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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Mattawan'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 Mattawan's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 1 similar Ontario place. 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.
$259,264recorded as the Municipality's share of the Cassellholme redevelopment commitment at December 31, 2025
Mattawan is one of nine municipalities that share the cost of rebuilding Cassellholme, a 240-bed long-term care home. In its 2025 statements the Municipality recorded a debt of $259,264 for its expected share of payments, and restated 2024 to add $248,099 for the same commitment that earlier statements had left out. That cut the 2024 accumulated surplus (the Municipality's total savings and assets, less what it owes) from $3,099,129 to $2,851,030. The statements also say Mattawan has guaranteed $178,856 (0.31%) of the home's debt, and that the recorded amount is uncertain "due to ongoing project cost overruns and the absence of finalized cost information". The Municipality's other debt is a term loan of $132,832. Net debt, which is what it owes less its cash and amounts due to it, is $297,297.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$545,5992026 municipal levy, up from $485,468 in 2025, while council voted a 5% rate increase
The levy is the amount the Municipality raises from property tax for its own spending. The 2025 tax rates by-law adopts a levy of $485,468.00 for municipal purposes. The 2026 by-law adopts $545,599.00, which is $60,131 more, or 12.4% (worked out by us). On April 22, 2026 council resolved to "set the tax rate to increase by 5%", and the 2026 residential municipal rate is .01694740, up from .01614038 in 2025 (a 5.0% rise, worked out by us). The audited 2025 statements show "Net taxation" of $582,370, which is $96,902 more than the 2025 levy in the by-law (worked out by us). Neither the by-laws nor the minutes say what accounts for the differences.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
The tax rate by-laws for 2025 and 2026 say each levy is adopted "per the attached budget". The copies posted on the Municipality's website have no budget attached, and the website has no budget page. The by-law list for 2025 and 2026 includes no by-law adopting a budget. The minutes of the three budget meetings we read (May 12 and May 22, 2025, and April 22, 2026) show only a vote on the rate or levy: "increase the 2025 levy by 3%" and "set the tax rate to increase by 5%". We also did not find a resolution adopting the 2026 budget in the minutes of April 22, May 14, June 11 or July 9, 2026. The audited statements print a 2025 budget, but say it was rebuilt from a council budget that uses a different model.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$182,825surplus in 2025, against a budgeted deficit of $59,725
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The statements show total revenue of $794,111 (budget $734,542) and total expenses of $787,864 (budget $794,267), which leaves $6,247 before capital grants. The budget planned a deficit of $59,725 at that point. The gap to the final $182,825 is $187,743 (worked out by us) of provincial and federal capital grants (money to build or fix roads and bridges) that the budget did not include, less an $11,165 charge for the Municipality's share of a long-term care home rebuild. Two other lines moved a lot. "Other" revenue was $54,581 against a budget of $3,120, and $50,000 of it is booked to general government. User charges were $11,260, against $67,359 in 2024.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
The statements show a term loan of $132,832 at 5.92% that matures on November 18, 2027, with principal due of $33,315 in 2026 and $99,517 in 2027. The 2027 amount is about three times 2026's (worked out by us), which suggests a large final payment, though the note does not say so. The Municipality also records $109,435 of asset retirement obligations (costs it is legally required to pay later), of which $85,562 is for asbestos removal in a building it owns, with timing that "cannot yet be reasonably estimated", and $7,951 is its 5.1% share of a landfill run by the Town of Mattawa. Total reserves are $243,777, but only $9,000 is set aside for landfill closure.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
Every agenda and set of minutes on the Municipality's 2023 to 2026 page is labelled DRAFT, including meetings from 2023. The page says "*Actual Minutes, just not stamped". The minutes themselves end with "Approved by Resolution No. 2026-" and no number, though council's later minutes do record accepting the earlier minutes "as presented". For example, resolution 2026-088 on September 10, 2026 accepted the minutes of both August 13 meetings. The Municipality has explained the label, but not why the approved copies are not posted.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
An Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer who investigates complaints that a council member broke the council's code of conduct. The Municipality's report, received on August 13, 2026, finds that Councillor Lahaye contravened the Code of Conduct. It recommends removing her from all boards and committees, suspending her pay for 90 days, and a governance review. Council met in closed session on August 13 about documents from the Integrity Commissioner. In open session it accepted the report, voted down a motion asking her to resign (not carried), removed her from boards and committees, and suspended her pay for 90 days. Councillor Lahaye declared a conflict of interest on the item and left the table. We did not find a council resolution on the third recommendation, a governance review.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
In 2019, Mattawan had $163K more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2025 it was −$297K. About 24% of that change ($109K) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 0 of 1 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$259,264recorded as the Municipality's share of the Cassellholme redevelopment commitment at December 31, 2025
Mattawan is one of nine municipalities that share the cost of rebuilding Cassellholme, a 240-bed long-term care home. In its 2025 statements the Municipality recorded a debt of $259,264 for its expected share of payments, and restated 2024 to add $248,099 for the same commitment that earlier statements had left out. That cut the 2024 accumulated surplus (the Municipality's total savings and assets, less what it owes) from $3,099,129 to $2,851,030. The statements also say Mattawan has guaranteed $178,856 (0.31%) of the home's debt, and that the recorded amount is uncertain "due to ongoing project cost overruns and the absence of finalized cost information". The Municipality's other debt is a term loan of $132,832. Net debt, which is what it owes less its cash and amounts due to it, is $297,297.
