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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Nipissing'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 · 12 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Nipissing's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 20 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.
$1,311,621added to the landfill closure obligation in 2025, against $81,283 in 2024
The Township has to close its two landfills one day and look after them for 25 years afterward. It counts that future bill as a debt on its books. At the end of 2024 the landfill part was $3,650,922. At the end of 2025 it was $4,962,543. Most of that jump turned a $563,489 surplus before this item into a $722,699 deficit for the year. It is an accounting entry, not money paid out in 2025.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
7.9 yearsleft at Bear Creek landfill at the end of 2025, up from 4.5 years a year earlier
Each year's audited statements say how many years each landfill has before it is full. For Bear Creek the figure was 5.5 years at the end of 2023, 4.5 years at the end of 2024 and 7.9 years at the end of 2025. Over the same time the space left went from 11,208 cubic meters to 10,158. The 2023 and 2024 statements print the same space left.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$678,113less in reserves at the end of 2025 than a year earlier (worked out by us)
Reserves are savings council sets aside for future needs. At the end of 2024 the Township held $4,349,038 in reserves. At the end of 2025 it held $3,670,925. The statements also show the day-to-day 'current fund' ending 2025 at (480,711), against 199,893 a year earlier.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$3,677,660municipal taxation in 2025, up from $2,970,218 in 2022
Money raised from property taxes (shown as municipal taxation) went from $2,970,218 in 2022 to $3,677,660 in 2025. By our arithmetic that is about 7.0% in 2023, 8.1% in 2024 and 7.0% in 2025. The auditor told council the levy rose by an average of 7.4% a year, of which 2.7% was assessment growth (new or higher-valued property).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$634,491.07awarded on April 7, 2026 for the modular bridge and abutments, one of several parts of the project
Council replaced the Bear Creek Road culvert with a bridge, paid in part by a provincial Health and Safety Water Stream grant. The minutes record several prices: $18,920.00 for a soil report, $634,491.07 for the modular bridge and abutments, and $49,485.39 for paving. The award of the construction contract on June 30, 2026 prints no amount, and no document we read gives the grant amount.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
Nipissing spent $831K on roads and snow in 2019 and $1.3M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time. Only 4 of 20 similar towns had faster growth here.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 3 sources
$20,340.00approved on August 11, 2026 for a mower council later said did not follow the by-law
Council bought a zero-turn mower for $20,340.00 on August 11, 2026. Nine days later, at a special meeting, council recorded that two sections of the Procurement By-Law were "not followed by Staff" in that purchase, and asked for a review of the by-law. A draft revision was on the October 6, 2026 agenda.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
Two 2026 road tenders came back above what the Township planned. For the surface treatment (reseal) job, council amended the scope, re-tendered and decided not to publish the first-round results, saying this protects the re-tender. For the Bear Creek bridge construction job, council re-issued the tender to four pre-qualified contractors. The town did give a reason for the first, and the final reseal price was published.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$116,838actual expenses above the budget figure in 2025 (worked out by us), not shown to be overspending
The 2025 statements show actual expenses of $4,960,237 against a budget of $4,843,399, a gap of $116,838 (worked out by us). That looks like overspending, but the statements say the budget was not prepared the same way as the actual results, and the actual figure includes $821,615 of amortization (the yearly wearing-out of roads, buildings and equipment, which is not cash). Revenue was also higher than budgeted: $5,523,726 against $5,312,832.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
In 2019, Nipissing had $2.1M more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2025 it was −$1.7M. About 139% of that change ($5.3M) 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 13 of 20 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$1,250per home on garbage, dump and recycling, 2025
Nipissing spent about $1,250 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar town spent $257. None of the 20 similar towns spent more.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 1 source
$1,311,621added to the landfill closure obligation in 2025, against $81,283 in 2024
The Township has to close its two landfills one day and look after them for 25 years afterward. It counts that future bill as a debt on its books. At the end of 2024 the landfill part was $3,650,922. At the end of 2025 it was $4,962,543. Most of that jump turned a $563,489 surplus before this item into a $722,699 deficit for the year. It is an accounting entry, not money paid out in 2025.
