Port Hope Five is live todayPlay today’s challenge
Jordan StevensonFor Port Hope Mayor
Join Jordan

Plan priority 01

Fix the Basics

Infrastructure, affordability and reliable services

Port Hope has started moving in the right direction. It is still funding only about 37 cents of every dollar required annually for tax-supported infrastructure.

We need to keep the progress, move faster and bring more money and better tools to the table than Port Hope taxpayers can provide alone.

Based on Port Hope's 2025 Asset Management Plan and 2026 adopted budget documents.

Read the recovery planSee the current council report card

My position

Keep the progress. Accelerate the recovery.

The current council deserves credit for increasing recurring infrastructure funding, making the shortfall more visible and completing an updated Asset Management Plan.

The remaining gap is still too large to solve through incremental tax increases alone.

Jordan will combine disciplined municipal funding, better project coordination, trenchless rehabilitation, grants, industry and research partnerships, responsible financing and controlled real-world pilots to reduce lifecycle costs and accelerate renewal.

The short version

At a glance

Three first actions

  1. Publish a four-year recurring infrastructure funding path and three honest budget choices.
  2. Screen upcoming underground projects for suitable trenchless alternatives and coordinate overlapping work.
  3. Launch a controlled Port Hope Living Lab and a plain-language public infrastructure ledger.

What it costs

Build permanent capacity through recurring municipal funding, grants, partner and research contributions, lawful development agreements, responsible financing and documented lifecycle savings.

How you can check

  • The funded share rises and both annual gaps are reported.
  • Planned work replaces more emergency repairs.
  • External dollars and lifecycle savings are documented.
  • Pilots scale through lawful procurement or stop.

Current municipal documents

Three facts that define the challenge

37¢ of every $1

Current tax-supported funding level

The 2026 budget reports that Port Hope funds 36.8% of the annual requirement for tax-supported infrastructure.

2026 adopted budget presentation, page 34 (opens in a new tab)

$8.6 million

Annual tax-supported gap

The estimated remaining annual gap for infrastructure supported primarily through municipal taxation.

2026 adopted budget presentation, page 34 (opens in a new tab)

About $12 million

Consolidated annual gap

The broader Asset Management Plan estimate when tax-supported, water and wastewater infrastructure are considered together.

2025 Asset Management Plan, pages 2 and 195 (opens in a new tab)

These figures measure different portions of the infrastructure system. They are related, but they are not interchangeable.

Understand the gap

Port Hope's infrastructure problem is bigger than potholes

Roads, bridges, culverts, watermains, sewers, stormwater systems, municipal buildings, vehicles and equipment all wear out.

The question is not whether they will eventually require repair or replacement. The question is whether Port Hope plans and pays for that work before failures make it more expensive.

Port Hope's 2025 Asset Management Plan estimates an annual infrastructure requirement of approximately $20.1 million and sustainable annual funding of approximately $8.1 million. That leaves a consolidated annual gap of roughly $12 million.

Looking only at assets supported primarily through property taxation, the 2026 budget identifies an approximately $8.6 million annual gap and reports that 36.8% of the requirement is funded.

The two numbers measure different parts of the same problem. Neither is small.

Plain-language comparison

Why are there two different gap numbers?

  • $8.6 million refers to the annual gap for tax-supported infrastructure.
  • Approximately $12 million is the broader consolidated estimate that also includes water and wastewater systems.
  • Water and wastewater use separate rate-supported funding structures, which is why the figures should not be collapsed into one number without explanation.

What delay costs

Deferral is not a free option

When maintenance is repeatedly deferred, residents eventually pay through emergency repairs, service interruptions, damaged roads, failing facilities, higher utility costs and projects that cost more than they would have cost if completed earlier.

Infrastructure does not become cheaper because council postpones it. The bill moves forward and often grows.

Assess risk, protect essential services, sequence work intelligently and publish the consequences of delay.

Homeowners and tenants

Reliable infrastructure affects taxes, utility rates, insurance risk, service interruptions and the long-term cost of living.

Local businesses

Repeated excavation, road closures, utility interruptions and delayed projects can reduce customer access and create avoidable operating costs.

Ward 2 residents

Rural roads, culverts, drainage, bridges, emergency access and long service distances require explicit planning rather than being treated as secondary to urban projects.

Future residents

Every repair postponed without a funding plan transfers a larger obligation to the people who come next.

A fair assessment of the current term

Current Council Infrastructure Report Card

An honest platform should acknowledge both progress and shortfalls.

These grades are Jordan's assessment of the council term based on official municipal budget and asset-management documents.

Direction and transparency

Grade B-

Council completed a comprehensive Asset Management Plan, increased recurring capital support and made the infrastructure shortfall more visible to the public.

That represents a meaningful improvement over where the term began.

Pace of closing the gap

Grade C

The funded share of the tax-supported requirement increased from 23.0% in 2022 to 36.8% in 2026.

That is progress, but nearly two-thirds of the annual requirement remains unfunded. Progress also slowed substantially during part of the term.

Funding sustainability

Grade C

Important capital work was completed. Permanent annual capacity requires recurring funding beyond one-time reserve draws.

