1983 Suburban Road Committee
CO!
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO
N4K 3E3
376-7337
("
J. D. HUBBELL, P. Eng.
COUNTY ENGINEER
HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT
Veeemb~ 20th, 7983
Mn. RobVl:t G. Moone, P. En.g.
County En.gin.e~
County On Elgin.
79 Stanley Sbteet
Co uJLt H 0 U-6 e
ST. THOMAS, Ontanio
N5R 3G7
Vean Bob:
In. neply to you.n le;t;t~ on Veeemb~ 73th, 7983, 1 am en.&o-6-<-.n.g a eopy on
the ivU:tial nepont that 1 pnuented to the HighwaY-6 CommUte.e. The
HighwaY-6 CommUtee, with the appnoval On County Coun.ell, decA-ded to -6ued
Option. 4 on my nepont. The City i-6 agneeable to the et{min.ation. On the
Commi-6-6ion. in a -6u.Uable agneement ean. be neaehed.
The maj on -6twnblin.g bloek, 0 n eouM e, i.6 the legal noad bloc.k.-6. The pnovin.ee
neeL6 that the County On Gney ,6hould make nepfLuentation. ttvwugh an. ongan.ization.
-6ueh M the Ontanio Good RoaM A-6,6ouation. to -6ee in th~e A.~ ,6Unnieient ,6Uppont
amon.g eoun.tiu an.d c.A;t.iu to have the Publie TnaVl.-6pontation. an.d Highway
Impnovement Ad ehan.ged. The ehan.ge would be p~mi.6-6ive iVl.-6,OnMMit wouldailow
non the -6tatu.-6 quo to nemain., but with the option. non c.A;t.ieAl an.d eoun.tiu to ent~
into agneemew to maintain. the Subu.nban. RoaM wLthout the ne_ed non the Commi.6-6io n..
We Me euMenily puMuin.g thi.6 appnoaeh, but we hav'e n.ot given. up on. the idea On
a pnivate membeJl..-6 bill. 1 neaLey don.' t exped an.y eon.enete ehan.gu to oeeu.n non
at leMt two yeaM in a:t aLe.
1 will keep you in.nonmed On an.y majon ehan.gu.
S eM 0 Vl.-6 Gneetin.g,6,
~-V~,,_,,;v-c-,-- ~,-
(.....- U _ _
VouglM Hubbe1.l, P. En.g.
County En.gin.e~
dn
//~,J,
'-iflt
~~
AN INVESTIG.ATION OF 'I1-lEFUNcrION OF THE
OWEN SOUND SUBUHBAN HOAnS COM'-ITSSION
...:
Back~)lmd ,
Grey County Comcil at their Decerrher , 198Z,session instructed the Grey County
Highways Connri.ttee and the County Engineer to investigate the advantages and
disadvantages of continuing with the~tJenSound Suburban COl1IIlissionand the
alternatives to a Suburban Corrrnission . This report surmItarizes the ,preliminary
findings concerning the operatit"'1g costs of the SuburbanComnission along with a
sumnc1.ry ofactv-antages and disadvantages' to having. a separate Suburban Conmission.
History of thea-Jen Sotmd Suburban Corrrnission
Suburban Corrrnissions in Ontario came into being in 1915 ~tten the Province, through
its Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act gave' authority to Counties to
fOl1U SuburbanCorrmissions. The ftmction of the Suburban Comnission \Vas to allow
the County to collect a levy from the separated nnmicipality, either a city or
separated tOVJrl, ror the additional costs that the County had incurred due to the
increased traffic generated by the presence of the separated municipality. The
separated nnIDicipality each year upon receiving a request from the COlmty treasurer
must make a contribution of up to one-half mill on their proviniciGlly equalized
ministerially adjusted assesslil6rlt. In the case or wen SDund, that contribution
in 1982 was $32,000.00.. TIle COl.ID.Vj, in return, matches that contribution and. then
provides additional [-unds from the subsidy allocation rrCLrt the Province. In 1983,
the Suburban budget was tagged at $288,193.00, or wl'lich$34, 000.00 came rrom the
County's levy, $34,000.00 rrom the City's levy, Eu"1d '$206.100.00 from the H. T . C.
subsidy.
In return ror making a contribution to the County Roadstbat are . designated as
Suburban Roads, the City of ();'Jen Sound is allowed to appoint one representa.tive
to a three merrber Corrmission to oversee the operation of the Suburban System. The
County in turn appoints. a representative and those uvo. Tepuresentativesappoint a
thirdrepres~ntativeto foun the three man Comnission.
Currently the Suburban Corrrni.ssion which has a tennor orfk'e c:oncttrrent wiw~the
tenn of office for the local mJrlicipalities, is comprised (Q)fthree appointed
members. The County and t:heCity do have the option of designating a. - t
council member to be their Comnissioner. The Owen Sound!5mburban RDads System
consists of 44.3 kilometres of bituminous surface County~~:ads in the Townships of
~rby, Sydenharn,and Sara\vak. Table No. Onesurrrnarizes :t:lhe Suburban Roads System.
Study Objectives
Itr:ty alternative to a Suburban Roads System should involv€.oo analysis of the
overheadcdstsassdciated with .the operation of the Corrl1'ills$;ion . compared . to the
benefits derivedbytheexistance oftb..a.t system. lhe vari<otlS alternatives to
Suburban Comnissions should be lool<ed at in the light of tne necessary legislative
excerise .thatt-viII berieeded to makethed~sired.shallges tOOfthesystem~
1~be1ieve that it is essential that the Cit:Yrepresenta~.i~; should be notified
concerning the Cou1.1ty'S investigation ofaJA:ernativesto ttfu:e Suburban System.
- 2 -
'Ihey should be kept informed and consulted before any alternative is selected.
<:.'
As a curtesy I recanmendthat the O/JenS6iJnd Suburbanwrmissi(ID be made aware
and kept infomed ttu;ough the Cotmty Eng;i.p.eer of the progress of this investigation.
