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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Stone Mills'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 · 6 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Stone Mills' financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 85 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.
$11,685,204estimated cost to close and look after the three landfills, on the audited December 31, 2024 books; the landfill reserve fund held $1,432,695
Ontario towns must count, on their books, the future cost of closing their landfills and looking after them for years afterward. The audited statements for 2024 put that bill at $11,685,204 for Stone Mills’ three landfills (Camden East, Moscow and Sheffield). The reserve fund the town keeps for landfills held $1,432,695, about one eighth of it. (A reserve is money the town has put aside for a purpose.) The draft statements for 2025, on the agenda for council’s September 28, 2026 meeting, cut the bill to $9,100,706, after a $2,841,572 “remeasurement” in which the notes show a higher discount rate, lower inflation and different remaining years for each site. The reserve fund had grown to $1,597,001. The town says it raised the price of garbage bags in 2024 to build up the reserve.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 7 sources
$57,781.80the contractor’s charge for installing the siding, plus HST, against the $30,000 council approved in June 2025
In June 2025, council moved $30,000 meant for asbestos removal at the Erinsville Train Station to pay for installing siding on the Newburgh Medical Centre, a town building. The siding had been ordered by mistake for another job, the Enterprise Hall renovation: vertical boards instead of the horizontal ones the hall uses. In February 2026 the chief building official told council what happened next. The contractor billed $29,813.36 plus HST for the siding itself and then billed $57,781.80 plus HST for putting it up, as an “extra”. Staff asked for a further $64,215.65 from the Stability Reserve (the town’s savings for surprises), and said they did not ask other contractors for a price on the installation. Council agreed on February 9, 2026.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 4 sources
16 of 77council meetings since November 2022 at which a member declared a conflict of interest; 14 of the 16 were by the same councillor
Under Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, a member who has a money interest in a matter must say so, stay out of the discussion and not vote. On June 16, 2025, Councillor Shari Milligan declared a pecuniary interest on the item about siding for the Newburgh Medical Centre and did not take part. On February 9, 2026, council dealt with the project’s extra cost (see the siding question). The minutes record “None Declared” and show Councillor Milligan as seconding the motion to pay the extra cost from the Stability Reserve. The minutes do not say what interest she declared in 2025. She has often declared interests, usually because she volunteers for or works for an organization that asks the town for something, including three times on closed-session items about leases of town buildings. Declaring is what the law asks. The open question is whether it was done the same way each time for this project. The town’s website and meeting portal do not show a registry of declarations.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 8 sources
49 of 77council meetings since November 2022 had a closed-session item (17 of 32 in 2025 and 2026)
Ontario lets councils meet privately for a short list of reasons, such as staff matters, legal advice, land deals and lease talks. In the 77 council meetings whose minutes we read, from November 21, 2022 to July 13, 2026, 49 had a closed-session item. The town does better than many on reporting back: since January 2025 every closed session has a “Rise and Report” item in public, 17 of 17. But the reports are short. In 7 of the 17 the report is only that direction was given to staff (or the CAO, or the solicitor), sometimes with the approval of earlier closed-session minutes, and in 5 it says there is nothing further to report. Many of the 2022 and 2023 minutes gave little or no reason, such as “a matter in accordance with Section 239”.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 5 sources
$492,870.25the bridge price council approved on July 7, 2025, up from $296,795.00 (before HST) in February
In February 2025, staff asked council to approve a prefabricated 70-foot bridge for the Flynn Bridge replacement at $296,795.00 (before HST), and council set aside $147,379.00 more for engineering and installation. By July 7, 2025, the price of the bridge was $492,870.25, for an 80-foot span. Staff gave three reasons: an on-site check showed a longer bridge was needed, the supplier had made an error in the first quote, and new tariffs. The extra money came from deferred Canada Community-Building Fund money (federal gas-tax money for municipalities) and the capital roads reserve. By July 13, 2026 a councillor was thanking staff for installing the bridge. We did not find the final cost.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
$20,000extra engineering study the conservation authority now requires before any work on Rattie Road (earlier options: $25,000, $55,000 and $370,000)
Rattie Road (spelled Ratti Road in some town papers) crosses Mud Creek between Centreville Road and Hinch Road. In March 2025 staff and the conservation authority looked at the latest of several washouts there. On June 16, 2025, council voted to close it at the creek, a job staff priced at $25,000. On September 15, 2025, it held off, after problems with the legal description of the land and concerns from residents. On November 17, 2025, it chose to repair the road as it was, for $55,000. Then the conservation authority put the permit on hold and said an engineered design and a water-flow study, about $20,000, are needed before any work. If the study calls for bigger culverts, staff’s earlier price for an improved crossing was $370,000. On June 22, 2026 council put off the decision. A new report was on the August 10, 2026 agenda; minutes for that meeting were not yet posted.
