1981 Suburban Road Committee
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 22, 1981
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the Engineers
Office on December 22, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. A1L:members of the Commission
were present as was Mr. Robert Davies, Assistant Qounty Engineer.
The minutes of the meeting of April 29 were rE~ad and approved,
It was noted that several informal meetings had been conducted since that
date.
The Engineer reported that as the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications Allocations for 1982 were not yet available, it would
probably be late in January before a meeting could be held to determine
the 1982 Programme.
The Engineer reported that it appeared that the St. Thomas deficit
from 1980 would have to be carried through in 1981 and into 1982 inasmuch
as maintenance expenditures on various Commission Roads had been quite heavy.
Expenditures included gravelling ofa mile on County Road #30 (Radio Road),
grading, ditching, and drainage on County Road #28 (Centennial Avenue), and
a considerable amount of asphalt patching on County Road #28 (Centennial
Avenue) north of Elm Street. It was also noted that the shoulders on
Wellington Road, and St. George Street had been~grave1l,ed fairly
extensivly during the summer time.
Ontario Hydro had completed moving the line back on County
Road #22, however the invoice was being disputed and as yet had not
been approved for payment. It would have to be paid in 1982 and it was
not known at this time whether or not it $hou1d be a Commission Expenditure
or a County Road Expenditure.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
DECEMBER 22, 1981
PAGE 2.
Land purchase was continuing on County Road #22, with property
having been purchased from Peter Hepburn, and William Paul to widen
County Road #22. Contact had been made with Sam Millard and Mr. Backner
and although an agreement had not been completed with either of them,
it was hoped to complete both agreements within the next month.
The Engineer noted thatconstructionon Road #22 should begin
at the concession road between Concession IV and V and proceed northerly
to at least, midway point of Concession VI for the first stage.
It was noted that the 1/2 Mill Levy against St. Thomas would
bring only $900 more in 1982 than in 1981 and it was possible that a
portion of the system would have to be reverted to the County.
THE HEETING ADJOURNED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
-&.....'... ...Lrjll;f" #.~."'-'.-'..'.' ........."....................
..-='.-. ....... ~......
t}-7~Zr .....~ " .. ......
r .
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 29, 1981
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the Engineer's
Office on April 29, 1981, at 9:00 a.m.
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1981 WERE READ AND
APPROVED.
THE ENGINEEER REPORTED that Spring breakup had bee:n minor.
That an agreement had been reached with Ontario Hydro to move the high tension
line on Road #22 and Ontario Hydro would pick up a portion of the costs
inasmuch as they wished to change their main circuit wires from behind the
Ontario Hospital to the Port Stanley transmitter site as they were too
small for present day requirements. This would hopefully CUlt costs to the
Commission tn the vicinity of $30,000 to move that portion of the line.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that both the County of E1gi.n and the City
of St. Thomas had approved the 1981 Commission Budget.
Road inspection of the various Commission Roads was held and the
meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman.
1.1/)1.. /J/' YJi.(TLlv4 .. -
l1Ii',/)'7L~~[,41/_'1r vl~r v'1 ~_ .
"'" f
CHAIRMAN
J. D. HUBBELL, P. Eng.
COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO
N4K 3E3
376- 7337
HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT
MalLeh 26th, 1 98 1
St. Thomas Suburban Roads Comnission
c/o Bob Moore
Court House
9 Glads tone Avenue
ST. 'lliOMAS, Ontario
N5R 2L3
DerVL Bob:
Re: We.oteJu1 Anea SubUlLban Roado Commio-6)_on Meeting
The Owen Sound SubUlLban Commio-6ion i6 hO-6ting the We.oteJLn Anea SubU!Lban Road6
Comm--L5-6ion' -6 Annual Meeting tf~ yeM a:t the GlLey COUVL-ty MuYLic)pal B~dlng in
Owen Sound. (See attaehed map) We euend an invitation to aU Commio-6ion
Memb C!J7A, EngineC!J7A, S ecJte.;ta!Lie.o, and M. T. C. Vio:ttLid Mun.ic{~paf EngineeJl1>, to
join uo on Wedne.oday, JUNE 10TH, 1981.
Tentative Agenda
2:00 -
4:30
cOn6ee and Von~
Pftognam
Luneheo n (At the Y a(~ht Club)
Tftavel T)me to the Bnuee. NuueatL
POWelL Development Plant
ToUlt 0 n the Bnuee NLLc1.eCUt POWelL
Development Plant
9:30 -
10:00 -
11:30 -
7:00 -
10:00
11 : 30
7 : 00
2:00
We have cUULanged 60n 'a t.OUlL 0 n the Bnuee NuUeaJL PloweJt Development Site HeaJL
Kinc.aJl..dlne. Thi6, being one 06 t.he latLge.ot nuc1.eCUl.. genelLating eomplexe.o in .:the
woftid, -6hould pho\Je :to be an iVLteJte.oting vi6il. I would appnecXa1:e it in you
c.ould c.ontad me eOneelLMng the numbeJt On people that wiU be ({.ttendlng in YOM
pCUtty, :the nwnbelL 06 peopte :thcd. would nequitLe a buh nnom Owen Sound :to the
Bnuee NuueCUt.. Ptowe!L Development, and any topiC/.) tha:t you '6eet .6hou.fd be dL6eUO-6ed
on. the pnognam. Two .6ugge"stiOVL6 60n p!Log!Lam topiC/.) CUte the.. !Legu1..atioVl..6 06 the
EnvifLo nmen:to.i. A6.6 e6.6meVLt Ad and. the e6 6 ed 06 UlLban !Len.tal. na:te.o on SU.buJLban
Commio.6iovL6 .
YoWt!.> :tAuly,
/ ...'. ., .' OJ " // /', .' /(/ . /' .
i i. / ,. ( , . t: {, ,/
tlJ Lv-"-yk<~/J f< j, ~,<--C'c~ ./
Do u.gla.o Hub bell, P. Eng.
Co unt.y Eng,,{,neelL
~"'-
~6 AM H S S N 1>1
~;z,~.
AMH
~ I ~~~~)
-0 b-".:lt
l> AY.!:: ~
U> "0~ ~
U> ~
I
,
I
i
I
;
I
i
I
I
I
I
. .aHO,:I)I::>O~
----- -........... --- - ........
'I
0">
oV:- ~r:::-
,,>':j~'r-Y .
