Loading...
1982 Suburban Road Committee ST. THOMAS~ ONTARIO .JUNE 29, 1982 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMt1ISSION met at the Engineer's Office at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday June 29, 1982. All members were present. The minutes of the meetings of March 4 and June 14, 1982 were read and approved. The Engineer reported that the maintenance expenditures to date were in the order of $150,000. The large st expenditure .was the culvert repair on Road #52 near Highway #74, at $16,000. It was felt that no construction could be done on Suburban Roads as the total budget would have to be used for maintenance. A road inspection of the Commission System followed, noting surface treatment underway on Road #16; ditching on Finga1 Hill, Road #16; culvert repair Road #52; intersection improvement Road #30 at Concession XIV, Yarmouth; improvement of vision at C.N.R. Crossing, St. George Street and widening of St. George Street Hill. Meeting adjourned to call of the Chairman. iLW ;{l~um CHAIRMAN GUELPH, ONTARIO JUNE 14, 1982 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met in conjunction with the Western Ontario Suburban Road Connnission meeting in Guelph on Monday June 14, 1982. Present were Commissioners Martin and Auckland, Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and Connnunications, and the Engineer. The following resolution was passed: "MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND THAT THE DESIGNATION AS A SUBURBAN ROAD OF COUNTY ROAD #28 FROM HIGHWAY #3 TO COUNTY ROAD #45 A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.2 MILES (5.2 KM) IS HEREBY REVOKED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS. CARRIED." The meeting agreed to adjourn to Tuesday, June 29 for a meeting and a road inspection. CHAIRMAN ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO MARCH 4, 1982 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County Engineer's Office on March 4, 1982 at 4:00 p.m. All members were present. The minutes of the meeting of February 3, 1982 were read and approved. The Engineer reported that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications District Office in London had approved the revertion of Fairview Avenue (Road #22) to the County of Elgin and had forwarded their approval to head office for the Minister's signature. It was noted that winter control costs had been quite high in January and mid February, although costs haddec';reased in the past several weeks. It was noted that the potential for f1o~ding was quite high inasmuch as there had been no thaws to date. The Kettle Creek Valley was particularly prone to flooding. Some dead trees had been cut on Suburban Roads with some remaining to be done. The attached Budget was discussed at some length with the Engineer noting that the Maimtenance Budget was quite tight particularly in the areas of winter control and repairs to pavements. It wasa1sp noted that the County had a supplementary by-law request for safety marking and if it was not approved the County Road Committee would in all likelihood amend the ~aintenance Budget so that work could go ahead in this are(iF.anyway, as the Road Committee was quite interested in the project and had put a high priority on the work. ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO MARCH 4, 1982 PAGE 2. "'MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN THAT THE DRAFT BUDGET OF MARCH, 1982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,400 AS ATTACHED BE ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS FOR APPROVAL. CARRIED." The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chairman. ~~~- CHAIRMAN MARCH 1982. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD Cm1MISSION Attached to this report is a proposed Budget for 1982. The main concern of the Budget is the need to eliminate the considerable defici twhich was carried through 1981 and enlarged som,~what as well in. 1981. The Budget has been drawn up to reduce this d,~ficit to zero. The Commission has already reverted Fairview Avenu'~ (Road #22) to the County of Elgin so that all construction, and maintBnance on this road in the forthcoming year will have to be assumed by the County. It is noted that any 1 arge road maintenance item Or pav.