.'
Overhead Review
The following is a surrrnary of costs associated with. the operation of the Owen
Sound Suburban Corrmission. OnlythQse costs that would not exist if the
Corrmission did not exist are considered. Some costs,for example, will continue
whether the roads are County Roads or Suburban Ro?-ds, such as the nOrffi3.l maintenance,
construction,' and overhead costs associated with managing the In.a.intenance and
construction of 44kilometres of upper tier roads.
(1) Budget Preparation
Because there is separate budget prepared for the Suburban QJffinlssion, there is
a certain arrount of duplication costs that could be avoided if the Suburban
Corrmis s ion did not exist.
D. Hubbell
W. lliwdell
G. Shaw
R. D:mn
D. Robinson
l~days@ $164.15
8~days @ $81.26
5~ days @ $109.14
2 days @ $89.00
1 day @ $55.00
= $246.22
= $690.71
= $600.27
=$178.00
= $55.00
$1) 770. 20
(2) Bookkeeping
The. following 'costs are associated vr.Lth separate entries on ledger cards, preparation
of a separate voucher ,and the preparation ofa separate. balance . sheet.
1 day x. 26 periods x $66 . 10 x 1.25
=
$2148.25
(3)Pa;g::oll Costs
TIle following is a surrrnary of the costs associated with separating out all of the
various Suburban cos ts for each work activity.
1 day x 26 pay periods x $81.26 x 1.25 =
$2640.95
f
- 3 -
(l.}) Tender . Prepara tiori
The only tender that is called separatefromt:ne County tenders is the tender
for Paving. The . total costs associated with the preparation of this tender
and.the advertising is $212.50.
(5) Comnission Fees
The Corrmission Fees for the three Corrrnissioners for the year, based on 14 meetihgs
is $1974.00.
(6) Comnissioo Convention Expenses
The 1982 Suburban Comnission.ConventiOl1 expenses to attend the cx;RA Convention in
Toronto and for two people to attend the RTAC Convention in Halifax was $3467.62.
(7) Area Foreman's Extra~c:E9a!ion for Working with Two Accounting Systems
The following is the difference in pay ~hatRoyden Tbrrm receives over that received
by the other three Area Foreman. This is the compensation for 'Vlorking with the
Suburban System as well as the County System - $408.75.
(8) Suburban Corm:issionMeetfugs - Staff Costs
This cost is calctllated fOTmyselfand thesesretary forthrel~ hours for each
meeting for 14me~tings per year ..,;$1646.92.
Meeting preparation time is approx.imately 2 hours per meeting for my tim= - $820.75.
.(9) 9fficeSupplies
The estimated costs for paper for the year is $50.00.
:
(10) Treasur~r 1 sOffice Expenses
Tb.e additional cost for review of Comnission minutes, accounts, and balance sheets
are estimated to be $150.00. Q)/:u.--;) ~:;2 ?c-<-;,-r-<- CCCL.C'-<A--"-~{';~L_Ld ~
-4 -
From thefbregoinghreakdown, the total estimated overhead cost that is directly
attri.~lt.abletothe exist~'1ce of t~e.Suburban Corrrni.ssion is:?r~~.2.'.~1i,9.,~7.- This
total Includes an allocat~on of 25% mcrease to vlages to coveP'11ayrbll burden.
" Advantage and Disadvantages of a. Suburban Corrmission
The following list of ..advantages .and disadvantages considers the . operation of the
Suburban Conmis s ion from the view point of both the County and the City.
Advantages
1. Under existing legislation, the Suburban Corrmission is the vlehicle by which the
County obtains rronetary contributions from the City for maintenance of certain
OJunty Roads adjacent to the City.
2. The Suburban Corrmission format allows the City to have mput into the levels of
services being provided on the main arterials extending from the City boundaries.
3. The Conmission fonnat with its separate bookkeeping system allows for an organized
method of keeping track of work activities and expenditures carried out on those
CotmtyRoads designated as Suburban. This system of recQrdkeeping allows the City
ready access to the expenditures to which they. are providing a rronetary contribution.
4. The Suburban Comnission generally operates in a less parochial atJrosphere than a
body that has members elected from a specific area. hi mye:x:perienccwith
'Conmissions, the tendency is rrDre to look at the w40le system rather than roads
that are in certain. areas of special interest to Corrmissioners. This is not to
JX>int out a weakness with elected bodies. It is an understandable reaction for
an elected Councillor to show a special interest in County Roads' in that Councillor 's
particular municipality.
Disadva11.tages
1. Theexistanceof a Suburban Corrmission provides a double bookkeeping and reporting
function that has additional costs associated with it. Fronl the preceding section
of this . report that assignable cost isapproxi.nEtely.$15,289.94.
. 2. The County Roads System consists of 696. 3kilometres OfC01U1ty Roads. Of that
total, 44.3 kilaretresare designated as Subur'banRoads unds;rthe direction of
an appointed body \vhich, at this time, does not report directly to County Cotn1cil
or City Council. Accountability for the operation of this system falls on appointed
officials rather than elected officials.
3. There has to be some confusion to the public when they have to deal with two
separ?-te bodies when dealing with questions about the operation of the Grey County
Roads System. Theexistance . of a Suburban Corrmis s ion and itsfu1ction is not
clearly tmderstood by th.e public. The public's first reaction to grievances
against the County Higb;vays Department is to go to their elected officials. This
is the natural procedure, and I believe the correct procedure. However ,when
dealing with the Suburban Q)mnission.that elected official has to then convey the
ratepayers concerns. to. . an .appomted body.
,~
- 5 -
4.' Th~am::)\mtofrevenuethat the Suburban Corrmis s ion has to operate with each
year is inadequate to carry outaneconomicaltmit of construction without
obtaining additional fLmding from the City and the County . Some Counties in
past have got around this problem by assuming certain Suburban Roads. as County
'Roads and rebuilding them and returning them to the Suburban C.arrmission to
maintain. That has not been the practise ill Grey County.
