31, 2025
The statements say assets under construction worth $137,718,582 were not amortized (written down over their useful life) at the end of 2025, up from $126,586,904 a year earlier. Worked out by us, that is about 30% of the $459,306,401 of tangible capital assets. The Township explains that large linear projects, such as sewers with road works, are not amortized until all phases are done. The 2026 budget book also shows a 10-year capital forecast of $373,440,528.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
At the end of 2025, $13.8M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 14% of everything billed. Only 2 of 23 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $10.9M.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
3.74%the increase in the budget transmittal, against 1.5% plus 1.99% in the messages
The Mayor's message says the budget "holds the operating budget increase to just 1.5%". The CAO's message says a "modest 1.5% operating increase layered on the previously approved 1.99%" for asset management. Worked out by us, those add to 3.49%. The budget transmittal says "Of the 3.74% increase 1.99% is to support Asset Management Plan". A later page gives a blended rate of 3.12% for the Township, which includes York Region's increase and no change for school boards.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
2023the newest year posted on the Township's council pay page
The Municipal Act requires a yearly statement of what each member of council was paid and reimbursed. The Township's page says the Treasurer reports to council by March 31 for the previous year. On October 5, 2026 the page listed 2023, 2022 and 2021. We did not find 2024 or 2025 on that page, so this pack has no council pay table.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$8.0Mthe total the note gives, against parts that add to $22.7M (worked out by us)
Note 7 describes a 2010 sewer project in Nobleton as estimated at $8.0M, of which $4.0M was to come from growth charges, $2.5M from contributions and $16.2M from landowners. Those parts add to $22.7M, not $8.0M. Worked out by us, 860 landowners at $18,790 each is $16,159,400, which matches the $16.2M, so the $8.0M total looks like the figure that is off.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 1 source
$18,602,143surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $37,486
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The 2025 budget in the statements planned a surplus of $37,486. The audited result is $18,602,143. The year before, the statements' budget planned a deficit of $1,766,030 and the result was a surplus of $36,798,997. Worked out by us, 2025 revenue came in $21,300,125 above the budget and spending $2,735,468 above it. Three lines explain most of the revenue gap: money from developers (budgeted at nothing, $9,490,225 received), government grants ($651,719 budgeted, $5,624,440 received) and user fees ($8,535,148 budgeted, $11,958,763 received). The Township explains part of the gap: it budgets on a cash-style "fund" basis and converts to the statements' accrual basis afterwards, and on its own budget basis it ended 2025 with a $139 thousand deficit.
Why it matters
A budget is the promise made to taxpayers about what a year will cost. Much of King's gap is money for buildings and roads that cannot be spent on day-to-day costs, so it may not be extra tax room at all. But two years in a row, the published budget in the statements was far from the result. Residents cannot tell from the statements which parts were planned and which were surprises.
It could be because…
The statements' budget column is a converted version of the budget council passed, and the Township says its operating budget is built on a fund basis where revenue equals spending.
Developer payments, capital grants and contributed assets are one-time money for building projects. They show up as revenue when received but are spent on the project, not on services.
Development charges are only counted as revenue when they are spent on a project, so their timing can swing the number from year to year.
The Township's own operating result for 2025 was a small deficit, which suggests that the service budget itself was close.
Questions you could ask
How much of each year's surplus was money the Township expected to receive for capital projects, and how much was a surprise?
Can the Township publish a one-page table each year showing the budget, the result and the main reasons for the gap, in the same terms council votes on?
Will the separate report on the 2025 fund-basis result (FIN-2026-006) be posted where residents can find 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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations, 2025: "Annual Surplus from Operations" budget 37,486, actual 18,602,143 (2024 actual 36,798,997). Revenues: budget 70,197,087, actual 91,497,212. Expenses: budget 70,159,601, actual 72,895,069. "Contributions from developers" budget -, actual 9,490,225. "Government grants" budget 651,719, actual 5,624,440. "User fees" budget 8,535,148, actual 11,958,763.
Note 19, Budget Reconciliation: council approved an operating surplus of 10,997,710 and a capital deficit of (23,389,033), a total budgeted deficit of (12,391,323). After adding capital expenditures carried forward of 23,389,033 and removing amortization of (11,216,127), the "Budgeted surplus for the year, per statement of operations" is 37,486.
The Township writes that "on the fund basis of accounting, the Township ended the 2025 year with a deficit of $139 thousand due to higher winter maintenance costs, revenue shortfalls in recreation and higher than expected facility maintenance and utility costs." Table 14 reconciles that to "the actual full accrual surplus of $18.6 million".
