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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Scugog'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 Scugog's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 36 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.
$7,976,005taxes receivable at the end of 2025, up from $4,437,493 at the end of 2023
Taxes receivable are property taxes billed but not yet paid. The statements show $4,437,493 at the end of 2023, $6,076,644 at the end of 2024 and $7,976,005 at the end of 2025. That is $3,538,512 more than two years earlier (worked out by us). Penalties and interest charged on late taxes were $1,026,608 in 2025 against a budget of $650,000, and the 2026 budget raises the amount it expects from penalties again. We did not find an explanation from the Township for the rise in unpaid taxes.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$7,473,000planned transfers to reserves in the 2026 operating budget
A reserve is money set aside for later, like a savings account for roads, buildings and vehicles. The 2026 operating budget puts $7,473,000 into reserves, up from $6,700,700, out of $30,542,600 of total operating expenses. The Township explains the largest part: a 3% levy for roads ($616,500) and 0.5% each for buildings and vehicles. Separately, the Finance budget shows $1,100,000 of casino (OLG) revenue and $1,200,000 of transfers into a reserve the budget calls "MP Reserve". The budget also draws on an "MP" reserve for operating costs, including staffing. We did not find a definition of "MP Reserve" in the documents we read.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$13,345,356development charge money held at the end of 2025
Development charges are fees paid by builders to cover the cost of growth, such as roads. The statements say this money is externally restricted. At the end of 2025 the Township held $13,345,356 of it. The statements say it has put "a portion" into principal protected notes, a type of investment that guards the amount put in and pays a return linked to something else, such as a market index. The notes were worth $4,417,203 at year end, from a cost of $4,347,180. In 2025 the fund received $1,158,490 and used $1,549,991. The statements say gains on the notes are added to the restricted balance, so they cannot go into general revenue.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
$8.21 millionthe Mayor's latest cost estimate for the cancelled project, up from $2.0 million
The Township says council voted in December 2024 not to go ahead with the Lake Scugog Enhancement Project, after a confidential report in closed session. The Mayor said the cost estimate had grown from $2.0 million to $8.21 million over more than eight years, and that permits and land access were unsettled. Council told staff to look at a cheaper option and to work out funding agreements and "outstanding financial obligations or commitments" with partners. We did not find the total spent on the project, or the result of those talks, in the documents we read. The 2026 capital budget has $216,000 for design of a clean-out of a nearby stormwater pond, which is described as routine upkeep, not as the replacement project.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 2 sources
$700,000planned cost of the Queen Street work, now delayed from 2026 to 2031
The 2025 capital plan listed the rehabilitation of Queen Street between Water Street and Simcoe Street in Port Perry for 2026 at $700,000, half from the roads reserve fund and half from development charges. In a mayoral directive dated November 27, 2025, the Mayor ordered it delayed to 2031, along with another project (Perry Street), and moved three other road projects into the 2026 budget. The directive gives reasons: the weak economy for local businesses, concerns raised by residents and businesses about the Queen Street work, and the Township's ability to pay for roads from its capital reserves. The Township's strong mayor page says the Mayor now proposes the budget, which council can amend. The Queen Street project is not in the 2026 to 2030 project list in the 2026 capital budget.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
Scugog spent $2.7M on running the town office in 2019 and $4.9M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time. Only 7 of 36 similar towns had faster growth here.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 3 sources
At the end of 2025, $8.0M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 12% of everything billed. Only 5 of 36 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $6.1M.