Options
I believe there are four options available for the maintenance and improvement
of the 44.3 kilometres of County Roads that are designated as Suburban Roads.
1. Is to continue with the existing system of a separate Corrmis s ion to manage
the . operation of a Suburban Roads System. %is would mean tha.t the County
would still obtain a grant based on one-half mill of the City's equalized'
m:inisteriallyadjusted assessment, but would still have overhead costs in
the order .. of $15.,000.00.
2. Would be ,toel:iminate the Suburban Corrmis s ion completely with no further input
from the City. The County would gain inmediate' control over all of the County
Roads in this system and would reduce their overhead by approximately $15,000.00,
but would elim:in.c'1te revenue in the order of $32,000.00, The net loss to obtain
that direct control over 44.3 kilametres of road would be $17,000.00 per year.
3. Would be to eliminate the Suburban Corrmission, but keep the sarnecontribution
from the City based on the one-half mill. This would eliminate approximately
$15,000.00 in County overhead and would be clearly the lrost beneficial proposal
fronrtheCounty's point of view. However, asthediscussionconcem:ing the
changes in the > Suburban Systanmust be by agreeme.ntwith the City, I do not
th:inkthis option holds any attraction for the City as they would lose their
representation, but would.. still have to make the' same contribution to the
County .
4. Is to eliminate the Corrmission but accept a reduced contribution from the City.
This would appear to be the opttonwiththe nnst promise if both the City and
the County wish ,to make a change in the existing. Corrmission Sys tem. Negotiations
could be based oneliminatmg.the$15,000.00 overhead with the City making a
reduced contribution to the Suburban Roads in return for the elimination of the
Conroission. The .advantage to the County would be the reduction of $15 ,000.00
in overhead minus the reduced grant from the City. The County would also gain
directcontrol.of the operation of the present Suburban Road network. The
City would be paying less to\Vards the upkeep of County' Roadsl! but would lose
their direct representation through their Comnissioner.
t
Options 2, 3, and 4, would require'uegotiations <and bwgainingbetweentheCity and
the Cotmty. Options 3 and 4 would require legislative changes to the Public
Transportation and Highway Irnproverrent Act. As in the. case of Bt'ant County, this
could bedone~dth a private members bill. and a suitable agreerr.€nt being struck between
the City and the CQ\.ll1ty. Options 3 and 4 as was the case in the Brantford/COuntyof
Brant legislation could involve a wider scope of negotiations "\viththe City concerning
- 6 -
shareq services and the question of annexati.on of portions of Ta-vtnships adjacent to the
City.
f
T I\r~ 1. r: 1
l(,
"SUbUhl);~11 l?oocl #
~;-_._- --,------
If 1
FIt (1'11)
C-iJ.. !f LAm Lt6
#5
C.i;ty wntu,
If 5
SuoeVtban Road :I 1 8
IfJ 5 CUy wnU!>
101 'SuouJLoan Road #1
~ - . ,'.
tl18 SpJUl1gmouHt
#20 K . H. if 2 6
"21 CUy LhrU.:U
To
---
1 -I- .., 2/ ~.,
. (J .4... :; _ :" j
SCVi.o.l1;a L , Ju.:p
SuuuJdJo..n T~oo.d
If1 t
KilA {rill,
(fLt C:unc. VI/
, V1I J VUl by Til.'jJ
teUfz (Sub.
Raatl it 2 0 J
Keppr~ISw'l;a!J.:al~
TowittZn e.
Roclz.bOhd
LeLtfz
(Sub. Rd tilS)
K.- H. #26'
TOTAL
"
1
L r.nq11:
--~._~.j. -....-....-
10.3bn
4 . 4 tan
2.7 hm
4.3hm
2. 7" rvn
,9, t'km
6. 9" JlJn
3 . 212m
44 . 3 l~m
PETER J. LEACK, A.M.C. T.
City Clerk
Office'of the Clerk
P.O. Box 520, City Hall
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5P 3V7
Telephone (519) 631.1680
June 7th, 1983
Corporation of the City of St. Thomas
Mr. Robert G. Moore, P.Eng.
Engineer and Secretary
St. Thomas Suburban Road Connnis:sion
79 Stanley Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 3Gl
Re: City of St. Thomas Appointment to S"t. Thomas Suburban Road
Commission
Dear Mr. Moore:
Further to your letter dated May' 11th, 1983, I,am pleased to advise
that City Council, on 'Jul1e6th, 19 83,re~appointed Mr. Don Stokes
as the City "s represen tativeon tF:u~ 'S"t. Thomas Suburban Road
Commission, for the term commencing July' ls:t, 1983 and ending
November 30th, 1985.
Should yeu require any additional information in this. regard, please
advise.
~SinCe~relY'
. ...1.'-"".."......".'. '".....-V'..,)
.,' ~ /'
~ /
(/' ,~,. .7
'P -
. J. Lea k '.
City Cl c,AMCT
PJL!' erk
JP
.-
bmmission City/Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Commissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System Mtgs. ae appointed Attended
Adj us ted b. elected
(In $M) (km) Per C. County *
annum Cty. City
..
