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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Oliver Paipoonge'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 Oliver Paipoonge's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 19 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.
2 yearsof qualified audit opinions (2023 and 2024) for the same reason
An audit ends with the auditor's opinion on whether the statements are fair. A clean opinion says they are. A qualified opinion says they are fair except for one named problem. For both 2023 and 2024 the auditor, Doane Grant Thornton LLP, gave a qualified opinion. The reason in both years is the same: a new accounting rule about asset retirement obligations (the future cost of closing things like landfill sites or removing asbestos) was due in 2023, and the Municipality did not work out that liability for 2023. The 2024 statements do now show the obligation. The auditor says the effect on 2023 was never worked out, and the Municipality corrected the error in the 2024 figures rather than restating 2023.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$1,906,749annual surplus in 2024, against a budgeted $225,064
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The statements' 2024 budget column planned an annual surplus of $225,064. The audited result is $1,906,749. Environmental services (water, landfill and recycling) was budgeted to cost $1,015,460 but shows a negative cost of $188,717, meaning it reduced total spending. The Municipality's own note explains part of this: when it adopted the new asset retirement rule it dropped an older landfill liability of $921,673 and recorded a matching $921,673 cut to environmental services expense. By our own working, taking that out leaves a surplus of about $985,076 (worked out by us), still above the budget.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$5,168,860left in reserves at the end of 2024, down from $7,157,227
Reserves are savings that Council sets aside for later needs. In 2024 the reserves fell from $7,157,227 to $5,168,860. Only $155,700 was put in from operations, while $2,144,067 was taken out, against $1,830,066 put in and $794,581 taken out in 2023. The working-capital reserve fell from $4,898,564 to $3,629,498. The accumulated surplus schedule also shows a general fund balance of $(433,203), where 2023 shows nothing. Cash and cash equivalents fell from $5,585,853 to $3,943,550.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$4,906,700of capital assets bought in 2024, against a plan of $7,594,226
Capital spending means buying or building things that last, such as roads and buildings. The 2024 plan was to buy $7,594,226 of capital assets and to take in $3,035,652 of debt. The statements show $4,906,700 of capital spent, and the Municipality's only debt (the ambulance base debenture) went down slightly, from $1,041,453 to $1,033,239. So the planned borrowing was not used. The difference between plan and actual spending is $2,687,526 (worked out by us).
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$1,199,479taxes receivable at the end of 2024, up from $796,180
Taxes receivable is the property tax that has been billed but not yet paid. It was $653,074 at the end of 2022, $796,180 at the end of 2023 and $1,199,479 at the end of 2024. The 2024 rise is $403,299, about 51% (worked out by us). In the same year the Municipality collected $160,431 in penalties and late payment charges.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$1,440,201spent on recreation and cultural services in 2023, against a budget of $1,022,141
Recreation and cultural services covers arenas, parks, the library and the museum. In 2023 it was budgeted at $1,022,141 and cost $1,440,201. In 2024 it was budgeted at $1,251,385 and cost $1,392,821. One piece we can see is the Nor West Recreation Centre arena. For 2024 its schedule shows wages of $128,007 against a budget of $60,000, and a municipal contribution of $80,020 where the budget had none.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
In 2024, Oliver Paipoonge collected $743K more in its own property tax than in 2023. That is a 8% jump, while prices went up about 2.4%. Only 3 of 19 similar towns raised theirs by more. Almost all of it came from a higher tax rate (up 3% for homes); the value of homes on the tax roll grew only 1.7%.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 4 sources
Oliver Paipoonge spent $663K on parks, arena and library in 2019 and $1.2M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time. Only 0 of 19 similar towns had faster growth here.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 3 sources
At the end of 2024, $1.2M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 11% of everything billed. Only 2 of 19 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $796K.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
October 15, 2025date of the auditor's report on the 2024 statements