Found automatically from the town's financial reports · 2 sources
$7,050,050surplus in 2025, against a budgeted deficit of $3,514,652
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. In the audited statements, the 2025 budget shows a deficit of $3,514,652 and the actual result is a surplus of $7,050,050. For 2024 the budget shows a deficit of $7,620,952 and the actual result is a surplus of $8,406,928. Together the two actual surpluses are $15,456,978 (worked out by us). In 2025, revenue came in $3,259,188 above the budget and expenses $7,305,514 below it (both worked out by us). The Township has explained part of this: the budget is prepared on a different basis from the statements. It treats every purchase of a building, road or vehicle as an expense, while the statements spread the cost over the years the asset is used.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$4,200difference in the 2024 accumulated surplus between the 2024 and 2025 statements (worked out by us)
In the 2025 statements, a few figures disagree with each other or with the 2024 statements as first published. These are small against $124,732,814 of accumulated surplus, but a reader cannot tell which is right. The 2025 statements show the 2024 accumulated surplus as $117,682,764, while the 2024 statements show $117,686,964, a difference of $4,200 (worked out by us). Note 10 in the 2025 statements prints $117,686,694 for 2024. The 2024 surplus is $8,406,928 on one page of the 2025 statements and $8,402,728 on another. Investments and deferred revenue for 2024 were each raised by $226,650 (worked out by us), which matches a gain Note 5 attributes to 2024. The only explanation we found is a general line that prior-year figures were reclassified.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$7,976,005taxes receivable at the end of 2025, up from $4,437,493 at the end of 2023
Taxes receivable are property taxes billed but not yet paid. The statements show $4,437,493 at the end of 2023, $6,076,644 at the end of 2024 and $7,976,005 at the end of 2025. That is $3,538,512 more than two years earlier (worked out by us). Penalties and interest charged on late taxes were $1,026,608 in 2025 against a budget of $650,000, and the 2026 budget raises the amount it expects from penalties again. We did not find an explanation from the Township for the rise in unpaid taxes.
Why it matters
When more households and businesses fall behind on tax, the Township is paid later, and late payers carry extra charges. The budget now counts on those charges as revenue. Residents should know whether this is a timing matter or a sign of strain.
It could be because…
Tax bills are also collected for the Region of Durham and the school boards, so the amount owed may rise with their levies too, not only the Township's own.
A change in when instalments fall due, or a large single account, can move the year-end figure.
Higher interest rates and growth in the number of properties would raise both the amount owed and the penalties.
The Township may have changed how it counts or reports these amounts between years.
Questions you could ask
Why did taxes receivable rise from $6,076,644 to $7,976,005 in 2025, and how much of that is Township tax as against Region and school tax?
How many accounts are more than one year behind, and what does the Township do before it starts the tax-sale process?
What is the penalty rate, and has Council looked at whether more instalment options would help households?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Statement of financial position: "Taxes receivable" 7,976,005 (2024: 6,076,644). Statement of operations, 2025: "Penalties and interest on taxes" budget 650,000, actual 1,026,608 (2024 actual 780,130).
Statement of financial position: "Taxes receivable" 6,076,644 (2023: 4,437,493). Statement of operations: "Penalties and interest on taxes" 2024 budget 600,000, actual 780,130 (2023 actual 656,280).
$7,473,000planned transfers to reserves in the 2026 operating budget
A reserve is money set aside for later, like a savings account for roads, buildings and vehicles. The 2026 operating budget puts $7,473,000 into reserves, up from $6,700,700, out of $30,542,600 of total operating expenses. The Township explains the largest part: a 3% levy for roads ($616,500) and 0.5% each for buildings and vehicles. Separately, the Finance budget shows $1,100,000 of casino (OLG) revenue and $1,200,000 of transfers into a reserve the budget calls "MP Reserve". The budget also draws on an "MP" reserve for operating costs, including staffing. We did not find a definition of "MP Reserve" in the documents we read.
Why it matters
Saving for roads is what an asset plan asks for. When a reserve built from casino money pays for staffing, which comes back every year, the cost can land on the tax levy when the reserve runs low. The statements show reserves growing while the cash set aside for operating and capital funds fell.
It could be because…
Casino revenue is uneven, so passing it through a reserve and drawing on it steadily is a careful way to use it.
The staffing paid from the reserve may be for set-term or start-up positions, not permanent ones.
Putting levy money into roads and fleet reserves is what Council has chosen to do after its asset management plan.
Questions you could ask
What does "MP Reserve" stand for, what is its balance, and what rules say what it can be spent on?
Which staff positions are paid from reserves in 2026, and what is the plan to pay for them from the levy if the reserve falls?
What was the casino revenue used for in the last five years, and who decided?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Office of the CAO and Human Resources summary: "Net Increase in transfer from MP reserve for staffing" (312,700). Total "Trf fr MP Res" in the by-category summary: 2025 budget (271,000), 2026 budget (403,000).
Operating Budget Summary, "Transfers to Reserves": "3% Roads Levy Reserve" 616,500; "0.5% levy directed to Building and Facilities Reserve" 102,800; "0.5% levy directed to Vehicle & Equipment Reserve" 102,700; total 822,000.
