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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Thomas'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 Thomas' financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 9 similar Ontario places. 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.
$440,000,000estimated remaining cost of servicing the new development area (2024 statements: $245,000,000)
Each year's audited statements carry a note about one very large project: land bought and pipes and plants built to open up a new development area. In the 2024 statements the City said finishing the servicing would cost about $245,000,000. In the 2025 statements it says about $440,000,000, for the Dalewood Water Reclamation Facility (a new sewage treatment plant), due to be finished by 2030. It also expects to borrow an estimated $167,000,000 once the plant is done. The City's net long-term debt at the end of 2025 was $36,949,029. The notes say the work will be paid for with development revenues, outside transfers, industrial site servicing agreements and land sales, but they do not say why the estimate rose by about $195,000,000 (worked out by us), or whether the two notes describe the same scope.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$26,587,210loss on disposal of tangible capital assets and land in 2024
The 2025 statements say the cost of the new development area is shown in capital work in progress "net of land costs conveyed or sold as of December 31, 2025 of $379,000,000." Yet the statement of operations shows a loss on disposing of capital assets and land of only $334 in 2025. In 2024 it shows a loss of $26,587,210, while the 2024 statements list only $4,322,482 of capital asset disposals at cost. We did not find where the notes explain what the land was sold or conveyed for, to whom, or how the 2024 loss came about.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$91,317,616owed to the City at the end of 2025 as accounts receivable, up from $43,506,027
The 2025 statements budgeted $174,748,968 in government transfers for capital projects and received $113,467,967. They budgeted $56,859,229 in developer and other contributions for capital and received $12,341,251. Together that is about $105.8 million less than budgeted (worked out by us). At the same time, accounts receivable (money owed to the City) went from $43,506,027 to $91,317,616 and cash and short-term investments fell from $81,411,689 to $69,267,577. The notes explain that capital budgets are set project by project and are unaudited, but they do not say which grants or contributions are late, or what the receivables are.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$207,689,549spent in 2025, against $175,772,304 in the budget column of the statements
The statements print the City's budget beside the actual results. For 2025 the budget column shows expenditures of $175,772,304 and the actual is $207,689,549. For 2024 the budget column shows $162,279,114 against an actual of $185,488,642. Revenue also beat its budget: $214,962,780 against $186,877,638 in 2025. In 2025 user charges (fees for water, sewer and other services) were $60,048,191 against a budget of $42,010,616, and transportation spending was $19,998,842 against $10,206,383. The notes say only that the approved operating budget is shown and that the budget is unaudited. We did not find a published reconciliation between the budget Council approves and the budget column in the statements.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$77,468police legal fees and expenses in 2024, against a budget of $5,000
The 2026 budget book prints the police "Legal Fees & Expenses" line for each year. In 2023 the budget was $5,000 and the actual was $43,543. In 2024 the budget was $5,000 and the actual was $77,468. Together that is $121,011 against $10,000 budgeted (worked out by us). The budget for 2025 and 2026 is still $5,000; the year-to-date column for 2025 shows $4,663. The police pages in the budget book discuss wages, grants and growth, but we did not find a note on legal costs.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
$75,723,445total reserves and reserve funds at the end of 2025, up from $53,039,031
The 2026 budget book says investment income will fall by $250,000 "as reserve balances continue to decline" and that "the City continues to deplete its reserves." Staff also "advise against" the City's current practice of budgeting investment income to cover operating costs. But the audited 2025 statements show "Reserves" rising from $17,885,325 to $41,107,779, and all reserves and reserve funds together rising from $53,039,031 to $75,723,445. The two documents may be measuring different things or different dates. The 2025 statements also show cash and short-term investments falling from $81,411,689 to $69,267,577.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
Places keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. St Thomas had $53M saved at the end of 2024, up from $30M in 2019. That is 32% of one year's spending. Only 1 of 9 similar places had less, compared with what they spend.