[Jodon 268~000 904 1~617~000 '82 171 12 1 - a - Cty $55/mtg 1-2-3-4
1 ~620~OOO ,'.83 1 - b - Cty
2 - a-C.
lodsor 200~OOO 722 1~337~000 '82 176.4 12 1 - a - Cty $50/mtg 1-2-3
1~425,400 ' 83 1 - b - Cty Chairman + $150
(, 1 '- a - C per annum
1 - b - C
uelph 73,165 252 190~OOO '82 10.9 12 2 - a - Cty $500 per 1-2-3-4-
2 - a - C annum
i
ieterborough 61~00O 191 691 ~OOO '82 62.3 12 + 2 - a - Cty 1-2-3-4
2 - a - C
fingston 61,217 195 350~000 '82 63 12 2 - a - Cty 1-2-3
2 - a - C
iarnia 49~764 196 360~000 '82 60.8 6 2 - a - Cty $41e50/mtg 1-2-3-4
2 - a - C
:ornwall 47,000 148 563,000 '82 59.9 1 1 - a - Cty Paid by County
( 1 - b - C Paid by City @ 1-2-4
"-
lower than
County rate
~hatham 40,936 138 284,200 '82 44.5 6 1 - a - Cty $36/mtg 4
'" , 1 - a - C
Barrie 38~00O 147 182~000 '82 58 12 1 - a - Cty $75 1-2-3-4
1 - a - C
Belleville 3S~OOO 114 517,000 '82 40 12 1 - a - Cty $78.7S/mtg 1-2-3-4-
1 - a - C
SU~1MABY OF SUBURBAN ROADS cown 55 1 UN (IUtS 11 uNrt~l Kt
Fd9t:.1
February 1983
-
:ommiss iori Ci ty /Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Commissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System tltgs. a. appointed Attended
Adjusted b. elected
(In $M) (km) Per C. County
annum Cty. City
St. Thomas 27,679 38.8 289,000 '82 4-6 1 - a - Cty $1,500 per 1 - 2 -'4
1 - a - C annum
Stratford 27,000 91,100 225,000 '82 44 3-4 1 - a - Cty More than 3 hrs 4
actual spent 1 - a - C - $90
310,000 Less than 3 hrs
J" - $50
:.......,
Oriilia 24,000 77 220,000 '82 34 12 1 - b - Cty $75/mtg 1- 2 - 3-
1 - b - C
Brockville 20,000 72,600 208,700 '82 33.2 3 1 - a - Cty County - per
1 - a - C diem rate 4 - Occas iOI
(both elected City - no extra 1 and 2
officials) remuneration
OWen Sound 20,000 67,600 254,000 '82 47 15 1 - a - Cty $45/~day 1 - 2 - 3 -
1 - a - C
Trenton 14,887 42,800 100,000 '82 24 12 1 - a - Cty $55/per diem 1-2--3-
1 - a - C
pe~' 'oke 14,010 38,700 121,900 '82 17.1 3-6 1 - a - Cty $55/~day 1-2-4
- final 1 - a - C $90/full day
141,153.13 (both elected
officials)
Smith Falls 10,000 13 62,500 '82 13.6 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occas iOI
- Leeds 1 - a - C diem rate
(both elected
officials)
Gananoque 5,000 15,600 66,900 '82 15.1 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occasiol
1 - a - c diem rate
(both elec ted
officials)
-., - ~ ..-.- ._ ._woo _ .. , . - ---' ---------- ---- __r __-___ __ - -..-.. _.. ------...---~------
.--- -
SUt,',1ARYOF SUBURBAN ROADS Cor1t41 55 ION QUEST I ONNA IRE
Ppge 2
--
SUMMl\RY Of SUBURBAN ROADS COnr'lISSION QUESTIONNAIRE
p~ge --j-
nnmission City/Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Conunissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System Mtgs. a. appointed Attended
Adj usted b. elected
(In $M) (Ion) Per C. County
Annum Cty. City
['escot t 5,000 14 58,000 '82 16.6 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occasion
1 - a - C diem
(both elected
officials)
. Marys 4,700 17;700 30,000 '82 26 ,2 1 - a - Cty More than 3 hrs 4
(--". Final - 1 - a - C - $90 1 & 2
90,000 Less than 3 hrs occasionally
- $50
1 - Annual tv
2 - OGRA
3 - RTAC
4 - Area Gq
(
"
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
1983
Commission
Amount
Class
1982 Population of
City of Sep. Town
County
1. Chatham 15 B
2. London 55 E
3. Owen Sound 15 B
4. Stratford 15 B
5. St. Marys 10 A
6. St. Thomas 15 B
7. Sarnia 20 C
8. Windsor 30 D
9. Barrie 15 B
10. Ori 11 i a 15 B
11. Guelph 20 C
12. Bell e vi 11e 15 B
13. Brockvil1e 15 B
14. Gananoque 10 A
15. Prescott 10 A
16. Smi ths Fa 11 s 10 A
17. Cornwa 11 15 B
18. Kingston 20 C
19. Pembroke 15 B
20. Peterborough 20 C
21. Trenton 15 B
22. Smiths Falls 10 A
40,454
266,319
19,624
26,197
4,809
27,482
50,233
192,546
44,111
23,854
76,658
35,351
20,169
4,834
4,595
45,906
60,313
13,.760
61,595
14,887
8,904
S lJ M MAR Y
Number of Commissions
Class
Populati on of City
or Separated Town
A
B
C
o
E
o ... 10,000
10,000 -50,000
50,000 ... 100,000
100,000 - 200,000
Over 200,000
5
11
4
1
1
Kent
Middlesex
Grey
Perth
Perth
Elgin
Lambton
Essex
Simcoe
Simcoe
Wellington
Hastings
Leeds & Grenville
Leeds & Grenville
Leeds & Grenville
Leeds
Stormont, Dundas and
Glengarry
Frontenac
Renfrew
Peterborough
Northumberland
Lanark
Annual Dues
$10.00
15.00
20.00
30.00
55.00
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
1983
Western Group
1. Chatham Suburban Roads Commission
c/o J. D. Ferguson, Commission Engineer,
Box 1230, 435 Grand Avenue West,
Chatham, Ontario N7M 5L8
2. London Suburban Roads Commission
c/o D.Husson, Commission Engineer,
399 Ridout Street North, London,
Ontario N6A 2P1.
3. Owen Sound Suburban Roads Commi ss ion
c/o D. Hubbell, Commission Engineer
595 Ninth Avenue East, Owen Sound,
Ontario N4K 3E3.
4. Stratford Suburban Roads Commi ss i on
c/o T. B. Collings, Commission Engineer,
Court House, 1 Huron Street, Stratford,
Ontari 0 N5A 5S4.