~ment repair projects will also have to be assumed by the County inasmuch .as the attached Budget is very limited in all areas (particularly Winter Control). Any excessive Winter Control Costs in the next month will strain the Budget to the point that all asphalt patching projects on any Suburban Road will havq to be done by the County.. It may be that some ordinary maintenance work will have to beaSS1.1med by the County as well. Some funds have been allocated in the Budget for white (safety) edge marking. The County has requested supplementary funds from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. If succ,~ssful some of these funds will have to be allocated to the Commission in order that they might complete all Suburban Roads. Construction is estimated at a very nominal amount which provides for the conclusion of work on Road #52 and Road #30 that has been held up for the past several years by bad weather. It is hoped to complete this work this year. As time goes on the Suburban Connnission will likely have a smaller proportion of the total Budget of the County in;asm\.1ch as the money available from the 1/2 mill levy from the City of St. Thomas will not increase to keep pace with inflation as the assessment growth of St. Thomas has been very low the last few years. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFlTLLY SUBMITTED /-j "'\,. /' ,)1 . u/.. R. G. MOORE, SECRET1\RV.ttND ENGINEER-. TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION BUDG~ 1. CONSTRUCTION (a) Land Purchase - Road #30. (b) Construction Roads #30 and #52. TOTAL 2. MAINTENANCE A .. Bridges and CUlverts - 1 Bridges - 2 Culverts B .. Roadside Maintenance - 1 Grass Cutting - 2 Tree Cutting - 4 Dr ainage .. 5 Roadside Maintenance - 6 Tree Planting - 11 Weed Spraying C - Paved Road Maintenance - 1 Repairs to Pavement - 2 SWeeping - 3 Shoulder Maintenance - 4 Surface Treatment D - Gravel Road Maintenance 2 Grading Gravel Roads - 3 Calcium Chloride - 4 Prime - 5 Gravel Resurfacing E - Winter Control Total MARCH 1982 $10,000 $ 1,000 3,500 5,000 6,500 4,000 500 3,000 1 0, 000 3,000 4,500 23,000 5,000 10,000 6,000 9,000 85,000 CONTINUED . . . ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION BUDGET MARCH 1982 PAGE 2. 2. MAINTENANCE (CONTINUED) F .. Safety Device s - 1 Pavement Marking $ 9,000 .. 2 Signs 8,000 .. 3 Guide Rail 3.,000 4 Railroad Protection 7,000 .. 6 Edge Marking 6,000 TOTA.L $212,OQO The County of Elgin has applied for a Supplementary By-Law from the Ministry of Transportation and COmmunications (Subsidy Rate 91%) in order to expand edge marking beyond the budet amount shown. 3 . OVERHEAD Total County Overhea.d is estimated at $327,000. Pro rating the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission share the estilllated percentage is' appro:x:imately 7.3% or $24,000 4. DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT Construction of the Wiater :M:unicipa1 Drain which crosses Road #28 (Centennial Avenue ) near Highway #3 is scheduled for early SUtnmer and involves 2 road crossings of Road #28. The ASSessment against the road is estimated at .. $5,000 5. ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY Items Not Subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications includes memberships, road liability insurance and the honorarium and expenses of the third member. Total estimated at - $400 6. PAYROLL BURDEN A1i estimates for construction and maintenance and overhead include payroll. Apportioned as per Ministry of Transportation and Cotnmunications accounting practice similar to former years. ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION BUDGET l1ARCH 1982 PAGE 3. SUMMARY (a) Construction and Land Purchase: Road #30 and Road #52. $ 10,000 (b) Maintenance. 212,000 (c) Overhead. 24,000 (d) Drainage Assessments. 5,000 (e) Items Not For Subsidy. 400 $_2.-?J-,_49Q SHARE OF CITY OF ST. THOMAS 1. Regular Expenditure 50% of Cost after deducting Ministry of Transportation and Corrnnunications Subsidy (76.4%).:!: $29,028.00 2. Drainage Assessments 50% of Cost after deducting Ministry of Tr.ansporation and Communications Subsidy (50%) 1,250.00 3. Items Not Subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (50%) 200.00 TOTAL SHARE OF THE CITY OF ST. 