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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 McDougall'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 · 9 so far
Things worth asking about
We read McDougall'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.
$451,267.21forecast Fire Equipment Reserve at the end of 2026, against $2,366,000 of fire projects listed for later years (worked out by us)
A reserve is money a town sets aside in earlier years to pay for big purchases later. The budget's capital summary lists a Tanker 2 replacement at $756,000, a Rescue 2 replacement at $360,000 and a Fire Hall replacement at $1,250,000, and none of them is in the 2026 project list. The Fire Equipment Reserve is forecast to end 2026 at $451,267.21. In 2025 the Municipality put $250,000 into that reserve instead of buying a fire truck, and says it now plans $75,000 a year. The fire department's net operating budget falls 20.4% in 2026, largely because that one-time payment is not repeated.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$2,273,125to be borrowed for the bridge, terms not yet set
The budget plans to borrow $2,273,125 for the bridge, with the terms "yet to be determined", and to borrow again for the Crawford septic bed. It says the bridge debt is to be repaid through the tax-based operating budget and the septic debt through charges to the users of the Crawford septic system only, which serves 28 homes. The 2026 operating budget already carries a new loan payment line of $232,831 in Transportation, up from $104,700 in 2025. A smaller point: the budget says the province will pay half of the $4,996,250 bridge, but the grant listed is $2,461,420, which is half of the $4,922,840 left after 2025 spending (worked out by us). Half of the full cost would be $2,498,125, which is $36,705 more (worked out by us).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$1,434,036of 2025 capital budget carried forward to 2026 (44% was spent)
Capital means big one-time purchases and projects, such as roads, trucks and buildings. The budget book's 2025 capital page lists $1,310,187 spent against $2,989,908 budgeted, 44%. Of the rest, $1,434,036 is marked as needing to be carried forward. Several large items show nothing spent: Bunny Trail repairs ($331,574), the 2014 Freightliner replacement ($350,000) and the McDougall Road culvert ($85,000). The bridge shows $73,410 spent of $450,000. For the Freightliner, the Municipality says tender prices came in above budget, so it is paid for in 2026.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$578,663landfill surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $116,030
The landfill is paid for by the fees people and neighbouring communities pay to dump, not by property tax. In 2025 it took in $1,755,377 in tipping fees against a budget of $1,315,000, and finished $578,663 ahead against a budgeted $116,030. The Municipality says 2025 included "significant dollars collected from accepting clean fill from a few significant projects in the area". The 2026 tipping fee budget is $1,420,000. The landfill's reserve is forecast to fall from $2,748,790.48 to $1,433,290.48 in 2026, mainly to buy a $1,600,000 compactor. The reserve is named the Landfill Closure Reserve.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$365,207spent on snow and ice removal in 2025, against a budget of $304,480
The budget book shows 2025 actual results beside the 2025 budget, line by line. Snow and ice removal cost $365,207 against a budget of $304,480, which is $60,727 more (worked out by us). Within it, overtime was $57,464 against $41,735 and materials $151,764 against $130,000. Vehicle and equipment parts cost $102,022 against $85,900. Roadside maintenance materials cost $105,869 against $75,000, yet the 2026 budget for that line is cut to $25,000, with $50,000 moved to a capital transfer. The 2026 snow and ice budget is $316,000, and materials stay at $130,000.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$223,638in the 2026 budget for McDougall's share of the centre's operating costs
McDougall's budget for the West Parry Sound Recreation and Cultural Centre (shown as WPS) is $240,000 in 2026, $200,000 net of a reserve transfer, with $223,638 for its share of operating costs. The Municipality says the Tamarack North Centre opens in 2026, that McDougall will share the operating costs, and that the operating budget will be "refined over the first few years of operation". In 2025 the budget was $200,000 into a pool reserve, and the actual was $270,368 including $70,368 for the centre. The Municipality's own Recreation and Cultural Centre Reserve was overdrawn at the end of 2024, at minus $256,362.07.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$200,588"Other Revenues" in 2025, against a budget of $26,850