Why it matters
For a municipality with $236,071 in cash, a commitment of $259,264, plus a guarantee, is large. The number depends on final project costs, which the statements say are not final. The care home also costs the Municipality $13,990 a year in contributions already, up from $10,997.
It could be because…
The amount is Mattawan's small share, set under provincial law, of a project financed through Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, and the note says the Municipality pays interest only until the home is finished, expected in 2028.
The guarantee is a promise that only matters if the care home board fails to pay, and eight other municipalities have signed the same guarantee.
Counting the commitment is an accounting correction, not new spending: the obligation already existed in earlier years.
Questions you could ask
What are the latest total cost and Mattawan's updated share, as reported to the care home's board?
How much a year are the Municipality's own payments expected to be once the home is finished?
How does the Municipality plan to pay the share: from reserves, borrowing or the levy?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 9, Municipal debt, December 31, 2025: term loan 132,832 (2024: 164,237); "East Nipissing District Home for the Aged redevelopment commitment" 259,264 (2024: 248,099); total 392,096. The Municipality "will be responsible for its share of annual principal and interest payments" and the present value of the expected payments commencing in 2026 is $259,264, based on a 4.41% borrowing rate for 30 years and completion in 2028.
Notes 2 and 3: "subject to uncertainty due to ongoing project cost overruns and the absence of finalized cost information. Actual results may differ as additional information becomes available." The Municipality "identified that a financial liability related to the East Nipissing District Home for the Aged redevelopment commitment should have been recognized in prior periods". 2024 restatement: municipal debt as previously stated 164,237, adjustment 248,099, restated 412,336; accumulated surplus 3,099,129, adjustment (248,099), restated 2,851,030.
Note 13, Guarantees: "The Municipality's guaranteed proportion of this debt is $178,856 (0.31%)." The guarantee is shared by "the nine participating municipal guarantors".
Statement of Financial Position, December 31, 2025: cash 236,071; financial assets 314,081; liabilities 611,378; "Net Debt" (297,297) (2024 restated: (416,419)). Note 16: contributions to "East Nipissing District Home for the Aged" 13,990 (2024: 10,997).
$545,5992026 municipal levy, up from $485,468 in 2025, while council voted a 5% rate increase
The levy is the amount the Municipality raises from property tax for its own spending. The 2025 tax rates by-law adopts a levy of $485,468.00 for municipal purposes. The 2026 by-law adopts $545,599.00, which is $60,131 more, or 12.4% (worked out by us). On April 22, 2026 council resolved to "set the tax rate to increase by 5%", and the 2026 residential municipal rate is .01694740, up from .01614038 in 2025 (a 5.0% rise, worked out by us). The audited 2025 statements show "Net taxation" of $582,370, which is $96,902 more than the 2025 levy in the by-law (worked out by us). Neither the by-laws nor the minutes say what accounts for the differences.
Why it matters
Property owners were told the rate would rise 5%. A levy that rises 12.4% means either more property (more assessment) is being taxed or the budget behind the levy grew faster than the rate. Residents cannot check which, because the budget is not posted.
It could be because…
Property values (assessment) may have grown about 7%, which would raise the levy by more than the rate.
Net taxation in the statements may include things that are not in the levy, such as payments in lieu of taxes, supplementary taxes and penalties, less write-offs.
The 2025 levy in by-law 2025-006 may have been set before a later supplementary change.
Questions you could ask
By how much did total property assessment grow between 2025 and 2026?
What items make up the $582,370 of net taxation in 2025, compared with the $485,468 levy?