'l'HOMAS$3Q,4I8_.QO 9,773.57 ADD: Deficit From 1981. TOTAL $40,251.57 LESS: 1982 1/2 Mill Levy from City of St. Thomas 40,350.00 $98.43 CREDIT TO 1983 ST. THOMAS, ONTAaIO FEBRUARY 3, 1982 JPAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the Engineer's Office on February 3, 1982 at 11:00 a.m. All members were present inc1uging Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The minutes of the meeting of December 22, 1981 were;read and approved. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN \ THAT PONApD STOKES BE CHARMAN FOR 1982. CARRIED." "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED ~Y: D. STOKES THAT THE HONORARIUM FOR ROBERT"]' MARTIN BE $150.00 FOR 1982 ANn THAT mms CONVENTION EXPENSES BE PAID ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION. CARRIED." "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED l3Y: R. N. MARTIN -THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR 1982 IN THE ONTAR.IO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00 BE PAID AND THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP BE PAID. CARRIED." "MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN SECONDED BY: D. STOKES THAT THE APPROVAL OF COUNTY COUNCIL BE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION IN LAMBTON COUNTY (JUNE). CARRIED." ST. TI:IOMAS, ONTARIO FEBRUARY 3, 1982 PAGE 2. The Engineer noted that the Minister of Transportation and Communications had set the assessment of the City of St. Thomas at $80,700,000. The 1/2 mill levy would provide $40,350 in 1982 as compared to $39,450 in 1981. It was noted that the term of the Suburban Road Commissioners would run until July of 1983 at which time the recent ProvinciaL Legislation would supercede the present method of appointing Suburban Road Commissioners. This would be dealt with by the Councils elected for 1983-1984. Property purchase on Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) was continuing. Approaches had been made to Mr. Sam Millard and to Mr. Bachner but neither one signed as yet. Deposit plans would be registered very shortly for property from Mr. William Paul and Mrs. Bertha Olde. No other negotiations were underw~y at the present time. Flashing light signals on ROad #26 (St. George: Street) would be installed by the Ontario Hydro as soon as possible, as all materials have been received. It was ndted that drainage assessments for 1982 were estimated to be over $5,000 with the major assessment being on thE! Winters Drain on Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) near Highway #3. The financial outlook for the Commission was bleak inaSmuch as there was a d~ficit of $9,733.57 from 1981. It appeared with the present subsidy rate the total budget of the Commission for 1982 would be in the order of $246,000 which would be composed of $10,000 for construction and ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO FEBRUARY 3, 1982 PAGE 3. land purchase on Roads #30 and #52; $212,000 maintenance; $24,000 overhead. A complete budget was not as yet ready. It appeared that ail construction costs on Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) would have bo be assumed by the County and if there were any major repairs to pavements on County Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) and County Road #30 . (Radio Road) these would als~ have bo be assumed by the County. Expengitures on the St. Thomas Suburban System for 1981 were examined at spme length and discussed. It was noted that these expenditures were on the same report as the First Report of County Road Committee to County Council. This had been done to try and present a clearer and more concise report of total County Road Expenditures. "MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND THAT . THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 1981 BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS. CARRI ED." The Budgetw$l discussed at some length and it was noted that a complete budget would not be available until approximately March 1. It was decided to notify the City that their 1/2 mill levy 1N"ou1d again be required for 1982. "MOVEP 13Y: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN THAT THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS BE ADVISED THAT THE 1/2 MILL LEVY ($40,350) ON THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SUBURBAN ROAD PURPOSES IN 1982. CARRIED." ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO FEBRUARY 3, 1982 PAGE 4. Removal of Fairview Avenue (Road #22) from the: Suburban Road System was discussed and the Engineer recommended that the removal be done as soon as possible inasmuch as the invoice from Ontario Hydro for pole moving on the road in 1981 had not as yet been Pfiid but would have to be paid shortly and it should be paid when the Road was under control of the County rather than the Commission. "MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND THAT THE DESIGNATION AS A SUBURBAN ROAD OF COUNTY ROAD #22 FROM THE ST. THOMAS CITY LIMITS TO COUNTY ROAD #24 A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 MILES (9.4 KM) IS HEREBY REVOKED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS. CARRIED." The meeting adjoruned to the call of the Chairman. ~Ii!~ - CHAIRMAN ~;; J1,f0 ~ COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE FIRST REPORT FEBRUARY SESSION 1982 TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS: The following is a Sutmnary of Expenditures on Elgin County and St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads in 1981. In accordance with Ministry of Transportation and Communications' practice, Payroll Burden, such as Holidays with Pay, Sick Tim.e, etc., has been distributed to various projects and does not appear as a separate i tern. CONSTRUCTION COUNTY ROADS PART #1 - Asphalt Resurfacing, Associated Ditching, Shouldering, etc. (a) Road #38 in Bayham Township from Canadian Pacific Railway Tracks in Straffordvil1e to Norfolk r::ounty Line, approximately 2.7 mi 1 e s. $402,,529.62 (b) Road #45 in Southwo1d Township from Road #16 at Middlemarch " southerly for approximately 1 mile. 87,.644.40 TOTAL PART' #1 ~$490~174,02 PART #2 - Construction Roads and Bridges (a) Road #5 Walkers Bridge (Elgin'S Share after charges to Middlesex County). (i) Land Purchase for right-of-way and approach fills. (ii) Engineering Fees paid to bridge and soils consultants. (iii) Payments to Contractor(McLean Foster Limite~d of St. Mary' s). (iv) Materials supplied to Contractor, clearing, approach grading and graveling, etc. by County of Elgin. $ 7,951.87 34,640.89 313,810.1' 37,999.11 TOTAL EXPENDITURES WALKERS BRTDGE $3~'4,492 . 06 (b) Road #3 2in Ma1ahide Township from Highwa,y #73 to County Road #5 2. $298,507.45 (c) Road #38 in Bayham Township between Richmond and Canadian Pacific Railway Tracks in Straffordville. 154,544.78 (e) Miscellaneous grading and engineering. 1,085.37 8,922.37 (d) Roads #42 and #50 in Port Burwell (Engineering). TOTAL PART #2 $857,.462.. .03 COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE PAGE 2. PART #3 - Miscellaneous (a) Rebate of Provincial Sales Tax Paid in 1980. $ 563.25 CR. (b) Land Purchases including Roads #2, #3, #8, #32, #38 and #45. 87,233.91 (c) New and used machinery. 179,741.40 (d) Completion of Salt BUilding, Whites Station, started in 1980. 8,553.41 (e) Salt Storage Building at Township of Bayham Garage on Highway #19. 41,851.87 (f) Machinery ownership costs, etc., charged to accounts receivable and town1ine accounts. 31,146.43 CR. TOTAL PART #3 $~2_?~5~_p}qlll_91 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COUNTY $1~~9_~3,,306 .96 CONSTRUCTION ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS It (a) Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) in Yarmouth Township, e,ngtneering grading, ditching, drainage, fencing, etc. $21,553.07 (b) Miscellaneous work Road #30 (Radio Road) and Road #52 between Road #30 and Road #25 (Wellington Road). 292.86 (c) Land Purchase Road #22 and Road #30f etc. 8,408.35 / , TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BY ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD CONMISSION $.3P~?_54_~_48 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF ELGIN AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION $1,.6_6}.J~561. 