In the general budget, the line "Other Revenues" was budgeted at $26,850 for 2025 and came in at $200,588. The transfer of other revenue into reserves was budgeted at $119,000 and came in at $234,382. Separately, a transfer of $118,063 into reserves was recorded under the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (a provincial grant) with no budget, while the transfer to capital from the same grant was $166,989 against a budget of $285,052. The two together equal the $285,052 budgeted, so that part looks like a change of destination, not extra spending.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$131,8052026 budget for council remuneration, for all five members together
The Municipal Act requires a town to publish each year what it paid its council members and what expenses it covered. We did not find that statement on any page of the Municipality's website that we read. The budget shows the total for all five members: "Remuneration - Council" is $131,805 in the 2026 budget, against $129,220 budgeted and $129,449 actual in 2025. The Municipality says council members get the same 2.0% cost of living increase as employees in 2026.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
McDougall spent about $588 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2024. The typical similar town spent $329. Only 1 of 23 similar towns spent more.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 1 source
$451,267.21forecast Fire Equipment Reserve at the end of 2026, against $2,366,000 of fire projects listed for later years (worked out by us)
A reserve is money a town sets aside in earlier years to pay for big purchases later. The budget's capital summary lists a Tanker 2 replacement at $756,000, a Rescue 2 replacement at $360,000 and a Fire Hall replacement at $1,250,000, and none of them is in the 2026 project list. The Fire Equipment Reserve is forecast to end 2026 at $451,267.21. In 2025 the Municipality put $250,000 into that reserve instead of buying a fire truck, and says it now plans $75,000 a year. The fire department's net operating budget falls 20.4% in 2026, largely because that one-time payment is not repeated.
Why it matters
Fire trucks and halls are paid for once, in large amounts. If the savings are far smaller than the bills, the usual answers are borrowing or a tax jump in one year. Residents are entitled to see the plan before that happens, and the 2026 election is the time to ask for it.
It could be because…
The listed projects are for 2027 to 2030 "for information/future consideration", so no money is due yet, and the timing may move.
The Fire Master Plan, which the budget says is being finished in 2026, may change what is needed or when.
Grants or borrowing may be planned for the largest items, and the budget book may simply not describe them yet.
The Municipality has said it chose to save for a truck rather than buy one in 2025, which is a sensible way to avoid borrowing.
Questions you could ask
In which years does the Municipality expect to replace Tanker 2, Rescue 2 and the fire hall, and how much of each will come from the reserve, grants and borrowing?
Will the Fire Master Plan be public, and will Council adopt a savings target for fire vehicles before the budget is set?
Is $75,000 a year enough to keep the reserve growing, given the Municipality's own note that fire vehicle costs keep rising?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Revised capital summary lines: "Fire Tanker 2 Replacement (including portable tanks) 756,000", "Fire Fire Hall Replacement 1,250,000", "Fire Rescue 2 Replacement 360,000". The page is headed "2026 Projects Approved in 2026, 2027-2030 Projects for Information/Future Consideration". None of the three appears in the 2026 capital summary on page 16.
Revised projected reserve activity: "Fire Equipment Reserve 166,536.32 387,629.21 105,000.00 41,362.00 451,267.21", in the columns 2024 ending balance, preliminary 2025 ending balance, 2026 projected transfers in, 2026 projected transfers out, 2026 forecasted ending balance. A note says the balances do "not yet include 2025 yearend deficit or surplus". 387,629.21 plus 105,000.00 less 41,362.00 is 451,267.21.
The Municipality's explanation: "In 2025, the municipality contributed $250,000 to the Fire Equipment Reserve instead of replacing a Fire truck that was included in the draft budget. This was planned as a one-time contribution to the reserve, but as the cost of fire vehicles continues to increase, staff feel it is prudent to have an ongoing contribution to this reserve. $75,000 has been included in the 2026 budget".