Found by reading the town's own documents · 6 sources
$11,685,204estimated cost to close and look after the three landfills, on the audited December 31, 2024 books; the landfill reserve fund held $1,432,695
Ontario towns must count, on their books, the future cost of closing their landfills and looking after them for years afterward. The audited statements for 2024 put that bill at $11,685,204 for Stone Mills’ three landfills (Camden East, Moscow and Sheffield). The reserve fund the town keeps for landfills held $1,432,695, about one eighth of it. (A reserve is money the town has put aside for a purpose.) The draft statements for 2025, on the agenda for council’s September 28, 2026 meeting, cut the bill to $9,100,706, after a $2,841,572 “remeasurement” in which the notes show a higher discount rate, lower inflation and different remaining years for each site. The reserve fund had grown to $1,597,001. The town says it raised the price of garbage bags in 2024 to build up the reserve.
Why it matters
The bill is not due today, but it is real and it is large for a township of about 7,800 people. The estimate fell by millions of dollars in one year without any work being done, and the notes point to changed assumptions. Residents can only judge whether the town is saving enough if they know how much is meant to come from the reserve, from bag fees and from taxes later.
It could be because…
This is an accounting number, not a bill due now. The rules make a town record the whole future cost today, although closing and care happen over decades. The notes give Camden East about 15 years, Moscow about 25 and Sheffield about 13 (draft 2025), and care for at least 25 years after each one closes.
A number this far in the future moves a lot with the assumptions. In the draft the discount rate went from 2.20% to 2.50% and the inflation rate from 4.53% to 4.00%, with no change in the plan itself.
The town does not have to hold the full amount in cash. Bag fees, the reserve fund, future taxes and any grants can each pay a share over time.
A new landfill cell at Camden East could cost less than closing it and starting elsewhere. The 2026 budget has money for planning that expansion.
Questions you could ask
What caused the $2,841,572 drop in the landfill estimate in the draft 2025 statements: the discount and inflation numbers, new engineering advice, or changes in each site’s expected life?
How much of the closing and care bill does the town plan to pay from the landfill reserve fund, how much from bag fees, and how much from taxes later? Is there a written plan with a yearly target?
When does the town expect to close Camden East, and what would an expansion cost compared with closing it?
Will the audited 2025 statements, once signed, keep the draft’s $9,100,706?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 8 says the Township owns and operates three active landfill sites, with an estimated remaining life of 13 years for Camden East, 28 for Moscow and 18 for Sheffield, and care for a minimum of 25 years after closing. The landfill closing and care obligation at December 31, 2024 was $11,685,204, plus $259,511 for asbestos and fuel tank removal, $11,944,715 in all.
The same statements show the “Waste disposal landfill” reserve fund at $1,432,695 (2023: $1,275,041). A separate “Environmental” reserve held $486,595 (2023: $385,234).
In the draft 2025 statements the landfill closure obligation at December 31, 2025 is $9,100,706, against $11,685,204 a year earlier. The year’s change includes “Remeasurement of asset retirement obligation” of (2,841,572) and accretion expense of 257,074. The note gives a discount rate of 2.50% (2024 - 2.20%) and an inflation rate of 4.00% (2024 - 4.53%), and remaining lives of 15 years for Camden East, 25 for Moscow and 13 for Sheffield.
The town’s explanation of the bag fee: garbage bags went from $2.00 to $3.00 in the 2024 budget year, with two thirds of the revenue moved to the landfill reserves, “to bolster the reserve account to compensate for future landfill liabilities and remediation.”
The 2026 budget has $55,000 for engineering and first planning approvals for a future Camden East landfill expansion, with $30,000 of it paid from the Environmental Services Reserve.