A year-end is December 31. The auditor's report on the 2023 statements is dated January 22, 2025, about a year later. The report on the 2024 statements is dated October 15, 2025, almost ten months after year-end. We did not find a document explaining the timing, and we did not check what deadline applies.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$7,512,695undiscounted estimate for closure and post-closure costs, against $1,023,028 in the landfill reserve fund
The Municipality owns two landfill sites. Its books now carry an asset retirement obligation of $855,379, a discounted estimate in today's money. The note says the total undiscounted cost is $7,512,695, all falling after 2029. The dedicated reserve fund for the municipal landfill holds $1,023,028. The note says the North site is expected to close in 2101 and the South site in 2075. In 2023 the old landfill liability was lowered by $723,885 because of a change in estimated costs.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
2 yearsof qualified audit opinions (2023 and 2024) for the same reason
An audit ends with the auditor's opinion on whether the statements are fair. A clean opinion says they are. A qualified opinion says they are fair except for one named problem. For both 2023 and 2024 the auditor, Doane Grant Thornton LLP, gave a qualified opinion. The reason in both years is the same: a new accounting rule about asset retirement obligations (the future cost of closing things like landfill sites or removing asbestos) was due in 2023, and the Municipality did not work out that liability for 2023. The 2024 statements do now show the obligation. The auditor says the effect on 2023 was never worked out, and the Municipality corrected the error in the 2024 figures rather than restating 2023.
Why it matters
A qualified opinion is a warning that some numbers cannot be fully relied on. It also makes the 2023 and 2024 results hard to compare, because the 2024 numbers include a catch-up for work that belonged to 2023.
It could be because…
Many Ontario municipalities were slow to adopt this new rule, which needed engineering estimates for landfills and buildings.
The problem is now fixed in the 2024 statements, so the 2025 opinion may be clean.
The Municipality's own note says it adopted the rule on January 1, 2024. That may be its reading of the start date, which the auditor did not accept.
Questions you could ask
Why was the asset retirement obligation not worked out for 2023, when the auditor says the rule applied from that year?
Does the Municipality expect a clean opinion on its 2025 statements, and has it told Council what changed?
Did Council receive a report from the auditor explaining the qualification for each year?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Independent Auditor's Report on the 2024 statements, headed "Qualified Opinion": "The Municipality did not determine a liability for asset retirement obligations as at December 31, 2023, which constitutes a departure from PSAS." The report also says the Municipality "corrected the error in the current year's figures rather than correcting the comparative information."
Independent Auditor's Report on the 2023 statements, headed "Qualified Opinion" with a "Basis for Qualified Opinion" saying the Municipality "has not determined a liability for asset retirement obligations related to its tangible capital assets in the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2023".
Note 1, Adoption of new standards: "Effective January 1, 2024, the Municipality adopted new Public Sector Accounting Standard Section PS 3280 Asset Retirement Obligations". Note 10 now shows an asset retirement obligation of 855,379 at the end of 2024.
$1,906,749annual surplus in 2024, against a budgeted $225,064
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The statements' 2024 budget column planned an annual surplus of $225,064. The audited result is $1,906,749. Environmental services (water, landfill and recycling) was budgeted to cost $1,015,460 but shows a negative cost of $188,717, meaning it reduced total spending. The Municipality's own note explains part of this: when it adopted the new asset retirement rule it dropped an older landfill liability of $921,673 and recorded a matching $921,673 cut to environmental services expense. By our own working, taking that out leaves a surplus of about $985,076 (worked out by us), still above the budget.
Why it matters
A headline surplus can look like extra money when part of it is a one-time bookkeeping change. Residents and Council need to know how much of the surplus is cash-like and how much is an accounting entry before treating it as room to spend.
It could be because…
The Municipality explains the largest piece in Note 1: a one-time accounting entry from adopting the new rule, not money received.
The budget in the statements is adjusted to match the accounting basis of the actuals (Note 15), so part of the gap is presentation.