Fire department budget line "Transfer to Reserves - Fire": 2026 budget 105,000, 2025 budget 280,000, 2025 actual 278,692. The operating summary shows the Fire Department net budget changing from 758,920 to 600,885, a change of (158,035) or -20.4%.
$2,273,125to be borrowed for the bridge, terms not yet set
The budget plans to borrow $2,273,125 for the bridge, with the terms "yet to be determined", and to borrow again for the Crawford septic bed. It says the bridge debt is to be repaid through the tax-based operating budget and the septic debt through charges to the users of the Crawford septic system only, which serves 28 homes. The 2026 operating budget already carries a new loan payment line of $232,831 in Transportation, up from $104,700 in 2025. A smaller point: the budget says the province will pay half of the $4,996,250 bridge, but the grant listed is $2,461,420, which is half of the $4,922,840 left after 2025 spending (worked out by us). Half of the full cost would be $2,498,125, which is $36,705 more (worked out by us).
Why it matters
Borrowing turns a one-time project into payments every year for many years, and the Municipality says it must stay under a provincial limit on debt payments. The rate for the septic system is paid by 28 households, so the size of that loan and how it is split matters to them more than to anyone.
It could be because…
The terms are not set because the borrowing has not been arranged yet, and the budget says new debt will be "structured" to stay within the 25% limit.
Council may choose to cover part of the septic debt from taxes or reserves rather than from the 28 homes alone.
The grant may be set as a share of costs from the approval date forward, so the 2025 spending may not count. The budget does not say.
The septic project is under a provincial non-compliance order, so the work is required, not optional.
Questions you could ask
What term, interest rate and yearly payment does the Municipality expect on the bridge loan, and what will it add to the tax rate?
How large will the septic loan be, how will it be split among the 28 homes, and will Council share any of it with taxpayers?
Does the bridge grant cover half of the full $4,996,250, including the $73,410 spent in 2025, or half of the remainder only?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Bridge project funding: "Ontario Specific Grants - MHIP Housing Enabling Core Services $2,461,420", "Transfer from Reserves $188,295", "Debt issuance (terms yet to be determined) $2,273,125", "TOTAL $4,922,840". The page says "The provincial government will fund half of the $4,996,250 cost" and "The amounts below are for the remaining project costs."
2025 capital spending on the bridge: "McDougall Road Bridge Replacement 73,410 450,000 376,590 16% 376,590". 4,996,250 less 73,410 is 4,922,840, the total of the funding table above.
Septic bed project: the page says the Ministry "identified that the Crawford Subdivision Sewage System requires immediate rehabilitation and issued a non-compliance order" and that the province will fund 73% of the $2,175,000 estimated cost. Its funding table lists "Debt issuance (terms yet to be determined)". The revised capital summary lists "Septic Septic bed Rehabilitation 2,175,000 In progress 2,091,219" funded by "Grant, debt". We quote no debt amount for the septic bed because the amount changed in the revision.
Funding summary: "Debt Proceeds To be repaid through charges to the users of Crawford Septic System only" and "Debt Proceeds To be repaid through the tax based operating budget $2,273,125". Wastewater section: "There are 28 homes within the Crawford Subdivision that have a shared septic system that is operated by the Municipality." The wastewater budget shows total revenue and expenses of 30,740 for 2026.
Debt and operating effects: "The provincial limit for debt servicing costs is 25%. McDougall has maintained a limit under the 25% threshold and will structure new debt issued in 2026 to stay within this requirement." "Debt servicing costs of $125,000 were added to the budget in 2026" for the bridge. Account 1-4-03000-2255 Loan Payments - Transportation: 2026 budget 232,831, 2025 budget 104,700, 2025 actual 0.
