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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Markham'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 · 11 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Markham's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 4 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.
$439.6Mthe plan's funding gap for repairs and replacement from 2026 to 2051, about $16.9 million a year (in 2025 dollars, without inflation)
The city's 2025 Asset Management Plan is its own study of what it owns (roads, water pipes, buildings, parks) and what it costs to keep it working. The plan's model says the money now planned for repairs and replacement from 2026 to 2051 is $439.6 million short of what is needed just to hold today's condition, an average of $16.9 million a year. If nothing changed, the model says about 30.6% of the city's assets would slide from a "Fair or better" state to "Poor or Very Poor" by 2051. The city's 2026 budget says it is raising its yearly infrastructure top-up to 1% of the tax rate and that this "will need to be increased further". We did not find a published plan that says how the whole gap will be closed.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
($418,533,000)balance of the Land Acquisition Reserve Fund at the end of 2025, a deficit; it was ($398,622,000) a year earlier
A reserve fund is money set aside for a purpose. The city's Land Acquisition Reserve Fund is meant for land the city buys for strategic reasons that development charges cannot pay for. Its balance is not savings: it is a deficit of (418,533) thousand dollars at the end of 2025, deeper than (398,622) a year earlier and (359,556) at the end of 2023. The city explains that land bought before its purpose is settled is first paid for from this fund, and the fund is then topped up from the right source (for example development charges). That explains how a deficit can arise. We did not find a schedule that says how fast the refill is expected.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$222,244,000fair value of principal protected notes at the end of 2025, against $137,500,000 printed as their carrying value
The city invests spare cash. Its holdings include "principal protected notes" (PPNs), which the city's statements describe as a financial instrument with an embedded derivative. At the end of 2025 they were worth $222,244 thousand at fair value, up from $159,752 thousand a year earlier. Investment income was 50,437 thousand against a budget of 23,872 thousand, and the city says "higher gains on principal protected notes" were a main reason. The city also says its exposure to market price changes "is limited to its investments in PPN". We did not find a published limit on how much of the portfolio may be in these notes.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$47,823,000left in the Development Fee reserve at the end of 2025, down from $62,238,000; the 2026 budget plans draws of $7.74M and $3.44M
Planning and Urban Design and Engineering are paid for mainly by fees from developers, not by property tax. When fees fall short, the city covers the gap from a savings account called the Development Fee reserve. That reserve fell from 62,238 thousand dollars to 47,823 thousand in 2025. The 2026 budget plans to draw $7.74 million for Planning and Urban Design (its revenue is budgeted to fall 29.2%) and $3.44 million for Engineering. The city says the reserve exists to cover "years of downturn in the industry". We did not find a forecast of how many such years it can pay for.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$102,733City salary of each ward councillor in 2025, up from $84,961 in 2023
The city's required yearly statement of council pay shows each ward councillor's City salary at $84,961 for 2023, $93,882 for 2024 and $102,733 for 2025, a rise of about 10.5% and then 9.4%. Several members also receive fees from companies the city owns. In 2025 the Mayor's total was $308,179, which includes $63,750 from Alectra Inc. (the electric utility in which the city holds a 15% share), $15,500 from Markham District Energy Inc. and $63,623 from the Region of York, on top of a City salary of $165,306. Some ward councillors receive $21,500 or $23,500 from Markham District Energy. We did not find a council report in the documents we could open that explains the pay increases or sets the company fees.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$58.8Mfederal Housing Accelerator Fund agreement announced March 12, 2024; the veto covers one of its initiatives
On March 11, 2026 the Mayor used a new Ontario "strong mayor" power to veto two by-laws that council had passed on February 25, 2026. Both were part of "Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative 2", about extra residential units and incentives. The Housing Accelerator Fund is a federal program; in March 2024 the city announced a $58.8 million agreement under it, with "seven local initiatives". The Mayor's letter says that allowing up to four units on certain city properties "could potentially interfere with provincial and City priorities". We did not find a city document that says whether the veto changes the money, or whether council tried to override it (which takes two-thirds of members); council's minutes are on an agenda site that would not open to our reader, so we could not check them.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$677.9Mthe 2026 total budget, tabled by the Mayor on October 1, 2025