24 MAINTENANCE - COUNTY ROADS PAGE 3. NOTE: Letters and numbers correspond to Ministry of Tr'ansportation and Communication~ Account Numbers. A - Culverts and Bridges - 1 Bridges (including Middlemiss, Fulton, Belmont and Gi11ets, etc..) - 2 Culverts B - Roadside Maintenance - 1 Grass Cutting - 2 Tree Cutting - 4 Drainage - 5 Roadside Maintenance, Washouts, Shouldering, etc. COUNTY ROADS 20,186.54 7,953.37 18,835.99 90,152.33 74,790.52 11,600.50 - 6 Tree Planting ~ 5,103.08 - 11 Weed Spraying - 7 Drainage Assessments (repairs only) 4,609.23 C - Hard Top Maintenance (Paved Roads) - 1 Repairs to Pavement - 2 Sweeping - 3 Shoulder Maintenance (including gravelling, ditching, etc.) - 4 Surface Treatment 10,021.99 31,010.80 2L,365.26 59,613.58 64,726.11 - Road #3 - New Glasgow to Rodney 5,109.92 A1dborough Township, surveys, etc., for ditching and drainage. - Road #8 - Wal1acetown to Dutton, 78,980.12 Dunwich Township, surveys, di.tching, drainage, shouldering, fencing, etc. D - Loose Top Maintenance (Gravel Roads) - 2 Grading Gravel Roads - 3 Dust Control (Calcium Chloride) - 4 Dust Control (Prime) - 5 Gravel Resurfacing 19,081.49 42,035.20 1,342.25 91,464.24 ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS 466.02 3,943.33 2,937.04 7,990.22 13,115.13 5,059.23 538.75 232 .37 1 , 395 . 23 51,557...81 2,298.82 21,577.06 8,357.10 TOTAL 20,652.56 11,89Q'~70 21,773.03 98,142.55 87,905.65 16,659.73 5,641.83 4,841.60 11,417.22 82,568.61 :I. 23,664.08 81,190.64 73,083.21 5,109.92 78,980.12 4,058.54 23,140.03 8,869.42 50,904.62 1,342.25 51,474.02 142,938.26 MAINTENANCE .. COUNTY ROADS COUNTY ROADS E .. Winter Control (Total) - 1 Snow Plowing 55,660.42 .. 2 Salting and Sanding 210,571.64 .. 3 Snow Fence 22,380.75 - 4 Winter Standby 19,820.28 (Pro Rated to St. Thomas 'Suburban Road Connnission on a mileage basi s [16%J) PAGE 4. ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS TOTAL 12,952.40 68,612.82 37,386.13 2l... 7,957,. 77 26,202.70 23,595.53 3,821.95 3, 775. 25 1981 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission $366,368.82 1980 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission $260,442.69 1979 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission $359,430.62 1978 Winter C9ntro1 County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Connnission $315,003.94 F .. Safety Devices - 1 Pavement Marking 25,163.54 - 2 Signs 61,752.20 4,840.81 .. 3 Guide Rails .. 4 Railroad Protection 37,930.55 - 5 Stump Removal 11,611.79 - 6 Pavement Edge Marking 6,449.96 TOTAL 1,114 l64.46 (NOTE: F-5 and F-6 were funded under a ;:,uptJ..emeIH:ary Safety Money By-Law in amount of $25 ,OOO~, Subsidy from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications [90.909% Subsidy Rate]. ) OVERHEAD - COUNTY 1. Superintendence, including County Engineer, Superintendents, and vehicles 8,238.56 33,402.10 67,119.41 5 , 795 . 08 5,367.21 954.27 7,166.58 45,097.13 11,611.79,' 9,882.15 16,332.11 273,414.59 1,387,579.05 '" 103,760.08 12,172.97 115,933.0 2. C1eFical 3. Office 4. Garages (White Station and Rodney), Stock & Timekeepers, Maintenance, Heat, etc. 5. Tools and Miscellaneous Repairs 6. Radio 7. Traffic Counts and Needs Study Update. 8. Training Courses 9. Permits 47,285.92 5,547.51 52,833.4 12, 43 2 .89 1,458.61 13,891.5 8 2, 1 08 . 23 9,512.99 91,621.2 21,592.44 2,533.19 24,125.6 3,210.12 376.61 3,586.7 9,016.64 1 , 126 .6 2 1 0, 143 . 2 1,389.75 163.04 1,552.7 12.00 12.0 OVERHEAD - COUNTY PAGES. 10. Miscellaneous Insurance. 2~122.47 249.01 2,371.48 11. Rehabilitation of White Station Gravel Pit (Ministry of Natural Resources Permit) 100.00 100.00 TOTAL OVERHEAD 283,030.54 33,140.55 316,171.09 - Overhead is charged against the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads on a percentage basis of the cost of construction and maintenance on the St. ,Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads as a percentage of all construction and maintenance on both St. Thomas Suburban Roads and County Roads (urban rebates, equipment purchases, drainage assessments, items not for subsidy, etc., are not considered in determining the overhead percentage).. In 1981 the Overhead Charge to the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission was 10.5%. MISCELLANEOUS Rebate to Town of Aylmer and Villages of 25% of their Road Levy $48,448.58 Payroll Burden totaled 359,423.33 in 1981 was distributed in accordance with Ministry of Transportation and Communications standard practice to the various operations. ITEMS NOT SUBSIDIZED BY THE , MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS , COUNTY ROADS ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS TOTAL Road Liability Insurance 1,197.30 111.90 1,309.20 Miscellaneous (including memberships, etc.) St. Thomas Suburban Road.Commission, Fees and Expense s and Member ship s 214.00 762.44 214.00 76 2. 