$1,434,036of 2025 capital budget carried forward to 2026 (44% was spent)
Capital means big one-time purchases and projects, such as roads, trucks and buildings. The budget book's 2025 capital page lists $1,310,187 spent against $2,989,908 budgeted, 44%. Of the rest, $1,434,036 is marked as needing to be carried forward. Several large items show nothing spent: Bunny Trail repairs ($331,574), the 2014 Freightliner replacement ($350,000) and the McDougall Road culvert ($85,000). The bridge shows $73,410 spent of $450,000. For the Freightliner, the Municipality says tender prices came in above budget, so it is paid for in 2026.
Why it matters
A budget is a promise about what will be built in a year. When much of it slips, residents may be paying into reserves or tax rates for work that has not happened, and costs can rise while it waits. It also adds to 2026, which already holds a bridge and a septic bed costing millions of dollars.
It could be because…
Large projects often straddle years: tendering, grant approval and construction seasons rarely line up with a calendar year.
The bridge grant was only confirmed in January 2025, which would delay a project that size.
Tender prices above budget (as the Municipality says for the Freightliner) can force a project to be re-approved and delayed.
Carrying money forward is a normal, disclosed practice, and this page lists each carried item.
Questions you could ask
Why did Bunny Trail repairs and the McDougall Road culvert, both funded in 2025, have nothing spent by year end?
Does the Municipality have the staff and contractor capacity to deliver the carried-forward projects and the 2026 bridge and septic projects in one year?
Will Council see a mid-year report on which capital projects are late?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Total line of the 2025 capital expenditures page: "1,310,187 2,989,908 1,679,721 44% 1,434,036". 1,310,187 divided by 2,989,908 is 44%.
The Municipality's explanation for one item: "The prices received during the Tender process exceeded the budget included in 2025, so the additional cost will be funded from the Equipment Reserve in 2026." The funding table shows "Transfer from Reserve - approved in 2025 budget $350,000" and "Transfer from Reserve $110,000", total $460,000.
$578,663landfill surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $116,030
The landfill is paid for by the fees people and neighbouring communities pay to dump, not by property tax. In 2025 it took in $1,755,377 in tipping fees against a budget of $1,315,000, and finished $578,663 ahead against a budgeted $116,030. The Municipality says 2025 included "significant dollars collected from accepting clean fill from a few significant projects in the area". The 2026 tipping fee budget is $1,420,000. The landfill's reserve is forecast to fall from $2,748,790.48 to $1,433,290.48 in 2026, mainly to buy a $1,600,000 compactor. The reserve is named the Landfill Closure Reserve.
Why it matters
A landfill eventually fills and has to be capped and watched for decades. The Municipality itself says the plan for expanding it is not in its asset plan, so the savings may need to be larger than planned. If 2025's extra income was one-time, the savings may grow more slowly than they did.
It could be because…
The Municipality has explained the 2025 gain as clean fill from a few large projects, and it budgeted tipping fees at a lower figure for 2026 on purpose.
The budget says the reserve is meant for equipment, buildings, leachate (liquid that drains through waste) systems and expanding the landfill cell, so a compactor is an intended use.
Landfill fees can only be spent on the landfill, so a surplus is not extra money for other services.
Questions you could ask
How much of the 2025 tipping fee income came from one-time clean fill, and what does the Municipality expect from it in 2027?
What will expanding the landfill cell cost, and how will it be paid for?
Is a reserve named for closure the right place to pay for equipment, and is a separate closure fund being kept?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Landfill table: "Tipping Fees 1,755,377 1,315,000 1,420,000" (columns 2025 actuals, 2025 budget, 2026 budget). Revenue total "1,893,209 1,489,800 1,480,975", expense total "1,314,546 1,373,770 1,480,005", "Net of Revenues and Expenses 578,663 116,030 970". 1,893,209 less 1,314,546 is 578,663. The text says "2025 revenues included significant dollars collected from accepting clean fill from a few significant projects in the area."
The Municipality's explanation: "Although the Municipality of McDougall Asset Management Plan (AMP) indicates that the landfill annual asset requirement is being fully met, the expansion of the existing cell and future cell requirements have not been incorporated into the AMP." It adds that "annual funding will need to be higher than suggested in the AMP". The 2026 contribution to reserve is 545,000, up from 515,000.
