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by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date.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 Windsor'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 Windsor's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 3 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.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
Two-thirds rule removedBy-law 72-2026 (April 27, 2026) dropped the Auditor General’s sole power over changes to the audit plan; the Auditor General says investigations will not advance in 2026
The Auditor General is the independent officer who audits the City and runs its Fraud and Waste Hotline. In October 2025 the by-law said only the Auditor General could delete or change the yearly audit plan, and Council could add to it only by a two-thirds vote of all members. On April 27, 2026 Council deleted the first rule and said Council may amend the plan. In June 2026 the Auditor General told Council that a Council direction to focus on a Transit Windsor review means no new investigations and no hotline investigations in 2026.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$6,654,750Transit Windsor’s 2025 year-end shortfall against a net budget of $14,122,873 (47.12%), after a $1,300,000 reserve draw
Transit Windsor’s net budget (the part paid by property taxes) for 2025 was $14,122,873. It finished the year $6,654,750 over that, after a $1,300,000 draw from a reserve (money set aside for later). The City’s report blames fewer student riders, a frozen provincial gas tax payment and federal paid medical leave. In June 2026 the City projected a deficit of about $5.12 million for 2026.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$5,000,000one-time dividends from the airport ($1,500,000) and the tunnel company ($3,500,000) in the 2026 budget
Council approved a 2026 budget with no increase to the tax levy (the total property tax the City collects). The budget counts $5,000,000 of extra dividends (profit payments from City-owned companies) that the City itself calls one-time. By June 2026 the City projected $5,471,200 of pressures against that budget, with $5.2 million left in the reserve meant to absorb surprises.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$280.2 millionestimated cost of the Sandwich South works (2026 to 2035); $238.9 million is to come from development charges
On March 30, 2026 Council endorsed borrowing for the Sandwich South Development Capital Works, a ten-year plan to build roads and sewers for the new hospital, airport lands and housing. The City says $238.9 million is meant to come from development charges (fees paid by builders), which the City says are already $8,069,460 in the red for the City-wide part. The City’s report also says the slower development comes, the longer repayment takes.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
2 reportsAuditor General reports (February 6 and February 20, 2026) that found missing or incomplete conflict disclosures
Two Auditor General reports from February 2026 looked at complaints about City employees with private business interests. Neither found evidence of improper influence. Both found that required disclosure forms were missing or incomplete. Council told staff to carry out the recommendations; the City’s policy review is due by the end of 2026.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
–$43,110,000social housing reserve fund at December 31, 2025 (a year earlier: –$25,593,000)
A reserve fund is money set aside for a purpose. The City’s audited statements show the social housing reserve fund at negative $43,110,000 on December 31, 2025, down from negative $25,593,000 a year earlier. We did not find an explanation of it in the annual reports we read.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
32.49%of the general investment portfolio ($178,147,394 of $548,252,743) was in credit unions on December 31, 2025
The City invests money it does not need right away. An Auditor General report (May 7, 2025) tested complaints about the limits and found most not supported, but found one about reporting partly warranted. The City agreed to report more. Its April 2026 investment report lists the investments made under its discretion to go over the usual limits.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$705,901,000employee future benefit liability at December 31, 2025, up $6,744,000 from 2024
The City owes retirees and employees future benefits such as health and WSIB coverage. The audited statements put the liability at $705,901,000, more than half of all the City’s liabilities. The City says it pays on a cash basis as bills come due, and that recent Council decisions will reduce the cost over time.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
$70,000,000the most the City says one class action over bingo and lottery licence fees could cost, as printed in thousands of dollars
The notes to the audited statements describe lawsuits that could cost the City money, including a class action over bingo and lottery licence fees where the City “could incur a liability of up to approximately $70,000” (in thousands of dollars, so $70,000,000). Other claims have no estimate.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
Two-thirds rule removedBy-law 72-2026 (April 27, 2026) dropped the Auditor General’s sole power over changes to the audit plan; the Auditor General says investigations will not advance in 2026
The Auditor General is the independent officer who audits the City and runs its Fraud and Waste Hotline. In October 2025 the by-law said only the Auditor General could delete or change the yearly audit plan, and Council could add to it only by a two-thirds vote of all members. On April 27, 2026 Council deleted the first rule and said Council may amend the plan. In June 2026 the Auditor General told Council that a Council direction to focus on a Transit Windsor review means no new investigations and no hotline investigations in 2026.