Why it matters
This one entry is the biggest reason the Township's books moved from owing $363,086 more than it was owed (net debt) to $1,724,820. It also tells residents how large the eventual landfill bill might be, and the statements do not say how it will be paid for.
It could be because…
A new engineer's estimate of closure and care costs, or a new expected closing date, can change the number a lot in one year.
The statements say the future cost is discounted to today's value, and the rate printed in the note changed from 2.33% to 3.31% a year, which moves the result by a large amount (the notes print a dash before each figure).
This is a newer accounting rule that many small municipalities are still getting used to, so estimates are being refined.
None of it is cash that left the Township in 2025.
Questions you could ask
What changed in 2025 (the cost estimate, the closing date, the discount rate or something else) to add $1,311,621 to the landfill obligation?
How does the Township plan to pay for closing the landfills, and how do the closure and care amounts in the capital forecast fit with the obligation in the statements?
Will council publish the engineer's or consultant's report behind the 2025 estimate?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 8 shows the landfill closure obligation with an opening balance of $3,650,922, accretion expense of 1,311,621 and a closing balance of $4,962,543. Together with the asbestos removal obligation of 304,454 the total is $5,266,997 at the end of 2025.
The same note says the costs were discounted to December 31, 2025 using a discount rate printed as 3.31% per annum, with a dash in front of the figure.
The 2024 note shows landfill closure with an opening balance of $3,569,639, accretion expense of 81,283 and a closing balance of $3,650,922, and says the costs were discounted using a rate of 2.33% per annum.
The Statement of Operations shows "Annual surplus (deficit) before the undernoted" of 563,489, then "Asset retirement obligation - accretion expense" of (1,314,188), leaving an annual deficit of (722,699). The Statement of Financial Position shows net debt of (1,724,820) against (363,086) a year earlier.
The 2026-2036 Capital Forecast lists a Bear Creek Landfill closure or rehabilitation at $609,045.59 for closure costs and $625,770 for post closure costs. It does not say how that relates to the Township's recorded landfill obligation.
Note 8(a): "The Township owns and operates two landfill sites." "Post-closure care for the landfill sites is estimated to be required for 25 years from the date of site closure."
7.9 yearsleft at Bear Creek landfill at the end of 2025, up from 4.5 years a year earlier
Each year's audited statements say how many years each landfill has before it is full. For Bear Creek the figure was 5.5 years at the end of 2023, 4.5 years at the end of 2024 and 7.9 years at the end of 2025. Over the same time the space left went from 11,208 cubic meters to 10,158. The 2023 and 2024 statements print the same space left.
Why it matters
The years left decide when the landfill must close and when the closure bill is due, so they feed straight into the obligation the Township records. A 3.4-year swing, with less space, is worth an explanation.
It could be because…
Less garbage may be going in, for example because recycling is now run by an outside program (March 17, 2026 minutes say it is no longer managed by the Township).
A new survey may have measured the space and the fill rate better than the one used the year before.
The 2023 and 2024 figures may simply not have been updated by the consultant.
Questions you could ask
What survey or consultant report is behind the 7.9 years at Bear Creek and the 16.2 years at Wolfe Lake?
Why do the 2023 and 2024 statements print the same remaining space at both sites?
Is the 2026 landfill study or expansion work the reason the figures were updated?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 8 says Bear Creek "is expected to reach its capacity in 7.9 years, and the estimated remaining capacity is 10,158 cubic meters, which is 25% of the site's total capacity." Wolfe Lake is given as 16.2 years and 35,600 cubic meters.
Note 9 says Bear Creek "is expected to reach its capacity in 4.5 years, and the estimated remaining capacity is 11,208 cubic meters, which is 28% of the site's total capacity." Wolfe Lake is given as 13.5 years and 39,005 cubic meters.