5. St. ~1aryls Suburban Roads Commission
As Stratford Suburban Roads Commission
6. St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
c/o R.G. Moore, Commission Engineer,
9 Gladstone Avenue, St. Thomas,
Ontario N5R 2L3
7. Sarnia Suburban Roads Commission
c/oD.W.Derrick, Commission Engineer,
Box 3000, 789 Broadway Street,
Wyoming, Ontario NON 1TO.
8. . Windsor Suburban Roads Commi ss i on
c/o R. R. Lee, Commission Engineer,
360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex,
Ontario N8M 1Y6
9. Barrie Suburban Roads Commission
c/o L. Clark, Commission Engineer,
Administration Centre, Midhurst, Ontario LOL lXO.
10. Guelph Suburban Roads Commission
c/o A. R. Holmes, Commission Engineer,
Wellington County Administration Centre,
74 Woolwich Street, Guelph, Ontario N1H 3T9.
Western Group- continued
11. Orillia Suburban Roads Commission
As Barrie Suburban Roads Commission
Eastern Group
12 . Bell evi 11 e Suburban Roads Commiss ion
c/o B.. F. Pinder, Commi ss i on Engineer
County. Administration Building,
Postal Bag 4400, Pinnacle Street,
Belleville, Ontario K8N 3A9.
13. Brockvi 11 e Suburban Roads Commiss ion
14. Gananoque Suburban Roads Commiss ion
15. Prescott Suburban Roads Commission
16. Smiths Falls - Leeds Suburban Roads Commission
c/o G. D. Dougall, Commission Engineer,
Box 729 Court House, Brockvi11e, Ontario K6V 5V8..
17. Cornwall Suburban Roads Commission
c/o D. J. McDonald,. Commission Engineer,
20 Pitt Street, Cornwall, OntarioK6J 3P2.
18. Kingston Suburban Roads Commission
c/Q D.W. Brooks, Commission Engineer,
Court House, Court Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 2N4.
19. peterborough Suburban Roads Commission
c/oA.F.Reid, Commission Engineer,
RR j 10, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6Y2.
20. Pembroke Suburban Roads Commission
c/o W.R.Snedden, Commission Engineer,
County Administration Building, 169 William St.,
Pembroke, Ontario K8A IN7.
21. Smiths Falls - Lanark Suburban Roads Commission
c/o R. B. Strachan, Commission Engineer
County Administration Building, Sunset I3lvd., Box 37,
Perth, Ontario K7H 3E2.
22. Trenton Suburban Roads Commi ssi on
c/o J.H.Tondeur,Commission Engineer,
86~ Wi 11i am Street ,Cobourg , Ontario K9A 3A9.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 15, 1983
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County Engineer's
office at 9:30 a.m., Friday, July 15, 1983. Present was Mr. Donald Stokes,
representative of the City of St. Thomas; Mr. Albert Auckland, representative
of the County of Elgin; and Mr. Robert Martin.
The County Engineer noted that both Messrs Stokes and Auckland had
been reappointed by the respective municipalities with their term of office
ending January 1986, after the election of new Councils in 1985.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: D. STOKES
THAT ROBERT MARTIN BE APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN ROADS COl:1MISSION FROM JULY 1, 1983 TO JANUARY 31, 1986.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. MARTIN
THAT DONALD STOKES BE CHAIRMAN FOR THE BALANCE OF 1983.
CARRIED."
The Annual Meeting of the Suburban Road Commissions Association,
Western Ontario Branch at Lambton County in June was reviewed and it was
noted that Mr. Albert Auckland had been appointed a director of the
Western Group. Mr. Auckland felt that his duties would not be onerous.
The County Engineer reviewed the maintenance budget (copy attached)
that the County Road Committee had approved on July 12, noting that the
Suburban costs of the budget had increased somewhat as shoulder work had
been done through the Winter and Spring. It was still hoped that the
Commission would not carry a deficit into 1984, although there would not
be a surplus.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 15, 1983
PAGE 2.
The Engineer reported that the Minister of Transportation and
Communications had approved the assumption of County Road #28 by the
St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission as a suburban road, E~ffective
April 22, 1983.
The Engineer reported on various maintenance and construction
projects being done by the County Road Department. It was noted that the
major construction of Fairview Avenue would likely be done in 1984
inasmuch as it was likely that the construction on County Road #32 would
be completed this year as there would be very little if any work done in
Port Burwell in 1983. It was likely that grading work would be carried
on at the same time as work in Port Burwell so as to obtain a balanced
job programme.
The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman.
~j(~
CHAIRMAN
~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1983MAINTENANGEBUDGET
COUNTY AND ST.THOHAS SUBURBAN ROADS
JULY 1983
OPERATION
1983 ESTI:r-fATED
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
JULY 1983 ESTIMATE
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
ROADS
A - Bridge s and CuI vert s
- 1 B'ridges
- 2 Culverts
95,.00.0
92,000
3,008
95,0.00
92~000
3,0.0.0
B - Roadside Maintenance
- 1 Grass Cutting
- 2 l'ree Cutting and Brushing
- 4 Drainage
- 5 Roadside Maintenance
- 6 ']?ree Planting
- 7 Drainage Assessments
(Maintenance)
- 11 Weed Spraying
1.0,000
1,08.0
14,800
158,80.0
125,800
38,8.00
10,00.0
5,0.00
12,.0.08
142,.0.00
1.05,.0.0.0
25,,000
9,.00.0
5,0.0.0
2,0.0.0
8,888
20,888
5 , 888
1 , 8.0.0
22,.088
1.05, .00.0
125,.00.0
30,8.0.0
4,0.0.0
7,00.0
28,8.0.0
10.0,.0.0.0
118,0.00
24,8.0.0
2,.00.0
5,888
15,.0.00
6,08.0
16, .008
14,808
2,.008
22,08.0
18,800
4.,008
C - Paved Road Maintenance
- 1 Repairs to Pavement
2 Sweeping
_ 3 Shoulder Maintenance
_ 4 Surface Treatment
Road #8 - Ditching:J etc.'
