1980 Road Committee Minutes
ST. TROMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 16, 1980
PAGE 1.
Gladstone Avenue, December ~6, 1980 at 9:30 a.m. All members ~ere present
Tl-lE coUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Municipal BUilding,
except Reeve J. B. Wil son.
1. An agreement m.th Mr. John Dylllock on Road #5 had been completed and would be
Tl-lE ENGINEER REPORTED ON Tl-lE VlORK TO DATE AS FOLLO'lS:
2. The Front Street Bin VIall in port Stanley had been completed. There would be
taken to him for signing m.thin the week.
some minor clean~up work next Spring.
3. Vlinter control had been light since last week.
4. StaW bale work and guard rail work on Road #38 had been completed.
5. GUard rail and signS at the old Vlalker Bridge had been removed.
6. Gravel waS still being piled at the pleasant Valley pit and stripping work
7. Tree cutting waS underway on Road #38 m.th the brush being placed on the
would start shortly.
banks of the Little Otter creek as requested by the Ministry of Natural
8. Fence had been completed on Road #32 at Newell's and some old fence removed.
ReSOurces.
REEVE CAVERLY REPORTED that the contractor waS working on the Argyle Drain
on Road #32.
Tl-lE ENGINEER REPORTED on the county road system mileages, population of
county MUnicipalitieS, and Traffic countS on variOUS county RoadS. l-le also
explained the financial arrangementS regarding the St. Thomas Suburban Roads
System and distributed maps of the county system and the Suburban Roads System.
VlalkerS Bridge for the neW members. The committee after some discUssion passed
THE ENGINEER REVlE\ffiD engineering work and the financial arrangementS of
the following resolution:
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 16, 1980
'PAGE 2.
''MOlTED BY: R. M.. KELLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE RECoMJ'lEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT WE CALL TENDERS FOR THE
REPLAcEMENT OF THE WALKER BRIDGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
cARRIED ."
for port BUrwell. Reeve Bradfield reported that as yet the Village had not been
REEVE BRADF1.ELD AND nUl ENGINEER REVIEWED the proposed sanitary sewer system
advised of any grants that would take the place of Federal GrantS which had been
cut off last Fall. However, he waS hoping that the sewer Systemw0-uld proceed on
schedule with construction to start approximatelY mid-summer. The Engineer felt
that until a definite date for commencement for the sewer waS announced by the
M.inistry of the Environment it would be necessary to hold a certain amount of
money in the 1981 budget for the work that could be done in 1981.
the Canadian Transport commission of the county's decision to oppose the
THE ENGINEER STATED that he had notified the canadian National Railroad and
application by the C.N.R. for the abandonment of the London and port Stanley
Railway. He alsO stated that he had inspected several portionsQf the track
south of County Road #51 and felt that approximatelY 8lfk of the tieS of the
area that he had inspected were in such poor condition that they could not be
used for even light traffiC. It alsO appears that the rail (being 801b. rail
and probablY rolled in the early 1900'S) would alsO be unsuitable and to
move rail traffic of the type and weight required today. The line would
probablY require complete rebuilding and several bridges including the one
at Beaver creek near port Stanley would likely have to be replaced. No
date for a hearing had been set by the canadian Transport commission.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 16, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: K. E. MONTEITH
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 55 AMOUNTING TO $59,126.38
PAYLIST NUMBER 56 AMOUNTING TO $26,525.88
CARRIED ."
"MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY:
K. M. KELLY
THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN PAYLIST #58 (ACCOUNTS).
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ from Mr. Art Vanderispaille and. Mr. Alton
representing the Bayham-Norfolk, Lake Erie Erosion Committee requesting a date
to meet the CUlLuuittee. Committee discussed the matter and decided to set a
time apart for them at the next meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. Mr. Harold Gilbert, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Transportation and
CUlLuuunications with regard to the Urban method of subsidizing overhead and
equipment in Counties, stating that this method would n.ot be used for the
1981 expenditures but likely would be in 1982 and that talks would be
held with County Engineers throughout the Province to d.iscuss County
Engineers' findings. The Engineer stated that he understood that he
might be asked to be a part of this Committee. CUlLuuittee agreed with the
theory that it was better to live with the rules that you made rather ,than
the rules that somebody else had made.
2.. From the County of Huron and County of Prescott and Russell with replies
to the County's submission on A.M.O. Grants. The Engin.eer stated that
he felt that the response from other Counties had been very good and
that the Ministry and A.M.O. had been by now well advised of the
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 16, 1980
PAGE 4.
CounciYs true feelings on the matter which were in contradiction to those
of the A.M.O. subcommittee.
3. A zoning by-law from Port Burwell was noted.
4. A zoning by-law from Yarmouth for property near the pleasant Valley
Golf Course was noted.
5. O.M.B. hearing dates for Chisholm and Newell were noted.
"MOVED BY: K. M. KELLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE REOOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE. WARDEN, NAME DELEGATES TO
THE ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION CONVENTION AND TO THE ROADS AND
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA CONVENTION AND THAT THE
MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS BE PAID.
CARRIED .'!
COUNTY LAND PURCHASE POLICY regarding Road #32 waS discussed at some
length. It waS decided to keep to the present policy for the present time.
MEETING ADJOURNED FOR DINNER.
AFTER DINNER.
THE ENGINEER PRESENTED the attached Report on Ministry of Transportation
and CUlLuu.unications Subsidy Allocations and Expenditures and the County Levy
for 1981. This report was discussed at some length includ:i.ng Rebates to
Urban MUnicipalities.
It was decided to have a representative of the Frank Cowan Company at
the next meeting to discuss Insurance.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: K. M. KELLY
THAT WE ADJOURN TO JANUARY 14, 1981 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONT ARlO
DECEMBER 16, 1980
PAGE 5.
~\Ift'fl.i'wlli;\,"'jl':'!ftl'~"Mo~I'~~':~KI>\!/
1....
Ii'
'1~'
,~,
< .~.
/
\l
Page 1.
December 1980.
TO THE CHAlRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE:
REPORT ON ROAD EXPr:NDITURES FOR 1981
This report is a review of the methods used by the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications to arrive at our Subsidy Allocations
for 1981 and the method of calculating the County Road Rate.
In 1973 the Ministry of Transportation and CVl1llUunications
adopted a policy of a single 'subsidy rate (other than Drainage Assessments
and Urbdn Reb;)tes and replacement of County Bridges on Township Roads)
for Counties and Regions. This single system replaced the old system
which is still used for Townships and Villages of 50"/0 S1.1bsidy on Roads,
8070 Subsidy on Bridges and lOO"k Subsidy on Development Roads (Direct
Ai d ).
The Ministry of Transporation and COuullunications had adopted a
policy of allocating subsidy funds based on proven needs and the setting
of a desirable spending allocation. An expenditure over the desirable
expenditure allocation will not be subsidized and any s.pending under the
allocation will result in loss of subsidy at the maximum subsidy rate
(approximately 91%).
The Mini stry of Transportation and CVllullunications matche s the
aUlOunt of money that the County would raise at l.25 mills on its
Provincial Equal ized Asse ssment and then subsidize~ the County at 910/0
for each dollar of the desirable expenditure allocati.on in excess of
the amount subsidized at 50% (matching grant). (See attached
cal.culations.)
In 1980 the effective Subsi~y Rate on operations is estimated
at 74. t+% compar(:~d to 74,.3 Sf,in 1979, 73.61, to 1978 and 7L~. 90/" in 1977. The
rate for 1981 i.s estimated at 75.4%.
TO THE Cl\AI(lMAN AND MEMBERS 01" THE GO\lNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COW1lTTEE
PAGE 2.
December 1980
--- - --
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1981
;;;..;..--- .,...;......-- .-......- .....-
-
DESIRABLE SPENDING ALLOCATION
- -- - .,-,"""" ..~
The desi~able spending allocation is the total of Needs shown in
the pteceedtn" yeat s (1.980) Need s Stlldy Update as appt"v."l by t,he MinJ.St,t'Y
of T~anspottat,J.on and Go~llnJ.cat,ions' The total allocation is divided int,O
thtee patts. (a) const~llction (b) ASphalt Resllrfacing (c) Fixed Cost,s.
(a.)
App~oved const~llctiOn GOst,s a~e the costs of thOSe Roads and B~idgeS
construction
- ---- --
which are p~esentlY deficient, or will become deficient, in the coming five
yea~ pe~iod. The deficiencies a~e cat,aloglled and listed acco~ding to
Mini st~Y 0 f T~ an \lpo~ t ati on and Cotj1ll1\lni cat i onS c~ i te~ ia. Al So included in
Const~uctiOn Co.sts a~e spot, imp~ovement,s, sllch as' Drainag13 Costs, etc.,
necessa~Y to b~ing a section of ~oad lip t,o "tole~able st,anda~ds.
The Co st, s ate based on Mini .\'xy of T~"n9po~tatiOn ",nd Cotj1ll1\lnicat,ions
app~oved costs Which ~ep~13sent t~13 costs of const~uction "'S they we~e in
1)e cembe~ of 197 B' 1'1 us' an infl at ion f"'c t o~ t 0 update them. Ina SlIIuch as
neithe~ t,he Minist~Y of T~",nSpo~tatiOn and co~llnicati9n9 o~ the
Mllnicipalit,ies have enollgh money t,o complete all the const,~llction in a
five yea~ pe~iod, a const~uctiOn objectiVe of 3lfk (~educing balance) of
the wotk to be completed in a 5 yea~ pe~iod haS been set. This equalS
6% pe~ yea~ on the t~ balance. ActuallY the accomplishment is
somewhat leSS than 6% as the inflation index is based on 1)ecembet 1979 and
the wotk will not be done until su~e~ of 19B1 (18 monthS lag).
The inflation indeX fo~ the yeat is 8% but doeS n9t apply t9
sp9t imp~9vementS and updated (fo~ 19BO) const~tlctiOn cost,s, etc.
(b)
~s~ha1!Re~rfacin~
ASphalt Resu~facing is the app~oved ~esU~facing and mino~
assOciated costs of ~oads, like ditching, g~anula~, shouldetS, etc., that
are al~eady built to p~9pe~ geomet,~iCSight standa~ds and widths. The
~ oad s "1 i st,ed" a~e the ~ oa d s that should be ~e Sll~ faced in t,he c omi ng five
year period.
'~'';i\,,,.,,,<., ...,"'\....".n'.-...'""'~~,""..\...'""'~~~'""~~t(~~~~"""~%~I"~~~,.I~('l'.fW.r,~.lIl.<>trt'~o/lI'I<<d~".~~~~,y."""',...~.!.""""II!,.,..~~ll..,.".,.....,"""....J;WjO.._.
~~~~.....~~~,.,~,~'71..,."."''''''''''~,'i...W'I'....,....,I~:..'''-'<(,y...;o:!>.,.~,,,.,,''',. '.' ';:N~t"o1<;,,.._.~,..,'...,,'~..'fr"""'!'I~iI\W<'_4~~r.~\\......."'l"_,"",.....'fI~._
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE - PAGE 3.
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1981 December' 1980
(b) Asphalt Resurfacin~ (Continued)
The Programme provides that:
(l) Double Surface Treatment Roads should be covered with
three inches of Hot Mix in the 8 to 10 year period
after construction or earlier if severe breakup occurs.
(2) Mulch Roads and Hot Mix Roads should be covered in the
15 tQ 20 year period after construction.
(3) Hot Mix Roads Qf 1 1/2 to 2 inches in depth should be
covered as soon as possible to stop breakup (elephant
tracking). (All completed except Road 24 from Road 36 to
Port Bruce.)
Inasmuch as the Ministry of Transportation and CV~!ununications
docs not lwvo enough money tp complete all the resurfacing necessary, they
have set an objective of 50% of this work in the five y.ear period or a
yearly objective.of 1?% again on a 1978 Price Index. As the asphlat price
has increased more rapidly than anything else it is doubtful if the yearly
objective reaches half their objective. The Ministry of Transportation
and Communications inflation index for 1979 was 5%.
(c.) Fixed Costs
These costs include M.aintenanCe of Roads anci Bridges on the
County and St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission Road System, Overhead
Charges, Machinery Replacement, BUilding Improvements, and Purchase of
Gravel Pits, etc. A tentative 1981 Budget (Maintenance and Overhead
Charges) was required i.n 1980 and a Machinery Replacement: Schedule for
five years was required in 1979. (Of course the price of machinery has
increased nearly as much as oil prices.) The Ministry of Transportation
and Communications has also set up Maintenance criteria for expenditure
per mi.le of road. Although the Ministry of Transportation and Communications
applied the criteria in the Fall of 1976 the long range leffect on our
Mai.ntenancE:.~ Allocati.on remains to be seen. Our yearly mai,btenance l;'equ~s.ts
~
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE - PAGE 4.
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1981 December 1980
(c) Fixed Costs (Continued)
have always been reduced and then our only salvation has been a light
Win~er last year, which has allowed us to catch up on some of the
surface treating and patching, etc.
Our 1981 Spending Allocation is as follows:
Construction 6% of Needs of $ l7,467,000 (Roads and Bridges)
Asphalt Resurfacing 10% of Needs of '$ 4,550,000
Maintenance Costs, County and 'St. Thomas Suburban Roads
Connnission Roads and Bridges (including Labour Overhead) and
Overhead Costs, County and St. Thomas Suburban Roads
Commission and Labour, Overhead on, Construction Projects and
'Needs Study Update, etc.
New Machinery
$ 1,048,000
$ 455,000
Total Spending Allocation
'crbis compares with a' spending allocation of $3,057,000 in
1980 or an increase of 9.42%.)
$ 1,61 7 , 000
$ 225,000
$ 3,345,000
The Ministry of Transportation and CVUlllLunication,s subsidy rate is
based on an ability to pay with the rate for various Counties anq Regions
Varying between 50% and 80% according to the needs of road.s systemS1and the
money available.
The basic formulae is a matching subsidy on tha1~,J.'l'I.o,n~'Ythat the
County would raise on 1.25 mills on the former equalized (prior to 1980)
assessments. (The assessments used by the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications in 1980 was $461,000,000 which was the ass€!ssment of the
County in 1979.) To this money (l.25 X $461,000,000 or $576,250) was
added the 1/2 mill contribution of the City of St. Thomas toward
Suburban Roads (Approximately $37,500) or $613.750 which means that
2 X $613,750 or $1,227,500 was subsidized at 50%. The remaining
expenditure between that amount and the total objective is subsidized at
90.91% (9l%).
'1',lI""''''''.....,"'''''''~~. 4"iilMilJJl.lnl'lli<lf,~~~'*""~"~>M!onill-~lP_"_
1'0 THE GHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
PAGE 5.
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1981
De cember 198-0
(Any expenditure over the objective is not subsidized and any expenditure
under the objective is 91% M.T.C. and 9% County.) So a vE~ry fine line must
be "walked" for maximum subsidy.
<"
Our effective subsidy rate in the past few years has been a little
under 75%.
In 1980 tne Ministry of Revenue changed the ass4~ssmentmethoc1.
Unfortunately nobody understands it including the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications Municipal Roads people. They have therefore decided
to add an arbitrary aIl10unt to the 1979 assessment of $461,000,000 (2.8%)
for an estimate County figure of $474,000,000 for 1980. The Ministry
of Transportati.on and COul.lm.1nications are using this for a County Assessment
amount .for their 1981 subsi.dy calculati,on. The (Hty Assessment has been
amended to provide a 1/2 mill cgntributi.on "of $39,450.
The Ministry of Transportation and Cuulluunications has set a
total maximum subsidy payable in 1981 at $2,551,000 compared to
$2,276,,000 in 1980, and $2, 088, QlO.O :i.n 1979 q,nd'$2,030,OOO :1.n'1,978.
We understand that Supplementary By-Laws for Drainage
Assessments (at 50% Subisdy) are available i.f nec()ssary.
CALCULATION OF COUNTY LEVY
, ,
CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIVE
A) Road and Bridge Needs (NoW Plus 1-5 Years) and
Inflation Factor
Total.
$17,467,000
'Ministry of Transport:<ation and Cmmnunications
objective 6% of Needs
$ , 1 , 048, 000
B) Asphalt Resurfacing Including Inflat.ion Factor
$ 4,550,000
Ministry of Transportation and CUHuuunications
objective 10% of Needs
$
455,000
'rotal Construction Objective (A & B)
$ 1,503,000
---------
'to 'titE GllA1.lU'lAN AND }ffil1l\ERS Of coUN't'l Of ELG1.N ROAD C~'t'l'EE · PAGE 6.
pecembe-r 1980
REl'OR't ON RQAD @1'END1.'t\l~S 11QR 1981
). . ... ' d T:'JV'ed ('() ct- '" (.1 nc'1 udin" oa"roll overhead for construction).
C Maintenance an ..~,. ' ,,~. " V J
1) Ne~ Machinery (1980 ~as $197,000)
2) MAintenance and overhead (1980 ~aS $1,518,000)
TcrtAL
$ 225,000
$ 1,611,000
:-.:------
~
~
r
$1,503,000
(A) const-ructiOn
(B) Fixed costS
000
~
5 000
~
~.
$3,345,000
Objective
56,000
urban Rebates
'>N
32,000
Drainage AssessnentS
ItemS Not for subsidy
6 000
~
g 000
~
(Drainage AssessmentS were $10,000 in 1980)
~
$ '2 , ~) ') 1 ,000
u. i-1 Rtr" of 'tronSl'ortiltl.on and CO'OlnunicatiOns S\lbsid.'J
"' .H .' J AU ocat i 00
1>\i istrY of TransportatiOn and coromunicatiOns subsidY on
n _ Drainage AssessmentS
16,000
.'. f Cit of St~ 'thomas after
effective cont1:J.hutiOn rom Y payment of DeHd.t
. y) 000
~
. 000
~
'I'o'l'l-iE CHA1.Rl4AN AND ~EM1\ERS Of COUNT'>' Of ELC1.N ROAD COMlU'I''I'EE - l' ACE 7.
DeCembe-r 1980
REI'OR'I' ON ROAD EJtI'END1.'I'URES fOR \981
!&Y!
$3,439,000
'ExpendiCU-reS
Rece.ipt S
~
~
~
r
1980 1..<",y $781.000; 1.ncrease 7,'2%
1.ncrease in Assessment 1981 over 1980 is un"no"m.
. . has used a figure of
The Ministry of TransportatiOn and coromun~cat~ons . ·
. c. Drainage Assessments).
1.8'/. ($11.000 of the i ncre a se in t.he Levy ~ s ~or
The urban Muni ci p ali tie spaY appr 0 1<imate ly 2.6 .'3% of the t ota 1 County
Levy, 'The rebate to urban MtlnicipalitieS is calculated at 2.;% of
,th€.iXR()(14 L€.vY.
. d.C . t'ons had indicated
The ~inistrY of 'I'ransport."t.~"n an. Qt\lll\un~ca ~
that Allocations for Resurfacing and NeW Machinery shou\d be reasonablY
.,^" ^,rhoUgh if they are increased t.he monies will
spent. on t.he se c~te.g 01: ,~o a. ~...
have to come fram other Maintenance and construction amounts.
M.ajo-r
. b. . t on items that the allocatiOns
maint.enance allocatlOl\ should also e spen
were made. for(~1<amrles. cravel Resurfacing and surface Treatment) if at
~l possi~e after ~i~er control costS ~e ~t.
ALL Of WH1.Ct\ 1.S RESI'EC'l'1'\JLL'>' SU1\M1.'I''I'ED
R. G. MOORE. coUN'l''>' ENG1.1W.ER
-~
:
COUNTY OF
ELGIN
4.
CALCULATION OF GRANT UNDER UPPERTIERPROGRAl\J1
r _
STEP 1
Approved Expenditure on R04ds and
B ridgetJ to which Ora.nt Applies (Item 1)
STEP 2 County E:ffort of 1.25 Mills on Total
County Assessment (Item F)
1.2.5 x Item F ;;: 1.25 x $ 474..000, ()f)!) = $ 592,500
1000 ' 10001
Plua Sep. U rban'Contribution p.t O. 5 Mills
O. 5 x Item G:; O. 5 x $ 78,900,000 $ 39,450
1000 'II" 1000
Total Local Effort at 1. 2$ Mills
,~. ,
, 'STEP 3 Ro~d Effort ~t 1. 25 Mill$cq1.1als the
total Local Effort in Step 2. plus an
equ.iva.1ent amount of grant
2. x Step 2. =2,;)(:$ 631,'950
STE.P 4 Unrnet Road Effort at 1.25 Mills ::;
Step 1 minus Step 3 (Unless Step 3
is greate r than Step 1)
. STEP 5@
W he rf;~ tht~ re i a an lJnl'net Road E; fro rt
at 1. 25 Mills Or(~nt applying to it is
St(~P 4 xO. 90909 ;::
$ 2,081,100 'x O. 90909
PlqfJO.rant ~:qu.ivalentt#Tota,l
Lopal Effort (Step Z)
Total Calcula.ted Amount of ~.L'aJ1t
. ... or -
80(1~ of App rdvc;dExpe:p.di~....r(;~.
(It<~rn 1) O~ 8 x $
;:r~
Wh'~(',hey.er is the Ie sse r
OR
.-.-,
Sl'Ji; P 5(ill
I . Where there is no Un'metRoad Effort
i;lt 1.2 S Millfl Grant is 500/0 of Approved
l~:x.pendit\l rt;~ Otero X) 0,,5 X Step 1 ;;
O.5.x$
STl~P6 (ir~nl applying tQ UrbiUlH(rbatc, Pa..id
500!Q of Iteln H.::: O~ 5 x$ 56! 000
Plu.s Grant applying to Approved
E:xpe ndit\1te (Step 5(A) or Step 5(J3)
= $ 631,950
... $ 1.891.907
$ 631 , 950
$ 2,52:3,857
,~
.~ $
;:: $ 28,.000
$1, 5 23,8~ 7
Miil\l6Hc.~\'1 Q ipta f rorn P rap" rty Dispo$a.P:o:<
.._,~-':1<1 of It e rn N ::~ O. ..~.~....x: $ ;.:; $
Tt>til 1 Ci J~ a l1l
STg'f' 7
.. .,...<~. .~.""""" 1"~:.""""~,.,,,~,,~
'1'.(Jt;\l (~1" d n 1. l),a yab).. UJHl~ r l...Jppe r 'f i (' 1"
P l'()f~ r.un i~i '{"ht: Allo(:~tti{)h (It(~n1. A) VI'
St:~p 6, whiqhever is the les$er
(1981 )
DECEMBER 10, 1980
DRAFT
$ 3,345, OO.Q~_.,^_.=:
$ t , 263 ,900
$ 2,081 , .~.9~
5 fA) $. 2,523,857
5(13) $
$ 2,551,857
.... ~~1lI!~'~":r-W'
$' 2,551,'000
~~~..._....
>',<~:: PeN,:cntage to b~c: \..lsed is that applicable to year in whi,cb. p.rope~rty
waf; p\.u:cha sed. If '0:10 re tha,n one rate applies. attach :;;epara.te
calculatJ.()l1 to bupport a.nlountof subsidy claimed and n:ote years
in wh i (~h '.!) u rc 1,a ~Je smade.
DA T E:.__,........_..__:....
....~...~....I......
t ~7!/t!(!L~
'--
-"COIJNTY OF ELGIN'
TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980 .
A.\WAL AVERAGE DpTJYTRAFFICCOUN'l'S TAKEN BY THE COUNTY
IN 1980 A..}iD COMPUTED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
(PRIOR YEARS ARE SHOWN FOR COMPARISON)
East of Road 3
West of West Lorne
East of Con Rail
West of Ald.-Dun. Line
East of Ald.-Dun. Line
West of Road 15
West of Road 8
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1390 1320 1790 1510
1320 1370 1560 1560
750 700 . 760 720
690 660 680 730
620 750 700 750
640 710 780 740
410 390 430 390
180 740 430
570 760 910 920
1170 1120 1040 1280
2150 3330 2670
1360 l400 1940 1910
1560
900 1140 1320 1200
940 830 880 1010
580 610 930 890
580 520 890 800
690 690 870 1030
240 240 460 750
430 450 3.20 410
70 90 100 100
110 110 110 80
340 410 480 560
410 440 490 540
ROAD STATION LOCATION
2-050201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
3-050301
0302
0303
0304
0305
0306
0307
0308
0309
0310
0311
4- 050401
0402
5-050501
0502
South of Highway 3
North of Highway 3
South of Road 2
North of Road 2
North of Rodney Limits
South of Highway 401
South of Road 9
North of Road 9
South of Road 6
East of Road 6
At Wardsville Bridge
East of Kent Town Line
We.st of Rodney Limits
North of Road 9 (West)
At Walker's Bridge
6-050601 East of C1achan
0602 'We st of Road 3
1980
1600(C)
l589(C)
780
810
800
720
390
420
910
1230
2600(C)
2030
1650
1430
1230
850
880
1010
''"!IJ''\
4LV
820
370
420
~-,'--~-
NarE: (C) Denoted County Observed
Count.
Page 1
1981
1983
1984
1982
COUNTY OF ,ELGIN - TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980
ROAD ST.A'l'ION'c; l.OCATION 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
8-050801 West of Park Entrance 60 110 110 llO
0802 South of Road l6 230 280 290 340
0803 North of Road 16 430 480 550 490 530
0804 North of Highway 3 1070 980 1030 1230 1300
0805 South of Road 13 1150 1440 1370 1470 1420
0806 South of Road 2 1280 1420 1500 1590
0807 South of Highway 401 1560 1320 1510 .l480
0808 North of Highway 401 1030 880 870 760
0809 South of Road 9 560 560 550 640
0810 North of Road 9 280 400 . 440 460
0811 At Willey's Bridge 240 290 340 430
9-050901 East of Road 3 190 160 140 l70
0902 West of Henry Road 180 140 110 150
0903 West of Division Line 100 70 70 130
0904 West of Highway 76 70 90 70 100
0905 East of Highway 76 50 80 50 80
0906 West of Ald.-Dun. Town Line 40 70 50 70
0907 East of Ald.-Dun. Town Line 60 60 80 80
0908 West of Road 8 80 140 100 100
0909 East of Road 8 90 110 ..
80 120
0910 West of Road 14 70 90 80 100
11.051101 East of Ford Plant Gate 260 600 450 560 450 470 440
13.051301 East of Dutton Limits 430 440 480 460
1302 East of Willey'S Side Road 370 360 330 360
1303 West of Road 14 420 350 340 350
14-051401 North of Road 16 470 460 380 450
1402 South of Highway 3 440 430 420 410
1403 North 'of Highway 3 700 750 870 940
1404 South of Road 13 550 680 740 740
1405 North of Road 13 415 550 590 560
1406 South of Highway 401 475 540 590 680
1980
90
250
530
1340(C)
1480(C)
1420
l460
830
650
610
420
l50
110
100
80
80
100
70
100
80
70
440
450
380
430
550
590
730
760
570
640
1981
1982
Page 2.
1983
1984
COUNTY OF ,ELGIN - TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980 Page 3.
ROAD STATION LOCATION 1972 1973 1974 1975 . 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
~
14-051407 North of Highway 401 500 670 680 830 730
1408 South of Road 9 450 590 650 690 640
1409 North of Road 9 420 510 610 710 630
- T
15-051501 South of Road 2 680 960 670 680 810 800
"- "
16-051601 East of Road 8 390 300 370 490 .390 430
1602 West of Talbot Creek 225 260 330 340 290 510
1603 West of Road 14 250 250 320 410 380 500
1604 East of Road 14 720 610 620 . 690 UlC 930
1605 West of Finga1 Limits 760 660 720 700 U!C 920
1606 East of Fingal Limits 1260 1230 1400 1310 1590 1550 1610 l630 1710
1607 West of Road 45 1240 1300 1430 1550 1640 1690 1690 1780 1780
1608 East of Road 45 1070 1150 1510 1660 1540 1780 1648 1540 1510
l609 Top of Fingal Hill 1430 1450 1730 1730 l640 1840 1860 1810 1870
17-051701 East of Southwo1d Station 230 230 190 240 200 350
1702 East of Road 18 270 U!C
1703 West End of Highway 401 Bridge 260 UlC
1704 West of Highway 4 300 U!C
18-051801 West of Road 20 (North) 180 170 170 160 170 260
1802 Ea st of Road 20 (North) 140 130 140 180 190 210
1803 West of Road 19 110 L20 130 140 150 210
1804 East of McCaig Entrance 240 U!C
19-051901 North of Highway 3 440 360 350 350 430 500
1902 South of Road 18 300 290 250 260 280 380
1903 North of Road 18 200 290 ,250 230 280 330
20-052001 South of Highway 4 520 450 520 660 510 610
2002 North of Highway 4 780 710 1190 1150 900 900 1100 1090 1020
2003 North of Road 21 520 610 540 620 580 560 620 620 700
2004 Top of Turville Hill 370 340 340 390 340 420 460 260 690
2005 South of F.ingal Limits 540 490 620 710 630 720 850 710 810
2006 North of Fingal Limits 750 890 910 1010 1050 1190 1330 1000 1440
COUNTY OF "ELGIN - TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980'
ROAD STATION LOCATION 1972 1973 1974 1975 _ 1976 1977 1978 1979
20-052007 South of Shedden Limits 760 910 800 lllO 1210
2008 North of Shedden Limits 400 550 630 700 760
2009 South of Highway 401 400 420 600 590 770
2010 North of Highway 401 240 300 350 330 370
2011 North of Road 18 60 80 80 80 150
2012 South of Middlesex Line 60 80 80 80 100
21-052101 At Warren Street Bridge 870 1160 1140 1220 1170 1110 1360 1320
22-052201 North of Road 24 470 470 500 530 . 590 500 600 500
2202 South of Road 27 640 680 780 560 640 740 610 740
2203 North of Road 27 1360 1260 1290 1260 1500 1500 1460 1470
2204 South of Road 45 1790 1400 1410 1630 1830 1770 1770 1,830
2205 North of Road 45 2300 2160 2510 2550 2500 2960 3190 3070
2206 South of St. Thomas Limits 2370 2640 2770 2620 3620 3330 3620 3460
23-052301 Joseph Street Hill 1270 1190 1300 1310 1430 1370 1470 1130
2302 South of Road 24 990 880 1070 1000 860 990 1190 1030
2303 South of Highway 4 720 770 780 740 850 860 810 730
~
24- 052401 East of Road 23 480 390 520 520 520 580 610 540
2402 West of Road 22 470 460 500 520 560 570 630 510
2403 East of Road 22 560 580 590 580 460 560 610 630
2404 East of Dexter 430 390 360 430 440 370 470 350
2405 West of Road 36 480 390 290 350 450 340 450 400
2406 East of Road 36 440 400 550 620 480 570 610
2407 Top of Port Bruce Hill 520 440 500 420 500 470 450
25-052501 North of Highway 4 3640 3800 4440 4700 3980 4630 4730 4020
2502 North of Road 26 5310 4960 5700 ~(),0 61.8:~'- .:Q:.tJ 6160 5990
2503 South of Road 52 6060 6040
2504 North 'of Road 52 5890 5350 5950 b950 6350 7300 7590 8160
2505 South of Middlesex Town Line 5770 5390 5870 6480 5690 6780 7570 8080
1980
1380
810
590
370
170
110
1200
620
780
l710
1720
3180
3538 (C)
1200
1200
920
590
650
720
510
510
630
570
4470(C)
6100(C)
5950(C)
8300(C)
8400( c )
1981
1982
Page 4.
1983
1984
COUNTY OF?ELGIN - TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980 Page 5.
ROAD STATION LOCATION 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
26-052601 East of Road 25 2070 2440 2450 2420 2560 3070 2470 2250 2710
2602 North of Road 29 230 390 270 240 280 310 230 230 l30
2603 South of Hi.ghway 3 By-Pass 180 220 120
2604 North of Road 52 130 130 200 190 200 150 340 120 150
27-052701 East of Union Limits 1130 1080 1130 1300 1130 .1110 1330 1310
2702 West of Road 22 990 1090 1080 1170 1220 990 1050 1080
2703 East of Road 22 950 1010 l030 1100 1230 1120 950 95D
2704 We st of Sparta Limit s 730 780 1000 . 860 770 760 670 770
28-052801 North of Road 45 210 210 150 200 260 360
2802 North of Mi11ian Side Road 370 400 300 350 340 410
2803 South of Road 56 470 470 400 310 390 370 '510 680
2804 North of Road 56 1500 1410 1560 1680 1800
2805 South of Highway 3 2230 2210 2600 3000 2010 2510 2540 2580
29- 052901 West of Road 25 110 210 220 180 220 150 140 100 50
2902 East of Road 25 800 810 lOOO 930 1580 390 380 530
2903 We st of Road 31 790 810 990 980 l840 440 400 560
30-053001 South of Road 52 740 1140 1100 1310 1400 1920 2510
3002 North of Road 52 350 480 550 460 550 690
3003 South of Cone. XI 350 440 500
3004 South of Cone. XII 290 290 460
3005 North of Conc. XII 220 250 320 350 220 280 370
31-053101 South of Road 52 240 260 260 290 260 1880 2770 3160
32-053201 East of Highway 73 760 950 750 710
3202 South of Police College 500 760 530 560
3203 North 'of Police College 140 250 190 200
3204 South of Road 52 90 210 150 200
33-053301 North of C & 0 Traek s 400 330 360 290 340 250 J30 250
3302 West of Kain's Bridge 620 690 710 570 620 590 390 390
COIJ1\7'fY OF} ELGIN
TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980
ROAD STATION LOCATION
34.053401
3402
West of Road 30 (Gravel)
West of Belmont Limits
35-053501 North of Road 45
3502 . North of Malahide Twp. Road
3503 South of Highl:'\Tay 3
36.053601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
37-053701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
38.053801
3802
3803
3804
3805
North of Road 24
South of Sparta Limit s
North of Sparta Limits
South of Road 45
North of Road 45
South of Highway 3
At Kettle Creek Bridge
West of Highway 73
East of Highway 73
We st of Avon Limits
East of Avon Limits
West of Oxford Town Line
East of Highway 3
East of Richmond Hill
West of Straffordvi11e Limits
East of Straffordville Limits
West of Norfolk Town Line
39-053901
3902
40- 054001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
North of West Beech Entrance
South of Road 42
North .of Road 42
South of Mount Sal em Limit s
North of Mount Salem Limits
South of Road 45 West
North of Road 45 West
South of Highway 3
1972 1973 1974 1975 . 1976 1977
720 920 840 700
~
710 620 640 600 760
860 840 630 810 1040
1080 940 740 990 1050
740 500 470 480 380
500 510 580 720 540
940 840 . 950 970
570
710 730 840 880 980
740 610 600 560 590
590 600 710 680 690
200 270 270
110 140 110
170 210 . 260
160 190 190
200 260 230
160 230 170
820 950 1030
740 740 1110
860 1000 990
1030 950 940
530 570 600
510 630 460
570 560 860
350 380 610
450 690 820
1500 990 1690
1510 1480 1720
610 980 1580
900 1220 1490
1978 1979 1980 1981
260 270 510
710 610 670
660 720 820
780 900 900
1030 1130 1380
500 480 489
680 660 760
1010 840 950
1020 1020 lO10
670 680 760
710 730 950
150 160 160
100 120 130
260
290
220
200
U/G
U/C
U/C
890
530
660
960
470
730
1780
1810
1270
1350
1982
Page 6.
1983
1984
COUNTY OF c ELGIN - TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980 Page 7.
ROAD STATION LOCATION 1972 1973 1974 1975 . 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
40-054007 North of Highway 3 600 640 720 830
4008 South of Glencolin 480 540 600 720
4009 South of Springfield Limits 520 670 640 720
41-054101 On Fulton Street, West 6fMain 240 310
42-054201 East of Highway 73 960 800 970 870
4202 West of Road 40 840 900 820 790
4203 East of Road 40 800 880 930 820
4204 West of Road 43 740 1020 . 830 840
4205 East of Road 43 840 830 920 810
4206 West of Brown's Side Road 800 910 990 780
4207 North of Road 39 820 920 970 840
4208 West of Port Burwell Bridge 1280 1490 1510 1410
4209 East of Port BurwellL;ndt s 630 630 610 610
4210 West of Norfolk Town Line 280 350 350 430
43-054301 North of Road 42 140 100 150 130
4302 South of Calton Limits 310 220 330 280
4303 North of Calton Limits 300 270 210 250
4304 South of Richmond Limits 270 110 130 140
44- 05 4401 East of Road 46 230 280 330 290
4402 West of Highway 3 220 260 310 300
4403 East of Highway 3 330 430 370 490
4404 West of Eden Limit s 490 520 450 420
45-054501 South of Road 16 280 380 420 500 520 440 470 500 510
4502 West of Highway 4 480 620 610 670 720 780 670 580 1130
4503 East of Highway 4 l020 1140 1170 1630 1540 1680 1670 1780
4504 West of Road 22 830 1220 1170 1150 1410 1520 1690 1660 1730
4505 East of Road 22 1260 1220 l470 1350 1470 1450 1460 1500 1590
4506 West of Road 28 1550 1380 1510
4507 East of Road 28 1510 1310 1810
4508 West of Road 36 970 990 1330 1230 1190 1460 1260 1290
COUNTY OF:. ELGIN
TRAFFIC COUNTS 1980
,
ROAD STATION LOCATION
52-05520l
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
53-055301
5302
54-05540l
i6-055601
Twp. 059901
Rd.
West of Road 25
East of Road 25
West of Road 31
East of Road 31
< West of Road 30
East of Road 30
West of Highway 74
East of Highway 74
West of Highway 73
East of Highway 73
West of Road 32
West of Springfield Limits
Elm St. at the Bridge
Beech St. West of Co-Op.
South of Road 48
East of St. Thomas Limits
Elm St. East of Centennial Ave.
1972
130
170
170
170
750
1973
180
190
170
l80
810
800
850
750
1260
1230
1070
1210
440
2280
340
Page 9.
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
170 240 140 420 1090 1100
300 230 200 2130 3310 4320
290 280 2190 3820 4320
840 1260 1910
210 200 780 1230 1930
830 640 1200 1050 1260 1810 2300
650 620 850 890 .1180 1370 2160
860 770 920 900 1040 1240 1120
830 890 1060 1090 980
1020 . 1190 1270
1220
1030 1110 1280
1220 1660 1720 1730 1770
1050 -1160 1090 1210 1520
460 470 570
2530 2200 2720 2570 2970 2660 3029(0 )
330 270 400 410 390 390 440
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD coMMITTEE
~'~':,-,-- .
FIRST REPORT
DECEMBER 1980 SESSION
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. That your Road Committee act as the Committee on the following
subjects for 1980 - 1981:
(a) Solid and liquid waste disposal.
(b) Mosquito control for the prevention of Encephalitis.
(c) Provincial or Federal Incentive Works programme or
similar programmes.
(d) APplication of the Canadian National Railroad to abandon
the port Stanley to St. Thomas branch of the London and
Port Stanley Railroad.
(e) Lake Erie erosion.
2. That a By-Law be passed stating that the County of Elgin has nO
objection to the Township of South Dorchester closing a portion of
CaeSar Road (as opened by By-Law #CXL1I of the District of
London) in Lot 22, concession VII, South Dorchster and shown
tk'.
as Part #2 on Reference plan llR-2178.
3. That a By-Law be passed authorizing the Warden and clerk to
sign road widening land plans as necessary in 1980 - 1981.
ALL OF WHIcH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAlRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 11, 1980
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Munic.ipal BUildings,
Gladstone Avenue at 3 :00 p.m., December 11, 1980; in conjunction with County
Council.
PRESENT
Warden K. E. Monteith, Township of Southwold
Reeve L. J. Shaw - Township of Yarmouth
Reeve K. M. Kelly - Township of A1dborough
Reeve M. J. Stewart - Township of Bayham
Reeve J. B. Wilson - Township of South Dorchester
Reeve S. J. Glover - Town of Aylmer
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Reeve G. E. Walters - Township of Dunwich
Reeve W. R. Caverly - Township of Ma1ahide
Reeve R. T. Bradfield - Village of Port Burwell
"MOVED BY: K. M. KELLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT LARRY SHAW BE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FOR 1980 - 1981.
CARRIED."
THE CHAIRMAN thanked the Connnittee for the honour accorded him.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE STATING THAT:
1. The work in Port Stanley had been completed on the Front Street Bin Wall.
2. Winter Control had been light.
3. Work was continuing on Road #38 with the erection of guide rail at
Richmond Hill and the placement of straw bales at the Spring Creek
Culvert.
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY ROAD COMMITTEE would not meet until
January 8, 1981 at which time they would probably make a de:cision as to
whether or not they 'wished to proceed with the Walkers Bridge or whether they
,/
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 11, 1980
PAGE 2.
wished to have a meeting with the Minister of Highways with regard to extra
funding for the Bridge.
Mr. John Dymock for the land and for fill necessary for the Walkers Bridge at
The Engineer stated that he had came to a tentative agreement with
a lump sum of $11,500. He was in the process of drawing up an agreement which
would have seven or eight clauses to it that would take all these things into
account.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COllNC1;L THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED AUTROR1;Z1;NG
THE WARDEN AND CLERK TO S1;GN ROAD WlDEN1;NG LAND PLANS AS NECESSARY
IN 1980 - 1981.
CARRI ED."
"MOVED BY:
J. B. WILSON
SECONDED BY: K. M._,KELLY
THAT WE REcoMMEND TO COUNTY COUNC1;L THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STAT1NG
THE COUNTY OF ELG1;NHAS NO OBJECT1;ON TO THE TOVlNSH1P OF SOUTH
DORCHESTER CLOS1;NG A PORnON OF CEASAR ROAD (OPENED BY BY-LAW
CXLn OF THE D1; STRL CT OF LONDON) 1;N I..OT 22, CONCESS1;ON vn,
SOUTH DORCHESTER TOWNSR1;P AND SHOWN AS PART #2 ON REFERENCE
PLAN llR 2178.
CARRI ED .'1
"MOVED BY:
K. M. KELLY
SECONDED BY: K. E. MONTEITH
THAT WE RECoMMEND TO COUNTY COUNC1;L THAT THE 1980 - 1981 ROAD
COMMITTEE ACT AS NEEDED AS:
(A) SOL1;D AND L1;QU1D WASTE D1;SPOSAL COMMJ:TTEE.
(B) MOSQU1;TO CONTROL FOR THE PREVENT 1; ON OF ENCEPRAL1;nS.
(CONTINUED)
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 11, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: K. M. KELLY
SECONDED BY: K. R. MONTEITH
(CONTINUED)
(C) PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL INCENTATIVE WORKS OR SIMILAR PROGRAMMES.
(D) ABANDONMENT OF THE LONDON AND PORT STANLEY RAILWAY BRANCH BY
THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY.
(E) LAKE ERIE EROSION .
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT WE ADJOURN TO DECEMBER 16, 1980 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
r--~-aC;L.>.-
'--E' ~RMAN ·
S't 0 'tl1oM.AS, 0N'tAR1.0
DECEMBER 5, 1980
"PAGE 1.
'tWE co\lN'fY OF ELG1.N ROAD CQl1l1L't'tEE met at the Elgin Municipal
All membe-r s -we-re
Buildings, GladstOne Avenue at 9~30 aom., December 5, 1980.
present e><cept Reeves Caro.Pbell, Vlil son, Green and sha"o Mr. Frank clarke of
the Ministry of 'transportatiOn and communications ,.as alsO presento
"MOVED B~:
v:f. R. CA VBRlS
SECONDED BY ~ S 0 J 0 GLOVER
'fl\A't 't1:lE mmrrES OF 'tWE MF$!1.NGS OF NOVEMBER 5, AND NOVEMBER 19,
1980 BE AP"PROVED.
CARRIED ."
'tl1E 11,NG1.NEER REPOR'tED ON 'tl1E VlO'RR 'to DA'tE AS 1;'OLLO'ilS ~
1.
Mro Robert DavieS of 'tottenha1\l had been recommended to County Council by the
2.
personnel coromittee as Assistant CountY EngineerO 'the appointment ,.ould be
subject to the December CountY Council approval.
Sno" fence had been erected.
SanderS and sno" plo"s had been installed.
'the Front Street bin ,.all project at port Stanley including guide rail had
3.
'the si>< (6) summer casual workers ,.ould be laid off on December 5. Four (4)
regular labourers ,.ould be laid off on December 12.
l1erbert Co){ and RUssell Ford had both retired in November and a suitable
presentation ,.ould be made at the December CountY Council.
Vlork continued on CountY Road #38 ,.i.th guide rail on Richmond l1ill yet to be
Eight hundred and fifty stra,. baleS had been placed around the
4.
been cOlllPleted on MondaY.
5.
6.
1.
k d~agline work done and s~e additional stra,. baleS
Little Otter Cree , s~e ·
~~., . letter had been received fr~ the Ministry
e-rected.
would still be ne~eSsa~J. =
of Natural Resources stating that they ,.ere not satisfied ,.i.th the progreSS
. ~~^~ ^,_r~ the letter had
8.
that had been made, but they had been inf ormeu \.""... ~~"--
. f the ,.ork had been done and the rest ,.as planned shortlY.
been w-r~tten some 0
Fence ,.ould be erected on Road if3 2 at Ne.rell' s and on Road #2 at
01 iViera' s, ,.eather permittingo
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 2.
9. Mr. Victor Bardawill had sent in a signed agreement for land on Road #32.
10. Pleasant Valley Pit clean-up continued. Gravel that had been draglined
out of the water last year had been stockpiled and crushed gravel was being
hauled to the County Garage as time and conditions permi.tted.
11. Gravel shouldering had been completed on Road #14 betweem Iona and Iona
Station.
l2. There would be approximately 5,000 tons of crushed grave~l left at the Pleasant
Valley Pit for gravel resurfacing on County Road #43 north and south of
Calton in the Spring. Although some work had been done this Fall,
conditions were such the gravel would freeze rather than compact properly
if applied at the present time.
13. The Township of Malahide was cleaning Catfish Creek at the Glencolin Bridge
and the County would pay for the cleaning underneath thE~ bridge.
14. The salt shed addition had been completed but it had beE~n necessary to
make extensive repairs to the main buildi~g.
15. Approximately $20,000 owing to Imperial Oil for asphalt cement for Road #38
would be left unpaid until January 1981. It appeared that all other
November accounts would be paid. This was much better than last year when
approximately $120,000 of account S were taken from 1979 :into 1980.
16. Walkers Bridge approvals had not yet been received from the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of the Environment and
the Ministry of Natural Resources. It was hoped that most of the
problems would be resolved before Christmas.
l7. It appeared that the sales tax rebate programme would apply to the two (2)
new trucks purchased by the County of Elgin. It was hoped that these
trucks would be delivered prior to Christmas.
18. An offical notice had been sent to the Canadian National Railw?yand to
the Canadian Transport Commission protesting the abandonment of the
London and Port Stanley Branch of the Canadian National Rai~Lway between
St. Thomas, and Port Stanley and requesting notification of the hearing
date for the abandonment.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE ENGINEER BE INSTRUCTED TO REDUCE THE URBAN REBATE TO THE
VILLAGE OF RODNEY BY THE AMOUNT OWING TO THE COUNTY ($119.68).