Why it matters
An auditor helps residents only if the people being audited cannot steer what is looked at. The change and the pause both came months before the October 26, 2026 election. The documents we read give the reason only as “questions and feedback” from Council, discussed in a closed meeting.
It could be because…
Council is allowed to give the Auditor General work: the City’s own report cites section 223.19(3) of the Municipal Act, under which the Auditor General performs duties assigned by the municipality.
Council may want the Auditor General’s limited time spent on the move of Transit Windsor into a City department, where the City is reporting a large budget gap (see the Transit Windsor question).
Council may have judged the October 2025 wording too limiting on its own power to set priorities for the audit work it pays for.
The pause may last only until the 2026 work plan year ends, or until Council gives new direction.
Questions you could ask
What were the “questions and feedback” that led Council to change By-law 172-2025, and why was the direction given in a closed meeting?
Can the text of the March 30, 2026 direction be made public, and under which closed-meeting reason was it discussed?
Which investigations are paused, how many hours does each need, and when will they restart?
Will the Auditor General’s annual report, which the by-law requires, and the quality review be delivered, and when?
Will the next Council keep the April 27, 2026 change or restore the two-thirds rule?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The by-law that set up the Auditor General’s office, passed October 20, 2025, said: “No deletions or amendments to the annual audit plan shall be made except by the Auditor General.” (section 17) and “Despite s.16, Council may add to the annual audit plan by two-thirds vote of all Members of Council.” (section 18). Section 19 said: “The Auditor General shall report annually to Council on the activities of their office and the discharge of their duties.”
By-law 72-2026, passed April 27, 2026, says: “That s.17 be intentionally deleted in its entirety.” and replaces section 18 with: “s.18 Despite s.16, Council may amend the annual audit plan from time to time.” The by-law page carries the note that the Mayor “will not exercise the power to veto this by-law”.
The City’s report C 52/2026 on the change says: “During an In-Camera Council meeting on March 30, 2026, Council directed Administration to review and amend By-law 172-2025 in response to questions and feedback regarding its content and in accordance with Council’s direction.” It adds: “The amendments to By-law 172-2025 are in response to questions and feedback received from Council and continue to reflect the operational realities at the City and the independence safeguards required to support the AG’s function.”
The minutes record Council decision CR144/2026 as: “That the report of the Special In-Camera meeting held March 30, 2026, BE ADOPTED as presented.” The minutes list the March 30 closed-meeting items by type only: expropriation settlements, a lease extension, a litigation update, a plan or agreement matter, an economic development opportunity, a personal or labour relations matter and legal advice. The Auditor General is not named in the list.
In a required communication to Council dated June 4, 2026, the Auditor General wrote: “CR 144/2026 included a direction that all remaining available effort be refocused solely on the Transit Windsor review.” The memo lists what is “Not Completed within 2026”, including “Annual reporting to Council on the activities of the Auditor General” and the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program. On the Fraud and Waste Hotline it says: “No prioritization, advancement, or investigation activities will be performed in 2026”. It also says “the three Critical/High-risk investigations in planning were deferred”.
The Auditor General’s Q2 status report lists five allegations waiting for investigation. Two rated “Critical” are marked “Paused”: “Financial Governance and Administrative Practices Of Significance” (projected effort 247) and “Conflict of Interest Concern (Design, Department and Individual)” (130), shown in hours. The report says: “queued investigations are not expected to advance during 2026 absent future Council direction or changes to the current implementation assumptions.” From August 1, 2025 to May 31, 2026 the hotline had 1,100 inbound communications; 715 were unique; 51 needed effort beyond the first check; 4 reached the investigation queue.
$6,654,750Transit Windsor’s 2025 year-end shortfall against a net budget of $14,122,873 (47.12%), after a $1,300,000 reserve draw
Transit Windsor’s net budget (the part paid by property taxes) for 2025 was $14,122,873. It finished the year $6,654,750 over that, after a $1,300,000 draw from a reserve (money set aside for later). The City’s report blames fewer student riders, a frozen provincial gas tax payment and federal paid medical leave. In June 2026 the City projected a deficit of about $5.12 million for 2026.
Why it matters
Transit is one of the few services where the City has said a gap will carry into the next year. The 2026 budget kept the tax levy at 0%, so the money to cover a repeat has to come from somewhere else.