Found automatically from the city's financial reports · 2 sources
$3,954,514increase in the police budget for 2026 (5.41 points of an 8.9 per cent levy increase)
The 2026 budget raises the property tax levy (the total the City collects from property taxes) from $73,035,325 to $79,480,392, up $6,516,066 or 8.9 per cent. After growth in the tax base (more properties paying), the net increase is 6.1 per cent. Police is the biggest part: its budget goes from $17,674,249 to $21,628,762, up $3,954,514, which is 5.41 points of the levy increase. The City has explained the main reasons in the budget book: wage and benefit increases, new positions, retiree benefits moved over from another department, and a 47.1 per cent drop in grants. Because it is explained, we have put this at the lowest level.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$5,734,718OMERS contributions in 2025, up from $4,240,218 in 2024
OMERS is the pension plan for municipal workers. The City says it contributed $4,240,218 for current service in 2024 and $5,734,718 in 2025. That is up $1,494,500, or about 35 per cent (worked out by us). In the 2024 statements, salaries and benefits were $76,893,888; in the 2025 statements they are $84,487,144, up about 9.9 per cent (worked out by us). The City also had 222 employees paid $100,000 or more in 2025 against 181 in 2024. The notes do not explain the pension step-up.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
Each question in full
Needs an answerFound by reading the city's documents
$440,000,000estimated remaining cost of servicing the new development area (2024 statements: $245,000,000)
Each year's audited statements carry a note about one very large project: land bought and pipes and plants built to open up a new development area. In the 2024 statements the City said finishing the servicing would cost about $245,000,000. In the 2025 statements it says about $440,000,000, for the Dalewood Water Reclamation Facility (a new sewage treatment plant), due to be finished by 2030. It also expects to borrow an estimated $167,000,000 once the plant is done. The City's net long-term debt at the end of 2025 was $36,949,029. The notes say the work will be paid for with development revenues, outside transfers, industrial site servicing agreements and land sales, but they do not say why the estimate rose by about $195,000,000 (worked out by us), or whether the two notes describe the same scope.
Why it matters
Debt and costs on this scale are carried by everyone who pays property tax or a water and sewer bill, now and later. A cost estimate that moves this much in a year, with a plan to borrow several times the current debt, is something residents can reasonably ask to see explained in public before the October 26, 2026 election.
It could be because…
The 2025 note names a specific project, the Dalewood Water Reclamation Facility. The 2024 note speaks of "the servicing requirements" in general, so the two figures may cover different things.
Early estimates for a plant that will not open until 2030 are rough. Construction prices, the size of the plant or the number of homes and businesses it must serve may have changed.
Much of the cost is meant to be repaid by developers, senior governments and land sales, so the cost to taxpayers may be far smaller than the headline figure.
Questions you could ask
What changed between the 2024 and 2025 statements to move the estimate from $245,000,000 to $440,000,000, and do the two figures cover the same work?
What share of the $440,000,000 is expected from developers, senior governments and land sales, and what share from the City's own reserves, debt and taxes or user rates?
Has Council seen a full financing plan for the $167,000,000 of long-term debt, including how it fits under the City's annual debt repayment limit?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 20, Significant event: "At present, the future commitment to complete the servicing of this development is anticipated to cost approximately $440,000,000 for the Dalewood Water Reclamation Facility which is scheduled to be completed by 2030." It adds that financing "will include development revenues, external transfer payments, industrial site servicing agreements and land sales" and that "it is anticipated the City will incur an estimated $167,000,000 in long-term financing upon completion of the Facility."
Note 18, Significant event: "At present, the commitment to complete the servicing of this development is anticipated to cost the City approximately $245,000,000." The note also says the City "purchased lands for approximately $200,000,000 and incurred approximately $105,000,000 additional costs" for the servicing, and that "$10,000,000" of a $15,000,000 payment to a neighbouring municipality was paid in 2024 with new debt.
$26,587,210loss on disposal of tangible capital assets and land in 2024
The 2025 statements say the cost of the new development area is shown in capital work in progress "net of land costs conveyed or sold as of December 31, 2025 of $379,000,000." Yet the statement of operations shows a loss on disposing of capital assets and land of only $334 in 2025. In 2024 it shows a loss of $26,587,210, while the 2024 statements list only $4,322,482 of capital asset disposals at cost. We did not find where the notes explain what the land was sold or conveyed for, to whom, or how the 2024 loss came about.
Why it matters
Public land is a large public asset. When hundreds of millions of dollars of land change hands, residents can fairly ask what the City received for it and where that shows up in the books. A $26.6 million loss in one year with no explanation in the notes is also worth a plain answer.
It could be because…
Land may have been conveyed at cost to a partner or another level of government as part of a development agreement, with no gain or loss to record.
The 2024 loss may be a write-down of land or servicing costs that the City agreed to give up, recorded once, and the notes may simply be brief.
The sale proceeds may be recorded in lines other than "gain (loss) on disposal", for example as amounts owed to the City (accounts receivable) or as government transfers.
Questions you could ask
What was the $379,000,000 of land sold or conveyed, to whom, and for what price or other return?
What caused the $26,587,210 loss recorded in 2024, and why is it not explained in the notes?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 20: the land purchases and construction costs "are included in capital work in progress on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, net of land costs conveyed or sold as of December 31, 2025 of $379,000,000."