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 5,0 AMOUNTING TO $ 50,241.51
PAYLIST NUMBER 51 AMOUNTING TO $ 1,054.07
PAYLIST NUMBER 52 AMOUNTING TO $ 45,700.17
PAYLIST NUMBER 53 AMOUNTING TO $
15.75
PAYLIST NUMBER 54 AMOUNTING TO $201,653.70
CARRIED ."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:
1. (a) Association of Municipalities of Ontario with outline of their stand
with regard to AMO Report 39, Provincial Road Grants and
Administration Procedures.
(b) County of Brant regarding the County's Resolution on the AMO
Report 38.
(c) United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry stating that the
County's position had been endorsed.
(d) County of Northumberland stating that no action had been taken on the
County's endorsement.
(e) County of Middlesex stating that a portion of the County's stand had
been endorsed, and a portion of it had been filed.
(f) From the United Counties of Prescott and Russell saying that the
matter had been filed.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 4.
It appeared in general that the County of Elgin's position on the Report
had been well received and the County's concern was such that a considerable
amount of support had been generated in the various Counties and with the
Ministry of Transportation and CV1LuLLunications.
2. From the Ontario Paper Company regarding recycling of nl~wsprint paper.
3. Township of Malahide with zoning by-laws.
4. O.M.B. with notices of hearings, and decision regarding appeal by
Mr. Keith Stribe from the decision of the County of Elgin Land Division
Committee, with regard to land in the New Sarum area.
5. From the Ministry of Housing stating that the Town of ~rlmer has been
established as a planning area and that the East Elgin Planning area
would continue without the Town of Aylmer.
6. From the City of Winnipeg announcing a conference on Alternatives to
Petroleum in the Urban Transportation Sector, to be held January 28th to
30th, 1981 in Winnipeg.
7. Township of South Dorchester with regard to the closing of a portion of
Ceasar Road east of Belmont. The Engineer stated that he felt that
there were no objections to the closing of the road. A recullLLl1endation
would have to be made by the 1981 Road CV1LuLLittee to County Council.
8. The County of Kent stating that guide rail had been erected on County
Road #7 south of the Bothwell Bridge approximately 1/2 mile.
9. From Mr. Murray Abbott wishing to purchase approximately 48 acres of
Lot 137, Houghton Township, owned by the County of Elgin and offering
the sum of $25,000 for the same. The CU1LLLl1ittee instructed the
Engineer to notify Mr. Abbott that they were not interested in selling
the property at this time, for that price.
10.
From the County Auditors, newsletter stating that Unemployment
Insurance premiums would increase approximately 33% in 1981 because of
the Federal Budget announcements.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 5.
ll. From the Town of Aylmer with CVUl1uittee of Adjustment notice with regard
to 92 Pine Street East.
12. From Mr. Ronald Green of St. George Street regarding the condition of
St. George Street (County Road #26) which was referred to the 1981
Road Committee as was a letter from Mr. John Kordyban with regard to
the condition of County Road #37 east of Belmont.
IT WAS DECIDED to pay the Brown Drainage Assessment to the Township of
Dunwich on the next paylist.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that he had been able to negotiate with Armco
Canada that they would accept an order for 6" to 30" pipe before the
Christmas Holidays to be delivered through the Winter and to be invoiced at
the same price as their Spring of 1980 Tender. The Committele fel t that
this would be a distinct financial advantage inas much as the list price
on pipe had increased several times since last Spring.
THE ENGINEER STATED that he had ordered the 1981 supply of traffic
marking paint from Ibis Products Limited at $5.50 per gallon which is approximately
a 17% increase over the 1980 price. However, the price was the same as had been
charged to the Mini stry of Transportation and CVUl111unications by Ibi s in 1980.
The paint would be delivered in returnable drums through the Winter payable
next April and any paint that did not winter would be credit1ed to the County's
account. The Engineer stated that the same system had been used in several
proceeding years and it worked very favourably and the odd barrel that had been
damaged had been properly credited to the County's account. The Cvul1uittee was
in agreement with this purchase.
THE ENGINEER NOTED that the Ontario Task Force on Rail Policy had published
an interim report and stated he would report to the 1981 CV1UJ,l1ittee its
implications to Elgin County.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 6.
IT WAS NOTED that the Ministry of the Environment had not yet made a
decision regarding sanitary sewer construction in Port Burwell, but that
engineering work was continuing. The Engineer noted that this was a
hopeful note, and that there might be money from some source to finance
construction.
THE ENGINEER REVIEWED the past year's work noting that a considerable
amount of maintenance work had been accomplished because of the light Winter
Control Cost last Winter. Surface treatment work had been caught up as had
been repairs to pavements. Some ditching had been done, bridge repairs had
been made to Bothwell, Glencolin, Wardsville, and Belmont. A little bridge
painting had been done on Gilletts. The tree planting backlog had been
eliminated. Some gravel resufacing had been done.. Sign work had consisted
of normal maintenance. More work had been done on Road #38 than had been
anticipated. Richmond Hill had been paved although it had not been scheduled
until 1981.
Approximately $20,000 was still due Imperial Oil for asphalt cement. A
second coat of asphalt would be necessary on Wards Hill and there was some
trinnning yet to do on the whole road but otherwise the' work had been completed.
Asphalt resurfacing had been completed on the Kent-Elgin To~nline and on
Road #45 from Highway #4 to one (1) mile south of Middlemarch. Road #22 south
of Road #27 and several portions of Road #20 near Fingal had al so been re surfaced.
Three (3) new trucks had been purchased. The salt storage had been added to.
The County's economic outlook was not particularly favourable at the
present time as high unemployment continued throughout the County although the
Ford Plant was gearing up for a little stronger production. The Engineer stated that
he felt that anything that the County could do to encourage employment in the area
and/or the purchase of goods and materials from the area should be done. If it was
possible to do work outside the area and bring money back to the area this too
would benefit the taxpayers of the County in the long run. The Engineer stated
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 7.
that he felt the County should continue their present policy of day labour,
hiring local equipment, and of trying whenever possible to buy from local
suppliers as this method would in the long run put dollars into the pockets
of the local taxpayers.
THE ENGINEER REVIEWED the work for 1981 feeling that thle major project was
the start of construction on the Walkers Bridge. A considerable amount of
maintenance work would be necessary. Gravel resurfacing would be necessary on
Road #9 and Road #43. Gravel resurfacing would be required IOn several roads including
Road #40 and Road #42. Ditching was badly required on a number of roads
particularly on Road #3 between New Glasgow and Rodney and RDad #8 between Dutton
and Wallacetown. Bridge repair, particularly painting was v1ery seriously
required on a considerable number of bridges. It appeared that a programme for
high labour and county intensive equipment usage should be encouraged. It was
likely that the Ministry of Transportation and CVl1l1uunications would implement
their system of urban machinery rental rates for Counties in 1982 and that
County buildings and equipment should be placed in excellent condition before
1982, as it was unlikely that the rates the Ministry would use would keep the
equipment in good repair and fund the replacement of it at the same time. It
was understood that a CUl1l1uittee of County Engineers would me,et the Ministry at
some future date to discuss this matter a little further.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
CARRIED."
~ vc'SL
~- C1HAI~
r
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 19, 1980
PAGE 1.
3:30 p.m. in conjunction with county council. All members were present.
TJ:IE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met November 19, 1980 at
had adopted the Road committee's recommendations for a three year road
plan. Included in thiS plan waS construction of Walker'S Bridge 1981 and 1982.
The Engineer reported that the county of Middlesex county council
Inasmuch as there would be only one or twO members of the Middlesex Road
committee returning in 1981 a joint meeting of the Elgin and Middlesex Road
committees would be required early in 1981.
(Mr. Il'{lIlock) stating that they felt that some progress had been made, and after
The Chairman and Reeve Campbell reported on land purchase on Road #5,
a meeting of the IlUnwich Township' council the Chairman and Reeve Campbell
would again approach Mr. Dymock with regard to the purchase of the necessary
morning and felt 'sonie .progresshad been made regarding the purchasing of
The Engineer reported that he had met Mr. Bardawill last Saturday
right of way.
road widening necessary for Road #32. Mr. Bardawill has promised to write
the Engineer within a few days with his proposal for the road widening.
Government Services had been successful and that the land needed for the
The Engineer reported that negotiations with the Ministry of
road widening of Road #22 from the Ontario Hospital property would be
purchased for $100.
decided that the chiarman would meet with the personnel Committee to
InterviewS for an Assistant Engineer were discussed, and it was
conduct interviewS sometime the following week. The Engineer stated that
he had interviewed six (6) people' and it waS likely that three would be
finally interviewed by the committee. It appeared that one applicant was
nO longer interested in the position.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 19, 1980
PAGE 2.
The Engineer stated that he would contact the C.N.R., the Canada
Transport Board and the Ontario Task Force on Rail Policy; and notify them
of Council's backing of Port Stanley's position opposing the abandonment of
the London and Port Stanley Branch of the C.N.R. Railway.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM THE:
Township of Dunwich regarding drainage assessment payment and Engineer
instructed to provide more information at the next meeting.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO DECEMBER 5, 1980 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
Jt:d,Afd
- -- CHAIRMAJN' 0-
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
November Session
1980
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL,
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Paving by Walmsley Bros., Limited of London on County Road 38 has
been completed for the season. Base and top course 0:E asphalt
have been placed in the Richmond Hill area, and base coat on the
Wards Hill area. Trimming work is still underway, as is the placement
of guide rail.
WE RECOMMEND:
1. That the resolution of the Region of Ottawa-Carlton rE~questing the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications subsidi:~e bicycle
paths and facilities be_filed.
2. That the resolution of the Region of Peel regarding the control
of off-road motorized vehicles be endorsed.
3. That a by-law be passed stating that the County of Elqin has no
objections to the closing of Lewis Street and North Water Street
in Port Bruce as shown on Reference Plan #11R2l55, Parts #1, #4,
#5, and #6, by the Township of Malahide.
4. That County Council oppose the application of the Canadian National
Railway to the Canadian Transport Board to abandon thE~ London and
Port Stanley Railway Branch between Port Stanley and St. Thomas.
4. That a by~law be passed prohibiting parking on County Road 27
opposite a portion of Lots 19 and 20, Concession II and III,
Yarmouth Township in the vacinity of the Sparta School. Your
CU.LLuuittee has been requested by the Township of Yarmouth Council
to prohibit parking in this area as a number of the rE~sidents
are concerned with the safety of the children going and coming
from the school. The Township, will enforce the by-lffiv.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPEC~rFULLY SUBMITTED.
CHAI:RMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
l?AGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the County of Elgin
Municipal Building at 9 :30 a.m., November 5, 1980. All membE~rs were present
except Reeve Green. Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications was also present.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10 AND OCTOBER 15, 1980 BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
REPORT ON WORK TO DATE BY THE ENGINEER:
1. Paving on County Road #38 had been completed with base and top course on
Richmond Hill having been done. Base coat on Wards Hill had been completed.
Asphalt curb and gutter work had also been completed as has storm drains.
Clean up work was continuing. The Ministry of Natural Resources had
required a considerable amount of renovation and remedial work in the area
of Little Otter Creek. At the present time it was likely that approximately
1,000 bales of straw would be required this Fall to do this work plus
groins, gavions and rip rap next Spring. Some drag line work remains in the
area of Spring Creek: Culvert.
2. The railing on the Glencolin Bridge has been replaced.
3. Repairs had been made to the expansion joint on the Wardsville Bridge.
4. Repairs had been made to the Belmont West Bridge.
5. Myrtle Street C!Bridge in Aylmer had been cleaned and pai.nted for the
Town of Aylmer.
6. Cleaning and painting of the Gilletts Bridge east of Sparta is underway.
7. Some ditching on Road #43, on the Cook and Phillmore Hills has been
completed.
8. Road #38 shoulders had been gravelled as had been shoulders on Road #20
north and south of Fingal and new pavement in the area of Dutton.
9. The addition to the salt building is being continued.
ST. TlloWl-S, ON'rAR1.0
NOVEMB'E.R 5, 1980
1? AG'E. 2.
12.
Gravel shoulderit1.g'Otl Road #14 in 1.ona and 1.ona Station and bet",een the
t"'O hamletS 'OIill be undertaken as time pe1:lllitS.
piling of '\linter sand at 'Ilhite Station and at port Bur",e11 is under.rey.
Ditching 'OIill not commence on Road #3 near Ne'" clasgo'" for another ",eek
at least until some help Which is nO'" off on holidaYS retUrnS, (t,.o foremen,
superintendent and a number of machine operators).
a
Jim 1:taskell is off on cotllPensation ",ith an injured hand ",hich occurred
during the painting of the Myrtle Street Bridge.
lle ",ould ordinarilY
10.
"',
11.
13.
14. llerbert co:>< haS decided to take an earlY retirement.
. d 1\._ -1 1981 and as he had a part_time job during the '\linter
have ret~re ~pr~ '
he decided to take an early retirement.
RUssell Ford ,.ill retire at the end of November.
APpro:><imatelY 6 casual labourers are still ",orking, probablY for the ne:><t
15.
2 oJ: 3 weeks.
Repairs to e<lUipl1lent continue partiCularlY on sanders and as nO ne'" sanders
have been purchased in the last 5 or 6 years, e:><t enS ive"; repairs have been
re<luired, including a ne'" sander motor and a number of cross and conveyer,
Sno'" plO"'S are being organized for '\linter ",ork.
chainS.
16.
17.
22.
Night shift ",ork ,.ill start on November 23, '\linter standbY ",ill start on
November 15, and sno'" fence ",ould be started ",ithin" 2 ",eeks.
All money ",ill be spent other than ",ageS by the end of Nove!l\ber.
The Ministry of TransportatiOn and cotDllJUnicatiOns had decided to
postpone the use of urban Rental Rates for at least a year and until
such time as further diSCUssions are held ,.ith county Engineers.
The port Stanley bin ",all project "'ill be started tomorro"'.
l!;r. '\lilliam llare, Road #32 signed a land purchase agreement. 1.t 'OIill
be necessary that either the ~unicipal urain be installed thiS Fall,
or the county do repairs to the e:><isting tile drain under the culvert
18.
19.
20.
21.
on Road #32.
A meeting ",ith Mx:. victor Barda"'ill haS been set 'up for thi s coming saturday.
23.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 3.
24. Mr. John Dymock, County Road #5, felt that the purchase price offered for
his land was much too low, (approximately six (6) acres) which would be
required for the Walkers Bridge. Mr. Dymock felt that he should have
approximately $28,000 to $30,000 for this land.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 46 AMOUNTING TO $ 48,494.20
PAYLIST NUMBER 47 AMOUNTING TO $
308 .68
PAYLIST NUMBER 48 AMOUNTING TO $ 45,656.50
PAYLIST NUMBER 49 AMOUNTING TO $155,724.77
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED FROM THE FOLLOWING:
1. Township of Yarmouth, Committee of Adjustment Notice regarding Jaffa
Machine Limited.
2. Township of Yarmouth - Minor Variance Committee of Adjustment regarding
David Ross.
3. Township of Yarmouth - Committee of Adjustment regarding m\inor varience
Woodlynn Farm Markets Limited.
4. Township of Malahide - Zoning By-Law regarding property Highway #3 near
Walkers Sideroad.
5. Township of Malahide - Zoning By-Law regarding property Highway #73, near
Port Bruce.
6. Town of Aylmer - Zoning By-Law regarding restaurant Highway #3, west limit
of Aylmer.
7. Ontario Good Roads Association request for resolutions' and proposal of
names for re(;ognition of long service.
8. The Region of Peel regarding the control of off-road motorized vehicles.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 4.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGION OF
PEEL REGARDING CONTROL OF OFF-ROAD MOTORIZED VEHICLES BE ENDORSED.
CARRIED."
9. The Region of Ottawa-Carleton~regarding subsidy for bicycle facilities.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGION OF
OTTAWA-CARLETON REQUESTING MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AJ~D COMMUNICATIONS
SUBSIDY ON BICYCLE PATHS AND FACILITIES BE FILED.
CARRIED."
10. The Ministry of Natural Resources regarding remedial actions required for
Little Otter Creek, Road #38. Some two pages of remedial actions were
noted and the Engineer reported that some work was underway.
11. The Township of Malahide regarding street closing Port Bruce.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STATING THAT
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE CLOSING OF LEWIS STREET AND
NORTH WATER STREET IN PORT BRUCE AS SHOWN ON REFERENCE PLAN #llR 2155,
PARTS #1, #4, #5, AND #6, BY THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE.
CARRIED."
12. From the Village of Vienna with a res"olutionrega,rding' the improvement of
County Road #43. The matter was referred to the 1981 Road Committee for
action.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 5.
13. From Mr. Ronald A. Green representing residentS of St. George Street
regarding traffic problems on the street. After some discUssion the
Engineer waS instructed to improve the signS in the area, to place a
flashing light on top of the checkerboard sign near Hydro Road, and to
"
advise the residentS that they might be able to apply to the Township
for improved street lighting. The signs are to be erected as soon as
14. The Township of yarmouth requesting the county pass a by.law prohibiting
pOSSible.
parking in the area of the sparta school. Reeve Shaw stated that truckS
parked on the shoulder of the road were a hazard to children coming and
going to school. After discUssion.
"MOVED BY: L. J. sHAW
SECONDED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO cOUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LA1il BE PASSED PROllIBIT1NG
pPJUClNG ON ROAD #27 NEAR TllE SPARTA SGllOOL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
(A) COUNTY ROAD #27 . FROM A POINT 98 MEtRES 1ilEST OF THE LINE BF:t1ilEEN
cEM:!rrERY, EASTERLY FOR 200 METRES, ON THE NORTll SIDE OF coUNTY
ROAD #27.
(B) coUNTY ROAD #27 _ FROM A POWT 302 MEtRES EAST OF TllE LINE BJ;:r1ilEEN
LOTS 19 AND 20, CONCESSION 4, BEING T1lE EAST LIMIT OF TllE QUAKER
LOTS 18 AND 19, CONCESSION 3, EASTERLY FOR 155 METRES ON T1lE soUTIl
SIDE OF cOUNTY ROAD #27.
CARRIED_"
Truck Tenders were received and were as attached.
"MOVED BY:
s. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: 1il. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF FEARN FORD sALES LIM1TED FOR A FORD 250
SUPERCAB PICl.<.\IP TRUcK AS PER COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND T1lEIR TENDER
PRICE OF $7,464.32 INtlLUDING PROVINCIAL SALES TAX, 1ilITll coUNTY OF ELGIN
TRUcK #fJ7 AS A TRADE-IN. ALL SUBJEcT TO T1lE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND coMMJJNICATIONS APPROVAL.
CARRIED ."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 6.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF TALBOT MERCURY SALES LIMITED FOR A FORD 350
TRUCK AS PER COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND THEIR TENDER AT $8,413.95 INCLUDING
PROVINCIAL SALES TAX, WITH THE COUNTY OF ELGIN TRUCK #65 AS A TRADE- IN.
ALL SUBJECT TO THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
The Engineer reported that he had been approached by the new owner of
property which had been formerly owned by Manson Robinson, on County Road #2 east of
the Aldborough-Dunwich Townline, with a request to sell the County road widening
at the County standard rate, as he wished a new fence erected. After discussion
the CVlLuuittee authorized the Engineer to proceed with the purchase of road
wi dening.
The Engineer reported that the Pit and Quarry Control Act would as of
January 1, 1981 apply in West Elgin. Controls on gravel pits, bot-row pits,
wayside pits, etc., would be the same as those now applying in East Elgin.
A letter from the Honourable James Snow regarding the Counties position
on the AMO Report 38, "Provincial Road Grants" was noted as was correspondence
from the County of Brant, and several other Counties with regard to the
County's resolution.
The Engineer Reported that for the first time, first line supervi-sors>
and foremen had been charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
This had occurred at Inco an Sudbury and he expressed conceru,that this
might become a trend. Previously only cvmpanies or owners had been charged
rather than the employees. If employees were to be directly charged it might
be very difficult to recruit foremen and other managers.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 7.
The Engineer reported that ,the County of Middlesex was still attempting
to purchase land for Walkers Bridge and at the present time none had been
purchased. It was decided that Chairman Kelley and Reeve Campbell should
approach Mr. Dymock with regard to the approximate 6 acres required on the
Elgin side of the bridge.
The Engineer reported that he had received approximately 20 applications
for an Assistant Engineer, and would interview 5 or 6 in anat,tempt to cut
down the numbers to be interviewed by Personnel and the Chairman of the
Road CVL1I111ittee to 3 or 4. These interviews would probably not take place
for another week or so.
Reeve Phillips reported that the Village of Port Stanley had received
notice that the Canadian National Railway was making an application to
the Canada Transport Committee to abandon the London and Port Stanley rail
line between St. Thomas and Port Stanley. He requested the support of the
CUUllllittee and of Council in oppo sing thi s abandonment,. The Engineer reported
that he had contacted the Ontario Task Force on Rail Policy and had been
assured by their Secretary that the Province was interested in the matter
and would oppose the abandonment at this time until such time as all facts
would be known. The Province was very interested in preserving the rights of
way for future 'Municipal and Provincial use.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT WE OPPOSE THE CLOSING OF THE LONDON
AND PORT STANLEY RAILWAY LINE BY THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY BETWEEN
ST. THOMAS AND PORT STANLEY.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1980
PAGE 8.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO DECEMBER 3, 1980 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
Jr{;r1,fi{/A
CHAIRMAN C
COUNTY OF ELGIN
TENDERS FOR 7,000 LB. G.V.W. PICKlJl? TRUCK
~,
,
(PRICES ARE NET AFTER TRAPE~ IN AND INCLUDE FE. VINCIAL)
(SALES TAX)
November 1980
1. Fe~rn FQrd Sales Limited
lOl2 Talbot Street
St. Thomas" Ontario
'\:
Ford F~250 Super cab
$ 7,464.32
".
2. punn Motors (Aylmer) Limited
326 John Street North
.. .'
Ay1me:p, Ontario
Dodge 0.272 Club Cab
$ 7,591.65
3. Talbot Mercury Sales Limited
700 Talbot Street
St. Thomas, , Ontario
F"" 250 Supercab
$ 7,592.51
4. St. Thomas Plymouth ChrY$let" Limited
275 Wellington Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5 R 236
DodgE:) D~ 27, 2
$ 7,686.88
5. lIighbury Fords Sales Limi~ecl
1365 Dundas Street
London, Ontario
Ford F-250
$ a,560.00
,t
6. Oakridge Ford Sales
601 Oxford Street
London, Ontario
I
Ford Supercab Pickup 3/4 Ton
$ 8,769.93
7. R. A. Miller Motors Limited
229 Furnival Road
Rodney, Ontario
FO:t'd F- 250 Supercab
$ 9,020.00
~
V 'f.l '1 TON 'tRuel<.)
!1!J:<D1>RS "FOR 1. 0: ?ooG. .,... ,
I1Rt C1>S A)l,.1> 1i\m' J\.m'1>R '1'y.D1>- t1i\
~
l:
\. !a1.PQt ~tC~rY saleS Li~ited
100 't~lbot st~eet
st. Th~s. optar10
\)l1Pll. ~ot01::!l (J\.yl1\l.er) Li~ited
326 John Stree~ 1i\orth
A;Y 1 me 1;, on~ a't 'i Q
5t. ThQtll.as ill 'j\l\o~th Ch1::ysler
21!) "elllpgton Street
St. Thowas. ontariO
N5R ~S6
ford V_350
ford 350
Dodge '0...:342
7.-
Limit~d
3.
Dodge U-342
4.. Fearn ford S.,les Li~ited
10\2 Talbot Street
St~ Th~s. .ontario
5. oakridge 110rd Sales
601 ~ford Street
'London, ontario
(h 1:1.i gh b~ry 110r 0, S al e $ l.oi1\l.U e 0,
1365 DUndaS street
l",oUdon, Qntf;\.'(lo
fot;d V_350
fot'd f...3S0
. ONe 'tC30903
1. llt!lbro-we ~Qtors
821 Talbot screen
st. Tho1!l.as. Otl.tarto
8 . R. J\.. l!,i II e r l!,o cor S l.oi1!l.i t eo'
229 vurnival Road
RodneY' ontariO
ford y..350
Novett\.pe~ 19&0
$ 8,41.3.95
$ a, 1,63,30
$ 9,041..:,0
$ <), 114.26
$ q, 3 2.5 .91
$ 9,630.00
~ 9,'142.35
$ <),169.00
S't. 't1:lQW>.S, ON'tAR1.0
OC'TOBER 15, 1980
'P AGE 1.
't1:lB COUN'tY Of f,1.G1.N ROAD c~'t'tBB met at 3 :00 1? .l'i. on
o 0 'tb countY Council.
octobe~ 15, 1980 in con)unct~on w~
1.
"\lith ~ega~d to "\lal\.<.e~s B~idge the 'Enginee~ ~epo~ted as f.ol1ows:
... f. th f.irm of. Little,
Norm "\la~ne~ had obtained a legal op~n~on ~om e
l'io~~isseY, Gillespie and ReeveS of. London that the 'tharo.eS Rive~ waS no:
tl d'TO\rJI\sbiP to itS headwate~S (cost $75.00) and ha
navigable f.~01ll "owa~
_ ~< "'n~..~~l Resou~ce s and ~e<1uested
. b Ministr)' v'" l....a.\..u...-
bo pin~on to t e the
f.o~wa~ded t ~s 0 1 ReSou~ces that
. ~< ~,,_ ",nSt~Y of. NatU~a
que S'L v'" .......1.e 1''''--
1temption f.~01ll the ~e . f.~01ll 't~anspo~t
e . uecla~ation of. B1te~t~on
f ~lgin obta~n a
CountY 0 ~ tection Act.
1 "\late~ s <~o 1
da unde~ the Naviagab e . . nS ...~e 1 imina~Y app~ova
cana . and c()1tllllUn~cat~O r
. of. 't~anspo~tat~on s in the
'that the l'iin~st~Y d that minO~ change
'ded (Octobe~ 15) an
oust rece~v
lette~ had been ) . ld be ~e<1Ui~ed.
_ . ~otect~on wou
d the ~W ~ ap p unde~
f.ooting piles an t Regulations 'We~e
_... ^' a.se ssro.en
h Bnvi~ontllen~ ~-- . ht be avoided.
. . t~Y of. t e bletllS m~g
'That M~n~s hat future p~o s app~o"IJal
t SO t 0, source
-::nsultan .. n< "Natu~al "e
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
l'iiddlese1t countY nau "I'OL~--
f. .f. tbe u~. ~~A waS
$2,000 pe~ ac~e and a new ence ~ -
. . shed to sell a sand \.<.noll f.o~ ~oad pa~~.
the owne~ s l'i~. S ~~ son "'-
d . the county Road ?rOg~~e by
AlthoUgh nO changeS had been tna e ~n
o f h b~idge in 1981
. . the const~uct~on 0 t e
l'iiddlese1t countY counc~l show~ng
-1 s not e~ected
1 by l'iiddlese1t countY Counc~ wa
and 1982, f.orma1 app~ova
until Novembe~ session.
. he~ a ea1 to the 1:lono~able Jaro.eS Snow
l'iiddlese1t council was tna\.<.~ng anot pP
. basis on which the appeal waS
f.o~ additiOnal f.unding f.o~ the b~~dge. 'the
d .11d be \.<.nown by the ne1tt meeting.
being ro.a e wOu.
6.
8.
ST. TROM-AS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 15, 1980
l'AGE 2.
approvalS for the Ministry of Natural ResOurces, Ministry of the Environ1l\ent,
c~ittee decided to proceed with the obtaining of all necessary
and the Ministry of Transportation and c~unications. The Engineer waS
requested to meet with Mr. nyroock, the owner of the property on the Elgin
side of the river and ascertain if property could be purchased, ie. the
right of waY and cutoff corner (6 acres) or the right of way onlY, purchase
price $2,000 pluS fence or allowance in lieU of fence.
correspondence waS read from the Township of yarmouth regarding parking
on the road shoulder on Road 27 at liIalter Burt' s near the Sparta school.
The TownshiP also noted that old tireS were on the road allowance. lt waS
pointed out that the county had nO way of enforcing parking By_LaWS other
than for each TownshiP to enforce their own and that a charge under the
llighway Traffic Act for littering would be har,d to get a conviction under.
The best answer in the long run would be a TownshiP BUilding Maintenance
By_LaW.
Reeve Binks in attendance with concern regarding:
1. Entrance ontO the county Road for the Royal Bank who wished to build
a new bunding on Road 8 north of Co-Trac Lilllited. The Engineer felt
that a solution satisfactory to all could be easilY reached.
2. The Engineer stopping the Elgin co-OF from running a tile intO the
Municipal Drain on Road 8 opposite theirpr'OJ!'erty~ The Engineer stated
that he felt that as the tile waS nOw oveiloaded and flooding on a
regular basis occurred, and as the countY had been threatened with
several lawsUitS additional water would only comPound the problem
and suitS. lle stated he had no objection to the tile connection if
the Village of j)Utton and TownshiP of j)Unwich would agree to hold the
county harmlesS from any lawsuit, etc. that might arise.
~lNG ADJ()UllNED TO NoVEMBER 5, 1980.
_2/;/il'~,~
C1:lA1RMAl'l C
OC'tOBER SESSION
1980
FIRS't RE-P~
-
TO Tl1B VlAll-DBN AND }iBMBBRS 01' 'f\:1.B cQUNT'f 01' BLG1N c()1.lNC1L
'fOUR RON> CO~TTBB R1!.llORTS A.S FOLLOVlS:
The contract of Vlalmsley BroS. Limited of London for 110t }ii~ A.sphalt
l'aVing on Road 38 t'lear Straffordville haS been e~tended to include
the placement of base and tOp courses of asphalt at Ricbmond l1i11
1.
on Road 38.
The present pavement is an old mUlch tJ1'e pavement
~,;ortll drainS and asph$.lt curb and gutter 1>Jill be
3.
1'1acement of the base coat of asphalt on the 1ilard' s l1ill on Road 38
is e>q>ected to be started ne~t 1>Jeek. The tOp course vrl.1l not be
placed until ne~t Spring. Topsoil and stOrtll drain 1>JOrk is nearly
completed on the l1ill 1>Jhile guide rail 1>JOrk remainS.
The countY of Rent haS completed deck repairs to the Both1>Jell
bridge and 1>Je have been billed our share (27 1/2% of $32,647. 25
or $8,977.99). (Both1>Jell bridge costS are apportiOned 5~h.Rent,
27 1/2% Blgin and 22 1/2Gh }iiddlese~.) Rent haS also completed
one coat of asphalt resurfacing on the or for d-Al db or ough
Towuline Road bet1>Jeen the Both1>Jell bridge and clachan and 1>Je
have been billed our share (5~h of $117,339.84 or $58,669.92).
2.
4.
the }iinistry of the D'''' ..-
Restoration and Road constructiOn costS "'. :.-"- "'anitary se1>Jerage
R d 42 (east of. 1:ligh1>JaY 19) and Road 50 (Victoria
-p-roject on oa
. B 11 The }iinistry of the Environment hopes
Street) ~n 1'0rt ur~ ,
to call Tenders sometime in 1981 for the l'roject.
'the countY
h " d 42 and 50 1>Jould be
of Blgin had agreed some yearS ago t at ~oa s
rebuilt at the some time as the se1>Jers 1>Jere installed.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
OCTOBER SESSION 1980
'PAGE 2.
5. The Engineer has been authorized to call Tenders for replacement of two
County pickup trucks (a one ton 1975 Ford and a 3/4 ton 1976 Ford).
6. A petition has been received from a considerable number of residents
of East Elgin for the improvement and paving of County Road 43 from
Road 42 through Calton to Road 38 at Ric~ond. The petition will be
referred to the 1981 Road Committee.
7. That the Engineer has been instructed to complete Engineering on
Road 32 from the police College Gate to County Road 52 and to
complete the property purchase on the road so that the entire road
from Highway 73 to Road 52 may be constructed at one time.
8. That the Ministry of Housing will be advised that the County of
Elgin has no objection to proposed Amendment #4 to the Central
Elgin Official plan. The Amendment would alloW a small (16 lot)
subdivision off Dufferin Street in Belmont.
9. That an addition to the county's Salt Storage Building at White's
Station is underway. The present building has only enough capacity
for one storm.
10. The consultant on the Walkers Bridge, Norman Warner of R. C. Dunn
and AssociateS has been instructed to obtain the necessary approvals
from the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources
and Federal Government (Navigable Waters) for the proposed Bridge.
WE RECOMMEND
1. That a By-Law be passed stating that the County of Elgin has no
objection to the closing oFthe Road Allowance between concession 1
and 11 opposite lots 4 ~0;9 by the Township of Ma1ahide.
ALL OF WIIICH IS RESPEGrFULLY SUBMITTED
::rG,U )~rJf;-r
CHAIRMAN \J
ST. Tl1.(lt1l\.S. 0N'rAR10
OCTOBER 10, 1980
'PAGE 1.
octQbe~ 10. 1980 at 9:30 a.m.
Mr. Fr ank Cl a~ke €I f the Mini st~1 €If T~ anspQ~tat i €In and c()llll'tn.1nicat iQns ",a s al sQ
TWE COUNTY OF ELG11l ROAD coMMJ-TTEE met at the Municipal BUilding €In
All membe~s ",e~e p~esent e><cept Reeve J. D. Ca1l\Pbell.
p-resent.
"MOVED BY:
SECOllDED BY: L.' A~c LOllG\lURST
TlJ.AT Tl1.E ~]:l1lTES OF Tl1.E ~ET11lG OF SEPT'EMBER 3. 1980 BE APPROvED.
CARRIED."
s. J. GLOVER
1.
Tl1.E F,1lG1NEER REPORTED €In the "'Q~k tQ date.
Ea~th mQving and tQPsQ1Jl ",Q~k ",as nead1 colllPlete €In RQad 38. TQPsQil that
had been piled had run Qut and tQPsQil ",as being Qbtained b1 ditching
RQad 38 east €If St~affQ~dVille. Ditching CQuld nQt be completed because
€If lQ'" hanging telephQne lines but e:><t~a tall,s"iJ needed ",Quld be Qbtained
f~om TQ'WrIship ~Qads.
The Minist~1 €If Natt1~al Resau~ces had inspected the a~ea a numbe~ €If timeS
. and ",e~e cQnce~ned 'With e~QsiQn intQ Little otte~ c~eek. AlthQUgh some
seeding (including ~1e) had been used. little g~Q'Wth had QCCu~~edbecause
. . d CQld "'eathe~ StQrm Drain ",Q~k ",as CQntinuing
€If CQnt1.nuQUs ~a1.ns an ·
and ",Quld be colllPleted in abQut t"'Q ",eeks. The asphalt base CQat ",Quld be
placed in abQUt t"'Q ",eeks. clean up at the sand pit at ~ayne Ta11Q~' s
.' -nd tOpsQil ",Quld be ~eplaced shQ~t11'
'WaS contl.n\1l.ng a~~
Fencing had been colllPleted at ~alte~ S()tlIllterville' s. pete~ l1.epburnlls.
DQug Sa'W)'e~' s. and the Onta~iQ l1.Qspital €In RQad 22. some ditching had
been dQne SQ that Onta~iQ l1.1d~Q CQuld ~elQcate the main t~anStlliSsiQn line
S. Dl..~t had been levelled alQng the Onta~iQ l1.QSpital p~Qpe~t1
next p-rl.ng. J.
t. ...TO~" b" the TQ'WrIshiP €If yarmQuth in the Elm St~eet.
f~om CQnst~UC 1.Qn ~ ~~ J
. 1 'll.Ko-re ditching ~emained in the fi~st mile nQ~th
centenn1.a Avenue a~ea. ~
2.
of Road 21.
SQme ditching had been dQne €In RQad 56. Elm St~eet in an atteropt tQ get
the ",ater tQ a culve~t c~Qssing nea~ CQulte~ Avenue in Q~der tQ alleviate
d d if' lst~a n~Qne~t1 at the nQ~th",est CQ~ne~ €If
flQQding €If the ~Qa an ~1.e ~ ~
Elm Street and CQul ter Avenue.
3.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 10, 1980
Gravel shoulder work remained on Road 20 north and south of
PAGE 2.
~
4.
5. Drainage work in port Burwell other than clean-up had been completed.
althOugh some ditching had been done between Fingal and Shedden.
6. Steel repair work on the Myrtle Street Bridge for the Town of Aylmer had
7. Repairs to the sto:rnt drain on Highway 74 in Belmont had been cOlllPleted
been completed and painting waS underway.
(9 locations) and the sewer inspected using television, the work was
cOlllPleted and the sewer had been flushed.
by and ordered from /!iXfAco canada. Delivery was expected in about twO
weeks and the bins would be prefabricated and installed as soon as
8. The binwall material for Front Street in port Stanley had been engineered
10. Fencing work for the Rettle Creek conservation Authority at the property
9. Fencing on Road 19 for Glen Nichols had been completed.
possible.
11. The bridge railing on the Glencolin,nridge would be replaced.
near Glanworth had been cOlllPleted.
12. Machinery repairs were noted:
(a) Torque convertor - Michigan Loader.
(b) Snow plowS repaired and painted.
(c) Sanders repaired and painted. A new motor would be required on one
(d) The clutch housing on Truck #63 had been broken and had been
sande-r $2,000.
(e) AS the tire prices were going up, an inventory had been done of
-replaced.
tires' necessary by early next Spring and the tireS ordered
(approximatelY $11,000).
(f) Gasoline and diesel fuel would again be stored for the ~inter
13. ~ addition to the salt shanty (approximatelY 34' X 40' to the south
monthS in case of shortage.
side) waS underway. Roof trusses had been ordered fr()tlt the Elgin Co-Op.
The addition would more than double the amount of salt that could be
sto-red.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 10, 1980
PAGE 3.
14. It was hoped to put up a snall addition to the neW garage to house the
tractors and emergency generator. This would eliminate a seriouS noise
problem and fire hazard.
15. The Jail parking LOt had been completed.
16. Invoices from the County of Kent for paving Kent-Elgin Townline
($58,669.92) and for repairs to Bothwell Bridge ($8,977.99) had been
17. It appeared that there would be some money for additional construction
received.
18. Casual help waS still being used to take place of regular employees on
projects.
vacation. Qrtly one employee Jack Roffman had experienced problems
getting his vacation to date (jury duty call 3 times) and althoUgh it
appeared that he would j)se his 1980 vacation, little of his backlog
19. The Engineer waS experiencing serioUS problemS in keeping up with his
would be used.
workload in spite of working much longer hours since last Spring.
Additional help waS required immediatelY and long term vacation time
o~d to supervisory staff would have to be e~emined pending a
reorganization of personnel.
tt MOVED BY: VI. R · CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAVI
T11AT TRE "FoJ..LOVl1NG PA'{l.ISTS BE APPRoVED FOR PAYMENT.
PA'{l.IST # 40 AMOUNTING TO $ 51,240.56.
PA'{l.IST # 42 AMOUNTING TO $ 50,666.85
PAYLIST # 43 AMOUNTING TO $
PA'{l.IST #44 AMOUNTING TO $ 47,199.61
201.14
PA'{l.IST # 45 AMOUNTING TO $390,136.41
CARRIED ."
Reeve Green and the Engineer reported on the R.T.A.C. convention in
Toronto.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 10, 1980
PAGE 4.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:
1. Town of Aylmer with notice of eommittee of Adjustment.
2. Ministry of Rousing advising the Township of Zone noW had a planning Board.
3. Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-Law Subdivision Area.
4. port Stanley Zoning By-Law old L. and P. S. Station.
5. Southwold minor variance Righway 3 near Shedden - Barned.
6. O.M.B. _ dates for appeals from decision of the County of Elgin Land
Division Committee - Irish and Binke.
7. Flintkote company _ notice of termination of operations in emulsion
business.
8. Ministry of Rousing stating that they would provide increased help for
community planning.
9. Township of Bayham with a Zoning By-Law for the whole Township.
10. Ministry of Rousing with Official plan Amendment #4 to Central Elgin
planning being subdivision (16 lots) east of nufferin Street in
Belmont.
1 'MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE MINISTRY OF ROUSING BE ADVISED THAT WE RAVE NO OBJEGrIONS TO
PROPOSED AMENDMENT #4 OF THE CENTRAL ELGIN pLANNING AREA, SUBDIVISION
BELMONT.
CARRIED .1t
11. C.N.R. .stating that they had no objections to periodic only inspections
of the flashing light signalS on Road 21, Warren Street in port Stanley
as the rail line waS not being used because of a washout near Union
12. Ministry of Transportation and communications stating that arrangements
over two years ago.
had been made to have O.P.P. enforce Bridge By-Law Weight Limits on
MUnicipal Bridges under certain conditions.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 10, 1980
PAGE 5.
13. Ministry of Transportation and communications requesting that the county of
Elgin assume portion of roads built by them in lieU of Road 29 and 52. The
Engineer stated that future information had been requested from the M.T.C.
contractor for the water line on Roads 25 and 26 restore the ditches to their
original condition so that water which is noW trapped can be properlY
14. correspondence to the Township of southwold requesting that the Township'S
15. The Tom\ship of Malahide gave notice of a By_LaW to close the original
dr ained.
road allowance between concessions Land LL.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGH.URST
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO coUNTY COUNCLL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STAT1NG THAT
THE cOUNTY OF ELGLN HAS NO OBJEcrLON TO T1:lE CLOS1.NG OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE
/
BETWEEN CONCESSLONS L AND n MAJ..A1lLDE TOWNSH1.P OPPOSLTE LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7,
8 and 9.
CARRIED."
Elgin requesting the county improve and pave Road 43 from Road 42 through
A petition with signatures of a considerable number of residentS of EaSt
calton to Road 38 at Richmond waS received. After diScUssion it waS referred
to 1981 Road committee for further discUssion.
1. The Ministry of the Environment had stated that ordinarilY the :Bridge
The Engineer Reported on walkers :Bridge stating:
,""uld be exempt from Environmental Assessment Regulations inaSlllUCh a.S it
was started prior to May 1980 and waS under the $2 million cost criteria
but requested that the county follow the Environmental Assessment
Rec()'1l1lllendations in construction. Mr. Norm Warner had been requested to
study the Ministry of the Environment's requirements and report to the
counties.
ST. T1:1oW\S, ONTAR1.0
OCTOBER 10, 1980
'PAGE 6.
2.
The Ministry of Natural ResoUrces had requested the countY provide the1l'
,.ith plans for revie,. and furnish a statement frOlll Transport canada that
the streatn ,.as not navigable. These requestS ,.ere also being revie,.ed
by Noren 'Wa-rner.
The countY of Middlesez COuncil ,.ould meet nezt I!ruesday and might decide
as to their 5 year Road programme including the timing of the replacement
3.
of 'Wa1ke-rs Bridge.
The meeting adjOUrned for dinner.
The c~ittee instructed the Engineer to attetnPt to purchase the necessary
land ne~ded frOlll John IJYlIIock at the Walkers Bridge for the ne" division and
~ .....,......f'.b.aSe prices to
After dinner.
road,.ay being approzi-ro.atelY 3 acres and 3 ac1!eS cut o~f.
b~ $2,000 per acre plus fence allO,.ance.
The Engineer stated that there ,.ere sufficient funds in the bUdget and
that the ~almsleY Bros. contract could be eztended so that the Richtnond 1:1ill
portion of Road 38 might be paved.
"M.O\]"ED B'l:
SECONDED BY~ S. J. GLOVf.R
T1:lAT ~E ~D ~AJ.k1SLE'i BROS. Lnfl-TED ASp1:\ALT PA'Il1.NG CoNTRAcT · D' ON
ROAD 38 TO 1.NCLUDE TIlE PA'Il1.NG 01' R1.C\1l'1OND 1:11.1,1, 1.NCLUD1.NG BASE AND
TOP COURSES AND ASFMLT CURB AND GUTTER AS RE~1.RED, SUBJECT, TO
M1.NL STRY 01' TRANSPORTAT1.0N AND C~1.CAT1. ON S APPRO'll AL.
cARR1.ED ."
'W. R. CAYERL'l
The Engineer reco~nded ;Ilhat ",.0 pic\<UF trucks be 17eplaa.ed inaS1llUCh as it
appeared that the County ,.ould be on the urban subsidY system by 1981.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 10, 1980
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL TENDERS FOR TWO (2) TRUCKS WITH
COUNTY TRUCKS #65 AND #67 AS TRADE-INS SUBJECT TO MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL.
TRUCK # 65 _ 1 TON FORD - 1975 (4 SPEED TRANSMISSION)
TRUCK #67 _ 3/4 TON FORD - 1976 (FORMER GARAGE TRUCK).
CARRIED .n
Construction on Road 32 was discussed and Reeve Caverly requested that the
Chairman and the Engineer attend the reading of the Argyle Municipal Drain
Report on October 23 at 8:00 p.m. The limits of work on the road waS discussed.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE ENGINEER BE INSTRU<.;TbD TO COMPLETE ENGINEERING ON ROAD 32 FROM
THE POLICE COLLEGE GATE TO ROAD 52 AND TO COMPLETE PROPERTY PURCHASES
FOR THE SAME.
CARRIED."
The Engineer presented the attached draft report on Estimated Expenditures
for 1981. The report could only be considered tentative until the Ministry
of Transportation and Communications had decided whether or not to place the
Counties on an "URBAN TYFF' subsidy base and a decision on the increase for
inflation that would be used was made.
Personnel requirements were discussed at some length with the Engineer
stating that even with an Assistant Engineer other supervisory assistanCe
would be required within a year or so.
ST. T1:loMAS. 0N'tAR10
OCTOBER 10, 1980
1> AGE 8.
" MOVED BY':
SECONDED W'H VI. R. CAVERLY
T1:lAT VIE RECO~D TO l'ERSONNEL C0l'ft11't'fEE T1:lAT T1JJ!. COUNTY ENGAGE AN
ASS1STAN't J1,NG1NEER AS SOON AS 1'0SSlBLE.
l.u J. SllAv:f
cARRIED."
Reeve Green agreed to approach BayhaIl'TownshiP council to ascertain their
vieWS on a CountY salt Storage Building and sand pile on their property on
Road 38.
c~ittee agreed that the Engineer should meet with the Ministry of the
Enviro~ent to agree on cost sharing for the restoratiOn and construction of
Roads 42 and 50 in 1'0rt BUrwell after sanitary sewers.
the sanitary sewers be tentativelY set for 1981.
The construction of
lt waS agreed to diSCUSS the report of the victoria CountY Engineer on the
J!,nviro~ental Assesament Act at the ne~ meeting.
Reeve l'hillips diSCUssed the location of the proposed Talbot Trail and
indicated that the route would likely be as follows~
_ 1:lighwaY 3 frOll\ Rent County line to Vlallacetown.
_ Talbot Road frOll\ Vlallacetown to St. ThomaS i.e. countY Roads 8 and 16.
_ 1:lighwaY 3 frOll\ St. ThOmaS to Road 38.
_ Road 38 (Talbot Road) from 1:lighway 3 to 1:lighway 19.
_ 1:lighway 19 from Straffordville to 1'0rt BUrwell.
_ Road 42 from 1'0rt BUrwell to 1:laldimand-Norfolk Region.
"MOVED BY':
s. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY ~ VI. R. CAVERLY
T1:lAT VIE A.DJOU~ TO NOVEMBER 5. 1980 AT 9. ~30 A.M.
cARRIED."
