Roads and sidewalks are the real deficit

Orillia's 2024 Asset Management Plan (Report DSE-24-30) documented a significant infrastructure renewal pressure, and the City's June 2025 ten-year capital and reserve forecast projected that — absent change — City reserve balances could decline to roughly negative $254 million by 2034, measured against a list of possible projects approaching $789 million. That number is in the public record. Council has since adopted a financial strategy it says turns that projection into a surplus by 2035; I think that strategy still rests on assumptions worth testing, and the renewal backlog itself — the roads, sidewalks, and stormwater segments rated poor or very poor — has not gone away.

The backlog is not abstract. It is the reason a sidewalk gets patched instead of replaced. It is the reason a road resurfacing slips from year three to year seven. It is the reason small stormwater problems compound into the kind of damage Cedar Island Road and the surrounding neighbourhood experienced during the April 2026 high-water event.

The honest answer to a shortfall of this scale is not creative accounting. It is a dedicated infrastructure renewal levy — a clearly named line item on the tax bill, separate from the general operating levy, restricted by by-law to capital renewal, and set at a level the Asset Management Plan says is required to close the gap over a defined period.

I am proposing two things this term. First: a dedicated infrastructure renewal levy of 1% of the residential tax base per year, ring-fenced to capital renewal under the AMP. Second: a public dashboard showing, by ward, the current condition rating of every road and sidewalk segment, updated annually, so residents can see what their levy is buying.

I want to be candid about the political cost. A new levy line is unpopular. I think it is more honest than the current approach, which lets the backlog grow while leaning on a financial strategy whose assumptions have not yet been stress-tested. If residents disagree, I would rather have that argument with the real number on the table than pretend the problem does not exist.