The 2023 note says Bear Creek "is expected to reach its capacity in 5.5 years, and the estimated remaining capacity is 11,208 cubic meters, which is 28% of the site's total capacity." Wolfe Lake is given as 14.5 years and 39,005 cubic meters.
$678,113less in reserves at the end of 2025 than a year earlier (worked out by us)
Reserves are savings council sets aside for future needs. At the end of 2024 the Township held $4,349,038 in reserves. At the end of 2025 it held $3,670,925. The statements also show the day-to-day 'current fund' ending 2025 at (480,711), against 199,893 a year earlier.
Why it matters
Reserves are what a small township uses to pay for road work and equipment without borrowing or raising taxes in one year. They are also what stands behind the landfill and bridge costs to come.
It could be because…
Reserves are meant to be spent. The Township bought $1,415,178 of capital assets in 2025, more than four times the year before, and may have used reserves for part of that.
Some reserve money may have been moved to pay down loans: the Township repaid $282,227 of debt principal in 2025.
A balance in the current fund below zero can be timing: money owed to it may arrive after year end.
Questions you could ask
How much of the 2025 road and equipment spending was paid from reserves, and how much from grants, loans and taxes?
What does the (480,711) in the current fund mean, and how will it be covered?
What does the Township plan to hold in reserves at the end of 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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 10 lists reserve funds for 2025 and 2024: working capital 1,411,967 and 1,582,628, capital 2,258,958 and 2,766,410, for totals of 3,670,925 and 4,349,038. The current fund is shown as (480,711) for 2025 and 199,893 for 2024.
The Statement of Cash Flows shows acquisition of tangible capital assets of (1,415,178) in 2025 against (343,829) in 2024, and principal repayments on municipal debt of (282,227).
$3,677,660municipal taxation in 2025, up from $2,970,218 in 2022
Money raised from property taxes (shown as municipal taxation) went from $2,970,218 in 2022 to $3,677,660 in 2025. By our arithmetic that is about 7.0% in 2023, 8.1% in 2024 and 7.0% in 2025. The auditor told council the levy rose by an average of 7.4% a year, of which 2.7% was assessment growth (new or higher-valued property).
Why it matters
Taxes that rise faster than inflation squeeze households, and the explanation matters most in an election year. The proposed 2026 increase is lower, which makes the earlier years look steep by comparison.
It could be because…
Prices for road materials, equipment and insurance rose quickly in those years, and the Township's own costs rose with them.
The Township may have been rebuilding reserves and paying for large capital work from taxes.
The auditor says part of the rise came from assessment growth, so not every household paid 7% more.
Questions you could ask
Which costs account for most of the rise in taxes since 2022, and what part was new assessment?
What will the Township's tax-supported spending look like if the 2026 increase of 3.4% holds in 2027?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Statement of Operations shows Municipal taxation of $3,677,660 for 2025 and $3,437,281 for 2024.
The auditor's slide says: "Since 2022, the Township's municipal levy has increased by an average of 7.4% per year, of which 2.7% reflects assessment growth."
$634,491.07awarded on April 7, 2026 for the modular bridge and abutments, one of several parts of the project
Council replaced the Bear Creek Road culvert with a bridge, paid in part by a provincial Health and Safety Water Stream grant. The minutes record several prices: $18,920.00 for a soil report, $634,491.07 for the modular bridge and abutments, and $49,485.39 for paving. The award of the construction contract on June 30, 2026 prints no amount, and no document we read gives the grant amount.
Why it matters
This is likely the largest single project in the Township's year. Residents cannot add up the cost or see how much of it taxpayers carry from the pages we read.
It could be because…
The bridge and abutments tender and the construction tender may be different parts of one project, so the prices are meant to be added together.
The grant amount may be in the transfer agreement council authorized on March 3, 2026, which is not posted with the minutes.
The Township's reserves and the grant may together cover the whole cost, with little falling on taxes.