0">+
-Or:::-
y
~
"
Z
G>
(/)
( S S"",dJ.8 )
91
.~'- ......- -.........- --- - -..'- ...-- .... --....' -~_.- --- --- --- ... s.J.7w~ .:;-"'-~;7; - --- --,
~ I
~ I
<n
~ I
o 1
I
I
I
I
I
J
,
t
A.LN nO:J I o ~
I ;::r
0 l>
<:
I .".
of') ti
~~ I
J:'.E.> I €>
",t I
,
I
_'-:" I
.l33H.J.S 4 ~ 9
.l33H.J.S IHS
.f>
::r
<n
'"\
Q.
l> l> ;p
< < <
III ~ <l>
fTI f'1 !tl
0
aNn os
.h
~
2
'"
I
r;; I'~
0. 1 ~
III
C)
1'17
o
~
C)
~ ::lE
I
.J.HSlll dO.J.S .~J
f\)
.~
0..
).>
<:
III
(0
<:>
.l.33~.J.S 4~ 01
N3
o
~-~~*4
t
!
I
I
b
>-1
~l
J:I
I
!
>-
I-
Z
:J
~l
vI
I
()
'i<l~~"'J!;'m~J1)L~,*~
1 Z AN. H S4'D N I!
I
01
f'-l
>-1
~
::1
~I
I
:' I
<!>l
z
x:
~~~~~........."....... ," .'0 ~~.~;~~y~~~~:t;;~::'??_M,~-.;~.__~:.;.;~",7""'.~4:7;:.:o,~;"'-"'d~'''''-'':->;:'',~-.-:c.'G'k':",>.7"'.:,,, '_~:_~_':C'-'..;..'.,:,:"_.:;-.::;..';'--".;-".5,'~iSd;::''.::",:";.,.r'7;->",--::,,-"~'j".";~,,,~'_-'':'
I
SUBURBAN ROADS COM~lISSION ASSOCIATION
. .
1980 ...]~81. EXECUTIVE
Pres i den t:
Mrs. Lin Good
212 Fairway Hills Crescent
Kingston, Ontario
Past Presi dent:
Mr. Clarence Wilson
R.R. 3
Chatham, Ontario
Vi ce President:
Mr. John Stephens
R. R. 1
St. Marys, Ontario
Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. A.R. Holmes, P. Eng.
County Court House
Gue 1 ph', On ta ri 0
NlH 3T9
DIRECTORS
WESTERN
EASTERN
Mr. Morley Howe
R. R. 2
Strathroy, Ontario
Mr. Doug Whitley
217 McGill Street
Trenton, Ontari 0
K8V 3K4
Mr. John Stephens
R.R. 1
St. Marys, Ontario
Mr. Don McDonald, P. Eng.,
Counties of Stormont, Dundas &
Glengarry
P.O. Box 1022
Cornwall, Ontario
K6H 5Vl
Mr. Frank Hutnik
2300 Howard Avenue
Windsor, Ontario
Mrs. L in Good
212 Fa i n\Jay Hi 111 s Crescent
Kingston, Ontar-io
~
4. M~~~t? ArisingCont t d
3. AMO Report
-2 -
The Secretary-Treasurer briefly summarized some of the
responses from various Commissions on AMO Report No.. 38.
Agenda - Annual Meeting
The Secretary-Treasurer presented a draft of the Agl~nda
for the Annual Meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 198'1
at 3:00 p.m. The Executive adopted the Agenda.
5. Selection of Officers for 1981
That the slate of Officers for 1981 be:
President:
Vice President:
Past President:
Secretary-Treasurer:
Mr. John Stephens
Mr. Doug Whitley
Mrs. Lyn Good
Mr. A.R. Holmes, P. Eng.
On a motion by Mr. Gordon
seconded by Mr. McCutcheon
...carried
The Executive adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
ACTION BY
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 13, 1981
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION MET at the: Engineer's
Office on February 13, 1981, at 4:00 p.m. Present were Chai.rman Donald Stokes,
Albert Auckland, and Robert Martin.
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING of January 13, 1981 were read and approved.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: D. STOKES
THAT ROBERT N. MARTIN BE APPOINTED TO THE. ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
ROAD COMMISSION TO COMPLETE THE ~ERM OF JAMES HINDLEY WHICH
EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1983.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: D. STOKES
THAT THE HONOURARIUM FOR ROBERT MARTIN BE $150.00 FOR 1981 AND
THAT HIS CONVENTION EXPENSES BE PAID ON THE SAME BASIS AS COUNTY
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SUBURBAN,ROADS COMl1ISSION.
CARRIED."
It was noted that a Statement of Expenditures for 1980 had been
previously forwarded to members as attached to the minutes.
"iM0VED BY: R. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 1980 BE FORWARDED TO THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 13, 1981
jl?AGE 2.
The attached proposed budget for the St. Thomas Suburban Commission
for 1981 was presented and is as attached.
After some discussion.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. MARTIN
THAT THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS BE ADVISED THAT THE 1/2 MILL LEVY
($39,450) ON THE MINISTER'S EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR SUBURBAN ROAD PURPOSES IN 1981.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. MARTIN
THAT THE DRAFT )iBUDGET OF FEBRUARY 2, 1981 AS ATTACHED BE
ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS M~D THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN FOR APPROVAL.
CARRIED."
It was noted that the annual meeting would be in ()wen Sound and it
would be necessary to get permission from County Council to have the County
representative attend. The Engineer said that this would be done shortly.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
/r :lit.. . ~1 . ...............
i' "1 -- ....
A._~..':""" .~
CHAIRMAN
/If'''''''-' " ~"., """----""-,"'"""".-.-- " -.
I~,"'lj.!tit>.. 4. liT,l..,.;tiIML tlI-l ',Hlll}N_~~~~~'~
COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROAD COMMITTEE
SECOND REPORT
T0 THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS .FOLLOWS:
The fQILowing is a SUmmary of Expenditures on Elgin County and
St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads in 1980.
In accordance with' Ministry of Transportation and Communications
practice, Payroll Burden, such as Holidc3ys with Pay, Sick Time, etc., has
been distributed to variousproj ect sand does not appeal:' asc3 sepa.rate
item. '
CONSTRUCTION .. COUNTY ROADS
PART # 1
Asphalt resurfacing, associated ditchi'1g,
shouldering, etc.
(a) Road 7 in Aldbqrough and Orford Township
from Clachan to Botl;twell Bridge (COl.lpty
of Elgi.n shi:\re, work. done by Kent;).
(b) RO<.l,d 19 in Sou~hwo1d Township from
Highway 3 (Frome) northerly approx:ima~:~~y
,2omiles (cotnplet;ion of 1979 wQrk).