Since Ontario's 2022 and 2023 changes, Markham's Mayor writes and tables the budget. Council then has a short time to propose changes; if it proposes none, the budget is "deemed" adopted. For the 2025 budget the city's annual report says: "As there were no amendments to be considered, the 2025 Budget was deemed to be adopted on November 27, 2024". For 2026 the Mayor tabled the budget on October 1, 2025 and the city announced it as adopted on October 31, 2025. The city's own diagram still shows a "Council Vote" step. We did not find whether council took a recorded vote on either budget.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
86%of the 2025 waterworks operating budget (before reserve transfer) is water bought from York Region, $117.6M
Markham buys its water from York Region in bulk and sells it to residents. In the 2025 waterworks operating budget, water and wastewater purchases were $117.6 million, 86% of the $136.5 million of spending (before a transfer to reserve). The approved 2025 rate was $5.1147 per cubic metre, and the 2026 budget adds 4.98%, or $52.99 for the average home. The city says water rate increases "are subject to a variety of unavoidable factors including the cost of purchasing water". The Region, not the city, sets the price it charges. We did not find a city report that splits the 2026 increase between the Region's price and the city's own costs.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$50 millionthe city's anticipated economic impact of the 2026 race; we found no published cost to the city
The Ontario Honda Dealers Indy at Markham was scheduled for August 14 to 16, 2026, under a "multi-year agreement" with the event organizer. The city's 2025 annual report anticipates a "$50 million economic impact" and its 2026 budget book says "over $50 million in economic activity". The city's September 2025 release says only "tens of millions". The same release says "The City of Markham has begun early works on the track and festival site". We did not find the agreement, a cost to the city, or the method behind the economic estimate in the budget, the capital exhibits or the news releases.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
0Code of Conduct or conflict-of-interest complaints reported by the Integrity Commissioner for July 2024 to June 2025
Markham has an Integrity Commissioner (ADR Chambers Inc.) and an Auditor General (MNP LLP), plus the Ontario Ombudsman. The Integrity Commissioner's three latest yearly reports show few complaints: one in 2022-23 (no breach), three code complaints in 2023-24 (two no breach, one withdrawn) plus one conflict-of-interest complaint dismissed, and none in 2024-25. Billings for the Commissioner's work were $30,189.04 (2022-23, to the date of the report), $32,403.84 and $28,274.82. The Auditor General's asset management audit of 2019 and the city's 2020 progress report are posted. We did not find the Auditor General's later reports, or a list of them, on the markham.ca pages we could open, and the city's agenda site would not open to our reader.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
51.4%printed beside 2025 developer contributions of $236,704 thousand, which are 27.6% of 2025 revenue
On page 19 of the 2025 Annual Report, the "Revenues by Source" and "Expenses by Function" charts print 2025 dollar amounts next to percentages that do not match them. For example, contributions from developers is printed as "51.4%" with $236,704 (thousand dollars), but 236,704 is 27.6% of 2025 revenue of 858,653, as the city's own text on page 18 says. The 51.4% matches 2024 (612,277 of 1,192,270). The same holds for the expenses chart. The audited statements on page 27 are not affected.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$439.6Mthe plan's funding gap for repairs and replacement from 2026 to 2051, about $16.9 million a year (in 2025 dollars, without inflation)
The city's 2025 Asset Management Plan is its own study of what it owns (roads, water pipes, buildings, parks) and what it costs to keep it working. The plan's model says the money now planned for repairs and replacement from 2026 to 2051 is $439.6 million short of what is needed just to hold today's condition, an average of $16.9 million a year. If nothing changed, the model says about 30.6% of the city's assets would slide from a "Fair or better" state to "Poor or Very Poor" by 2051. The city's 2026 budget says it is raising its yearly infrastructure top-up to 1% of the tax rate and that this "will need to be increased further". We did not find a published plan that says how the whole gap will be closed.