Consolidated Statement of Operations: "Gain (loss) on disposal of tangible capital assets and land" budget 1,320,000, actual 2025 (334), actual 2024 (26,587,210). Statement of Financial Position: "Capital work in progress" 394,530,850 (2024: 288,424,915).
2024 Consolidated Statement of Operations: "Gain (loss) on disposal of tangible capital assets" budget "-", actual 2024 (26,587,210), actual 2023 (1,070,150). Schedule 1: "Disposals during the year" total (4,322,482) at cost and (1,669,448) of accumulated amortization.
$91,317,616owed to the City at the end of 2025 as accounts receivable, up from $43,506,027
The 2025 statements budgeted $174,748,968 in government transfers for capital projects and received $113,467,967. They budgeted $56,859,229 in developer and other contributions for capital and received $12,341,251. Together that is about $105.8 million less than budgeted (worked out by us). At the same time, accounts receivable (money owed to the City) went from $43,506,027 to $91,317,616 and cash and short-term investments fell from $81,411,689 to $69,267,577. The notes explain that capital budgets are set project by project and are unaudited, but they do not say which grants or contributions are late, or what the receivables are.
Why it matters
If expected grants and developer payments arrive late or not at all, the City either waits, borrows, uses reserves or raises taxes and rates. Knowing which it is helps residents judge how safe the big projects are.
It could be because…
Grants for large projects often arrive after the work is done, so a budget for the whole project can run ahead of what is received in one year. Capital work also takes years.
A large part of the receivables may be grant money the City has earned and is owed but has not yet been paid, which would explain both the higher receivables and lower cash.
The budgeted transfers may include amounts that depend on development timing, which the City does not control.
Questions you could ask
Which grants and developer contributions budgeted for 2025 were not received, and when are they expected?
What makes up the $91,317,616 of accounts receivable, and how much of it has been paid since December 31, 2025?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, 2025: "Government transfers related to capital" budget 174,748,968, actual 113,467,967 (2024: 82,469,486). "Developer and other contributions related to capital" budget 56,859,229, actual 12,341,251 (2024: 16,304,242).
Note 1.o, Budget figures: "For capital spending, budgets are set for individual projects and funding for these activities is determined annually and made by transfers from the accumulated surplus and by application of applicable grants and other funds available to apply to capital projects. The budget is unaudited."
$207,689,549spent in 2025, against $175,772,304 in the budget column of the statements
The statements print the City's budget beside the actual results. For 2025 the budget column shows expenditures of $175,772,304 and the actual is $207,689,549. For 2024 the budget column shows $162,279,114 against an actual of $185,488,642. Revenue also beat its budget: $214,962,780 against $186,877,638 in 2025. In 2025 user charges (fees for water, sewer and other services) were $60,048,191 against a budget of $42,010,616, and transportation spending was $19,998,842 against $10,206,383. The notes say only that the approved operating budget is shown and that the budget is unaudited. We did not find a published reconciliation between the budget Council approves and the budget column in the statements.
Why it matters
A budget is a promise about what the year will cost. When the printed budget and the audited result differ by roughly 15 to 20 per cent, residents cannot tell whether the City overspent or the two numbers were built differently. The yearly tax levy is set from the budget, so it should be possible to compare like with like.
It could be because…
The budget Council approves may be built differently from the statements. For example, it may leave out amortization (the yearly wearing-out cost of buildings, roads and pipes, $20,413,977 in 2025) or the boards the City consolidates. The statement of change in net financial assets prints a dash for amortization in its budget column. The notes do not say which basis was used.
Water and sewer costs are paid from user charges, so higher fees and higher costs may move together, as the revenue figures here do.
In both years revenue also came in above budget, so some of the extra spending may be matched by extra money, not tax dollars.
Questions you could ask
Does the budget column in the audited statements match the operating budget Council approved? If not, can the City publish a reconciliation each year?
Which services account for the $31,917,245 gap (worked out by us) between 2025 budgeted and actual expenditures, and which of it was paid for by extra revenue?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, 2025 (budget, actual 2025, actual 2024): "User charges" 42,010,616, 60,048,191, 42,988,020. Total revenue 186,877,638, 214,962,780, 183,262,937. "Transportation services" 10,206,383, 19,998,842, 17,006,122. Total expenditures 175,772,304, 207,689,549, 185,488,642. "Excess of revenue over expenditures before other" 11,105,334, 7,273,231, (2,225,705).
Note 1.o: "The approved operating budget for 2025 is reflected on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus." Statement of Change in Net Financial Assets: "Amortization of tangible capital assets" budget "-", actual 20,413,977.