$365,207spent on snow and ice removal in 2025, against a budget of $304,480
The budget book shows 2025 actual results beside the 2025 budget, line by line. Snow and ice removal cost $365,207 against a budget of $304,480, which is $60,727 more (worked out by us). Within it, overtime was $57,464 against $41,735 and materials $151,764 against $130,000. Vehicle and equipment parts cost $102,022 against $85,900. Roadside maintenance materials cost $105,869 against $75,000, yet the 2026 budget for that line is cut to $25,000, with $50,000 moved to a capital transfer. The 2026 snow and ice budget is $316,000, and materials stay at $130,000.
Why it matters
Winter costs depend on the weather, and a budget set close to a mild year leaves the Municipality short in a hard one. These are ordinary payroll and material lines, not accounting entries, so the gap is real spending. The question is whether the reserve and 2026 budget are sized to cover another year like 2025.
It could be because…
2025 may simply have been a hard winter, and a budget is a plan for an average one.
The roadside materials cut may be explained by the work moving to capital: the budget lists gravel crushing at $80,000, paid in part "from Roadside Mtnce Materials and Supplies".
Overruns on some lines may have been offset by underspending on others in the same department, such as salaries for roadside maintenance.
The reserve table in the same book calls its 2025 balances preliminary, so the 2025 actuals may change.
Questions you could ask
What caused the overtime and materials costs in 2025, and are 2026's budgets set for an average winter or a hard one?
Is the $120,000 Transportation Winter Reserve, with no transfers planned in 2026, meant to cover an overrun like 2025's?
Is the $50,000 cut in roadside materials matched by the same work now shown in the capital plan?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Vehicles and equipment: "Maintenance Costs/Parts - Vehicles & Equ 100,000 85,900 102,022" (2026 budget, 2025 budget, 2025 actual). The Municipality says: "The budget for maintenance of vehicles and equipment was increased to reflect historic trends in this area."
$223,638in the 2026 budget for McDougall's share of the centre's operating costs
McDougall's budget for the West Parry Sound Recreation and Cultural Centre (shown as WPS) is $240,000 in 2026, $200,000 net of a reserve transfer, with $223,638 for its share of operating costs. The Municipality says the Tamarack North Centre opens in 2026, that McDougall will share the operating costs, and that the operating budget will be "refined over the first few years of operation". In 2025 the budget was $200,000 into a pool reserve, and the actual was $270,368 including $70,368 for the centre. The Municipality's own Recreation and Cultural Centre Reserve was overdrawn at the end of 2024, at minus $256,362.07.
Why it matters
A shared building has costs that every partner pays every year, and a first-year estimate often changes. The Municipality has said its budget will be adjusted over several years, so the 2026 figure is the start of a bill, not the whole of it.
It could be because…
The Municipality has said the 2026 amount is expected to fully fund its share of 2026 operating expenses and then allow a reserve contribution, so it may already be a careful estimate.
The overdrawn reserve in 2024 was borrowing from the Municipality's own savings, which the budget shows being paid back in 2025 ($240,000) and 2026.
The $70,368 shown for 2025 may be a first payment for the centre, which the budget does not describe.
Questions you could ask
What is McDougall's share of the centre's operating costs under the partners' agreement, and how is it worked out?
What does the Municipality expect the share to be in 2027 and 2028, once the centre's own budget is "refined"?
What was the $70,368 paid in 2025 for?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
West Parry Sound Rec & Cultural Ctr: "West Parry Sound Recreation and Cultural 223,638 0 70,368", "Transfer to Reserves - Pool 16,362 200,000 200,000", "Total Expenditure 240,000 200,000 270,368", "Transfer from Reserves - WPS Rec & Cult -40,000 0 0" (2026 budget, 2025 budget, 2025 actual).
