There’s also an interesting Bonaparte-family story: one source attributes a version of the joke to Elisa Bonaparte, Napoleon’s sister. According to that anecdote, while she was dying, someone remarked that nothing was as certain as death, and she replied, “Except taxes.”
Ontario Regulation 588/17 will start appearing on your taxes for many years to come. The full name of the Regulation is: 588/17 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
For the actual Regulation 588/17 please Click Here.
At an August Council meeting there was a presentation made by a consultant that suggested three plans ranging from over 2% down to 0.8%. While at the time of writing no official adoption (vote) has been done by Council it seems the amount will be in the middle at 1.6%. Ultimately it comes down to affordability vs. residents desired infrastructure levels.
A simple example
Suppose a municipality has $100 million worth of infrastructure.
If those assets have an average useful life of 50 years, you might very roughly need to be setting aside:
$100 million ÷ 50 = $2 million/year
for eventual replacement, before considering inflation, growth, deterioration, different asset lives, financing, grants, etc.
If the municipality is actually putting only $1 million a year toward renewal, there is effectively a $1 million annual infrastructure funding gap.
Ontario Regulation 588/17, is a major reason municipalities such as Lanark Highlands are now having to connect their infrastructure plans directly to long-term financing and taxation.
The regulation does not literally require Lanark Highlands to have enough money today to replace every asset. It requires the municipality to identify what it will cost to maintain its chosen service levels over the long term, identify the funding available, and explicitly deal with any funding shortfall.
The Township said in February 2026 that it was still seeking public input on proposed levels of service for roads, facilities and other infrastructure. I am not certain if this public input phase is over or not.
Is this a problem for Lanark Highlands?
- there is evidence that we have had an infrastructure funding shortfall for years
- we have a large rural municipality so we must consider several infrastructure items like:
- roads
- bridges
- culverts
- fire trucks/fire halls
- municipal buildings
- equipment
- recreation facilities
This legislation isn’t just about fixing what’s broke but to intervene and maintain the equipment and assets to prevent the failures to begin with.
“Houston we have a Problem”
Of course it is easy to say there is a shortfall so just raise taxes, but residents in Ward 3 are already struggling, gas prices, various taxes plus increases in the price of food have only left all of us with less to spend.
What would I do about this?
While I know that council is already looking at ways to minimize the impact, I believe we need to work hard to:
- maximize Grants that we can use for needed improvements
- undertake a full cost-of-service review. Should some user fees be raised?
- can we share some resources like administrative, IT etc. with surrounding municipalities?
- increase preventive maintenance and rehabilitation before it becomes a major failure
- prioritize assets based on risk instead of age. Consider the probability of failure as well as the consequence of failure over the age of the asset
- dispose of assets that are not needed
- take a look and a second look in house for savings before just passing the expenses onto residents. How can we use less electricity, fuel, software and other resources as members of council and staff.
On election day, I would be honoured to earn your vote for Ward 3 Councillor.