(c) Road 20 In SouthwQld TQWl1sh:f.p north of
Port Stanley approx:ima1;ely ~ mile.
(d) Road 20 in Southwo1d Township south of
Fingal appro:x:imc3te1y 1 mile.
(e) Road 45 in Ya.rmouth and Southwold
Township fl;'qm H;lghW'$.Y 1+ westerly to
approxirna~E,ly 1 mile south of
MlddlemRt'ch (eXC(.lpt K~1ttl(~ CreokHill).
TOTAL PART i~ 1
PART 1/ 2
Con st::t:'UC t:i on Road Iii
(a) Road 5 Engineering Walkers Bridge.
(b) Road 16 in Southwold Township from
Fingal t.o Burwell GornerS (completion
of 1979 work).
(c) Road 32 ~ Police College Road in
Malahide Township.
(d) Road 38 Bayham. and Malahide Township.
(e) Miscellaneous Surveys.
58,669.92
:3,748.06
'"
28,383.07
61,149.21
l21,8~ Z.JJ6
$273,783.12
30,750.25
9,486.10
14,979.34
1,088,962.10
J)J.,9.1p.!.?}
TOTAL PART ll' 2 $1,1.51,094.36
..1'.-. L lL ~fIIWol!,.ll,,~llj .).l,: ., lL~
\..
.v;'
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
Page 2.
PART # 3
Miscellaneous
(a) .Rebate of Provincial Sales Tax Paid
in 1979.
1,183.61 Cr{.
(b) Landpurcha:se s for road widenin,g and
diversion.
32,945.08
(c) New and used machinery.
252, 237 . 02
(d) Rebuilding and extension of salt
building, White Station Garage.
28,342.35
(e) Machinery owpership costs, etc.,
charged to accounts receivable and
Town1ine A~counts.
52,807.69 CR.
TOTAL PART # 3 $259,533..15
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION (COUNTY) $1,684,410.63
CONSTRUCTION BY ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
(a) Road 22 (Fairview Avenue) in Yarmouth
Townshi,.p, asphalt reSUrfacing from Road 27
southerly for 1 mile.
57,134.94
(b) Construction Road 30 (Radio Road) in
Yarmouth Township.
705.00
(c) .construction Roa<;l 31 (Da1ewood Rqad) in
Yarmouth Township.
27.83
(d) Construction Road 52 from Road 30 to
Highway 3 (St. Thomas Expressway) in
Yarmouth and Southwo1d Township.
597.91
(€.!) Construction Road 22 (Fairview AVE:'!nue)
in Yarmouth Township from St.. Thomas Gity
Limits to Road 27.
28,025.78
(f) Land Purchased for Road Widening and
diversions.
11.196..5.7
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BY
~)'r. TllOMAS SUBIJRI3AN RQADS CO~lM'lSSION197,68&.03
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COUNTY AND
ST. 1:'HOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS CO~lMISSION $1,782,098.66
If,
~r~J .I:L II ..tl~04~~~~''''1'ir~.'..,.~.m.~"",~~..,..,.'''Jli'''''''-''IliIi''Jf!'~''''~'"'3:U l'ii J .....4~.~ TrI 1l1l.~~ .,~ <<."r 11'" tIl!}"" ~~~~
MAINTENANCE... COUNTY ROADS
NOTE: Let t~)r s andm,untJ<f17 S . corn~ spoudt () MInistry () f
- Trill'lBpot'tlltlon and COTnmun.lcatlons ACcQunt'
Numbers.
A - Culverts etnd Brtdgesi
... 1 Bridges (including Bothwell, Warctsville, Belm.ont
West, Glen Colin, and Gi11ets)
... 2 Culvert s
~~
Roadside Maintenance
13
- 1, Grass Cutting
... 2 Tree Cutting
- 4 Drainag~
- 5 Roadside Maintenance, Washouts, Shouldering, etc.
6 Tree Planting
- 7 Drainage Assessments (repairs only)
... 11 Weed Spraying
C -HardTop Mainteqancc (faved Roads)
... 1 R~pairs to Pavements
... 2 Sweeping
...:3 Shoulder Maintenance and Ditching, etc.
4 Surface Treatment
D .. Loose Top MaintE:'nance (Gravel RQflds)
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads
... 3 Dust Control (Calcium Chloride)
... 4 Du st Control (Prime)
5 Gravel Resurfacing
E... Winter Control (Total) $208,418.99
.. 1 Snow Plowing
.... 2 Salting and Sanding
-.3 Snow Fence
- 4 . Standby
Page 3.
$ 31 746. 42
______2._...___..
2 500.20
__..,......1.....___..
16 394.35
----.-.-1.:.______
78 748.07
lIII(l.--_........I...____._
56,643.60
lIIl!t..4lIIII..1IIlIIIt....~...__..,__
6 476.94
_..._.._ ,.L.. ........_
7000.33
............L.........
832.39
..... -.....-.. .'.'... -"'IIII'!'
1. 2 1 7 2 . 46
-.....---I.....tl!II...
88. 619" 09
.........._ -,..I. .._....._
13264.16
---.....~I..._-.._-
.. .. .. .. ~ Q...ll Z'l :. ~?
76892. 78
...... IIM- ...~_IlI"lit.'''._
21053.51
..........t-.............
41 451.43
-- ~-...'-I.-'...-...-
.. eo ....~.I~~Lt:.l.!
__.....~L~!2.li~:.ii
-_.....~~t.~~~:.a~
149,661.88
--........ -...'.-.........
21,369.16
..-_'/IlllIt__..........._
19,544.66
..........---- -.. ..'.
_~__;ol<ll"OlJ~.~>II!<'I~"_""""""""'''''''_''''~''''''''W'''''''''''''''''''''.'''''''',,,,,,,W-''~''=~n,."":.~.,.:.,"l'~'.>:~"'."_"""~~;.o,',~~,~~__,-",_~,,,,.^_,,,,-,........"',...........-~""'....,.,.__,,,...,.-~__"'..~"',....".,>,.__I'"""':.~."<<"M.....""''''''"''''''~'''-.~~'>\~'''..I':O'''........~~.'''.........,'.,.,.",,\~....J..,~''h''....'._.,,..~......,....>;:..,,..,.,.,"^~,,.""...'~.,.,........'jJ.m,_mfn_A.."'_"'.~'...,_.."""'''''''''-''-''''''__N
MAINTENANCE -_COUNTY ROADS (Continued)
Page 4.