$57,781.80the contractor’s charge for installing the siding, plus HST, against the $30,000 council approved in June 2025
In June 2025, council moved $30,000 meant for asbestos removal at the Erinsville Train Station to pay for installing siding on the Newburgh Medical Centre, a town building. The siding had been ordered by mistake for another job, the Enterprise Hall renovation: vertical boards instead of the horizontal ones the hall uses. In February 2026 the chief building official told council what happened next. The contractor billed $29,813.36 plus HST for the siding itself and then billed $57,781.80 plus HST for putting it up, as an “extra”. Staff asked for a further $64,215.65 from the Stability Reserve (the town’s savings for surprises), and said they did not ask other contractors for a price on the installation. Council agreed on February 9, 2026.
Why it matters
Competing prices are how a town knows it paid a fair amount. When a job’s price is only learned from the invoice, after the work is done, council cannot say no. The town did explain what went wrong, which is good, but the questions about how the price was agreed remain.
It could be because…
Staff say the same contractor had won many tenders and quotes for the town, and had charged fair prices for extras before.
The town’s purchasing by-law sets when several quotes are needed. A small repair job may fall below that limit. We could not read the posted by-law, which is a scan.
Staff say the work was done slowly over summer and fall 2025 and that they did not expect the installation to cost this much.
Prefinished vertical siding for a special order cannot easily be returned, so using it somewhere was a reasonable try to avoid waste.
Questions you could ask
What does the purchasing by-law (2019-1001) require for a job of this size, and was it followed?
Why was the $30,000 request made in June 2025, before anyone knew the price of the installation?
Who bore the cost of the siding that was ordered by mistake for the Enterprise Hall, and could the supplier or contractor have shared it?
Will staff report to council when a job’s cost passes what council approved, before the work is finished?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Staff asked council to move $30,000 budgeted for asbestos removal at the Erinsville Train Station to “installation costs for the new cladding” at the Newburgh Medical Centre, saying it would need no additional funding. The report explains that prefinished vertical wood siding was ordered for the Enterprise Hall renovation rather than the horizontal siding that building uses.
Staff report on the budget deficit: the contractor invoiced $29,813.36 + HST for the siding alone, then a further $57,781.80 + HST for the installation, treated as an “extra”. Staff write that facility staff “did not request different quotations from competitors” for the installation, and ask that a further $64,215.65 be taken from the Stability Reserve.
Council accepted the report and directed finance staff to fund the budget deficit from the Stability Reserve, account 01.00.000.2247 (Resolution 13-703-2026).
16 of 77council meetings since November 2022 at which a member declared a conflict of interest; 14 of the 16 were by the same councillor
Under Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, a member who has a money interest in a matter must say so, stay out of the discussion and not vote. On June 16, 2025, Councillor Shari Milligan declared a pecuniary interest on the item about siding for the Newburgh Medical Centre and did not take part. On February 9, 2026, council dealt with the project’s extra cost (see the siding question). The minutes record “None Declared” and show Councillor Milligan as seconding the motion to pay the extra cost from the Stability Reserve. The minutes do not say what interest she declared in 2025. She has often declared interests, usually because she volunteers for or works for an organization that asks the town for something, including three times on closed-session items about leases of town buildings. Declaring is what the law asks. The open question is whether it was done the same way each time for this project. The town’s website and meeting portal do not show a registry of declarations.
Why it matters
The rule exists so that decisions are made for the town and not for anyone’s pocket. Declarations are how residents can check that it works. When a member declares at one step of a project and not at another, residents cannot tell if the interest ended, did not apply, or the minutes are wrong. Ontario law also says every town must keep a registry of these declarations that the public can look at.
It could be because…
The 2025 interest may have been about a specific step, such as who would do the work, and may not apply to a vote that only moves money out of a reserve.
The minutes may be wrong: the “Seconded By” name or the “None Declared” line may have been recorded by mistake. Council adopted the February 9 minutes “as circulated” on March 9, 2026, so any slip was not caught.
On other items the reasons she gave were that she works for an organization that leases a town building, or is a member of a community group asking for a donation or permit. The minutes do not say whether either applied in June 2025.
A member who declares early and often is playing it safe. In a small township a member who volunteers widely will often have an interest.
Questions you could ask
What interest did Councillor Milligan declare on June 16, 2025, and why did it not apply on February 9, 2026?