Provincial transfers came in above the budget column, and several spending lines came in under budget, which can leave a real surplus.
Questions you could ask
Did Council's year-end report show the surplus with and without the one-time landfill accounting entry?
What does the Municipality plan to do with the part of the surplus that is not an accounting entry?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations, 2024: "Annual surplus" budget 225,064, actual 1,906,749. "Environmental services" budget 1,015,460, actual (188,717). Government transfers, Province of Ontario: budget 1,964,102, actual 2,309,129. "Total revenues" budget 13,085,711, actual 13,717,621.
Note 1: "Decrease in landfill closure and post-closure liability 921,673" and "Decrease in environmental services expense on adoption of ARO standard (921,673)".
$5,168,860left in reserves at the end of 2024, down from $7,157,227
Reserves are savings that Council sets aside for later needs. In 2024 the reserves fell from $7,157,227 to $5,168,860. Only $155,700 was put in from operations, while $2,144,067 was taken out, against $1,830,066 put in and $794,581 taken out in 2023. The working-capital reserve fell from $4,898,564 to $3,629,498. The accumulated surplus schedule also shows a general fund balance of $(433,203), where 2023 shows nothing. Cash and cash equivalents fell from $5,585,853 to $3,943,550.
Why it matters
Reserves are the cushion for repairs, emergencies and tax-rate shocks. A fast fall, and a general fund below zero, show the Municipality is spending its savings. That may be planned, but residents should hear the plan.
It could be because…
Council may have planned to use reserves to pay for capital projects, which is what reserves are for.
A negative general fund can come from timing, such as spending paid before a grant or levy arrives.
Taxes receivable also rose in 2024 (see the next question), which can make cash drop even when the year ended with a surplus.
Questions you could ask
Which projects or costs were paid from the $2,144,067 taken out of reserves in 2024?
How does Council plan to rebuild the working-capital reserve and clear the general fund deficit?
What reserve level does the Municipality consider safe?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 13, Reserves: balance at beginning of year 7,157,227 (2023: 6,121,742); transfers from operations 155,700 (2023: 1,830,066); transfers to operations 2,144,067 (2023: 794,581); balance at end of year 5,168,860 (2023: 7,157,227).
Schedule 1, Accumulated surplus: "General fund" (433,203), with "-" shown for 2023. Reserve "For working capital" 3,629,498 (2023: 4,898,564); "For acquisition of capital assets or capital expenditure" 1,396,477 (2023: 2,141,977).
$4,906,700of capital assets bought in 2024, against a plan of $7,594,226
Capital spending means buying or building things that last, such as roads and buildings. The 2024 plan was to buy $7,594,226 of capital assets and to take in $3,035,652 of debt. The statements show $4,906,700 of capital spent, and the Municipality's only debt (the ambulance base debenture) went down slightly, from $1,041,453 to $1,033,239. So the planned borrowing was not used. The difference between plan and actual spending is $2,687,526 (worked out by us).
Why it matters
Projects that were planned but not built may still be coming, and then the borrowing or reserve use that was avoided in 2024 returns in a later year. Residents can ask which projects slipped and when they will cost money.
It could be because…
Large projects often start late because of weather, contractors, or waiting for grants, and the money carries into the next year.
Some planned projects may have been cancelled or changed by Council during the year.
The Municipality may have covered the work from reserves and cash, which would help explain the drop in both.
Questions you could ask
Which capital projects in the 2024 plan were not done, and are they in the 2025 or 2026 plans?
What was the $3,035,652 of planned debt for, and is the borrowing still planned?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of changes in net financial assets, 2024: "Acquisition of tangible capital assets" budget (7,594,226), actual (4,906,700) (2023 actual (2,364,308)).
$1,199,479taxes receivable at the end of 2024, up from $796,180
Taxes receivable is the property tax that has been billed but not yet paid. It was $653,074 at the end of 2022, $796,180 at the end of 2023 and $1,199,479 at the end of 2024. The 2024 rise is $403,299, about 51% (worked out by us). In the same year the Municipality collected $160,431 in penalties and late payment charges.