1980 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Corrrrnission $ 260,442.69
1979 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Conunission $ 359,430.62
1978 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban, Roads Cormnission $ 315,003.94
1977 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission $ 359,095.00
F - Safety Device s
- 1 Pavement Marking
$ 23 874.07
.. _ _ _ .-.....1_ _ _ _.. ...
- 2 Signs
____~llQ~1:.~2
... 3 Guide Rail s
_____~lt~~:.Q~
- 4 Railroad Protection
23 601.08
..- - ~...I..- ..._'~_"
TOTAL
$ 848,968.39
MISCELLANEOUS
Rebate to Town of Aylmer and Villages of ~SOIo of
their Road Levy
$... ... _ )}_,_8..i ~ ~8.. <2.
OVERHEAD - COUNTY
1. Superintendence, including County Engineer,
Superintendents, and vehicles
$ ... _ _ _8}J~5.?~~.}}_
2. Clerical
1+0 508.7]
-........ .:.1- --. -'......
3. Office
1.3 666.36
- _.. _. ..:.1- _ __.... ~
4. Garages (White Station & Rodney), Stock &
Timekeepers, Maintenance, etc.)
_ _ _ J 2.12 J~8_. J].._
5. Tools and Misccllaneous Repairs
_ _ _ J 2.1!: 1:],.: ~.l]_
6. Radio
3 054.51
_____.1_______
7. Traffic Counts & Needs Study Update
____E.lJ!}].!J&_
H. 'l'r:llning Cour~';e!;
__ __lJ]J!!.!Jg~
9. Permits
80.00 CR.
---~._--.~.-~-
10. Miscellaneous Insurance
____!.!22~.:!:1_
11. Rehabilitation of White Station Gravel Pit and
general cleanup of Garage grounds.
!+13.l6
.......-.......-...............
1 2. MIl(.' II I 1")(1 r y ov (' r Ilt' :\ d n(> s t
1 794.64
~~__~A~_.._~'~
1 J . Sove t" ;lI1Ce Payre: Fqrrne r As 8t stant Eng IlHH.~ r
and. Legal. Fee s.
____312~Y.:s~_
TOTAL OVERHEAD
$ 245,461.06
Il:\.~ ~... lI1R"l~jJ~n e ~.~~~..,..~.
(TOTAL OF PAYROLL BURDEN charged to operations was
$330,491..90.)
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION MAINTENANCE &
OVERHEAD (including items not subsidized by
Ministry of Transpo~tation and Communications).
TOTAL MAINTENANCE, MISCELLANEOUS, OVERHEAD, ETC.
FOR COUNTY & ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
ITEMS NOT SUBSIDIZED BY M.T.C.
Elgin Sweeper
Insurance (Road Liability)
Miscellaneous, including Memberships, etc.
TOTAL
SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION
MAINTENANCE & OVERHEAD
ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY
SUB TOTAL
ADD: 1980 STOCK BALANCE
SUB TOTAL
LESS: 1979 STOCK BALANCE
SUB TOTAL
ADD: DRAINAGE ASSESSMENTS (50% SUBSIDY)
COUNTY ROADS
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ROADS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ON COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
SYSTEMS
Pi:lge 5.
$ _ _l.f!fb.~~~lt.tq't
f
$1,331,096.251
$ 7 431. 08
__..__t.:_......_..~
........ _ ..<?./t~,-l"...
_.. ____J!Q.\.tl_CR.
$
Bj293. (t~ .
$ _l.t.:~~t..<1.~E!.':.~~
$ _~~~~~t~?~~~~
$ 8,293.03
.........-..-.....-......
$ 3, '1 21 , 48 7 . 9 a
....-..- ---... .... .-- ..
_..__~\.tt:l.~':.~1.
$ _~t~~~t'!.~~~~~
.... _ _~ ~~..'~:~ ':. ~i!.
$ _~t.~~~tt:~~':.~t:
1. 0, 167 . 09
-- .......-.'..-.....-
NIL
..-.......--------
,I
$ 3, 12.8 ,588 . 33
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
Page 6.
The Ministry of TransportCltion and Communications Subsidy
Allocation in 1980 was in 2 P4rts, a General Allocation of $2.~302,OOO
and a subsidy of $.5,000 on Drainage Assessments (subsidized at 5CY'1o).
The cost of the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Cornnllission
expenditure to the County of Elgin (and the City of St. Thomas) was
$36,242.07~ (This also the effective contribution of the City toward
Su~urbanRoads for 1980.)
The net cost to the County of Elgin (including the County's
share of the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission expenditures) is
estimated at $785,346.26.
The Road Levy for 1980 was 017igina11y$781.,000.
In addition, work was performed and materials sold totaling
$934,635.54 including:
1. Work on boundary roads and bridges and invoiced to the Counties of
Middlesex and Oxford.
2. Front Street steel bin wall erosion protection proj€~ct for the
Village of port StanleY.
3. Engineering work on the Walker s Bridge (50%) invoicE~d to the
County of Middlesex.
4. Priming a.nd surfa.ce treatment for various Municipalities, and
others including the City of St. Thomas and the Vil1i:1ge of G1encoe,
and the Countie$ of Lambton, Kent and Middlesex..
5. Work done, mater.i.als sold, paving contr.acts supervised, etc. for
other municipalities, FeQ-era1 and. l'rovincia1 Government,
Conservation Authorities, ind.ividua1s, etc.
In 1980 the Roads Depa17tment 'Was requested to have trained
personnel and insurance, etc. ready for a possible Mosqu:f,.toCo..Tltrol
Programme. The net cost ofthi.s Programme to the County was $4REl~30
(the Town of Aylmer paid for the cost of insurance).
Tota1paymel1t vouchers ill 1980 amounted to $4~.063,2-23.B7
(compared to $3,684,009.90 in 1979, $3,376,833.63 in 1978, $3,236,612
in 1977, and $2,741,000 in 1976).
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
~J$. l ,~~ ..~.'l)'" u~loo.rU~t,..m:UMIlIl1r""~.'lil'\IIZ~~.....,d, .c ~ __ ..,..~ ~~_ __ !lJ ()J' t
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
The St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission has ju:risdiction over
47.4 miles of road out of th~ total 296.6 Road System in the
County.
Construction and maintenance costs arc kept s~pa:rat:e on these
roads. The Commission pays a portion of the overhead costs
(approximately 9..9% of thetot..a1). The Coimnission owns no equi.pment
or tools but pays a "cost" rental rate to the County when the
equipment is used on Commission Roads.