CllAI~
1981 EXPENDITURES
DRAFT OCTOBER 10, 1980
NOTE: Figures are estimated only and are contingent on Ministry of
Transportation and Cvuuuunications policy changes and
maintenance allocation which will not likely be available
until January 1, 1981.
A) CALCULATIONS FOR 1981 CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATION.
Road Needs Now (includes inflation factor).
Road Needs (1 - 5 years) includes inflation factor.
Bridge Needs including inflation factor.
$ 8,667,000
4,784,000
3,635,000
TOTAL
$ 1 7, 086 , 000
Allocation 6%
(1 )
$ 1,025,000
Resurfacing (including inflation factor)
$ 4,550,000
Allocation 9% (2)
$ 410,000
(1) Roads and Bridges
(2) Resurfacing
$ 1,025,000
410,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATION
$ 1,435,000
1980 Allocation 1,342,000 + 10% = $1,476,000
(override does not affect allocation)
Increase is approximately 7% (1980 to 1981).
B ) MAINTENANCE AND FIXED COST S
Total Allocation for 1980 was
LESS New Machinery Portion
$ 1,715,000
197,000
$ 1,5,18,000
Increase for inflation say 8% $ 1,639,000
ADD 1981 New Machinery Request 225,000
TOTAL FIXED COST ALLOCATION $ 1,864,000
,
Continued . . .
1> AGE 2.
~
'torAL ALWGll.'tl0N I OBJEctlVE)
$ 1,435,000
~
~
A) const-rUctiOn
B) Fi}C.ed Co st s
'to'tAL oBJEC'tlVE
~
Objective
U-rban Rebates
D-rainage
$ 3,299,000
56,000
~
~
$ 2,510,000
5,000
~inistrY of 'transportatiOn and c~nicatiOns SUbsidY
Drainage subsidY
. f h city of St. 'tbomaS
Effective contribut~on rom t e
after ?ayroent of Deficit.
~
~
~
?LUS ltetttS Not for
$ 3,365,000
~
815,000
subsidY ~
~
'total E}t'Penditu-re
LESS ReceiptS
181 000 lncreased by appro~iroatelY 5%
1980 LeVY ,
. A.;ses-ent anpro~itt\atelY 2.8% (~.'t .C. ~ethod)
lncrease ~n '" ,,~"
GA.I..Cl,1I..A TtQN Qf GRAt-lT l,1t-lP~'i\ \JPPER TJ~R P'i\OORAM
.,......,-, ,,-"~'- ---~-~-'---' ,,' ..----
~TltP t Approved Expenditure ol1 Roadll <\,nd
l;) ridgell to which orant Appliell (ltem 1)
S~P il Co@tY Effort of 1.26 MjJ1s 011 Total
C9@ty As!;eSsme!\t (ttem Fl
1. Z'5 x ttem F .d. 4Sx $ 474,000 ," $ 592,500
, 1 000 - - 1000 - -
Phl,S Sep, t) rbi"",'cont6bution at O. 5 Mills
O. S x tten:L9 " O. 6 x $ St...,'E?oma.s $
1000\11' l. 000
'I>1l'IJ ',,'if'" ',."l.
(1981 DRAFt)
...- --
co UN 'f \' Q If .,..-ELGIN
4~ ,~
Total Loc;l,llt:ffort <',t 1. "?5 Mills
::;: $
,W;,
STlAP ,1. ~0i"Q. Effqrt <',t 1. 45 Mine cqUi"lS the
total Local :Effort in Step 4 plu$ Il,n
equivi"lel1t amo@t of grant
4 '" Step 4 " Z ,,$ 632,5'00
STEP 4 Onmet RQad Ef(oJ.'t at 1.. as Mills"
Step 1 mi!\us Step 3 (OnlCIlIl Step 3
is greate 1" t\1a.n Step 1 )
STEP StA)
, ,,' Whe J.'e the re 1s an 'Unmet !;l,oad EffoJ.'t
at 1. 45 MHls Grant avply1ng to it is
Step 4 ,,0. 90909 ::;:
$ 2,034,000 x. 0,90909
~.- ~~
Plufl Gri"nt equivil-1ent to'Total
Local. Effort (Step Z)
Total Ca1culil-teQ. Amount of urant
... or '"
, .
80'V9 of Approved E"vendi"~re'
(ltem l) :~ Q. 8 ~,. $
40,000
632,500
.,...,.--..~'~' .-::::;
;: $ 1,849,089
..........--
$ 3,299,000
--:;:::... ----, - ~~
$ 1,265,000
'~ ~......
$2,034,000 ."
~~....".,.~
$ 632,500
- ....-------
'$ 2,481,589
::.-:---.-...---~ . r..i.
--
-
s (i\l $ 2,481,589
_ . .",,,,...,:10;;.,., ~",..:,--=
W.hic)1~Ver is the lesaer
2 ~ (75. 'C/, subsidy)
STEP S('B)
~ _, Whe re the re is no Or\lTlCt R9;l.d ~{(OJ.'t
at 1. 2.5 Mill!; OJ.'ant is SQ'\'. of APpr9ved
:E~pcnditure (ttem':!.) ~ '0, 5 x SteP 1 "
o. ~) ){: $ ,"~6.~_000 .
t:.!!'~p..i Ci ru.\It "pply~ng to 1J rba!\ tl..epate Pi).i4
soaJo of Hem H ~: o. 5 )(. $
l'lu!! 0 ra,nt applyin.g to Appf9ved
~xpenditure (Step S{A) or Step I;(:\})
:: $--
$
M,nH" \l..I.CCiptJ' (rom property J;lisPO!!a1**
"J" of Hem :N " O. " $ '" $
.. ---
pcl'l:cntage ,to Ut! US(\o, is tha.t apphca.hle to year in whic!;l property
waf) 'purcha:;"d. If more than one rate awli.es. atta'ch separate
calc,ula\.i.(.>n to "upport amO\l,nt (If subsidy claimed and n9te years
in whlch P\\.r<,:b~\~H~8 rr1.~\de.
T oti\.l C.n.lll t
STEP 7
~
'rotal Grant Payable under Opper Ticr
Program is The Allocation (ltetn Al or
Step 6. whicheve r is the 1e sseI.'
)~:.. ..~~
PAT F:
S (~J $ 28,000
~------'~
--
$ 2,509,589
~",.,. ~11lI"r 'f""'" ...::.
$
2~510,OOO . -"
~...,~_..
october 10, 1980
-----'
~.......
ST. TllOMAS, O]{r ARlO
SE~TEMBER 3, 1980
'PAGE 1.
TlIE cOUNT'! 01" -gLG1N ROAD cmill1TTEE met at the Municipal J',Uilding on
All membe':s "re,:e p,:esent, including ],11:. Frank cla,:ke
septembe,: 3, 1980 at 9:30 a.m.
of the Ministry of Transpo,:tation and c~unicatiOns,
"M.OVED BY ~
SECONDED B'i: S. J. GLOVER
'J1lAT Tll"E mNUT"ES 01" Tll"E M."EET1NG 01" AUGUST 13, 1980 B"E APPROVED.
cARR-lED .,t
w. R. CAVERLY
1.
Tll"E ENG1NEER REl'ORT"ED on the ~o,:k to date as follo~s:
The ~eed sp,:aying and ~eed cutting budgetS had been ove,:spent and the "reed
inspecto,: had ,:equested that Road 19 f,:om 1tigh~ay 3 to 1tigh~aY 401 be mo~ed.
The c~ittee inst,:ucted the f;nginee': to have Road 19 done and to make
savings in the Maintenance Budget in othe,: catego,:ies,
<;1:avel Roads had been g,:aded and calcium chlo,:ide applied to Roads 43 and
3.
37.
Su,:face t,:eatment ~o,:k ~ould be comPleted in the next ~eek. 1i!o,:k had been
comPleted in 1to~a,:d To,""shiP and Lambton CountY and ~aS unde~aY fo':
po,:t Stanley, '!aJ:1l1outh To,""shiP and the City of St. Th(JlllaS as ~ell as on
Roads 52, 28 and 29.
2.
6.
pavement ma,:king ~o,:k ~aS nea,:ly completed with a little left on su,:face
t,:eatment in the CountY and several daYs fo': St. Thomas,
\<Io,:k ~as unde~aY on ,:epai':S to the stoJ:1l1 d,:ain on 1tigh~aY 74, in Belmont
caU$ed by the Minist,:y of the f;nVi':Onment' s cont,:acto,: ~hen the sanita,:y
. stalled At least 9 places ~ould have to be ,:epai,:ed.
se~e': ~aS ~n · ~
d the 'loo.'e-'" on St,:eet Dr ain in po,:t Bu,:~e 11.
\<Io,:k ~aS un e,:~aY on ~ w~
On E,:ie and sydenham St,:eetS in po,:t StanleY, ~o,:k had been comPleted othe,:
7.
4.
5.
than paving.
A d,:ain had been installed on Road 20 on ca,:lo~ Road in po,:t Stanley nea':
the potash piles. Top~Notch Feeds had ag,:eed to paY $750 to~a,:d the cost
and a cont,:ibution f,:om Ste,:lings ~aS hoped fo':.
The d,:ain on Road 23, Joseph St,:eet and 1tigh~ay 4 had been ,:epai,:ed and the
Minist,:y of'the "Envi,:onment charged as they had not p,:ope,:lY ,:epai,:ed the
outlet du,:ing installatiOn of the sanita':y se"re':s.
8.
9.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1980
PAGE 2.
10. construction waS proceeding on Road 38 at Wards Hill. scraper work waS
done but excavation using rented equipment (backhoe and trucks) waS
continuing, placement of granular materials on the hill waS underway.
Storm drains would be installed as soon as possible. It waS hoped to
place the base coat of asphalt by the end of october.
11. The neW Mack TruckS had been received.
12. The used GMC Truck purchased from Carrier Mack Ltd. waS being prepared for a
13. casual help would be kept on for some time as there were still a
sander ·
considerable number of requests for holidays in ~,tember and october.
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT THE FOLLOWlNG PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST # 39 AMOUNTING TO $ 48,769.32
PAYLIST # 41 AMOUNTING TO $305,742.31
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED l\'l: W. R . CAVERLY
THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE A1J'l1\ORIZED TO SIGN PAYLIST # 42 (ACCOUNTS).
CARRIED_"
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT THE "ENGINEER BEA1J'[HORIZED TO MAl<B APPLICATION TO THE MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND c()MM1JNICATIONS FOR INTERIM PAYMENTS OF SUBSIDY FOR
1980.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SE'ErB<<3ER 3, 1980
PAGE 3.
It appeared that Reeve Green and the Engineer would be the only persons
attending the R.T.A.C. Convention.
The Engineer reported the appeal to the South-West Oxford Council
concerning the Re-Zoning of the "Corbett" Gravel Pit in Lot 26, Concession 6
Dereham Township had been su:cce;s,sf:til and the Council would- Re-Zone the
propery for pit and quarry land.
CORRESPONDENCE was noted as follows:
1. O.M.B. notice of date to hear an appeal by George Lysy regarding an appeal
against a decision of the County Land Division Corrnnittee regarding Lot 28,
Concession IV, Bayham Township.
2. Township of Yarmouth with Zoning By-Law, Bishop property, Highway 3.
3. Township of Southwold with a Zoning By-Law regarding Wright Insulation at
Payne s 'Mills(}OnijH~ghw91y33.
4. Township of Yarmouth, minor variance on Road 27 (Winters).
5. Village of Port Stanley with Zoning By-Law for Senior Citizen Apartments
on Frances and Matilda Streets.
6. Ministry of Transportation and COulluunications regarding surplus property for
sale on the Towe~ Road in Yarmouth Township, Corrnnittee vvas not interested.
7. Lloyd Gurr regarding cleaning a culvert pipe on Road 2 vrest of Road 8 in
Dunwich. Cvulluittee agreed to have the PltP>'e cleaned as soon as po ssible.
It was noted that a letter had been written to the Ministry of the Environment
requesting the exemption of the Walkers Bri~ge replacement from the regulations of
the Environmental Act.
It was also noted that no tenders had been received on the sale of Truck #76.
The Engineer would report further.
The attached report #38 of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario regarding
Provincial Road Grants was discussed at some length.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1980
PAGE 4.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE COUNTY OF ELGIN GO ON RECORD
AS OPPOSING THE AMO REPORT #38, RECOMMENDATIONS 3, 4, 6:, 8, 10, and 11
ON PROVINCIAL ROAD GRANTS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND THAT ALL COUNTIES
IN THE PROVINCE BE SO ADVISED, AS WELL AS LOCAL M.P.P. J~D THE MINISTRY
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED."
The Engineer was instructed to supply members of County Council with
background information prior to County Council",meeting.
The Engineer reported that with regard to the Walkers Bridge.
(a) Preliminary plans had been cVULJ!leted and submitted to the M.T.C. for
approval.
(b) The estimate for the bridge and approaches if built in 1981 and 1982 was
estimated at $1,460,000, other than land, fencing and legal costs.
(c) The Engineer was now in a position to proceed with final plans for M.T.C.
and other agencies - appravals,i'f.:,theGounty :so~wi'shed.
(d) Middlesex County had approved the completion of plans to the tender
call stage.
After discussion:
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE INSTRUCT THE CONSULTANT TO PROCEED WITH THE FINAL PLANS FOR THE
WALKERS BRIDGE TO THE POINT OF CALLING TENDERS.
CARRIED."
The meefing adjourned for a del'i.cious dinner at the home of Reeve William
and Mrs. Caverly.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1980
PAGE 5.
Road inspection of Road 32, (Hare, Bardawill and Smith properties).
(Whether to include the portion of road from the Police College to Road 52 in
the upcoming construction phase or not.) Road 38, (Wards Hill, Little Otter
Creek Culvert, Straffordville Cemetery, Straffordville Urban.). Road 45,
(Knelsen property at Luton setback).
"MOVED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE ADJOURN TO OCTOBER 10, AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
)r{::t/ J({~__1?
CHAIRMAN ~ (J
GOUNTy':.o.f}ifit.Gu-t :,' .
CLE~-K~TREAsuRtRfSQ.off.lCE"',",','
"i::,:cI:i'!;lll:\?:'
.\' . ' ......, . .,'...' ," ..:,;~.,,:, .....,
, " ", ',' 1.::<:>.'," . '''.'.''''1'1... ." '.".'"
-. <.' L. ., "<." ,Li;>i,:~,::"':?~ i J:>,':',"","'~.' :
, 1'.,'
"
"
"
::....:
: <,
-
....../: "
---. p )1@]r~ ~r--l\. ~
P. \'?,' .' ..... '
, ..J _
, , "-=
. AUG1S, . 1980
~:; ::{:;1.~:i':-'::.: ".' ...'"
.ii.. ....:'......', ...'.(
':' --: ':. ,I:~,. ',: .' .
..'..'~r:~l>~.<
':,>'~'~p'~ : .,' "
PROVI NeIAl:ROAD\:,~8~NTS:
ADM IN ISTBATIVE ."PRO'CE,P'U RES
. '1
THE ASSO' C~ ~"r~~""':,"> 1 -or IH~~ ~~~~,t'"\IO^ l~TiES OF' ONTARIO
. 'h ~. j\.;;:i';i, r nln.)u~~t..J'~~ ,M g' 0 . IJ M
AUGUST 1980
currently, the Ministry of Transportation and communications
transfers approximatelY $400 million yearly to municipalitieS
under variouS conditional grant programs. In order to be
elig:z,le for subsidies, municipalities must undergo extensive
audits and must folloW detailed administrative procedures
specified by MTC.
~.s~~
In 1978, the proVincial-Municipal Grants Reform committee
recommended the deconditiOnalizatiOn of the road grants program.
In its Response, AMD supported the recommendation while recog-
nizing that property taX reform would first have to be achieved. ·
AMD continues to urge the deconditiOnalizatiOn of thOse transfer
programs identified in its Response to the Report of the provincial-
Municipal Grants Reform committee, including MTC's road grants
program. The ASSociation is disappointed that MTC has not indicated
its willingness to mOve in this direction. However, in anticipation
of the future deconditiOnalizatiOn of road grants, AMD agrees with
most of th? recommendations made by the special Advisory committee
as an important step toward reform. AMD urges the provincial
'^ Government to implement the recommendations as rapidly as possible
in order to streamline administratiVe procedures, eliminate unnecessary
provincial approvals, remove the distortionary effect of the present
variegated grant structure, and improve the transfer of grant funds
to municipaLities.
AlthOUgh represented on the provincial-Municipal Grants Reform
committee, MTC refused to sign the committee's final report.
InStead, in 1979, the Ministry established itS own special Advisory
committee to review the road grants program.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
,
.,
1.
INTRODUCTION ..............,.................. ,. . . . .
Page
1
1.1 Background................. .-. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . 1
1.2 Need For Review.............................. 2
2.
THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE'S REPORT..................... '" . . . . . . . . . .
3
3 .
AMO'S COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REPORT...........
6
3 . 1 Pre am b 1 e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Suburban Roads Commissions................... 6
3 . 3 Toward Equ i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Impact of the Proposals on the Financial
posi tion of Municipali ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Streamlining of Administrative Procedures.... 12
4. CONCLUSION........................................ 13
5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 14
1.
1.1
RESPONSE TO TllE REPORT OF TllE SPECIAL
ADViSORY COMMiTTEE '1'0 TllE M~Y OF
TRl'\NSPORTATION AND COMMUNiCATIONS 01'1 .
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES F~NTS
::..--::--
~
~oun~
The provincial road grants program is administered bY the
Ministry of Transportation and communications (MTC) under
the authority of ~ns~ llighwa Improve-
~. under this transfer program, which is the oldest in
ontario, grants to local government for road construction and
road maintenance, add up to close to $400 million per year.
They represent the largest transfer in conditional form from
\
a provincial Ministry to municipalities. FoUr basic types of
programS are funded: local road and bridge, development road,
connecting link, and unincorporated area s~sidies.
Allocations to municipalities are made at various rates within
an approved maximum allocation on the basis of actual expen-
ditures. These expenditures are audited by MTC to ensure that
municipal spending has been consistent with legislation and
internal Ministerial poliCY, The Ministry of Transportation and
communications assists municipalities on the basis of measured
or apparent need and financial capabilities.
Grant rates are established in legislation. They vary with
the program, statuS and size of a municipality. GenerallY,
towns, townshiPS and improvement districts are eligible for
higher subsidY rates, as are smaller municipalities. SimilarlY,
bridgeS are eligible for subsidies at a higher rate. The
construction of new roads in subdivisions rarelY qualifies
for subsidies. Grants are presentlY calculated on the basis
of total eligib').e municipal expenditure after the deduction of
revenues from other sources (suCh as local improvement charges) ·
Rural municipalities may submit claims for overhead, and actual
capital and operating costs for road equipment. In urban
",
- 2 -
municipalities 7% is added to the subsidY to provide for
overhead expenses, while equipment is charged a common
rental rate.
It is widelY recognized that the Ministry of Transportation
and communications requireS municipalities to submit detailed
statements in a specified format, on a variety of matters,
and in accordance with prescribed schedules.
~ew
Given the magnitude of MTC's programs of subsidizing road
construction and maintenance, and the incremental development
of the programs since the 19th century, a review of MTC's
road grants program was long overdue.
In 1976 and 1977, the provincial-Municipal Grants Reform
committee examined the existing system of transfer payments to
\
municipalitieS in order "to ensure that transfer paymentS to
local governments and local authOritieS be made on a sound,
equitable and efficient basiSn.l within this revieW an
examination of the road grants program was made. The committee
recommended "that the grants for local roads and bridges be
eliminated and the funds be reallocated through unconditional
grants" \ReCOmmendation 5.1) .
The ASSociation of Municipalities of ontario responded:
"AMO emphasizes that recommendation 5.1 is one of
the most important in the entire Report. The
deconditiOnalizatiOn of this grant must be looked
upon as the keystone to the entire grant reform pro-
cess without which any other reforms would lose
most of their meaning.,,2
r
1.2
I'
.'~) 1\;-- I V
,....} ,f"'"'
. . .'\rf~ /} C
\/ ~ '\ r I
y ,,-1;'\} C~
~,t::,
\' <
I
\,yY
~ ~
1. Report of the provincial-~..unicipal Gr~
1978, vol. 1, p. vii-
2. ASsociation of ~unicipalities of ontariO. ~~~
Report of the prOVincial-Municipal GrantS ~'
oct. 1978, p. 9.
The strong opposition of the Ministry of TransportatiOn and
communications to the philosophY of aeconditiOnalizatiOn ~aS
highlighted ~hen the represer.tatiVe of the MoTC on the
provincial-Municipal Grants Reform committee refused to sign
the report. The MTC representatiVe stated, ho~ever, that
"the need to revie~ administratiVe policies and procedures
. . d 3
~s recOgn~ze ""
- 3 -
In 1979, MTC established itsO~n special Advisory committee to
study the administrative and control procedures of various
subsidY programS for roads. Municipal and provincial repre-
sentatives sat on this committee and produced a report con-
taining 51 recommendations ~hich an MTC Ministerial task force
is nO~ studying ~ith a vie~ to i~plementing many o~ the
proposalS-
The Minister and Deputy Minister of Transportation and com-
munications have indicated that MTC has found 25 of the recom-
mendations acceptable for implementatiOn as soon as possible,
~ith a further t~O recommendations being acceptable in principle
but requiring more ~ork before possible implementation. The
follo~ing response ~ill indicate p.MO's position on the main
recommendations made in the revie~ and ~ill comment on the
Ministry's evaluation of the recommendations.
2. THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE'S REPORT
p.MO agrees that a revie~ of the road grants program ~aS essential
and stresses that many of the recommendatiOns made bY the
special Advisory committee are valuable. Ho~ever, the ASSociation
regrets that MTC's revie~ of its road grants program ~as not
undertaken ~ithin the spirit of reform expressed by the
provincial-Municipal GrantS Reform committee.
3. ~~cial-MuniciPal Grants Reform ,committee,
\] 0 1 _ 11 P - 86-
- 4 -
The Special Advisory Committee recommended that the Ministry
of Transportation and Communica tiohs should II con-tinue its
traditional responsibilities for Ontario's total road system,
including municipal road grants, unless it is clearly estab-
lished that these responsibilities have been carefully and
prudently accommodated in any newly developed method of
managing and financing municipal responsibilities more effec-
tively".4
One of the Special Advisory Committee's four Sub-Committees,
the Sub-Committee on Financial Resources and Suburban Roads,
felt that MTC's needs-resources approach for determining grant
levels should continu~. It considered the Resource Equali-
zation Grant to be an ineffective measure of need for the
purpose of distributing road grants. Instead of recommending
proposals which would lead to the deconditionalization of the
present road grants, the Special Advisory Committee preferred
to work within the status quo. Although the Corr~ittee con-
sidered the possibility of changing, in the future, the strict
control practices over municipal expenditures used by MTC, its
recommendations will not contribute to the early introduction
of a transfer system which would permit the setting of priorities
at the municipal level.
At the Ontario Good Roads Association's Convention in 1980, the
Honourable James Snow, Minister of Transportation and Communica-
tions, stated that he could not agree with the deconditionaliza-
tion of funds as "there was no assurance unconditional grants
would provide for a sound, equitable and efficiE~nt transfer of
5
funds". AMO stresses that when market value assessment and
property tax reform are implemented, the Provincial-Municipal
4. The Sub-Committee on Financial Resources and Suburban Roads,
Report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Ministry on
Administrative Procedures for-Road Grants, 1980, p" 17.
5
transfer of funds in an unconditional form could occur in
an equitable manner. AMO ins~sts that municipal councils
should be empowered to establish priorities within and among
programs and should have the authority to control municipal
expenditures on behalf of their electorate.
Surely municipal councils and staff are as capable as their
Provincial counterparts in making reasonable decisions and
ensuring that funds are spent wisely" Therefore, statements
such as the following one made by MTC's Deputy Minister
seemingly designed to promote Provincial control are unfounded:
"When you are dealing with public money, the people
who pay the bills"".you and me and all the taxpayers in
Ontario...are entitled to an accounting of how it is spent",,6
Municipal politicians are certainly accountable to the public.
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications obviously
is concerned that in the absence of provincial conditional
grants, municipalities will restrict the monies they expend
for roads. It has been shown, however, that provincial grants
for roads do not provide an inducement for municipal spending
on roads. Many municipalities spend more on roads than their
MTC-determined allocation. An analysis by the Ministries of
"
Treasury and Economics, and Intergovernmental Affairs determined
that "there was no relationship between the actual level of
expenditure and the level of provincial assistance".7 The
Provincial-Municipal Grants Reform Committee stated that "of
all programs, this grant has to be considered as a truly
mature program",8 which has clearly outlived its original purpose.
6" H. Gilbert, Speech at the Ontario Good Roads Association,
February 27, 19ffO, p. 16.
7" Ministries of Treasury and Economics, and Intergovernmental
Af;fairs, Local Government Finance in Ontario, 1977, p. 49"
8. Report of The Provincial-Municipal Grants Reform Committee,
Vol. 1, p. 87.
- 6 -
3. ~O'S COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC RECOMMENOATIONS OF THE SPECIAL
~TEE'S REPORT ----
3.1 ~
AltnoUgn ~O would haVe preferred a commitment to almost
complete deconditiOnalizatiOn, i~ is heartened bY the fact
that many of the special Advisory committee's recommendations,
if implemented, would improve the equity and soundness of the
road grants program. In the following sections, AMO commentS
on many of these recommendatiOns.
3.2 Suburban Roads Commissions
Suburban roads commissions were established to manage the main
"farm to market" road Systems in counties where a separated
town or city was found. They were created in an attempt to
distribute costs equitablY among the separated municipality
and the surrounding municipalities. Expenditures are appor-
tioned on the following basis: 25% to the county, 25% to the
city or separated town, 50% to the province. There is no appeal
mechanism for individual municipalitieS to use if they disagree
with the levy imposed by the suburban roads commission.
previouslY, ~O recommended that suburban roads commissions should
be phased out as a result of their lack of accountability to
the electorate and the change in the circumstances surrounding
urban/rural interdependencies. The ASSociation continues to
urge the provincial Government to take over the responsibility
for suburban roads where appropriate. It encourages the
Ministry of Transportation and communicatiOns to designate more
heavily-travelled roads as part of the provincial highway System.
~O believes that thOse suburban roads which are not designated
as provincial highways should be placed under the jurisdiction
of counties. In carrying out this action, the province must
ensure that counties do not bear a greater proportion of the
costs of suburban roads than at present. Towns and cities
should nO longer have any responsibility for suburban roadS.
Their share of financing should be assumed by the province-
- 7 -
In the principles established in AMO's ~
pur ose Boards and coromissionS, the Association stated that
~n thOse instances when councils may appoint either elected
or non-elected persons to special purpose bodies, it wou~
be prefer~le ~at elected representatiVes retain the
majority. AMO also recommended that nO appointment to
special purpose boards and coromissionp should extend beyond
the length ~f term of council. Reappointment would permit
. . 9
cont~nu~ty.
AMO notes that the special Advisory coromittee followed theSe
twO principles in its proposals and that Bill 33--An Act
~
~o Am~ t~iC Trans ortation and lIi~
~, which received Third Reading April 29, 1980, alsO provided
for theSe twO arrangements. AMO was pleased to see the passage
of this part of the Bill. These amendmentS represent a valua-
ble first step. on the other hand, AMO is concerned that Bill
33 alsO provided for the Minister's entering into agreements
not onlY with municipalities, but alsO with publiC utility
coromissions for the preparation of transportation reports.
This amendment further fragments the decision-making power
of municipal councils.
MTC'S road grants package is extremelY complex and detailed.
Municipal statuS, population, project type, financial capa-
bility and need can all playa role in determining the amount
of subsidY allocated bY MTC. AMO considers the differentia-
tion of subsidY levelS by type of municipality to be extremelY
discriminatOry. For example, counties, regionS and townshiPs
may be subsidized for up to 80% of their expenditures on
local roads, while Metropolitan Toronto, boroughS, cities,
separated towns, tOWns and villages are eligible to receive
ASSociation of Municipalities of ontario, Report o~
purpose BoardS and coromissions, January, l~
3.3 TbWard Equity
-- ~
9~
- 8 -
onlY 50% of their approved expenditures. The grant
structure is also anomalouS in the case of subsidies granted
for bridges: boroughS, tO~ns and villages are reimbursed BO%
of costs, ~hile cities and separated to~ns receive onlY 50%
of expenditures. More extreme differentiation is found
in the Ring'S High~ay connecting link program-
The special Advisory committee recommended that municipal statuS,
variouS grant rates for different itemS and fixed subsidY rates
be eliminated as factors in the determination of road grants,
and that the needs-resources approach replace their use in
calculations. The Deputy Minister of MTC said that this recom-
mendation ~as "acceptable in principle" and ~as "perhapS the
most important of all the recommendatiOns".lO Ho~ever, he
pointed out that the implementation of theSe recommendatiOns
~ould take considerable effort and time. AlthoUgh AMO ~ould
have preferred the total deconditiOnalizatiOn of road grants
for municipalities of over 5,000 population, it supports the
special Advisory committee's recommendations for standardizing
grant rates as a step in the right direction. variable popula-
tion gro~th rates and local government restructuring activities
during the recent past have made differentiation on the basis
of statuS even more inappropriate.
The committee recommended that grants should nO longer be
subject to a ceiling based on the proportion of expenditure.
Instead, an index of municipal resources, to be developed
in co_operation ~ith other Ministries, is proposed for future
use. AMO supports this approach.
several other recommendatiOns are made ~hich, if implemented,
would lead to a fairer treatment of all types of municipalitieS,
in addition to achieving other positive results. AMO is in
-- ~
10. H. Gilbert, speech at the ontario Good Roads ~'
February 27, 19BO, p. 11.
, y coromittee for
1 f the special ~dv~sor
faVour of the proposa 0 . the local improve-
. ' ctice of subtract~ng
diScont~nu~ng the pra ~~om e~penditUres
, t d bY ratepayers ~~
ment charges contr~bu e 1 lted ~s onlY some
, " bidy is ca CU a ·
before the prov~nc~al SU s . d r ~he ~ocal 1m rove-
.' d take construct~on un e
municipal~t~es un er . ~O is pleased to
, ' ation is inequ~table.
~' th~S s~tU . rom ndation acceptable
note that the ~inistrY finds th~S reco e -
and easilY implemented.
_ 9 -
, h procedures for
1 to standard~ze t e
SimilarlY' the proposa 'd' zing the purchase and
d and for subs~ ~
charging back overhea , ,countieS and urban
, ment among reg~ons,
operation of road equ~P ,d equity. ~o~ever, ~O
, ' resentS a step tO~ar
municipal~t~es rep .... should meet these
. 11 mun~c~pal~t~es
believes that, opt~ma y, " 1 grantS or revenue
. increased uncond~t~ona '
costS fr~ the~r, the short run, ~O urges
their o~n sources. in
raised fr~ d charge-back rateS
re that overhea
the province to enSu to municipalities.
adequatelY reflect increased costS
dures is laud-
, ' and simplificatiOn of proce '
~he standard~zat~on ' .t ~ould accept th~S
. h indicated that ~
able. The ~in~strY as " 'th the e~ception of rural
11 ~nic~al~t~es ~~ . .
proposal for a ' t'on bY size of munl.Cl.-
e ted a different~a ~. . '
tO~nshipS' ~O aCC p ~ the provincial-~un~c~pal
to the Re ort o~
palitY in itS Response ' t,on indicated that
'tee The ~ssoc~a ~
GrantS Reform corom~t . 1 to municipalitieS of
. . t ~rocedures could aPP Y
trad~t~onal gran ~ t
, ' 'ocal reques ·
under 5,000 populat~on upon ·
1 the yinancial position
impact of the ~roposa on
of~unicipal~t~eS
. . f funds among municipalitieS ~ould be
The redistr~but~on 0 tUre ~ere aboliShed.
. tionarY grant struC
achieved if the d~stor lt of the implementa-
. aY occur as a resu
substantial sav~ngs m d b the special ~dvisorY
tion of several other proposalS ma e Y
committee-
3,,4
\\, Ii
, ~ ~~J\)l
I ~ IV
r. I\; ,
i\,\ ,(./
~)
- 10 -
Presently, much time is spent by both Provincial and
municipal staffs on adm~nistrative details. The completion
of forms according to strict guidelines places a large
burden on municipalities especially on those with small
staffs. The elimination of many of the MTC's requirements
for approval would reduce costs and staff time at both the
Provincial and municipal levels of government.
The Committee's recommendations on the streamlining of
administrative procedures is discussed in the next section
of this report. At this point, however, it should be
mentioned that the Ministry does not seem willing to adopt
many of the recommendations which are aimed at rE~ducing
the complexity of administrative procedures. Amainistrative
expenses would be minimized if municipalities funded roads
from their general revenue funds and were not required to
submit information to the MTC in order to qualify for condi-
tional grants"
One of the four sub-committees examined non-municipal contri-
butions to road expenditures. It recorrunended that contributions
from landowners to road works and special assessments under
The Local Improvement Act be included as part of the municipal
share for the determination of road grants. As has been
stated previously, this action would increase inter-municipal
equity, and in addition would augment the size of grants
received in those municipalities which undertake construction
under The Local Improvement Act.
,_/
Two sub-corrunittees proposed that the Ministry initiate grant
payments on a monthly basis according to the needs-resources
approach. The Sub-Corrunittee on Overhead and Earlier Advances
recommended that on or after April 1st, the Ministry provide
payment of 33 1/3% of a municipality's road grant allocation,
and subsequently, 8 1/3% per month. By March 31 of the
following year, a reconciliation would be made. The municipal
, '
- 11 -
cash flow position would improve as a result of the earlier
advances, while the cost to the Province would increase.
Municipalities would no longer apply for subsidies, although
they would still be required to submit a final statement of
expenditures. The Ministry would initiate all payments.
Subject to AMO's previous comments on deconditionalization,
the Association supports proposals for earlier payments to
municipalities and urges the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications to recognize the use of the accrual basis for
road grants purposes.
As was indicated in Section 3.3 of this Response, the Sub-
Committee on Overhead and Earlier Advances recommended that
the "urban method" for subsidizing overhead and equipment
expenses (i.e., 7% overhead allowance and MR-222 equipment
rental rates) be extended, for 1981 and thereafter, to all
counties, to those townships which are operating on the
measured needs basis and to all other townships that request
this method. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that some
municipalities may suffer financial hardships during the
change-over period; however, it went on to report that "in the
interests of consistent implementation of its recommendations,
the Sub-Committee holds the view that special consideration
11
should not be granted".
AMO supports the Sub-Committee's proposal to apply standard
procedures for charging-back overhead and equipment expenses
to all but the least populated municipalities as an effective
method for streamlining administrative and audit procedures.
However, the Association wishes to ensure that special
transitional grants are available to help ~naller municipalities
adapt to and welcome the new procedures. The Special Advisory
Committee has been overly concerned with preventing any cost
11. The Sub-Committee on Overhead and Earlier Advances,
Report of the Special Advisory Commitbee to the Ministry
on Administrative Procedures fOr Ro'ad GYan'ts, 1980, p. 5.
- 12 -
increases to MTC in this recommendation and throuqhout
its Report. AMO feels that individual municipali,ties
should not solely have to bear the increased costs resulting
from the implementation of new provincial procedures.
3.5 Streamlining of Administrative Procedures
The grant programs presently used by MTC require approvals
and audits of municipal activities throughout the entire road
construction and maintenance process. Procedures are outlined
In The Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and
in Ministerial policies. The Sub-Committee on Approvals and
Main Thoroughfares identified 27 items which require MTC's
approval. The Sub-Committee considered 23 of these items to
be unrelated to "the Minister's basic concern with municipal
d " 12 . . l' 1 .
roa systems. These ltems requlre approva strlct Y In
order to meet Ministerial control requirements.
The Special Advisory Committee suggested many proposals for
eliminating unnecessary approvals, audits, and duplication.
AMO shares the Special Advisory Committee's concern over the
unnecessary proliferation of approval requirements for adminis-
trative procedures and urges the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications to act upon these recommendations as soon
as possible. AMO agrees with the wide-ranging proposals for
13
"the elimination of specific approvals wherever possible".
Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal for streamlining made
by the Special Advisory Committee is contained in the recom-
mendation to replace the approvals and audits of specific
items by MTC staff by the use of minimum standards for
12" The Sub-Committee on Approvals and Main Thoroughfares,
Report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Ministry
on Administrative Froc'edur'es 'for Road GYan'ts 1 1980, p. 2.
13. The Sub-Committee on Contributions and Audit Processes,
Report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Ministry
on Administrative ProcedureS for Road Grants, 1980, p. 7.
/
",
- 13 -
engineering design, tendering procedures and purchasing.
The Municipal Engineers Association is currently working
with Provincial Ministries on the development of such
standards. The Deputy Minister of MTC has indicated that
"it's not impossible...but it's difficult...to develop
standards which are acceptable to all".14
AMO supports the development of minimum standards. It
believes that standards in conjunction with adequate technical
advisory services, can effectively replace the widespread
use of Ministerial approvals. In general, it is desirable
to help municipalities to achieve acceptable road standards
through assistance rather than through the denial of subsidies
after construction and maintenance have been undertaken.
Larger municipalities, in particular, should not be subjected
to unnecessary control procedures.
4. CONCLUSION
AMO endorses many of the other recommendations of the Special
Advisory Committee which were made with the intention of
simplifying the grant structure, and reducing duplication,
detailed audits, and administrative procedures.
The Association urges MTC to proceed rapidly with the elimina-
tion of unnecessary procedures as a step toward the eventual
deconditionalization of grants. AMO is prepared to assist
the Ministry with the achievement of these short-term and
long-term goals.
14" H. Gilbert, Speech at the Ontario Good Roads Association,
February 27, 1980, p. 16.
- 14 -
'.
5 . SU~'l;'li\RY OF RECOi'-1i'-1ENDl\TIONS
"
N.10 Recommends:
1. That the Ministry of TrLlnsportation and Communications
continue to revie\V and revise the road grants program
\vi th the intention of streamlining administrative,
control, and approval procedures.
2 .
(yj)
(' 4 :
C"""",/"!
c//
7 .
(!)
o
\.Y
That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications
implement the recommendations for streamli.ning made by
the Special Advisory~Committee as rapidly as possible.
That municipal status, population, and type of
project be eliminated as determinants of subsidy levels,
and that tile needs-resources approach be used for
determining grant levels to municipalities for the road
grants program in anticipation of the development of a
new index of mUIlicipal resources.
That suburban roads commissions be phased out and that the
more heavil~r travelled suburban roads be designated as
Provincial high\-lays. The remaining suburban roads should
be placed under the jurisdiction of the county with the
Provincial Government's assurance that the county \Vill
not be required to make a greater financial contribution
than at present.
5.
Tllat local improvement charges no longer be subtracted
from the municipal expenditure total for the determination
of Provincial subsidies.
That procedures for charging back overhead and for sub-
sidizing the purchase and operation of road equipment
be standardized, simplified, and implemented in all
municipalities of more than 5,000 people. Special
transitional grants should be available to help smaller
municipalities to adapt to the new procedures sllould they
decide to use standard procedures.
That advances to municipalities be made at an earlier date.
,~
That the l'1inistry of Transportation and Corrununications
recognize the use of the uccrual basis for road grants
purposes.
9 .
rr hut s pee i fie a p pro v Q 1 s by t 11 e !'-1 i n i s try 0 f T ran s p 0 r tat ion
and Communica. tions be elimina ted \'lherever possible.
That minimum stanc1arC1s ICl- en9irlc:cring desiCJn, tendering
procedures and purchZlsins, combined \-lith technical udvice,
rcpl2.ce de to. i leel ;.i in i s to.r ial con tro I proccc1 u rc s .
That the Iv1inistry of Transportation and Communications
dcconditionulize its road grants program after market
value assessment and property tax reform are introduced
to pcrmi t municipali ties to set their O\'ln priori ties.
for Liquid
ACode'of'
Future
DangerpusGoods
Ontario'
;;
~
Ii:
Af<TH\.JR J. GORDON
GE.NtIlM. sUPE.R.lI'l'tENOElolT
C. ROY DORAN
j\SSlst "NT SIJPEIl.INtENt>tNT
I\. tONStR\lt1'IOl'l s,&.Ht'l' INS9t:t10Il
ROBER'!" G, .,\OORE. a.$O, p,ENO
tNGINUlt ,&.NP ~O,b.D S\JPill.\l.rrtN()f.NT
ll\J\'l\-\ONt 51'?' b31-58&O
79 5iANL.e:."l 51,
(C.O.LlR'r KOlJSE.')
5i. THOMAS, ONi;
N5R 3Gl
september 4, 1980
to }\ElAB'ERS OF co1J'NT'l (){)UN01!.:
'lour Road c~itteQ haS coriSidQred the att~cbe.d report on
11rovincial Road GiantS as proposed bY the ASSOC1.at.1.on of
Mtinici a1.itiell and are oppollQd to a number of the .rec~endatiOnS
p R. ,~d C..-ittee beliQVeS these rec~Qndat1.0"tl.S" faVOU.r, the
allyour OG .,,~..' . ' ' . ' 'h' d .t f the
1 }:'e urban municipalitieS ClIo ontar1.0 to t e 'etr1.men o. ·
~l rural municipalitieS and countieS (including the v1.11ages
and small to'W'ns).
'the septemoe-r ROad Report to countY counc~l, ,-"ill, rec~e~d
that the CountY of l!.W;irl gO on record asopp~S1.~grec~ndat1.0nS
34 6 8 land 11 of A}\O RePort38 (11rOV1.nc1.al Road Grants)
a~d ~ha~ ail co:ntieS be sonotiHed. as ,-"ell s: the county of
tlgirl' S 1'\.11.11' s and the 1'\ini ster of 'transportat1.on and
cotttn\uni.cat ions.
the -ceallona for oppositiOn of c~it.tee to the .IIl40 ," ·
rec~ndatiOns include but are not limited to the follo,-"ing.
...
(3 )
Rural bridge and, culvert subsidY 1sno'-" 80% and r,oad
subsidY is at ,et'/' _ under a ne,-"methOd of needs 1.t
is un1.ikelY the bridge subsidy '".ould be su~h that a
~nicipality could afford to bU1.1d manY br1.dgeS,
1f the Suburban Road c~issions were p~a:ed out the
present contribUtion of the separated C1.t1.es .to'-"ard
su\Wrban Roads ,-"ould have to be raised by county
rate payerS instead (in our case about $38;000 per
yea.r ).
(4 )
. . . . 2
~.A
r-'
".
Page 2.
Rental rates qllow~d by ,the Ministry of TransPQrtatipn
and Communications will not cover the cost of purchasing
graders, snow plowes, etc. required by smaller
mun:tcipalities.
(6 )
All e~penditures co~itted by a Council would have to be
paid for in the year of committment. A DeCember snow
stot'tn resulting in large o4tsicle eql1,ipmellt rentals could
seriqus~y over dvaw q mUniciPalities~ M,.T.C. subsi4y
and road levy. "
(8 )
(10) It is feared tl1C~.t the technical resources of the
Ministry of Transportation and. C011l11.\unicatj.ons wou~d
not be available to the sma11er murd.cipalities who are
unable to afford outside consultants for every project.
(11) The unconcU,tional grant method does not recognize the
needs ()f small IntJ.nicipalities with large road bUilding
projects, lack of gravel, limited assessments, et'c,
It is felt that the same per capita gt'ant for elll would
make road building in the rural area'very diffieultas
the funds would not be available.
RGM:kaa
En c. .
Yours truly,
K/I
R. G.MOOR.E,
ENGINEER AND
c., J:' .. Eng ..
D SUP1~RlN'reNDENT
~~'l OTl ELG~AD c~~
]:1!S'l R~1?Ol31..
S~~BER SESS10N 1980
TO T1:lE ltlARDEN AND ~BERS 0]1 T1:lE ELG1N coUNTY COUl'lC1L
'lOUR ROAD cOMM:1TTEE REPORTS AS 'j1OtJ,.QltlS I
'lour Road' Cot1Jll\;ittee haS instructed the consultant (Mr. N. ltlarner
of R. c. DUnn and ASSociates Li1l>ited) for the ltla1kers Bridge to
proceed ,.nth final plans and approval s. preliminarY planS ",ere
approved by the M.inistrY of TransportatiOn and c()llllllUnications
1.
last ~ee\<..
lt is e>tPected that the completion of planS and
approval ,.n11 require approximatelY 2\ to 3 months. 'lour
cQtllllittee ,.nll consider the tn-rchase of the required right of
",aY for the bridge and road diversion at their next meeting.
The consultant estimates the cost of the structure and road
",ork if built in 1981 and 1982 to be $1,460,000 other than
land purcha,se, fencing, etc.
2.
A contract has been let to ltla1ms1ey Bros. Ltd. for 1.l0t M.ix
Asphalt paving on Road 38 in Straffordvi11e, and ",est of
StraffordVille and for the Village of Vienna and the TownshiP
of Bayham, at $70,623 the lowest of 5 bidS.
f 'C'l -t'W'\ ".Till S\3.1'1'1" asnha1t cetrei\t. All ",ork other
The countY 0 D g~" w J 'r
b t 0'1'\ T~a~ds l.lill on Road 38 has been completed.
than a ase coa ,.".
3.
A contract has been let to ltlalms1ey Bros. Ltd. at $15,776,
for paving south Dorchester Roads on behalf of the TownshiP'
The ",ork haS been completed.
4.
d. 0..... Road 38 ,.nth nearlY all the earth rooving
VlO'J:\<. is 1'rocee l.ng J."
~~anular base ",ill be completed in several ",eeks.
PAGE 2.
.2..OUNJY OF ~m ROA].. co~TI:FEE,,:: Yl~ST R~ORT.
-WE RECOMMEND:
1. That the county of Elgin state that they have no objections to the
closing of Nelson Street in wal1acetown, except for the westerly
17 feet of the street which will be required to widen County
2. That the county of Elgin go on record as opposing recommendations
3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 of AMO Report 38 (provincial R~'* Grants)
Road 8.
and that all counties be so notified, as well as the county of
Elgin'S M.P.P.'s and the Minister of Transportation and
coromunications.
ALL OF WRICR IS RESPEcrmlLLY SUBM1T'IED
---
---
C1lAIRMAN
Intergovernmental Affairs
198Q Equalization F'ac:tors fpr 1981, A,Wortiomnents ,and R,esouroeEqualJ.zation Gra.nts,_
E;x:~erpt$ from a letter to all heads of cO\1neil and mtlnicipal cJ.e;-k-treasurers from
:tntergovernment~l Affairs Minister ThQlt\CI.$ Well$, ~atec.l 11 J\ll.y 1980;
'.New e~al.:i,.~ation factorS are being p\l.Plished in the Ontario Ga~ette on Saturday 12
July. ~st year when the equalization factors were unfrozen j' it was obvious that
applicatiqn of these factors to apportionments and reso~rce E~qualization grants wo~ld
create substantial spifts in tax burdens_ The proplem with using equalization
factors as the sole means of developing an equalized assessnent -.... which is roughly
equivalent to aggregate market value -- is that it is based <,n the premise that all
properties are assessed at the same proportion of market value. In reality, of
course, the municipal tax system in ontario p.eitherassesses ,nor taxes each class of
property, at a rate tha,t is equally proportional to the market- value of the property .