Road #3 - Ditching, etc.
92,0.00
28, 000
185~OO.o
1.3 7, 000 .
81, .0.00
24,00.0
1.31,.08.0
120, 000
11,.000
4,.080
54,.000
17,008
88,0.0.0
21, .0.00
280,008
137,.0.00
77,.008
1 7., 000
170,.0.00
12.0, .000-
3,008
4,.0.0.0
11.0,.0.08
17,.0.0.0
,.
COIDITY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1983 MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Com.,lTY AND ST. THOMASSUBtJRBANROADS
JULY 1 <J83.
PAGE 2.
OPERATION
1983 ESTIMATED
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
JULY 1983 EST.lMATE
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
ROADS
D - Gravel Road Maintenance
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads
- 3 Dust Cpntrol
- 4 Prime
5 Gravel Resurfacing
31,000
45, 000
7,000
30,000
27 -, 000
39,000
3,000
27,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
3,000
26 , 000
45, 000
7,000
38,000
21,000
39,000
3,000
30,000
5 , 000
6,000
4,000
8,000
E - Winter Control
Total
- 1 Snow Plowing
- 2 Sanding and Salting
- 3 Snow Fence
- 4 Standby and Night Crew
365,000
310,000
55,000
225,000
185;000
40,000
F - Safety Device s
./
- 2 Sign sand Signal s
- 3 Gui de Rail
4 Railroad Protection
-.5 Stump .Removal
- 6 Edge Marking
46,000
81,000
8,000
54,000
37.,000
7,3.,000
5,000
46,000
9,000
8,000
3,000
8,000
46,000
60,000
12,000
54,000
37,000
52,000
8,000
46,000
9,000
8,000
4.,i{j@
8,if8
- 1 Pavement Marking
33,500
22',500
11, 000
35,000
23,000
12,@t.
TOTALS
$1,549,500
$1,315,500
'$231,000
$1,51 7,.000
$1,236,000
$.281 ,I..
CDUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPAR~mNT
1983 MAINTENANCE BUDGET
COUNTY AND. ST. . THOMAS SUBURB..4..N ROADS
1983 M.T..C. Maintenance and Overhead Allocation
Recormnended Supplementary By-Law (Edge Marking)
TOTAL M.T.C. ALLOCATION
1983 Maintenance Budget
1983 Overhead Budget
Less Credit in S~ock Balance (Crushed Gravel at
pleasant Valley Pit)
NET
/
t
JULy 1983
pAGE 3.
$1,870,000
27,500
1983 Revised (July)lli1dget
Maintenance $1,517,000
$1,897,500
Overhead 375,000
$1 , 546, 500
375,000
Less Credit in Stock
Balance 10,000 CR.
$1,882,000
$1.,921,500
25, 000 CR.
$1,896,500
7540,1318 (10178)
memorandum
@
Ontario
To: Mr. G. French
District Eng ineer,
District 2,
London.
r~--~-- 0
....." "."" _ 'r'"." .'-1 .' --........_-. ate:
, ~ l::,. 1.-' C. V f-' ....
~ -0
A. Ph 2 9
Apri 126, 1983
,-..~,-
I !'oliN..;" fl1.Y :;;;'F tfh'~<, (,(n~h() 'J .
.1.' R 'ii'c]tl"v"i:' tl
f') Q
I Jt,J;,4
i ~
.~ . . .
11.~lJ'rM . . Jl~4j (J N .' . 2
S.t ThS'b bR dC' , --,_..... ,f
. omas u ur an. .00 s ommlSSlon, . '" ...., ". tW?
Resolution of March 8,1983, Designating Road 1128 -/,(f ,4)/ '.~.A
i / \, .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01 Jf
Attent ion:
M A H. -' .,~ /1!1r ,/'<'
. r. . .'. Ickey ", "I ;-',. ',\ ,1, ",
, " . '-- n:; ') ,j r ' 1 ' ,\ n ','
DistrictMunicipal~L:.....-,---" -
RE:
Please find enclosed a Resolution passed on March 8,1983 by the Ste
Thomas Suburban Roads Commission designating Elgin County Road NOe 28
between King's Highway No. 3 and Elgin County Road No. 4S CIS a Suburban
Road. The Resolution was duly approved by the Mlnl~te{ u;\C1 the original
signed copy is hereby attached. We processed the resolution, although it
should be noted, that the corresponding road section was already designated
as a Suburban Road by a Resolution dated November 28, 1978 end the June
14, 1982 Resolution revoking the designation was not received previously by
this office, was not approved by the Minister and therefore was actually
never in power.
A Her noting the approval of the March 8, 1983 Resolution ror 'lour records,
please forward it to Mr. R.G. Moore, County Engineere
A--'
.\.
B. L. Nemethy
Project Co-ordinator
Municipal Roads Office
GLN/bd
ST.. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
MOVED BY:
R.. N. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT THE FOLLOWING ROAD I S HEREBY DESIGNATED AS A SUBURB.I~ ROAD FOR
THE PURPOSES OF PART VIII OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AlI,'JD HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT ACT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS:
(A) ROAD #28.
CARRIED
SIGNED BY
DONALD R. STOKES
I, R. G. MOORE, ENGINEER AND SECRETARY TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION
AS PASSED BY THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AT A MEETING ON
MARCH 8, 1983.
R.
SECRETARY
COUNTY OF ELGIN
By-Law No. 83-26
"BEING A BY-LAW TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN ROADS 'COMMISSION."
WHEREAS Section 65 of The Public Transportation and
Highway Improvement Act provides for the appointment of
members of a Suburban Roads Commission; and
WHEREAS one, of the three persons on the Commission,
is to be appointed by the County Council.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corpo-
ration of the County of Elgin enacts as follows:
1. That Albert W. Auckland be, and is hereby appointed
to the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission for the period
July 1st, 1983 to January 31st, 1986.