Overall polic.y on the Commission Roads is directed by your
County Council Road Committee.
All detailedsumma:ry of c.osts on the Commission Roads is
attclched as is a $umm.ary of the cost s of mainte"nance and overhead
on the combinEJd County and Suburban Syste;m.
Commission Roads Include:
Road #11 - (South of Ford Plant) from Highway 4 to Road 26.
Road #16 - From St. Thom.as to Fiuga1.
.. .
Road #22 - (Fairview Avenue) from 'St. Thomas to Road 24.
Road #25 - We 11 ingt on Road.
Road #26 - St. George Street and Bostwic.k Road.
Road #28 - Centennial Avenue from Road 45 to Highway 3.
Road #29
Road #30 - Radio Road.
Road #31 - Dalewood Road.
Road #52 - Highway 3 (St. Thomas Expressway to Highway 73).
Road #56 - Elm Street from Centennial Avenue to St. Thomas.
1"!"'Ir---
.,
. I!'> "I
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1980
CONSTRUCTION
1. Road 22 (Fairview Avenue) asphalt resurfacing
between Roads 24 and 27.
2. ConstructiQnRoad 22 (Fai:rview Avenue) in
Yarmouth Township from St. +homas City
1imitsto Road 27.
3. Road 30 (Radio Road) completion of const:ruction,
etc.
4. Road 31 (Da1ewood Road) completion of constructiol1,
etc.
5. Road 52 from Road 30 to Highway 3, completion of
construction" (new St. Thomas Expressway).
, 6. Land Purchase.
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE
A... 1 Bridges
- 2 Cu1ve:rts
B <\00 Roadside Maintenance
~ 1 Grass Cutting
.. 2 TreG Ctlt t i.ng
.. 4 Draini;lge
.. 5 Roadside Maintenance
.. 7 Drainage Assessments
.. 11 Weed Spraying
C ... Hard Top Maintenan<:e (Paved Roads)
- 1 Repair.s to Pavement
.. 2 Sweeping
.. 3 Shoulde.r Maintenance
.. 4 Surface Treatment
~~,,~,
$ 57 134.94
.._.......-J.~....--_
28 025.78 /
......._ "-,~ J... _.......... _' ~.
70$.~O
----~-~-~---~
27.83
-..---.......-----..
597.91
-. ....- - - .. ..... - .... ... ...
11,196,57
-,~_.....~.... ..-........-
$
97,688.Q3
$ . 269 . 20
-!!IlI'...-............---..
688.84
---......-.........._-
2,248.6.0
-..................,.-..~-
17,204,$3
.. .... ... ,-.... .........,..... - ..
11,920.51
-.-. -.... ..-.. ..'~
801.81
...........---....,---
6 2 . 08
-...-.........---....
1, 654.55 ~
....--..------..
t
2,892.50
---~..-_.._---.
2,187.59
'..------------
. 5,651.11
.. ... --......- -,- .....-
20,619.16
... ....... ............-..
'"
!,~ W1llJ'f;1fltrrt ~'. ~!~J, ..~.l..<t4 l,. u ~ 4'J A".,'tiI-'iAl~J-,~
, <
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1980
Page 2.
D - Loose TOp Maintenance (Gravel Roads)
... 2 Grading
$ 4 958.93
__...__1....__~___
3 Du st Layer
8 1 08. 03
..........1..-_____
... l~ Prime
4 924.21
,...---.,.1....-.. .......
... '5 Gravel Resurfacing
_'"'.......Z.a~lQ:.ag.. .
Eo. Winter Control (total) $52,023.70
... 1 Snow Plowing
3,109.71
..-....--- ,,'..._--
.. 2 Sanding ~ Salting
40,542.37
----.--~--~---
... 3 Snow Fence
3,485.46
....... ...- ,.. ,.. .... '... - - ...
... 4 Winter Standby
4,886.16
.:_-------~~~-
F ... Safety Oevice s
... 1 Pavement Marking
4 232. 01
_____.2__...___
... 2 Signs
4,609.4t
.'.... -.- -- ..--....'...
... 3 Guide Rail
135.37
.......- _... - till ... _ ...... ~-... ,-
- 4 Raitroad Protection
4 966_.66
......_....1__...___..
Overhead Charges, including Sup~rintendence,
Office, Clerical, Garage, etc.
. 27 125.48
______.2._______
TOT AL
$ J84,505.lg
Drainage Asse~~ents
NIL
~.~.~-~~-~.~~
Items Not Subs dized by Ministry of Transportation
and Communicat ons
318.88
-.:~-~-----~_:~
TOTAL EXPENDITURE SUBSIDIZED ATOPERNfIONAL RATE
$ 282,512.07
$ 282,193.19
TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE '8y ClTY OF ST ..THOMAS
Min.istry of Transportation andGommunica~ions Subsidy.
Rate on operations for 1980 was calculated to be
74.427% on all items (e:x<=.eptitems not <f.ol:" sUpsidy)
is $210,047.93 5crkof:ealance of $72,165.26 is
$___22J2~1.:2~__
..
'.,
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1980
Items Not For Subsidy 50% of$B18.88
T()T,AC PAYABf.~l~ by Clty of St. Thmnns on 19HO<.)pet"ilti,ons
PLUS: Deficit from 1979.
LESS: City of St. Thomas Contri.bution for 1980.
Deficit to 1981 Opercttions.
Page 3.
159.44
-......--.--.........
~_lfiL&~a:.2!~
9,74Q.OO
----.._-~..-..-
37,550.00
..1lIlIlIII-....--...-___
$ 8, 4:3 2. 07
'"
1:~-"'''''''''''"'--'''---'''''''''''''-''''-'''I''''''''~'''''-'l<iiI''''''''''''''',,",,-,''''''~~'''/</>l'-''<<""''''__~'''''l'/'r'_''''''''''.""_'.''J<""".~,...'t''''t.""":tJI'",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~..Il'rnIlItU. .t ..,,..~.,......
MAINTENANCE
"~"'''''"''lf.~''''''''''-'r,'ll>.t-/'o~'''_''~'.''.''I'llo.r~)'~__''''~"...."".............,,..,,...;.>r.>":<l'...~~ft:~'O'_...''I,'4'I'~~~~"~''''''''''''''''''''''''rol''
The fo11qwing is a summary qf th~ tqtalmail1tenance Qn both County
and Suburban Roads.
NOTE: Letters and nUmbers correspond to Mini stry qf Trc:ll'lSportation
---- and Communications Account Numbers.