$13,345,356development charge money held at the end of 2025
Development charges are fees paid by builders to cover the cost of growth, such as roads. The statements say this money is externally restricted. At the end of 2025 the Township held $13,345,356 of it. The statements say it has put "a portion" into principal protected notes, a type of investment that guards the amount put in and pays a return linked to something else, such as a market index. The notes were worth $4,417,203 at year end, from a cost of $4,347,180. In 2025 the fund received $1,158,490 and used $1,549,991. The statements say gains on the notes are added to the restricted balance, so they cannot go into general revenue.
Why it matters
This money belongs to a growth account, not the general budget. Residents are entitled to know where it is held, how much risk it carries, and when it will be used for the projects it was collected for.
It could be because…
Principal protected notes guard the amount invested, so they can suit money that cannot be lost.
The notes' fair value is only an estimate, because it is based on inputs other than quoted market prices (as Note 5 says), so it may differ from what the Township receives.
The projects this money is meant for may be several years away, so investing it for the wait is reasonable.
Questions you could ask
When do the notes mature, who issued them, and what does the investment policy say about holding development charge money in them?
How much of the $13,345,356 is promised to projects in the 2026 to 2030 capital plan, and in which years?
What return have the notes earned compared with ordinary term deposits?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 1, Financial instruments: "The Township has invested a portion of amounts collected under the Development Charge Act in Principle Protected Notes (PPNs)." It adds that increases in the fair value of the notes "are recorded as increases in deferred revenue".
Note 5, Investments: "At year-end the fair market value of PPN's was $4,417,203 ($3,226,650 in 2024) with a cost of $4,347,180 (2024 - $3,000,000)." The unrealized gain for the year was $70,023.
$8.21 millionthe Mayor's latest cost estimate for the cancelled project, up from $2.0 million
The Township says council voted in December 2024 not to go ahead with the Lake Scugog Enhancement Project, after a confidential report in closed session. The Mayor said the cost estimate had grown from $2.0 million to $8.21 million over more than eight years, and that permits and land access were unsettled. Council told staff to look at a cheaper option and to work out funding agreements and "outstanding financial obligations or commitments" with partners. We did not find the total spent on the project, or the result of those talks, in the documents we read. The 2026 capital budget has $216,000 for design of a clean-out of a nearby stormwater pond, which is described as routine upkeep, not as the replacement project.
Why it matters
Money spent on a project that does not go ahead is not wasted by definition, but residents and donors who backed it deserve to know what was spent, what was delivered, and what happens to funds pledged by others.
It could be because…
Council acted in time: a project whose cost had risen four times, with no final price, can be a reason to stop.
Some work did go ahead. The Township says oil grit separators were installed at two outfalls and public awareness grew.
The agreements with funding partners may be under negotiation, which is a reason details are not yet public.
Questions you could ask
How much did the Township spend on the Lake Scugog Enhancement Project from start to cancellation, and from which funds?
What did funding partners and donors contribute, what do the agreements say, and does any of it have to be returned?
Is the $216,000 pond design the "alternative solution" council asked for in December 2024, and if not, when will that report come to council?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Township news post, December 5, 2024: after the closed-session part of the December 3 special meeting, council "unanimously adopted a motion to not proceed with the Lake Scugog Enhancement Project". The Mayor said costs "have increased from (an estimated) $2.0 million to $8.21 million". Staff were directed to "reconcile and/or renegotiate funding agreements and outstanding financial obligations or commitments".
Capital project sheet PST004, Baagwating SWM Pond Design, start year 2026: capital expenditure 216,000, funded from the "Major Facilities Reserve Fund" 216,000. Scope: "survey, design and tender documents for the cleanout and rehabilitation of the Baagwating Park stormwater management pond". The 2021 condition assessment "recommended for cleaning every 11 years".
$700,000planned cost of the Queen Street work, now delayed from 2026 to 2031
The 2025 capital plan listed the rehabilitation of Queen Street between Water Street and Simcoe Street in Port Perry for 2026 at $700,000, half from the roads reserve fund and half from development charges. In a mayoral directive dated November 27, 2025, the Mayor ordered it delayed to 2031, along with another project (Perry Street), and moved three other road projects into the 2026 budget. The directive gives reasons: the weak economy for local businesses, concerns raised by residents and businesses about the Queen Street work, and the Township's ability to pay for roads from its capital reserves. The Township's strong mayor page says the Mayor now proposes the budget, which council can amend. The Queen Street project is not in the 2026 to 2030 project list in the 2026 capital budget.