It could be because…
The City says the drop in international students after the federal cap cut post-secondary pass revenue, and that other Ontario transit systems report the same.
The province held gas tax funding at the 2024 level, so a budgeted increase did not arrive.
Federal paid medical leave rules applied to Transit Windsor because of the cross-border Tunnel Bus. The City says that ended on January 1, 2026.
Construction detours added kilometres of service, and new routes may take 18 to 24 months to build ridership, as the City explains.
Questions you could ask
How much of the projected $5.12 million for 2026 will be paid from reserves and how much from the tax levy?
What does the City expect post-secondary pass revenue to be in 2027, and what route or fare changes are being considered?
What will the Transit Windsor Master Plan review, which the City proposes to start in 2027, cost, and what will it decide?
What savings has ending the Tunnel Bus produced so far?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Table A of the 2025 year-end report shows Transit Windsor with a gross budget of $44,175,110, a net budget of $14,122,873 and a year-end variance of ($6,654,750), (47.12%) of the net budget. It was the largest departmental shortfall; Corporate Accounts showed a surplus of $6,676,186.
The City’s separate Transit Windsor report says: “Transit Windsor ended 2025 with an operating deficit of $7,954,750”; $1,300,000 from the Growth Initiatives Reserve reduced the shortfall to $6,654,750. “Revenues fell short of budget by $5,664,500”. Named causes: a post-secondary pass revenue deficit of $2,255,000; a provincial gas tax shortfall of approximately $1,186,000; a revenue loss of $731,000 from an Ontario Works change; operations overtime up “approximately $2.3 million, representing a 75% increase over 2024”.
The same report says: “additional revenue impacts are expected in 2026”, that post-secondary pass use is expected to see “a further projected decline of 18% from 2025 to 2026”, and that the 2025 actions “should be understood as stabilizing and risk mitigating measures rather than a permanent resolution of the operating variance.” It also says Transit Windsor “is no longer classified as a federal employer” from 2026.
The 2026 second quarter report (June 12, 2026) says: “As of April 30, 2026, Transit is projecting a year-end deficit of approximately $5.12 million, excluding fuel”, driven by “lower-than-budgeted revenues of $3.18 million”, overtime of $0.93 million and vehicle maintenance of $0.6 million.
$5,000,000one-time dividends from the airport ($1,500,000) and the tunnel company ($3,500,000) in the 2026 budget
Council approved a 2026 budget with no increase to the tax levy (the total property tax the City collects). The budget counts $5,000,000 of extra dividends (profit payments from City-owned companies) that the City itself calls one-time. By June 2026 the City projected $5,471,200 of pressures against that budget, with $5.2 million left in the reserve meant to absorb surprises.
Why it matters
One-time money pays for this year only. If it does not repeat, the next budget has to replace it with a tax increase, cuts or more reserve use. The City’s own 2025 results show reserves already being drawn to close the year.
It could be because…
The City says the two companies have improved operations and working capital, so a larger one-time dividend can be paid without harming them.
The City says its overall reserve position is strong: reserves and reserve funds stood at $602,137,000 at the end of 2025.
Holding the levy at 0% was a direction from the Mayor that Council approved; budgets often mix one-time and lasting items.
The City says it may defer a $2,020,800 reserve transfer in 2026 to cover part of the pressures, so the full $5,471,200 may not need new money.
Questions you could ask
If the $5,000,000 of one-time dividends does not repeat in 2027, what replaces it?
How much of the projected $5,471,200 will be paid from the Budget Stabilization Reserve, and what is the plan to refill it?
What is the City’s policy on how much of a budget may rest on one-time money?
Can the City publish each year’s one-time items next to the levy change, so residents can see the lasting cost?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The revised 2026 budget amendments describe two one-time items. Airport: “the City has requested an increase, on a one-time basis to the 2026 dividend of $1,500,000.” Windsor-Detroit BorderLinks Corporation: “a request for an additional dividend in the amount of $3,500,000 has been requested on a one-time basis for 2026.”
The approved 2026 operating budget shows the dividends line (account 6560) at ($7,500,000) for the 2025 budget and ($12,500,000) for the 2026 budget, a change of ($5,000,000), 66.7%.