2024 Consolidated Statement of Operations (budget, actual 2024): total revenue 177,025,191, 182,991,937. Total expenditures 162,279,114, 185,488,642. "Excess of revenue over expenditures before other" 14,746,077, (2,496,705).
$77,468police legal fees and expenses in 2024, against a budget of $5,000
The 2026 budget book prints the police "Legal Fees & Expenses" line for each year. In 2023 the budget was $5,000 and the actual was $43,543. In 2024 the budget was $5,000 and the actual was $77,468. Together that is $121,011 against $10,000 budgeted (worked out by us). The budget for 2025 and 2026 is still $5,000; the year-to-date column for 2025 shows $4,663. The police pages in the budget book discuss wages, grants and growth, but we did not find a note on legal costs.
Why it matters
A line that runs about 9 and 15 times over budget two years in a row, and is then left at the same level, may mean the cost is real and recurring or that the line is carrying something else. Legal bills for a police service can come from labour matters, claims or oversight reviews, and residents pay for them through the levy.
It could be because…
Unusual one-off matters in 2023 and 2024, such as a labour dispute, a claim or an oversight review, may have been paid from this line, and 2025 returned to normal.
Legal costs for the police may be partly recovered or paid from another source that is not shown on this line.
The year-to-date column for 2025 is a partial-year figure, so it does not show the full 2025 cost.
Questions you could ask
What matters made up the $43,543 in 2023 and the $77,468 in 2024, and were any of them closed?
Should the 2026 budget for this line be raised if the cost is expected to continue?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Police Services, line 31 "Legal Fees & Expenses": 2023 actual 43,543, 2023 budget 5,000, 2024 actual 77,468, 2024 budget 5,000, 2025 budget 5,000, 2025 year-to-date 4,663, 2026 budget 5,000, change "-". (Column order as headed on the page: Actual, Budget for 2023 and 2024; Budget, YTD for 2025; Budget, Change for 2026.)
The Police Services Board has a separate "Legal Fees & Expenses" line: 2023 budget 2,000, 2024 actual 3,297, 2025 year-to-date 1,959. It is not the figure used above.
$75,723,445total reserves and reserve funds at the end of 2025, up from $53,039,031
The 2026 budget book says investment income will fall by $250,000 "as reserve balances continue to decline" and that "the City continues to deplete its reserves." Staff also "advise against" the City's current practice of budgeting investment income to cover operating costs. But the audited 2025 statements show "Reserves" rising from $17,885,325 to $41,107,779, and all reserves and reserve funds together rising from $53,039,031 to $75,723,445. The two documents may be measuring different things or different dates. The 2025 statements also show cash and short-term investments falling from $81,411,689 to $69,267,577.
Why it matters
Reserves are savings set aside for later. If the City is relying on them to hold down taxes while also taking on a very large project, residents will want to know whether the savings are going up or down, and what is in them.
It could be because…
The budget was written before the year ended and may describe the general-purpose reserves used to cover the operating budget, while the statements count every reserve, including money set aside for projects.
The increase may come from one-time money, such as proceeds from land sales, set aside in 2025 and not available to cover everyday costs.
Some reserve funds are tied by law or agreement to a purpose (development charges, for example), so a rise does not mean the City can spend them freely.
Questions you could ask
What were the general-purpose reserve balances at December 31, 2024 and 2025, and why did "Reserves" rise by $23,222,454 (worked out by us) in 2025?
How much of the reserve balance is one-time money, and how much of the 2026 budget depends on investment income from it?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for St Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Corporate staff commentary: "this revenue is expected to decrease by $250,000 as reserve balances continue to decline and interest rates ease." It continues: "Staff expect a more substantial impact in 2027 at the City continues to deplete its reserves. Staff generally advise against the City’s current budgeting approach for investment income."
St Thomas spent $24.8M on police, fire and safety in 2019 and $36.9M 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
+16%
+1%
2021
+13%
+4%
2022
+17%
+11%
2023
+27%
+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 city 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 $12.2M a year pay for?
Why did police (opp contract) go from $13.3M to $21.8M?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Police, fire and safety: 2019 $24.8M, 2020 $28.6M, 2021 $28M, 2022 $29M, 2023 $31.5M, 2024 $36.9M.
Places keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. St Thomas had $53M saved at the end of 2024, up from $30M in 2019. That is 32% of one year's spending. Only 1 of 9 similar places had less, compared with what they spend.
Does St Thomas have enough saved for repairs and emergencies?