The Municipality's explanation: "Given the Tamarack North Centre is set to open in 2026, the municipality will be sharing in the operating costs. The $223,638 included in McDougall's 2026 budget is expected to fully fund our share of the 2026 operating expenses and then allow a contribution to the reserve to ensure funds are set aside for future capital requirements and operating budget adjustments as their operating budget is refined over the first few years of operation."
$200,588"Other Revenues" in 2025, against a budget of $26,850
In the general budget, the line "Other Revenues" was budgeted at $26,850 for 2025 and came in at $200,588. The transfer of other revenue into reserves was budgeted at $119,000 and came in at $234,382. Separately, a transfer of $118,063 into reserves was recorded under the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (a provincial grant) with no budget, while the transfer to capital from the same grant was $166,989 against a budget of $285,052. The two together equal the $285,052 budgeted, so that part looks like a change of destination, not extra spending.
Why it matters
Unplanned income adds to the year's money, but the book does not say what it was. Residents cannot tell whether it is a one-time item or something to expect again, or whether the savings it fed were chosen by Council.
It could be because…
It may be one-time money, such as a recovery, a refund or a grant payment, that was put into reserves for later.
The reserve table is marked preliminary for 2025 and says "Balance does not yet include 2025 yearend deficit or surplus", so the 2025 figures may change.
The grant transfer may be a change of where the money was placed, with the same total spent.
Questions you could ask
What made up the $200,588 of "Other Revenues" in 2025?
Did Council choose to put the extra income, and the $118,063 of grant money, into reserves, and which reserves received 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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Other Revenue, 2026 budget, 2025 budget, 2025 actual: "Other Revenues -27,000 -26,850 -200,588", "Henvey Community Grant -60,250 -59,000 -67,080", "Transfer to Reserves - Other Revenue 120,250 119,000 234,382", "Total Revenue -228,905 -233,930 -412,041".
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund: "Transfer to Reserves 0 0 118,063", "Transfer to Capital 458,830 285,052 166,989", and "Total Expenditure 458,830 285,052 285,052" (2026 budget, 2025 budget, 2025 actual). 118,063 plus 166,989 is 285,052.
$131,8052026 budget for council remuneration, for all five members together
The Municipal Act requires a town to publish each year what it paid its council members and what expenses it covered. We did not find that statement on any page of the Municipality's website that we read. The budget shows the total for all five members: "Remuneration - Council" is $131,805 in the 2026 budget, against $129,220 budgeted and $129,449 actual in 2025. The Municipality says council members get the same 2.0% cost of living increase as employees in 2026.
Why it matters
The statement is how residents see what each role is paid and what expenses were claimed. If it is posted somewhere we did not look, it is hard to find. If it is not posted, people cannot check the totals in the budget.
It could be because…
The statement may be posted in a part of the site or the meeting portal that we did not search.
The Municipality may publish it by request or in an annual report that we did not find.
Questions you could ask
Where is the Municipality's statement of council remuneration and expenses for 2025 posted?
Can the Municipality post the statements for earlier years on its Council page?
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 McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Mayor & Council budget: "Remuneration - Council 131,805 129,220 129,449" (2026 budget, 2025 budget, 2025 actual), "Total Expenditure 223,175 218,710 199,201".
McDougall spent about $588 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2024. The typical similar town spent $329. Only 1 of 23 similar towns spent more.
Why it matters
Spending more than neighbours is not wrong by itself. It might buy better service. But it is the first place to look for costs that could be lower, such as contracts that were not competitively bid.
It could be because…
Geography: more roads, more snow, a bigger area or a landfill of its own.
Accounting: some towns record the same cost in a different category.
A one-time cost in this year.
Questions you could ask
What makes this cost higher here than in similar towns?
When were the main contracts in this area last put out to competitive tender?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for McDougall?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Garbage, dump and recycling per home: McDougall $588; typical similar town $329; ranked 2nd highest of 24.
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