The January 26, 2026 budget presentation records the Mayor’s direction to “prepare a proposed 2026 budget that achieves a 0% tax levy”, shows the total change to the levy as $0 (0%), and lists dividends of $7,500,000 base plus a $5,000,000 one-time increase, $12,500,000 in total.
The 2026 second quarter report says: “Administration has identified approximately $5.5 million in unrealized revenues and unanticipated expenditures”; the “Total Projected Variance – Q2” is (5,471,200). It adds: “As of the writing of this report there is $5.2 million remaining in the Budget Stabilization Reserve (Fund 139).” Using it “would result in the balance being fully expended”.
For 2025, the year-end report says the City assumed risk on benefits: “this approach resulted in a fringe benefit deficit of $6,205,723, which was funded through a draw from the Reserve.” The Fringe Rate Stabilization Reserve fell from an opening balance of 5,356,049 to a closing balance of 2,686,903. The Budget Stabilization Reserve balance at December 31, 2025 was “$6,465,200”. The 2025 operating surplus was $341,848.
$280.2 millionestimated cost of the Sandwich South works (2026 to 2035); $238.9 million is to come from development charges
On March 30, 2026 Council endorsed borrowing for the Sandwich South Development Capital Works, a ten-year plan to build roads and sewers for the new hospital, airport lands and housing. The City says $238.9 million is meant to come from development charges (fees paid by builders), which the City says are already $8,069,460 in the red for the City-wide part. The City’s report also says the slower development comes, the longer repayment takes.
Why it matters
The City borrows first and collects the fees later. If growth is slower, or fee increases stay on hold, the report says payback stretches out, and the loan terms let the City raise the money from the general tax levy if other sources fall short.
It could be because…
The City says the works are needed for the new hospital, airport employment lands and housing, and that “growth pays for growth” is the aim.
Borrowing through Infrastructure Ontario lets the City keep its reserves; the City’s treasurer certified that the debt stays within the province’s annual repayment limit.
The City says its analysis was “conservative” and that it will report back before it applies for money for later phases.
Grants could still reduce the borrowing: the report says none is identified yet.
Questions you could ask
What development-charge revenue is assumed each year, and what happens to repayments if the on-hold rate increase is not approved?
Why did Council endorse the full financing strategy on March 30, 2026 rather than wait for the Council elected in October?
The report points to a “Private and Confidential Memo” on phasing: which parts of it can be made public?
Which figure is right, $280.2 million or $280.4 million?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The report says the project “carries a total estimated cost of $280.2 million, with costs intended to be recovered primarily through future Development Charges.” It adds: “Currently there is no identified grant funding to support these Capital Works.” (A later paragraph of the same report prints “$280.4 million”.)
“Of that, $41.3 million is projected to be funded from various sources, other than grants and development charges. The remaining $238.9 million is funded from Development Charges.” At January 1, 2026 the City-wide development charge reserves were “in a deficit position of $8,069,460” and “there is no funding available to support additional draws for the SSDCW Project.” The increase to development charges has been “placed on hold”.
Risk analysis: “a deferral of the increase can only be sustained in the short term” and, without a rate increase, development fees available for the plan are “severely diminished”; slower growth “will result in a longer payback of the Development Charges reserves”. The City expects the cost to be recovered “over a period of twenty (20) to thirty (30) years”. Council is asked to provide for “raising in each year as part of the general levy” the loan payments not covered by other sources.
For Phases 1 and 2 the City seeks borrowing “at an upset limit of $119.4 million”; at the 30-year rate of 4.81% “estimated annual principal and interest payments are expected to be $7.5 million” and total financing costs “would be $107.4 million”. Using a low growth assumption, “estimated cumulative property taxes for the ten (10) year period (2026 to 2035) are $13.7 million.”
The minutes record that an area resident asked Council to defer the matter to November 2026 so the next elected Council could review it, and that Council endorsed the strategy as CR140/2026 on a recorded vote: Councillor Fred Francis voted against and ten members voted in favour.
2 reportsAuditor General reports (February 6 and February 20, 2026) that found missing or incomplete conflict disclosures
Two Auditor General reports from February 2026 looked at complaints about City employees with private business interests. Neither found evidence of improper influence. Both found that required disclosure forms were missing or incomplete. Council told staff to carry out the recommendations; the City’s policy review is due by the end of 2026.