Is the “Seconded By” entry for item 8.8 on February 9, 2026 correct?
Where is the registry of declarations kept, and can it be put online, with the written statement each member must file for every declaration?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Item 8.5, “Proposal to Install Siding at Newburgh Medical Centre”: the minutes record that Councillor Milligan “declared a pecuniary interest on this item” and did not take part in the discussion or the vote. The list of declarations under item 3 also records her interest on items 8.2 and 8.5.
Item 3 of the February 9, 2026 minutes reads “None Declared”. Item 8.8, “Staff Report on Budget Deficit for Newburgh Medical Centre Siding” (Resolution 13-703-2026), was moved by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor Milligan, and carried.
Another reason she gave: on a closed-session lease item she declared a conflict “as she is employed by one of the medical centres that leases a Township facility”.
The Accountability page describes the Integrity Commissioner, the Code of Conduct and closed meetings. It does not mention a registry of declarations of interest, and we found none on the CivicWeb meeting portal either.
Our count from the minutes of the 77 council meetings with minutes (November 21, 2022 to July 13, 2026): at least one member declared an interest at 16, and Councillor Milligan at 14 of them. Counts are ours.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires every municipality to keep a registry of declarations and written statements that the public can inspect.
49 of 77council meetings since November 2022 had a closed-session item (17 of 32 in 2025 and 2026)
Ontario lets councils meet privately for a short list of reasons, such as staff matters, legal advice, land deals and lease talks. In the 77 council meetings whose minutes we read, from November 21, 2022 to July 13, 2026, 49 had a closed-session item. The town does better than many on reporting back: since January 2025 every closed session has a “Rise and Report” item in public, 17 of 17. But the reports are short. In 7 of the 17 the report is only that direction was given to staff (or the CAO, or the solicitor), sometimes with the approval of earlier closed-session minutes, and in 5 it says there is nothing further to report. Many of the 2022 and 2023 minutes gave little or no reason, such as “a matter in accordance with Section 239”.
Why it matters
Private meetings are allowed, and some matters have to stay private. Residents can only judge them by what is said afterward. “Direction was provided to Staff” tells people something was decided but not what kind of thing.
It could be because…
Many of these items are staff matters, legal advice and lease talks, where the law expects privacy.
Saying more could weaken the town’s position in a negotiation or a legal case.
The reports have become more specific over time. On January 26, 2026 the public report named the lease talks with two medical centres and said the leases would come back to an open meeting.
A small council with a small staff may need private time more often than a larger one.
Questions you could ask
Can the public report say what kind of direction was given (for example, to negotiate a lease or to settle a claim) when that does not weaken the town’s position?
Are closed-session minutes released once the matter is finished, for example after a lease is signed?
Will the new council keep the “Rise and Report” item after the November 2026 term starts?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
We read the minutes of 88 council, special and budget meetings from November 21, 2022 to July 13, 2026 (77 once two cancelled or rescheduled meetings and public-hearing-only meetings are set aside). 49 of the 77 had a “Closed Meeting” item with a closed session. From January 2025 on, 17 of 32. Counts are ours.
One example from early in the term, January 16, 2023: the item reads “Closed Session Matter in Accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act.” with no reason given.
November 17, 2025: council met in closed session about the minutes of September 2, 2025 and “Pricing for Integrity Commissioner RFP and External Planning Services RFP”, and about lease negotiations. The public report: minutes adopted and “Direction was provided to Staff”.
January 26, 2026: the public report said the January 12 minutes were adopted and direction was provided to staff on lease negotiations with the Tamworth and Newburgh medical centres, and that staff were to bring updated lease renewals to a future open session.
The town’s page on closed meetings lists the reasons the Municipal Act allows and says anyone who thinks a meeting was closed when the law did not allow it can ask the Ombudsman of Ontario to investigate.
$492,870.25the bridge price council approved on July 7, 2025, up from $296,795.00 (before HST) in February
In February 2025, staff asked council to approve a prefabricated 70-foot bridge for the Flynn Bridge replacement at $296,795.00 (before HST), and council set aside $147,379.00 more for engineering and installation. By July 7, 2025, the price of the bridge was $492,870.25, for an 80-foot span. Staff gave three reasons: an on-site check showed a longer bridge was needed, the supplier had made an error in the first quote, and new tariffs. The extra money came from deferred Canada Community-Building Fund money (federal gas-tax money for municipalities) and the capital roads reserve. By July 13, 2026 a councillor was thanking staff for installing the bridge. We did not find the final cost.