In particular, industrial and commercial property has historically been assessed,
and thus taxed, -.... at a higher proportion of value than resid1ential and farm
'propertie~-
npor these reasons, if the new equa;Lization factors i:ntroduced last year had been
used alone, the result would have been unreasonable increases in the tax burden on
re$idential and farm properties, partiCularly in rural communities. This was why
the goverptnent limited the ~ount of change that would take place in 1980~ In the
developI\lent of tnissystem, the governIl\enthas ha,d the benef'i.t of the technical
assistance and input of representatives of the municipalitie!s. Today, in taking the
initial steps towards a more permanent system, ~ basic premi.se is that municipalities'
ability to raise taxes on .;esidential and farm prope;,ties wiJJL continu.e, to- be
generally much less than their ability to raise ta;x:es on<commE~rcial and industrial
property_
UTo oompensate for the fact that residential and farm Properties pay a lower
proportion of their market va~ue in ta~es than commercial and industrial properties,
it ;s necessary to revise aggregate market vaiue -- or aggregalte equalized .
assessJt\Elnt. Top-s, ;or 1981 apportionment -... that is, cost"'sh?~ri:ng within a county,
region or district -- the equalized asseSsIIl(3nt in each municipality will be reduced
by discounting the value of residential and farm property to I:eflect the lower rate
of ta~ation imposed by municipalities on these properties. The applicable discounts
will reflect bqth average ta;x: practices within cost-Sharing j~lrisdiction$ and the,
standard 15 per cent mill rate differential. A standard provi.nce-wide disco~nt for
residential and farm property would not be appropriate for apportionment purposes
because there are wide va.riations throughout the province. Thus, q.:j,.scounts, will
l;>e used which ~elate to the actual s1t\1&t1on in each county, 1:'egion and district.
nTh-is fle;x:ibility will ensure that the proportion of coupty ox' regional levies paid
by eaqh municipality will bear a close relationship to its relative ability to raise
taxes withi,n the cost-sharing area~- Unq,e.r, this 'discount' ap'p~oach, there will
inevita~ly be some municipalities which ~ay find that the new formula means that
they It\1.U:it pay a greater share of the county or regional levy than tbey haV'e in the
past. To cushion the impact in sucp cases, the province will ensure that change~
in. assessment will not increase more than 5 per cent above tne average for the
Gounty or region. Provincial grants will be paid to avoid ta;x: increases that wo~ld
otherwise occur. In developing the Resource Equali?:ation Grants for 1981 --'whic:h
will be announced in the Fall -- a~ integral p~rt of the formula, will 1;>e the ~ame'
principle as that relating to residential and fa~ assessment for apportionment
purpQses_
nThe approach descr;bed l1ere will, I believe, represent a strong foundation to ensu+,e
an appro~ria~e cost-sharing fo~ula and an equitable system of fin~cial support
for Ontario's municipalities. . As always, however" we will be ,arranging for ongoing
consultation via a series of m,.eetings with municipal people throughout the province
with the objective of_obtaining additional input which may res1~lt in further
re~inements and improv~ments .". Examples of the operation of .the system in your area
will be provided_ We will also continue to meet with represen-tatives of the muni-
cipal associations to discuss what further steps might be takeln to build upon the
foundation provided by the program which I have outlined above. Our objective is to
publish definitive regulations in the fall, and I expect that they will be that much
better as a result of these continued q.iscl.lssions with municipcil officia.ls."
ST. TUoMAS, 0N'rAR10
AUGUST 13, 1980
'PAGB 1.
TUE co1Jl'\TY Of ];';LG1N ROAD C~TTEE }1f:f at the }\unici:pal Buildings on
13 9 30 ~ ^11 ~ero.be~s e~cept Reeve ~ilson we~e p~esent.
August at: a.~' " ,..
lI}\OVEP BY: ~. R. Gj<,.'JEBJ..Y
SECONPEP BY: S. J. GLOVER
T1lAT TllE }\IN\lTES Of TUE w>~lNG Of JUNE 26 BE A1'PRO'JED.
CARR1BD ."
1.
THE "ENG1NEER REPORTED on ~o~k to Date stating:
th .... os:. the pallt si1< (6) weeks had delayed many p~ojectS
The ve~Y wet wea e. ·
and conside~able time had been lost due to ~ain both at Ilu~face t~eatment
wo~k and c~ew wo~k.
The four (4) inch ~ain fall of JulY 28 had flooded sp~ingfield, and the
Glen Colin B~idge on Road 40 waS nea~lY to capacitY' Reeve cave~lY
c()llllllented that wo~k waS ~equi~ed on the catfiSh c~eek and a clean-out
p~Og~arome would be ~equi~ed.
The 1969 lnte~natiOnal T~uck had been sold fo~ $2,855 (being the onlY
te:nde~' ~eceived), to Geo~ge underWood of ~ingham.
A 1974 G1'1C Diesel Tandem had been pu~chased f~om ca~~ie~ }\ack 'Ltd. fo~
$10,000. It had forme~lY belonged to franklin Silc01< of 10na.
'truck #76, 1959 fo~d 1000 would be offe~ed fo~ sale and if t~':_ p~ice
ft.. ~/_ (J t-!
waS not sufficient the motO~ W"ould be ~emoved and placed in ~eck #56.
AmotO~ W"ould be ~equi~ed in #56 p~io~ to winte~ sanding.
The main h1td~au1ic pump on the 'ifCB 'LOade~ had to be ~eplaced but no bi1.l
fo~ it had yet been ~eceived.
The }\ichigan 'LOade~ had been ~ep",i~ed by CountY Staff W"ith pa~tS
costing app~o1<imatelY $1,000.
d . 'L" "t d the p~oblem
The uoUgh 'LOade~ was being ~epai~ed by fe _QU1-P l.m1. e ,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
T~actO~ #29 (John Dee~e 450C Bulldoze~) haS itS t~acks ~epai~ed and neW
k tS 1., .....sta1.led b" Renash Equipment (cost $1 ,300 app~01<imate1Y)'
~ea~ sp~oc e" J
being in the tO~que conve~to~'
8.
s't. 't1l0l1hS, 0~'tpJl.l0
AUGUST 13, 1980
'PAGE 2.
9.
) 'iI uld alllo ,:equi,:e t,:acl< ,:eapai1!
#30 (Johu Dee,:e 350 BUlldoze,: 0
T-racto-r
k tll 'the EngiUe head. had beeU plaued and ue'il galll<etll
aud ue'il ,:ea': IlP':oc e ·
installed.
~e'il ti,:eS had beeu
at aU app,:o~unate cost of $1,553.86.
'the ue'il ],\.acl< 'ttucl<S 'iloul d be ,:ecei ved
1,ieba,:ted, ,:adioS iUlltalled, aud sp,:eade':
lIleed cout,:ol mouey had beeu sp",..-.
f'\ An c:.i--~'
Jacl<SOU Bal<e,:,Couuty lIleed lUSpectO': t
'0 d 14 aud YiUgal aud Road 20 bet'ileeu YiUga1 a"-
bet'Ween j;\.oa
h t the 'ileed iuSpecto,:
had beeu doue aud the EUgiuee,: e~,:eslled couce,:u t a
ld ,:equi,:e couside,:able 'ilo,:l<
could illllue additioUal o,:de':s that 'ilOU
d' 'the C()tl1ll\ittee
t countY policY aud bU get.
d dl.' t",:e ove': the p,:esen
aU e~peu " ld
. . sizeable e~euditu,:e shou
f"~the': 0': de': Il euta1-11-Ug auy
felt that anY .....Jo
#31 (John Dee,:e JD 510 Backhoe)
o,:de,:ed fo': 't,:actot
10.
11.
12.
14.
be diSCUssed by C()tl1ll\ittee.
t. ......!:I....'..ing othe': thaU Roads 48 aud Road
1? a'\Tera.en ~~"....Jo t\o
dl.' ""'g fo': o~fo,:d countY aud 'ilall
VJot.'\<. 'Was p-roceep,
d . t' for
d 1 ~ had been e~e,:ieuce 'ila1- 1-ug
10 dayS. A e a,1
. d ,:oads 'ile,:e coutiUuiUg as uecessa,:Y.
Repa1-,:1l to pave d had beeU
vemeut on t1Q'ad0 bet'ileeu lligh'ilaY 3 and RO uey
oU the couc,:ete pa
49 had beeU co!\\Pleted.
e~ected to be co!\\Pleted 'ilithin
pa,:t s f,:om peUUllyl vauia.
A uumbe,: of blO'iloutS
13.
-repaired.
15.
16.
11.
a hot mix cout,:act OU behalf of the
= Vlaltnsley B':os. Ltd. had
18.
'to'ilUllhiP of south UUL~.~o~e':
beeu accepted by the Council of
ST. T\1.Q1:4PI.S, ONTARIO
AUGUST 13, 1980
1? AGE 3.
and the bids being as follows:
~a) Vlalmsley Bros. Ltd.
(b) Towland ('LOndon) 1970 Ltd.
(c) TCe construction Ltd.
The county of Rent had finished paving on Road 7 but Ilhouldering remained.
Repairs to the deck of the Bothwell Bridge were more e>ttensive than first
thoUght but had been cOl1l1?leted and the deck repaved by the countY of
Rent. The county of Elgin would be billed their share <i27\'/') in due
$15,776.00
$17,980.00
$21,532.50
19.
20.
course.
cravel shouldering had been cOl1l1?leted on paving on Road 22 and 45 and
Road 20 near port Stanley, but work remained on Road 20 north and south
__ -rf time and funds pe1':tnitted
of l'ingal and Roads in the DUtton a,!:"G' --
gravel shouldering waS badly required on Road 14 in Iona and between
\1.ighwaY 3 and Iona Station.
paving and shoutdetii.$ work east of the Vlards \1.ill on Road 38 had been
cOl1l1?leted as well as the urban section of StraffordVille. some trim
and seeding had been delayed on thiS section becaUse of the constant
21.
22.
rainS.
Vlork waS proceeding (betWeen rains) on the Vlards \1.ill. The material on
the east side waS tOO wet to be used in the cent,!:e of the road and waS
being used for shouldering or to widen the slopes. It would be
necessary to truck the remaining material as it waS tOO wet to move
with scrapers. The grade on the west side of the \1.ill had been
adjUsted to provide the material neCe ssary for the fill.
It was expected countY Trucks would be done Ilurface treating and able
to place the sand base and the crushed gravel.
It would be necessary to place sto1':tn d'!:ainS for e,!:osion control on the
hill as soon as possible after grading work waS completed. A base coat
of asphalt should be placed in late september or earlY october. ToP
soil ing and Ileeding of the Vlards \1.ill ~ea would be dependant upon the
23.
'Weather ·
ST. TBOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 13, 1980
PAGE 4.
24. surface treatment continued with work presentlY underway in the south
and North Dorchester areall. It waS expected to finish up in the
St. Thomas area early in september, after work for L~bton county and
25. calcium chloride application waS underway as necessary but rains had
Boward Tovroships.
waShed off most of the calcium chloride all soon as it waS placed. If
the weather turned dry the budget could be overspent by a considerable
26. Sidewalks on Road 38 in straHordville for Bayh~ TownshiP had been
amount.
completed as well as a catch basin on sandy town Street and paving.
27. construction of Oak Street for Vienna had been completed and the costS
were more than originallY elltimated due to weather and changes made
28. The installation of the multi plate culvert on the Bayh~_Malahide
during construction.
29. The Village of port BUrwell wished to proceed with the Newton Street
Drain as soon as possible and Reeve Bradfield had requested that the
county proceed with the continuation of the drain and the crossing of
Victoria Street (Road 50) SO that the Village might extend their drain
Townline for the TownshiP waS underway.
to Blizabeth Street so that a long standing drainage problem on
Blizabeth Street could be solved. committee agreed to the croslling
of Victoria street thiS year.
30. A considerable ~ount of ditching work would be undertaken on varioUs
roads including Road 22 and Road 3 if weather conditions permitted.
31. V10rk waS underwaY for the village of port Stanley on Brie and Sydenhattl
32. R. Q. Golder had completed soil borings on Front Street for the Village
Streets.
of port Stanley.
33. V10rk on the repair of the storm drain System on RighwaY 74 in Belmont
would start next week and when the project waS completed the creW would
move to Aylmer and complete work on the j,\,yrtle Street Bridge.
ST. 'tUoMAS, Om:1\R10
1\UGUS'I 13, 1980
"PAGE 5.
35.
h 1, d O~~o ~ail-road had again been contacted regarding the
The C eSapea..e an "'~ '
condition of the Chesapeake and Ohio crossing on Road 16 and 45 at
Middlemarch, and again had promised to repair them.
lt appeared that all available funds had been e:><pended or caromitted
,and.that the bulk,of remaining funds would be e:><pended by the ne1<t
paylist.
~alter S~erVille had contacted the Engineet regarding a ne~ fence
along hill property on Road 22 and had signed an agreement to sell
road ~idening. The fence ~ould be erected in late september or early
october. The fence ~aS in Iltock.
lt ~ould be necessary to stockpile more gravel for crushing as it ~aS
. ld 11 b renuired thiS fall.
likelY that the present p~le WOU a e ~
34.
36.
37.
"MOVED BY. ':
D. J. cAM.'PBBLL
SECONDED B'i: L. J. S1:1A1iI
T1:1AT 'tUE 'FOLL01iI1NG P AYL1ST S BE A1'PRO\l"ED "FOR P A"iMENT ·
PAYL1ST 1M1BER 32 i\Mo\JNT1NG TO $ 50,229.79
PAYL1ST 1M1BER 33 i\MouNT1NG TO $ 79,013.31
PAYL1ST 1M1BER 34 i\MouNT1NG TO $ 49,974.07
P AYLl ST NIJM1IER 35 i\MOuNT1NG TO $ 199 · 36
PAYL1ST 1M1BER 36 i\Mo\JNT1NG TO $ 796.98
1?AYL1ST 1M1BER 37 i\Mo\JNT1NG TO $ 50,969.87
P AYLl ST NIJM1IER 38 i\MOuNT1NG TO$ 469, 7 53 · 28
CARR1BD ."
CORRESPONDENCE ~as read as follo~ll:
"From J. B. ~i1son thanking the Co1!lll\ittee for the cards ~hile he ~aS
1:0. hospital.
O.M.B. with date for appeal s to be heard filotn decisions of the CountY of
Elgin Land DiviSion c~ittee.
Town of Aylmer _ c~ittee of AdjUstment regarding Attfield.
1.
2.
3.
ST. 'l:ll()to\AS, ONTAR'LO
AUGUST 13, 1980
"PAGE 6.
1.
Town of Aylm~r _ zoning BY-J,a~ r~garding land near the AYlmer Museum.
Village of springfield - zoning By-La~ - nO comments.
TownshiP of Norfol\.< _ Official plan - nO comments.
TownshiP of Malahide _ zoning By-La~ - no c()tlllllf'nts.
Minilltry of Rousing regarding Town of Aylmer official plan ~ndtnent #2 -
4.
5.
6.
'0.0 co'((l!O.ent s.
TownshiP of south "\lest o:><ford _ zoning 13Y-La~' The Engineer stated that
he had registered an objection to the zoning By-La~ in as much all the
1 "t ~ 1"\ Lot 26 concession V1.'L, Dereham TownshiP ~aS not
countY' s grave p1. ~.. '
zoned M_3 for gravel pit use.
The committee instructed the Engineer to
8.
9.
proceed ~ith the appeal to the O.M.B. if necesllary.
lQ~" TownshiP of 1'\orth Dorchester - zoning By_La~ - nO comments.
. . st ting a second advance
11. Mini Iltry ofTI' an Ilportat ion and c()tl1llll.1n1. cat1. onS a
subllidY payment in the amount of $690,600 ~ould be made to the county
sho-rt1 y.
Ontario Good Roads ASsociation stating that LeS GileS and Bob MccreadY
had passed the T. J. Mahoney Road school Course.
. t -recycle '0.0 fu-rthe-r
Ontario paper Col\1Pany regard1.ng ne~spaper so'
information a~ailable.
To the Town of A.'Jlmer ~ith pertt'iSsion to build a ~al1.<WaY tinder the
Elm Street Bridge if they SO dellired.
1'\otice by Gloin, Rall and ASSociates, acting on behalf of 'Lan Repburn
claiming spray damage on Road 45 on ~or\.< done by the TownshiP of
'lartllou.th.
Notice Iff claim by June 1'\ewton regarding accident at Glen Colin.
d' the Ilpeed limit
The Engineer stated that it appeared Ilhe ~aS e:><cee 1.ng
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
and 'WaS inattentive.
d' t" of the
Ministry of Natural resources complaining about re 1.ver 1.ng
. 1 1 tiOn The cee\.< had been
Little otter cree\.< 'and threaten1.ng ega aC ·
redi~erted prior to receipt of the letter.
11.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 13, 1980
PAGE 7.
in DUnwich had requested that the County supply a 12 inch C.I.? for a
The Engineer reported that Peter Rentz on Road 8 south of Road 16
drain cr,o'ssing in lieU of involvement in a Mun;;.eip",l Drain Crossing. The
committee was agreeable as the request conformed to their long standing
policy on drains crossing County Roads.
consultant for southwold Township regarding the cleanup work necessary on
The Engineer reported that a meeting had been held with the
Road 25 and 26 after installation of the Edgeware Road water pipe line.
The contractors final payments would be held by the Township until the county
pay our Invoice in the ~ount of $ 119.68 for labour, etc. in measuring up
The Engineer reported that the Village of Rodney had refused to
waS satisfied.
and calculating and tendering for hot mix asphalt paving on their behalf.
committee were of the opinion the ~ount waS reasonable and was due to the
county and the Engineer instructed to so advise the Village of Rodney
on Road 13 on the Brown Drain in the Village of DUtton, and after diSCUssion
The Engineer reported that he had appealed the county Assessment
council.
with the Village Engineer and Ree~e Binks the Village council at the
court of Revision" had reduced the assessment $500 from $4530 to $4030.
DUnwich to keep the road crossing of county Road 8 as part of the Keillor
The Engineer reported that he had requested the Township of
Drain and terminate the old drain on the east side of Road 8, rather than
the west side.
The Township of DUnwich gave notice that it proposed to close
Nelson Street in wallacetown.
S't. 'J:1;\oMAS, o1l'tAR1.0
AUG'JS't 13, 1980
'PAGE 8.
11MOVED B'l:
SEcoNDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
't1:lA't VIE REcOMMEND 'to co'\JN'tY COUNC1.L 'tflAT VIE S'tA'tE 'J:1;\p(t 'tllE c()1JN't'i:
Of 1!,1.Gnl 1:lAS 1:l0 OBJEct1.m1S 'to 'tllE CLOS1.1:lG Of 1:lE1<S01:l S'tBJ1.J':t 11'l
VI ALLAc1il!l(\lWN. EX-c11.1"t 'FOR ,'tllE VlES't:\?B1oY' 17 ftJ':t' Of tll'E STRtJ':t.
CARR1ED ."
V1. R. CAVERL'l
. t d th t ...egUlatiOns"and",not.tce1;'l'Uid been received
'the Eng1-neer nO ea' " '
fr~ the MinistrY of the Enviro~nt that environmental assessnent ~ould nO~
. t lc "" the extent of ~ork
applY to all j,1Unici?al 1';rojectS, and as yet 1-t ~aS nO no
it ~ould cause or delaYs that might occur. 'the Engineer felt that in due
course all projectS ~ould have to be asseslled and thiS could add greatlY to the
:f;ngineering colltS. 'the Engineer noted that there,,~as not sufficient staff at the
present time to do any Environmental Assessnent ~ork.
1.t ~as noted that the L'eg}',fl;L;ib1:l\r;~ had passed Bill 33 alterating the
appointment of Suburban Road C01llll\iSsioners, but nO change ~ou1d\ be necessary
until the present coronrl-sSioner~ termS ran out in June of 1982.
correspondence ~as read from the Ontario llYC;ro stating that
. f h h d-ro pole line on Road 22
about $10,000 could be saved by the county 1- t e Y
fr~ ~:.~ of Road 45 to Road 27 could be moved in 1981 in conjunctiOn ~ith ~orlc
planned by Ontario llydro. 'the Engineer reported that s~e widening had alreadY
h d ~he c~ittee instructed the Engineer to complete engineering
been purc ase.' ,,-
as Iloon as posllible, acquire any ~idening necessarY as soon as possible and
',bl thO 5 year in order to talce
ditch behind the present poles ~hereVer poSS1- e 1- '
advantage of the saving.
"'MOVED B'l:
SEC01:lDED BY: L. Jo S1:lAVI
'J:1;\p(t VIE 'FURCllASE A USED 1974 <;MC 'tRUCK 'FRm1 CJ>$R1.ER MAC\.<. L'tD. AT
$10,000 'FLUS 'FROV11'lc1.AL SALES Tp;!... SUBJEct 'to M1.1:l1. S'tRY Of
'tRANS'FOR'tA't1.01:l A}iD C~1. CA't1.01:lS p.J''FROV AI..
CARR1ED ."
L. A. LONGllURS't
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 13, 1980
PAGE 9.
1 'MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF WALMSLEY BROS. LTD. Kf. $15,776
FOR HOT MIX PAVING ON SOUTH DORCHESTER T()';ffiSH1l' ROADS.
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE T()';ffiSHIP OF sOUT1l DORCHESTER AND
T1lE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED."
be in the emulsion business next yea~ and becaUse of a lessening of
The Enginee~ stated that it appea~ed that Flintkote Co. might not
competition (not to mention ~ising asphalt prices) the cost of su~face
t~eatment would be conside~ab1Y inc~eased in 1981. A close look at the
moneys available would be taken and if possible s01lle of the mileage that
would not ordina~i1y be done until 1981 would be done this yea~.
of T~anspo~tation and communications subsidy in 1980 it appea~ed that the
allocation fo~ const~uction and maintenance would likely inc~ease app~oximatelY
Although it waS toO soon to know exactly the amount of Minist~y
7 to 8"/" with a conside~able (15% f'rom 1980 to 1981) increase in the County
equalized assessment, it appea~ed that the County Road Levy in 1981 could be in
the vicinity of $925,000 o~ about 12~k of the yea~S leVY of $781,000.
system fo~ counties in 1981 with neW machine~y and ove~head costs, etc.
It also appea~ed that the MoT.C, would implement the u~ban
being bo:pue by the counties with an allowance based on total expenditU~e
given fo~ ove~head and ~enta1 rates used fo~ equipment.
The county's total maintenance allocation would be inc~eased by
thei~ ave~age neW machine~y costs.
residential and farm p~ope~ty assessment at 85% of the commercial and indust~ial
It was noted that inte~gove~nroental affai~s was pegging the
p~operty fo~ taxation purposes.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 13, 1980
PAGE 10.
Committee postponed discussion of land purchase on Road 32 and
the distance to be constucted until the next meeting.
cost estimates for the Walkers Bridge. The Engineer was instructed to
It was reported that the consultant was proceeding with plans and
ascertain if the new Environmental Assessment Regulations would apply to the
Bridge.
multitude of vegetable stands, advertising sigl;l1<" junk and parking on the
The Engineer asked the guidance of the Committee with regard to the
various county roads. The matter was left in abeyance.
It was decided to make a road inspection after the next meeting.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE ADJOURN TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1980 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
,.?f{d X pfl-.
CHAIRMAN (j
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 26, 1980
PAGE 1
Building. All members ",ere present ezcept Reeves Wilson and Glover.
THE coUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at 9:30 a.m. at the Municipal
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT TIlE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JuNE 12. 1980 BE APPRoVED.
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
HOT MIX ASpHALT TENDERS ",ere opened and ",ere as attached.
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF WALl'lSLEY BROS.. LIMITED AT $ 70 · 623 .00
FOR HoT MIX ASpHALT PAVING CONTRACT "D" SUBJECT TO M.T.C. APPROVAL.
CARRIED"
Authority had given tentative approval to the preliminary plans for the
THE CHAIRMAN REPORTED that the LO",er Thames valley conservation
walker Bridge and that the consultant had been advised to proceed.
1. clean up ",ork ",as continuing on ROad 38 east of ward's Hill and that that
THE ENGINEER REPORTED THAT:-
portion of the road ",ould be ready for paving nezt ",eek.
2 . curb and gutter ",ork had been completed and side",alk ",ork ",as undep,lay.
3. The otter creek Culvert ",as completed other than backfilling ",hich ",ould
be done nezt ",eek. scraper ",ork ",as continuing.
4. The cemetery fence issue had been resolved.
5. The Belmont Se",er project ",as being cleaned up.
6. APplication of calcium chloride on some roads in East Elgin was necessary
due to recent heaVY rains and it ",as likely that the 2nd application ",ould
be required on all roads prior to AUgust 1st.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 26, 1980.
PAGE 2.
7. R. E. vanGassen had completed his paving contract for Dutton and for
8. Walmsley BrOs., had completed work except for streets in port stanley
county Roads in the area.
9. Shouldering after Hot Mix paving had been completed on Roads 22 and 20
and Lynhurst areas for southwold and yarmouth TownshiP'
near port stanley and Road 45. '!'he remaining roads had been made safe
"
10. surface treatJ1lent work would start on JulY 2nd and would likelY take
for the time being.
nearlY twO monthS with work for most county Municipalities, city of
st. Thomas, and the county of Middlesex, Rent, Lambton, westJ1linster
TownshiP' Ministry of Natural Resources and the village of Glencoe to
11. prime would be applied to Road 29 (portion not paid for by M.T.C.),
Road 28 on centennial from Elm street southerlY for 1/2 mile, Road 37
be done.
in Belmont, Fingal street for southwold TownshiP and for the village
of port stanley, yarmouth and Malahide TownshiP'
12. pavement marking work was continuing with Elgin completed and oxford
13. The tWO .neW Mac)<. trucks had been received and had been ta1<en to Frink
nearlY done.
14. Miscellaneous small drainage projects were underway.
canada.
15 . '!'he curve at J. smith' s on Road 32 had been rerun.
Reeve caverlY stated he 'lias satisfied withi:he alignment and a meeting
of the residentS would be held on saturday.
16. several signs on the road alloWance on Road 3 had been removed.
17. A fatal accident had occurred sunday night last on Road 3 at the south
Fleming creek Bridge. Investigation 9f the area showed nO road defects.
o.P.P. constables had tentativelY blamed drinking and excessive speed.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 26, 1980
PAGE 3
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST # 30 AMOUNTING TO $ 52,253.29.
PAYLIST # 31 AMOUNTING TO $389,979.85.
CARRIED"
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:-
1. Village of Dutton and Township of Southwo1d with Zoning Bylaw.
2. Town of Aylmer with amendment to the Official Plan.
3. Ontario Drainage Tribunal with their findings on Turvi11e Drain #2.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE JULY ACCOUNTS
PAYLIST.
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ADJOURN TO AUGUST 13TH AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED"
:J~XJi!-.
CHAIRMAN d
COUNTY OF ELGIN
HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING
CONTRACT 'n'
1. Walmsley Bros. Ltd.
R.R. #8
London, Ontario
N6A 4C3
2. Stebbins Paving & Construction Ltd.
R.R. #4,
Thames ford , Ontario
NOM 2MO
3" Ca~uga Materials and Construction
R.R. #4
Cayuga, Ontario
NOA lEO
4. Towland (London) 1970 Limited
P.O. Box 2815
London, Ontario N6A 4H4
5. TCG Materials Limited
P.O. Box 189
London, Ontario
N6A 4V7
~~ 70,623.00
~~ 81,305.20
$ 81,920.00
~) 91,339.00
~nOl, 552.00
S't. 'tWOtoiAS, 0~'tAR10
JUNE 12, 1980
l'AGE 1.
June 12 at 9:30 a.m.
clarke of the Ministry of 'transportation and co~nicatiOns waS also present.
'J1\$ coUN'tY OF ELG1N ROAD CQl:.Jlo11't'tEE ME't at the Municipal 'Building on
All members were present e1tcept Reeve Vlilson.
Mr. 'Fr ank
"MOVED BY:
SECONDED 'BY: L. A. LO~G\1lJRS't
'tWA't 'tWE M1WJ'tES OF 'tWE MEF:tlNG OF JUl'lE 2, 1980 'BE A1'1'ROVED.
cARRIBD_"
\-1. R. CAVERLY
1. Vlalmsley 'Bros. Ltd. had signed a contract and s~pplied their 'Bonds for
contract "N', and the work waS underWay. NO problems were anticiapted and
it appeared that becaUse of a saving on material SO far and the lower unit
price, it would alloW resurfacing on Road 45 to continue from the Vlest
River Road to the Road betWeen Range 2 and 3, west of the RiVer Road.
'the Villages of Rodney and VleSt tprne were going their separate ways but
_ ~ letter bad been
'tWE ENG1~E"ER R"E1'OR'tED as follo",,"S:
2.
DUtton willhed to be included in the CountY contra"\:'
received from R. E. Van GaSsen Ltd. stating he would accept the DUtton work
.' . . . b' unit bid nrice.
and the CountY patch1.ng l.n the V1.C1.n1.ty at l.S r
"MOVED 'BY: D. J. C~'BF:LL
S"ECONDED 'BY: L. A. WNGtUJRS't
't1:1.A't 'tW"E RESOLU'tl0N OF JUNE 2, J$GARD1~G 'tlffiAVlARD OF WO't M1J{ COl'l'tRAat "'B"
'to R. E. VpJ'l GASSEN L'tD. A't A 'tEND"ERED 1'R1CE OF $41,701.15 'BE R"ESC1NDED
pJ'lD 'tWA't 'tW"E1R 't'END"ER OF $21,724 FOR 1't~ #l O~LY OF coN'tRAct "'B" 'BE
ACCE1''t"ED, SUBJEct 'to M.'t. c · A1'1'RcN p;L.
CARRIBD ."
3. 'the Engineer t:eported that 'B1' canada would not guarantee the price differential
f . t ly d!lO ner tOn for asnhalt cement which made cayuga QUarries the
o approX1.ma e "'l r r
d f b R d 38 aspbalt contract. Ue
lOWccbidder over Vlalmsley 'Bros. Lt. or t e oa '
reported that the Minstry of 'transportatiOn and camrounicatiOns SUggellted that
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 12, 1980
PAGE 2.
Ehe County of Elgin recall the tender and supply the asphalt cement F.O.B.
the Contractors plant which would eliminate the low bidder question. The
Engineer also felt that the quantities could be increas~ed approximately 30%
and that the completion dates advanced if the tender was recalled.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, WITH REGARD TO THE AWARDING OF
CONTRACT "C" FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING TO CAYUGA QUARRIES LTD. BE RESCINDED
AND THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO RETENDER THE CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF
ELGIN SUPPLYING THE ASPHALT CEMENT F.O.B., THE TENDERERS PLANT, AND
INCREASING THE QUANTITIES INVOLVED IN THE TENDER APPROXIMATELY 30% ALL
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE M.T.C.
CARRIED."
4. The Engineer reported that Middlesex Council had approv1ed the continuance of
engineering for the Walkers Bridge to the point of a tender call. June 18
had been set for a meeting with the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority
Executive Cvuu.uittee to review their requirements for the crossing.
The Warden, Chairman and the Engineer reported on a meeting with representatives
of the Malahide Council and affected rate payers on County Road 32 at the Hare-Smith
Abel Curve. It was agreed that the curve would be rerun to move the alignment
slightly away from Jack Smiths garage and improve the west curve to four (4) degrees
from five (5) degrees. When the curve was rerun another meeting would be called to
view the curveso
The Warden, Chairman and the Engineer reported on a meeting with Reeve Green and
Chairman of the Straffordville Cemetery Board, Max Mitchell,. It was agreed that
Cemetery restoration was quite acceptable. The County offered to install a new
chain link fence if the Board agreed to pay for the gates. The Engineer reported
ST. T1:10MAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 12, 1980
'PAGE 3.
that Mr. Mitchell had met "nth the Board and the Board "nshed 9 gauge
galvanized chain link fence and that the Board would pay for the main gates if
the County would install the other 2 entrance gates. The cmmnittee agreed to
the proposal with the tWO (2) other entrance gates to be a maximum width of
12 feet.
1. That rains of the weekend of June 7 - 8 were extremely heavy (from 1 3/4
THE ENGINEER REPORTED on the work to Date Stating:
inches at most places to 3 inches in partS of Malahide, Bayharo and Yarmouth),
and that washouts, and blocked culvertS were numerous.
(a) Twenty (20) plus loads of pit run gravel had been required on Road 43
(b) The culvert at Road 45 and 36 had over flowed and the outlet ditch
from Richmond to calton.
2. Work waS continuing on Road 38 "nth the culvert at the Little Otter Creek
would have to be cleaned.
backfilled to the point concrete ears could be poured. Steel piling cut-
off walls and concrete end slopes would be started shortlY, Grading work
waS continuing on Wards Rill with a second scraper having been obtained
from Brent Strickland. Granular base and shoulder work waS continuing east
of Wards Rill and some lawnS had been trimmed and seeded. curb and gutter
in straffordville would be completed in about a week "nth trimming and
sidewalk work to follOW. B:raun"s Sandpit had been depleted andsftl1ld waS
being hauled from Wayne Taylors.
3. small drainage :lobs were continuing with work on Road 30 and 52 near
4. Pavement Marking for Oxford waS underway.
5. sweeper waS continuing with spring work having been completed.. SweESpi,ng for
surface treatment would begin June 23.
St. ThomaSa
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
.JUNE 12, 1980
JPAGE 4.
6. Surface treatment work would begin July 2 and it was difficult as yet to say
how much work there was.
7. Grass cutting would start next week.
8. OVer half the calcium chloride budget had been spent.
9. Fred McQuiggin had decided not to enter County Employment but Clare Dean
had been hired. Norman Brade had given his two (2) weeks notice.
"MOVED BY: W. R . CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST #28 AMOUNTING TO $ 50,124.27
PAYLIST #29 AMOUNTING TO $145,342.13
CARRIED.ft
~ORRESPONnENCKWas Read From:
1. Siskind Cromarty and Associates with suit on behalf of Hazel Engert for
wrongful dismissal. It was noted that the Personnel Cormnittee were dealing
with the matter.
2. O.M.B. with notices of appeal s against the County Land Division Cvul1uittee
decisions.
3. From the City of St. Thomas with information regarding the proposed
extension of Wellington Street. The plan was noted.
4. Town of Aylmer with CVUl1uittee of Adjustment notice.
5. Township of Southwold with Zoning By-Laws regarding propE~rty on George Street
extension near Port Stanley.
6. Township of Norfolk with a draft copy of official plan.
7. Catfish Creek Authority with copy of flood warning plan..
8. Township of Yarmouth regarding flooding at the intersection of Coulter
Avenue and Elm Street requesting ditching etc. The Eng:tneer was instructed
to take the necessary steps to solve the problem.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
.JUNE 12, 1980
PAGE 5.
9. Township of Bayham advising that a By-Law would be passed to close certain
Roads for a Sports Car Rally on January 24, 1981.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STATING THAT THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE CLOSING OF THE FOLLOWING ROADS
BETWEEN 3 P.M. AND 7 P.M. E.S.T. JANUARY 24, 1981.
(A) THE TRAVELLED ROAD THROUGH LOTS 21, 22 AND 23, CONCESSION X.
(B) THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION X AND Xl OPPOSITE LOT 21 IN SAID
CONCESSIONS.
(C) THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 20 AND 21 CONCESSION Xl SOOTH OF THE
SOUTH LIMIT OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY 3.
(D) THE TRAVELLED ROADS THROUGH LOTS 21 AND 22 IN THE GORE CONCESSION NORTH
OF CONCESSION VII.
(E) THE TRAVELLED ROAD THROUGH LOTS 130, 131, 132, AND 133 IN THE CONCESSION
NORTH OF TALBOT ROAD.
(F) THE ROAD ALLOWANCE SOUTH OF LITTLE OTTER CREEK BETWEEN LOTS 25 AND 26
EXTENDING NORTH FROM THE INTERSECTION WITH THE TRAVELLED ROAD IN (E).
(G) THE TRAVELLED ROAD THROUGH LOT 26 OF CONCESSION VllI.
(H) ALL TRAVELLED ROADS THROUGH AND ROAD ALLOWANCES BOUNDING LOTS 27 AND 28
OF CONCESSIONS Vlll AND IX, EXCLUDING THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN
CONCESSION VIll, AND THE CONCESSION NORTH OF TALBOT ROAD.
(1) THE TRAVELLED ROAD THROUGH LOT 124 IN THE CONCESSION NORTH OF TALBOT
ROAD.
(J) THE ROAD ALLOWNNCE BETWEEN AND THE TRAVELLED ROAD THROUGH LOTS 113 AND
114 IN THE CONCESSION SOOTH OF TALBOT ROAD FROM THE SOUTH LIMIT OF
TALBOT ROAD TO THE NORTH LIMIT OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION V
AND THE CONCESSION SOUTH OF TALBOT ROAD.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 12, 1980
PAGE 6.
Truck Tenders were noted as per attached sheet.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF CARRIER MACK TRUCK CENTRE LTD., FOR TWO (2)
MODEL DM 685S TRUCKS AS PER THEIR TENDER AND COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AT
THEIR TENDERED PRICE OF $99,349.50 (136" C.T.), SUBJECT TO M.T.C.
APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
Quotation for dump box and snow plow equipment from Frink Canada was
considered.
"MOVED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF FRINK CANADA LTD. AT $15,606 PLUS PROVINCIAL
SALES TAX FOR A 10B2 MODEL DUMP BOX AND SNOW PLOW EQUIl?MENT INCLUDING WING
TOWER, WING ONE-WAY HOOKER, SNOW PLOW, ETC. ALL MOUNTED. SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL OF THE M.T.C.
CARRIED.'t
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY.: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF FRINK CANADA LTD. AT $25,888 PLUS SALES TAX
FOR A 10B2 MODEL DUMP BOX AND TR,ANSFER OF THE COUNTY'S SNOW PLOW EQUIPMENT
FROM TRUCK #70 TO A MACK MODEL DM 685S TRUCK. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
M.T.C. ADD TOR-LOK DRIVE AT $550.
CARRIED."
Grader blade quotations were noted as attached.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 12, 1980
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF VALLEY BLADES LTD. FOR 300 ONLY
5/8" X 6" X 6' GRADER BLADES AT THEIR QUOTED l?RICE OF $16.21 FEDERAL
SALES TAX INCLUDED, F.O.B. COUNTY OF ELGIN GARAGE WHITE STATION,
ST. THOMAS, SUBJECT TO M. T . C . APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
The Engineer reported that quotations for stone for surface treatment from
N.J. Spivak Ltd. and TCS Ltd. were in obeyence until the need for stone in
certain areas was ascertained. However, K. R. Axford had sufficient stone for
work in Central Elgin.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF KEN AXFORD LTD. FOR PEA. STONE FOR
SURFACE TREATMENT AT $5.50 PER CUBIC YARD LOADED AT HIS ST. THOMAS
PIT.
CARRIED ."
Reeve Caw}'bell reported that he waS of the opinion that Don Skipper's request
for assistance for a tile drainage outlet from his fields should be rejected
and that Mr. Skipper should apply for a Municipal Drain.
Cvwrnittee felt that they did not wish to take any action with regard to the
appointment of an Assistant Engineer at this time.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO JUNE 26, AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
~,' -ll:X~
1I..:e..I, CHAIRMANQ'
t
t
J"
co\ffi'f" O)} ~wt~, RQ~D p\\>? t$;~~~
'tmlDJ!,R 110R 'thJ:\Dm\'tl\UOl<,S (2)
~
n" ." is' 2' Uni. t,?, "nth ?J:ovipcial saleS 'tax
~ '
126" oJ: Bette!' ~
1.
caJ:J:ieJ: ~ack 'tt'uck centJ:e
90 f,nterpJ:i5e Drive
'London, ontat.'io .
~6 '\:\ 1.1\B
~ack ~odel Dl'\ 685S
~fj.<;,k ml\1!67 5 \'.U\1>ine ' 0 .
'tta-Ll 0"''' " sp e e d <):J: an Sl\\1- 5 $ 'I. on
44, 000 lb. Reat' A1' 1 e .. .., 2\ " Sp t' e ad
Cp... - 126"
20 000 lb. f1:0nt I\.l<le
(~p ~)t 14' .. 4\1). d\'O te)
" ','0. ....t, ' '0" ,e, d" ~8 56 . 00 (No,"" ",,'I.
t)tt t' a to · a'l..' '" ·
(a) Oat't'iet' ~ac,," <):J:uc,," centJ:e
90 11;Il,\;eJ:pt'i5e Drive
LQnQ.on, ()nta:rio
l-tack ~odel Dl'\ 685S
WlCk mj\1!675v,n\1>ine 0
'tta-Ll07 ... 6 speed; 'tJ:auSl\\'l.s5ion d
44, 000 lb. Ri'.at' Mle .. 12". $pt'lla
CA ... 136" -
(WU\P 'lIo x 15' .. ()I \ )
?ainted Red.
1.\e "V1 l)Il, t)' f1: a,me S)\ 31. 2
2.
\1.ighbuJ:)' 1io"d $ale5 \.td.
1365 l)Il,uda$ stJ:eet J!,ast
"\..tondon, ontat.'io
8~"'l N ~tt'oit Engine
VUlleJ: R~O 9513 .. 13 speed 'tJ:a'P~iIl5ion
38,000 lb. ReaJ: A1'le
CA ... 144"
1.8,000 lb. f1:0pt ,II.1'le
3.
DOUglaS 'tJ:uck centJ:e
423 l)Il,n1.op StJ: eet IJe 5t
$a:rorie, Ontat.'io
Fat.' d l.:t S q 000
CUt1Jlt\inS ~C 290 Engine
VUHet'R't 1.2515 <):J: anSl\\i 5 s ion
40,000 lb. Reat' Mle
CA ... 1 26"
4.
t -c',o"",d, .C1a,le 5 and SeJ:'I1iCe co.
1tastga,e 1:'" "
350?aJ:kdale ~"enue NOJ:th
1.\amiltOn, ontaJ:io
'Fot.'d L't$ 9000.
8~7l~ DetJ:oit \'.U\1>ine 0 ·
VUneJ: R'tO 9}.5 'f"(ansm'l.55'l.On
') Q 000 lb. Reat.' l\:l<1 e
96,333.00
~
99,189,,!QO
99,349.SO
10.0,3,83.12.
10.5, 930~OO
105 ,9'30. .0.0.
r.
TENDER FOR TANDEM TRUCKS (2)
5. London White Truck Ltd.
2074 Dundas Street East
London, Ontario
Western Star Model 4864 WD
Cummins NTC 290 Engine
Spicer Model 1007 - 2A Transmission
44,000 lb.. Rear Axle
CA - As wished, to be cut to length.
COUNTY OF< EtGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT.
TENDER FOR TANDEM TRUCKS (2):
. JUNE. 1980
Those Tenders Not Considere~
1. Carrter Mack Tr4ck Centre
9Q Epterprise Drive
Londo~, Ontario
Mack RD 685S
CA - 119"
(Dump Box 13 t .. 8")
2. Forest City International Trucks Ltd.
1712 Dund.;1s Street East
London, OntarJo
N5W 309
Rear Axle 52" Spread
GA .. 120"
(Dump Box 13' .. 9" :t)
NO TENDERS RECEIVED
1. Sherway Ford Truck Sales
1575 The qUeensway
Tpronto, Ontario
M8Z lT9
2. GMC Truck Centre
1650 The Qu.eensway
Tot"Qnto, Ontario
MHZ lXl
Pa,ge 2.
1 08 , 9 26 . 00
93,520.14
98,169.33
coW!};'! Of ELG1.N
~--",,-,,~
CAA1)'l!.R J',l.J>PE ,UQ1A't101:lS
300 G'J:;lder J',lades 5/8" Z 6" Z 6'
1}
1. valley J',ladeS Limited
il-3~ t>hi,1l it> street
V It O. 'Box. 126
Watert90t ~ta~iq
t'\ 2J '3 ~9 . ~
F
z. t. S. \l.u.bbe~l "nd so~s Vt\\ited
. ? o. '$0 x. 11 B
~hamegVille, OntariO
NOP 2\<.0
3. {.e.tCO Lim1.,ted
, P.o. ~o){ 295
c~bridge (1'), Ontario
~1l\ 2V,Q
4. crotM1Z S L1.,,,,,ited
. 1 Cl!ot.he1: s uri va
~o~O?to, ont~rio
N41\ 1 A1.
5. ~acLand Equipment 1'artll
~/o pan MacFhetSon
i,. R. #1
$t. 'tpQ\l\as, 'ti'ntari(J
~5~ ~T2
\;
June, 1980
$16.7.\
$1 q .4;
$16.16
$11.96
$21. ~OQ
~F E1J'~R(~_~M}1~
flRST RE?O~
--
JUNE SESS10N
1980
'to 'J1\E VlARDEN AND t!11!l1BERS OF COUNT! COUNC1L
'{OUR ROAD CQM}U.'t'tEE REPOR't S AS J!OLL()ldS:
d 38" " t of
constructiOn continUes at a faV"Ourable rate on Roa ]..n 5P].. e
1.
recent heaV"1 rains (approximatelY 3 inches) on the .,eekened of
Ju.ne 7 and 8.
and is nearly backfilled. Placement of concrete end slopes is no~
underway. Granular base from the East Side of Vlards 1:\ill to
StraffordV"ille is practiCallY cOlll"Pleted as is pli'Cement of curb and
'the culvert at the Little otter creek haS been ass~bled
gutter in StraffordV"ille.
of the road haS been reV"ised and recalled to close June 26, and ~ll
include base and tOp coat of asphalt from the East Side of Vlards 1:\il1
easterlY (including the curb and gutter section in Straffordville) and
base course through the Vlard' Il 1:\ill Area.
Vle are informed that the CountY of t!1iddlesex haS approV"ed the
continuance of engineering ~ork on the Vlalkers Bridge to a tender call
'the contract for hot mix asphalt for paV"ing
2.
3.
'the County of Rent na~ aw~--
for hot mi" asphalt paving on CountY Road I \~~;:.~.._Ell!,in 'townline Road,
bet~een Both~ell Bridge and Clachan). 'the CountY of Elgin' s share 1.5
estimated at $75,000.
A contract haS been a~arded to Vlalmsley BroS. Ltd. of London for hot
mi" asphalt resurfacing paving as follo~s:
_ Road 22 from Road 27 southerlY for 1 mile (yairV"ie~ E"tension).
. Road 20 from Vlarren Street Bridge north for appro"imatelY 0.4 mileS.
. Road 20, Fingal south for approximatelY 1.2 mileS (Ilingle lift).
. Road 45 . 1:\igh~aY 4 to east side of Rettle creek 1:\ill and from the
EaSt RiV"er Road to VleSt River Road, south~old.
. Vlork for the Village of port Stanley and the 'townshiP of south~old.
. f ~164 397 50 (plUS asphalt cement) being the lo~est of
at a pr]..ce 0 ~ ' ·
three (3) tenders received.
4.
p ag e 2.
COUNT'l OF m,G1.N ROAD coMM1-TTEE · F1RST REPORT
5. A contract haS been awarded to R. E. Van Gassen Ltd. of Chatham for
hot mixresurfaci~ patching on countY Roads 2, 8 and 13 and in the
Village of DUtton at $17,250 pluS asphalt cement being the lowest of
four (4) tenders received.