Why it matters
A conflict of interest is not wrongdoing by itself. It matters because, if forms are missing, the City cannot show that anyone checked a conflict or limited it, which is how residents judge whether contracts and decisions were fair.
It could be because…
The Auditor General found no evidence that relationships improperly influenced procurement decisions, and no direct evidence of private work on City time.
The City says departments already send yearly summaries of disclosures to the CAO’s office, and that it will update the policy and Purchasing By-law by the end of Q4 2026.
Self-disclosure systems often depend on people recognizing a conflict, which the Auditor General says the City did not support with examples or reminders.
Questions you could ask
How many conflict-of-interest disclosure forms did departments send the CAO’s office for 2025, and what did the CAO’s summary flag?
Will the policy changes due in Q4 2026 come to Council in public, and before or after the new Council takes office?
When will the paused Critical conflict-of-interest matter be investigated?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Report #2 (February 20, 2026): “A City employee owned a vendor awarded a municipal contract. While such arrangements are permitted under City policy, required disclosures were incomplete, and a related employee did not submit a disclosure.” Result: “the City cannot demonstrate that the conflict was formally assessed or mitigated.” On other scenarios: “Only one incomplete disclosure was identified, limiting the City’s ability to demonstrate that conflicts were consistently assessed and managed.” It also found that disclosures “were often treated as one-time events, even where underlying conflicts were ongoing.” But: “No evidence was identified that personal or professional relationships improperly influenced procurement decisions”.
The City’s response in report #2: “City departments submit an annual hard copy summary of all Conflict of Interest disclosures received to the CAO’s Office”, and “a comprehensive review and update to the policy will be undertaken by the end of Q4 2026”. Due date: Q4 2026.
Report #1 (February 6, 2026), about a former employee, found a disclosure failure: “the complete absence of CIDs over a long standing period of service”. It also says: “No direct evidence that the employee performed private work on City time was detected.” and “These observations do not indicate substantiated employee misconduct.”
On March 30, 2026 Council decided (CR134/2026 and CR136/2026) that “Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the recommendations contained in the report, in accordance with the associated management action plans and timelines”.
The Auditor General’s queue lists another matter, “Conflict of Interest Concern (Design, Department and Individual)”, rated Critical and marked “Paused” (130 hours projected).
–$43,110,000social housing reserve fund at December 31, 2025 (a year earlier: –$25,593,000)
A reserve fund is money set aside for a purpose. The City’s audited statements show the social housing reserve fund at negative $43,110,000 on December 31, 2025, down from negative $25,593,000 a year earlier. We did not find an explanation of it in the annual reports we read.
Why it matters
The City describes its reserves as strong, and the statements count this negative balance inside the $602,137,000 total. A growing negative balance means the City has spent or committed more on social housing than it set aside, and residents should know how it will be covered.
It could be because…
A reserve fund can show a negative balance when the City pays for a program first and expects funding from another source later.
Social housing is paid for from several funding sources, so timing differences between spending and funding are possible.
The negative balance may be part of a planned repayment schedule that appears in a document we did not read.
Questions you could ask
What spending or commitment caused the social housing reserve fund to go negative, and what funding is expected to cover it?
By when will the fund return to zero, and is that plan in a Council report?
Is the negative balance included when the City says its reserves are above the provincial average?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The 2025 audited reserve fund table shows “Social housing (43,110) (25,593) (17,517) 68.44%” in thousands of dollars for 2025, 2024, the change and the percent change. Total reserve funds were 532,252 and total reserves and reserve funds 602,137.
32.49%of the general investment portfolio ($178,147,394 of $548,252,743) was in credit unions on December 31, 2025
The City invests money it does not need right away. An Auditor General report (May 7, 2025) tested complaints about the limits and found most not supported, but found one about reporting partly warranted. The City agreed to report more. Its April 2026 investment report lists the investments made under its discretion to go over the usual limits.
Why it matters
The City’s general portfolio is about $548 million of public money. The limits exist to avoid putting too much in one kind of institution, and residents can only check that if the City reports what it did.
It could be because…
The City says most of the money is in guaranteed investment certificates, and that investments above the usual limits are for six months or less or carry a guarantee of principal.
The Auditor General found “no evidence of financial loss, operational failure, or systemic risk realization to date” and said any changes should match the risk.
The City’s Treasurer reported no non-compliance for 2025.
