2026 report estimates annual need of about $26 million and a $12.35 million annual funding gap.
Staff technical reportRoads & infrastructure
A $12.35 million annual renewal gap
The June 2026 asset-management progress report estimates an annual infrastructure funding gap of $12.35 million, compared with $10.88 million in the prior model.
Open public question
Want this answered?
Answers & question historyCandidate or official? Explain your position →
The issue, explained
Annual renewal need in the 2026 model
- Implied funded share
- $13.65m52.5% of this total
- Annual funding gap
- $12.35m47.5% of this total
Nearly half of the modelled annual renewal need remains unfunded.
Approximately $26m need; $13.65m is calculated as need less the reported gap. Models across municipalities use different scopes.
Who has explained their position?
Compare in depth| Person / office | Public record on this issue | Question status | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|
Jerry AcchioneMayor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Wants road and infrastructure planning to move ahead of population pressure. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Deb TaitDeputy Mayor-County Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Prioritizes existing buildings, roads and water/sewer renewal. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Bernia MartinDeputy Mayor-County Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Wants infrastructure and amenities to keep pace with population growth. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Connie LauderCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Prioritizes maintaining facilities, parks, roads and infrastructure while planning new services. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Kate LeatherbarrowCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Mark SchadenbergCity-County Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Makes asset management and aging roads, bridges and facilities a priority. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Liz Wismer-Van MeerCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Aaron GorlickMayor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Asjad HussainMayor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Anthony ScalisiMayor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Jarrod ErbDeputy Mayor-County Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Kelly GilsonCity-County Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Dave BloxsidgeCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Joe BrownCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Supports condition-based renewal and targeted traffic calming. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Daniel LeducCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Supports continued infrastructure upgrades and road reconstruction. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
Wes MazurCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Maureen RalphCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Sandeep SidhuCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer found | No contact recorded | Open question Answer or clarify |
Kurt SutherlandCity Councillor · Woodstock | No public answer foundOn this issue: Wants responsible infrastructure management as the city grows. | No contact recorded | Read evidence Answer or clarify |
What the evidence establishes
The report describes an approximately $1.06 billion replacement-value portfolio.
Staff technical reportThe choices on the table
These are editorial alternatives to test, not attributed candidate promises.
How we got here
- Recorded statement
Asset-management progress report
Staff modelling; does not itself establish an adopted increase in funding.
Staff technical report
Questions that still deserve an explanation
- Which assets are at greatest service or safety risk?
- What annual funding change do you propose, and from which source?
- Which renewals could be deferred and at what lifecycle cost?
- Will you publish annual planned-versus-completed work?
Sources and corrections
- Staff technical report Jun 4, 2026
- Official budget index
Reviewed Oct 1, 2026. Original records may describe earlier events.
Submit a correction or newer sourceFollow this issue into the money
The money connected to this issue
2026 City-funded capital project allocations
capital allocation · 2026$29,127,000Service budget context, not a dedicated allocation to this issue.Separate records and funding scopes; amounts are not added together.
Project and budget details (1)
Woodstock · 2026
2026 City-funded capital project allocations
capital allocation
$29,127,000Service financial context; not a dedicated allocation to every linked issue.
Who’s actually in charge?
Woodstock council
Municipal services, local roads, recreation, zoning and the local budget.
Explore this level →Oxford County
County roads, water and wastewater, housing services, paramedics and County planning.
Explore this level →Ontario
Health and education systems, provincial legislation and funding decisions.
Explore this level →Canada
Federal taxation, immigration, trade, criminal law and national programs.
Explore this level →

