Statement of operations, 2024: "Annual Surplus from Operations" budget (1,766,030), actual 36,798,997 (2023 actual 42,902,757). Note 19 gives the approved operating surplus of 10,382,104 and capital deficit of (15,489,002).
$13,833,929property taxes unpaid at December 31, 2025, up from $7,225,326 in 2021
Taxes receivable is the property tax that has been billed and not yet paid. It was $7,225,326 at the end of 2021 and $13,833,929 at the end of 2025. As a share of the year's levy that is 8% in 2021 and 14% in 2025. The Township says the share has historically been over the 10% industry standard and that staff will work on targets. Penalties and interest on late taxes came in $651,430 above budget in 2025 because of the higher balance.
Why it matters
Unpaid taxes still have to be sent on to York Region and the school boards on schedule, so the Township carries the gap. A growing unpaid balance can mean more borrowing or less cash for local services. It can also mean residents who are struggling.
It could be because…
Part of the rise is timing. The Township says year-end billing of supplementary assessments and transfers of unpaid by-law invoices to the tax roll added to the balance.
The Township has a tax arrears program with payment plans and tax sales, so some of the balance is being collected.
Late-payment interest earns the Township revenue, so the balance is not all a loss.
Questions you could ask
What target for unpaid taxes has staff set, and by when?
How many properties account for the growth since 2021, and how many are in the tax sale process?
Why has the allowance for doubtful accounts stayed at $96,465 in both 2024 and 2025 while the balance grew?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Table 4, taxes receivable at year end: 2025 13,833,929; 2024 10,867,120; 2023 9,639,269; 2022 7,877,777; 2021 7,225,326. Total taxes levied: 2025 100,598,356; 2024 95,606,531; 2023 93,542,126; 2022 90,699,749; 2021 87,209,932. Percentage of current year's levy: 14%, 11%, 10%, 9%, 8%.
The Township writes that its "tax arrears historically have been over the 10% industry standard indicating a moderate to high level of risk which was flagged by Ministry staff in 2020" and that it "must make payments to them on an installment basis regardless if property owners pay or not."
"$651,430 favourable variance in tax penalties revenue due to higher tax arrears balance at 14% leading to additional interest revenue." Note 5: taxes receivable 13,930,394, allowance for doubtful accounts (96,465), net 13,833,929.
$63,770,490investments at December 31, 2025, against cash of $6,619,634
Cash fell from $54,474,692 at the end of 2024 to $6,619,634 at the end of 2025, while investments rose from $35,169,250 to $63,770,490. Of the 2025 total, $38,500,000 is held as principal protected notes (bank-issued notes that promise to return the money invested) recorded at fair value, with an unrealized gain of $3,470,490. The Township's own list shows 13 purchases from May 2024 to August 2025. Worked out by us, five of the 13 mature in 2034 or later (the latest in December 2039). The Township says staff "prioritized investment purchases during the year to lock-in high interest rates". It also has an unused $5,000,000 bank credit line.
Why it matters
The Township holds this money for reserves, development charges and bills it must pay later. Long-term notes can pay more than a savings account, but they can be hard to cash in early, and the gain on them is on paper until they are sold or mature. Residents should be able to see how much can be reached quickly and what the rules are.
It could be because…
Council's investment policy may allow these notes, and the Township says it manages them to meet its cash needs. Cash dropped partly because $12 million of development charges owed to York Region and the school boards was paid out in 2025.
Principal protected notes promise the money back at maturity, and most are callable, so the issuing bank may repay them early.
The $5,000,000 credit line and a $3,000,000 demand loan are available if cash runs short.
Questions you could ask
What share of the $63,770,490 could the Township turn into cash within 30 days without a loss, and what does the investment policy require?
Who values the principal protected notes at year end, and what would the gain or loss be if council had to sell them early?
How much interest on the accrual notes is earned but not paid until maturity, and how is that counted in the Township's budgeted investment income?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 4: Investments, at cost, fixed income 21,800,000 (2024 11,800,000). Investments, at fair value, principal protected notes 38,500,000 (2024 23,500,000). Unrealized (loss)/gain on principal protected notes 3,470,490 (2024 (130,750)). Total 63,770,490.
The Township writes of "staff prioritizing investment purchases during the year to lock-in high interest rates" and that it "paid a significant $12 million DC payment to York Region and the school boards". Note 3: an operating credit line of $5,000,000 and a demand installment loan of $3,000,000, neither used.
