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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 St-Charles's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 10 so far
Things worth asking about
We read St-Charles' financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 48 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.
Needs an answer
Needs an answer
These are unusual enough that residents deserve a clear answer from council.
$5,562,147.99new loans listed in the 2026 budget (sum of three lines, worked out by us)
A municipality borrows when it spends more on big projects than it has saved or been given. The 2026 budget lists three new loans: $4,732,147.99 for a project on Casimir, King and St. Joseph roads, $450,000 for a 2026 tandem truck and $380,000 for a 2025 tandem truck. Added together (worked out by us), that is $5,562,147.99, about 14 times the $393,273 of debt in the 2024 audited statements. The capital side of the budget (big projects) grows from $1,822,344.61 in the 2025 budget to $7,725,529.80 in 2026. The 2026 budget carries $105,000 of interest and $75,000 of principal for the road loan. That is a small share of $4,732,147.99, so the budget may show only part of a full year's payment. We could not read the staff reports and by-laws behind the loan, because the meeting portal blocks scripted downloads.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
$830,000two truck loans in the 2026 budget with no repayment line we could find (sum worked out by us)
The 2026 budget has repayment lines (interest and principal) for the road loan and for a "2024 Tandem" loan. We did not find repayment lines for the "2025 Tandem Truck Loan" of $380,000 or the "2026 Tandem Truck Loan" of $450,000, which are both listed as loans coming in. The $380,000 also appears as "2025 Tandem Loan proceeds to AMP Reserve", meaning it goes into the asset management reserve, not into a truck purchase.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
April 1, 2026date of the auditor's report on the 2024 statements
Audited statements are the independent check on a town's books. The 2024 statements carry an auditor's report dated April 1, 2026, and the auditor's presentation to Council was prepared as of March 20, 2026 for April 1, 2026. The auditor's own timeline in the same presentation shows final fieldwork and reporting in October and November 2025. The 2023 statements were dated November 20, 2024, about 11 months after year-end (worked out by us). The 2025 statements were not posted when we read the page on October 7, 2026.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$869,066landfill closure obligation at December 31, 2024, against a reserve of $48,514
A town that runs a landfill has to close it and look after it for years afterward. The 2024 statements record a landfill closure liability of $869,066, up from $390,377, after a re-estimate of $470,001. Together with $110,477 for asbestos removal, the asset retirement obligation is $979,543. The statements list it as "unfunded", and the landfill site closure reserve holds $48,514. The notes say no remediation is budgeted for the next twelve months. The 2026 budget again sets aside $7,000 for the "Landfill Reserve".
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$408,387contracted services for protection in 2024, against $166,940 in 2023
In the segment note of the audited statements, the "Contracted services" cost of protection to persons and property was $166,940 in 2023 and $408,387 in 2024, a rise of $241,447 (worked out by us). Protection covers police, fire and other protective services. Total spending on this service rose from $500,142 to $758,437. The 2023 and 2024 budgets each listed policing fees of about $260,000 on their own, which is more than the 2023 contracted-services figure.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
$58,662gap between amortization in note 10 and in the statements (worked out by us; also printed as a disposal/transfer)
Amortization spreads the cost of an asset over its life. In 2023 the note on capital assets and the statements agree at $319,660. In 2024 note 10 shows $471,393 of amortization charged to assets, while the statement of cash flows and the segment note use $412,731. The $58,662 gap is the same amount shown as "disposals and transfers" in accumulated amortization of land improvements, where the cost column shows no disposals. The statements do not explain it.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
3 monthswith no wastewater treatment contract, according to the 2024 statements
The commitments note in the 2024 statements says there were no contracts for wastewater treatment from January 2024 to March 2024, and that a new service agreement runs from April 2024 to December 2028 at $60,939 a year plus 2% a year. The Municipality published this itself. It does not say who ran the plant during the gap or how it was paid.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 1 source
$670,701actual surplus for 2024, against a budgeted $390,912
The 2023 statements show a budget deficit of $(656,964) and an actual surplus of $654,500. The 2024 statements show a budget surplus of $390,912 and an actual surplus of $670,701. The Municipality explains that its budget is not prepared the same way as the statements. Note 17 lists the adjustments, such as reserve transfers and loan principal. By area, the gaps are large: in 2024, general government was budgeted at $2,130,409 and came in at $1,275,432, and recreation and culture $1,238,515 against $536,393. Coming in under budget is not a problem in itself, so this is a note.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 3 sources
Each question in full
Needs an answerFound automatically from financial reports
St-Charles spent about $559 per home on council in 2024. The typical similar town spent $111. Only 1 of 48 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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Council per home: St-Charles $559; typical similar town $111; ranked 2nd highest of 49.