Why it matters
Unpaid taxes are money the Municipality is owed and cannot spend. Growing arrears can mean more households or businesses are struggling, or that collection has slowed, and they feed the fall in cash.
It could be because…
A change in billing dates or a large bill outstanding on December 31 can raise the figure without any rise in unpaid long-term arrears.
Some of the increase may be taxes due to be recovered through the normal tax-sale process.
Taxes billed also grew in 2024, so a larger balance is partly expected.
Questions you could ask
How much of the taxes receivable at the end of 2024 was more than a year overdue?
Has the Municipality changed how or when it collects overdue taxes, and how many properties are in the tax-sale process?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of financial position: "Taxes receivable" 1,199,479 at the end of 2024 and 796,180 at the end of 2023.
Statement of cash flows, 2024: "Increase in taxes receivable" (403,299). Statement of operations, 2024: "Penalties and late payment charges" actual 160,431.
$1,440,201spent on recreation and cultural services in 2023, against a budget of $1,022,141
Recreation and cultural services covers arenas, parks, the library and the museum. In 2023 it was budgeted at $1,022,141 and cost $1,440,201. In 2024 it was budgeted at $1,251,385 and cost $1,392,821. One piece we can see is the Nor West Recreation Centre arena. For 2024 its schedule shows wages of $128,007 against a budget of $60,000, and a municipal contribution of $80,020 where the budget had none.
Why it matters
When one service runs over budget for two years running, the budget may be set too low, or costs have grown that Council has not planned for. Taxpayers pay the difference.
It could be because…
The budget figures in the statements are adjusted from Council's approved budget to match accounting rules (Note 15), so some of the difference may be presentation, such as how amortization is counted.
Wages at the arena may include staff hours that were budgeted under another line.
Library and museum spending paid from their own revenue or donations is included in this line.
Questions you could ask
What explains the gap between the recreation budget and the actual cost in 2023 and 2024?
Why was the arena's wage budget $60,000 when 2023 wages had already been $108,810?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations, 2023: "Recreation and cultural services" budget 1,022,141, actual 1,440,201.
Nor West Recreation Centre, Schedule of Operations, 2024: "Wages" budget 60,000, actual 128,007 (2023 actual 108,810); "Municipal contribution" budget nil, actual 80,020 (2023 actual 52,579); "Total expenses" budget 309,300, actual 422,562.
In 2024, Oliver Paipoonge collected $743K more in its own property tax than in 2023. That is a 8% jump, while prices went up about 2.4%. Only 3 of 19 similar towns raised theirs by more. Almost all of it came from a higher tax rate (up 3% for homes); the value of homes on the tax roll grew only 1.7%.
Why did Oliver Paipoonge's property tax go up 8% in 2024?
$0$2.0M$4.0M$6.0M$8.0M$10M
$9.6M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Town property tax
2019
$7.7M
2020
$8.1M
2021
$8.2M
2022
$8.4M
2023
$8.8M
2024
$9.6M
Why it matters
A big one-year jump usually means something changed: a new cost, a service that grew, savings being rebuilt, or a problem from earlier years being paid for now. Residents should be able to see exactly which. Spread across every home, it is about $311 more each year.
It could be because…
Costs the town cannot control went up, such as policing, insurance or county charges.
The town kept taxes too low in earlier years and is catching up.
The town is rebuilding savings or paying for a big project like a bridge or equipment.
Questions you could ask
What were the three biggest reasons for the 2024 increase, in dollars?
Is a similar increase planned for next year?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Town property tax: $8,807,356 in 2023, $9,550,488 in 2024.
Oliver Paipoonge spent $663K on parks, arena and library in 2019 and $1.2M in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time. Only 0 of 19 similar towns had faster growth here.