6. The tender of Carrier Mack Truck center lnC. at $99,349.50 haS been
accepted for tWO (2) Mack ~ 685S tandem dieSel trucks. The bid waS
the lowest of five (5) tenders received. The trucks are similar to
County Truck flS4 purchased in the Fall of 1978. Both trucks will be
used for snoW plowing; one being fitted with a plow presentlY owned
by the County while the other will be fitted with neW equipment
(including one.way plow and wing). ThiS will alloW one of the
County' s present graderS to be used as a spare unit. The truck
previouslY fitted with the snowplow will be used as a sander truck
and an old sander truck sold. DUmp boXeS and the snow plow
equipment, etc. and the transfer work will be supplied by Frink
canada at $44,719.68 including provincial sales tax.
7. The TownshiP of il.ldborOUgh will cut graSS on County of Elgin roadsides
in the TownshiP thiS year at a rate of $16 per hour.
The work is well underwaY and savings in the unit price over original
estimates and savings in material used will permit the continuation of
work on Road 45 from the West River Road to the Road between Ranges 2
and 3 west of River Road, southwold.
vrE RECOMMEND:
1. That a 1\y.Law be paslled stating that the County of Elgin haS no
objections to the TownshiP of 1\ayham closing a portion of Talbot Road
opposite LotS 112 and 113.
2. That a 1\y.LaW be passed authorizing the Warden and Clerk to sign an
agreement allowing Allview cable serviceS (Cable casting Ltd.) the
right to place television and electronic cable, etc. on County Roads
for a period of 20 years and all legal fees be paid by cable casting
Ltd.
Page 3.
cOUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD CQMMI.'ITEE · FIRST REPORT
-- - =----
3. That a by.1aw be pa$$ed stating that the County of Elgin has nO
objections to the closing of the following Roads between 3 p.m. and
7 p.ro- B.S.T., JanuaTY 24, 1981.
(a) The tTavelled Toad thTough LotS 21, 22 and 23, concesSion X.
(b) The Toad allowance between concession X and Xl opposite Lot 21 in
(c) The Toad allowance between LotS 20 and 21 in concession Xl south of the
said concessions.
(d) The tTave11ed Toads thTOUgh LotS 21 and 22 in the GoTe concession
south limit of Provincial Highway 3.
(e) The tTave11ed road thTough Lots 130, 131, 132, and 133 in the
north of concession VII.
(f) The road allowance south of Little OtteT CTeek betWeen LotS 25 and
concession nOTth of Talbot Road.
26 extending nOTth from the inteTsection with the tTave11ed Toad
(g) The tTave11ed Toad thTough Lot 26 of concession VIII.
in (e).
(h) The tTavel1ed Toads thTough and Toaa allowances bounding Lots 27
and 28 of concessions VIII and IX, excluding the Toad allowance
betWeen concession VIII, and the concession nOTth of Talbot Road.
(i) The travelled Toad thToUgh Lot 124 in the concession north of
(j) The Toad allowance be.tween and the tTavelled Toad thTough LotS 113
Talbot Road.
and 114 in the concession South of Talbot Road fTom the south limit
of Talbot Road to the nOTth limit of the Toad allowance between
concesSion V and the concession south of Talbot Road.
The pUTPOse of this closing is to allow fOT a SpOTtS Car RallY, oveT
the Roads.
ALL OF mIlCH IS RESPEC'IF\JLLY SUJ!MI'I'IED
-----
---
\
cHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1980
PAGE 1.
June 2, 1980 at 9:30 a.m. All members were present e~cept Reeve Wilson.
Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and communicatiOns waS also
TUE COUNTY OF ELG1N ROAD COMM1TTEE'MET at the Municipal Building on
present.
, 'MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY:
TB.AT T11.E M1NIJTES OF T11.E MEET1NG OF MAY 14, 1980 BE APPROVED.
S. J. GLOVER
cARRIED ."
1. The county of Middlese~ Road C01l1lllittee were rec01l1lllending to the Middlesex
T11.E E'NG1NEER REPORTED on work to Date as folloWS:
Council that Engineering work towards a tender call continue on the
2. Lorne carroll, being on the executive of the Lower Thames Valley conservation
Walkers Bridge.
Authority had been contacted and requested to set a meeting with the
executive of the AUthority and county Representatives and the consultant
to review proposals for the Bridge.
satisfied with the county's proposed treatment of the front of the cemetery
with regard to conlltruction of Road 38. AlthoUgh both Reeve Green and the
Engineer had thought all waS well after a meeting on Friday Mr. Clarke and
the Warden had both received calls on the matter. lt waS decided that the
Warden, and Chairman should meet with Reeve Green and the Chairman of the
cemetery Board at the site.
work had been completed as well as granular base, nO sidewalk work had been
3. That some of the trustees of the Straffordville cemetery were not
4. Triuuning work waS underway on Road 38 east of Highway 19. curb and gutter
5. Drainage work and curb and gutter work <.<rail underway on Road 38 west of
done as yet.
Highway 19.
ST. TRow..S, oNT ARlO
.JUNE 2, 1980
PAGE 2.
Grading and granular base had been completed east of '\Iayne TaylorS and ",as
unciet"iTay bet",een spring creek and 'Hayne Taylorll.
culvert and drainage ",ork ",as also under",ay on the ",hole road.
_.~lvert had been erected and backfilling ",as undet"iTaY'
It
6.
ne~t 'Week.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
14.
E~tra casual help had been engaged.
Trucks #55, #;3, and #;4 had been repaired along ",ith Grader #18.
Drainage repairs had been made on Road 46 at corinth, at Roads 2 and 3 in
Rodney. Road 2 in '\lest Lorne.
Roads 2 and 15 near DUtton, and on Roads 52
12.
13.
15.
19.
and 30 north of St. Thomas,
Vandalism on signs continued at a high rate.
l'avement marking for the countY had been completed and ",ork for St. rhomas
",auld be done thiS week and ",ark for o~ford ",ould start ne~t ",eek.
The ~eeds Study update fi~ed costS had been comPleted and fot"iTarded to the
l:\.inistry of Transportation and communicatiOns.
A meeting to dillCUSS urban machine rateS and overhead costS had been set up
for June 24 ",ith ~. J. l:\.offat of the l:\..T.C.
. S .' bil it" 1'01 ic" had been rene",ed and the To"'"
The countY' s l:\.OSqU1.tO praY ...1.a J J
of Aylmer bi1.1ed for the premium costs.
20.
16.
17.
18.
"MOVED BY ~
D. J. cAMPBELL
SECO~DED B'l: L. J. SuA'\I
rRAT rRE fOLt,O'\Il~G l'A'lL1STS BE pJ'l'ROVED fOR l'A'{M.E1'lT'
l'A'lL1ST #23 Al:I.OUNT1~G TO $48,1.14.20
l' A'lL1ST #25 Al:I.OUNT1~G TO $ 15. 00
l' A'lL1ST #26 Al:I.Q\lJ'lTl~G TO $47,81.1.86
l'A'lL1ST #27 Al:I.OUNT1~G TO $ 1,239.18
CARR1ED ."
s't 0 'tROMAS, ON'J:J\Rl0
JmTE 2, 1980
? AGE 3.
1.
COBJU1.Sl'O~DE~CE waS noted as follows:
Sis\dnd, Cl:omal:ty solicitOl:S l:epl:esenting Razel Engel:t, who thl:eatened to
sue fol: ",,:ongful dismissal _ nO notice of suit had yet been l:eceivedo
Chesapeake and Ohio RailwaY Co. stating they wel:e going to l:epail: theil:
Cl:ollsing on Road 45 at ~iddlemal:ch thiS su~l:'
'the committee l:equested
3.
that the Road 16 Cl:OSsing at ~iddlotllal:Ch be l:epail:ed as well.
O.~.Bo with notices of appeals against decision of the CountY Land
Division committee. ~o appeals involved County Roads.
2.
4. village of 1'0l:t StanleY '{lith zoning By_"La"'s.
5.
(a) Steve JameS, ~ain Stl:eet.
(b) lce cream saleS on llilliam Street.
'townshiP of 'lal:lllouth By-LaW, l:esidential infilling on Road 26, St. (jeOl:ge
Stl:eet. ~o pl:oblemll ",el:e fOl:eseen.
Mr. Ro R. ~c~eil l:egal:ding cOl\lPlaint on Road 42 of Mr. l'etel: Ungal:.
. t t d he ~~ould look at the pl:oblotll when time was avail able 0
Eng1.nee't s a e \IV
'the Ontal:iO 'task FOl:ce on l'l:Ovincial Rail 1'01icy, 'the 'f,ngineel: l:epOl:ted
that he had not been advised of the fol:lllation of the 'task Fol:ce until
1 ~~o coromittee
'the
6.
7.
felt that they wished some of theil: views known to the 'task FOl:ce and
l:equested that the 'f,ngineel: obtain fUl:thel: information.
. h h C u ty of Elgin should
8. 'the ~inilltl:Y of ~atul:al ResOUl:ces stat~ng t at t eon
have had a pel:lllit to divel:t the creek fol: constl:Uction of the Little
ottel: Cl:eek culvel:t on Road 38.
late last ",eek and that theil: deadline fol: bl:iefs ",as June LO
9.
U d 11 D1.'ck and Eitel with'thil:d DiviSion coUl:t claim l:egal:ding
Gunn, ps e ,
R' d 22 ~l:om'l 000 00 fol: alleged damage to an apple
~ol:leY Bl:own on oa ' L ~, ·
. ~ 11 'th Engineer stated that
tl:ee dUl:ing tl:ee cutting opel:at~ons last La' e
the mattel: had been pl:eviouslY investigated by Frank Cowan Co. and the
claim had been l:efel:l:ed to them.
ST. TRoMAS, oNTARtO
JUNE 2, 1980
'PAGE 4.
10.
Prope~tY c~ittee of county council authO~izing the placing of g~avel in
the Jail Ya~d. The Enginee~ found it ~as posllible (ba~elY) to get a
t~UC~ intO the Jail Ya~d and the cost ~ould be conside~ablY unde~ the $800
0~iginal1Y estimated.
To"nlshiP of Bayhalrt with notice that they intended to paSs a By_La~
closing up a po~tion of Talbot Road.
11.
(,t'M,OVED BY:
SEC01iDED B'f: VI. R. CAV'ERLY
T1:1.AT VIE RECQMM.E1iD TO c()UN'I'l COtlNCtL T1:J.AT A By_LAVI BE PASSED STAT1NG T1:J.AT
TRY. CO~ OF ELGt1i 1:1.AS 1iO OBJY.crt01iS TO TRE T()VINSRtP OF BA'l1:J.A1'1 cLOSt1iG
A PORTt01i OF TALBOT ROAD OppoStTE LOTS 112 AflD 113.
CARR1ED."
L. A. LONGRURST
12.
Lette~ ~aS noted f~om John Fe~gUSon, countY Enginee~ Rent stating that the
J.(ent county Road CotI11ltittee had accepted tende~s fo~ hot mi>< paving on
. C Ltd and f~om Johnston B~os. (Both~e11)
Road 7 f~OIl\ Ru~on const~uctl.on o. ·
Ltd. fo~ g~avel shoulde~ing and stating that the estimated cost of ~o~~
~as $75,000. Re alsO stated that the county p~oposed to ~epai~ and ~ate~.
f E1. fo-r
p~oof the Both~ell B~idge oec~ and ~equest the concu~~ence 0 gl.n
both p-ro)ects.
"M.OVED BY:
SEC01iDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
T1:1.AT VIE C01iClJR VltTR TRY. RESURFAct1iG PAV1-1iG OF c()UN'I'l ROAD 7 BE1NG TRY. RENT
ELGt1i T()VINLt1iE BY TRE CO~ OF l<J?,NT AT AfI ESTil'IATY.D COST OF $75,000 AflD
C01iClJR VltTR TE1iDERS AVlARDY.D BY TRE COUNTY OF RENT FOR RoT l<l!-)( ASPRALT
PAvt1iG TO 1UJR01i C01iSTRUcrt01i CO. LTD. Al'ID GRAV'EL SROULDY.Rt1iG TO Jo1\'l1ST01i
BROS. (BQTRWELL) LTD., ALL SUBJEct TO 1-1..T. C. Al'PRcN AL, AflD AGREE TO
131.l1lGJ;:t FOR TRtS !\MOuNT t1i 1980.
L. A. LONG1:lURST
cARR1ED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1980
PAGE 5.
ftMOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE CONCUR WITH THE REPAIR AND WATERPROOFING OF THE DECK OF THE
BOTHWELL BRIDGE BY THE COUNTY OF KENT IN 1980 AND AGREE TO PAY OUR
SHARE (27~%) TO THE PROJECT. THE COST TO BE CHARGED TO COUNTY BRIDGE
MAINTENANCE.
CARRIED."
13. Another letter was noted from John Ferguson with a request from the
County of Kent that the County of Elgin surface treat the Road
between Highgate andMuirkirk in as much as County of Elgin equipment
would be in the area anyhow. The CULLl.luittee agreed to do the work.
14. The Engineer stated that he had received a request froTI~ the County of
Middlesex to surface treat the County Road between Melborne and
Middlemiss Bridge and the Road between Avon and Highway 401. No
decision had yet been made with regard to the County of Lambton's
request for surface treatment.
The Engineer reported that he had discussed parking on Wellington Road
with the Ontario Provincial Police and they felt that they could not lay
charges under Section 116 of the Highway Traffic Act as it was a section
prohibiting parking on the asphalt or travelled portion of the Road. They
felt that the only way was to pass a By-Law and have it enforced by a
Municipal By-Law Enforcement Officer. The Engineer reporte~d he had met with
Mr. John Aarts and with Lynhurst Variety and requested them to assist in
not having their customers park on the Road. Warden Longhurst stated that
his Council was meeting with Shores and would request them to add to their
parking area. Mr. Frank Clarke reported that the Croatian Church would
co-operate and expected to move to their new church by October.
The Committee left the matter in abeyance for the time being.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1980
PAGE 6.
The Engineer reported that at long last Allview Cable Ltd. had
drafted a By_LaW for the placement of their equipment on County Roads
allowances that met the approval of the county Solicitor, the Clerk and
himself.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
T1:1.AT WE REcOMMEND TO coUNTY COUNCIL T1:1.AT A BY-LAW BE PASSED NlTHORIZING
THE wARDEN AND CLERK TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT ALLOWlNG ALLVIEW CABLE SERVICES
LTD. THE RIGltt TO LAY TELEVISION AND ELEctRONIC CABLES ON COUNTY ROADS
FOR A PERIOD OF 20 yEARS, AND T1:1.AT ALL LEGAL FEES BE pAlD BY CABLE CASTING
LTD.
CARRIED ."
graSS on County Roads in the Township for $16 per hour including man, fringe
Reeve Kelley reported that the Township of Aldborough waS will ing to cut
benefitS and mower and felt that the County Roads could be cut in approximatelY
110 hours.
ttMOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
T1:1.AT WE REQUEST ALDBOROUGN TOWNSHIP TO CUT GRASS ON THE COUNTY ROADS IN
ALDBOROUGH AT A RATE OF $16 pER HOUR.
CARRIED."
an outlet tile from his property into the Ecker Drain. Reeve KellY and
A request from Don Skipper on Road 2 waS noted for assistance in placing
Reeve Campbell agreed to vieW the request and report back.
Reeve caverly requested that the Warden and the Chairman vieW the
proposed alignment of Road 32 at Jack Smiths and AbelS.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1980
PAGE 7.
The attached proposed Truck Rates for 1980 were discussed.
"MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT TRUCK RATES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ENGINEER FOR 1980 BE ACCEPTED
(EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1980).
CARRIED."
Quotations for Cationic Emulsion (RS1K) were presented. as attached.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF FLINTKOTE CO. OF CANADA FOR SUPPLY OF
RS1K ASPHALT EMULSION F.O.B. THEIR PLANT AT ETOBICOKE AT 57.0 CENTS
PER GALLON. SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND SUPPLY AND THE
APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED."
Hot mix asphalt tenders were opened and are summarized as attached.
~
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF WALMSLEY BROS. LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$164,397.50 FOR CONTRACT 'A' FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL OF TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD, THE VILLAGE OF PORT STANLEY AND
THE M.T.C.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF R. VAN GASSEN LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,107
FOR CONTRACT 'B' FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
VILLAGE OF DUTTON, VILLAGE OF WEST LORNE, .AND THE VILI,AGE OF RODNEY,
AND THE M.T.C.
CARRIED."
ST. TtJ.OW-S, ONTAR10
JUNB 2, 1980
'PAGE 8.
,rM.OVBD BY:
SECONDED B'l: VI. R. CAVER'L'l
T\lAT VIE ACCE?T T1:1.'E T'E'NDER O'F CA'i\lGA QlJA13R1ES 'LTD. IN TtJ.'E A}1.0UNT O'F
$59 ,559 .75 'FOR coNTRAct t C I 'FOR 1:1.at \111{ lIS1?1:1.A'LT 1? A V1.NG SUJlJ'Eat TO
A1?1?RO'l AL Of TtJ.'E TOVlNS1:1.11? O'F BA'f.l1.Al'1 AND TtJ.'E V1.L'LAG'E O'F vt'ENNA AND
L. A. LONGllURS'I
CARR1BD ."
'IllE M..'I.C.
"M.OVED BY:
V1. R. CAVERLY
S'ECOND'ED B'l: S. J. G'LO'l'ER
T1:1.~ VIE ADJoURN TO 9 :30 A.\1., JUNE 12, 1980.
cA.RR1BD."
Single ~le
Tan<1em
.A"
Un~et' 1 ro.ile,
Top $01l., etc.
1 ... 3 miles
4 mile average
5 mile average
6 mile av~rage
7 mile average
a 1Jl,iJ,e average
9 mile average
10 mile ayelZCLge
10 ... 20 miles
over 20 mile s
COUNTY OF ELG1N
.. ~--- .-..;-~
... ,.~ ~
TRUCK AATE ER()'POSALS FOR 1980
",' .. ..........
1978
-
$ 13.25
$ 19. 25
HOURLY RATE
_' J J
1979
.............-
$ 15.00
$ 21.5,0
.
TON MILE RATES
. ,', ,.~ ", "~
1.978
~,
).~eo~
$ 1.9 ';,:00
$ 2p i,~Qr
1979,
Use hourly rate
.60
.75
.88
1.0Q
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1..40 + 9<t
ton: 1Jl,ile
2.30 + 7~<t
ton mile
:'
'lAlUlAOE AATE 1 1/2 times tonnage rate.
.68
.84
.98
1..11
1.23
1.34
1.45
1.55
1.55 + 10<t
ton mit~
2.55 + 8<t
ton mile
'1.98<>,.
.76
.95
1.1.1
1.26
1.40
1..53
1.()5
1..75
1.75 + ll<t
t01) 1Jl,ite
2.8~ + 8<t
ton mile
t...\"
'Ii
II'
c~ Qli$LGt~RQt,?,?$?~~
RSl1'. E\!\ll4S10ll oUO'Ct,'):to1'lS '\. ~
1.
F1intkote Co. o~ Canada ~td.
? '0. ~o)t 1.60
st.atiOl1. n"N"
'tQ'r01\tO, onta-rio
Mev 3't4
57.0 centS fet Qal10n
11 .0."6- '?1..a.n.t
\4.ini1llU'" t,S1'ha'\.l:. contenl:. 65'k
.
lfteight 'Ita ThOlllVson '!!tanspotl:. ~
to st l' 'thQUl-a $
to lona.
to Rod.ne:Y.
6.'\. centS ?et Gal'\.on
8.1 C/mtS ?et GaHon
9.3 cenU ?Ilt Gallofl
65.1 centll ?et Qallon
65.'\. centS ?et Gallon
66.3 centS ?et Gallon
'totai oost to St. '!!hq!l\<l.s
to lona
to Rodl\eY
-2.
~otiohn conttacting Ll:.d.
1? O~ Bo){ ~Oo
'tho'ro1d, on~a'rio
~Zv 3'l8 '
V.O.>>. ?lant - 352 ~een Sl:.teet
cha.thaltl' on:ta-rio
t,sphalt oont~nt 1'lot stated
lfteighl:. vi,a 'thOlllVSon 'ttanspott ~
to st~ q;ho~a.$
to 10na
to Rodney
66.9 centS ?et gallon
66.6 cenl:.S ?et Gatton
66.3 centS ?et Ga'\.'\.OU
59.6 cenl:.S ?et Qa'\.'\.on
1 1 cenl:.Il,?et Qa'\.lon
.' " "
6.6 cenl:.$ ?et cat'\.on
6 .5 oent $ l'e"t Ga'\. 'I. on
'tota'\. C9st to st. 'tM\IWs
to lona.
to RodneY
3.
't. J. l'o~ndet (ontad.o) Ltd.
R. R. #2
>>t~l:.on. Qnl:.atiO
6'\..0 centS ?et caHon
'F .Q.B, ?1.a1\t
J:01ini{lll1ll\ t,$pha'\. t content 6&"1,
lfteight Via '):hOlllVson 'ttanllpott ~
to St. rrhotna.s
to 101\a
to Rodney
S.l centS pet Ga'\.'\.On
S.'\. centS ?et Ga'\.'\.On
9.3 centS ?et Gallon
conti..n.ue,d " .. ·
/'
,^
~lR, ~SlOll QUO't1\t1QNS 19~
3.
continued ·
II ·
Total cost to St. ThomaS
to lona
to Roduey
4. Che~on Mph<llt t..td.
43 Indu~trial Street
To,rontQ, ont.ario
M4G 1 z2
i.O.B. J?lant:.
~eight Via th~Sqn rfanspq~t;
to st. Thomas
to lona .
to Rodney
Tot~l Cost to st. Thomas
to lona
to Rodney
5. McAsp1:\alt Industries t..imtted
P. o. Bo~ 247
W~$t Rill, antario
Mi E 4R5
V.q.B, ;>lal\t-
Mtmt1;llUll! A~"pha.:l. t conte!\t 69"1.
l?a.ge 2,
69.1 CentS Per Ga11qn
69.1 CentS per Ga,llon
70.3 Cents J?er Gallon
60.9 cents per Gallon
. 9~,2 cents per Gallon
10.4 centS per Gallon
11.6 Cents Fer Gallon
70.1 centS ?~r Gallon
71.3 Cents 'Per Gallon
72.5 CentS per Gallon
7Q.0 Cents l?e~ Gallon
~etght vta rh~sqn r~anspo~t;
to st. Tholl'laS
to lona
to Rodney
9.2 centS Per Gallon
10.4 Cep,t $ 'Pel: Qatlo'P-
11.6 Cents per Galton
'total Cost to St. 1hQlllas
to lona
To Rodney
79.2 Cents Per Gallon
80.4 CentS Pel! Gallon
81.6 CentS per Gallon
\jA!MsISYBRos.fitb11'
j ,
4E~o~q
y,~j...'~~ '.
. ~A"'CJMpAl'~~~." 7*'~~;~s1;~iCT~;~~-0}'~~~1~~"\T~TCAS~~~s
. --Vn\C~ ' _~~4~F "~~: '2,:');#"ff1-..ItC~.. '~.}~L,'-I~" ~:.<-~ - -ucL.h~L.....i!:'..,
"ifd1-~.6 . Crt ~T1t3 C~',~~f_~
TOTAL CONTRACTOR'S. BID
~ ...- -
- . -. .-
'lJc;3~5."00
5~670.-6:tr .
-+- :18~99~.~O
7_8~611'.,Q? "'.
-:
$
~
12',5,38.50
5,,6,80 LL4
18.219.24
77.184.59
$ . 52,,757.45
$
54,. 227~,5Q
:I
\ ~ ~i H~L~ ~-oo 12.2:0 6,.100 .00 17.76 8,880.00 13.35
\<1 H.t. ~ if 7::t 12.20- 5,795.00 18.14 8,616.50 13.10
H.L~, ~7'oo 12.20 6,100.00 1 7.. 76 8,880.00 13.35
~V \<\ \-\ L "'to .:;'-00, 1 2..20 Q-,lOO.OO 18.14 9,070.00 13.10
A.C.;.. II (0.:;'-: 145.40 · 16.939~LO 145.6'6 16.969.39 136.64
,. 41,034.10 j 52,415.89
- --:t?c~1> 32. \~.l. '8< ~oo 12.20 6,1-00.00 17.76 8,880.00 13.10
L ,J.v;;~1 '\-\ L "L\. 7' 2_S 12.20 5,185.00 18.14 7,709.50 12.85
A, . C. " Sit :>- 145.40 7,924.30 145.66 79938.47 136.64
,; 19, ZOg'.~O , 24,527.97
. ~ 7it ~.t.:,"\ \-\.l-, ~ 200, 12.20 2,440.00 18.14 3,628.00 12.85
~r:\'( HAr,\ /~.C~ /;;l.. 14.5' .40 ' ' 1. 744.89. 145.66 1.747.92 136.64
, 4,184.80 'I 5,375.92
;- /~q~: 1
-' Er-:1~ T ~, . #,J; ~& 11.80 18,880.00 14.96< 23,936.00 10.35
.
fV L ,.A,c., ~2.g. 145.40.. li,6.Q:3..1? .145.66 11,~7_?1 136.64
(......... _u ~", " I
32~37~.E2 37~453.25
UJt:t;-r(~ Ii.L. 't / ti::> 0 16.50 -- 2,640.00 20.28 3,244.80 .14.35
AC. ~& 145~. 40: . 1 ~'395.84 145.66 1,398.....3lJ. 136.64
., 4,035.84- ~ 4,643.1~
, /~. I /l '" .C# I 100. 837 ~ 1 E?', J 124.416.1J
//0 ill/.J LOf<fQAc T
TOTAL CONTRActOR'S BID $ 59,340.00 $ 82,844.80
~
,p
l?,3B~..s~.:
1 ; f\6:.9..A3
19.J)52..23
'Ii
. .', _..-lll~ 44.. 7...5
10,757 .5~
- ,-- -,- -5.,-7j}Q..o~
.~ . __ __J~~,4~.~J~
-~ ,_,,72...237 .,9;
::"i~\ :20.59
145.37
$
.$
57,166.2.0
$
47 , 107 .. 0>
,.
6,675.00
6, 222..50
6,675.00
6,550.00
15,918..56.
42,041.06
.
.~
"
6,559.00
'5 .461.. 25
7.446.&& '
19. 458~,13:
2,5JO.Oq,:,>
J ,h 19..68:: .
4.20~..6$
,
< J
"
11
#
iJ
l6.,-.~~es~~~~;;' .j~.
12 eIO';}ii,
1 29: 2~i~T<L
2 29'6'~OO..
, ,~::l~Jc=~fn~
~ ,c_ __ -':',_ ..'" ~_: ~~:~~.
Q& E) ~'6.g~[
. ~~,-.;.:..~,:~;".:,---~. ~~~ :;~~-~:>J' -
59 ,559~73' . .,;::~,~
...
#
I
,
.f.
#
?
i
$
.-..'<'--
'lrI,
~.f'
\~\
I: ,
j
l~"
,.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
May Session
1980
TO THE WARO~N AND MEMBERS OF TUE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD C9MMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Cons~ruction is proceeding on Road 38 in and west of Straffordville.
Subexcavation and placement of sand base has been completed from the
east limit of Straffordvi1le (Canadian Pacifi9 Railway Tracks)
westerly to the Straffordyille Cemetary and placement of pit rqn
and crusheq gravel is underway. Curb and gutter work. is underway
in Straffordville.
Erect ion of the Lit tl e Otter Creek Oul vert is l1nderwa,y. Water
control in the ~xcavation has been considerably less of a problem
than forecast by our soilscQnsultants. We have alsO' found firm
footing several' feet above the level that they had predicted.
2. M1:. Nomn Warner of R.. C. D4nn an.dAssociates Ltd. has~ completed
preliminary~estimates for the Walkers Bridge and h~s Peen in
cOl1tact with tpe Mi.nistry of Trap.sportation and CVu!l~~Ulnicatlions
Structural and Hydrology Office in Toronto. Tentative plan.s
call for a four (4) span prestressed concrete beGlm bt'idge of 80,
110, 110 and 80 feet respectively (total 380 feet) w~th a pier
in the middle of the Thames River.
Soil conditiOnS on both sides of the River have been found to be
very poor and steel H BeamS piles will have to be dr:i~ven between
60 and 80 feet to firmer soil. The Soil Consultants feel that
the fill required on the Middlesex side of the bridgE~ will have
to settle for several months prior to driving of the piles so
r
that the fill does not fail under loading.
Mr. Warner tentative estimate for work (other than lanci purchase)
at $ 1,400,000. Considerable engineering work and soil te~ts for
the centre pier remains to be done and Mr. Warner aWciits fqrther
instructions from the Councils of Elgin and Middlese~~.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE ... FIRST REPORT
Page 2
3. We understand that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications
is seriously considering placing Counties in Ontario on the same
subsidy basis as regions and cities, towns ~nd villages. Under this
method new machinery CQsts, repairs, garage costs, etc. are nq~
subsidized but the M,T.C, a~lows a rental chargable to operations
which is supposed to include all these charges. The M.T.C. will
~
.
also pay subsidy on 7% of the total cost of maintenance and
construction, etc. rather, than subsidize the actual overhead cost
as now the case. Preliminary analysis indicated that the County
would have increased costs under this method and the Engineer
has been instructed to invest:igate further and make inquiries
with regard ,to effect on other Counties of this propc)sed change.
It wO\1ld appear that it would be wise to m~ke bUilding repairs,
purchase tools, supplies and ~s much new equipment as possible
this year while the County is still under the present: subsidy
arrangement.
4. Hot mix asp~alt resufacing tend~rs have been called as follows
(to close June 2),
(a) County Road 7 ... Kent-Elgin Townline fromCtachap,to Bothwell
Bridge. (Work by CoUntY of Ken1~)
(b) RQad 22 (Fairview Ave.) ... 1 mile south o~ Road 27 c".m~.!!lete
work started in 1979. (Yarmouth Township)
(c) Road 20 .... Warren Street in Port Stanley northerly approK:f.mCltely
0.4 miles. (pouthwold Township)
(d) Road 20 ... Fingal Southerly approximately 1,2 miles (single lift).
(Southwol d TOWQship)
(e) Road 45 ... Highway 4 westerly to east side of Kettle Creek Hill.
(Yarmouth Township)
(f) Road 45 ... East River Road to West River Road. (Southwald Township)
WE RECOMMEND
1. That the attached budget be adopted in lieu of the budget ad?pted
by March Session of County Council. We requested the Engineer to
revise the budget taking into account decreased winter control
'Page. 3
cOUNTY OF EUlIN ROAD COMMITTEE - FIRST RI'POB.T
- =--- ...; ~ '
costS but tncreased tree cutttng, p~yrott burden ~nd equtpment
matntenance costs. We feel that upon reviewtng the county eAutpment
needs and the present condttton of our dump trUC~s th~t we should
purchase tWO (2) tandem trUC~s thts year rather than one (1) we
ortgtnaHY budgeted for. 'rhts wnl ~t so ~How uS to use ~ t 968
Champ tan V:r~der as a spare snOW plowi.ng untt. (We have h~d ~
sp~re tn past ye~rS but tast year our unU'-s we):1e reduced when one
grsder burned and wss not rept~ced.
2. 'J;hst we proceed wi.th Engtneertng and construct ton of the wat~ers
Brtdge and attempt to catt a contract tn the fatt of t980.
sufftctent funds h~ve been teft tn the budget for ~tt engtneertng
and sott teSt wor~ to tender c~tt.
j\N'en though we mtght be successful tn a J!'aU tender can corp;tructton
funds would nOt be re qut re d unt n t 91:\:\. . It t s st n 1 fe t t tP,~t
constructton shoutd be spl,tt between 198t and t982 wtth a mid-
$umIlIer cOlllPledon date of t982 being a reaHstiC objecttve.
ALl,. oJ!' m\1.Cll 1.$ Rl'Si'tC'tf\l1..t.'l $Ul\Ml'tTED
CUAIRM.AN
ITEM
A ~ 1 Bridg~s
A ~ 2 Culverts
B ~ 1 Gras~ Cutting
B .. 2 }ree C~tting
:a "" 4 D1:a,b:1age
13 - 5 Roadside Ma,int.
B - 6 Tree Planting
B .. 7 Dra,inage Ass. Maint.
B ~ 11 Weed Spraying
C "" 1 Pavement Repairs
C - 2 Sweeping
C .. 3 Shoulder Maint.
C "" 4 Surface Treatment
o "" 2 Grading
D _ 3 Dust Layer
D .. 4 Prime
o ..:S Gravel Re stJ.rface
E .. 1 Snow Plowing
E .. 2 Salting
E .. 3 Snowfence
E .. 4 Winter Standby
TOTAL E
F - 1 Pavement Marking
F - 2 Signs
F - 3 Guide Rail
F .. 4 Railroad
Protection
COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROADS BUDGET
MAINTENANCE
BUDGET # 1
COUNTY SUBURBAN
30,000
3,000
13,000
~4,00Q
54,000
9,000
2,500
4,000
10,500
128,000
15,000
15,000
70,000
13,000
41 , 000
2,000
41,000
325, 000
28, 000
50,000
6,000
31,000
945,000
2,000
p,OOO
6,000
1,000
500
1,500
12,000
1,000
4,000
,5,000
7,000
6,000
4,000
60,000
7,000
5,000
4,000
132,000
BUdget #2, Approved by
:Road CV~l1!.l1ittee
May 14, 1980
BUDGE+' # 2
COUNTY SUBURBAN
4Q,000
3,000
14,000
95,000
65:~ 000
8,000
4,000
2;,000
11:,000
90:,000
16:,000
1 7:, 000
85 :, 000
1 7 :, 000
42:.000
2:, 000
40:,000
22:.000
140:.000
22:, 000
26 ~t 000
210,,000
30:,000
5 2 ~~ 000
3 :, 000
31~, 000
877,,000
Total Maintenance C04nty and P4burban Budget #1 $ 1,077,000
Total Budg(:~t 112 $ 1,016,000
2,000
22,000
6,000
500
500
1,500
8,500
2,OQO
5,000
7,000
6,000
6,000
5,000
5,000
37,000
5,000
3,000
50,000
8,000
5,000
4,000
139,000
BAD
~
~dg~t #'2. APp'Cov~d hy
'R,o ad cotn{l\i t tee
~a.y 14, 1980
~
~ 1
f>UpGB't it 1
f>tJDGE't it 2.
superi:ntendence
95,000
16,000
98,000
84,000
~
Garage
30,000
25,000
1:001 s
~i~Ce\\a~eoUS Repai'Cll
4,000
3,500
'training Courses
5,000
41,000
7,000
5,000
48,000
RadiO
~e~ds StudY update and
1:'taffic count
8,000
C1.erical
Office
~achi'\W'CY Q\1e'Chead
~ite 5tatio~ ~hab.
2,500
16,000
5,000
5,000
2,,000
11,000
5,000
3,000
?e-rmitS
M.isc. l.nSurance
...
Severance Fay
N'lL
~
000
~
~
000
~
~:
d 1" ght ul' 'Coof 'Cepai-'C~'
Ga'Cage _ l1.e",t a~ 1.,," ,
"Bui \ dl~g f 0'C t'C acto'C f 0'C sta~d- by pO'llet.
. T~o setS of scaleS to b~ 'Cepait~d,
~i-sce\\a~eous Repa1-'C - additiOnal s~op too\1l 'Cequl'C~d.
c ' ~iU t'Ca~sf~'C aU cou~tiell
_ AS it is \i\<.e\Y the ~t.. tUP in \98\ '!IIinot tepaitll,
to a U'Cba~ Type 5ubS1. Y se. · b\e "rl,\1 be
'C e nO'\T'" t ion s and'" S '!II8-nY sUPP \ 1. ell as 1"0 S S 1-
pu'Cch",sed in \980.
coUNTY OF ELGIN
......' . ........' ' ..:T:':~ ,'..
ROADS BUDGET
.., ...... . -~---
PAYROLL -e.URDEN
I ~,' ,.....
l.IUllG,~'r t1-1- >>,UDG~
1. 1~ lrM
~. M'
'Medical
Annual 1:l01 iq.ay'S
Stat~to~Y Holidays
Sick Benefits
Inclement Weatper and Standby
Workmen'S compensation
fensions Canlids and Ql:1ERS
U.l.C.
a.U.l.f. lind Extended Uea1tP Care
Long Term Disability
ti fe InSurance '
Safety Equipment
3,000
140,000
60~000
6,000
15,000
75,000
1~,000
32,000
~,500
11,. . 000
~ StSq2.
~,4tOO~
""""""" ..
2,500
148,000
65,000
3,000
14,()OO
7Q,OOO
18,000
34,000
it, 9 00
2.QOO
2JO~
374,002-
a',~,
TPis above total. paS to be plio_rllted tprouJl:~O~ aU o\lera1::i.onll.
. ~. ".""'., ."
Total ~abour in payroll uurden ~ 218,000 (Draft #1 $ 208,000).
Total. EStimated Labour ~aft # 1
Draft # 2
$ 1,1.08,000
$ 1,098,000
Net ~abour $ \,098,000 - $ 218,000 ~ $ 880,000
374 000
l''ilyroll Burden '8 ' .... ~ 42.50
(previOUS Estimate 40.4~)
~1~~
]lUdget # 2, N>pl:(,l'lIed by
Road conv:nittee
1:4.8.1 14, 1.980,
~
~~#~
iU~G$T i 2.
A) Co~p1ete ~o~k
... Road 30,
... Roa.d 31
... Roa.d 52
6,0,00,
2,0,0,0,
8,0,00,
6,0,0,0,
2,00,0,
8,0,0,0,
l.T~
~
B) Land -pu.~ cha $e
.. Road 22
... Road 30
... Roa.d 31 and 52
8,0,0,0,
S,OO,O
4,0,0,0
8,0,0,0,
8,0,0,0
4,0,0,0,
C) 5I)l:'IIe)'s, Engineed-ng, and Tl:ee wtting
.. Road 22
t) 000,
~
8 GOO
~"'" z::.
~o'92.
a 00,0,
~
~,"'~
comITY ROApj.
~
BUDGEt :# 1
>>Up.CJEt If- 2.
Is.) LanP: 1?u.~cha$B
.. RQad 32
... Road 38
26,00,0,
20,0,00
26,0,0,0,
20,,0,0,0,
1.~~
1.6,0,0,0
1.6,0,00
~iScel1aneOI)S and uncowmitted
, ,
1-1,0,00
1\) CO!llPlete 'W01!~ j;1!()\Il ?1!e"io~S '(eal:S
.. Road 1.6
\2,0,00
C) 51)1!"e)'s, Enginee1!iP.g, and T1!ee wttl..ng,
EtC.
... Roa.d 32
20,00,0
1.8,00Q
11,00,0
10,000
~iscellaneol)S 5I)l:'IIe)'s, Etc.
972,0,0,0,
967,0,0,0,
40,0,00,
p) NeW const1!Uction
... Road 38
150,0,0,0
2.35,000,
'Walke1!S 1\1!idge and Uncommitted
175,0,0,0
f) RB$utf.a.ci.ng
~
~""6,,, "4,.4"",~",O,~,O,,,",O,'
~
~335 ,?9-9.
4686 t O~
~
E) 'N,e"Vl Equipment
TOTALS
aUDGET # 1
Maintenance
1,077,000
~88,OOO
Overhead
~.
construction
... Suburban
!'" County
4~,000
1,644,000
3.. 057.000
....
c'
BUDGE'!' if 2
1,016,000
305,000
50,000 .
1 ,686, Ol~O
3 . 0.57 . 0.00
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 14, 1980
PAGE 1
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at the Municipal Buildings
on May 14, 1980 at 9:30 a.m. All members except Reeve Wilson were present.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 9 AND APRIL 16, 1980
BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
THE ENGINEER REPORTED on Work to Date as follows:
1. Sign vandalism continued to be high although the matter had been discussed
with the Ontario Provincial Police at some length. Press had been obtained
through the Mercury Sun and the Times Journal but the problem remained.
Little patrol work could be done by the O.P.P. as they were restricted on
patrol mileage and were short staffed.
2. Three (3) men had been sent to the Ontario Good Roads Association Road
School and the Engineer had instructed on Bridge Inspection and
Maintenance.
3. The sweeper had completed work in West Elgin and was in Belmont at the
present time.
4. Pavement marking was underway.
5. Gravel roads were being scrapped and calcium chloride was being applied.
6. Shoulders on pavement roads were being scrapped as wheather and grader
time permitted.
7. Tree planting had been completed.
8. The drain in Belmont had been completed except for trinrrning.
9. Negotiations had been completed to obtain sand on Road 38 from Wayne Taylor
and the pit would be surveyed and application made under the Pit and Quarries
Act for a Wayside Pit Permit.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 14, 1980
PAGE 2
10. The motor in Truck #55 had given up and it would be nec'~ssary to buy a
reconditioned one ($5,000 plus; and install it (3208 Caterpillar).
11. The motor in Truck #56 was poor and would likely have to be replaced by
Fall.
12. Truck #70 was back on the road after the motor was replaced.
13. The rebuilt motor on Truck #72 that had been installed recently had been
checked by Highbury Ford and the crankshaft thrust bearings were being
replaced under warrant1y.
14. The drive shaft on Truck #83 had broken.
15. It would be necessary to replace a tipe on the Michigan Loader and replace
the loader bucket pins and bearings as they were badly worn.
16. Gary Frank had been given two (2) weeks notice as his work was not
satisfactory.
17. The laid-off regular labourers had been returned. Six (6) casual workers
from last year as well as three (3) new casual workers had heen hired.
Additional help to compensate for vacation time would also likely be
required.
18. Truck traffic to and from Port Stanley on Road 20 had caused considerable
breakup and the portion of Road 20 from the top of Turvi11e Hill to Finga1
had been added to the County Resurfacing Needs by the Ministry of
Transportation and Cormnunications. Portions of the road would have to be
resurfaced this year.
19. Road 30 from the St. Thomas limits to Road 52 had also been added to the
County Resurfacing Needs by the M.T.C.
20. Drain repairs through the County continued, and were quite extensive.
21. Repairs to the Players and Port Burwell Bridge had been completed for the
time being.
22. One set of scales had been cleaned but welding and painting are required.
23. Engineering work was underway for the Village of Vienna on Oak Street.
Storm drainage, catch basins, granular base and paving 'N'ere required.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 14, 1980
PAGE 3
24. Engineering work for the Village of Rodney on Centre Street Extention
was also underway.
25. Roads 29 and 37 in Belmont had been gravelled in preparation for priming.
26. Frink Canada had shortened and remounted the box on Truck #88 at their
expense and had also replaced a defective front pump, and it appeared
that the unit waS now satisfactory.
27. Mr. John Dymock on Road 5 at the Walkers Bridge had been visited and told
that he could plant corn on the proposed diversion through his property
as the land would not be needed before Fall at the earliest.
28. Nothing further had been heard from the Village of Dutton regarding the
Eaton Award Drain on Road 8.
29. Reeve Shaw would again approach Wayne Kentner regarding road widening on
Road 16.
30. Weed spray hlilsincre"-sed tn price from $16.00 to $24.00 and Township
invoices would be increased accordingly.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: L. "A. LONGHURST
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 18 AMOUNTING TO $ 42,909.45
PAYLIST NUMBER 20 AMOUNTING TO $ 41,226.37
PAYLIST NUMBER 21 AMOUNTING TO $ 2,174.23
PAYLIST NUMBER 22 AMOUNTING TO $ 802.90
PAYLIST NUMBER 24 AMOUNTING TO $161,544.49
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED FROM:
(a) West Elgin Nature Club thanking the County for tree planting.
(b) M. J. Hennessey with opinion regarding employment of R. F. O'Meara.
The committee agreed that M. HenneSsey's invoice for services was a
Road Committee matter.
ST. TJ;\oMAS, O"NTARtO
MAY. 14, 1980
1> A.GE 4
onta1:iO 1)1:ainage T1:ibUnal stating that Mrs. Oli~e EVanS appeal on the
(c)
TU1:'\i'ille 1)1:ain -w<>uld be held on ~aY 22.
(d) village of p01:t Stanley with zoning By.Laws.
(e) TownshiP of ya1:tnouth with zoning By.Lawing on Road 23 (Dean) and min01:
(f)
va1:iance nea1: ya1:tnouth cent1:e.
o.l'i.B. stating that the appeal of E. A. seabo1:n on t,otS 2 and 3,
concesllion ~ttt, had been tU1:ned down.
ReCycling council of Onta1:iO extolling the benefitS of 1:ecycling waste and
pape-r, etc.
~inist1:Y of T1:ansp01:tatiOn and communicatiOnll stating subsidY would be
paid on t1:affic signal maintenance.
~inillt1:Y of T1:ansp01:tatiOn and C()tl1ll\unicatiOns publicizing met1:ication.
Ree~e G1:een stated that the
(g)
(h)
(i)
(:)) TownshiP of Bayhatn a d1:aft zoning By.Law.
TownshiP wall p1:oceeding with the By.LaW.
(k) Region of Ottawa ca1:1eton rega1:ding pedest1:ian C1:0IlS ove1:s.
The Co1J]It\ittee
(1 )
felt that the matte1: did not pe1:tain to the county.
By.Law unde1: section 116
TownllhiP of Ya1:tnouth 1:equesting that the countY paSs a
of the llighwaY T1:affic Act 1:ega1:ding the pa1:king of ca1:S 1:est6cting
vision at the inte1:sections of ~ellington Road. The Enginee1: was
inst1:Ucted to obtain fU1:the1: info~tion.
f El On to p1:oceed to o1:de1:
(m) TownshiP of ~alahide auth01:izing the countY 0 g1.
the pipe cul~e1:tS 1:equi1:ed fo1: tWO (2) locations on the Bayham.Malahide
The F;nginee1: 1:ep01:ted that w01:k was p1:0g1:essing fa~Ou1:ablY on countY Road 38.
soil conditions we1:e mUch bette1: than had been e$pected at the Little Otte1: C1:eek
culve1:t and wate1: pumping was mUch leSs than o1:iginallY antiCipated. AS a 1:esult
1: einf 01: cement fab1:iC would not be 1:equi1:ed and lells pit 1:un g1:a~el would be used
. d " d b se had been COl1\pleted in St1:aff01:d~ille
fo1: backfill. E>tca~at1.on W01:k an san a
ToWU1 ine.
and CU1:b and gutte1: waS unde1:'lilay'
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 14, 1980
PAGE 5
Excavation and granular base were underway in the area from Centennial
Avenue to Wayne Taylors. It was presently too early to allcertain if much
saving could be made on the project.
The attached report on the Walkers Bridge was presented.
"MOVED BY: D. J. C&MPBELL
SECONDED By:L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF FLEX-o-LITE OF CANADA FOR SUBl'LY OF GLASS
BEADS FOR PAVEMENT MARKING FOR 1980 AT THEIR QlJOTED PRICE OF 21.76 CENTS
PER LB. SUBJECT TO M.T.C. APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
The meeting adjourned for dinner.
After dinner.
The Budget as mailed previously was discussed.
The attached report of the EngineerS on the condition of the County's
dump trucks waS discussed.
Finances in the light of the M.T.C. likely change to rental rateS and a
7% overhead allowance was also discussed.
Hot mix asphalt resurfacing was discussed and work on Road 20 north and
south of Fingal waS added.