Will the Municipality post the budget attached to the 2025 and 2026 tax rate by-laws?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
By-law 2026-009: "Council for the Corporation adopts the 2026 levy for municipal purposes as $545,599.00 per the attached budget." Residential/Farm municipal rate .01694740. Passed May 14, 2026.
By-law 2025-006: "Council for the Corporation adopts the 2025 levy for municipal purposes as $485,468.00 per the attached budget." Residential/Farm municipal rate .01614038.
The tax rate by-laws for 2025 and 2026 say each levy is adopted "per the attached budget". The copies posted on the Municipality's website have no budget attached, and the website has no budget page. The by-law list for 2025 and 2026 includes no by-law adopting a budget. The minutes of the three budget meetings we read (May 12 and May 22, 2025, and April 22, 2026) show only a vote on the rate or levy: "increase the 2025 levy by 3%" and "set the tax rate to increase by 5%". We also did not find a resolution adopting the 2026 budget in the minutes of April 22, May 14, June 11 or July 9, 2026. The audited statements print a 2025 budget, but say it was rebuilt from a council budget that uses a different model.
Why it matters
A budget is the promise made to taxpayers about what the year will cost. Without it posted, residents cannot compare spending to plan, and the Municipal Act requires a municipality to adopt estimates before it sets tax rates.
It could be because…
The budget may have been adopted in a form we did not find, or the by-law may exist but not be posted.
Small municipalities sometimes keep the budget on a spreadsheet at the office and show it on request.
The agenda lists "Budget" without an attachment, so the working papers may have been handed out in the room.
Questions you could ask
Will the Municipality post the adopted 2025 and 2026 budgets, and the by-laws or resolutions that adopted them?
Where in the public record did council adopt the 2026 estimates before passing the tax rates on May 14, 2026?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
By-law 2026-009: "Council for the Corporation adopts the 2026 levy for municipal purposes as $545,599.00 per the attached budget." The posted file is two pages of by-law text and signature lines; no budget follows.
Resolution No. 2025-067 (May 22, 2025), 2025 Tax Levy: "increase the 2025 levy by 3%". Carried. The agenda for that meeting lists "6. Budget -" with no document.
The 2023 By-Laws page (which also lists 2025 and 2026) names By-Laws 2025-001 to 2025-010 and 2026-001 to 2026-012. Titles include Borrowing, Library, Proceeding of Council, Interim tax billing, Tax Ratio, Tax Rates, To appoint a Clerk Treasurer, Update Emergency Plan, Shared CBO Services and Next Generation 9-1-1 Services. None is titled as a budget or estimates by-law.
Note 18, Budget Figures: budget figures "have been derived from the budget approved by Council" and "adjusted to conform with this basis of accounting"; the budget figures "are unaudited".
Mattawan spent $203K on running the town office in 2019 and $309K in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of running the town office grow 52% in 6 years?
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
−20%+0%+20%+40%+60%
+52%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
−6%
+1%
2021
+21%
+4%
2022
+11%
+11%
2023
+24%
+16%
2024
+36%
+18%
2025
+52%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
Money spent running the office is money not spent on roads, water or safety. When office costs grow much faster than the services people see, it is fair to ask what the extra money is buying.
It could be because…
The 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 $106K a year pay for?
Why did council go from $156K to $233K?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Running the town office: 2019 $203K, 2020 $191K, 2021 $245K, 2022 $226K, 2023 $252K, 2024 $275K, 2025 $309K.
Mattawan spent $45,775 on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $66,736 in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 46% in 6 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
−20%+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%
+46%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
−1%
+1%
2021
+14%
+4%
2022
+8%
+11%
2023
+18%
+16%
2024
+61%
+18%
2025
+46%
+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 $20,961 a year pay for?
Why did the dump (landfill) go from $21,166 to $53,437?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$182,825surplus in 2025, against a budgeted deficit of $59,725
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The statements show total revenue of $794,111 (budget $734,542) and total expenses of $787,864 (budget $794,267), which leaves $6,247 before capital grants. The budget planned a deficit of $59,725 at that point. The gap to the final $182,825 is $187,743 (worked out by us) of provincial and federal capital grants (money to build or fix roads and bridges) that the budget did not include, less an $11,165 charge for the Municipality's share of a long-term care home rebuild. Two other lines moved a lot. "Other" revenue was $54,581 against a budget of $3,120, and $50,000 of it is booked to general government. User charges were $11,260, against $67,359 in 2024.
Why it matters
Residents should be able to tell whether a surplus is money they could have kept in their tax bills or money the Municipality could only spend on projects. Here most of it appears to be grants tied to road and bridge work. The $50,000 of other revenue and the fall in user charges are not explained in the statements.