$5,562,147.99new loans listed in the 2026 budget (sum of three lines, worked out by us)
A municipality borrows when it spends more on big projects than it has saved or been given. The 2026 budget lists three new loans: $4,732,147.99 for a project on Casimir, King and St. Joseph roads, $450,000 for a 2026 tandem truck and $380,000 for a 2025 tandem truck. Added together (worked out by us), that is $5,562,147.99, about 14 times the $393,273 of debt in the 2024 audited statements. The capital side of the budget (big projects) grows from $1,822,344.61 in the 2025 budget to $7,725,529.80 in 2026. The 2026 budget carries $105,000 of interest and $75,000 of principal for the road loan. That is a small share of $4,732,147.99, so the budget may show only part of a full year's payment. We could not read the staff reports and by-laws behind the loan, because the meeting portal blocks scripted downloads.
Why it matters
Loan payments come out of the same pot as roads, snow plowing and the arena for years. A town with about $3.3 million of residential property tax in its budget is taking on a loan larger than its whole yearly tax levy, so residents should be able to see the term, the rate, who else is paying and what a full year of payments costs.
It could be because…
Part of the road project may be paid by an owner-pays charge on the properties that benefit (a local improvement charge), so not all of it falls on every taxpayer.
The loan may be drawn late in 2026 or have a payment holiday at the start, which would explain why only $180,000 of interest and principal is budgeted.
Provincial or federal grants may be applied to the loan later. The budget shows OCIF (a provincial road fund) and gas tax money coming in each year.
The truck loans may repay reserve money already spent on trucks that were bought earlier.
Questions you could ask
What is the term, interest rate and lender for the $4,732,147.99 road loan, and what will a full year of payments cost?
How much of the road project will be paid by the owners of the properties that benefit, and how much by all taxpayers?
Where are the repayments for the two truck loans in the 2026 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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of financial position: "Municipal debt (note 8)" is 393,273 at December 31, 2024 (450,980 at December 31, 2023). Note 8 lists four debentures totalling $ 393,273.
Capital revenue lines: "Casimir, King & St. Joseph Road Loan" -$4,732,147.99; "2026 Tandem Truck Loan" -$450,000.00; "2025 Tandem Truck Loan" -$380,000.00. "Capital Revenue" -$7,174,008.09; "Total Revenue" 12,590,631.73.
$830,000two truck loans in the 2026 budget with no repayment line we could find (sum worked out by us)
The 2026 budget has repayment lines (interest and principal) for the road loan and for a "2024 Tandem" loan. We did not find repayment lines for the "2025 Tandem Truck Loan" of $380,000 or the "2026 Tandem Truck Loan" of $450,000, which are both listed as loans coming in. The $380,000 also appears as "2025 Tandem Loan proceeds to AMP Reserve", meaning it goes into the asset management reserve, not into a truck purchase.
Why it matters
A loan has to be paid back whether or not the budget shows it. If the payments are missing from the 2026 budget, the shortfall would show up in a later budget or be paid from reserves. If they are included under another heading, the budget is hard to follow.
It could be because…
The trucks may arrive late in the year, so the first payments fall in 2027.
The $380,000 loan may reimburse the reserve for a truck already paid for from the reserve. Then the loan only refills the reserve.
The payments may sit inside a line with a different name that we did not recognize.
Questions you could ask
Which budget lines pay the interest and principal on the 2025 and 2026 tandem truck loans?
Why does the $380,000 loan go to a reserve instead of paying for a truck?
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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Capital revenue lines: "2026 Tandem Truck Loan" -$450,000.00 and "2025 Tandem Truck Loan" -$380,000.00.
Debt lines in public works: "PW - 2024 Tandem Interest" 16,315.82 and "PW - 2024 Tandem Principal" 30,039.32, next to the Casimir, Victoria and Grader loans and the road project loan. No line with the words 2025 Tandem or 2026 Tandem appears among the expense lines.
April 1, 2026date of the auditor's report on the 2024 statements
Audited statements are the independent check on a town's books. The 2024 statements carry an auditor's report dated April 1, 2026, and the auditor's presentation to Council was prepared as of March 20, 2026 for April 1, 2026. The auditor's own timeline in the same presentation shows final fieldwork and reporting in October and November 2025. The 2023 statements were dated November 20, 2024, about 11 months after year-end (worked out by us). The 2025 statements were not posted when we read the page on October 7, 2026.