Surface treatment was discussed as per the attached sheet and it appeared
that the item in priority A could be done with the revised budget.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE BUDGET DRAFT #2 BE APPROVED AND THAT WALKERS BRIDGE FUNDS BE SET AT
$40,000 AND THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE $150,000 ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED
FOR THE PROJECT NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF TANDEM TRUCKS BE USED
FOR ASPHALT PAVING ON ROAD 20.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 14, 1980
PAGE 6
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
OF WALKERS BRIDGE AND THAT WE TRY TO CALL A CONTRACT IN THE FALL OF 1980.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL TENDERS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT
PAVEMENT.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL TENDERS FOR TWO (2) NEW TANDEM
TRUCKS AND ONE NEW SNOW PLOW AND WING.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO SELL TRUCKS #44 AND 1:~76 AND DUMP BOXES
BY TENDER.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO 9:30 A.M., JUNE 2, 1980.
CARRIED."
1';,# :XdR
CHAIRMAN <:f
1980 SURFAct ~REAtNENt
~".' .."....-p ~'
3.8 Miles
"
Road 2 ...
f.om Road 3 to We~t 1imit~ of W$~t Lorne.
East L:imit of cu.b a'l;1d Guttet' at putton to
Ro.ad t4.
5 .2 Ni te s
V' 1..
I 2.
lRQad l3
f.om Stan sm:ithS co.ner to ClutterbUC~S corner.
2.8 M:Lles
'" 3" Road 20 ...
v
./ 4. RQad 20 ...
/' 5. Road 20 ..
p. Road 3'7 ...
'7. Road 52 ...
8. Road 52 "'"
9.. Road 49
10. Road 48 ...
from Hot Mi~ patching North of F:ingal to
. Ui,.ghway 3.
f.om'High~aY 3 to Hi~h~aY 401.
MCL 0.4 M:ilell (Poub1e).
1.5 Miles
2. '7 MileS
0.8 Mile$
from 1?atc;:h East of Rings ]>]:idge to HighwaY 73.
0.6 Miles
f.om Highway 73 to EsSO Station in spi:ingfi~ld.
2.1 Mite s
from Cu.b and Gutter :in spri'l;1gfie1d to Road 48.
1.5 Miles
from Highway 73 to ~ Mile East of Road 49 +.
(Fin:ish uP Road.) -
2.8 MileS
~'
23.6 Miles
~',"~
PRIORItY "i"
1'>~....._.,._"--,,,.- --.-~-
1..5 Miles
1.
Road 6
...
Clachan to. ~lacks Lane-
0.1 Miles
2. iinish Road 48 to Road 49.
0.4 Mil~s
3. Road 47 ...
4. RQad 45
5. Road 52 ...
6. Road 52 ...
start North of Road 48.
Jaffa to Highway 73 (197~)'
Road 30 to H:ighway 74 (centre done in 1979).
Righ~aY 74 to Rings 1>ridge (centre done i'l;1 1979).
f
, WALKERS BRIDGE
May 13, 1980
Attached is a preliminary 'estimate from Norm Warner of R. C. Dunn
and Associates Limited:
Totaling
County of Elgin Share
$1,400,000
$ 700,000
If a contract is not called until late 1980 or early 1981 the
costs could be divided as follows:
1980
1981
1982
$ 40,000
360,000
300,000
$700,000
This would give (a) $110~000 more in 1980 for new machinery, or
asphalt resurfacing, etc. (or as C:vul1uittee
fel t ).
(b) Increas~ by 40,000 the amount available for
(Road 32?) construction in 1980. (Report of
January 3, 1980 suggested a cost of $400~000
in each of 1980 and 1981.)
(c) Increase by $100,000 the money ava.ilable in
1982 (might solve the money problem for the
Port Burwell Urban Section on Road 42 and 50)
as the report of January 3, 1980 suggested that
only $100,000 would be available for this work.
(d) As some ot' Road 22 will have to be~ staged; that
is some ditching and utility moven~nt prior to
the main construction there still will likely
be some urban work in Port Burwell that wouldn't
be done.
Continued . . .
/
WALKERS BRIDGE
Page 2
It would appear that the job would be within the Counties
of Elgin and Middlesex capabilities and that additional aid from
the Province really couldn't be anticipated.
$ 80,000,,00
$ 60,000.00
$1,071,000.00
$ 29,000,,00
$1,100,000.00 @ 1980 Prices
$ 165,000.00
$1 ,265,000.00
$ 25,000,,00
R. C. DUNN & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
WALKER BRIDGE ESTIMATED COSTS
Bridge
Rip Rap slopes and channel
Excavate Channel 7000~(fA
Steel Beam Guiderails
$ 813,000.00 .
$ 80,000.00
$ 1 6 ,000. 00
$ 22,000.00
$ 931,000.00
Bridge and Area
Roadwork and Embankment
North Side
South Side
Add Contingency for delays due to soils
Add 15% - 1981-82 Construction
Engineering - Soils
Preliminary, Design, Inspection
and Supervision
$ 11 0 ,000. 00
$1'400'~~O.O~
DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND PURCHASE, FENCING, COUNTY COSTS.
"'"
May 1 2, 1 980
"r':')
'7 (,
/
--"--::0
'}/
"'.
~o~
. ,~i}2~k~ r .. - ...
.... I#ff, r~~~"l\\';tl :
. \' "I \~L..... 'Ill. .
.. r;,.), "~''I'l:'',_",1 J,r~,f ,
. . ~ \ '. ' , III W :
... ~'\'~\J "", ,./ ,II :
"\\\(/~-q~~! --
/'\':'~ltj]\:;y
ROBERT G. MOOR!;:, BoSe.. P.ENG.
~NGINEER AND ROAD SUPERINTEND~NT
TEUPHONE 519-631'5880
Dear Sir:
May 1.5, 1.980.
ARTHiUR j.GO~OON
qENERAL SUPERINTENDENT
C. ROY DORAN
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENOENT
& C(lNSTRUCTlON SAFnv INSP~CTOR
79 STANl-EY ST.
(CO,UR" HOU$I;)
ST. THOMAS. ONT.
N5R 3G1
,Further to the committee Meeting of May 14tp.,
the last page of the new bud,get Will be reported tOt cou.nty
council as follows:
1" Wal~ers ~ridge
2. New Equipment
3. Asphalt Resu~facins
New Bud,get
Praft. #1
Attached is the Revised Resurfacing :J;>rogx;aron\e..
RGM:ej
Enclosures.
40,00q
150,000
Yours very truly,
.0 ,,1
~,"'~,',:,'..'.,/,/.,.,~,.:~,.','~',',i /,.'. .,','~"",' <.,',.
,., -...' /),~
. " ,0
R.I G. MOO, . Sc., E). Eng.,
ENGINEER ANP ROAD SUPE~R.INT:e.:NDENT"
P"S. Attached is a recoromendation for Hired Truck Rates, for 1980,
an item we did not get to on Wedn~sdaY.
235,000
175,000
fl-
'l"
1
";0'
335,000
610,000
285,000
pl0,OPO
COUN:I'Y OF ELGIN
ASPHALT RESURFACING
Road 7 - County of Elgin share of Kent Townline Road fr~n
Clachan to Bothwell Bridge (Aldborough Township)
Road 19 - To complete" (Southwold Township)
Road 22 - (Fairview Avenue) To complete (1 mile south of
Road 27). (Yarmouth Township)
Road 20 - North of Warren Street Bridge to opposite Floyd
Gillard to compl~te work not previously done.
(Southwold Township)
ROqd 45 - Highway 4 to East Side of Kettle Creek Hill.
(Yarmouth Township)
Road 45 - East River Road to West River Road. (Southwold
Township)
Road 20 - Fingal Urban Southerly to Clutterbuck's Corner
1.2 miles +.
Hot Mix Asphalt to be laid and charged to Repai+s to
Pavements includes small patches (a) Road 2 East
of West Lorne. (b) Road 2 West of Road 15, (c)'
Road 8 between Dutton and Road 2. (d) Road 13, l~ast
of ,curb and gutter section in Dutton, and tWQ patches
approximately 3/10 mile each (double la.ft) on Road
20 betwe~n fingal and Shedden.
May 15, 1980.
75,000
5,000
75,000
48,000
50,000
32,000
50,000
335,QOO
TO THE (,11A1.RMAN AND MEMBERS OF 'flU!. COtlNT"l OF ELeIN ROAD cOM)otl.T'fEEI
The fo1.:\.owing are the majOr changeS fr(ll1\ Draft #l of the :eudget
approved by March County council.
~ ' Gt)unl: ~~f ~~;ll.!~J!.Q).l<l>>ttll\lat\\; or 1\f.l:.Jl
On the S\.inshine Side
......... " ~' ,," ,~ ' --
(a) considerable reduct:lt9n in costs for winter control $260,000 agai,?st
$385,000 origit'\a1.:\.y estimated, h9pefu1.:\.y thiS would stnl pay all
the 1980 bi1.:\.S in 1980 and catch up the carryovet ilS fat all
possible.
(b) Repili,rs to pavement ~ a fair amount of cracking but the 5p1:ing
break~up hilS been light artdother than ROild ~ J.gotth and Ilouth
of Fingill the patches are teasonably far ilpilrt.
(c) Gravel Roads have c(ll1\e through the "linter quite we1.:\. and no
extensive gravel patching was required.
,(d) EstimateS for land purchase, cilrryo.ver work, etc., seem
reasonablY well in line.
(e) culvert pipe and pavement marking paint priceS are well up but
did not take the big jUmp, at least not yet.
(11) Looks like an early constr\icdotl statt ss we can 'ilotk on
Road 38 in the sand.
On the \Jt~b:1.t BtJe
........'-~ -
(a) Payroll bU1;den before in the neighbOUrhood of M1/. wnl 111<e1y be
closer to 42.5% the few silvings will be more than offset P1
additional sick time and annual holidays. As we will likely
have more personnel than originally anticipated, associilted
benefitS will rise as well (pensions, o.H.t.P., etc.)'
AS pilyroll burden in its self ill not II budget item and Il\.u$t
be Ilpread through all labour work it reflectS all through the
ovcrh<",d. maintel1i10Ce and construction budget,s. ThUll an
incl'"ease in the budget item does not necessarilY reflect an
increase 1n service or work accompl1shed.
(I:>) Machine repll!.;: costS ar<' Il1lIch \1.igl\er (both in a1\\ount of
repairs and cost of tepairll) than pteviously estimilted. ThUS
s(ll1\e items even though up in budget the acc(ll1\plishment won't
be anymore than previouslY estimated.
continued · · ·
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT DRAFT #2
Page 2.
(c) Tree cutting - when it did not snow we cut eyery tree in sight
(and a few hi.dden ones IlS well).
(t;1,) m'Hh.1 lH'.I\llt 1 t.l l::ttH:llh tli flit Ht~ . hd 111~~ vJ utA ~,Uf., ~!l HI~HY ta'tHHi VItti;
ought to plant more. I feel that planting was qUite
successful, we got rid of most of the backlog.
(e) Drainage - we had more drainage troub~es than usual and more
people complaining about our poor ditch maintenancE~. We will
have to accomplish more than originally intend~d.
On the Accomplishment Side
Should be able to do mo~e bridge maintenance and surface treatment
than originally estimated as well as extra ditching. Gravel resurfacing
can al so be reduced. {about 15,000 left in acct# or added to depending on
funds available by Fall.
Added to asphalt resurfacing which will add 3/4 of a mile or so
on Road 45 in Southwold Township.
Not far enough on Road 38 to see if there is any Selving.
Pe:tsonnel
To enable us to carryon with work and give our employees their
holidays requires extra help. Thus we have already recalled lay-off
Class l, Labourers plus most casual help that worked with us last
sunnner and wished to return. We will assess this plus results of
O\J/r vi-lc,iitt:i,QO qUflt:H;;inn}\H~tl"~i q:nd t~@PQrt f\n~t~b~f, ~H~ tht~ nfnt1:;RfHJ4
(h)flUfrf t t t:l t\ Int:H~ t: J It ~ ..
An (~xporiOtlt;Cld Engineer as soon tH~ possible w'ill greatly llJtud.st
the Superintendents and myself and allow us to continue the present
services to the local Municipalities.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESP1~CTFULLY SUBMITTED
'I 7' /~""A
: . /'
i~' ,... A 7, I",' Ih';'",^-
R. G ~ MOOR~, cl/u!rty ENGINEER
f
(
P.s. Pleas~ be prepared to act on this Budget llt the R()ad COtlllll:lttE!,@
meeting on May 14,1980.
COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROADS BUDGET
Draft #2, April 30, 1980
PAYROLL BURDEN
'ITEM
BUDGET # 1 EXPENDITURE TO DATE
BUDGET # 2
M~d1cal
3.000 2_317
2,'00
Annual Holidays
18:~ 755
140,000
148,000
Statutory Holidays
19:,486
'"
Sick Benefits
6 0,000
18:,597
65,000
Inclement Weather and Standby
6,000
15,000
717
3,000
14,600
76,000
18,000
34,000
Pensions Canada i.),nd OMERS
75,000
14:,616
21:,320
W91:km91,)"S Compensation
V.I.C.
18,000
4,597
O.H.I.P. and Extended Health Care
32,000
9,785
Long Tenm Disability
5,500
1,095
4,900
Life Insurance
4,000
2,000
Safety Equipment
5.500
2.127
6.000
364,000
113,412
374,000
1<6, Pay Periods Out of 26
(Ratio 3.25) .. Additonal Summer Staff .. lay-off people, etc.
We still look for increases in U.I.C. and O.H.I.P. rates.
Plus additional help, plus summer casuals.
This above total has to be pro rated throughout all operations.
Total Labour in Payroll Burden $218,000 (Draft #1 $208,000).
Total Estimated Labour Draft #1
Oraft #2
$1.,108,000
$1,098,000
Net Labour $1,098,000 .. $218,000 = $880,000
Payroll Burden
374,000 = 42.50
880,000
(Previous Estimate 40.4%)
OVERHEAD
Tools
1
BUDGET # 1 EXPENDITURE TO DATE BUDGET # 2
95, 000 27,468 98,000
76,000 29,826 84,000
25, 000 11,073 30,000
3,500 1 , 526 4,000
8, 060 915 7,000
5,000 503 5,000
47,000 15,326 48,000
ITEM
Superintendence
Garage
...
Miscellaneous Repair~,
Radio
Needs Study Update
and Traffic Count
Training Courses
Clerical
Permi t s
Mtsc. In~iUranCc.
2,500
2, t 7.5
4,62Q
2,000
Office
16,000
17,000
Machinery Overhead
5,000
5,000
White Station Rehab.
5,000
25
3,000
Severance Pay
NIL
NIL
2,000
288,000
93,457
305,000
NOTES:
Garage
Heat and light up, roof repairs.
Building for tractor for stand-by power.
Miscellaneous Repair - two sets of scales to he repaired, additional
shop tools required.
.... n~ p'rfllHH:'~;1d :f'nt:" Urban R~nlttc11 R.Htf~1'4 In 198t.
.... ~'lix up gt.tt'ii:lgeH, office and buy ~jQllle 19~1 supplies :in 1980.
'f'
COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROADS BUDGET
Draft #2, April 30, 1980
MAINTENANCE
ITEM
BUOGE'r If 1
COUNTY SUBURBAN
EXPENDITURE TO DATlt
COUNTY SUBURBAN
BtJDGE1~ # 2
COUNTY SUBURBAN
A .. 1 Bridge s 30,000 5,855 208 40,000
A .. 2 Culverts 3,000 310 23 3,000
",.
B .. 1 Grass Cutting 13,000 2,000 14,000 2,000
B .. 2 Tree Cutting 54,000 6,000 66,059 1 7, 4,44 95,000 221000
B .. 4 Drainage 54,000 6,000 10,072 829 65,000 6,000
B .. 5 Roadside Maint. 9,000 1,000 249 128 8,000 500
B .. 6 Tree Planting 2,500 500 1,844 4,000 500
B .. 7 Drainage Ass. Mai.n't 4,000 255 2,000
B .. 11 Weed Spraying 10,500 1,500 1,518 385 11,000 1,500
C .. 1 Pavement Repairs 128, 000 12,000 3,725 767 90,000 8,500
C .. 2 Sweeping 15,000 1,000 340 16,000 2,000
C - 3 ShouLder Maint. 15,000 4,000 584 17,000 5,000
C .. 4 Surface Treatment 70,000 85,000
o - 2 Grading 13,000 5,000 6,161 1,507 17,000 7,000
o .. 3 Dust Layer 41,000 7,000 1,737 42,000 6,000
.
D ~ 4 Prime 2,000 6,000 2,000 6,000
o .. 5 Grav~l Resurface 41,000 4,000 22,310 1~8 40,000 5,000
E .. 1 Snow Plowing 10,554 2,430 22,000 5,000
E .. 2 Salting 83,646 28,268 140,000 37,000
E .. 3 Snowfence 9,480 2,067 22,000 5,000
E ... 4 Winter Standby 18,780 26, 000 3,000
TOTAL E 325,000 60,000 122, 460 32,765 210,000 50,000
F .. 1 Pavment Marking 28,000 7,000 13,466 30,000 8,000
F .. 2 Signs 50,000 5,000 31 , 516 1,41+2 52,000 5,000
F .. 3 Guide Rail 6,000 107 3,000
F .. 4 Railroad
Protection 31,000 4,000 4,874 1 , OJ+8 31,000 4,000
9l..5 , 000 132,000 293,442 56 J ,594 877,OO() 1 ~3 9 , 000
Total Maintenance County and Suburban Budget #1
Sp~nt to Date
T(lta.l Budget ,/"2
$1,077,000
350,036
1,016 * 000
<"
CONSTRUCTION
SUBURBAN ROADS
ITEM
BUD9ET If 1
EXPENDITURE TO DATE
BUDGET # 2
A) Complete Work
- Road 30
Road 31
.. Road 52
6, 000
2,000
8,000
6,000
2,000
8,000
II'
B) Land Purchase
.. Road 22
- Road 30
.. Road 31 and 52
8,000
8,000
4,000
2,,188
5,,119
8,000
8,000
4,000
C) Surveys, Engineering., and Tree Cutting
.. Road 22
12,000
895
14.000
48.000
8'1202
50, 000
COUNTY ROADS
ITEM
BUDGET # 1
EXPENDITURE TO DATE
BUDGET # 2,
A) Land Purchase
- Road 32
.. Road 38
Miscellaneous and Unc(,.ulluitted
26, 000 19,,654 26 , 000
20,000 776 20,000
16,000 273 16,000
B) Complete Work from Previous Years
- Road 16
12,000
9,,136
11,000
C) Surveys, Engineering, and Tree Cutting,
Etc.
.. Road 32
18,000
8,,952
20,000
Miscellaneous Surveys, Etc.
10,000
2" 445
11,000
D) New Construction
- Road 38
967,000
972,000
Spent to Date
Armco Culvert
Material in Stock Including Gravel
89,183
96,471
88,670
TOTAL TO DATE
274,,324
CONSTRUCTION - COUNTY ROADS (Continued)
ITEM
Walkers Bridge and
Unc"""'lluitted
E) New Equ'ipment
F) "Resurfacing
,..
TOTALS
Maintenance
Overhead
Construction
Suburban
- County
ADD: Machine Debits
Payroll Burden Not Spread
Page 2
BUpGET # 1 EXPENDITURE TO DATE BUDGET # 2
150,000 1,394 150,000
175,000 84,363 175,000
(Including Dump Box)
250,000 200 285.000
1~644..000 401,517 1,686.000
. BUDGET # ~ EXPENDITUR.;E TO DATE BUDGET # 2
1,077,000 350,036 1,016,000
288,000 93,457 305,000
48,000
,1,644,000
8,202
401,517
50, 000
1,686,000
39,000
13..000
3. 057 .. 000
905,212
3,057,000
.f';
~
Sl:lnd(yr 5 ...
sno'" ?10'" ~ vi.ve Qt:adet:!\, and 'l't:~ck #f>3, #10, #12, #f!>3, ~4
. ,d T,1:U, ck #R>B fot: 1- 9BO ~ 1-981 and sander ..,1.1.1-
Sno'" 1'1-0'" 1. s nO'" mounte on
g\'l ontO 'l't:uc~ #f>3.
'l't:~ck #44, 1f16, #55, fl?6, #f>4, #f!>8
R. ~a1-1-, \\. ~t:oakS' R.Ryckman, ~. ?hi.1-1-i.?!\
1919 ... 1980
. _ tt',1:, uck #55 and fl?6, ",e 'll9u1d 1-i-~e1 11 !\ct:ap
If ",e rep1-ace motot:s ~n '
'l'r~ck #f>3 and #f>4 pt:i.ot: to 'J:'rUc~s #$5 and fl?6 because motot:!\ and
.. .' " #55 and 56 ",ou1-d be bettet: thll'P tP,Ose ':\.n
transm~ss~on!\ ~? 'l't:uc"'!\' ".
'\'t:uc~ #f>3 and #f>4
tt', ,. 30 000 to 35,000 mt1-e!\ per yea-c.
~verage ~ ,-cuc", ~ ,
conti\,\ued · · ·
,"
Page 2.
TRUCKS
May 12, 1980
T:t:uck #44 .. 1969 Intermational Tandem Diesel (Sander)
.. Rusted out; not worthcertify~ng.
Tt'uck #76
1969 Ford 1000 Tag Axle Tandem (SanQe~)
671 GM Engine
.. Purchased three (3) years ago for ~i5, 000
.. Needs major repairs to front end, steertng box,
and tCig axle components, etc., sta'X'ting to r\.lst
through.
Truck #55
1972 Ford Lou{sville 8000, now used as Sander and Float
Truck, 221,000 Miles. .
.. Cat Motor needs major repairs; good tranSIIlission.
'f:r:uck #56
1972 Ford Louisville 8000, now used as Sander and Fuel
Truck, 232,000 Miles.
.. Cat Motor about gone; good tran$IIlis; sian.
T~uck #U3 ., 1974 (Fall) Ford Lou sville 8000
~mp and Snow P ow to be used as sander in 1980 ..
198t.
.. 555 CummiI,ls Reb~itt (about .59, 000 ll~ites on it)~
- Fqller R T t3 Transmission.
.. 15,6,000 Illiles.
.. being used full time (or being fix~~d).
"rruck #64 .. 1975 (Spring) Dodge 800 Dump .. Sander
.. 555 CUtnn,1.ins Rebl1ilt (40,000 + Miles)..
.. F\.lller R T 13 Transmission.
.. Used as spa.re dump (which means it~~ working full
time). 141,000 miles.
Truck #70 .. 1976 Ford Louisville 8000 Dump and Snow Plow
.. Repuil t Cat Motor at 117, QOO Mile snow t 21, OOQ,miles.
.. Fuller R T 13 Transmission.
Tt."uck #72
1977 Ford Louisville 8000 Dump. Snow PlollT and Distributor,
.. 81,000 Miles though distributor op(~rator is a
fairly high strain low mileage operation.
.. Rebuilt Cat Motor two (2) months ago.. now at
Highbu.ry Ford hopefullY\.lnder warra,nty.
.. Fuller R T 13 Transmission.
Truck #83 .. 1978 (Fall) Mack (red and white) Dump and Snow Plow.
.. 40,000 miles.
Tr\.lck #84 .. 1978 (Fall) Mack (blue) Dump and Snow Plmr1.
.. 42,000 MileS.
Continued . . ~
'Page 3.
'tRUCKS
~ ~
~uc\<' #B8 . 1979 O'a 11 ) M,ac\<' l)Ullll' and Sno": 1'10": :\,n 1980
(sand~~ 1979 ~ 1980).
_ 7,000 Mil,e ~h
1. 5~11 1969 Int~~nat~ona1 (T~C\<, #44) not ,,:orth t:\'m~ and moneY to
REGO~ENDAT1.()&
2..
ce-rtifY.
l'U~chase neW <J.utlIP t~uc\<' lInd \IIOunt the plow f~()II1 TrUc\<' iflO ontO
n~": t~uc\<' alld us~ wuc\<' #70 on 5ande~ (th~S ~~p1aces T~UC\<' #44)
and allowS ~c\<' #fJ'3 to 'b~ us~d as a spar~ dUlllP truc\<'.
Alterna:ti:ves:
(a) Fix ~uc\<' if16 ~ 1969 liord (good for on~ (1) y~ar)'
(b) l'U~ch~S~ us~d tandem and seH T~uck #16 (good f?~ 2'" '3 yea~S
. ~Q'Pefu1,.1Y)'
(c) l'U~chas~ neW dUlllP t~uck alld \IIOunt tM pl,.ow fr()ll1 TruC\<' if12
ontO 1l~": truck and u'se ~ck #12 as a sallde~. (good fQr '3 or 4
years).
(d) i) l'U~chaS~ used tall@m and sen wuck #16.
:\.t) ~uy n~w dUlllP t~uc\<and 'P 10-.1 '" us~ G~ ader ifl.4 (1968
CharPP:\,on as a spa~e)"
3-.
TM s ,,:ou1 d gi"~ siX (6) -.lQrk:\' ng dl1!l\'P t~cks ant!. ~ f 1,. ~ sS '\i!Cre
reqU:\'r~d wuc1.<; #10 could b~ used as a spar~'
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
APRIL SESSION
1980
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Sub-Assembly of the Super Span Culvert for the Little: Otter Creek on
Road 38 has been completed and better weather is being awaited before
installation is begun.
2. H. Q. Golder and Associates have completed soil tests at the Walkers
Bridge and a report is expected to be sent to the Brildge Consultant
Mr. Norman Warner, shortly.
WE RECOMMEND:
1. That a By-Law be passed stating that the County of Elgin has no
objections to the Township of Bayham passing a By-La~r closing the
following Roads near the Village of Vienna, the Road Allowance
composed of the north easterly half of King Street and the north
westerly half of Front Street lying between the southerly production
of the easterly limit of Marr Street and the south easterly
production of the line between Blocks A and H; Plan 54.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 16, 1980
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at 10:00 a.m., April 16, 1980,
in conjunction with Elgin County Council. All members were present.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED as follows:
1. Wayne Taylor was still in agreement with the County purchase of road widening
and that Don Houghton had completed the plans and that Wayne Taylor would be
asked to sign the release tomorrow.
2. A rebuilt motor was required for Truck #70 (3208 Caterpillar 117,000 miles).
Cost over $5,000 plus installation, and, tax. The work was underway.
3. Truck #88 had been returned to Frink as someone had made a mistake and the
box had been improperly mounted. The pump was also defec.tive. It was not
known when it would be in operation. One of the rear springs was sagging
similar to one in Truck #83 which had been replaced by Carrier Mack.
Discussions were still being held with Mack regarding warranty (invoices
total value approximately $5,000).
4. It appeared that the Ministry of Transportation and COuum.l.nications report
on Urban Equipment Rates for Counties and the 7% overhead charge was more
far reaching than first indicated and that extensive time: consuming
investigation would be required as well as a brief and de:legation to the
Deputy Minister. Some support for the County's position had been received
particularly from Brant, Victoria and Bruce Counties. The Engineer
indicated that based on 1979 figures the increase in the County Levy
because of the various charges would be in the order of ~;70,000 to $90,000.
The Corrrrnittee was of the opinion that the matter should be given priority
attention.
5. Sign vandalism on the weekend continued high and the Engi.neer reported
he had met with the O.P.P. and Times Journal to try to make the public
aware of the situation.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 16, 1980
PAGE 2.
"MOVED BY:
J. D . CAMP~:If:LL
SECONDED ~'ll L. A. LONG1lURST
T1:JAT PA'lL1ST if!. 9 AMOUNTING TO $960.36 ~E APPROVED l10R PA'lMENT'
cARRIED ."
-----
It waS decid~d that th~ Engin~~~ should contact M~. John oymock,
own~~ of the prop~rty that "ould b~ r~quir~d for Walk~rs Bridg~. Th~ committ~~
f~lt that th~y did not ,,:\'sh to pu~chas~ prop~rty at this tim~ and that Mr. oymock
could plant corn.
Reeve Binks in attendance.
corr~spond~nc~ waS r~ad fr()ll1 th~ Villag~ of DUtton r~qu~sting th~ County
to r~ctifY th~ d~ainag~ at th~ int~rs~ction of Jordan St~~~t and Road 8 in
DUtton.
of th~ Eaton A"ard Drain which waS const~ct~d in 1901 of 8" til~ and r~pair~d
ov~r the y~ars in plac~s ,.;.th 1~' til~. Th~ d~ain had v~ry littl~ grad~ and
Th~ Eagin~~r r~port~d that th~ probl~m "as approximat~lY 1,600 f~~t
flo,,~d from th~ south limitS of th~ DUtton Ford Me~curY Deal~rship north"ard
to th~ ~~nn~tt Drain. It "as not~d that th~ County had requ~st~d r~plac~ment
as long ago as 1943. Th~ coromitt~~ waS of th~ opinion that th~ Vinag~ of
DUtton and th~ aff~ct~d r~sid~ntS should p~tition th~ TownshiP of DUn,.;.ch for
a n~W tnUnicipal drain, and the Engin~~r waS instruct~d to writ~ th~ DUttoll
council and so advise.
r~garding th~ committ~e's r~port on annual holidayS. It waS again point~d
out that additional h~lp would b~ r~quir~d particularlY in the for~man,
considerable discUssion ,.;.th th~ l'~~sonn~l Coromitt~~ took plac~
superint~ndent alld engin~ering cat~gori~s. It waS felt that Engineering h~lp
waS r~quir~d itlllll~diat~ly so that training could tak~ place this suromer so that
the person would have sufficient experience to proceed ,.;.th the wo~k when the
Engineer or superintendentS we~e off beyond several weekS time. It waS also
felt that an Engineer with experience in both construction and administration
should be hired.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 16, 1980
to hire personnel would come from, and the Engineer was instructed to have a
Considerable discussion Occurred on budgeting, ie., where the money
revised budget ready for the next meeting for discussion.
The meeting adjourned to May 14, 1980 at 9:30 a.m.
~~/,/ :A:f/~..
CHAIRMAN . ~ a
~
~
of Rent Townline Road f~()II1
Road 1 '" countY of Elgi~. s~i~-ridge (AldbO~O\1gh TownshiP)
c1.achan to Bot1.L\\fe
1. t (50uthWold TownshiP)
Road 19 ~ To corop e e.
(1. ole south of
) rt1 0 co11\.1"\ 1. e toe. 11\.1-
(11 'r"ie-.l Aven\1e ~ .r
Road '2.'2. '" RO"':d '2.7), ('{arro.outh TownshiP)
t 'B~idge to opposite t10yd
Road '2.0 ~ No~th of warren1.St~e~o~k not p~eviouS1Y done.
Gilla~d to cQll\'P ete
(50uthWold TownshiP) ...n.('.,J..'
, ~ll' ('larro.outh
,,' hwa" 4 to East 51-de of ~
Road 45 - ~~g .~
'to-wnsh1-1? )
ROad 45 ~ ~ast R~ve~ Road to west Rive~ Road. (50uth~01d
'Lo-wnsh1-1? )
Draft May 1, \980
r-
15,000
5~000
15,000
48,000
50,000
2 000
~
000
~
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 1.
Apr it 9, 1980 at 9 130 a .m. All member s except Reeve wit son and Deputy Reeve
THE coUNT'l 011 ELGIN ROAD QOMM1TTEE MET at the Municipal nuilding on
Glover ~ere present.
THE MINUTES of the meetings of March 12, 1980 and Ma~ch 26, 1980 were
read and approved.
1. H. Q. Golder had completed test drilling at the Walkers Bridge site but had
THE ENGINEER RE1'ORTED on the work to date as folloWSl
2. Vandals had in the past week stolen twO stOp signS, a stOp ahead sign, a
not as yet submitted a ~eport to Norman Warne~.
Mount salem sign, a maximum speed sign and a cu~ve sign from Road 52. It
was likely that the~e were more theftS as yet un~epo~ted. In addition the
checkerboards at Roads 23 and 24 and Glencolin were damaged and a
checkerboard on Road 2 east of West Larne painted over, among othe~ damage.
There we~e siX (6) calloutS of county personnel (4 hourS minimum time each).
The committee discussed the vandalism~roblem at considerable length and the
Engineer was instructed to contact constable Manninger of the OntariO
provincial police for aid and publicity to see if the problem could be
eliminated. StandbY time for superintendents and for employees was
diSCUssed at some length and it was noted that ordina~y standby waS used
f~om mid November to the end of March. conside~able extra costs would be
incurred if standbY waS instituted on a year ~ound basiS and would be
probablY more difficult to 0rganize than winter standby because of annual
and statutory holidayS and the tendencY of people to want their weekends
uninterrupted. No action was taken on standby and the Engineer waS
~equested to report further on weekend calls to superintendentS and
himself and employee callouts.
3. 5nowfence and postS had been removed.
4. Brushing had been completed on Road 31.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 2.
subassembly of the super span at the Little Otter Creek on Road 38 had been
completed.
pit run gravel was being hauled from the Pleasant Valley Pit and stockpiled
at Wa~d's Rill for Road 38.
5.
6.
1. Tree planting of approximatelY 850 OLA stock treeS and 800 regula~ nursery
8. Gravel roads were in reasonablY good condition and calcium Chlo~ide
stock trees would begin next week.
applicatiOns would have to start prior to the next Road committee meeting.
school at GUelph M,ay 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the Engineer had again been reque sted
by M~. K. Kleinsteiber, Chief Bridge ~gineer for the M.T.C. to assist in
teaching the course on Bridge Inspection and Maintenance.
being made up for presentation to committee at the MaY meeting. It
appea~ed that considerable patching would be required on Road 16 north and
south of l1inga1. NumeroUs small patche s would al so be required in variouS
9. Three emPloyees were being sent to the Ontario Good Roads ASSociatiOn Road
10. A check list of Roads for surface treatment, prtming and ~esurfacing was
areaS of the county.
11. The sweepe~ was in operation.
12. Bridge floors had been cleaned and repairs would be made to the l'ort Burwell
13. Vehicle repairs were normal. sande~s and snowplowS were removed. Semi-
and players Bridge floors.
annual dump truck inspections had started. Sanders and the scales would
be sandblasted and painted.
:;~~
14. Edgar McLeod would retire as of today due to ill health and would be
15. QUotations fo~ culvert pipe for the Bayhron",Malahide Towu1ine had been
pr~sented with a retirement cheque of $200.00 and a watch at county council.
requested and were being summarized.
16. Union 5t~eet storm d~ain for Belmont was underway.
17. Phillip ~edell of Golder ASSociateS would look at Front 5t~eet in Po~t
Stanl~y for a bin wall application.
ST. TRoMA5, ONT ,o.R1.0
APRIL 9, 1980
"PAGE 3.
18.
Application had been made for a wayside pit License fo~ sand fc,r Road 38
f~om the ca~l ~~aun prope~tY at Lot 123, south Talbot Road, Bayham TownshiP'
Urban work in 5traffordville on Road 38 would sta~t in tWO weeks.
Ditching on Road 40 waS ~equired fo~ ]\Ob coorman as the water waS running
intO his field ~ath~~ than down the ditch.
Sand blasting and painting would resume on the GilletS B~idge when othe~
small maintenance jobS were coropleted.
Road 29 (other than the po~tiOn built in 1919 by the M.T.C.) would be given
anothe~ coat of gravel V~io~ to priming as would Road 31 in ]lelmont.
The sideroad on Road 42 east of the 5ilve~ creek Rill would ~equi~e Rot Mix
patching to level it up.
The problem of water ove~ the catchbasin in the ditch on Road 16 at the
Best Drain had been refe~~ed to Ralph Beha~rell, TownshiP of 50l1thwold
Drainage c~ssione~'
The water p~oblem in corinth of tOO tnUch water fo~ the drain to handle would
be examined and cor~ected if possible.
The culvert unde~ the road at the Lunn Drain on Road 16 in DUnwich TownshiP
nea~ Ra~~y ~radt' s had been examined and the Enginee~ waS of the opinion that
the culve~t unde~ the county Road (30 inch diameter) waS adequate in size
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
and deep enough.
M< ag~eement had been ~eaehed with the DUtton Chamber of commerce to place
th~ir flower ar~angementS on the should~~ of the road at the Village
the S.tdewalk awa" fr()ll1 the street intersection rathe~ than on
entrance on ~J
the parking Lane as done in 1919.
R~eve KellY'S complaint ~egarding no ditch at the intersection of the
. d d R d 3 1 mile south of Road 2 had been ~xronin~d and
Townsh1.P Roa an oa ,
it appea~ed that extensive ditching would be ~equi~ed. The mate~ial
f~()II1 the ditching could be used to cover the junk at the end of Road 3
27.
28.
at NeW GlaSgoW.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 4.
29. There was a possibility that the Village of Dutton could use some dirt
to cover pipe on the Brown Drain in Dutton this summer. This could be a
place to get rid of some of the excess dirt if ditching between Dutton and
Wallacetown on Road 8 was undertaken. Extensive ditching on both Road 8
and Road 3 between New Glasgow and Road 2 is urgently rlequired.
30. A picture was presented showing very extensive deterioration over the
winter of the Middlemiss Bridge floor. While replacement of the floor
likely would not be required for several years, deterioration was occuring
faster than previously anticipated.
31. The M.T.C. rate for Rental of Munrcipal Tractors and MO'wers was $6.50 per
hour plus operator. It appeared that the time allocation for grass
cutting of County Roads in Aldborough Township was approximately 110 hours.
Reeve Kelley stated he would discuss the matter with his council and report
back.
32. While winter control expenditures had been fairly light over the winter,
tree cutting and tree planting costs were up and more mDney would be
required if any amount of ditching of Roads 3, 8 or 40 'was required.
33. A backwater gate was being ordered for a culvert on Road 30 to attempt
to prevent flooding onto Morris Taylor's land south of the Patterson
Culvert. A backwater gate would also be installed in a drain leading
from the "Finch" house owned by Cecil Brown on Road 16. Mr. Brown was of
the opinion that flooding of the house basement did not occur prior to
installation of a catchbasin on Road 16 during road cons~ruction.
34. Repairs to the railing of the Glencolin Bridge on Road ,40 would be
undertaken within several weeks.
Land payment to Wayne Kentner on Road 16 was discussed at some length
and Reeve Shaw was requested to again speak to Mr. Kentner on the matter.
Reeve Green reported that Wayne Taylor on Road 38 had again agreed
to sell road widening and requested that the Engineer get the Land Surveyor to
complete his work immediately.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 5.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT THE l1OLLOWlNG l'A'lLlSTS BE APPROVED l10R PAYMENT I
l'A'lLIST NUMBER 13 AMoUNTING TO $ 41,526.28
l' A'lL15T NUMBER 15 AMOUNTING TO $ 31 ,383.1 7
l'A'lLIST NUMBER 16 AMOUNTING TO $ 60.00
1'A'lLlST NUMBER 17 AMOUNTING TO $l~,'668.13
CARRIED."
A) Township of 'lartnOuth regarding a public meeting for the Union HiH Estates
CORRESPONDENCE was read from:
B) Township of 'lartnouth regarding notice of meeting, minor variance James
Subdivision.
Charron, southda1e Road.
c) O. M. B. Hearing date regarding appeal from County of Elgin Land Division
committee decision regarding W. D. Carroll Limited property in South
D) Village of port Stanley regarding five zoning by",lawS, none of which
Dorchester.
affected any County Roads.
E) Township of DUn,.;.ch !loning By~Law for an estate lot on Road 16 in Lot. 12,
Concession VIII.
11) Township of Southwo1d Zoning By.Law to rezone service station at the
northwest corner of Highway 3 and Highway 4 in Ta1hotville into a many
purposed variety, hardware store and automotive centre.
G) Township of 50uthwold stating that the residentS of 'lartnouth who were
serviced by the Board of Education Water Pipeline between Road 26 and
the Lynhurst School would be served by the new pipeline from the 110rd
line that the Township would install this year.
The Ministry of Housing asking if the County of Elgin had any objection
to the r~zoning of certain portion of springfield to reSidential from
R)
open space.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 6.
I) Ministry of Transportation and CVl1uuunications asking if the County of Elgin
were interested in purchasing part of Lots 23, 24 and 25 which were surplus
to the M.T.C. requirements on Highway 401. The Corrrrnittee was not
interested.
J) Township of Bayham stating that the Township proposed to close a portion of
Front Street near Vienna.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL 'l"HA'1' ABY~l1AW',BEPASSED STATING- THAT THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE CLOSING BY THE TOWNSHIP OF BAYHAM OF
THE NORTH EASTERLY HALF OF KING STREET AND THE NORTH WESTERLY HALF OF FRONT
STREET LYING SOUTH OF MAIN STREET.
CARRIED."
K) From the Western Ontario Sports Car Association requesting permission to
close Road 43 in January 1981 for a Sports Car Rally.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT WE DO NOT CLOSE COUNTY ROAD 43 AS PER THE REQUEST OF THE WESTERN
ONTARIO SPORTS CAR ASSOCIATION.
CARRIED."
"MOVED EY:
L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY:
J. D. CAMPBELL
THAT THE ELGIN COUNTY ROAD COMMITTEE HAVE ROAD COM:MITTEE MINUTES PRINTED
AND DISTRIBUTED TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE ROAD COM:MITTEE PLUS A COpy TO THE
ELGIN COUNTY CLERK.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1980
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL TENDERS FOR EMl~SION AND PEA
STONE FOR 1980.
CARRIED."
It was decided not to have a Spring Road Inspecti.on. The Chairman
requested those members who wished to see specific projects to get in touch
with the Engineer to arrange for a time to view the project.
The Engineer stated that he would report on asphalt resurfacing at
the May meeting.
The meeting adjourned for lunch.
After lunch with some members of the Personnel Corrrrnittee in
attendance, the Engineer presented the attached report which was discussed and
accepted by Road Corrrrnittee members. It was pointed out that the only way for
Superintendents and the Engineer to get their holidays in tIle next two years
was to hire additional help including another Assistant Engineer as soon as
possible. It would also be necessary to hire additional hourly rated people
so that some key operators and foremen could get their holidays.
"MOVED BY: J. D. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ADJOURN TO MAY 14, 1980 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
~~/ _VifL,
CHAIRMAN - (}
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROADS DEPARTMENT
....",'...- . -;..:...;~~":::;" I~
REPORT ON HOLIDAY BACKLOG ~ ROAD COMMITTE15 MEJ;:TING APRIL 9, 1<;180.
HOURLY RATED
carry-over into 1980 was Z53~ DayS.
Carry-over for Z employeeS retiring in 1980 was 50 3/4 Days.
Thus the carry-Over remaining by 50 employeeS is approximatelY 200
oays ·
our mi.nimum objOctive in 1980 will cut th;l.1l r:emaining
backlog by 35% _ 40% i.e., a baokl09 of not morE! than lZO · 130
into 1981. ThUS the baokl09 will be cut in half in 1980.
AS walker Bridge is the major project of 1981 and 1982
we would anticipate little difficulty' in clearing up the balance
. by December 31, 1982 excJapt I';or the odli person whO ma,y approach
county council with a special request. our only exceptiOn we
could envisage, is one senior foreman with a backlog of 20 days
and then only if there was an extenlieli illneSS on t!:le part of one
of our superintenlients. .
It. al'Pc'ar6 thL't. more "",ployeeS have taK,en or have
requeSteli ti~ off prior to MaY 1st than in past years.
, '~I
II'
,r'
SALARIED
We anticipate li.ttle problem in eliminating the baCklOg
with the OUice staff (Offioe Manager Mli twO employMI\I) over tM
three year period. The same is true of the Technician.
'l'he \.lack-log 0 [ the s;uperintendentlll' hoH.~aY' wi 11- bll
reduced over the perioli. However anticipateli worklOads, health
!l;U:uations, etc., should be assessed approximately eVery six
months ot:' so and promotions made if it appellora tllat the remaining
superintendents cannot adequatelY carry the workload and obtain
not"mal holidays plus some portion of the baCKlog.
At some time in the future it will; be necessary to
eI'lgag'e another ASsistant Engineer to assist with the present
duties of the Engineer, superintenlients .andTechniCian. This
problem shoulli be considereli as soon as the pt"ogramme tor the
building of the walKer Bridge is finalized and the termination
of the previous ASsistant is finalized. After that time a more
comprehensive plan can be dcvelOP(~c1 to rl;lduce the backlog of
holidays for the"superintendents and Enginel;lr.
ST. T1:l0MA5, ONTARIO
MARCR 26, 1980
"PAGB 1.
T1:lE CQIJN-rY 011 J1.LG1.1:< ROAD cQ}!MtTTEE My;t at the MuniCipal BUilding at
. h h C t" council. pJ.l membe~s
~ h 26 1980 in conjunction w~t t e oun J
2:00 p.m., ~a~c '
'We~e p~esent.
"MOVBD BY:
J. B. VlILSON
SECONDED B'll W. R. CAVERl.'l
Tl\1\.T T1:lE liOLLoWING P A'lL15T BE AP1'ROVED l10R P A'lMENT ·
P A'lL15T flt4 AMoU1:<TING TO $ 1,494.98.
CARRIED ."
co~~espondence f~()II1 the Minist~Y of T~anspo~tatiOn and cororoPnicatiOns
~ega~ding an EnergY M,anagement setl\inar in Chathatl\ on Al'~il 3, waS noted.
. ~ding Roderick oIMea~a' ~equesting
d nce f~o<" cram and ASSOc~ates ~ega
correspon e J- W
pa" waS diSCUssed at same length with Geo~ge Leve~ton in
one tl\Onth' s sever anceJ
attendance.
t d the corornentS of and cor~espondence f~()II1 the CountY
1'Ir. Leverton ~epor e
SolicitOr, Mr. 1:lennessey'
The meeting adjOurned to Ap~il 9, 1980.
CRA1~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
MARCH SESSION
1980
PAGE 1.
to.
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
....
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Mr. Norman Warner of the firm of R.C. Dunn and Associates
Limited of London'has been retained by the County of Elgin
and the County of Middlesex as the consultant on the Walker Bridge
on a time and expense basis. Preliminary field surveys have been
completed by the County of Elgin staff. The firm of H.Q~t Golder and
Associates have been retained for soils engineering and have made
preliminary botings. Preliminary meetings have been held with
engineers of the James MacLaren Limited firm who act for the Lower
Thames River Conservation Authority, to determine flood levels and
the future plans of the Authority. It is not known when preliminary
cost estimates will be availa}:>le.
2. That we have accepted the quotation of Armco Canada Limited.
at $96,471.00 for the materials for a super sp~ln culve.rt 30
feet wide and 21 feet high and 178 feet long across Little Otter Creek
on County Road 38J in Bayham Township. Westeel Rosco Litlo.ited the only
other supplier of this type of material declined to bid. The material
is expected to be delivered in mid April with sub-assembly work to
start immediately.
WE RECOMMEND:
1.
That the Re solution of the Region of Ottawa Ca171eton regarding
Symbolic Traffic Sign Education be filed.
2. That the -Resolution of the Township of Bayham :requestingthe
Ministry of Transportation and Conmunications to designate
County Road 38 as a Heritage Road be endorsed.
3.