Why did the cost of parks, arena and library grow 74% in 5 years?
Parks, arena and library
Prices (inflation)
−20%+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%+100%
+74%
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Parks, arena and library
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
−3%
+1%
2021
+66%
+4%
2022
+50%
+11%
2023
+89%
+16%
2024
+74%
+18%
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 $493K a year pay for?
Why did arena and buildings go from $299K to $564K?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
At the end of 2024, $1.2M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 11% of everything billed. Only 2 of 19 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $796K.
Why are so many property taxes unpaid?
$0$200K$400K$600K$800K$1.0M$1.2M
$1.2M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Unpaid property tax at year end
2019
$804K
2020
$676K
2021
$575K
2022
$653K
2023
$796K
2024
$1.2M
Why it matters
When taxes go unpaid, everyone else carries the cost, and the town may borrow to cover the gap. The Province's financial indicators treat 10% to 15% as a moderate risk and more than 15% as a high risk. Collection is the town's job, so a rising number is worth asking about.
It could be because…
The final tax bill was due late in the year, so some payments simply arrived in January.
A few large properties are in dispute or being sold for back taxes.
Hard times for residents, which the town may be handling with payment plans.
Questions you could ask
How much is more than one year overdue, and from how many properties?
Are the rules for chasing unpaid taxes applied the same way to everyone?
Has the town registered tax arrears certificates on properties about two years behind? If still unpaid a year after that, Ontario law lets the town sell the property.
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Taxes receivable: 2019 $804K, 2020 $676K, 2021 $575K, 2022 $653K, 2023 $796K, 2024 $1.2M. Of the 2024 total, $394K was from earlier years.
October 15, 2025date of the auditor's report on the 2024 statements
A year-end is December 31. The auditor's report on the 2023 statements is dated January 22, 2025, about a year later. The report on the 2024 statements is dated October 15, 2025, almost ten months after year-end. We did not find a document explaining the timing, and we did not check what deadline applies.
Why it matters
Residents can only judge last year's finances once the audit is done. The later the audit, the older the numbers are when Council and the public see them.
It could be because…
Adopting the new asset retirement rule may have added work and delay in both years.
Small municipalities often wait for their auditor's schedule, and a late audit does not by itself mean a problem.
Council may have approved earlier unaudited results that we did not find.
Questions you could ask
When did Council receive and approve the 2023 and 2024 audited statements?
What caused the audits to finish when they did, and what date is planned for the 2025 audit?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The auditor's report on the 2024 statements is signed at Thunder Bay and dated October 15, 2025.
$7,512,695undiscounted estimate for closure and post-closure costs, against $1,023,028 in the landfill reserve fund
The Municipality owns two landfill sites. Its books now carry an asset retirement obligation of $855,379, a discounted estimate in today's money. The note says the total undiscounted cost is $7,512,695, all falling after 2029. The dedicated reserve fund for the municipal landfill holds $1,023,028. The note says the North site is expected to close in 2101 and the South site in 2075. In 2023 the old landfill liability was lowered by $723,885 because of a change in estimated costs.
Why it matters
Closing a landfill and watching it for 25 years afterward costs real money. If the costs come due much later, today's residents may be paying little toward a bill that tomorrow's residents inherit.
It could be because…
The costs fall many decades away, so a small discounted liability and reserve today is normal.
The Municipality may plan to fund closure over time through yearly contributions we did not find.
The estimate includes asbestos removal in one building, not only landfill closure.
Questions you could ask
Does Council have a plan to fund landfill closure, and how much does it set aside each year?
Why was the landfill liability estimate lowered by $723,885 in 2023?
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 Oliver Paipoonge?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 10, Asset retirement obligation: closing balance 855,379 (2023: 921,673); "Change in estimated costs" (723,885) in 2023; total undiscounted expenditures 7,512,695 ("Thereafter"); the North site is expected to close "in 2101" and the South site "in 2075".
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