Why it matters
Residents and Council decide on budgets without audited results from the year just finished. The 2026 budget, with its large loans, was approved without 2025 audited statements being available (we found none posted). The auditor found no matters to report on control weaknesses, so this is about timing, not about the quality of the books.
It could be because…
A small staff has to produce the numbers and answer the auditor's questions on top of daily work.
The change to new accounting standards for revenue and for asset retirement obligations added work.
The timeline slide may be a standard template. It calls the Municipality a "Township", so it may not reflect the real schedule.
Waiting for Council's approval of the statements may have added time. The auditor lists that as an outstanding step on March 20, 2026.
Questions you could ask
What caused the 2024 audit to finish in March and April 2026, and when will the 2025 statements be ready?
Will Council see audited results before it approves the next 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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Cover: "Prepared as of March 20, 2026 for presentation to Council on April 1, 2026" (Audit Planning and Findings Report for the year ending December 31, 2024).
Key milestones and deliverables: "October and November 2025" is headed "Final Fieldwork & Reporting", with "Present audit results to the Council" and "Issue audit report on financial statements" listed under it.
Status: "As of March 20, 2026 we have completed the audit of the financial statements, with the exception of certain remaining procedures", including "Obtaining evidence of Council's approval of the financial statements". Control deficiencies: "No matters to report".
$869,066landfill closure obligation at December 31, 2024, against a reserve of $48,514
A town that runs a landfill has to close it and look after it for years afterward. The 2024 statements record a landfill closure liability of $869,066, up from $390,377, after a re-estimate of $470,001. Together with $110,477 for asbestos removal, the asset retirement obligation is $979,543. The statements list it as "unfunded", and the landfill site closure reserve holds $48,514. The notes say no remediation is budgeted for the next twelve months. The 2026 budget again sets aside $7,000 for the "Landfill Reserve".
Why it matters
The cost has to be paid at some point, by someone. If it is not saved for, it ends up in a future tax bill or a loan. Saving $7,000 a year against an estimate of $869,066 would take well over a century (worked out by us), but the real date of closure and the estimate may both change.
It could be because…
The closure may be many years away, and the estimate is discounted to today's value.
The estimate went up because the engineering assumptions changed, not because costs were not controlled. Many small towns face the same problem.
Council may plan to use grants, loans or the infrastructure renewal reserve when the time comes.
The $7,000 may be only the yearly top-up and other money may be set aside elsewhere in the budget.
Questions you could ask
What closure date was used for the $869,066 estimate, and why did it rise by $470,001 in 2024?
How does Council plan to pay for closure, and is a larger yearly set-aside 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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 9, asset retirement obligation: closing balance $ 869,066 for landfill closure and $ 110,477 for asbestos removal, total $ 979,543. "Remeasurement" 470,001 for landfill closure; opening balance $ 390,377.
$408,387contracted services for protection in 2024, against $166,940 in 2023
In the segment note of the audited statements, the "Contracted services" cost of protection to persons and property was $166,940 in 2023 and $408,387 in 2024, a rise of $241,447 (worked out by us). Protection covers police, fire and other protective services. Total spending on this service rose from $500,142 to $758,437. The 2023 and 2024 budgets each listed policing fees of about $260,000 on their own, which is more than the 2023 contracted-services figure.
Why it matters
Policing is one of the largest costs a small town cannot control directly. A sudden jump, or an unusually low year before it, makes budgets hard to trust. Residents can ask for a plain explanation of the bills.
It could be because…
The police bill includes a yearly reconciliation. A credit in 2023 could have made that year unusually low, with 2024 returning to the normal level.
Building inspection and by-law services bought from another body may have changed how they are billed.
A new fire contract, dispatch or training agreement may have started in 2024.
Some 2023 costs may have been recorded under another heading, such as materials.
Questions you could ask
What did the Municipality pay for policing, fire, dispatch and building services in 2023 and in 2024, line by line?
Why was the 2023 contracted-services figure lower than the policing fee that was budgeted for that 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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Segmented information, 2024: "Contracted services" row, protection column 408,387 (row total 1,027,337); protection total expenses 758,437.
Consolidated Financial Statements, December 31, 2024 (KPMG LLP, April 1, 2026) · Note 19, segmented information 2024, PDF page 30 (column headings print in a separate block; the row's figures add up to the total 1,027,337 and the protection column to 758,437, which matches the statement of operations on PDF page 7)
Segmented information, 2023: "Contracted services" row, protection column 166,940 (row total 628,149); protection total expenses 500,142.
St-Charles spent $470K on police, fire and safety in 2019 and $700K in 2024. Prices only went up about 18% in that time.
Why did the cost of police, fire and safety grow 49% in 5 years?