$0$20M$40M$60M
$53M
201920202021202220232024
Show as a table
Year
Savings (reserves)
2019
$30M
2020
$42.7M
2021
$42M
2022
$48.4M
2023
$55.7M
2024
$53M
Why it matters
With little saved, a broken bridge or a storm has to be paid for with a sudden tax increase or a loan. Low savings can also mean past budgets were balanced by spending savings instead of facing the real cost.
It could be because…
The city spent savings on purpose, on projects that were planned and saved up for.
Some savings were used to match grant money, which brings in more than it costs.
The city has a plan to rebuild its savings.
Questions you could ask
Does the city have a written reserve policy with a target amount?
What were the savings spent on between 2019 and 2024?
What is the plan to rebuild them, and by when?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$3,954,514increase in the police budget for 2026 (5.41 points of an 8.9 per cent levy increase)
The 2026 budget raises the property tax levy (the total the City collects from property taxes) from $73,035,325 to $79,480,392, up $6,516,066 or 8.9 per cent. After growth in the tax base (more properties paying), the net increase is 6.1 per cent. Police is the biggest part: its budget goes from $17,674,249 to $21,628,762, up $3,954,514, which is 5.41 points of the levy increase. The City has explained the main reasons in the budget book: wage and benefit increases, new positions, retiree benefits moved over from another department, and a 47.1 per cent drop in grants. Because it is explained, we have put this at the lowest level.
Why it matters
Police is the largest single driver of the 2026 levy increase. The drop in provincial grants is the part the City says it does not control, so residents may want to know how much of it is permanent.
It could be because…
The police service says over 98 per cent of its budget is salaries, benefits and collective agreement costs, which are set by contract.
Part of the change is moving $307,536.16 of retiree benefits from the human resources budget, which does not add a new cost to the City as a whole. The corporate budget lists a matching levy reduction of ($300,019) for "Transfer of retiree benefits to Police".
The police budget notes say grants fell short of what was expected in 2025 and that the service applies for more each year, so some grants may return.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $1.93M grant drop is permanent, and how much could come back if pending applications are approved?
What does the police budget cost per household after provincial grants, compared with similar cities?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Operating budget by department: "Police" 2025 budget 17,674,249, 2026 budget 21,628,762, change 3,954,514, levy impact 5.41%. "Property Tax Levy" 73,035,325, 79,480,392, 6,516,066, 8.9%. "Less: Impact of Growth (2.8%)", "Net Levy Increase 6.1%".
Police key drivers: existing salaries and benefits "+$1.44M | +7.4%"; new positions "+$428,490 | +2.2%" for "five (5) Constables, one (1) Crime Analyst, and two (2) Special Constables"; retiree benefits "($307,536.16)"; goods and services "+$288,700 | +25.23%"; grant decrease "-$1.93M | -47.1%". The service says its cost per capita is "$432.58" and its officer to citizen ratio is "1:538".
Police 2025 budget performance as of September 18, 2025: "Projected Year-End Surplus/(Deficit) ($535,424)". The page says grants "remain the main pressure point" and lists $607,200 of grant applications awaiting approval.
$5,734,718OMERS contributions in 2025, up from $4,240,218 in 2024
OMERS is the pension plan for municipal workers. The City says it contributed $4,240,218 for current service in 2024 and $5,734,718 in 2025. That is up $1,494,500, or about 35 per cent (worked out by us). In the 2024 statements, salaries and benefits were $76,893,888; in the 2025 statements they are $84,487,144, up about 9.9 per cent (worked out by us). The City also had 222 employees paid $100,000 or more in 2025 against 181 in 2024. The notes do not explain the pension step-up.
Why it matters
Pension costs are a promise to employees that taxpayers must keep paying. A jump much larger than the rise in pay is worth a short explanation so residents know whether it will continue.
It could be because…
More people moved into the plan, for example new full-time hires in police, fire, water and Valleyview, or part-time staff who became eligible.
OMERS contribution rates rise with pay, and one-time payments (such as back pay under new contracts) can raise a year's contributions.
The 2024 figure may have been unusually low. The 2024 statements show $4,528,243 for 2023.
Questions you could ask
What explains the $1,494,500 rise in OMERS contributions, and is 2025 the new normal?
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 Thomas?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 6, Pension agreements: "The amount contributed to OMERS for 2025 was $5,734,718 (2024 - $4,240,218) for current service." Note 14: "there are two hundred and twenty-two employees paid a salary, as defined in the Public Sector Disclosure Act, 1996 of $100,000 or more." Schedule 2: "Salaries and benefits" total 84,487,144.
2024 Schedule 2: "Salaries and benefits" total 76,893,888. Note 6: "The amount contributed to OMERS for 2024 was $4,240,218 (2023 - $4,528,243)". Note 14: "there are one hundred and eighty-one employees paid a salary".
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