It could be because…
The capital grants paid for the $185,286 of roads, bridges and land added in 2025, so the money was spent on projects and is not spare cash.
The statements' budget column is rebuilt from the budget council approved. Note 18 says council's budget uses a different model, so a planned deficit of $59,725 is partly an accounting difference.
The $50,000 of other revenue may be a one-time payment, such as a settlement, a sale or a recovery.
User charges in 2024 may have included a one-time recovery, since $63,784 of that year's $67,359 sits in protection services.
Questions you could ask
What was the $50,000 of other revenue recorded under general government in 2025?
Why did user charges, mostly under protection services, fall from $67,359 in 2024 to $11,260 in 2025?
How much of the 2025 surplus is cash the Municipality can spend on anything, and how much is already committed to projects?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus, 2025: total revenues budget 734,542, actual 794,111 (2024 actual 692,650). "Other" revenue budget 3,120, actual 54,581 (2024: 5,500). "User charges" budget 8,000, actual 11,260 (2024: 67,359). Total expenses budget 794,267, actual 787,864. "Annual surplus (deficit) before other" budget (59,725), actual 6,247. Capital grants "Provincial" actual 176,443 (2024: 80,228) and "Federal" actual 11,300 (2024: 5,153), both budget nil. "East Nipissing District Home for the Aged redevelopment commitment" (11,165). "Annual surplus (deficit)" budget (59,725), actual 182,825 (2024: (5,828)).
Note 20, Segmented Information, 2025: "Other" revenue of 50,000 under General Government and 4,581 under Unallocated, total 54,581. "User charges" 11,260 under Protection Services. For 2024: "User charges" 63,784 under Protection Services and 3,575 under Planning and Development, total 67,359.
Note 7, Deferred revenues - other: "Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund" recognized as revenues during the year 67,157 and "Northern Ontario Resource Development Support Fund" 109,286; total recognized 176,443. Note 11, Tangible capital assets, additions: roads 103,594; bridges and culverts 77,648; land 4,044; total 185,286.
Note 18, Budget Figures: "The budget approved by Council is based on a model used to manage departmental spending within the guidelines of the model." Budget By-law surplus for the year 2025: $ -. Budget deficit per statement of operations and accumulated surplus (59,725).
The statements show a term loan of $132,832 at 5.92% that matures on November 18, 2027, with principal due of $33,315 in 2026 and $99,517 in 2027. The 2027 amount is about three times 2026's (worked out by us), which suggests a large final payment, though the note does not say so. The Municipality also records $109,435 of asset retirement obligations (costs it is legally required to pay later), of which $85,562 is for asbestos removal in a building it owns, with timing that "cannot yet be reasonably estimated", and $7,951 is its 5.1% share of a landfill run by the Town of Mattawa. Total reserves are $243,777, but only $9,000 is set aside for landfill closure.
Why it matters
Small municipalities can face a lump sum in one year that the tax levy was not built for. A plan, even a short one, would let residents see whether reserves are meant for these costs.
It could be because…
The loan may be renewed at maturity, which is normal for a loan of this kind.
Asbestos removal is only required when the building is renovated or demolished, which may not be soon.
The Town of Mattawa holds reserves for the landfill, and the agreement says its reserves are applied first, before the three municipalities share the cost.
Questions you could ask
Is the $99,517 due in 2027 a final payment, and does the Municipality plan to renew the loan or pay it from reserves?
Which building contains the asbestos, and is any work planned that would trigger removal?
Is the working capital reserve of $220,665 meant to cover these costs?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 9: "Term loan, repayable in monthly instalments of $3,357, including interest at the fixed rate of 5.92%, maturing November 18, 2027, secured by a specific asset" 132,832 (2024: 164,237). Principal instalments required over the next two years: 2026 33,315; 2027 99,517; thereafter 259,264; total 392,096.
Note 10, Asset retirement obligations, end of year 2025: landfill 7,951; asbestos removal 85,562; septic system 7,083; drinking water well 8,839; balance 109,435. "The Municipality owns a building which contains asbestos"; "The timing of post-closure care cannot yet be reasonably estimated, so no discounting has been applied". Landfill: "the Township of Mattawan is responsible for 5.1%"; "The Town of Mattawa has reserves set up to cover these costs."