Port Hope needs more recurring funding, external contributions and lifecycle savings rather than relying too heavily on individual reserve withdrawals.

Overall

Grade C+

The direction improved. The scale and pace of the response remain inadequate for the size of the problem.

The next council should keep what is working, admit what is not and accelerate the work.

Council made real progress. The remaining gap requires faster action and a broader funding strategy.

Tax-supported annual requirement funded. 2022: 23.0% funded; 2023: 26.7% funded; 2024: 31.2% funded; 2025: 31.3% funded; 2026: 36.8% funded.

Source: 2026 adopted budget presentation, page 34 (opens in a new tab). The scale runs from 0% to 100%.

How to read the 13.8% claim

Municipal communications state that council reduced the infrastructure funding shortfall by 13.8% during the term.

The underlying budget chart shows the funded share increasing by 13.8 percentage points, from 23.0% to 36.8%.

That is meaningful progress. It does not mean the remaining dollar gap disappeared or necessarily declined by the same percentage.

The plan

Port Hope Infrastructure Recovery and Innovation Plan

Port Hope needs more than property taxes to close the infrastructure gap.

Port Hope still needs disciplined municipal investment. It must also coordinate projects better, reduce lifecycle costs, secure outside funding, negotiate project-driven contributions and create a controlled environment where useful technology can be proven before the municipality buys it.

Establish a four-year infrastructure funding floor

Protect the recurring infrastructure capacity already created and establish a four-year minimum funding path that residents can inspect.

Each annual budget should distinguish maintaining current service levels, inflation and contracts, infrastructure catch-up, reserve contributions, new services, growth-driven costs, and one-time grants or reserve draws. Residents should also see three honest choices: the effect of no increase, the recommended budget and an enhanced infrastructure option.

  • Publish the four-year recurring infrastructure funding path.
  • Prevent one-time reserve withdrawals from being presented as permanent funding progress.
  • Disclose reserve and debt consequences before approving major projects.
  • Use long-term financing only for long-lived assets where the repayment plan is affordable and the full cost is public.
  • Publish what would be delayed or reduced under lower-funding alternatives.
  • Report consultant costs, expected deliverables and whether the work produced usable lifecycle value.

Adopt a trenchless-first review

Before excavating a road for underground infrastructure, Port Hope should determine whether a trenchless method can deliver a safer, less disruptive or lower-lifecycle-cost result.

Trenchless methods can include pipe lining, pipe bursting, directional drilling, robotic inspection and other rehabilitation or installation techniques that reduce surface excavation. Port Hope should assess pipe condition, capacity, connections, soil, groundwater, contamination, heritage conditions, engineering risk and future access to choose the right method.

  • Compare lifecycle cost and expected service life.
  • Confirm engineering suitability and future capacity.
  • Include road and streetscape restoration costs.
  • Account for traffic, business and construction disruption.
  • Assess environmental and contaminated-soil risk.
  • Review timeline, warranty and contractor capability.

Evaluate trenchless alternatives before opening a street.

Create the Port Hope Living Lab

The Port Hope Living Lab would invite companies, universities, utilities, researchers and community partners to propose solutions to clearly defined municipal challenges.

Begin with small, time-limited pilots, publish independent results and move successful ideas through lawful competitive procurement.

Port Hope would provide a real operating environment, clearly defined problems and controlled access to appropriate infrastructure or data. Participating companies and funding partners would carry a substantial share of development and pilot costs.

The Living Lab creates evidence before Port Hope makes a large purchase.

A disciplined pilot process

Protect taxpayers and produce useful evidence

  • Define success and failure before the pilot begins.
  • Set a fixed municipal contribution and maximum financial exposure.
  • Use a fixed pilot term with a clear end date.
  • Require engineering, safety, insurance and regulatory review.
  • Complete privacy and cybersecurity review where data or connected systems are involved.
  • Use independent technical validation.
  • Publish complete results and lessons learned.
  • Keep future procurement open and competitive.
  • Preserve portability and municipal control of essential data.
  • Require competitive procurement before any major commercial rollout.
  1. Define the problem
  2. Set the pilot scope
  3. Independently evaluate
  4. Publish results
  5. Procure competitively when evidence supports it

Initial challenge areas

  • Pipe-condition assessment
  • Water-loss and leak detection
  • Trenchless rehabilitation
  • Road-condition imaging
  • Culvert and drainage monitoring
  • Stormwater monitoring
  • Longer-life road materials
  • Predictive maintenance
  • Construction coordination
  • Maintenance-routing and fleet-efficiency tools

Proposed initial local pilot

FlowWatch Port Hope

FlowWatch Port Hope would test low-cost monitoring of selected culverts, drainage routes or flood-prone infrastructure.

The pilot would determine whether sensors, imaging or other practical monitoring tools can identify blockage, rising water, deterioration or maintenance needs earlier.

It should begin with a focused set of locations, a capped budget and public evaluation criteria, then scale only when the evidence supports it.

Bring outside money to the table

Build a wider funding stack through grants, research funding, partner contributions, vendor-funded pilots, development contributions, host-community agreements and responsible long-term financing.