Why it matters
The Township's strong mayor page says these powers were expected to apply to Scugog from May 1, 2025. The reasons for this directive are public, which helps. What is not shown is what the delay costs, and what condition the road will be in by 2031.
It could be because…
Delaying road work in a downtown during a weak economy is a choice many councils make, and the directive says it was made after concerns were raised.
The $350,000 of development charge money is still held and could go to other growth projects.
The cost of the work in 2031 could be higher or lower than in 2025 prices.
Questions you could ask
What did staff estimate the Queen Street work would cost in 2031, and what is the road's current condition rating?
Did council vote on or discuss the change before the 2026 budget was adopted, and where is that recorded?
Was the $350,000 of development charge money for Queen Street moved to another project?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
2025 capital budget, project PHD018 "Queen St Rehabilitation - Water St to Simcoe St - Construction": start year 2026; capital expenditure 700,000, funded from the "Roads Reserve Fund" 350,000 and "Development Charges Reserves" 350,000. The sheet says construction would start in late summer "to reduce economic impacts" and that talks with the BIA (business improvement area) and business owners "will begin in the design phase".
Mayoral Directive MD-2025-03, printed date November 27, 2025, "Direction to Staff to Adjust the 2026 Capital Budget": delay project PHD018 (Queen St.) and PHD015 (Perry St.) to the forecast year 2031; advance PHD012 (Crandell St. design), PHD005 (Pine Point Rd.) and PHD028 (Old Scugog Rd.) to the 2026 capital budget. The reasons given include "concerns raised by residents and businesses in downtown Port Perry regarding the Queen St. rehabilitation project".
The 2026 capital project list for Public Works hardtop roads runs from PHD017 (Apple Valley Subdivision) to PHD019 (Stephenson Point Rd), with no PHD018.
Strong Mayor Powers page: the expansion to Scugog was announced April 9, 2025; the Mayor can "Propose the municipal budget, which would be subject to council amendments and a separate head of council veto and council override process."
Scugog spent $2.7M on running the town office in 2019 and $4.9M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time. Only 7 of 36 similar towns had faster growth here.
Why did the cost of running the town office grow 80% in 6 years?
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%+100%
+80%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Running the town office
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+3%
+1%
2021
+32%
+4%
2022
+48%
+11%
2023
+48%
+16%
2024
+64%
+18%
2025
+80%
+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 $2.2M a year pay for?
Why did senior management go from $1.9M to $4.5M?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Running the town office: 2019 $2.7M, 2020 $2.8M, 2021 $3.6M, 2022 $4.0M, 2023 $4.0M, 2024 $4.4M, 2025 $4.9M.
At the end of 2025, $8.0M of property tax had been billed but not paid. That is 12% of everything billed. Only 5 of 36 similar towns had a higher share. A year earlier it was $6.1M.
Why are so many property taxes unpaid?
$0$2.0M$4.0M$6.0M$8.0M
$8.0M
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Unpaid property tax at year end
2019
$3.7M
2020
$3.9M
2021
$3.5M
2022
$5.1M
2023
$4.4M
2024
$6.1M
2025
$8.0M
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Taxes receivable: 2019 $3.7M, 2020 $3.9M, 2021 $3.5M, 2022 $5.1M, 2023 $4.4M, 2024 $6.1M, 2025 $8.0M. Of the 2025 total, $3.9M was from earlier years.
$7,050,050surplus in 2025, against a budgeted deficit of $3,514,652
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. In the audited statements, the 2025 budget shows a deficit of $3,514,652 and the actual result is a surplus of $7,050,050. For 2024 the budget shows a deficit of $7,620,952 and the actual result is a surplus of $8,406,928. Together the two actual surpluses are $15,456,978 (worked out by us). In 2025, revenue came in $3,259,188 above the budget and expenses $7,305,514 below it (both worked out by us). The Township has explained part of this: the budget is prepared on a different basis from the statements. It treats every purchase of a building, road or vehicle as an expense, while the statements spread the cost over the years the asset is used.