A - Culverts and Bridges
- 1 Bridge s
If.~
- 2 Culverts
B- Roadside Maintenance
.. 1 Grass Gutting
.. 2 Tree Gutting
...4 Drainage
.. 5 Roadside Maintenance" Washoqts, etc.
-~ Tree Planting
.. 7 Drainage Assessments (repc:li.+,s only)
... 11 Weed Spraying
G .. Hard Top Maintenan(t.e(PavedRoads)
.. 1 Repc:lirsto Pavement
$ 32 015..62
..... .. .... _ .;J...... .... _..._
... _ _....3J1-..8J..._Oj.,.
18,642.95
~-~~-~-~~..~~.
___JJ.zJiJ.:J~_
68,564.11
.....-..... --.........
__..._J.lJl~~~J_
7,000.33
...-._.~t!lIt.. -.......- -_..
894.47
-- ..--.....--:-....-
__ _! ~J~Zl.:.&l.-
91,.511.59
....- ~. .. - ~ ..... ...... ....-.-
"" 2 .Sweepipg(See also :Elgin Sweeper under Items Not
For SUbsidy)
15,451.75
---...._-...-.'.
- 3 Shoulder Maintenance
o. 4 SUrfac~ Treatment
D ... Loose Top Maintenance (Gr9vel Roads)
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads
- 3 Dust Control (Calcium Chloride)
4 Dust Control (Prime)
"" 5 Gravel Resurfacing
46 520\1140
.. .....~ ~ 1_ ....-.. .-.' lilt
97 511.94
...........~--...-~...
26 012.44
....... _.....~,.. ...................
49 559.46
....... .......J._~ ~_.."_
6~95.3a
_____L____...
58 769.17
...............1...--.........
MAJJnIJE~NAl:{CE ... COUNTY AND ST . THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS (Conti:nued)
Page 2.
E ... Winter Control (Total)
~ 1 Snow Plowing
___gQ.l22~:Qg_
.. 2 Salting and Sanding
_..12Q.a~g~:~2_
- 3 Snow Fence
......l!:.a~af:.:f1lo.
- 4 Standby
24 430.82
_-___.a...______
1980 Winter Control. County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission $ 260,442.69
1979 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads 'Commission $ 359,431.00
1978 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission $ 315,003.94
1977 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission $ 359,095.00
F ... Safety Devices
- 1 Pavement Marking
$ 28 106.08
_...___J__..___..
.. 2 Signs
47 670.80
..,....._-_.I~,- .._....
-.3 Guide Rails
2 257.39
_ __.. _.-.1......_ _._..._
... 4 Railroad Protection
.. _ _ J.~.J,J!; 1.:1!:_
TOT AL
$ 1 J 006 t~~48. 07
OVERHEAD ... COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION
1. Superintendence, including Cqunty Engineer,
Superintendents, and vehicles.
$ 90,.599.00
..... ...''''-. ..-- --.......
2. 81 erical.
44,989.70
----.........---..--....
3. Office.
15,178.10
~-~--~~'--~~~~-
4. Garages (White Station & Rodney), Stock &
Timekeepers, Maintenance, etc.
73,682.01
.....----~------..
5. Tools and Miscellaneous Repairs.
29,365.90
----.....--.....-....
6. Radio.
_ _ _ _ }".,JJ..2....}J__
7. Traffi.c Counts & Needs Study Update.
7,148.58
... .. -..... .. ...' -- - ... ........ ... ... '.
8. Training Courses.
1 372.94
-.--- -~,~-,-......,-
9. Permits.
__.._ ___..8_Q....Q.(L_CR.
10. Mi.sce11an(~ouS Insurance.
.. ...... o.~.\}.~5...~1}__
(Cont inued )
OVERHEAD ... COUNTY _AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS (Continued)
11. Rehabilitation of White Station Gravel Pit and
general c1ean~p of Garage groypds.
12. Machinery Overhead Costs.
13. Severance Pay re: Former Assistant Engineer and
Legal Fee s.
TOTAL OVERHEAD
r~
Page 3.
$..-.._--~~~:.~~
1 993.16
....._.....1.___..__
____~z.~12:22
$ 272.586.5/+
~_r ,.- __n ---1r:~1;';;;;;:;;;;;;'~-;;;~;;;;'''''''-'''''-'''''''~'''''''''''''''--'''~;.- . ._,,_~.._~n..~~....';';~:;:~:~:';;;;'::;;;;;;:;;;;;"~;;'___;;';"-;';;;"-;:7";:::;;;~~~';~~;:;''';;';;.~__._.,........._,~,...,.....,'_.." .... 'M -.'"."""....
~i\
(i~~
,.~i~4
COUNTY'.. Or' ELGIN ROADCOMMIT'fElt
SECOND.REPORT
TOr.FHE WARDEN AND MEMBERSOFTHEEI.,GINGOONTYCOUNCIL
'lOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS.J:."'OLLOWS:
RECOMMEND:
FEBRUARY SESSION
1981
That .theRebate tOlJ'rbanMijriicipal iti.esb~25% of.theirR()~d Levy as
County and St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission
2. That:.. the following.st}~~ernen~ofPrQP()s~d':Wotka.l1dExpe.ncltt:t1re son
in fQ rrn(~ 17 ye ar 8 .
and a Resolution passed adopting the- Statement of Work and
Tr;Hl$pOr~at ion and Communications for apprQ"a 1.
ExpendIture$ and the Statement be forwarded to the Mi-nisery of
is 50%.)
3. That a Resolution be passed:t,:"equestingtheMipistry
and
for. Drainage
Cormnission
CHAIRMAN
1981 CONSTRUCTION
ST. 'I'HOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
1. Compl.et;ework from pn:~ViquS y~ars:
-Road30 (Ra.<ho Road)
~; 6 , 000
2. Land Furchase:
..RQadsi22,30" 31 and 52.
34,000
StO;veys,..Ep.gtneerltlg,. Gra.d:ll'lg, Uti.li.~Yi.lvfovlng, etc.
""...Rog-q'22 CFa.tt"view ^v~nt1e)
22,000
1. Walkers Bridge
a) Contract.
b) Day labour,
c) Soil tE.~sts.
d) Payments to Consulting:" Engineer, etc.
$400,000
2.
Road 22 (Fairview Avenue ) construction in .
...... ..... .. .
'addition to that budgeted by the St~ Thomas
Suburban Road Commission
18,QOO
3.
Completion of Road 38 between liighwa,y 3 and
Highway 19, Bayham and Ma.~ahide Township..