That the Rebate to Urban Municipalities be 25% of their Road
Levy as in former years.
r~
l'
I
I
f
4. That the following Statement of Proposed Work cmd Expenditures
on County and St. Thomas Suburban Road Cvulluission Roads be
approved and a Resolution passed adopting the Statement of Work and
Expenditures and the Statement be forwarded to the ~inist:ry of Transportation
and Cuu""uunications for approval.
1980 CONSTRUCTION
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
t. Complete work from previous years:
- Road 30 (Radio Road)
... Road 31
- Road 52
,.
2. Land Purchase:
- Road 22
- Road 30
- Road 31 and 52
3. Surveys, Engineering, Tree Cutting, Etc.:
... Road 22
COUNTY
1. Complete work from previous years:
- Road 16 - Fingal to Road 14
2. Land Purchase:
- Road 16
Road 32
- Road 38
- Miscellaneous and Uncommitted
3. Surveys, Engineering, Tree Cutting, Etc.:
- Road 32
... Miscellaneous
4. Major Project Construction:
... Road 38 - Clean.Up 1979 Work
- Straffordville urban easterly to C.P.R. Crossing.
... Little Otter Creek Culvert.
... Wards Hill - Rough Granular Grade.
- Wards Hill to Straffordville cvmplete including
base coat of asphalt.
5. Uncv.....uitted funds:
TOTAL
PAGE 2.
$ 6,000
,2,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
4,000
12..000
12,000
26,000
20,000
16,000
18,000
10... 000
$ 48,000
102,000
967,000
150,000
$1.267,000
PAGE 3.
~AINTENANCE
COUNTY AND SUBURBAN
1980
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
1980
COUNTY
1980
OPERATION
A _ Bridges and culverts ~
30,000
30,000
3,000
.. 1 Bridges
3,000
... 2 culverts
B ... Roadside Maintenance
15,000
2,000
13,000
.. 2 Tree Cutting
60,000
6,000
54,000
54,000
.. 1 Grass cutting
60,000
6,000
4 Drainage
10,000
1,000
9,000
_ 5 Roadside Maintenance
500
2,500
3,000
.. 6 Tree Planting
4,000
... 7 Drainage AssessmentS
(Maintenance)
4,000
12,000
1,500
10,500
~11 Weed Spraying
4 surface Treatment
140,000 12,000 128,000
16,000 1,000 15,000
19,000 4,000 15,000
~
70,000 70,000
c ... Paved Road Maintenance
1 Repairs to Pavement
... 2 sweeping
... 3 Shoulder Maintenance
.. 5 Gr a'Ve 1 Re sur ac ing
18,000 5,000 13,000
48,000 7,000 41,000
8,000 6,000 2,000
45,000 4,000 41,000
385,000 60,000 325,000
D ... Gravel Road Maintenance
... 2 Grading Gravel Roads
... 3 Calcium Chloride
... 4 Prime
E _ Winter control
... 4 Railroad Protection
35,000
4,000
28,000
50,000
6,000
31,000
F ... Safety. Devices
35,000
7,000
.. 1 Pavement Ma~king
55,000
5,000
.. 2 Signs
6,000
... 3 Guide Rail
}..077,000.
,132.00.2.
Y4S.00q
-, ..
TOTAL
FAGE 4.
OV'ERtlE@.
--
1980
Stl.perintendence
95,000
76,000
~
Ga-rageS
2.5,000
Tool S
Miscellaneous Repai~S
3,500
".
Radio
8,000
Needs gttl.dy update
T-raffic cotl.ntS
5,000
Training Courses
47,000
.. ..
Cle-rical
2,500
Fe~itS
MiSC~11aneous ~nsu~ance
16,000
5,000
Office
Machine~Y ov~~head
Vlhite 5Uti01il Rehabilitation'
Dist~ibution _ St. ThamaS Suburban Road c~ission $ 21,000
$ 2.61,000
5 000
~
000
~
.. cotl.nty of Elgin
PAGE 5.
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
Maintenance - County Roads
$ 945,000
- St. Thomas Suburban Roads
132,000
Overhead
- County Roads
261,000
- St. Thomas Suburban Roads
27,000
New Machinery
175,000
Asphalt Resurfacing - County Roads
185,000
- St. Thomas Suburban Roads
65,000
Construction - County Roads 1. Land Purchase and
Carry Over.
102,000
2. Road 38.
967,000
3.' Uncommitted Funds. 150,000
~ St. Thomas Suburban Roads - Land
Purchase and Carry Over. 48.000
Subsidized by M.T.C. at
. Operational Rate $3,057,000
ADO: Urban Rebates
52,000
Drainage Assessments
10,000
Items Not for Subsidy
4,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$3 .. 1 23. 000
RECEIPTS
M.T.C. ~ Ordinary Subsidy on Operations
$2,276,000
M.T.C. ~ Subsidy on Urban Rebates (50%)
26,000
M.T.C. - Subsidy on Drainage Assessments (50%)
5,000
City of St. Thomas - Effective Contribution to
Suburban Roads
35,000
$2.342,000
NET LEVY
Expendi ture s
$3,123,000
Receipts
~,342,000
NET LEVY
$ 781,000
PAGE 6.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
n
MARCH SESSION
1980
S. That a Resolution be passed requesting the Ministry of 1:ransportatiotl
and Cvuu.uunications to approve the sum of $5,000.00 ion subsidy money
for Drainage Assessments on County and St. Thomas Suburban Road-
Cc..AA.....ission Roa-ds in 1980. (Subsidy Rate for Drai.nage Assessments is
50%. )
ALL OF WHICH l:S RESPECTFULLY SUBMITT20.
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 12, 1980
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at the Elgin County Buildings
at 9:30 a.m., March 12, 1980. All members were present except Reeve Phillips.
Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Tr"a:n.sportation and CVl1u.uunications was al so
present.
THE MINUTES of the ~eeting of February 6, 1980 WE!re read and approved.
The Chairman noted that he had received a letter from the Honourable
James Snow requesting that the County of Elgin and MiddlesE!x ascertain the
estimated cost of the new Walkers Bridge and discuss financing with John Moffat
of his office. Mr. Snow also stated that extra funds had not been necessarily
ruled out although rarely approved for Counties.
The Engineer stated that Mr. Norm Warner of R. C~~ Dunn and Associates
had been engaged as the Consultant for the bridge and it had been agreed that
his fee would be on a time and expense basis rather than a fee basis because of
the uncertainties of the project. The structure would be designed to minimum
standards
Ministry of Transportation and Communications~ which gives a deck width of
approximately 24 feet. Preliminary surveying had been completed by the County
staff. H. Q. Golder and Associates had been engaged for soils investigation
work and drilling work was underway.
Discussions had been held with W. M. Knowles of James MacLaren
and Associates who act for the Lower Thames River Conservation Authority regarding
the Authorities plans for the Wardsville Dam and the height of the bridge to
clear anticipated floods.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED on the Work to Date as follows:
1. Snow plowing had been light but sanding moderate to heavy in the last few
weeks with considerable salt being used.
2. Tree cutting was nearly completed with work having been completed on Road 22,
28 and 32. Only a little brushing and a few scattered trees in Yarmouth
Township remained.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 12, 1980
PAGE 2.
3. The extreme frost had broken watermains on Road 16 (Fingal Hill) and
Wellington Road at Lynhurst, Road 28 Centennial Avenue was extremely rough
to the point of be~ng dangerous and had been signed.
4. Sign work was continuing.
5. Repairs to equipment had been moderate although the 10 year old 2-man
chain saw had dismttegn;ated and a new one was being purchased.
6. A tender had been put in on a used Mi"".;:tn' "f 1Y_"...~~:~:::s
Brush Chipper as it was impossible to obtain blades for the County's Fitchburg
Chipper.
7. Stripping of clay (approximately 15 feet) continued at the County's Pleasant
Valley Pit. Some pit run gravel had been hauled to Road 38 and stockpiled
at the east side of Wards Hill for future use. Walnut trees at the Pit had
been sold to Willis Weaver for $800.
8. Snow fence removal was underway.
9. Drainage work for Belmont and Port Stanley and on Road 38 would begin when
the frost waS out of the ground.
10. The index of County By-Law closing Township roads was nearly completed.
11. Thtt'ee men were being send to the T. J. Mahoney Road School and the Engineer
would again instruct at the C. S. Anderson School.
12. Prices were being obtained for a new typewriter to replace one purchased in
1963.
13. Land purchase continued with agreements having been reached ,with Doug Sawyer on
Road 22, Don Hou,ghton had completed Land Plans on Road 32 as far as purchasing
had been cVlUpleted. Negotiations would continue with Bill Hare and Vic
Bardawill.
It was noted that Wayne Taylor again had decided to disagree with local
governments.
Truck #88 would be sent to Frink next week to get the Dump Box on.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 12, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY:
L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY:
L. J. SHAW
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
P AYLI ST #6 AMOUNT1NG TO $ 39,913.70
PAYLIST #8 AMOUNTING TO $ 39,752.18
PAYLIST #10 AMOUNTING TO $ 40,902.43
PAYLIST #11 AMOUNTING TO $ 1,359.46
PAYLIST #12 AMOUNTING TO $125,833.31
PAYLIST # 9 AMOUNTING TO $ 1,989.80
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:
1. Ministry of Transportation and Communications approving the County of Elgin
Bridge Limit By-Law.
2. O.M.B. regarding hearing dates for zoning and Land Division Corrrrnittee appeals.
3. Township of Yarmouth regarding By-Law Rezoning land on Road 28.
4. Township of Malahide regarding new Township Zoning By-][,aw.
5. East Elgin Planning Board with official plan amended.
6. Honourable James Snow clarifying his intentions regarding appointment of
the County Road Cvu1Luittee. The CVlll1uittee instructed the Engineer to write
approving the Ministers' intentions.
7. Bayham Township requesting designation of Road 38, as a Heritage Road.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT WE ENDORSE THE RESOLUTION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF BAYHAM REQUESTING THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
TO DESIGNATE COUNTY ROAD 38 AS A HERITAGE ROAD.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 12, 1980
PAGE 4.
8. Region of Ottawa Carleton regarding education of general public regarding
Symbolic Traffic Signs.
"MOVED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE RESOLUTION OF OTTAWA CARLETON
REGARDING SYMBOLIC TRAFFIC SIGN EDUCATION BE FILED.
CARRIED."
9. Elexco Limited requesting oil and gas lease on County Pleasant Pit and
property along Lake Erie in front of Road 24. The Committee stated that
they were not interested in oil and gas leases at this time.
10. Albert Auckland regarding payment for expenses for the Ontario Good Roads
Convention.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE REQUEST OF ALBERT AUCKLAND FOR ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION
CONVENTION EXPENSES BE REFERRED TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
CARRIED."
The Engineer presented the attached quotations for calcium chloride and
culvert pipe.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LTD. ,F'OR SUPPLY OF PIPE CULVERT
AT THEIR QUOTED PRICE OF $16,963.70.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS FOR CALCIUM CHLORIDE. POLLARD BROS. LTD.,
SUPPLY OF LIQUID CALCIUM CHLORIDE AT $109.80 PER IMPERIAL TON FLAKE EQUIVALENT, ANY
ROAD IN ELGIN. ALLIED CHEMICAL LTD., SUPPLY OF BAGGED CALCIUM CHLORIDE DELIVERED
TO COUNTY GARAGE IN TRUCK LOADS AT $155.72 PER METRIC 'I~ON.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 12, 1980
PAGE 5.
The Engineer noted that only one tender had been recei"ed for materials for
the Little Otter Creek Culvert, on Road 38.
"MOVED BY:
L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY:
L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LTD., FOR MATERIAL FOR THE
LITTLE OTTER CREEK CULVERT AT THEIR QUOTED PRICE OF $96,471 SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED."
Meeting adjourned for dinner.
After dinner the County Personnel Corrrrnittee was in att4~ndance to discuss
Holiday Carryover. The Engineer presented the attached report showing H()lidays
Earned and Carryover to date.
Concern was expressed regarding Carryover of Holidays from year to year
particularly at the Management and Senior Foreman and Machine Operator level. It
was pointed out that this Carryover was a result of years of accumulation because
of a lack of senior staff to carryon operations when senior men were away. It
was also pointed out that money available for day labour work would be scarce in
1981 and 1982 because of the Walkers Bridge construction. Bebause of reduction
of funds, the number of staff had been cut and thus there were less people to cover
when someone was away.
The Engineer stated that he would report to the next meeting of Road
CVUILLLittee with a plan to reduce the outstanding holiday time.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY:, W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ADJOURN TO APRIL 9, AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
x;,d /d d
CHAI~ ~
-Ly.r,--",,~,c._"'""~"~.--=;i~
,,;
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY. OF HOLIDAYS
..
EMPLOYEE
Abbott, Kenneth
Bedford, Gordon
Bradt, Norman
Britton, Donald
Brown, John
Chaplow, J~mt:lS
Cook, George
Cook, Ronald
Cox, Herb
Cross, Glenn
Doyle, Robert
Ford, Russell
Frank, Gary
...
'.,
'FEBRUARY '17TQ MARCH 1, 1980
REMARKS
Not Working
Not Working
Retires Novpmher off on Sick Leave
\
\
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT - SUMMARY OF HOLIDAYS
Page 2.
REMARKS
Request~d time in Summer to go West
One Week in March
Requested t.ime in late SUnnner to go
West
Retires January/81. Requested three
weeks August
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPAR'rMEf't.1"f - SUMMARY OF HOLIDAYS
~
.
CARRY OVER '"
EMPLOYEE FROM 1979 EARNED FOR 1 gau TOTAL USm'TO DATE REMAINING
...... .......... --
Lunn, Stanley 5~ 20 25~ 0 25~
McCready, Robert 6 15 21 12~ 8~
McCready, Ted 2 10 12 .l~ 10~
McLaws, J;:)m~s -j,. -1-0 9 0 9
McLeod, Edgar 19t 25 44\ 24 20~ .
.
Marshall, Fred 3 10 13 3 10
Milligan, Arnold 2~ 25 45~ 3~ 42
Moon, Allan -1 1 '... 9 0 9
O'Connor, Wayne 0 19 19 0 19
Ostrander, Orrie 6 20 26 8~ 17~
Player, Keith ~ 25 26 2 24
.l
Sloetjes, Derk l~ 15 16,~ 1~ 15
Sloetjes, William 3~ 20 23~ 2~ 21
Small, Lewis l6~ 20 36~ 0 36~
Smith, Gerald ~ 20 2~ l~ 19
~
'1
Page 3.
REMARKS
Retires April/80
Not Working
One week in March
Off sick three months not back yet
Sweeper Operator
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROADDEP ARTMENT - SUMMARY OF HOLIDAYS
~
.
CARRY OVER of
EMPLOYEE FROM 1979 EARNED FOR 1980 TOTAL USED 'TO DATE REMAINING
-
Smith, Wilfred 15 25 40 3~ 36~
Telfer, Kenneth 3~ 20 23~ 5 18~
Watters, James 3 25 28 .3 25
Webster, Lloyd 0 18~ 18~ 0 18~
Webster, Ralph 0 19.}; 19\ 0 19\ ..
.
Welch, Danny 11 20 31 61 . 2~
"2
Zellas:, Donald 0 20 20 3 3/4 16\
Zellas, Ron 0 20 20 1 19
TOTALS 253\ 908\ l.161~ 133~ 1 , 028
\
.~
Page 4.
REMARKS
Off sick four months last year
Not Working
Not Working
One week in March
COUNTY OF ELGIN .ROAD DEPARTMENT
1
... ,
..
~.
SALARIED 2MPLOYEES
SUMMARY OF HOLIDAYS
CARRY OVER
EMPLOYEE FROM 1979 EARNED FOR 1980 TOTAL USED TO DATE REMAINING
" ,
Moore, R. G. 107% 25 132~ 0 132~
Gordon, Arthur 114 25 139 % 134~
.
.
Doran, Roy 51 25 76 0 76
Gordon, Curtis 25 25 50 4~ 45~
Collard, Ray 3~ 25 28~ 3~ 25
Jacobs, Evelyn 33 20 53 1 52
Wilkinson, Dorothy 5 10 15 ~ l4~
2
Anderson, Ann 0 10 10 0 10
TOTALS 165 339 504 14 490
~ _ ~,...._ ~.., ~~-:,,-,-:;..:i2-"'~~ ~
.~
,
"
FEBRUARY 1 7 TO MARCH 1, 1980
REMARKS
One week in May
Presently on Holidays
Two weeks in June
Three weeks-in August
April
~'I
COUNTY OF ELGIN
TENDER FOR CALCIUM CHLORIDE - 1980
1. Pollard Bros. Ltd.
Harrow, Ontario
Liquid - $109.80 per flake equivalent ton applied to any road.
Subject to changes in charges by GoveLUluent policy in
fuel tax and prices.
,.
Bulk - $109.80 per flake ton applied.
(Last year $95.50.)
2. Miller Paving Ltd.
P. O. Box 250
Unionville, Ontario
N3R 2V3
Liquid - $112.80 per flake equivalent ton.
(Firm price to October 1, 1980.)
3. Allied Chemical Canada Ltd.
201 City Centre Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
L5B 2T4
Per Metric Ton- - 40 kg. bags delivered $155.72
(Last year $113.30 per imperial ton.)
f,\
~~
CULVERT !Jar~TloNS ~ ~C\l. 4
1l'l1'ER1-AJ.. p1-~v:rER~E~ED
1980
1. '\Iesteel-ROSCo Limit.ed
1 AtlantiC. Avenue ·
'tot:'ontO, ontariO
M6\( t~1
".
$ \6 ,6Q'}. 00
2.
~etttc Unit Piamcter (llot to specificatiOns)
~co canaaa Ltd.
l? o. 1\0)(. 310
EtobiCO~~' ont.ario
~C 4-'/'2
$ 16,963.10
~e~ial Ullit Digmete~
~. ~oppe~s Inte~nat.ional
v. o. BO)(. 4-2.6
.'\Iate~loo, onta~io
"'N2.J 4-A,9
cana~a Ltd.
$ 11,41;\..10
."
l!l\'Pe~ial unit.'. Diame t.e~
canada culve~t. and Met.al p~odUct.s Lt.d.
f. o. ~o)( 518
Map 1e, ontat:'io
LOJ\.EO
$ 11,652.40
4.
5.
.~~~ial Unit ptoonet.er
CQ~~Ugat.ed l'ipe Co. Ltd.
p. o. BOX 116 "
5t~atfO~d. onta~io
N5A 611
$ 18,150.&8
6.
tmperia1 unit Pioonete~
E. 5. l\ubbell and sons Limited
'F. o. '1.\0)(. 1.1.8
Thamesville, ont.ario
. 'NO\' 2\<.0
$ 18,901.82
1.
~e~ial Unit Diamet~t
lia~cett. M~t.al p~od~ctS Limited
1'. o. 1\0)(. 304- '
~atet:'loO, ontat:'io
N2.J 4A4
~erial and M~t~iC Unit. Pi~t~t
$ 2.1,164.0&
ted as theY would supplY imp~rial unit
Tende~ of ~co canada Ltd. accep i d stock wol11d not bl~nd with
d~ametet. LOw bidd~~ is a met~iC un t an
pr~S~llt countY stock.
Sl'. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 6, 1980
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at the Elgin County Buildings
at 9:30 a.m., February 6, 1980. All members except Reeve 'Wilson and Reeve Kelly
were present.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT RON GREEN BE CHAIRMAN FOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1980.
CARRIED."
THE MINUTES OF the meeting of January 23 were read and adopted.
The Warden reported that the Honourable James Snow had given the
delegation a good reception and stated that it would be necessary to obtain
cost estimates and plans for the replacement of the Walkers BriJdge before funding
assistance to the two counties could be considered. Until cost estimates were
obtained it would be impossible to ascertain whether the project was beyond the
municipalities capabilities.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED on the Work to Date as follows:
1. Winter Control had again been very light.
2. Tree cutting was continuing in east and west Elgin.
3. Striping at the Pleasant Valley Pit was continuing.
4. The Hough Loader and Truck #72 had been repaired.
5. Tenders for the Culvert on Road 38 were out, and to close in two (2) weeks.
6. Engineering was continuing for projects in Belmont and in Port Stanley.
7. Sickness at the present time was such that there was only one spare operator
available if sanding and plowing work would be carried on at the same time.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 6, 1980
PAGE 2.
"MOVED BY: W. R . CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE FOLLOWING P AYLI ST S BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 4 AMOUNTING TO $39,097.48
PAYLIST NUMBER 7 AMOUNTING TO $76,834.66
OARRIEr>.' ,
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Township of 'larmouth authorizing the County to proceed with a tender call
for material regarding the Helka Bridge.
2. Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario regarding transporation of
dangerous material. Committee felt that there was some danger of a great
many materials to be considered dangerous and subject to unnecessary controls.
3. City of St. Thomas regarding zoning ~ ~
4. Ministry of the Envirornnent regarding environtIlental reviews for road widening.
5. Ontario Blue Cross regarding increased extended health care rates. Depa~y-
Reeve S. J. Glover stated that the Personnel Cv,m"ittee waS examining other
insurance coverage.
6. David Warner, M.P.P. regarding Pits and Quarries Act.
7. The County of Middlesex requesting endorsement of a resolution requesting that
the costs of railway track signals be amended to have the railway pay 80% and
the municipality 20% instead of the present 50 - 50 arrangement.
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY:L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNT'l COUNCIL THAT TIlE RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF
MIDDLESEX REGARDING THE COST OF RAILWAY CROSSING MAINTENANCE BE ENDORSED.
CARRIED.tf
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 6, 1980
PAGE 3.
8. From the Township of Southwold requesting permission to lay water pipe lines
on County Roads.
"MOVED BY: S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED TO ENABLE THE
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD TO PLACE WATER PIPE LINES ON COU~TY ROADS IN THE
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD.
CARRIED."
9. From Stanley Charlton requesting permission to lay water lines on Road 40
1 mile south of Springfield.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED TO ENABLE THE
WARDEN AND CLERK TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH STANLEY CHARLTON TO ALLOW HIM
TO PLACE A WATER PIPE LINE ON COUNTY ROAD 40.
CARRIED."
10. From James Snow Minister of
_ Transportation and Communications regarding
the appointment of the Suburban Road Corrrrnission and County Road Corrrrnittee.
The Engineer was directed to reply.
Automobile tenders as attached were considered.
"MOVED BY(: D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF MIKE HUTCHINSON LTD., AYLMER FOR THREE (3)
CHEVROLET IMPALAS AS PER COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND HIS TENDER COMPLETE WITH
POLICE PACKAGES AT A QUOTED PRICE OF $18,935.42 INCLUDING PROVINCIAL SALES
TAX WITH THE COUNTY 1975 DODGE CAR AND THE COUNTY'S T'WO 1977 PLYMOUTH CARS
AS TRADE-INSALI, SUBJECT TO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS,
APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
ST. Tl1.01:!),s, ONTARIO
l1E'BRUAR'l 6, 1980
PAGE 4.
d t the last meeting was diSCUssed.
The ~udget as p~esente a
"MOVED BY.:
SECoNDED 'B'll 5. J. GLoVER
Tl1.AT WE REcQ'l,1MEND TO CouNT'! F11'1ANcE c~lT'tEE Tl1.AT A ROAD LEV'! Oli
Vl. R. CAVERLY
$181,000 'BE ~'tED.
CARRiED."
SECONDED BY.:
m<C1.L T1:\AT A. RE50L1.ft1.01'\ 'BE PASSED REQUESTING
T1:\AT WE RECOlMEND TO CouNT'! CO.
~lCATI01'\5 TO APPRoVE Tl1.E SuN 011
Tl1.E MIN15TR'l 011 TRANSPORTAT1.0N AND CO
1'1 c()IJ1'I't'l AND ST. Tl1.oMA5
$5 ,000 11'1 SU'B51.D'l M01'\t'l 110R DRA1.1'\AGE ASSESsMENTS 0
5U'B\lR'BAN ROAD c~lSS10N ROADS IN 1980.
S. J. GLOVER
"MO\1ED BY.:
Vl. R. CAVERLY
CARR1ED-"
"MO\1ED BY ~
SECONDED 'B'l' D. J. c~~J?:LL
U 'BAN MUNICIPALITIES
T1:\A't WE RECo~ND TO couNT'l CouNC1.'L T1:\AT T\lE RE'BATE TO R
'Bl1. 25% 011 Tl1.l1.IR ROAD LEV'! AS 1.1'\ l1O~R '{EARS.
cARR1ED."
L _ J. S1ll\Vl
"MOVED BY. ~
SECONDED 'B'!l D. J. c~'BELL
T1:\AT A RE50L1.ft1.0N 'BE pASSED ADOPTING T\lE
T1:\AT WJ1, RECOlMEND TO c()IJ1'I't'l c()1.lNC1.L
D F1 1 oli T\ll1. 'B\lDGF:1 DATl1.D J p,N\lAR'l 23,
ATTAC1:\ED 1'ROP05ED 5TA'tl?MEN! Oli woR\-Z. ( RA
~ ~E liORYI ARDED TO Tl1.E
1980) AND EZ.PENDIT\JRES fOR 1980 AND Tl1.E 5TATl?ME
c~CAT1.0N5 l10R APPRoVAL'
M11'I15TR'{ Oli TRAN5PORTA'tI0N AND
"L . J. S1ll\Vl
CARRiBD ."
ST. TlloMAS, oWti\RIO
%~RUi\R'l 6, 1980
l' AGE 5.
SECoNDED 1I'l1 L. A. LOl'lG1:\\.lR5T
TW>.T VIE REC~D TO coUNTY COUNCIL TllAT TllE cQ1.lNTIE5 Oli ELG1.l'l Al'lD MIDDLES~
E Al'lD TllAT TWE C~.'rrEE 'BE l\UTllOR1.'ZED TO PROCEED
REPLACE TllE W~RER5 ~R1.DG
WlTll ~DDLE5~ ROAD
WlTil TilE lllRING Oli A CONSULTING JmGIl'lEER IN COl'lJUNcTION
'BE AUTllOR1.'ZED TO 1'ROCEED WlTll l'LAN5 FOR
cm\t'I.1.TTEE Al'lD TllAT TllE COl'l5ULTl\Wt
VI. R. CA VERL 'l
"MOVED B'l ~
CARR1ED ."
A Nt'N BR1DGE.
'''M.OVED B'll
D. J. CAMl'BELL
L. J. Sl-lAVI
SECONDED B'll
Jo"n~1 "'0 Ml\RCll 12 AT 9 ~30 A.M.
'tllA't VIE AD IUt\J.~ !.
CARRIED ."
CllAl~
f
",.
COUNT"! OF EUilN
: ~''''::-I---==
Tenders for 3 Automobiles Net After Trade~ln
Complete'with Sales Tax.
1. Mike Hutchinson Limited,
188 Talbot Street,
~ylmer, Onts rio.
Chevrolet Impala $ 18,935.42
Complete with police package.
2.
Oak ridge Ford Sales Limited,
601 Oxford Street,
London, Onta rio.
Ford LTD US"
(Not to specifications.>
3. St. ThomaS 1'1ymQuth Chrysler Limited,
275 Wellington Street,
St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 256. l'lymQuth Gran l1ury
4. Fearn Ford Sales Limited,
1012 Talbot Street,
St. ThomaS, Ontario 110rd LTD
!. llighbury Ford Sales Limited,
1365 Dunda s Street,
London, Ontario N5W 3B5. Ford
6. Talbot Mercury Sales Limited,
700 Talbot Street,
St. Thomas, Onta rio MercUry Marquis Meteor
7. Dunn Motors (~ylmer) Limited,
Aylmer, Ontario PlymQuth Gran l1ury
8. Disbro\lte Motors,
327 Talbot St reet,
St. ThomaS, Ontario.
Pontiac Catalina
\~
I
$ 19,611.20
$ 19,917.86
$ 20,116.24
$ 20,210.40
$ 20,411.88
$ 20,617.00
$ 21,922.40
I
j
. '~
"
i.
"
I
1
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
February Session 1980
TO THE WARDEN AND MEijBERS OF COUNCIL:
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. We have accepted the tender of Mike Hutchinson, Aylmer, for three (3)
1980 Model Chevrolet Impala Automobiles, complete with Police Package
at $18,935.42 (including ,Provincial Sales Tax) with the County's two
1977 Plymouth Automobiles and one 1975 Dodge Automobile as trade-ins.
. ,
The tender accepted was the lowest of eight (8) tenders.
2. We have renewed the County's Insurance pertaining to Road GV'u1Luittee
responsibilities with Frank Cowan Company, of Princeton.
WE RECOMMEND:
~
1. That the resolution of the County of Middlesex requesting a change
in formulae of , payment for mai~tenance of automatic signal devices
at railway level crossings be, endorsed.
The present formulae splits the costs 50% each to the Railway and
the Road Authority and the resolution of Middlesex requests that
80% of the cost be borne by the Railway and 20% to the Road Authority.
2. That a By-Law be passed authorizing the Warden and Clerk to sign an
agreement with the Township of Southw01d to place water pipe lines
on County Roads in the Township of Southwold. This agreement
would be similar to agreements with other local Municipalities.
3.
That a By-Law be passed authorizing the Warden and Clerk to sign an
agreement with Stanley Charlton, R. R. #4, 'j Aylmer,. to place and
maintain water pipe line on County Road 40 approximately 1 mile
north of Glencolin.
Continued
. . .
-~:
.",
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE - FIRST REPORT
P a~e 2
4. That the rebate to urban municpalities be 25% of th~~ir road levy as
in former years.
'"
5. That the Counties of Elgin and Middlesex replace the Walkers Bridge
and the Road CVllu~dttee be authorized to proceed with the hiring of
a consulting Engineer in conjunction with the Middb~sex County
Road Corrrrnittee, and that the Consultant be authorized to- proceed
with plans for a new bridge.
A delegation composed of the Wardens, Chai.rmen of Road Cvuu.uittees
and Engineers of the County of Middlesex and Elgin met on January 29
with the Honourable James Snow, Minister of Transportation and
Connnunications regarding supplementary funds for th~~ building of the
bridge.
Mr. Snow stated that he could not consider a request for funds until
such time as plans were completed to the point that an accurate
..
estimate of costs were available. At that time he '~ould again meet
with the delegation.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 23, 1980
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE MET at the Elgin County Buildings
at 9:30 a.m., January 23, 1980. All members except Reeves J. B. Wilson, and
L. J. Shaw were present. Also present was Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of
Transportation and Cvu1Luunications.
THE MINUTES OF January 9, 1980 were read and approved.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED on Work to Date as follows:
1. Winter control had been light.
2. Vic Ruckle had completed gravel crushing.
3. Road 20 north of Road 18 although very sloppy when mild had been gr'avelled.
4. Some crushed gravel would be hauled to White Station and stripping would
continue at .Pleasant Valley Pit as the weather permitted.
5. Tree cutting in east and west Elgin was continuing.
6. Sign repair work was continuing.
7. Roy Doran was visiting owners on Road 32 with an effort to ascertain any
problems that had not been solved by Rod O'Meara and 'was proceeding well.
He was also determinig where water pipe lines and tile drains were. Mr. Bill
Hare had been contacted regarding Argyle Drain and had ;ggreed with the
County's plans to revise the present drain crossing as soon as possible in
the Spring.
8. The motor on Truck #72 was being replaced. Repairs were continuing on the
Hough Loader and the Etyne distributor. The scales at Pleasant Valley Pit
were not weighing correctly and it was not known how serious the problem
was.
ST. T1:loMA5, oNT p.R1.0
J Al'Il p.R'l 23, 1980
'PAGB 2.
"MOVBD BY:
L. A. LONGttURST
SECONDED 'B'll S. J. GLOVER
T1:lAT TltB l1OLLOI'll1'iG P A'lL1.5T 'BE AP1'ROVED 110R P A~ ·
P A'lL1.5T #5 AMQIlNT1.NG TO $3 , 285 · 26 ·
CARRIBD ."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS RECEIVED nOM1
In. d 3 ~equesting a hidden ent~ance sign.
TWin valley schOO on ~Oa
Co'(l]tt\.ittee
2.
. .0nS asking if funds we~e requi~ed
3. MinistrY of Transpo~tation and commun~cat~
agreed. .
TownshiP of 50uthwold ~~garding ~e~oning near Talbotville nO act~on
1.
nece ssal:Y.
{~~. 1980 fo~ Bridges unde~ the MuniCipal Act.
by the ~ 1-n
The committee had
nO plans for ~eplacement of any structure.
~.".. k Cowan Co. was in attendance ~ega~ding the CountY's
Mr. 'Lyle WellS 01. ..an
tD1llC and answered
Mr ~ells eXPlained the present p~ogra
1.nSl1~ ance 1'1:0g~!l1tlI"e. ·
. dationS were made (Total cost $100;l)'
membe~s inqui~es, onlY tWO m~no~ ~econtlllen
ittee s()ll1ewhat in exceSs of
Total cost of all inSl1rance payable by the comm
$35,000.
. f h l1rank Cowan Co.
The committee ad~ou~ned for dinner coroPl~mentS 0 t e
Aftel: 'Dinnel:.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 23, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE RENEW THE FOLLOWING INSURANCE POLICIES WITH FRANK COWAN CO.:
NON OWNED AUTOMOBILE, MUNICIP AL LIABILITY, AUTOMOBILE FLEET, MOVING PERMIT
LIABILITY, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE, SPRAY LIABILITY (WEED AND
MOSQUITO), BOND, BOILER (ENGINEERING) MUNICIPAL EQUIPHENT FLOATER, OFFICE
CONTENTS , VALUABLE PAPER INSURANCE, GARAGES, EXTENDED COVER AND FIRE.
CARRIED.
Correspondence was read from the Personnel Committee requesting a
reculL1Luendation for Roy Doran's Salary.
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO PERSONNEL COMMITTEE THAT MR. ROY DORAN'S SALARY AS
A SUPERINTENDENT BE SET AS FOLLOWS: STEP ;J:, OF SALARY LEVEL 11, ($893.57
BI- WEEKLY) .
CARRIED.
The Attached Budget was presented and discussed.
"MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR MATERIAL FOR THE
OTTER CREEK CULVERT ON ROAD 38, SUBJECT TO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS APPROVALS.
CARRIED.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 23, 1980
PAGE 4.
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO FEBRUAR'l 6, 1980 AT 9130 A.M.
CARRIED."
f~tl~
CHAIRMAN
Q!V~
7'y
:/
coUN'!;'l 011 ELGIN ~ ~1l
January Session 1980
~
TOT\1.E VlAR~E1'1 AND M'EMBER5 OF ELGIN coUNT'l cO\JNCILl
'lOUR ROAD cQMlUTTEll REPORTS AS FOLLOVlSl
1.
, f ir to the
Vie have ~eceived the report on the estimated cost 0 rePa
.' . f R C DUnn and AsS<)ciat~s.
Vlalke~s ~~idge from M~' ~01:!l\ warner, 0 · · .
M~' Wa~ner eSt1J,1UiteS the cost of ~epairing the b~idg~ fo~traffic
fo~ an approximat~ 10 yea~'''P~riod to be in the o~d~~ of $235,000.
The Load Limit wou\.d not be imProved SignificantlY f~()II1 t1;>.e ~reviOU5
five tOn limit and there still could be movement in the abutment*,
which could cost additional gmoUntS to COllt~o\.'
'lour cQ111ll\it~ee is of the opinion that th~ ~epai~ of th~ p~~sent
b~idg~ is not practical o~ econ()ll1iCal.
A d~\.~gation from you~ ContUitt~e '#in m~et with the \1.onoUdble
.' JgmeS SnoW Ministe~ of th~ MinistrY of T~ansportatiOn and
.' J ~~ 29 to ~equ~st that additiOllal fl1nds
cot1lll"1n:l.cat1.ons, on anua J .
be anocated bY' the MinistrY of'T~anspo~tation and cot1lll"1lliCadons
to assist in th~ ~eplacement of th~ b~idge'
Mr. Roderick O'M~a~a, ASsiStant countY Enginee~ haS been laid"of!;
due to a tack of enginee~ing ,",ork effective, JanuarY n, 1980.
2..
,.
1.
d 1 teS to the Onta~io Good RoadS A$SOciatiOn
That the 1ilarden name . e ~ga
i d .to the RoadS and T~anspo~tation ASSOciat:\,on of
convent on an
-WE REcQMMEl'lD ':
canada convention.
d t now the Ward~n and c\erk to sign
That a By~LaW b~ passe 0 a
i \980 ThiS By"LaW is
land eX'Prop~iation "Plans as necessa~Y n ,. ·
required yearlY and th~ annex~d schedule includes thOS~ ~oads on
whiCh any road "idening might be contell\plated.
2..
,.
~\}
page 2
COUNT'l 011 Ej.,GIN ROAD C01'll115TEE ~ l11.RST RE1'ORT
3.
That a resolution be passed authO~izing the Wa~den and Clerk to
submit to the Ministry of Transpo~tatiOn and communicatiOns the
petition of the CountY of Elgin showing Road EX'PenditU~es on the
county'of Elgin R~ad System f~om the pe~iod, January 1,1919 to
Decembe~ 31, 1979.
That the Road committee also act in 1980 as the committee fo~:
a) Solid waste diSpOsal.
b) MOSquitO control fo~ the pr~vention of encephal:\,tiS.
4.
d)
l'rovincial or l1ede~al incentive wo~kS o~ simila~ p~Og~ames'
The applicatiOn of the C.N.R. to abandon the ~ail line b~tW~en
St. Thomas and port StanleY'
ALL 01' W1:lICR 1.5 RES1'EC'fJ1\lLL'l SUBMITTED
".
c)
C\lAIRMAN
\1,/
~I~
~
~
~
~
TO TllE WARDEN AND MmiBERS 011 ELG1.N COUNT'l COuNC1.Ll
'lOUR ROAD cQMM1.'l'TEE REPORTS p$ 110LLQ\'l5~
f EXPenditU~es on Elgin countY and
The following is a s~arY 0 ·
St. Thomas suburban Road coromission Roads ~n 1979.
, of '!:ranspo~tation and coromunicatiOnS
In accordance with M~nist~Y 'd.. i tb paY Sick Time, ~tc., haS
11 n d such as llol~ ayS W' t
p~actice, l'ayrO uU~e~, . d doeS not appear as a sepa~a e
be~n dist~ibuted to va~~ous p~O)ectS an
item-
CONSTRUcTION" COuNT'l ROt>JlS
,.
PART # 1
ASphalt ~esu~facing, associated ditching
sboulde~ing, etc.
(d)
Ro~d ,6 in \)I.tlI",,-ch '\'o,""shiP f~om
uur",ett'S corne~S to Road 8.
Road 19 in 50uthwold TownshiP .from
llighway 3 (Frome) .nortM~ 1 y
app~oximatelY 2m~leS'
Road 23 in Village of 1'ort sta~leY
no~the~lY from Joseph 5tr~et 1l~11
approximatelY l/a mile.
Road 36 in 'lapllouth To,""shiP f~om
Road 45 to spa~ta.
Road 53 ~ Elm 5t~eet in the TO,""
of A.y1me~.
$ 16, 190.~:~1
(n)
151,56<:).95
(b)
(c)
96 ,528 .43
(e)
TOTAL pART # 1
~
~
pART # 2 _ construction Roads
{a) Road 16 from l1ingal to 1\U~w~tl' s
co~ne~s in 50uth",01d ,!:o,""sh~P'
Road 32 _ 1'01ice college Road in
Malabide To~nsbiP
Road 38 f~"'" llighway 3 to St~~ffo~dVille
in Malahide and Bayham ,!:o,""shW'
$185,560. 24
31,532.4B
(b)
620,935.32
(d)
MiscellaneoUS 5u~veYs,
TOTA.L pAR'! # 2
~
~
(c)
~
ffi'lC1.L _ l1IR5T Rl!,'I'ORT
TO TilE WARDEN Al'D MEMBERS 011 EJ.,GIN co1JNT'l cO
'Page 2.
(d)
Rebate of l'~ovincial saleS 1.ax paid
in 1<}1B.
Land 1'u~chas~s fo~ Road Widening and
Dive-rsions.
New ~nd used wachine~Y (n~t after
insU~ance settlem~nt on Grade~ #l6.)
Machine~Y owne~shiP costS, ~tc.
cha~g~d to accountS rec~ivabl1\ and
To~line Acco~nts.
$ 13,616.93 (',r.
1'ART # 3 ~ Miscellaneous
47, 2B2. 71
(a)
(b)
12<} ,506 .60
(c)
~ C1:.
,.
TarAL l'Altt # 3 ~
, .) 11>1- 2.48~
TarAL CONSTRUcTtoN (cQUNT'l ~
CONSTRUCTION ~'l ST. 1.ilOMA5 5UBUR~Al' ROADS coMl:'t155ION
(a) . Road 22 (l1air"iew Avenue) ~n 'l~-cmou,: d 24
1.ownship, asphalt ~esu~fac1.ng ~om Oa
no~tbe~lY fo~ 1 mile and surveYs f~om
Road 27 to St. ThomaS.
. d 30 (Radio Road) in
(b) construct1.on RO~ '
'la-rrnouth To-wnshl.P.
const~uction Road 31 (Dalewood Road) in
'la-cmouth TownshiP
$ 6 7 , 239 . 23
4,4B6.03
3,383.21
(c)
(d) const~uctiOn Road 52 f~om Road 3~ ~o
il:\.ghwaY 3 ( St. Thoma s EXP1:e s s,:aY 1.n
'larmouth and southwold Townshl.P'
Land l'u~chased fo~ Road Widen:\.ng and
dive-rsions.
26 ~ 56<). 09
16,030.16
(e)
R d 26 1St Geo~ge st~eet) in
surveYs oa ' . ·
'la-cmouth 1.ownshiP'
~
(f)
TarAL CONSTRUcTION B'l 119 094 51
ST. 1.ilQMAS SUBURBAl' ROl\DS cQMMlS5I0N ~
TarAL CONS1.RUcTI0N co1JNT'l cAl'D $1. 361 ~
ST. TilQMAS SUBURBAl' ROADS coMl:'tI~Sl~ ~
MAINTENANCE - COUNTY ROADS
Page 3.
NOTE: Letters and numbers correspond to Ministry of
Transportation and Communications Account
Numbers.
A - Culverts & Bridges
.. 1 Bridges, (including Phillmore, Cook, Belmont West,
Bothwell; Walkers, and Jamestown)
$ 57,171.97
----------------
.. 2 Culverts
3,340.12
_._------------~-
B - Roadside Mainten~nce
,.
- 1 Grass Cutting
10,911.53
----------------
.. 2 Tree Cutting
48,893.15
----------------
- 4 Drainage
" 0, 09 2 . 47
----------------
- 5 Roadside Maintenance, Washouts, etc.
9,856.42
----------------
.. 6 Tree Planting
1,521.79
---------~--~~--
.. 7 Drainage Assessments (repairs only)
2,222.29
~---------------
11 Weed Spraying
4,797.07
-....-.... .-. ---.---
C - Hard Top Maintenance (Paved Roads)
- If; Repairs to Pavements
129,648.24
----------------
.. 2 Sweeping
11,440.02
---.------------
- 3 Shoulder Maintenance
12,314.17
-----------------
- 4 Surface Treatment
68,014.63
----------------
D - Loose Top Maintenance (Gravel Roads)
.. 2 Grading Gravel Roads
12,538.42
--....---...----------
.. 3 Dust Control (Calcium Chloride)
37,587.55
--------.---.-...--
.. 4 Dust Control (Prime)
744.23
---------------.
- 5 Gravel Resurfacing
38,392.46
----------------
E.. Winter Control (Total)
$301,426.76
.. 1 Snow Plowing
61,029.21
--...._---~--..-..-_..
- 2 Salting & Sanding
190,878.17
-~~----~--------
- 3 Snow Fence
27,723.85
----.....-....--....-
- 4 Standby
21,795.53
-...---....-.....-.-
1979 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Corrrrnission $ 359,430.62
1978 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission $ 3)5,003.94
1977 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads CVlluuission $ 359,095.00
Page 4.
~INTENANCE ~ coUNT'l ROAllli (continued)
$ 20,468.67
...............-.........--...--...-
58,155.40
......-......-......-...-...--...-
5,543.94
...------...-------...
27,300.31
--...-......-...---...--...-
F _ SafetY Devices
_ 1 pavement Marking
_ 2 SignS
_ 3 Guide Rails
..4 Railroad 1'~otection
~
Tar A.L
,.
MISCELLANEOUS
--.. ~
R~bate to Town of AYlmer and VillageS of 25% o~
,t.heir Road LeVY
$ 48 303.30
..._-...-...--.1-...-----
.L 960,68~
OVERUEAD ... COUNTY
- --
1. S\1"Pe6ntend~nce.~ including countY Engineer,
Assistant county Engineer, Gene~al sup~rintendent'
Assistant superintendent, etc., and superintendent
vehicles
$ 76 074.29
..._...-----.1-------
36 949.95
..._...-----.1-......---...
16 097.78
..._...-----.1...---.........
"
3. Office
4. Garages (White Station & Rodney), Stock &
Timekeepers, Maint~nance, etc.)
57 404.21
...-------.1......---...-
17 724.75
_-------.1-......--...-
2 651. 28
.........-.........-.1......-...-......
7 , 209 .37
............---......----.........
3 301.89
_-...-----.1...--...--...
94.00
-----...--...--...-.........
1 956.36
..._......-......-.1.........--...-
2. Clerical
5. Tools and MiscellaneoUs Repai~S
6. Radio
7. T~af~ic countS & Needs Study Update
8. Training Courses
9. permitS
11. Rehabilitation o~ White Station c~avel l'it and
general cleanUP of curage grounds
~_~~_~_~.l~~1.:~~~
3 309. 7 2
..._...-----.1...------
10. MiscellaneoUs InSurance
12. Machine~y ove~head costS
~5.1.?-
TOTAL OVERHEAD
(TOTAL 01' l'A'{ROLL BURDEN charged to ope~atiOnS was
$ 277,961.31)
ST. TH()l1J\S SUBURBAN ROADS coMJ{1SSI0N MAINTENANCE &
OVERHEAD (including itemS not subsidized by
Ministry of TranSpo~tatiOn and communicatiOns).
249 350.92
........_-.....-.1......-...--
TOTAL MAINTENANCE, MISCELLANEOUS, OVERREAD, ETC.
l10R coUNT'l & ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS coMMISSION
~130$
ITEMS NOT SUBSIDIZED BY M.T.C.
Page 5.
Elgin Sweeper
$ 2 811.66
______.1_._______
Insurance (Road Liability)
-______1.92.:!.9_..
Miscellaneous, including Memberships, etc.
_______112.:.91__
3,833.78
TOTAL
$
SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION
$ __1.1J2J.1!:21.:J..2_
,.
MAINTENANCE & OVERHEAD
$ 1 438 130.98
_ _ _ J _ _ _ '.I.. ... _ ... _ _;_
ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY
$ 3 833.78
_______'"l_______
SUB TOTAL
$ 2 809 627.98
_ _ _:.1. _ _ 'J _ _ _ _ _ ...._
APD: 1979 STOCK BALANCE
64 479.38
--_.._--~--_.._--
SUB TOTAL
$ 2 874 107.36
___;,1___:1_______
LESS: 1978 STOCK BALANCE
44 064.93
.._-----~--_..._--
SUB TOTAL
$ 2 830,042.43
..... ';.)~ --- -.... -.... -..