44 TOTAL 1,959.74 325.90 2,285.64 SUMMARY COUNTY ROADS (a) Construction 1,633,306.96 (b) Maintenance 1,114,164.46 (c) OVerhead 283, 030.5~~ (d) Urban Rebates .48,448.58 (e) Items Not For Subsidy 1,959.7~~ (f) Drainage Assessments Construction (50% .Ministry of Transportation and Communications') Subi sidy) 40;000.00 SUBTOTAL 3,120,9~0.28 ADD 1981 Stock Balance 71,930.71. DEDUCT 1980 Stock Balance 61 ,4L2.6l~ PAGE 6. ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS TOT AL 30,254.28 1,663;561.24 273,414.59 1,387,579.05 33,140.55 316,171.09 NIL 48,448.58 325.90 2,285.64 NIL 40,000. 00 337,135.32 3,458,045.60 NIL 71,930.71 NIL 61,412.64 TOTAL 3~131,428.3~L 337~l35.32 3,46fh563.67 CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY CITY OR ST. THOMAS TOWARD THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION 1. Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy Rate on Item - F-6 (Pavement Edge Marking) is 90.909% - Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy on 9,882.15 @ 90.909% 2. Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy on all other items (~~cept items Not For Subsidy)is calculated at 75.42% , $8.,983.76 .. Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy on326,927. 27 @ 75.42% 246,568..55 TOTAL MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY $255,552.31 Total St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Expenditures LESS Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy BALANCE 50% of Balance Payable by City of St. Thomas $40,791.50 337,135.32 $81,583.01 PAGE 7. ADD Deficit From 1980 j; 8,432.07 SUBTOTAL 49,223.57 DEDUCT Contribution of City of St. Thomas for 1981 39,450.00 r": DEFICIT TO 1982 J 2_,]7}.57 CALCULATION OF NET COUNTY EXPENDITURE (EFF~Q+~VE ROAD ~EVY) MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY (a) General Subsidy Allocation $2,551,000 (b) Supplementary Drainage Subsidy 20,000 (c) Special Safety Item Allocation 25,000 TOTAL $2,59_6,OQO TOTAL County Road and St. Thomas Suburban Road Connnission Expenditure. 'It $3,468,563.67 DEDUCT.. Ministry of Transportation and C6nnnunications Subsidy 2,596,000.00 .. Portion of St. Thqmas Suburban Road Commisston Expenditure Payable by City of St. Thomas A9_,791.50 (ESTIMATED) NET COST TO COUNTY OF ELGIN $ a3k,77.2.l7 The 1981 Road Levy by County Council was $855,000 It ,is noted that the County Levy was based on the f<)llowing: (a) No deficit on St. Thomas Suburban Road Connni'ssion System ($9,773). (b) An additional $10,000 to match a like amount in Miniatt'Y of Transportation and Connnunications Subsidy of Drainage Assessments which was not approved. (c) A saving of approximately $3,000 in Items Not Subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. , In addition work was performed for and materials sold to various Municipalities and others, work was also performed pn Boundary Roads and billed to the Counties of Oxford and Middlc:!sex. The cost of Walkers Bridge Construction (and Engineeringlt etc.,) chargeable to the County of Middlesex was charged to them (Total $380,270.53). Priming, surface treatment was done for various local Municipalities, the County of Kent and the Oneida Indian Reserve and billed to them. Hot mix asphal t paving for the Township of SouthwoldJJ Township of Yarmouth, Villages of Port Stanley and Dutton was included in County Contracts and billed to the Municipalities. . PAGE 8. THE TOTAL OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR 1981 TOTALlED $1,142,108.77 THUS TOTAL PAYMENT VOUCHERS FOR 1981 TOTALED $4,610,.672.44 (This compared to $4,063,223.87 in 1980 and $3,684,009.90 in 1979.) As in previous years the Road Department was request~~d to have some trained personnel available for a possible Mosquito Control Programme to prevent the spread of encephalitis. ThE~ net cost of th~ progrannne (charged against the general government: account was $441.77 ). ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED CHARIMAN (., \.