Why it matters
Roads, water mains and community centres wear out on a schedule. Money not set aside now is either paid later at a higher cost, or it shows up as worse roads and more breakdowns. The gap is also in addition to the cost of the growth the city expects.
It could be because…
The model is a long-range estimate in 2025 dollars; the city says its results may change as its data improves, and it reviews the funding every year.
The city is already phasing in a larger yearly contribution (a council-approved extra 0.1% each year until it reaches 1% in 2027), which will close part of the gap.
Some assets may last longer than the model assumes, or be replaced with cheaper options, so the real need could be smaller.
The city can use development charges and grants for some growth-related work, which the renewal gap does not count.
Questions you could ask
What is the city's plan, year by year, to close the $439.6 million gap, and how much of it does the 1% yearly investment cover?
Why does the 2026 budget describe about 90% of assets as in good condition while the plan's model shows a slide to 59.4% performing as intended by 2051 without more funding?
Has anyone independent checked whether the reserves are adequate? The Auditor General's 2019 audit left that out of scope.
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The plan's summary table compares the city's planned capital spending for 2026 to 2051 ($2,263.8M) with what is needed to maintain current performance ($2,703.4M). It prints the "Overall Funding Gap" as $439.6M and the "Equivalent Average Annual Capital Funding Gap" as $16.9M.
On what happens if funding stays at the planned level, the plan says: "may result in a decline in asset performance. By 2051, performance may decline to: 59.4% or $10.30B of assets performing as intended" and "40.6% or $7.03B of assets are subject of planned maintenance or renewal". It adds that this is "approximately 30.6% of assets shifting from a Fair or better state of performance to a Poor or Very Poor state of performance".
The plan's limits: "all monetary values in this report are presented in 2025 dollars and exclude inflationary increases", and the results "are subject to change as the City advances its asset management practice and data maturity capabilities".
The city's answer in its 2026 budget book: "The 2025 Corporate Asset Management Plan highlights that Markham's Life Cycle Reserve requires additional funding to sustain current service levels. To address this, the City is ramping up to a 1% dedicated infrastructure investment, which will need to be increased further as infrastructure continues to age."
The 2026 operating budget table prints "Infrastructure Investment" of 1.74 ($ millions), or 0.90% of the tax rate increase, out of a total tax rate increase of 3.90%.
The city's Auditor General (MNP LLP) audited asset management in 2019 and found "sufficient processes and controls in place". The same report lists as outside the audit's scope: "Adequacy of capital reserves needed to fund the Asset Management Plan recommendations".
($418,533,000)balance of the Land Acquisition Reserve Fund at the end of 2025, a deficit; it was ($398,622,000) a year earlier
A reserve fund is money set aside for a purpose. The city's Land Acquisition Reserve Fund is meant for land the city buys for strategic reasons that development charges cannot pay for. Its balance is not savings: it is a deficit of (418,533) thousand dollars at the end of 2025, deeper than (398,622) a year earlier and (359,556) at the end of 2023. The city explains that land bought before its purpose is settled is first paid for from this fund, and the fund is then topped up from the right source (for example development charges). That explains how a deficit can arise. We did not find a schedule that says how fast the refill is expected.
Why it matters
When one fund spends money it does not have, the gap is covered by the city's other cash. If the refills arrive slowly, or never fully, other reserves or the tax rate carry the cost. The size, over $418 million, is larger than the city's whole yearly tax revenue of $200.6 million.
It could be because…
The fund is used as a bridge: the city buys land first and is repaid by development charges or parkland payments when developers build, so a large negative balance can be normal during fast growth.
Accounting for development-charge reserves often runs behind spending, because the money comes in as homes are built.
Some of the land may later be sold or kept for parks, and the city says the fund is "replenished" once the use is confirmed.
Questions you could ask
What land is behind the (418,533) thousand dollar balance, and what is each purchase's expected source of repayment and date?
The budget book says the fund is for non-growth land that development charges cannot pay for, and the annual report says it bridges land later paid for from development charges. Which is it, and which purchases fall under each?