ADD DRAINAGE ASSESSMENTS (50% SUBSIDY)
COUNTY ROADS
_ __ __ }_9-,_9_5_~._~~
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ROADS
45 . 5 2
..--------------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ON COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD SYSTEMS $ 2.850,042.43
The Minist~y of T~ansportation and communications subsidy AllocatiOn in
1979 was in 2 partS, a General Allocation of $ 2,087,000 and a subsidy of $ 10,000
on Drainage Asses$Uents (sUbSidized at 5~4).
The cost 0 t the St. The)]na s Subub"n Road s CO\\1!tli 55ion expend itU~C to the
county of Elgin (and the city of St. ThomaS) waS $47,632.73.
The net cost to the County of Elgin (including the county's sha~e of
the St. ThomaS Subu~ban Ro"d co~ission expenditUres) is estimated at $705,410.
In addition, wort, was pcrfo~med an(1 material S 501(1 totuUng $833,967.47
including:
The Road LevY fo~ 1979 was 0~igina11Y $ 708,000.
1. work on boundary roads and b~idges and invoiced to the Counties of Middlesex
and Oxford.
2. Priming and surface treatment fo~ variouS ~n~cipalitieS, and othe~S
including the City of St. ThomaS and the Village of Glencoe, and the
County of Lambton.
3. work done, mate~ialS sold, etc. to other MunicipalitieS, Federal and
l'rovincial Goverment, conservation AuthoritieS, individualS, etc.
In 1979 the Roads D~partment waS requested to have t~ained personnel
and insurance etc. ready for a possible Mosquito control 1'rograme. The net cost
of thiS p~ograme to the County was $318.78 (the Town of Aylmer paid fo~ the cost
of insurance).
Total payment vouchers in 1979 amount~d to $3,684,009.90(compared to
$ 3,376,833.63 in 1978, $ 3,236,612 in 1977, and $ 2,741,000 in 1(16).
All of Which is RespectfUllY submitted.
,..
---
CHAl RMAN
#l
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
The St. Thomas Suburban Road' Cuu1Luission has jurisdic:tionover 47.3
miles of road out of the total 296.7 Road System in the County.
Construction and maintenance costs ~re kept separatE! on these roads.
The Cuu1Luission pays a portion of the overhead costs (apPx'oximately 11%
of the total). The Commission owns no equfpment or tool ~a but pays a
"cost" rental' 'rat~ to the County when the equipment is us;ed on
Commission Roads.
Overall policy on the Commission Roads is directed by your County
Council Road Committee.
A detailed surrrrnary of costs on the Cuuu.uission Roads is attached as
is a summary of the costs of maintenance and overhead on the combined
County and Suburban System.
Commission Roads Include:
Road 11 - (South of' Ford PI ant) from Highway 4 to Road 26.
Road 16 - from St. Thomas to Fingal.
'J<
Road 22 - (Fairview Avenue) from St. Thomas to Road 24.
Road 25 - Wellington Road.
Road 26 - St. George Street and Bostwick Road.
Road 28 - Centennial Avenue from Road 45 to Highway 3.
Road 29 -
Road 30 - Radio Road
Dalewood Road.
Highway 3 (St. Thomas Expressway to Highway 73).
Elm Street from Centennial Avenue to St. Thomas.
Road 31 -
Road 52 -
Road 56 -
ST. T1:\OMAS 5\l~\lRBM< 1l.0bJ)S CQMlfi5S10l1
5Ttl.TEl'\ENT 011 J1.)(.1'ENDIT\lRES 1919
II"
~
.\ 2 '2 ("" ~ ,." 1 e IN AVe ,,\1<') i ",..1. lid ll1\\ a III' ha It
1. RoaO . _ . "0 . .. ,t . d ,)] al"o
.. re9\l~laclt1l!' betINeell Roads t \ all ., d '}.7
surveying and engineering between Roa s
and the city of St. Thomas limitS.
'}.. Road 30 (Radio Road) g~ading. gravel. paving,
etc.
Road 31 (Dalewood Road) g~ading, gravelling,
3.
etc.
R d 52 f~om Road 30 to 1:\igh~aY 3 (NeW .
oa . ) di gravell~ng,
St. T1loma9 EXP~e9sway g~a ng,
paving, etc.
4.
5.
Land purcha 5(' ,
R d 2.6 (St Geo~ge Str~et).
Su~veYs oa ·
'tOT A.L
6.
~
A . ~~idg~S & culvertS
.. 1 ~~idgeS, including painting Dodds c~eek
B~idge and l1ingal Bridge
.. 2. cul ve~t s
~ ~ Roadside ~aintenanCe
.. 1 G~ass cutting
_ 2 't~ee cutting
_ 4 D~ainage
~ 5 Roadside ~aintenance
_ 6 rtLee planting
.. 7 orainag~ AssessmentS
_11 ~eed spraying
C .. 1:\a~d ToP Maintenance (paved RoadS)
~ 1 Repai~S to 1'av~ment
.. 2 SvJeeping
~ 3 Shoulder Maintenanc~
~ 4 5u~face T~eatment
!.._~l.~l~.'~-""""
_....-~L~~~~~l..---..
3" 3_tl~~'!\.-....--
--.........
2.6 569.09
_..---~---_..................
16 030.76
....---~..-_..----_...-
1 3B6.25
....---~....-...__..-_..-
~
!_-~J~]~.:~2-..-"'-
10.00
.......--..-..-...............-
1 556.62
_-.....J-------.......-
6 6B4.8B
_..-...~-------_........
6 530.23
-_..-~-_..-..---_..-
897.32
---...--------..---
877.59
...--------......-.......-
239 .64
-...----.....--..........-...
621 .36
...-...--...........--..---
40 024.03
----~---_...-...-...--
255.30
-------------...--
3 559.00
_---'.1-..........--...........
14 929.14
......--r.1-......--....--..
continued · · · ·
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1979
o .. Loose Top Maintenance (Gravel Roads)
2 Grading
I!!' 3 Dust Layer
, ..4 Prime
5 Gravel Resurfacing
E - Winter Control" (Total)
$58,003.86
- 1 Snow Plowing
- 2 Sanding & Salting
3 Snow Fence
.. 4 Winter Standby
. F....Safety Devices
.. 1 Pavement Marking
... 2 Signs
.. 3 Guide Rail
.., 4 Railroad Protection
Overhead Charge s, incl uding Superintenden~"1\r,
O'ffice, Clerical, Garage, etc.
TOTAL
Dx:,ainage As ses sment s
Items Not Subsidized by Ministry of Transportation
and Corrrrnunications
TO'l'AL EXPENDITURE BY St. ThoffiilS Suburban Roads Commission
TOTAL EXPENDI1URE SUBSIDIZED AT OPERATIONAL RATE.
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY CITY OF ST. THOMAS
Ministry of l'ranspo't'tation and COTOIlll.1nications Subsidy
Rate on operations for 1979 was calculated to be 74.2757%
(originally estimated at 74% ) on all items (except
Dt";ainage Assessments and items not for subsidy) is
$273,202.80
50% of Balance of $94,619. i9 is
Page 2.
$
4,579.41
....- -- ~--..--- -...---
5,770.02
-"'-"!I'..--~......--""--
2,084.62
--.---'-----_.~~-~
53,433.77
"-"---"---I!III-- .'.- \
13 023.31
.........'"l......--__....__...
37 072.19
............1___._______
2 459.48
..,~ "-,~ ~'J __.. .... _ -tIIIII-_
5,448.88
., _.~ W! - - -.: - - - - - -_..-
6 203.70
_ _..~tI!ilt'..J ___~.. - -,_ --
4 165.83
..ttI!t~ - ~ J. .............. ..-'.
104.36
_.~~~.~--~~._~-~,~~
2 781.82
........... ~.~-- ..'.... -... -'. ..-
28 738.93 .
-~~....J .....~.... -.....-
$ '248. 728.02
45.52
..._ _._ _ _,. _.i!JM"'- _ _...._
622.90
-...~'.--.--~---~
..$ ...36,8 t 49hOl
$ 367.822.59
$ 47 309.90
_ _ _,__.1....._ __ _...__
Continued . . ..
I'>
"
"'.
<'
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1979
Subsidy on Drainage Assessments 50%
Amount payable is 25% of $ 45.52 or
Items Not For Subsidy 50o~ of 622.90
TOTAL PAYABLE by City.of St. Thomas on 1979 Opera.tions
LESS Surplus from 1978
LESS City of St. Thomas Contribution for 1979
Deficit to 1980 Operations
...
Pa~e 3.
1.. _.. .. _l..l...)_~ ......
311.45
- ...- --.. .._.- ---..
47 632.73
......-,~-.._-_...._-
1 442.73
...._...t.;_________
, 36 450.00
---~------..--
$ 9,740.00
MAlNT'ENANCE
P.age 1
The following is a sununa:r:y of the total maintenance On b01~h
CQ\,ttlty and Suburban Roads.
NQT.E; Letters at1d Q;um1)ers Carre spon.d to Ministry of
Transportation and COlll1uunications Account
Numbers.
A... Culverts & Bridge s
!'" 1 :artdge 9
$ .q~ 649
..~;'- . "4'.':./ .....- ....~ .. - -
.. 2 Cul Vert s
3 350
....... ,. _ _ _ '.1... _ ~, _ _ _. ..
.a ~. Road$iqe Maintenance
1 Grass Cutting
12,468
-,fII!lI!""--.- _I!JII"~:_ ---
... 2 Tree Cutting
.5.5 578
_....~,__J____..........
.. 4 Drainage
5p,6 23
~4IIlI:"~'" --..- ~ -_ --.
... 5 Roadside ~aintenanc;e, W(ishouts,etc.
10754
_. ......,..-.'.J...--..__ ___
...6 Tree Planting
2,399
.....--~--..'-..-----
... 7 Drainage Asse ssment 9 (repairs only)
2, 46 2
. ~'......,~~"..~-..----
.... 11 Weed Spraying
$,418
.,.~...... ~,-..- ~~....,..-.
.
C ... Hard Top Maintenance (Paved; aoads)
.. 1 Repairs to Pavements
~'6'9 , 67 2
.'-...... ~.---_.. ~ .... ~...-
... 2 Sweeping
!1,695
...~~~.... - -......- --,~
... 3 ShoulderMaintenance
15,873
~-~... .........- - ~.. ~ -.--
.. 4 Su:rface Treatment
82,944
~ -.It...~ ............ .....'~~-'l!
D ...Loose Top Maintenance (Gravel Roads)
... 2 Grading Gravel Roads
17,118
"".~~.~~."..-~-~.. ~-
... 3 Dust Control (Calci.um Chlo:r;ide)
43,358
-'..~-..~-~,-", ~"'.--
... 4 Dust Control (Prime)
2,829
..~- --.. ..-.-- ...-- ~
- 5 Graver Resurfacing
91.827
~~.~~~'M-~-~-~~~
E - Winter Control (Total)
$ 359,431
.. 1 Snow Plowing
74,053
----.-....-. -...- ---,-
... 2 Salting & Sa.nding
227 t 9.51
. "" - .., ~ ~",'" "'" ,. .'.. ..
... 3 Snow Fence
30,183
......,~~... .....................-
- 4 Standby
27,244
--~-....... .-...-...---
1979 Winter Control County &.. St. Thomas Suburhan: Roads Conuniss:lon $, 359,431.00
1978 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Coumriss:ion$$lS,003.94
1977 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Corrrrni 98:10n $ 359 t 09'.00
MAINTENANCE ... COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS
Page 2
F ... Safety Devices
... 1 Pavement Marking
~_...__...3~!~Z~........._...
62 321
~--_.~__1~_.___,__
... 2 Signs
... 3 Guide Rails
5 648
________1_______~
.
... 4 Railroad Protection
3 0, 08 2
.-~----------~~-.
TOTAL
$ 1.132.371
OVERHEAD... COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
1. Superintendence, including County Engineer,
Assistant County Engineer" General Superintendent,
Assistant Superintendent, etc., and Superintendent
vehicles.
$ 85 477
________l~_______
2. Clerical.
41 517
-~---~_.~~-~--~-~
3. Office.
__......-_!~12~Z_......__
4. Garages (White Station & Rodney), Stock &
Timekeepers, Maintenance, etc.
64 375
~_______1_______~
5. Tool sand Mi seel L,illCOUS Repair s.
19 915
~~~___,__1__~~____
6.... Radio.
2 979
.. --..-....... &- - -- ---....
7. Traffic Counts & Needs Study Update.
8 784
~___~_~_~~M______
8. Training Courses.
.........____21119___..._
9. Permit s.
94
---.-.-------~---
ID. Miscellaneous Insurance.
2 198
___,_~___1~~__~~__
11. Rehabilitation of White Station Gravel Pit and
general cleanup of Garage grounds.
~.~.~__212Z2._~__
12. Machinery Overhead Costs.
____...__2~Z!2__...__
TotAL OVERHEAD
$
256,834
.)IJ
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1980 ROAD BUDGET
l-
i
I
!
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
Maintenance
County Roads
St. Thomas Suburban Roads
OVerhead
County Roads
St. Thomas SuburbanRo~ldB
New Machinery
Asphalt Resurfacing
Count1Y Roads
St. Thomas Suburban Roads
Construction - County Roads 1. Land Purchase and
CarrYOVer.
2. Road 38.
.'p',
3. UncvuuLdtted
~~
~~
~
Draft #1
January 23, 1980
*
945,000
132,000
261,000
27,000
175,000
l85tOOO
65,000
102,OQO
967,000
150,000
St., Thomas Suburban .Roads - Land Purchas€~
and Carry OveI.".
Subsidized by M.T.C. at
Ope~a.tiona1 Rate
ADD Urban Rebates
Drainage Assessments
J.t(ml~ Nut Lor tJutJsJdy
RECEIPTS
M.'J;'.C.
Ordinary Subsidy on Operations
M.T.C.
Subsidy on Urban Rebates (50%)
Me'r.c.
Subsidy on Drainage Assessments
f
City of St. Thomas
Effective Contribution to
Suburban Roads
48,000
$ 3,051,000
52,000
lO,OOQ
4,000
~i 3, 1 23, 000
~~ 2,276,000
26,000
5,000
35,000
J~ 2,342.000
Continued .. .. ..
COUNTY OF ELGIN.. 1980 ROAO BUDGET
NET LEVY
Expenditures
Receipt ~1
NET LEVY .
$ 3, 123 , 000
2.342~ 000
$ 781,000
~
."..
Page 2.
,~
1980 CONSTRUCTION
a) St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission
1. Complete work from previous years:
':'" Road 30 (Radio Ros4)
.
... Ro <.-'!d :31
... Road 52
2. Land Purchase:
.. I{oad'22
... Road 30
... Road 31 and 52
3. Surveys, Engineering, Tree Cu~ting, Etc.:
- Road 22
b) County
1. COUlplete work from previous years:
... Road 16 ... Fingal to Road 14
2. Land Purchase:
... ROi,HI 1. 6
~
.. R.oad 32
- Road 38
... Miscellaneous and Uncommitted
3. Surveys, Eng:lneering,Tree Cutting, Etc.:
Road 32
... Miscellaneous
4. Major Project Construction:
... Road 38 ... Olea.n...Up 1979 Work
... StraffordviJ,le u.rban ea,at(;1r.ly to C.P.R.
c,r () s sing.
... ~ittle Otter Creek Culvert.
... Wards Hill ... Rough Granular Grade.
... Wards Hill to Straffot.'dvil1e complete includ:ing
base coat of asphalt..
5. Other Projects:
... Our share of Walkers Bridge, engineering to
date.
... tJ n (; ottlml f~ U,' d 1"u n d ti .
TOTAL
$ 6 it 000
2,0{}0
8,000
8,000
8,000
4,000
12,OQO
1 2, 000
26,000 '
20,000
16,000
18,000
la, 000
$'48,000
102,000
967,000
6,000 :!: '
, 14,~,. OIJO
$lt~67tOOO
Continued . . .
...
1980 RESURFACING
a) St. Thoma s Suburban Roads CVlluui s sd,on
1. Complete Road 22 between Road 27 and one mile south
b) County
1. Road 7 _ Kent Townline,Clachan to Bothwell Bridge.
(Our Share ')
2. Uneorrnnitted F\1nds.
_ Likely Road 45 .. Highway 4 westerly to l<e.ttle
Crcf'k.
_ Road 20 ~ Port &tanley northe~ly 3/4 mile.
TOTAL
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1980 MACHINERY BUDGET
Mack Truck f188. (purcha.sed)
~, Frink Box, Snow Plow, Etc. for same. (purchased)
General Electric Radio.
(purchased)
Trade ... 1975 Dodge L Tenders Out:
2 ... 1977 Dodge s,!)
Replace Truck #U3 (1974 Ford Ta.ndem Diesel).
Box, Etc. for same.
, Used Brush Chipper.... to replace Fitchburg Chipper whtch
was purchased used in 1967 (about a 1955 Model)
One or Two Sanders to rep'1ace 1966 and 1968 King Seagrave
Sander s
TOTAL
Page 2
Replace Small Trucks
_ 1975 Ford 1 ton
.... 1976 Ford 3/4 Ton
1976 Ford Club Cab (high mileage)
If Any Mon.ey Left in Fall
$ 65,000
125,000
60.000 ,
$250,000
$ 45,700
18,000
1,613
20,000
50,000
15,000
24,700
$175 000
J " "
, ...
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1980 BUDGET
MAINTENANCE
(Maintenance Comparisons for 1977, 1978 and 1979 include County & Suburban Roads Expenditures.)
OPERATION
1977
-
-
A - Bridg~s & Culverts
31,610
.,..
..1 Bridges
"'" 2 CuI verts
B... Roadside Ma.intenance
..1 Gr~s s Cutting & Weed
Spraying, (1978 Only ) 24, 758
...2 Tree Cutt.tng 55,529
-4I)rainage, 55,343
-5 Roadside Malnt. 4,970
~
...6 Tree Planting Nil
... 7 D:r:.'ainage As Se s smant s
CWaintenance)
1,356
..11 Weed Spraying
e,."... Paved Road Maint.
...1 l{epairs to, Pav't 180,809
...2 Sweeping 13,176
..3 Shoulder Maintenance 12,296
...4 Surface Treatment
53,578
D - Gravel Road Maint.
",,2 Grading Gravel Roads 15,698
'","3 Calcit;ltn Chloride 34,406
,\
...4 Prime 4,141
...5 ,Gravel Resurfacing
E ... WinterCont:rol
Total 359,094
-1 Snow Plowing 135,835
,.. 2 fhtl'l d ;f,nS {\ H~l t t: fng 1. 8 i . 6/+1+
...3 Snow Fence 14,809
...4 Standby .& Ni.ght Crew 20,806
1978
98,241
23 ,.5 96
91:..~'.Qn;,
53;190
14,892
1,547
3, .519
179,616
11,631
24,750
51,899
13,343
35,134
3,843
315,004
81,775
190,$32
21,673
21 , 023
1979
63,849
3,350
1 2, 468
55.578
56,623
10, 754
2,399
2, 46 2
5,418
169,672
11,695
15,873
82~944
17,118
43,358
2,829
91 , 827
359,431
74,053
227,9,'1
30,183
27,244
1980
30,000
3,000
15,OOQ
60, 000
60,000
10, 000
3,090
4tOOO
12,OOQ
140,000
16,000
19,000
70,000
18,000
48,000
8,.000
45, 000
385,000
SUBURBAN
1980
2,000
6,000
0,000
1 , 000
500
1"O()',
12:.~;QQQ
1,000
4,000
5,000
7,000
6.,000
4,000
,60,000
COUNTY
1980
30,000
3,000
13:, 000
54,000
54,000
9,000
2,500
4,000
lQ,S PO
128,000
15,000
15,000
70, 000
13,000
l~l , 000
2,000
41.0PO
325,QOO
COUNTY O~ ELGtN ROAD DEPARTMENT - 1980 BUDGET ~ MAINTENANCE
1977
1978
F .. Safety Device s
~ 1 P(\\vement 'Marking
25,272
30t010
.., 2 Signs
26,883
60,478
.3 GUide Rail-
8,600
3,335
26,961
..4 Rai.lroad Prote.ct1.on. 21,053
....5 Met::r:f.c Signs
9,601
TOTAL
981,724 1,087,687
'In 1979 E~pen(U.tureswere.. County Roads $ 912,382
- Suburban Roads 219,989
$1,132.371
'~
1979
26,672
62,321
.5 ,648
30,082
1,132,371
1980
35,000
55,000
6,000
35,000
1,077,000
SUBURBAN
1980
7,000
5,000
(+,000
13 2~'000
Page 2.
COUNTY
1980
28,000
50,000
6,000
3J,OOO
945,000
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1980 BUDGET
OVERHEAD
All T.ota1 s incl~<:le Payroll Burden..
Superinten4ence. for 1978 and 1979 includes a. vehicle charge.
1977
58,025
G~ltagG$
62,676
6, 041
~iscel1ane()u$ Repairs
15,963
Radio
2,455
W.e.~d.s Stuqy Update
2, 003
Traffic Coun,t s
4, 950
Training Course.
2,945
Clerical
36,247
l56cR.
.
~ermits
Miscellaneous Insurance
1,787
Office
14,654
Na~hin.ery OV'et"h~ad
5,777
White Station
leha bi, ta t ion
15,266
1'OTAL
228,633
1978
70,940
64,397
~m~
14,191)
:3 , 01 S
5,1501
\
4,896)
2,< 204
38,e97
1979
85,477
64,.175
19,915
2,979
8,784
:3,710
41,517
376CR. 94
2,532 2,198
15,540 18,087
>S80eR. 3~7l9
2,515 5,979
229,951
256,834
County of Elgin
Distribution .. St. Thomas Suburban Road CVll~llission $27,000
$261,000
l:n 1979 .. County's Share Was
St. Thomas Suburban Road Corrrrnission Share Was
...... I
1980
95,000
76 , Q()Q
25,apo
3,SOO
8,000
5,000
47,0()O
- --
2,500
16,000
5~OOO
5,000
288,000
$228,095
$28,739
- '
'..
SUBURBAN
1980
COUNTY
1980
-
,.,"
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
I '
1980 BUDGET
PAYRQLL BURDEN
TI1:ith Pay
"..... "
1980
1977. 19,78 t979 aUDGET
1,510 1,182 j, ()71 ' 3 ,000
79,035 99,116 109,,381 14'0,000
44,259 44,553 41,282 60, 000
5,196 3,899 5,048 6.000
12,363 1~t977 12,6U3 15',000
48,310 61.~91 69,561 75,000
15, 645 ' 15,886 16,132 18,000
24,409 27,046' 28,377 32,000
,
3,945 4,362 4,666 5,~OO
-3, 779 5.365 4,,503 5,~OO
4.qOO
, 2,460CR. . .l16(~a.
$ 235,991 $277,961 $\.,294,639 $ 36~,OOO
Standby
Cotnp$nsation Insuranc~
'l'er1'si,Qns, Canada &'O.M.E.R.S.
;:~Ui~I..C .
I, ,
:1:,i,::.LongTerm Disapl1ity
~;f'.,' ';,1 '" "
'.]: ':;~a.feey Eqqipment'
:1':, :p~'ntal and Life Insurance
!~:p~eHltt$t Oire,~ chat:ges to
::Moaquito C,ontrdl& R.E.l.F. Progrlilmme
PAYROLL nUROEN DISTRIButloN
, '
in Payroll Burden
1977 1978
915,542 923,384
130,001 148,742
17,245 - ..
'768,296 774,642
235,991 277,961
30.7161 % 35.8825 %
1979
1,041,504
. 157.556
Less Labour in R.E.I.P. & Mosquito
.. ..
, 883,9:48
294,6'9
PAYROLL BUROEN% OF NET LABOUR
33.3321 '% '
1980
'" ~ ;
:total Labour Estimated at
$ 1" lOB, 000
~$S$;tabour Ch4;rtged t.o l?ayroll Burden
NET LABOUR
208.000 (HQ11d~ys,
W()r~'P'S
. $ ., 900tO~ 'Camp,."
'., ,Itlcle~nt
'Weather, &
2/~Medical )
;Payroll Burden
$ 364,000
Burdenlercentage qf Net Labour
40.410
'/',
"
MAINTENANCE
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE: Major work - Cr~ek Diversion F\1lton Bridge.
... Cone-rete Railtngs, Glanc()1 :Ln.
Painting as t;i.me Clndtnon~~y pe:a:'ll1its,
Gillets started,l'ast yea1~.
TRlE CUTTING: Mild weather has permitted considerable brulahing:1p:ditches,
'around bridges, etc. not d~e for many yearl;. The effect$
of the blizzard and the ice storm linger onlt We find. that
most of the old maple trees have s.een bette](" daysan4 a
very large number of them are rotten.
DRAINAGE: No major projects other thancontinuationorsorne work on Road 24
'1.11 Yarmouth '.('ownah:i.p (2/3 Done).
ROADSIDE .WAINTENANCE: Expenditure depends largely on eros:Lon Qraoact 42
east of Port Burwell.
WEEPSPl;UYING: Y'armquth and Mal'ahide Township did not invQice~s fQr 1979
,.
\1nttlt 1980.
REPAIRS 1'0 PAVEMENT: HopefullYj someredqction. Smallpatches\;r:ather than
large patches tn 1979. Spring will ~ell'tae,tate.
Asphalt co$t$ increase will reducewf.)r~
thcan might be indicated (County coat of wo.:rk re$aitn~
the Same as 1979).
SWEEPING: Hopefully, the M.T.C. will supstdiz<e the true .CQst
$W$eptng__
SURfACE TR'EA'l'MENT: The price increase of asphaJ:t willI ik~ly ke~ptot:.al work
at 3/4, of last yecar's. Liveable but coulq do,m.oi~ 'w:t"th
good results~
PRIME,: Road 28 (Centennial) fat; \ mile south of Elm Street.
RQad 29 "" County Portion ....M.T.C. will payforsy:r;fac;e t:te;a't~tl~ on,
portion they have built:.
Rpad 37 _ Belmont.
Road 26 .. Bostwick Road for \ mile nort.:llof Welt ingtotj ~(lad'
(D(apends on Southwold Waterline).
l-:1AIN'l'ENANCE Page 2 .
GRAVEL RESURFACINq: Road 17 east of Sbuthwold Sta.tibn (Cmnpleted).
Road 20 north of Road 18 (n(;!.arlydone).
Roads around St. Thomas, patching as :t"equ:Lt'~d.
Rpad 43 ... 13ayham..Mal ahide Townl itl~, north and sputh of ,
Calton inpat:'tioular.
Some money left to start: RQad 9 througl1 Dunwicp and
Al d borQugh...
,WlwrERCQNTROL: A lesser cost on snow fencing as we pa,idfor snQ"W fence in
1979. Mc:\y require tno1:'e snow ,gence in. a flew yea:t$ as most
of our old snow fence is Junk. Should he ,~..liFt'{tles<<:t.v$.t)g
on sta.ndby as we .a.reu:$ing rOUr .men o..fni~~bti~:({; '~~'tlst:~$,d~\f'
six, but have increased stan.dby people.
PAVEMENT t4ARKI.NG: Paint' costs are up and most of paint left ovet;froUl 1978
~
is used..
No major impliovements just m~:tntenance$ndvandali.~, W:Lt~ the. lattet:
nearly as costlYa~ the stra.ight maintenanCe.
~,
RAILROAD PROTEctrION: Hol.ding a cpup1eof railroa.(l bills aJr1dargu!ng wi.th
Consolidated Rail over their 10% surcharge.
PAYROLL BURDEN
As payroll burden is spread through all accounts th~ increase in
this item will reflect through other accdunt~'and ;Eaitherincr~ase'~their
cost or reduce the.amount of work done on both.
HOLIDAYS WITH PAY: Increased Annual Holidays beginning in ~980 for:
some workers with 5 ;.. 14 year$se1.lto:J;"';tt!,y:~ l'l~,s;",
backlog. The budget o:oesnot include,l~
backlog as (a) The County cannot afford it in
one lump~
'(b) It is not praetica.ltohave key
employ~esoff 3 or,S motlths in
a year and 'try to ~ove:rf,or
tQ;em. (Would havetQ iri~:~ase
staff for a short term:.:>
SICK TIME: One employee off till the end of November 1980~hen he
iftI
retires. Another off for two months (Janl.1lary aile
February) till he retires. We have been fortunate the
last' couple of years; that we have not hadlanyoll,e', off
for a considerable length of tim.e.
Pension, U.I.C., etc. are up -DentalandLife Insurance are an
unknown factor.
This years percentage of Payroll Burden probably over 40%. We have
been addin$ 40% to our accounts but as of January 1, 1980 we have
started to add 45%.
OVERHEAD
Increase in most items is a. result of the increase in
Payroll Burden as the items are high labour items.
GARAGE; We have roof repairs and would like to install $Qm~
electrical lines so that we could move some of our
Eq\lipment away from the outside of the main garage.
This would reduce the fire hazard.
TOOLS: We n.eed some new shop tools and some of these electrical
gizmos are expensive.
NEEDS STUDY: Costs should be less as the maje)]iupda,te is ove,:.
TRAINING COURSES: We at"e going to have to investigate driving
courseS so that our employees can keep their
Class A licences. Some do not ca,;re but: a. lot
bt<
do.
ortieE: Ma.jor renovations of last yea.r are oveJ.". Some floor
covering work and inside painting to do.
WHITE STATIQN REHABILITATION; SlowlY but surely we are cleatpins
up tbe old gravel pit and while it won't be a thing of
beauty we will be able to keep Ministry of Natu+al
Resources happy and be able t.o find Ot,1t" mSlterial sand.
equipment.
ST. T1\oMAS. oNT p.RI0
JANUARY 9, 1980
PAGE 1.
at 9 :30
clarke of the Minist~Y of TransportatiOn and coromunicatiOnS.
Tl\E couNT'! 011 ELG1.N ROAD coMMITTEE MET at the Elgin CountY Buildings
9 1980 All members were p~esent including Mr. 'Frank
a.m., Janua-ry' ·
. ~ 6 D mbe~ 13 and oecembe~ 20
Tl\E }\.lN1lTE5 fr()ll1 the meet1.ngs Decemve~ , ece . ,
were read and approved.
The Enginee~ read a letter from C~~ and Associates London, stating
a ~equest fo~ a year~ severance pay fo~ Rod O'Mea~a.
The Engineer reported that a recommendation would gO to the
1'e~sounel Committee that ROY Doran be designated a supe~intendent.
Tl\E ENGINEER REPORTED on Wo~k to Date as 110llowSl
1.
Winte~ control had been very light.
Gravel resudacing had been CQtl\pleted on Road 11 and waS proceeding on
Road 20.
Vic Ruckle would finish crushing gravel sho~tlY'
2.
3.
4. B~ushing and tree cutting was undeJ:Way.
5.Enginee~ing wo~k was proceeding on Road 38 and other p~ojects.
"MOVED BY:
L. A. LONG1:lURS!
SECONDED B'l: D. J. cAMl'BELL
Tl\AT Tl\E 110LLOWING l' A'lLIST5 BE APl'ROVED 110R l' A'lMEN'l ·
_~../"I _ '" <).Q. 027 .1 7
l'A'lLIST N1JM:BER 56 (1919) AMoUNTL"" TO
l'A'lLt5T NUMBER 3 (1980) AMoUNT1.NG TO
$ 73,438.21
l'A'lL1.ST NUMBER 2 (1980) AMoUNT1.NG TO $ 42,259.55
cARRIED ."
1. With regard to Walke~s Bridge a roeeting with the Minister J~es Snow
to request funds had been set up for Janl1a~y 29.
Tl\"E ENGIN"EER REPORTEDl
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 9, 1980
PAGE 2.
2. That Don Husson from Middlesex and ~ had met with Mr. John Moffat,
Chief Municipal Engineer and presented the attached report with a long
range budget.
3. That Middlesex County Council had been told that their Road Corrrrnittee felt
that the Walkers Bridge should be replaced rather than repaired.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Minister of the Environment regarding the Dump Road. Warden Longhurst
and Frank Clarke reported that agreement was near betwE!en the St. Thomas
Sanitary Collection Service Ltd., and Municipalities also the Ministry of
Transportation and CVlLuuunications, to rebuild the road.,
2. Ministry of Transportation and CVlLuuunications regarding funding etc. for
1980.
3. Ontario Hydro regarding improved power supply to St. Thomas.
"MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. FOR ONE
RADIO UNIT AT THEIR TENDERED PRICE OF $1,508 PLUS PROVINCIAL SALES TAX.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF CARRIER MACK TRUCK CENTRE, LONDON FOR A MACK
MODEL RD 685S TRUCK AT THEIR TENDERED PRICE OF $45,700.77 INCLUDING
PROVINCIAL SALES TAX.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF FRINK CANADA FOR A 10 B 2, 15'-6" DUMP BOX,
TARPALIN COVER, TWIN CYLINDER HOIST, NEW STYLE SNOW PLCM TOWER, FRONT POST
ETC., AT THEIR QUOTED PRICE OF $17,122 INCLUDING INSTALLATION ON THE COUNTY'S
MACK TRUCK. ALL PLUS PROVINCIAL SALES TAX.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 9, 1980
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: L. A. LONGHURST
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL TENDERS FOR THREE AUTOMOBILES WITH
THE FOLLOWING VEHICLES AS TRADE-INS, ONE ONLY 1975 DODGE MONACO, TWO ONLY
1977 PLYMOUTH GRAN FURY.
CARRIED."
1 'MOVED BY:
S. J. GLOVER
SECONDED BY:
L. A. LONGHURST
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF I.B.I.S. PRODUCTS LTD. FOR PAVEMENT MARKING
PAINT AT $4.75 PER GALLON APPROXIMATELY 2,700 GALLONS FOR 1980 DELIVERED
WHITE STATION GARAGE.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
D. J. CAMPBELL
SECONDED BY:
L. J. SHAW
THAT THE ENGINEER BE ENPOWERED TO REQUEST QUOTATIONS FOR CULVERT PIPE,
CALCIUM CHLORIDE, GLASS BEADS, FOR 1980.
CARRIED."
The Engineer presented the attached budget surrrrnary and was requested to
provide a detailed budget for the next meeting.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: S. J. GLOVER
THAT WE ADJOURN TO 9:30 A.M., JANUARY 23, 1980.
CARRIED."
~~~
CHAIRMAN ~
~
I
i
""
.,',(
!(
I
I'
1\
!'
~
~
vJ~/
l/Ifi~1c.
OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL OUTLOOK 1980 FORWARD
January 3, 198Q
(a) THE PROBLE~:
- Replacement of Walkers Bridge, a low priority structure.
- Cost 1.8 to 1.9 Million Dollars, cost sharing 50-50
Elgin - Middlesex Counties. Cost of repair of present
structure $250,000, with still a 5 ton load limit and
a bridge too narrow for modern farm equipment.
- Closure would be dependant on order of O.M;B. and
adjacent owners and us~rs would be compensated.
.. The cost to the County of Elgin will amount to one
year of construction money, thus when the bridge is
completed (hopefully) by the end of 1982 County
construction will be a Year behind the position it
woUld have been without the bridge.
(b ) COMMITTMENT S :
1. Th~\\ County is corrrrnitted to complete Road 38 between
\'
High~aY 3 and east limit of Straffordville. This
'\
\
job was\~arte4 in 1978 and cannot be completed in
Lg ""
l~even l~~alkers Bridge is not started.
'<
\ '
2. County is corrrrni.'tted to Premier Davis to rebuild
County Road 32 from the Highway 73 to the Aylmer
Police College. This job was deferred once to
Road 38 and woul d have oro$na,rily been started and
completed in 1981.
3. County cV'Ulluitted to the Village of Port Burwell and
Ministry of the Environment to a joint rebuilding of
County Roads 42 and 50 in the Village when sanitary
sewers are installed. The Village of Port Burwell
is the last Municipality to be allowed financing
under the old subsidy system of thl~ Ministry and as
n t:o~ult Wh(Hl th(\ O.M.H. ~tld th~ '~Hntst:t"'y ~il;"~0 to
proceed with the sewers the County must be ready.
Continued....
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT - FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
Page 2.
4.
Fortunately it appears that 1980 is not the year,
1981 might be and if it is Road 32 w:i~ll have to be
deferred to 1982, and as Road 32 was constructed during
war and shortly therea.tter; it will be the best part
of 40 years between construction job~;.
The County hopes to complete Road 30 (Radio Road)
to Elgin Boundary as soon as possiblE~ to relieve' the
congestion on Wellington Road. Traffic at Elgin-
Middlesex Boundary is over 9,000 vehtcles per day on
Wellington Road. There is concern that this will
increase when the St. Thomas Expressway is completed.
Road 30 is not programmed.
5. Road 22 (Fairview Avenue) leading into St. Thomas
from the south. Traffic from County Boundary to
Road 45 19'3,500 vehicles per day. This portion of
the road is approximately 30 years old. The best
guess for a start is 1984.
6. ' Three salt buildings are required. At present there
are no buildings in East or West and all the salt
has to be hauled from St. Thomas. The building at
St. Thomas (White Station) is too sm.all and we pile
".
..
salt outside on the ground on a regular basis.
Unless ordered by the Ministry of thle Environment we
have no intention of building storagle buildings for
our four sal ted sand locations. So w~e are out. of
jail but we are looking at a lot of money sometime
for seven buildings.
7. Middlemiss bridge lurks in the back ground and it
makes Walkers look like a picnic job. If the old
bridge dies we will need a couple of million each
(Elgin and Middlesex).
8. The Ministry of Transportation and COuluu.lnications
allocations have not in the past kept up with cost
rises. If an automatic adjustment is not made
Continued . . .
'Page 3.
cOUNT'! 011 ELGIN ROl\.ll DEP AR~ - Ji11lNlCIAL OUTLOOlZ
yearlY by the Ministry of TransportatiOn and
co~un:\,catiOns the cost of constructiOn ~ill preclude
all wo~koth~~ than the 'Ilalkers ~~idge by 1982 and 1983
and we '#ill notbe able to keep any kind of an
O~ganization tOgethe~.
0\1~ ope~atiOn is alld haS b~en for many yearS a daY laboU~
operation. '\Ie call tenders onlY fo~ la~g~ bridge construction
and asphalt paving jobS as ,,~ll as gravel crushing. All
other work is either done by countY forceS o~ local ~ent~d
equipm~nt, sup~~ised by county pectsonnel.
Equipment is used fo~ both sUt\lll'~r operation and '#inte~
k . our
. beSt u,tilize our men and equipment. BY ~~p1.ng
wo~k fo~ce bUSY th~Oughout the year ~e have beonable to
keep an experienced creW of fo~~men and op~ratO~s,
The number of people we have eroplOy~d haS been stea~i1Y
dlll~nd1ing {~om around 120 ~n t\te late 60' s to now ~4
contt'ol.
We have to keep a balanced yearlY operation to
(c) ~l
".
(4 of them nOW laid, off).
In fact ~e have eliminaUd
We have reached the point
4 jobS in the past months.
whe~e we cannot reduce our staff anY furthe~ without
se~iOuslY aff~cting our basic ope~ations of ~int~r
control and oth~~ neces5a~y maintenance work.
ThUS we probablY hav~ more problems trying to balanc~
to .~tilue our men and ~quipment to the
out' pt'Ogt'arne U
highest ~athe~ than the countY use consultantS and
cont~actS in a yo~Yo tY'P~ op~ration. (f~ast or famine)
The simple and obViOUS answe~ is of cou~se mo~e mon~y to
tide US ove~ the short haul of building th~ bridge while
letting the prea~ranged prog~ame car~y on as before.
ThiS doeS tWO thingS, it l~tS the prog~ame that haS been
planned (UsuallY for quite a feW years) continUe with
eac.h need being ta~en in prio~itY' as p~tceived by
(d) ~l
countY council.
continued · · ·
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT - FINANCIAL OUTLOOK '
Page 4.
Small emergencies and changes while disconcerting,
annoying and evert expensive can often be accommodated
in the over all framework because no Council likes
being backed into a corner and most 1eav,e themselves
a little manoeuvering room.
If money is not available the County's priorities will
,.
have to be changed to not only accvu1Luodate the W'llker s
Bridge, and t,he present construction programe" ('though
somewhat delayed), but al so changed with a view to
, '
balancing the County's day labour operat:Lon from not
only year to year but also month to month.
- The attached sheets are a crystal ball gaze for the next
3 or 4 years encomp.;issing the County's entire operation.
- Upon reviewing the figures it would appear that the
Walkers problem might be solved but at the expense of
of the following.
1. The construction programe by 1984 is set back at
least a year.
2. It will likely be at least 1985 before the programe
would be back to "normal".
3. The Mini stry of Transportation and C....'~umunications f
Allocations must be made "global" fOJ:' at least this
period (to 1986) so that we can meet our needs in
each year and keep our organization i.ntact and not
be penalized for lack of mai.ntenance, resurfacing,
new machinery, etc. in any given year. We feel that
if we use maintenance money or new machinery, etc.
money for a different purpose in any given year we
should not be penalized for this in succeeding years.
4. Our capacity to meet the unusual problems will be nil
and if we get any new problems at all in the 5 year
period such as Middlemiss Bridge ~'the Dump Road
we are out of luck and so is the Ministry of
Transportation and C\JuJ.luunications.
R. G. MOORE
COUNTY OF ELGIN ENGINEER
" CRYSTAL, BALL rr 1981 AND 1982 ALLOCATION
Net Needs January 1, 1980
Construction - Bridg~s and Roads
$ 16,121,000
944,000
Less 1980 Allocation
$ 15,177,000
A Net Needs January 1, 1981 (6% of 15,177,000 plus 6% of Inflation ,Factor)
1981 Allocation ~ 965,000
Similarly 1982 Allocation $ 962,000
1981 Resurfacing Allocation $ 400,000
1982 Resurfacing Allocation $ 400,000
Maintenance and Overhead Allocations
1~81 ~ 1980 Allocation + 6% or $ 1,609,000
1982 ~ 1981 Allocation + 6% or $ 1,705,000
Construction
COMPARISON OF ALLOCATIONS
1980 1981 1982
$ 1,342,000 $ 1,356,000 $ 1,342,000
1,518,000 1,609,000 1,715,000
197,000 225,000 248,000
$ 3, 057, 000 $ 3,190,000 $ 3,305, 000
Maintenance and Overhead
New Machinery
POSSIBLE BUDGETS
1980
(a) Maintenance and Overhead
$ 1, 350, 000
175,000
(b) New Machinery
(c) Resurfacing including Kent Townline, Road 22
Carryover, and a little minor work
250,000
(d) Carryover construction various roads, land purchase,
pre engineering, etc.
140,000
967,000
(e) Road 38
(f) Walkers Bridge
175,000
$ 3, 057, 000
Continued . . .
Page 2..
~'lST~ BA~' ~ 1...'l.81 ~D 1.982 ~Q.9ATI.9!L
!lili~~l It reduces schedulable maintenance to repairs to pavements, bridge
maintenance, surface treatment and gravel ~esurfacing to a very
lo-W level.
work fo~ces engag~d in Straffo~dville urban, Roloson culv~rt
liall work includes storm dra.ins on Wards Rill Road 38. 1'0stpon~
installation and Township of 'larmouth culv~rtS installation. Late
purchase of small t~ucks frq~ liall of 1980 to spring of 1981,
other outside ~ork includ~s completion of Myrtle and Elm Street
,.
Bridge, Aylmer.
ggS51.!1E 1 9!U ~illlGE.1
$ 1,650,000
(a.) M,aintenance and overhead
22.5,000
(b) N~W Machinery included 1 possible 2 salt
storage sheds.
(c) Resu~facing to include Road 38 east of st~affordville
plus about 2 miles.
350,000
(d) Land l'UrchaseRoad 5. 38, 32 and Road 22 pre
engineering and surveys.
80,000
2.00,000
400,000
(~) c()II1plete Road 38.
(f) Walkers Bridge
(g ) Stat't Road 32.
~4, OOJl
$ 3,159,000
(cut bac\<' in funds to hit Road 32 first~
!!liEcT~l. Very little work fo~ graderS, onlY trim work on Road 38.
~~st to g~ade as much of Road 32 as possible and leave pav~ng to
1982.
Return to maintenance projectS such as ditching, gravel resurfacing,
surface treatment to keep equipment buSY'
WOlO\< clOews seeding and clean~U" Road 38, b~idg.e maintenance alld
painting. One c~e~ could work an enti~e summer on bridge painting.
outsid~ ,,:ork lookS limited at this time. E~ection of salt buildings
would sp~ead the ,,:ork load. Inflation money must be added by
Ministry of Transportation and c~unicatiOnS because of the
continuing rise in county costs.
continued · · ·
"CRYSTAL BALL" - 1981 AND 1982 ALLOCATION
Page 3.
POSSIBLE 1982 BUDGET
(a) Maintenance and OVerhead
$ 1,850,000
(b) New Machinery Budget
200,000
(c) Resurfacing - including major job Road 8,
Dutton to Wallacetown including
ditching and widening
350,000
(d) Walkers Bridge,
400., 000
"""
(e) Land Purchase Road 38, 32, and Road 22, pre
engineering, and surveys.
80,000
320,000
(f) Road 32 finish.
(g) Start Port Burwell urban sections, Road 42 and Road ~O
100,000
$ 3,300,000
Work crews again on bt;idge maintenance and painting, Fall Port Burwell urban,
Graders Road 8, truck catch up on gravel resurfacing. This is probably
the year that would have the most impact on our forces as Walkers Bridge money
will be spent early.
1983
Resume normal maintenance.
Up new machinery budget to replace obsolete equipment.
Resurfacing major job, Road 3 New Glasgow to Rodney.
Resurfac.ing backlong from 1980 - 1982, will have to be covered in 1983 - 1984.
Finish Port Burwell Urban.
Start Road 22 (Fairview Avenue).
~~
~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1980 ROAD BUDGET
January 9, 1980
,~
r
1
Ministry of Transportation and C<.muuunications Spending Level s County and
St. Thomas Suburban Roads
1. Maintenance - Roads and Bridges $ 1,173,000
2. Overhead (Construction, Maintenance, and Payroll Burden) 345,000
3. New Machinery 197,000
".
4. Construction Roads and Bridges 944,000
l ..
5. Aspha1 t Re surfacing " 398,000
TOTAL $ 3,057,000
Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy on Above
$ 2,276,OQO
Rate of Subsidy = 74.45%
Additional $26,000 available for urban rebates (50% subsidy). Total
rebates estimated at $52,000 (the exact figures will be unknown until the
i
individual local municipal ities portions ~!re determined).
POSSIBLE BUDGET 1980 (Figures Approximate Only)
1. Maintenance - Roads and Bridges (County and Surburban)
$ 1,070,000
2. Overhead - General (Payroll Burden, Distributed to
Maintenance, Construction and
OVerhead)
295,000
3. New Machinery
175,000
4. Construction Road and Bridges (a) Land Purchase, Hold OVer
Projects, Engineering,
Surveys, etc.
(b) Road 38.
(c) Uncorrrrnitted
150,000
967,000
150,000
5. Asphalt Resurfacing Including Completion of Road 22 (St. Thomas
Suburban Roads CVlluuission), Kent Townl ine, Etc.
250,000
TOTAL
$ 3, 057, 000
,< This Must Be Added: (a) Urban Rebates - 50% Subsidy.
(b) Drainage Assessments - 50% Subsidy.
(c) Items Not For Subsidy.