$9,452,587negative balance in the parks and recreation development charge fund in 2024, per the Township
The Zancor Centre, King's new township-wide recreation centre, opened in 2025. The Township's budget book says the parks and recreation development charge fund (money collected from builders to pay for parks) had a negative balance of $9,452,587 in 2024, and plans $5,000,000 of debt in 2026 to cover the shortfall. In the first year of operations the Township reports that aquatics programs ran at a 30% fill rate against 70% budgeted, a shortfall of $385,206, and that hydro use was $447,237 over budget. On its own operating basis the Township ended 2025 with a $139 thousand deficit. It also reports that RecPass memberships rose from 500 to 1600.
Why it matters
A new building is a long-term promise. If builders pay less than expected, residents may pay the difference through debt and taxes. Early-year costs and revenues show whether the plan was realistic.
It could be because…
New facilities often have a slow first year, and the Township calls 2025 the first year of operations.
Development charges were collected more slowly than forecast because building slowed from 2023, and the Township expects collections to recover.
Borrowing against future development charges can be a normal way to build a facility sooner, and the debt is meant to be repaid from those charges.
Questions you could ask
What was the final cost of the Zancor Centre, and how was it paid for (development charges, grants, reserves, debt)?
What is the Township's operating result for Zancor in 2025, and what does the 2026 budget assume for aquatics fill rates?
Will council decide on the $5,000,000 debenture in public, and what would repay it if development charges stay low?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
"The recent slower pace of growth has had the most concerning impact on the Parks and Recreation DC reserve fund, that now has a negative balance of $9,452,587 in 2024 due to the lack of DC's collected and the completion of several new parks including the new Zancor Centre. Due to the reduced amount of collections, DC debt of $5,000,000 is estimated in 2026 to fund the shortfall."
"($385,206) unfavourable variance in aquatics programming revenue due to slow uptake in the first year of operations. Revenues were budgeted with full programming at 70% capacity however programs only ran at 30% fill rate in first year of operations." Also: "($447,237) unfavourable variance in utilities mainly due to higher than expected hydro usage at the Zancor Centre in its first year of operations."
"active membership numbers jumped from 500 to 1600 in the first year of offering the RecPass." "$90,977 favourable variance in ice rentals with strong demand at the Zancor Centre offset by lower than budgeted ice rentals at Trisan and Nobleton Arenas." The Township paid "$7 million to the contractor for the Township Wide Recreation Facility (Zancor Centre)" when construction was completed in 2025.
"The forecast includes an estimated debenture starting in 2026 for the Town Wide Recreation Centre of $5 million at a rate of 3.70% amortized at 10 years. This will be confirmed based on development charges collected and whether the debt will be required to bring the development charge reserve for parks and recreation to a positive balance."
Management Discussion and Analysis: "On the fund basis of accounting, the Township ended the 2025 year with a deficit of $139 thousand due to higher winter maintenance costs, revenue shortfalls in recreation and higher than expected facility maintenance and utility costs."
$137,718,582assets under construction not yet amortized at December 31, 2025
The statements say assets under construction worth $137,718,582 were not amortized (written down over their useful life) at the end of 2025, up from $126,586,904 a year earlier. Worked out by us, that is about 30% of the $459,306,401 of tangible capital assets. The Township explains that large linear projects, such as sewers with road works, are not amortized until all phases are done. The 2026 budget book also shows a 10-year capital forecast of $373,440,528.
Why it matters
Amortization is how the statements show that roads, sewers and buildings wear out. The larger the part of the Township's assets that is not yet counted as wearing out, the lower the yearly cost shown, and the bigger the cost that arrives when these assets enter service.
It could be because…
The Township's stated policy is to wait until all phases of a linear project are complete, so a phased project can sit in this total for years.
The Zancor Centre was completed in 2025, so some assets may have just moved into service.
The auditor gave a clean opinion on the 2025 statements.
Questions you could ask
Which projects make up the $137,718,582, when did each start, and when is each expected to enter service?
What would the yearly amortization be if these assets were in service today?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 12(a): "Assets under construction having a value of $137,718,582 (2024 - $126,586,904) have not been amortized." Statement of financial position: Tangible capital assets 459,306,401 (2024 443,539,892).
Accounting policy: "For larger scale linear infrastructure projects (such as sanitary sewer and concurrent road works), these assets are not amortized until all contracts/phases of the project are complete."