How much of the balance has been repaid since 2023, and why did the deficit grow by about 39 million in 2024 and 20 million in 2025?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, Revenues, "Property taxes": 2025 actual $200,555 (budget $197,376) and 2024 actual $192,366, in thousands of dollars. $200,555 thousand rounds to $200.6 million (rounded by us).
Note 15 prints the Land acquisition reserve fund as (418,533) for 2025 and (398,622) for 2024 (in thousands of dollars). The total of all reserve funds is (57,713).
The city's explanation: "From time to time, the City purchases land for which the intended purpose has not been confirmed. In these instances, the initial funding source is the Land Acquisition Reserve Fund. When the ultimate use of the land is confirmed, the Land Acquisition Reserve Fund will be replenished with funds transferred in from the appropriate funding source (e.g. Development Charges, Parks Cash-in-lieu)." It also says reserves and reserve funds total $303,630 ($722,163 excluding the Land Acquisition Reserve Fund), in thousands.
The 2025 budget book describes the fund differently: "a new reserve established in 2005 to provide a source of financing for the City to acquire land that is strategic in nature, non-growth (and thus cannot be DC-funded), and not environmentally sensitive. On an annual basis, $250,000 of interest income from a long-term loan to a related company, PowerStream, will be the source of funding for this reserve."
$222,244,000fair value of principal protected notes at the end of 2025, against $137,500,000 printed as their carrying value
The city invests spare cash. Its holdings include "principal protected notes" (PPNs), which the city's statements describe as a financial instrument with an embedded derivative. At the end of 2025 they were worth $222,244 thousand at fair value, up from $159,752 thousand a year earlier. Investment income was 50,437 thousand against a budget of 23,872 thousand, and the city says "higher gains on principal protected notes" were a main reason. The city also says its exposure to market price changes "is limited to its investments in PPN". We did not find a published limit on how much of the portfolio may be in these notes.
Why it matters
Gains on these notes are not cash until the notes are sold or mature. They also depend on the market and on the bank that issued them. If markets fall, the gain can shrink, and the city has been counting on investment income to come in well above what it budgets.
It could be because…
The notes protect the original amount at maturity, so the city's capital may be safe even if the market value moves.
Municipal investment rules limit what the city can buy, and the city says its policy is built to "protect and preserve capital".
Bigger investment income can be a good result of holding cash in a high-rate period; the city reports an average return of 8.0% on the general portfolio.
Questions you could ask
What share of the investment portfolio may be held in principal protected notes under the city's Investment Policy, and who approves purchases?
Note 22 says the notes are recorded at fair value, yet prints a lower "carrying value" of 137,500. What does the 137,500 stand for?
How is the fair value of the notes worked out, and who checks it? The note calls the classification Level 1 but describes a discounted cash flow method.
How much of the 50,437 thousand dollars of 2025 investment income was cash received and how much was a gain on paper?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 5: "Investments balance also includes PPN of $222,244 (2024 - $159,752) which are reported at fair market value". Amounts are in thousands of dollars. Cash and investments together total $725,365.
Note 22 lists principal protected notes at a "carrying value" of 137,500 and a "fair value" of 222,244 for 2025 (125,400 and 159,752 for 2024), in thousands of dollars. It says "The City's fair value hierarchy is classified as Level 1 for PPN", and also that the classification is "based on discounted cash flow analysis, with the most significant inputs being the contractual terms of the instrument and the market discount rates that reflect the credit risk of counterparties".
The city's explanation of the budget gap: "$26,565 in investment income due to higher gains on principal protected notes and higher investment rates". The average return on the general portfolio was 8.0% (2024: 7.6%).
On risk: "The City's exposure to this type of risk is limited to its investments in PPN." The listed Investment Policy "provides a framework to make investment decisions within acceptable risk levels" and speaks of "the basic need to protect and preserve capital".