Why it matters
A bridge price that jumps by about two thirds shows how estimates change once engineers visit the site. The town explained it in public, which is what we hope to see. What residents do not see is the final cost.
It could be because…
A longer span can be a safety requirement found only on site.
A supplier’s mistake and new tariffs are outside the town’s control.
The town bought through a group-buying program, so the first price was set before the site was measured.
Waiting a year for a higher price would likely have cost more, as staff said in February 2025.
Questions you could ask
What was the final all-in cost of the Flynn Bridge, including engineering, installation and the 10% contingency, compared with the $700,000 estimate in the 2024 statements?
Did the supplier take any responsibility for the error in its first quote?
Why was a 70-foot span chosen before the site was measured?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Staff asked for pre-budget approval to buy a 70-foot prefabricated modular steel bridge from Armtec for $296,795.00 (excluding taxes), with 4 to 5 months to make and deliver, and wrote that delay would likely push building to 2026.
Council pre-approved $296,795.00 for the bridge through the Canoe Procurement Group and a further $147,379.00 for engineering and installation, to be included in the 2025 budget.
The original quote of $296,795.00 (excluding HST) was for a 70-foot span. Staff found an 80-foot span was needed, the supplier had made an error in its first quotation, and new tariffs applied. The revised cost is $492,870.25, an increase of $196,075.25. The extra is drawn from deferred Canada Community Building Fund money and the capital roads reserve, which “currently has a balance of $1,772,977.47”. Staff say there will be no extra installation costs.
$20,000extra engineering study the conservation authority now requires before any work on Rattie Road (earlier options: $25,000, $55,000 and $370,000)
Rattie Road (spelled Ratti Road in some town papers) crosses Mud Creek between Centreville Road and Hinch Road. In March 2025 staff and the conservation authority looked at the latest of several washouts there. On June 16, 2025, council voted to close it at the creek, a job staff priced at $25,000. On September 15, 2025, it held off, after problems with the legal description of the land and concerns from residents. On November 17, 2025, it chose to repair the road as it was, for $55,000. Then the conservation authority put the permit on hold and said an engineered design and a water-flow study, about $20,000, are needed before any work. If the study calls for bigger culverts, staff’s earlier price for an improved crossing was $370,000. On June 22, 2026 council put off the decision. A new report was on the August 10, 2026 agenda; minutes for that meeting were not yet posted.
Why it matters
Every change of plan costs staff time and leaves the road closed. The prices swing from $25,000 to $370,000, which shows how a small choice grows when a rule is found late. Staff say one house sits on the road.
It could be because…
The rules changed or were first misread: staff first thought a like-for-like repair needed no engineering review.
Staff learned about the road’s history of washouts (2014, 2017, 2018 and March 2024) only after a complaint reached the province.
Mud Creek is a provincially significant wetland that drains about 2,800 hectares, so the regulator is careful about any culvert change.
An energy company (BluEarth Renewables) is to share some of the cost, which makes the choice harder to settle.
Questions you could ask
When will council decide, and how much has been spent so far on staff time, the permit application and the survey?
What does it cost to keep the road closed and gated?
What share of the cost will BluEarth pay under each option?
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 Stone Mills?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Council resolved that staff not proceed with closing the road “at this time”, citing problems with the legal description, the need for a survey, concerns from residents and an initial quote of $25,000, and asked for a full financial analysis of options 1 and 3 (Resolution 21-695-2025).
Council directed staff to repair Ratti Rd. to existing conditions at an estimated cost of $55,000.00, paid from the 2025 operating roads budget. The minutes also record clarification that Blu Earth would be contributing funds whichever option was chosen.
The conservation authority confirmed on June 8, 2026 that an engineering and hydraulic study is required, estimated at $20,000. Option 1 (repair, $55,000.00), Option 2 (improved crossing, $370,000.00 municipal cost) and Option 3 (closing, $25,000.00) are listed again.
The conservation authority wrote that Rattie Road had been closed in 2014, 2017 and 2018 and had a washout in March 2024, that it does not believe staff knew this history, and that closing the road at the crossing “is worth further discussion”.
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