King spent $8.2M on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $12.4M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 51% in 6 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%
+51%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+25%
+1%
2021
+42%
+4%
2022
+30%
+11%
2023
+57%
+16%
2024
+49%
+18%
2025
+51%
+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
What did the extra $4.2M a year pay for?
Why did water pipes go from $1.3M to $2.2M?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
At the end of 2025, $13.8M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 14% of everything billed. Only 2 of 23 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $10.9M.
Why are so many property taxes unpaid?
$0$5.0M$10M$15M
$13.8M
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Unpaid property tax at year end
2019
$10.4M
2020
$10.2M
2021
$7.2M
2022
$7.9M
2023
$9.6M
2024
$10.9M
2025
$13.8M
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Taxes receivable: 2019 $10.4M, 2020 $10.2M, 2021 $7.2M, 2022 $7.9M, 2023 $9.6M, 2024 $10.9M, 2025 $13.8M. Of the 2025 total, $4.5M was from earlier years.
3.74%the increase in the budget transmittal, against 1.5% plus 1.99% in the messages
The Mayor's message says the budget "holds the operating budget increase to just 1.5%". The CAO's message says a "modest 1.5% operating increase layered on the previously approved 1.99%" for asset management. Worked out by us, those add to 3.49%. The budget transmittal says "Of the 3.74% increase 1.99% is to support Asset Management Plan". A later page gives a blended rate of 3.12% for the Township, which includes York Region's increase and no change for school boards.
Why it matters
Residents compare budgets by one headline number. If the book gives several, it is hard to know which one is on their bill.
It could be because…
The 1.5% may be the operating increase before some program changes were added, and 3.74% the final figure. The book says the approved budget had a few adjustments, including assessment growth as of November 2025.
Different numbers may measure different things: the Township's levy alone, or the levy combined with the Region's, so they would not be expected to match.
Questions you could ask
Which figure is the increase in the Township's own levy for 2026, and how does 1.5% become 3.74%?
Can the budget book state, in one table, the increase for operating, asset management, and the total, before and after council's changes?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Mayor's message: "this budget holds the operating budget increase to just 1.5%". CAO's message: "With a modest 1.5% operating increase layered on the previously approved 1.99% for asset management".
"The estimated overall impact for the Township is a blended rate of 3.12% which includes York Region's budget increase at 4.28% and the assumption of a zero-budget increase for the School Boards." "The 2026 Budget required an additional $1,439,204 of funding to balance the budget." Tax revenue is $43,708,776.
2023the newest year posted on the Township's council pay page
The Municipal Act requires a yearly statement of what each member of council was paid and reimbursed. The Township's page says the Treasurer reports to council by March 31 for the previous year. On October 5, 2026 the page listed 2023, 2022 and 2021. We did not find 2024 or 2025 on that page, so this pack has no council pay table.
Why it matters
Council pay is public money and an election is on October 26, 2026. Voters should be able to see the last full term's figures in one place.
It could be because…
The 2024 and 2025 statements may be posted in a council agenda on the meeting portal rather than on this page. We did not search the portal.
The page may simply not have been updated.
Questions you could ask
Where can residents find the 2024 and 2025 statements?
Can the Township post each year's statement on the page by the end of March?
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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The page says the Province "requires the Treasurer report to Council by March 31 a statement of total remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year" and that "The Treasurer's report is made public and posted on the Township's website." It links 2023, 2022 and 2021.
The newest statement linked is headed "STATEMENT OF COUNCIL REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023" and "(ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 284 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001)".
$8.0Mthe total the note gives, against parts that add to $22.7M (worked out by us)
Note 7 describes a 2010 sewer project in Nobleton as estimated at $8.0M, of which $4.0M was to come from growth charges, $2.5M from contributions and $16.2M from landowners. Those parts add to $22.7M, not $8.0M. Worked out by us, 860 landowners at $18,790 each is $16,159,400, which matches the $16.2M, so the $8.0M total looks like the figure that is off.
Why it matters
A slip in a note does not change the audited totals, but a reader cannot tell which figure is right.
It could be because…
A typing error in the note, for example a missing digit in the total.
The $8.0M may describe a different phase of work than the shares listed.
Questions you could ask
What was the estimated total cost of the 2010 Nobleton sewer project?
Will the Township correct the note in next year's 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 King?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 7: "The total costs for this project were estimated at $8.0M, of which $4.0M was to be funded from growth (development charges), $2.5M from contributions and $16.2M from the existing benefitting landowners. This amount was spread over the total number of landowners, 860, to be serviced in the village and each benefitting landowner was assessed a lump sum amount of $18,790."
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