$47,823,000left in the Development Fee reserve at the end of 2025, down from $62,238,000; the 2026 budget plans draws of $7.74M and $3.44M
Planning and Urban Design and Engineering are paid for mainly by fees from developers, not by property tax. When fees fall short, the city covers the gap from a savings account called the Development Fee reserve. That reserve fell from 62,238 thousand dollars to 47,823 thousand in 2025. The 2026 budget plans to draw $7.74 million for Planning and Urban Design (its revenue is budgeted to fall 29.2%) and $3.44 million for Engineering. The city says the reserve exists to cover "years of downturn in the industry". We did not find a forecast of how many such years it can pay for.
Why it matters
If development stays slow, the reserve runs down. The choices then are to raise fees, cut these departments, or ask taxpayers to cover the gap, in a city whose growth plans rely on those departments.
It could be because…
The reserve was built up in busy years to be used in slow years, exactly as the city describes.
Development has slowed across Ontario, so lower fees may be temporary.
Fees can be raised, or costs cut, before the reserve runs low.
Questions you could ask
If 2026 draws of $7.74 million and $3.44 million go ahead and fees stay low, in what year does the reserve reach zero?
What drop in development applications does the 29.2% fall in Planning and Urban Design revenue assume, and for how long?
Is there a council policy on a minimum balance for this reserve, and what happens if it is reached?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 15 prints the Development fee reserve at 47,823 for 2025 and 62,238 for 2024 (thousands of dollars).
Exhibit 1B (Planning and Urban Design), in $ millions: revenue 14.18 in 2025 and 10.04 in 2026 ("(29.2%)"); expenditures 17.31 and 17.78; the deficit before reserves (3.13) and (7.74); "Draw from/Transfer (to) Reserves" 3.13 and 7.74. Exhibit 1C (Engineering): revenue 10.27 and 9.99; expenditures 12.66 and 13.43; deficit (2.39) and (3.44); draw 2.39 and 3.44.
The city's explanation of the reserve: "To fund future capital or to mitigate operating pressures, as a draw from reserve, during years of downturn in the industry (Engineering and Planning & Urban Design departments)".
The policy: for both the Engineering and the Planning and Urban Design budgets, "in years when expenses exceed revenues the deficit is funded by a draw from the Development Fee Reserve."
$102,733City salary of each ward councillor in 2025, up from $84,961 in 2023
The city's required yearly statement of council pay shows each ward councillor's City salary at $84,961 for 2023, $93,882 for 2024 and $102,733 for 2025, a rise of about 10.5% and then 9.4%. Several members also receive fees from companies the city owns. In 2025 the Mayor's total was $308,179, which includes $63,750 from Alectra Inc. (the electric utility in which the city holds a 15% share), $15,500 from Markham District Energy Inc. and $63,623 from the Region of York, on top of a City salary of $165,306. Some ward councillors receive $21,500 or $23,500 from Markham District Energy. We did not find a council report in the documents we could open that explains the pay increases or sets the company fees.
Why it matters
Elected members vote on their own pay and on the boards that pay them extra. Residents can only judge it if the reasons and the rules are public.
It could be because…
Council may have approved a pay review or a formula that catches up with other cities of similar size.
Part of the rise may reflect the added workload of the Mayor's and council's expanded duties, or inflation since earlier pay levels.
Company board fees pay for real time on boards and are disclosed in the same statement (note 3 says they cover "additional work done by members of Council as a result of direction by Council and/or Council controlled entities").
Questions you could ask
Which council resolutions set the 2024 and 2025 salary levels, and what comparison or formula did they use?
Who sets the fees paid by Alectra Inc., Markham District Energy Inc. and Markham Enterprises Corporation to council members, and where are the schedules published?
Why did the Mayor's Alectra Inc. fee fall to 56,250 in 2024 and then rise to 63,750 in 2025?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
For 2023, the "City of Markham" line is 84,961 for each ward councillor, and 150,381 for the Mayor. The Mayor's total remuneration is 278,474, including Alectra Inc. 57,500, Markham District Energy Inc. 8,500 and the Region of York 62,093.
For 2024, the "City of Markham" line is 93,882 for each ward councillor, and 151,064 for the Mayor. The Mayor's total remuneration is 283,899, including Alectra Inc. 56,250, Markham District Energy Inc. 13,250 and the Region of York 63,335.