Questions you could ask
Was the risk assessment on sector concentration that was due on June 30, 2026 delivered to Council, and where is it?
What was the highest share of the portfolio held in any one credit union during 2025, and for how long?
Will the City name its comparator municipalities in future investment policy reports?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Auditor General’s summary: “Support was not found for the majority of the allegations.” Allegation #4 (investment governance and reporting) “is partially warranted.” Recommendation 1 says the comparator municipalities used to justify new limits were not named, so “Council and the public cannot verify whether Windsor’s new limits align with sector norms.” Recommendation 2 is for stress testing or similar controls on concentration risk. The complaint described the portfolios as together “approximately $621 million in reserve funds”.
The City’s responses: it “will ensure that in the future, where comparators are referenced, reports provide full disclosure” (due “Complete”), and it will add an assessment of risks, including sector concentration, with a due date of “Q2 2026 (June 30, 2026)”. The Auditor General also says “there is no evidence of financial loss, operational failure, or systemic risk realization to date”.
The City’s 2025 Annual Investment Compliance Report (April 13, 2026) says the General Investment Portfolio “approximated $548 million”. Appendix A shows credit unions at 178,147,394, 32.49% of a total of $548,252,743. The report lists investments made in 2025 under section 3.2.7 of the policy (the Treasurer’s discretion to invest above the usual limits) with a subtotal of 29,360,668, and says: “There were no occurrences of non-compliance to be reported as part of the Annual Investment Report.”
$705,901,000employee future benefit liability at December 31, 2025, up $6,744,000 from 2024
The City owes retirees and employees future benefits such as health and WSIB coverage. The audited statements put the liability at $705,901,000, more than half of all the City’s liabilities. The City says it pays on a cash basis as bills come due, and that recent Council decisions will reduce the cost over time.
Why it matters
This is the largest bill the City has not set money aside for. It is not a new problem, but it competes with every other priority for future tax dollars.
It could be because…
The City says employee future benefit liabilities “have remained largely stable” and that Council decisions on retiree benefits “will gradually yield benefits and savings over the years and decades ahead”.
The statements show the liability as an estimate of future payments, which the City pays as they come due, not as a bill due all at once.
Questions you could ask
What is the expected yearly cost of these benefits over the next ten years?
What savings has Council’s decision on retiree benefits produced so far?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Treasurer’s message says: “The total liability of approximately $706 million represents the estimated present value of all future payments.” and that “Recent Council decisions aimed at controlling post-retirement benefit costs will gradually yield benefits and savings over the years and decades ahead”.
Financial liabilities table: employee future benefit liabilities 705,901 (2025) and 699,157 (2024), a change of 6,744, in thousands of dollars. The report says: “Currently, the Corporation is funding this actuarial liability on a cash basis as actual payments are required.” The accumulated surplus table lists “Unfunded employee future benefit obligations (705,901)”.
$70,000,000the most the City says one class action over bingo and lottery licence fees could cost, as printed in thousands of dollars
The notes to the audited statements describe lawsuits that could cost the City money, including a class action over bingo and lottery licence fees where the City “could incur a liability of up to approximately $70,000” (in thousands of dollars, so $70,000,000). Other claims have no estimate.
Why it matters
Claims like these are not counted as costs until a court decides. A large loss would have to be paid from reserves or taxes.
It could be because…
The City says settlements it can estimate are not expected to have a material effect on its statements.
The class action claims may fail or settle for far less than the maximum shown.
Questions you could ask
What is the status of the bingo and lottery licence fee class action, and has Council received a legal update on it?
Has the City set aside money for any of these claims?
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 Windsor?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 12, “Contingent liabilities” (in thousands of dollars): “The City is the subject of a class action lawsuit relating to bingo/lottery licence fees. Depending on the outcome of the legal proceedings, the City could incur a liability of up to approximately $70,000.” A contractor on the Huron Lodge home for the aged project (substantially completed in 2007) “has registered a lien and claiming damages in the amount of $4,677”. The City is also subject to “several class action lawsuits relating to the Covid-19 pandemic” with potential liability that “cannot be determined at this time”.
The same note says the City is “subject to various legal actions, including some of which can be substantial”, and that for the Spring Garden Area of Natural and Scientific Interest expropriation “the City could be obligated to pay an additional amount.”
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