Questions you could ask
What was the total awarded for the bridge construction, and what is the all-in cost of the project?
How much is the Health and Safety Water Stream grant, and how much comes from reserves and taxes?
Will the Township post the transfer payment agreement and the tender results?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Resolution R2026-29 accepts a proposal for the geotechnical report for the Bear Creek Road multiplate culvert replacement at a fee of $18,920.00, excluding applicable taxes.
Resolution R2026-50 authorizes signing the Health and Safety Water Stream Transfer Payment Agreement for the Bear Creek Road and South River Road culvert replacement. The minutes do not state a grant amount.
Resolution R2026-74 awards NIP-PW-07-2026, the Modular Bridge and Concrete Abutments tender, for a total cost of $634,491.07 including applicable taxes.
Resolution R2026-149 awards the re-issued Tender NIP-PW-10-2026 for the Bear Creek Bridge and Abutment Construction to a contractor. The minutes print no amount.
Resolution R2026-189 awards Tender NIP-PW-11-2026, Bear Creek Road Bridge Paving, for a total tendered amount of $49,485.39 including applicable taxes.
Nipissing spent $831K on roads and snow in 2019 and $1.3M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time. Only 4 of 20 similar towns had faster growth here.
Why did the cost of roads and snow grow 51% in 6 years?
Roads and snow
Prices (inflation)
−20%+0%+20%+40%+60%
+51%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Roads and snow
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
−7%
+1%
2021
+15%
+4%
2022
−5%
+11%
2023
+33%
+16%
2024
+46%
+18%
2025
+51%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
When one area grows much faster than prices, it is either doing more (which may be great) or paying more for the same thing. Residents deserve to know which.
It could be because…
The town added a service, a building or staff that residents asked for.
Costs were moved from another area, so the total did not really change.
Accounting rules changed how costs are sorted.
Large one-time costs, like a study, lawsuit or repair, landed in one year.
Questions you could ask
What did the extra $423K a year pay for?
Why did gravel roads go from $412K to $569K?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Nipissing spent $220K on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $1.7M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 670% in 6 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
−100%+100%+300%+500%+700%
+670%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+49%
+1%
2021
+38%
+4%
2022
+53%
+11%
2023
+90%
+16%
2024
+191%
+18%
2025
+670%
+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 $1.5M a year pay for?
Why did the dump (landfill) go from $167K to $1.6M?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$20,340.00approved on August 11, 2026 for a mower council later said did not follow the by-law
Council bought a zero-turn mower for $20,340.00 on August 11, 2026. Nine days later, at a special meeting, council recorded that two sections of the Procurement By-Law were "not followed by Staff" in that purchase, and asked for a review of the by-law. A draft revision was on the October 6, 2026 agenda.
Why it matters
Purchasing rules exist so that public money is spent openly and at a fair price. Council itself says the rules were not followed, so residents have a reason to see what was missed and how it will be prevented.
It could be because…
The missed steps may be paperwork (a standard form, how the old machine was handled, how the purchase was funded) and not the price.
Council reacted quickly and in public, which is what the rules ask for.
The mower was not in the 2026 budget, so the funding questions may have come from where the money came from.
Questions you could ask
Which steps in the by-law were skipped for the mower, and what was done with the machine it replaced?
Was the mower paid from reserves and, if so, which one and with what approval?
Will the revised Procurement By-Law and the August 20 staff report be posted for residents to read?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Resolution R2026-164 accepts a quote for a Country Clipper Commercial Zero Turn Mower at a cost of $20,340.00 including applicable taxes.
The special meeting minutes say a staff report gave "explanations about the funding of a recent lawn mower purchase, the reserves funds and how transfers are made." Resolution R2026-177 says: "Procurement By-Law 2020-51 sections 5.2.g. and Schedule C were not followed by Staff in the recent purchase of a lawnmower." It directs a review that adds how surplus equipment is declared and disposed of, trade-in amounts in the bid document, and a standard template for every request for quotations, tenders and proposals.