For 2025, the "City of Markham" line is 102,733 for each ward councillor, and 165,306 for the Mayor. The Mayor's total remuneration is 308,179, including Alectra Inc. 63,750, Markham District Energy Inc. 15,500 and the Region of York 63,623. Markham District Energy Inc. paid 23,500 to the Ward 1 councillor and 21,500 to the Ward 5 councillor. Note 3 reads: "Compensation includes additional work done by members of Council as a result of direction by Council and/or Council controlled entities".
The audited statements describe the city's holding: the city's wholly owned Markham Enterprises Corporation holds "Alectra Inc. of 15.00 (2024 - 15.00) per cent" and Markham District Energy Inc. "100 per cent".
$58.8Mfederal Housing Accelerator Fund agreement announced March 12, 2024; the veto covers one of its initiatives
On March 11, 2026 the Mayor used a new Ontario "strong mayor" power to veto two by-laws that council had passed on February 25, 2026. Both were part of "Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative 2", about extra residential units and incentives. The Housing Accelerator Fund is a federal program; in March 2024 the city announced a $58.8 million agreement under it, with "seven local initiatives". The Mayor's letter says that allowing up to four units on certain city properties "could potentially interfere with provincial and City priorities". We did not find a city document that says whether the veto changes the money, or whether council tried to override it (which takes two-thirds of members); council's minutes are on an agenda site that would not open to our reader, so we could not check them.
Why it matters
Federal housing money comes with promises about what the city will do. If a promised step is vetoed, the city may owe a change to the agreement, or may lose later payments. Residents should know the cost either way.
It could be because…
The city's letter says it already has 224,826 more units planned; the veto may change only a small part of the housing work.
The city may have agreed changes with the federal government, or substituted other steps, that are in documents we could not open.
Council may have already responded in a meeting we could not read.
Questions you could ask
Does the veto of By-laws 2026-32 and 2026-33 change any Housing Accelerator Fund milestone, and does it put any of the $58.8 million at risk?
Was the veto discussed in a public meeting, and was an override vote held?
Will the city publish its correspondence with the federal government about the veto?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Mayor's decision MDC-2026-01 vetoes "the entirety" of By-law Nos. 2026-32 (Official Plan Amendment No. 66, Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative 2) and 2026-33, adopted at the February 25, 2026 council meeting, under section 284.11 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The stated reason: "permitting up to four units on certain City properties could potentially interfere with provincial and City priorities". The letter says the city already has an "additional 224,826 total units planned". This is a scanned letter; the quotes were read from the image.
The city's Mayoral Decisions page lists MDC-2026-01 on March 11, 2026 and explains that "Council may override the Mayor's veto if two-thirds of Members vote in favour of such an override." It lists no override decision.
The March 12, 2024 release says the Housing Accelerator Fund agreement "will provide $58.8 million", that "Markham's Action Plan commits to seven local initiatives", including "offering incentives to create additional residential units", and that the fund provides "upfront funding" and "additional funds upon delivering results".
$677.9Mthe 2026 total budget, tabled by the Mayor on October 1, 2025
Since Ontario's 2022 and 2023 changes, Markham's Mayor writes and tables the budget. Council then has a short time to propose changes; if it proposes none, the budget is "deemed" adopted. For the 2025 budget the city's annual report says: "As there were no amendments to be considered, the 2025 Budget was deemed to be adopted on November 27, 2024". For 2026 the Mayor tabled the budget on October 1, 2025 and the city announced it as adopted on October 31, 2025. The city's own diagram still shows a "Council Vote" step. We did not find whether council took a recorded vote on either budget.
Why it matters
A recorded vote lets residents see how their own councillor stood. Without one, the public record of who supported what can be thin, in a budget worth $677.9 million.
It could be because…
Provincial law sets this process, and council members may have debated the budget in public meetings, including the public meeting the city held, even if no amendment was moved.
The city says it engaged council and the public before the budget was tabled.
A "deemed" adoption is an ordinary result of the new rules when no changes are proposed.
Questions you could ask
Did council hold a recorded vote on the 2025 or 2026 budget, and where are the results posted?