Every agenda and set of minutes on the Municipality's 2023 to 2026 page is labelled DRAFT, including meetings from 2023. The page says "*Actual Minutes, just not stamped". The minutes themselves end with "Approved by Resolution No. 2026-" and no number, though council's later minutes do record accepting the earlier minutes "as presented". For example, resolution 2026-088 on September 10, 2026 accepted the minutes of both August 13 meetings. The Municipality has explained the label, but not why the approved copies are not posted.
Why it matters
Minutes are the public record of what council decided. A reader cannot tell from a DRAFT copy whether it is the final version.
It could be because…
The office may not have time to re-save approved minutes with a stamp, since the Municipality has little staff.
The posted file may match what council approved, as the page says.
Questions you could ask
Will the Municipality replace the DRAFT copies with the approved, signed minutes?
Will it post a council page with members' official email addresses, as most municipalities do?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Agendas and Minutes 2023 – 2026 page: "Draft Agendas", "Draft Minutes", "*Actual Minutes, just not stamped", then a list of meetings from "January 8, 2026" to "December 10, 2026", each with links marked "DRAFT".
Resolution No. 2026-088 (September 10, 2026): "the minutes of the Special Meeting and the Regular Meeting of Council held on August 13, 2026 are accepted as presented." The file ends "Approved by Resolution No. 2026-".
An Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer who investigates complaints that a council member broke the council's code of conduct. The Municipality's report, received on August 13, 2026, finds that Councillor Lahaye contravened the Code of Conduct. It recommends removing her from all boards and committees, suspending her pay for 90 days, and a governance review. Council met in closed session on August 13 about documents from the Integrity Commissioner. In open session it accepted the report, voted down a motion asking her to resign (not carried), removed her from boards and committees, and suspended her pay for 90 days. Councillor Lahaye declared a conflict of interest on the item and left the table. We did not find a council resolution on the third recommendation, a governance review.
Why it matters
Council can only act on a finding if it does so in public. Residents may want to know the review recommended has been started, what the inquiry cost, and when the pay suspension ends. The finding is the Integrity Commissioner's, not ours.
It could be because…
The governance review may be planned for a later meeting: the last minutes we read, September 10, were the first regular meeting after the report.
The cost of the inquiry may be in the Municipality's accounts for 2026 and not yet reported.
Council acted on two of the three recommendations and may regard the third as already covered by its code of conduct.
Questions you could ask
Has council started the governance review the Integrity Commissioner recommended, and when will it report?
What did the Integrity Commissioner's inquiry cost the Municipality?
When did the 90-day pay suspension start and end?
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 Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Determination: the Integrity Commissioner "finds that Councillor Lahaye contravened the Township of Mattawan Code of Conduct." Recommendations: remove her from all committees, boards and other bodies, "Suspend remuneration for a period of ninety (90) days", and "Undertake a governance review". Stamped "RECEIVED AUG 13 2026".
Special meeting, August 13, 2026: Resolution 2026-074 closes the meeting "to discuss documents received from the Integrity Commissioner"; the closed portion ran from 5:45 pm to 7:25 pm.
Regular meeting, August 13, 2026: Resolution 2026-079 accepts the report, carried; 2026-080 (resign as Councillor), NOT CARRIED; 2026-081 removal from all committees and boards, carried; 2026-082 suspension of remuneration for ninety (90) days, carried. Councillor Lahaye "declared a conflict of interest" on the item.
Regular meeting, September 10, 2026: resolutions 2026-093 to 2026-095 replace Councillor Lahaye as the Municipality's representative on the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority Board, the East Nipissing Planning Board and the Cassellholme Board. No resolution on a governance review.
In 2019, Mattawan had $163K more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2025 it was −$297K. About 24% of that change ($109K) is a new accounting rule from 2023: towns must now record the future cost of closing things like a landfill. That is not new spending or borrowing. Even leaving that out, only 0 of 1 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Mattawan went from having money in the bank to owing more than it has. What changed?
−$400K−$200K$0$200K$400K
−$297K
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Net financial position
2019
$163K
2020
$227K
2021
$173K
2022
−$139K
2023
−$243K
2024
−$168K
2025
−$297K
Why it matters
This number is one of the clearest signs of whether a town is living within its means. The accounting-rule part is a bill that will come due when the landfill closes, not money already spent. The rest is real borrowing and spending of savings.
It could be because…
A new accounting rule (asset retirement obligations, from 2023) added a large future cost to the books all at once.
Borrowing for a planned project, such as sewage lagoons, which is paid back over many years.
Questions you could ask
What is the plan and timeline for paying the landfill closing cost?
Without the accounting change, is the town's position getting better or worse?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Mattawan?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
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