140,000
4. Land Purchase:
a) Road 38 (Highway
Road 32 (to
b) RQa.ds2,J, 8,
(Purchase on
thi s Summer.)-
Purchases on Road 3 and 8, will allow dit.ching
this Summer on Road 3. between New Glasgow
and Rodney and Road 8. between Wallace town
and Dutton with resurfacing in the near
future on both roads.
5'. Miscellaneous survey and engineering on new
p r oj e c t s. 20, 000
23,000
70,000
Construction Roads 42 and 50 Port . Burwell and
Road 32 (Poli.ce Coltege, Road) MalahideTownship.
(Work in Port Burwell willibe delayed until
sanit(~ry sewer worki s approved by ~he Mini. stry
of the Envi.ronment.)
315,000
PAGE.2.
'f'
$ 62,000
9.86,000,
~ I . A .f la.x :. ( ) ( ) ( )
.~,"'___"~';_':"':"~~~~~;:;:;':;:;'~_;';;';':;"":':'~';';<V_-'''''N''''''''''''~''''''''''-'''''''''''."1.~!'~"""""''''''_''''_'''''''''''''____'''''~''''_''-'''
PAGE 3.
MAINTENANCE
OPERATION
COUNTY . AND . SUBURBAN
1981
ST. THOMASiSUBURBAN
1981..
COUNTY
1981
A . ..'BrIdge 5 and Cui verts
eo ~ Br j. <.lge s
70,000
1,000
69,000
... 2 Gulvert5
Roadside Maint:enance
.. 1 <Grass Guttlng
3,000
l,)raLnag(~
8,000
70,000
... .5 Roadside Maintenancc
10,OQO
2,000
.. 6 . Tx(} (2 P 1 fltlttng
1,000
.. 7 PratnagoAssessment.s
(Maint~nance )
...11W~ed SPFay,'iqg
2,000
Pavement
Maintenancl'
65,000
5,000
,5,000
1 , 000
4,000
~llI!.'i\~~~~_""""'~.,""".""I'~"""""""""'f'I1f<"""":~"""""""",,,,,,..,,-'...._._,~.....-..
PAGE 4.
OVERHEAD
OPERATION
1981
Sl.lpqr'lntenoence
t 1l 0,000
B8,OOO
~'~~"IiMln -:...... I\'tilrwrl'tn!'_~~l:\l:t.~'M'Y._-::.:~~"-."..._,~~.,...~."~,",,<,",,,,,,1"<~\-_""""'~~,r<l;l':/IP_t;_'":'_\'''!:4';l:'J!'~~~m';n~_'!l':'<W''~'''~'''I''''>'-\',....~_...,~.,..._'''''''''''''''''''''''''~.,-~_....-.._....._-,.,.--""-",-.-,,,,.---.--._.~~,-~,..~~._,._>......~.,.~~-""--'~'-
Hqt",.....""',~""~"""'"~~,<-~~t"".(,''4.''',......"...,:'ItM)"..r.
I~~""'-..-"~-~...~
!!-~...'.. ..A ~ .~ ~".I<..""..
PAGE 5.
SUMMARY.OF EXPENDITURES
(Jounty Roads
$1 t133, 000
- St ..Thornas.SlJ.burball Roads
1.61,000
298,()()()
... St.'Thomas Suburban Roads
25,000
M.T .C. -Ordincn:y
M.T.C....Suqs1.dy on
M. T.C. ... Subsidy on Drainage Assc ssmcnts (500/,;)
30tOOO
City of . St.. Thoums..
Contribution to
Roads.
$2:.161. '2, nOQ
NET LEVY
EX1)(' ndfture s
$1, 1~6 7,()O()
Receipts
2,612, 000
NET LEVY
ST. THOMAS" ONTARIO
J'ANUARY 13, 1981
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION MET at the residence of
Albert Auckland on January 13, 1981 at 4:00 p.m. Present Albert Auckland,
Don Stokes and the Engineer.
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING of Febrt;tary 12, 1980 were read and
approved.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
,'SECONDED BY: D. STOKES
THAT DON STOKES BE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST'-. . THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION FOR 1981.
CARRIED."
THE E;NGINEER REPORTED that he had received Jim Hindley's resignation
because of ill health.
"MOVED BY:
A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY~ 'D. STOKES
THAT WE ACCEPT WITH REGRET THE RESIGNATION OF JAMES HIN~LEY BECAUSE
OF ILL HEALTH FROM THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION.
CARRIED."
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED the rep1acemen~ of Jim Hindley and
instructed the Engineer to approach Robert Martin to see if he was interested
in being a member of the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: D. STOKES
THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR 1981 IN THE ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION
AND THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION A$-SOCIATION BE PAID.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 13, 1981
PAGE 2.
A BRIEF DISCUSSION took place on Expenditures for 1980 and the
Budget for 1981. The Engineer stated that it would be a week or more
before the 1980 Expenditures were fina1ieed and probably a month before a
Budget could be discussed for 1981.
IT WAS REPORTED that the 1/2 Mill Rate Levy on thE~ CitY,..9f
St. Thomas would bring in $39,450 in 1981 compared to $37,550 in 1980
and $36,450 in 1979.
THE ENGINEER ALSO REPORTED that the legislation with regard to
the appointment of Suburban Commissioners would not take effect until such
~f63
time as the Commission's term ran out in July of~. At 'which time the
County and the City would appoint a Commissioner for the balance of the
Jd) fJ i- <,
County CounciPs term namely to November of~. After that the appointment
would be for two (2) year t.erm by Councils, based on the term of the
Councils.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
#~Q~
CHAIRMAN
[.........."'1.......
1
,
"".....J
r.........'.".""".:
..\
i
~...J
[..:.......'...'.'
. ~
,I
~
o
D
J."-"'1ll
~~~~~~~~:
B - ~SSIGNMENT OF THE SUB[~ON SUB
ROADS AND COMMISSIONS
S:!!!lffiary of Terms of Referen.ce for the Revie\.v of Suburban
Roads and Commis sions
The terms ofrefe.rence for the review were ba~3ica.lly:
(a) To define the function and current merit of suburban
cOlnmis s ions, and
(b)
To recommend to The Special Advisory Conlmittee
any changes which would better serve the interests
or better dis charge the functions of suburba.n
commi s s ions.
THE SUB-C011MITTEE'S. RESULTS
The functions of suburban road commissions were d~;fined as :
1.