Where can residents read the public input the city received between tabling and adoption?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The annual report explains: "Under the new legislation, the Mayor prepares and presents the budget by February 1 for Council's consideration." For the 2025 budget the Mayor tabled it on October 28, 2024, a public meeting was held on November 4, 2024, and "As there were no amendments to be considered, the 2025 Budget was deemed to be adopted on November 27, 2024." The chart on the same page still shows a "Council Vote (November 27, 2024)".
The city's release of October 31, 2025: "The City of Markham has adopted Markham Racing Forward: Budget 2026, which was tabled by Mayor Frank Scarpitti on October 1, 2025." It names a 3.90% property tax increase, $54.99 for the average household.
The 2026 budget book prints the total budget as $677.9 million, made up of the Primary Operating budget ($309.3 million), Capital ($160.4 million), Waterworks ($162.3 million), Planning & Urban Design ($17.8 million), Engineering ($13.4 million) and Building ($14.7 million).
86%of the 2025 waterworks operating budget (before reserve transfer) is water bought from York Region, $117.6M
Markham buys its water from York Region in bulk and sells it to residents. In the 2025 waterworks operating budget, water and wastewater purchases were $117.6 million, 86% of the $136.5 million of spending (before a transfer to reserve). The approved 2025 rate was $5.1147 per cubic metre, and the 2026 budget adds 4.98%, or $52.99 for the average home. The city says water rate increases "are subject to a variety of unavoidable factors including the cost of purchasing water". The Region, not the city, sets the price it charges. We did not find a city report that splits the 2026 increase between the Region's price and the city's own costs.
Why it matters
Water bills are one of the fastest-growing household costs. Knowing which part is fixed by another level of government shows residents what their councillors can and cannot change.
It could be because…
Buying treated water from the Region is the normal arrangement for Markham, so the large share is expected.
The city has been phasing rate increases in over four years, which can smooth bills.
Part of the 2026 increase pays for pipe replacement through the waterworks reserve, which the city decides.
Questions you could ask
What is York Region's 2026 wholesale water and wastewater price, and how much of the 4.98% increase does it explain?
What share of the 2026 increase pays for the city's own pipe replacement?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The 2025 budget book shows Water/Wastewater Purchases at "$117.6M (86%)" of a waterworks operating expenditure total of $136.5M (excluding transfer to reserve), and says the approved 2025 water rate is $5.1147/m3.
The 2026 budget book: "For 2026, a 4.98% water rate increase is included to support water and wastewater services, representing an increase of $52.99 for the average home in Markham. Water rate increases are subject to a variety of unavoidable factors including the cost of purchasing water."
$50 millionthe city's anticipated economic impact of the 2026 race; we found no published cost to the city
The Ontario Honda Dealers Indy at Markham was scheduled for August 14 to 16, 2026, under a "multi-year agreement" with the event organizer. The city's 2025 annual report anticipates a "$50 million economic impact" and its 2026 budget book says "over $50 million in economic activity". The city's September 2025 release says only "tens of millions". The same release says "The City of Markham has begun early works on the track and festival site". We did not find the agreement, a cost to the city, or the method behind the economic estimate in the budget, the capital exhibits or the news releases.
Why it matters
Temporary road closures, track building and policing cost money, even if the organizer pays most of it. Residents can only weigh a "$50 million" benefit against what the city spent if both numbers are public.
It could be because…
The organizer, not the city, may pay for the track and event, and the city's share may be small.
Costs may be in operating budget lines that do not name the race, or in agreements that are not yet public.
Economic estimates in event promotion are often rounded and projected before the event takes place.
Questions you could ask
What does the city's agreement with the organizer say about who pays for the track, road closures, policing and clean-up?
What did the city spend on early works and on event-weekend services, and from which budget lines?
How was the $50 million estimate produced, and by whom?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The annual report says the event welcomes "an estimated 150,000 spectators and generating an anticipated $50 million economic impact", and that the City "has secured a multi-year hosting agreement".
