
DARRYL KNIGHT The Standard
KAWARTHA LAKES: At a recent City of Kawartha Lakes council meeting, staff presented a detailed report reviewing right-of-way responsibilities and the costs associated with road entrances and culverts. Chris Porter, Manager of Roads Operations, explained the current situation, regarding who is responsible for maintaining road entrances, including the entrance culverts which are often required for property access.
In his presentation, at the Tuesday, March 18th, council meeting, Mr. Porter highlighted, under the current system, property owners are responsible for the cost of constructing new entrances and maintaining the surface of those entrances. The City, on the other hand, takes on the responsibility of maintaining the entrance culverts, which involves tasks such as flushing, end repairs, and replacing damaged or deteriorated culverts.
"The cost of replacing an entrance culvert averages about $3,600, with about 92 culverts replaced each year," Chris said. "This amounts to approximately $335,000 annually in entrance culvert replacements, with additional costs for maintenance like flushing and end repairs."
Despite these ongoing costs, Mr. Porter noted, the City does not have a full inventory of driveway culverts, complicating long-term planning and budgeting. This is particularly challenging, given the entrance culverts now account for 42 percent of the Roads Division's budget, which totals $1.59 million in 2025. "As costs continue to grow, there is a need to reconsider the responsibility for entrance culverts," Mr. Porter explained.
During the meeting, staff presented two possible alternatives for addressing the rising costs. The first option would involve transferring the full responsibility for entrance culverts to property owners. This would allow the City to reallocate its annual $382,000 expenditure, on entrance culverts, to other road maintenance priorities, such as the replacement of centerline culverts, which have a more significant impact on public infrastructure. Mr. Porter acknowledged many municipalities, including the City of Greater Sudbury, have successfully adopted a similar approach. "Transitioning entrance culvert responsibilities to property owners has allowed other municipalities to focus their resources on higher-priority projects," he said.
The second option, which garnered more attention from Council members, would similarly shift the responsibility to property owners but include a subsidized program for residential properties. This approach would allow homeowners to either hire private contractors to replace their entrance culverts or request the City’s assistance at the homeowner's expense. "If Council chooses to explore this option, we would need to bring forward a report which outlines how this subsidy program could work, including potential fee structures for residential properties," Mr. Porter explained.
Council members were receptive to the ideas presented, with several expressing interest in the second alternative, which would provide some financial assistance for homeowners while reducing the City's maintenance burden. Council directed staff to come back with a more detailed proposal, on what it would take to implement the subsidized program, with a target report due by the end of September of 2025.
"We want to make sure homeowners are not left with an overwhelming financial burden, but at the same time, the City needs to ensure we are maintaining our infrastructure efficiently and sustainably," said Councillor Tracy Richardson. Councillor Dan Joyce added, "This issue affects many rural residents, and it's important we find a balance between helping homeowners and managing the City’s budget effectively."
The decision to proceed, with either of the proposed alternatives, will be made after further discussions and the preparation of a more detailed report later this year. In the meantime, Council will continue to monitor the situation and work towards a solution which ensures both the sustainability of the City’s infrastructure and fair treatment of homeowners.
Comments