Two 2026 road tenders came back above what the Township planned. For the surface treatment (reseal) job, council amended the scope, re-tendered and decided not to publish the first-round results, saying this protects the re-tender. For the Bear Creek bridge construction job, council re-issued the tender to four pre-qualified contractors. The town did give a reason for the first, and the final reseal price was published.
Why it matters
Tender prices show whether the Township's budget numbers are realistic and whether bidders are competing fairly. Keeping first-round prices private is allowed, but residents then cannot see how far over budget the work came in.
It could be because…
Publishing the first-round prices could push bidders to bid to those numbers again, so council's reason is a common one.
Prices for road work, especially chip-and-tar, have risen. Council passed a resolution on June 2, 2026 supporting a request about the cost and durability of surface treatments.
A changed scope or a different mix of contractors can bring a re-tendered price back in line.
Questions you could ask
How far over budget were the first-round prices for the reseal and the bridge construction tenders?
Will first-round prices be published once the re-tender is closed?
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Resolution R2026-103: "the tender amounts received for NIP-PW-5-2026, Surface Treatment and Reseal, are well outside the budgeted amounts"; council amended the scope, re-tendered, and agreed that "the result of the tender received not be published to protect the integrity of the re-tender process for all interested bidders."
Resolution R2026-126 awards the re-issued Tender NIP-PW-5-2026 for reseal and double surface treatment of 3.6 km at a total of $209,690.29 including applicable taxes.
Resolution R2026-142: two submissions were received for NIP-PW-10-2026, Bear Creek Bridge and Abutment Construction, and "the submissions received were outside of the budget and project expectations"; staff were directed to re-issue the tender to the four contractors that met the pre-qualification requirements.
$116,838actual expenses above the budget figure in 2025 (worked out by us), not shown to be overspending
The 2025 statements show actual expenses of $4,960,237 against a budget of $4,843,399, a gap of $116,838 (worked out by us). That looks like overspending, but the statements say the budget was not prepared the same way as the actual results, and the actual figure includes $821,615 of amortization (the yearly wearing-out of roads, buildings and equipment, which is not cash). Revenue was also higher than budgeted: $5,523,726 against $5,312,832.
Why it matters
Comparing a budget with actual results only works if both are measured the same way. Here they are not, so the gap should not be read as overspending.
It could be because…
The budget is a cash plan that includes capital purchases and loan payments, while the actual figure includes amortization.
Amortization alone, $821,615, is far larger than the gap.
Questions you could ask
Could the Township publish a budget-to-actual table on one basis, so residents can see where real spending came in over or under 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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Statement of Operations shows 2025 budget expenses of 4,843,399 and actual expenses of 4,960,237; budget revenue of 5,312,832 and actual revenue of 5,523,726.
Note 15 says: "The budget adopted by Council was not prepared on a basis consistent with that used to report actual results according to Public Sector Accounting Standards." It reconciles the budget by removing transfers to and from reserve funds of (1,329,153) and adding debt principal repayments of 298,703 and capital additions of 1,499,883 to reach a surplus per revised budget of $469,433.
In 2019, Nipissing had $2.1M more in cash and money owed to it than it owed to others. By 2025 it was −$1.7M. About 139% of that change ($5.3M) 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 13 of 20 similar towns are in a weaker position.
Nipissing went from having money in the bank to owing more than it has. What changed?
−$2.0M−$1.0M$0$1.0M$2.0M$3.0M
−$1.7M
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Net financial position
2019
$2.1M
2020
$1.9M
2021
$1.6M
2022
$1.4M
2023
−$506K
2024
−$363K
2025
−$1.7M
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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$1,250per home on garbage, dump and recycling, 2025
Nipissing spent about $1,250 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar town spent $257. None of the 20 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 Nipissing?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Garbage, dump and recycling per home: Nipissing $1,250; typical similar town $257; ranked 1st highest of 21.
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