The September 3, 2025 release says the race is led by "the organizer and promoter Green Savoree Toronto ULC", expects "more than 140,000 attendees over the three-day weekend" and "tens of millions in economic activity", and that "The City of Markham has begun early works on the track and festival site in coordination with Metrolinx and other area partners."
0Code of Conduct or conflict-of-interest complaints reported by the Integrity Commissioner for July 2024 to June 2025
Markham has an Integrity Commissioner (ADR Chambers Inc.) and an Auditor General (MNP LLP), plus the Ontario Ombudsman. The Integrity Commissioner's three latest yearly reports show few complaints: one in 2022-23 (no breach), three code complaints in 2023-24 (two no breach, one withdrawn) plus one conflict-of-interest complaint dismissed, and none in 2024-25. Billings for the Commissioner's work were $30,189.04 (2022-23, to the date of the report), $32,403.84 and $28,274.82. The Auditor General's asset management audit of 2019 and the city's 2020 progress report are posted. We did not find the Auditor General's later reports, or a list of them, on the markham.ca pages we could open, and the city's agenda site would not open to our reader.
Why it matters
An Auditor General is the city's main independent check on how money is spent. If the reports are hard to find, residents cannot see what was found or what was fixed.
It could be because…
Later reports may be posted on the city's agenda site (eScribe), which our reader could not open, with no separate page on markham.ca.
Few complaints can mean good conduct, or that the complaint rules (sworn statement, named complainant) deter some people.
The Auditor General's work plan may not have produced a new public report in every year.
Questions you could ask
Which audits has the Auditor General reported on since 2021, and where are the reports and management responses posted?
Will the city add a page that lists every Auditor General report with its recommendations and status?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
For July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025: "no Code of Conduct or MCIA complaints were received", seven requests for advice, three general inquiries, and billings "totaled $28,274.82".
For July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024: "three Code of Conduct complaints. Two of these complaints resulted in a finding of no breach of the Code" and "One complaint was withdrawn prior to a full investigation"; one conflict-of-interest (MCIA) complaint was dismissed; billings "totaled $32,403.84".
For July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023: one Code of Conduct complaint "which resulted in a finding of no breach of the Code"; billing for the year to date "$ 30,189.04".
The Accountability & Transparency page says the city "hired its Auditor General" on December 11, 2015 and appointed MNP LLP "to a four-year Auditor General term". Its related documents for the Auditor General date from 2015. The page's list of Integrity Commissioner investigation reports ends with complaints from 2016 and 2019, and its annual reports list runs to July 2024 to June 2025.
The one Auditor General report we found, on asset management (MNP LLP, October 7, 2019), is linked from the city's Corporate Asset Management page. A staff report to General Committee on October 19, 2020 gave "the first annual update to Council" on the audit's recommendations.
51.4%printed beside 2025 developer contributions of $236,704 thousand, which are 27.6% of 2025 revenue
On page 19 of the 2025 Annual Report, the "Revenues by Source" and "Expenses by Function" charts print 2025 dollar amounts next to percentages that do not match them. For example, contributions from developers is printed as "51.4%" with $236,704 (thousand dollars), but 236,704 is 27.6% of 2025 revenue of 858,653, as the city's own text on page 18 says. The 51.4% matches 2024 (612,277 of 1,192,270). The same holds for the expenses chart. The audited statements on page 27 are not affected.
Why it matters
A reader looking at the chart alone would think 2025 looked like 2024. It is a small slip, but the annual report is the city's main plain-language summary of its money.
It could be because…
The chart may have been built from last year's template and the percentage labels were not refreshed.
The dollar amounts and the audited statements are correct, so only the chart labels are wrong.
Questions you could ask
Will the city correct the percentage labels on the 2025 charts?
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 Markham?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The chart prints "Contribution from developers 51.4% $236,704", "Propery taxes 16.1% $200,555", "User charges 19.4% $231,495" and a total of $858,653 (thousand dollars).
The audited statement of operations prints 2025 total revenues of 858,653 and 2024 total revenues of 1,192,270, with 2024 contributions from developers of 612,277 (thousand dollars).
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