Why it matters
A budget is the promise made to taxpayers about what the year will cost. Part of the gap here is the way money is counted, not extra cash in the bank. Still, the statements show the Township spent $9,546,615 on capital assets in 2025 and its cash grew, so residents are entitled to see how much of each year's surplus was planned and how much was a surprise.
It could be because…
The budget counts all capital spending as an expense and leaves out amortization (the yearly wear-on-assets cost). The Township says so in Note 13, so a "deficit" on the budget basis is partly a planned build-up of assets.
Some capital projects budgeted for 2025 may not have been finished in the year, so the money was not spent yet.
"Contributed assets" of $1,734,145 (roads and similar assets handed to the Township by developers) are non-cash revenue the budget did not plan for.
Revenue from grants, user charges and developer contributions can arrive earlier or later than planned.
Questions you could ask
How much of the 2025 surplus of $7,050,050 is cash that can be spent, and how much is already promised to capital projects that were not finished?
Will the Township publish a short reconciliation each year between the budget Council passes and the statements, so residents can see the planned and unplanned parts?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated statement of operations, 2025: "Annual surplus" budget (3,514,652), actual 7,050,050 (2024 actual 8,406,928). Total revenue budget 31,203,264, actual 34,462,452. Total expenses budget 34,717,916, actual 27,412,402. "Protection to persons and property" budget 5,041,900, actual 3,556,392. "Transportation" budget 13,239,102, actual 10,410,538. "Contributed assets" budget —, actual 1,734,145.
Note 13, Budget amounts: "The 2025 budget approved by Council on January 27, 2025, was not prepared on a basis consistent with that used to report actual results." It says the budget "was prepared on a modified accrual basis while Public Sector Accounting Standards require a full accrual basis" and that the budget figures "treated all tangible capital asset additions as expenses and did not include amortization expense".
Consolidated statement of change in net financial assets, 2025: "Acquisition of tangible capital assets" (9,546,615); "Amortization of tangible capital assets" 4,798,138.
$4,200difference in the 2024 accumulated surplus between the 2024 and 2025 statements (worked out by us)
In the 2025 statements, a few figures disagree with each other or with the 2024 statements as first published. These are small against $124,732,814 of accumulated surplus, but a reader cannot tell which is right. The 2025 statements show the 2024 accumulated surplus as $117,682,764, while the 2024 statements show $117,686,964, a difference of $4,200 (worked out by us). Note 10 in the 2025 statements prints $117,686,694 for 2024. The 2024 surplus is $8,406,928 on one page of the 2025 statements and $8,402,728 on another. Investments and deferred revenue for 2024 were each raised by $226,650 (worked out by us), which matches a gain Note 5 attributes to 2024. The only explanation we found is a general line that prior-year figures were reclassified.
Why it matters
Audited statements are the Township's official record, and residents, lenders and the Province all rely on them. Small mismatches are usually typing slips, but they are easy to fix and worth fixing in public.
It could be because…
Typing slips in the comparative columns, with the audited totals correct.
A late change to 2024 (for example the $226,650 note gain) that was only partly carried through every page.
A $4,200 correction to the opening 2023 balance that the notes do not describe.
Questions you could ask
Which 2024 figure is correct for the accumulated surplus, and will the Township post corrected pages if the 2025 statements contain slips?
Were the 2024 investments and deferred revenue restated for the notes' gain, and why does the $4,200 difference not appear in a note?
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 Scugog?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations: 2024 "Annual surplus" 8,406,928; "Accumulated surplus, beginning of year" 2024 109,275,836; "Accumulated surplus, end of year" 2024 117,682,764. Statement of financial position, 2024 column: "Net financial assets" 22,535,959; "Investments" 10,529,938; "Deferred revenue" 19,528,879.
Statement of change in net financial assets, 2024 column: "Annual surplus" 8,402,728. Note 10, 2024 column: total 117,686,694. Note 5: principal protected notes 4,417,023 in the table, and $4,417,203 in the text above it. Note 7: funds used $632,240 in the text and (630,240) in the table.
As first published for 2024: "Accumulated surplus" 117,686,964 (2023: 109,280,036); "Net financial assets" 22,540,159; "Investments" 10,303,288; "Deferred revenue" 19,302,229.
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