Police, fire and safety
Prices (inflation)
+0%+10%+20%+30%+40%+50%
+49%
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Police, fire and safety
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+2%
+1%
2021
+8%
+4%
2022
+4%
+11%
2023
+3%
+16%
2024
+49%
+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 $230K a year pay for?
Why did building permits go from $35,307 to $239K?
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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Police, fire and safety: 2019 $470K, 2020 $477K, 2021 $508K, 2022 $490K, 2023 $484K, 2024 $700K.
$58,662gap between amortization in note 10 and in the statements (worked out by us; also printed as a disposal/transfer)
Amortization spreads the cost of an asset over its life. In 2023 the note on capital assets and the statements agree at $319,660. In 2024 note 10 shows $471,393 of amortization charged to assets, while the statement of cash flows and the segment note use $412,731. The $58,662 gap is the same amount shown as "disposals and transfers" in accumulated amortization of land improvements, where the cost column shows no disposals. The statements do not explain it.
Why it matters
This is a small, checkable difference in the town's own audited numbers. It may be an honest clean-up, but a reader cannot tell. A clear note would answer it.
It could be because…
Part of the land improvements' accumulated amortization may have been moved out when the landfill re-estimate added $458,290 to land improvements.
A correction of earlier years may have been booked through the note and not through expenses.
It may be a presentation slip that does not affect the result.
Questions you could ask
What is the $58,662 shown as disposals and transfers in the land improvements' accumulated amortization?
Is amortization expense for 2024 $412,731 or $471,393?
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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 10, 2024 table of accumulated amortization: amortization total $ 471,393; disposals and transfers (58,662), all in "Land improvements" (amortization 23,277); closing total $ 7,774,452. In the cost table, disposals are "-" for every class.
Statement of cash flows: "Amortization of tangible capital assets" 412,731 in 2024 and 319,660 in 2023. Statement of change in net financial assets: 412,731 and 319,660.
3 monthswith no wastewater treatment contract, according to the 2024 statements
The commitments note in the 2024 statements says there were no contracts for wastewater treatment from January 2024 to March 2024, and that a new service agreement runs from April 2024 to December 2028 at $60,939 a year plus 2% a year. The Municipality published this itself. It does not say who ran the plant during the gap or how it was paid.
Why it matters
Public money should be spent under a contract once a service is bought. A short gap is common, but it is fair to ask how it was handled and whether the purchasing policy was followed.
It could be because…
Operators may have carried on month to month under the old terms while the new agreement was finished.
The service may have been bought in smaller amounts that the purchasing policy lets staff approve.
The note may describe a paperwork gap and not a gap in service.
Questions you could ask
Who operated the wastewater plant from January to March 2024, and under what authority were they paid?
Was the new agreement tendered under the purchasing policy?
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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 12, wastewater treatment: "from April 2024 until December 2028, with annually payment of $60,939 plus increase of 2% each year per Consumer Price Index." "There were no contracts from January 2024 to March 2024."
$670,701actual surplus for 2024, against a budgeted $390,912
The 2023 statements show a budget deficit of $(656,964) and an actual surplus of $654,500. The 2024 statements show a budget surplus of $390,912 and an actual surplus of $670,701. The Municipality explains that its budget is not prepared the same way as the statements. Note 17 lists the adjustments, such as reserve transfers and loan principal. By area, the gaps are large: in 2024, general government was budgeted at $2,130,409 and came in at $1,275,432, and recreation and culture $1,238,515 against $536,393. Coming in under budget is not a problem in itself, so this is a note.
Why it matters
Residents see the budget as the promise for the year. When the two documents are built on different bases, a reader cannot tell from the budget alone what a service really cost. A comparison on one basis would fix that.
It could be because…
The budget lists big projects and reserve transfers as expenses, and the statements count the projects as assets, not costs.
Grants for capital projects count as revenue in the statements.
Spending may have been held back, or a planned project moved to a later year.
Questions you could ask
Can the Municipality publish each year's budget and actual spending on the same basis, by service?
How much of the 2024 surplus was set aside in reserves?
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 St-Charles?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Statement of operations, 2024: "Annual surplus" budget 390,912, actual 670,701 (2023 actual 654,500). "General government" budget 2,130,409, actual 1,275,432. "Recreation and cultural services" budget 1,238,515, actual 536,393.
Note 17: "The budget was not prepared on a basis consistent with that used to report actual results (Public Sector Accounting Standards)." Budget surplus per financial plan $ -; add budgeted loan principal payments 38,694, transfer to reserve 304,111, landfill adjustment 460,838; less amortization (412,731); budget surplus per financial statements $ 390,912.
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