To identify the. county roads which serve the economic
and social interests of the separated urban, as well as
those interests of the county.
z.. To designate as suburban roads those of the. so
identified county roads which are the most pressing
concerns to the separated urban within the
limitations of the ~"'1.ds that 'Nill be available: .
3. To direct the expenditure on the needs of suburban
roads in the interests o{both the separated urban and
.' the county.
The Sub -Committee invi.ted Mrs. Lin Good to present her views
which supported suburban commissions. Mayor Weeks of
Windsor and Mayor Al Gleeson of London have both advocated
dissolution of suburban conunis 5'101'16. They were invited to
discuss their views with the Sub-Committee. Mayor Gleeson
attended to present the case for dissolution.
~.......~,..g0w"." . ...5. )f/
/'.' . // ..-----
// /./
, /'.//
Y
~
~.~...~...:.. &[1...~.)~. .~~.. ....~. ::(XA~.
s.o--r-JL-...... . .... ~.... ...... ~..'" ~.. '....... ~~~~._~_
r-. .~..~~~~_
(J~)
./
r! ~
( .,J
- 8 -
r-
[h,.i
Three Options were reviewed:
1.
The dissolution of suburban road commis sions
on the grounds that the separated urban has no
present nor future interest in suburban roads .
[_.:."
z.
The creation of. area road commis sions with
jurisdiction and control over the main roads and
streets in the county and separated urban which
serve the COlfllYlOn interests of both municipalities
(The Upper-Tier Road System) on the grounds
that a fundanlental change is required.
[~'
3. The modification of the qualifications for
eligibility and term of office for appointee s to
suburban commissions on the grounds of more
direct accountability but accepting that the
separated urbani s commercial ,and social interests
are served by suburban roads.
Comments on The Options
Dissolution of suburban road commis sions is an option ,;vhich has
been proposed by representatives of some separated urbans. It
was incumbent upon the Sub - Committee to explorecare:f~lly the
consequences of dis solution.
.The Sub-Committee concluded that suburban roads do serve the
social and commercial interests of both the county and 'the separated
urban municipality. Suburban road commissions are the statutory
creatures through which the separated urban can express its views
on the maintenance and improvement priorities of suburban roads.
While also permitting the county equal opportunity to expres sits
views I the suburban road commis sion does not benefit the county
to the same extent as the separated urban since suburba.n roads
are already county roads and the county has its own council and
road committee to secure its interests.
[]
[:.J
So long as municipal road authorities acknowledge that their social
, and commercial interests extend beyon.d their borders I that there
is an interdependence, dis solution of suburban road cotnmissions
without an effective and immediate substitute would crea.te an
undesirable hiatus . The Sub - Committee was unable to
recommend dissolution of suburban road commissions.
r............'...l....'
lJ
[ii:]
,~J
f~l
f, ,
[~"""'J
il
',,,..,.1' ,
f..:.' ,.._,
~
t.,
t,.:~
- 9 -
(...~.,.'1...
. rt
'I
,..,.._J
However, the Sub-Committee holds the view that where the
separated urban municipality and the county are able to agree
that dissolution of the suburban road commission is in their
mutual interest, such a prospect should be allowed without
the city or separated town losing its road grant eligibility.
The Sub -Committee is sympathetic to the idea of the area road
commission as a basic change which would be consistent with
and could b.e readily absorbed by a comprehensive solution.
Representation would be divided between the c'ounty and the
separated urban. Where two or ~ore separatedurbans existed,
they would be deemed as one for purposes of representation.
'\ The Chairman could be appointed alternately by the separated
lurban and the county. Eligibility for appointment would be
restricted to members of Council. The local share of road
costs would be apportioned on the basis of assessment.
Ministry road grants would follow the regional model.
['
['..~..j
~,.,.,.....l
The Sub -Committee has judged that area road comrnis sions would
not be an accepted innovation ~nd, the'refore, does not.. recommend
this option. However, the ::iub-Com.m.ittee emphasized that area
road commissions would resolve the overall problem of adminis-
tering and managing the upper,-tier road system where cities or
separated towns exist in counties. .Further, the Sub-Committee
promotes. the position that an area road commission should be
created where the separated urban and the county agree to its
establishment.
The representation and term of office for appointees to suburban
road commissions did receive the careful attention of the
Sub-Committee. Accountability is viewed differently today than
when the existing legislation on the composition of subu.rban
commissions was drafted. To accommodate more direct
accountability, the eligibility of suburban commis sion appointees
needs to ~e broadened to include members of council of the county
and the separated urban. A companion change is to make the
term of office of suburban road commission appointees coincide
with the term of office for municipal councils.
ill
t"""'~..:...
..!
."",..1
f...'....~n......~..............
tJ
The appreciation and understanding of the functions and activities
of suburban road commissions is vested primarily in the members
of thesecommis sions. It is a prospect that municipal elected
officials as cOlnmission members may be able to contribute to a
broader understanding of the role of suburban road cornmissions
as a road agency and to a better appreciation of the merit of their
agency to the combined county-separated urban commup.ity.
1l"'~iU'
r
t
- 10 -
[:
r"~'
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
THE SUB-COMMITTEE REC011.MENDS THAT:
1. SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSIONS CONTINUE UNTIL
TI-IEY C.l\!'l BE _~BSORBED VfITHINA REVISED
. MUNICIPAL STRUCTURE.
2. THE RESTRICTIONS ON APPOrnTEES TO SUBURBAN
ROAD COMMISSIONS BE REMOVED TO ~1AKE
MEMBERS OF COUNCILS OF TIlE COUNT~[ AND THE
SEPARATED URBANS ELIGIBLE.
[..................\
.';
.;."""...J
3.
THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR APPOINTEES TO
SUBURBAN ROAD COMM1SSIONS COINCIDE WITH
THAT FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS.
4. WHERE THE COUNTY AND THE SEPARATED URBAN
MUNICIPALITY AGREE THAT THEIR MLUTUAL
INTERESTS WILL BE BETTER SERVED BY
(A) THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SUBURBAN
ROAD COMMISSION.
OR,
(B) THE CREATION OF A.N AREA ROADCOMtv1ISSION,
SUCH ACTION SHOULD BE PERMITTED,.
COST CONSEQUENCES TO THE l.11NISTRY
No~e
IMPLEMENTATION
f""]
L::~J
(""'11
LJ
Amendments to The Public Transportation and Highway Improve-
ment Act are- required to implement the recommendations.
The amendments could be effective as soon as 1980.
ADMINISTRA TIVE IMPROVEMENT
None
t..,...,'...'..".......'.,:".,...
LJ
~"(f!~"'~m