2. That By-Law No. 2521 be and the same is hereby
repealed.
READ a first time this 16th day of June 1983.
READ a second time this 16th day of June 1983
READ a third time and finally passed this 16th day of June 1983.
~~_~~_...~~_~ ~J 4 ?;v~
G. C. Leverton, E. H. Marr,
Clerk. Warden.
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION AS~SOCIATION
Minutes of the Western Group Me~ting
CQuncilChambers, Guelph
14 June 1982
Proceedings began at 10:15 am with Mr John Stephen of St. Marys,
Chairman of the Western Group, presiding.
A total of 44 members and guests were in attendance, namely:
Chatham
London
Owen Sound
St Thomas
Sarnia
Barrie
Orillia
Guelph
Stratford
St Marys
Brantford
M.T.C.
4
5
4
3
4
3
2
5
2
3
1
3
Of the twelve Commissions in Ontario, only Windsor was not present.
Mr Allan Holmes, Wellington County Engineer and Secretary - Treasurer of the
Provincial Association,tntroduced Warden Matt Seifried, who welcomed
everyone. The group was also welcomed by Road Chairman, Don Cushing and
Clerk-Treasurer Administrator,Mrs Vera Myers.
Mr John Tondeur and two members of the Cobourg Suburban Roads Commission
representing the Eastern Group and Ontario Vice-President, Mr Doug Whitly
were also introduced.
The MinuteS of the 1981 Meeting held in Owen Sound were adopted on a Motion by
Roy Gordon (Guelph) and Charlie Cousins (London).
The fa 11 owing men wereel ected to office for the current YE~ar.
Moved by Bob Moore (St. Thomas} and seconded by Don Derrick (Sarnia) that
Morley Howe (London) be appointed as Chairman.
Carried
John Stephen was nominated, but declined to run after serving for many years
on the Western Group Executive, as well as being the President of the Ontario
Association until February 1983.
Western Gr9up_ cMeJ~nting, Guel ph, 14 June 1982
Page 2
Moved by Don Derrick (Sarnia) and seconded by Cec Armstrong (Sarnia) that
John King (Sarnia) be appointed as a Director.
Carried
Moved by Sam Roszell (Guelph) and seconded by Roy Gordon (Gwelph) that
Ab. Wells (Guelph) be re-appointed as a Director.
Carried
Bob Moore (St. Thomas) advised the members that the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications had scrapped plans to .put Counties on an "Urban Basis" for
equipment purchases, overhead expenses including garage construction, etc.
Allan Holmes (Guelph) read the revised Section 63 (VI) of Thle Public Trans-
portation and Highway Improvement Act which applies to the appointment of new
members appointed to a Commission. It states that once a pr1esent member's
term is up, a member shall be appointed on 31 J.anuary of the year following the
election for a three year term. (To be concurrent wi th Counci 11 ors and
Aldermen). Even if a member's term had not expired, he could be removed by
2/3rd vote of Council. The new Act also allows sitting members of Council to
be appointed as representatives to the Commission.
Barrie indicated that the City representative was a sitting Alderman and
Owen Sound Commission have a County Councillor as their representative on the
Commission.
Chatham, Brantford and Middlesex indicated they re-appointed representatives
after the change in legislation but none of these were sitting Council members.
The length of term of office was also discussed and only two Commissions
indicated that they had a maximum length of time you could serve. In Sarnia
you could only serve two consecutive terms and would have to sit out a term
before being eligible to serve again.
In London, if the two members had a total of eight years between them, one of
the members would not be eligible for re-election.
A letter was read from the Windsor Suburban Roads Commission indicating some
dissatisfaction with the format of the meeting.
The purpose of the meeting is to give members an opportunity to air their
concerns during part of the morning. Usually any new legislation is discussed
and how it affects the Commission. Some times we have a spe~cial speaker or film.
The agenda also allows members to meet each other to discuss mutual concerns at
an informal luncheon. The afternoon is spent viewing some construction project
9f special significance to everyone, such as the Elora Gorge~ Bridge, the Bruce
Nuclear Generating Plant, conservation dams, etc.
The members felt the existing format had always been interesting and informative
and did not see how any more could be packed into the 5~ - 6 hour agenda.
Western GrQlJLMettting, Guel ph, 14 June 1982
Page 3
Onconclus;on of the discussions, the members toured the new Wellington County
Administration Centre which had just won an Arts Council award for design, etc.
Following a bus tour and lunch in Fergus, the members visited the Elora Gorge
Bridge site which was one of the first projects in Ontario to have gone through
many lengthy environmental hearings.
Respectfully Submitted.
(Signed): TOM COLLINGS
S'U~1MARY OF SUBURBAN ROADS COMr-USSION QUESTIONN.lURE
Pag~.-l
--
Commission City/Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Commissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System Mtgs. a. appointed Attended
Adj usted b. elected
(In $M) (km) Per C. County *
annum Cty. City
~ondon 268,000 904 1,617,000 '82 171 12 1 - a - Cty $55/mtg 1-2-3-4
1,620,000 .'-83 1 - b - Cty
2 - a-C.
. .
I 1,337,000 '82
~indsor 200,000 722 176.4 12 1 - a - Cty $50/mtg 1-2-3
1,425,400 ' 83
! 1 - b - Cty Chairman + $150
1 - a - C per annum
1 - b - C
I ..
Fuelph 73,165 252 790,000 '82 70.9 12 2 - a - Cty $500 per 1-2-3-4-
2 - a - C annum
.
! 691,000 '82
~eterborough 67,000 197 62.3 12 + 2 - a - Cty 1-2-3-4
2 - a - C
i
~ingston 61,217 195 350,000 '82 63 12 2 - a - Cty 1-2-3
2 - a - C
I
Sarnia 49,764 196 360,000 '82 60.8 6 2 - a - Cty $41.50/mtg 1.,.2....3-4
I 2 - a - C
bornwall 47,000 148 563,000 '82 59.9 7 1 - a - Cty Paid by County
1 - b - C Paid by City @ 1-2-4
lower than
County rate
.