Private investors may fund companies developing technology that reduces infrastructure costs. Port Hope's opportunity is to become a credible proving ground while retaining control over standards, procurement and public assets.

Welcome outside funding while keeping municipal standards, procurement and priorities under public control.

  1. Federal and provincial infrastructure grants.
  2. Federation of Canadian Municipalities grants, studies, pilots and financing programs.
  3. Vendor, university and research contributions to controlled Living Lab projects.
  4. Development charges and lawful project agreements for growth-driven infrastructure.
  5. A binding Wesleyville host-community and infrastructure agreement for reasonably attributable project-driven costs.
  6. Utility, County, CNL, PHAI and other partner coordination where capital work overlaps.
  7. Responsible long-term financing for long-lived assets where lifecycle and repayment analysis supports it.
  8. Documented operating efficiencies and lifecycle savings returned to infrastructure.

Dig once and coordinate the work

Before rebuilding a road or opening a corridor, Port Hope should determine what other work is expected in the same location over the following years.

Coordinate roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, utilities, telecommunications, remediation work and major development to reduce repeat disruption and cost.

  • Create a recurring capital coordination table.
  • Include relevant municipal divisions, Northumberland County, utilities, CNL or PHAI, OPG where applicable, the conservation authority and telecommunications providers where relevant.
  • Maintain a shared multi-year corridor map.
  • Require major projects to document coordination opportunities considered.
  • Publish why work could not be coordinated when major repeat excavation is unavoidable.

Publish the infrastructure ledger

A plain-language infrastructure ledger will show the status of every major road, pipe, bridge, culvert and municipal facility.

The ledger should show what is being repaired, why it is a priority, what it costs, who is paying and what happens if it is delayed. It should also report service performance, flood and stormwater resilience work and lifecycle-plan progress.

  • Asset condition, service and safety risk, and project priority.
  • Original and current budget, funding sources, and reserve or debt impact.
  • Expected and actual dates, reasons for delay, and consequences of deferral.
  • Planned versus emergency work, grants and partner contributions.
  • Projected lifecycle savings, pilot results, status and next decision point.

Security-sensitive infrastructure, active procurement, personal information and legally privileged material would remain protected.

Immediate action

The first 100 days

The first 100 days can change how Port Hope plans, coordinates, funds and reports infrastructure work.

  1. 01

    Publish one reconciled infrastructure baseline explaining the approximately $8.6 million tax-supported gap and the roughly $12 million consolidated gap.

  2. 02

    Present a four-year recurring infrastructure funding path with reserve, debt and tax implications.

  3. 03

    Identify at least three upcoming underground projects for trenchless feasibility screening.

  4. 04

    Establish the cross-agency capital coordination table.

  5. 05

    Publish the first Port Hope Living Lab challenge.

  6. 06

    Develop the scope, safeguards and evaluation criteria for a focused FlowWatch Port Hope pilot.

  7. 07

    Publish the first version of the public infrastructure ledger.

  8. 08

    Report publicly on grants, external contributions and funding applications already available or in progress.

How residents can check

Measure results, not announcements

The annual infrastructure report should show whether Port Hope is actually improving, not merely whether council approved another plan.

  • Funded percentage of the annual tax-supported requirement
  • Remaining tax-supported and consolidated annual gaps
  • Recurring infrastructure capacity added
  • Planned versus emergency repair spending
  • Projects delivered on time and within approved budget
  • Quantities of infrastructure renewed where meaningful
  • Reserve contributions and withdrawals
  • Infrastructure debt and repayment obligations
  • Lifecycle savings from rehabilitation and trenchless methods
  • External dollars leveraged
  • Living Lab pilots started, completed, scaled, rejected or stopped
  • Documented reasons for project deferrals
  • Service interruptions and major failures where publicly reportable
  • Ward 1 and Ward 2 capital distribution and needs, with context rather than simplistic equality claims

Equal service can require different spending based on geography, asset condition, population, emergency access, service levels and project timing. Jordan will explain those differences.

Related platform commitments

The recovery plan connects to the rest of the platform

Efficient Government Starts at the Top

Jordan's commitment to retain the previous Port Hope mayoral salary and contribute the approved increase back to municipal infrastructure.

Read this commitment

Wesleyville on Port Hope's Terms

How Port Hope should secure binding project-driven infrastructure contributions and protect existing taxpayers.

Read this commitment

How I'll Govern

The decision standard behind controlled pilots, public reporting and changing course when evidence requires it.

Read this commitment

Sources and methodology

The public record behind the plan

Official sources establish the current municipal figures, responsibilities and available funding mechanisms. Report-card grades and future commitments are Jordan Stevenson's assessment and campaign proposals.

Figures last checked: July 18, 2026.

Municipal facts

Funding and legal mechanisms

Technical and innovation context

Public feedback

What is missing from this plan?

Infrastructure decisions affect every part of Port Hope, but not always in the same way.

Share a road, drainage, utility, facility or service problem that should be included in the public infrastructure picture.

Share feedback on this plan