Chatham 40,936 138 284,200 '82 44.5 6 1 - a - Cty $36/mtg 4
!
! .: . ~ 1 - a - C
~arrie 38,000 147 182,000 '82 58 12 1 - a - Cty $75 1-2-3-4
1 - a - C
~elleville 35,000 114 517,000 '82 40 12 1 - a - Cty $78.75/mtg 1- 2-"' 3-4-
1 - a - C
February 1983
! SUf,1r.1ARYOF SUBURBAN ROADS COMt4ISSION QUESTIONNAIRE
Page, 2
~----
Commission City/Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Commissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System Mtgs. a. appointed Attended
Adjusted b. elected
(In $M) (km) Per C. County
bcO annum Cty. City Q .~
.AM /'r
*7/r;;U~ l.~ u
St. Thomas 27, 679 )II I 289,000 '82 4-6 1 - a - Cty MJ I' per 1 - 2 - 4
1 - a - C annum
Stratford 27,000 9 1 , 100 225,000 '82 44 3-4 1 - a - Cty More than 3 hrs 4
actual spent 1 - a - C - $90
310,000 Less than 3 hrs
- $50
..
Orillia 24,000 77 220,000 '82 34 12 1 - b - Cty $75/mtg 1-2-3-4
1 - b - C
Brockville 20,000 72,600 208,700 '82 33.2 3 1 - a - Cty County - per
1 - a - C diem rate 4 - Occasionall
(both elected City - no extra
officials) remuneration 1 and 2
OWen Sound 20,000 67,600 254,000 '82 47 15 1 - a - Cty $45/~day 1-2-3-4
1-B;-C
..
Trenton 14,887 42,800 100,000 '82 24 12 1 - a - Cty $55/per diem 1-2-3-4
1 - a - C
Pembroke 14,010 38,700 121,900 '82 17.1 3-6 1 - a - Cty $55/~day 1 - 2 - 4
- final 1 - a - C $90/full day
141,153.13 (both elected
officials)
Smith Falls 10,000 13 62,500 ' 82 13.6 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occas ionall'
- Leeds 1 - a - C diem rate
(both elected
officials)
Gananoque 5,000 15,600 66,900 '82 15.1 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occasionall-
1 - a - c diem rate
(both elected
officials)
_........___""-c ~___~...." .. ~__.. ___ ~'_ . ~ ,..,__"_.h....'_~_.. __...~__. -~._--..._._- ----- -------.-'=<~, -'- ---- --------- -
-,--- -'-
< SUMMARY OF SUBURBAN ROADS COr1f~lISSION QUESTIONNAIRE
Page 3
'Commission City/Town Assessment '83 Budget Length of No. of Gonnnissioners Remuneration Conferences
Population Ministerially 1982 System Mtgs. a. appointed Attended
Adjusted b. elected
(In $M) (kID) Per C. County
Annum Cty. City
Prescott 5,000 14 58,000 '82 16.6 3 max 1 - a - Town County per 4 - Occasionall
1-a-C diem
(both elected
officials)
1St. Marys 4,700 17,700 30,000 '82 26 2 1 - a - Cty More than 3 hrs 4
Final - 1 - a - C - $90 1 & 2
90,000 Less than 3 hrs occasionally
- $50
.
1 - Annual Mtg
2 - OGRA
3 - RTAC
4 - Area Grp Mt
Presi.dent:
Vice-President:
Past-President:
Secretary-Treasurer:
Western Group
Mr Morley Howe
RR #2
Strathroy
Onta ri 0 N7G 3H4
Mr John Ki ng
RR # 1
Camlachie
Ontario NON lEO
Mr A.B. Wells
10 Metcalfe Street
Guelph
OntarioNlE 4Xl
Suburban Roads Commission Association
List of Officers 1982 - 1983
~~rJohn Stephen
RR# 1
St. Marys
Ontario
Mr Doug Whi tl ey
217 McGill Street
Trenton
Ontario K8V 3K4
Mr Roy Gordon
69 Lyon Avenue
Guelph
Ontario
MrA. R. Holmes, P. Eng.
County Engineer
Wellington County Administration Centre
74, Woolwich Street
Guel ph
OntarioNlH 3T9
Eastern Groul~
Mr K. Brown
RR # 3
Kingston
Ontario K7L 4V2
~~r D. Whi tl ey
217 McGill Street
Trenton
Ontari oK8V JK4
Mr D. Gifford
RR # 1
Peterborough
Ontario K9J 6X2
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
Secr.e_tqr~~-_Jreasu.rer' s Report
To 14 F~bruary, 1983
DEBIT
CREDIT
$1,002.85
Account 1633 Province of Ontario (Guelph)
Bank Balance - 19 February 1982
(1) Expenses (E. Gay)
1982 Annual Meeting
(2) Acknowledgement (C. G. Spencer)
1982 Annual Meeting
(3) Expenses (A. R. Holmes)
1982 Annual Meeting
$ 45.00
$ 35.00
$ 22.50
Annual Dues Received
Bank Interest - 31 March 1982
- 30 September 1982
(4) County of Wellington Postage
and copies
(5) Secretary - Treasurer's
Expenses and Honorarium
$ 50.00
$ 180.00
$ 60.00
$ 30.00
$ 55.00
$ 87.89
$ 65.89
$ 152.00
$ 300.00
Bank Balance 14 February 1983
$ 977.13
$1,531.63
$1,531.63
AUDITOR'S STATEMENT
The above report, in our opi oi on, indicates the correct financi a 1 pos; ti on and
transactions of the Suburban Roads Commission Association for the year under review.
Februa ry. 21, 1983
Auditor
Auditor
,SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Royal York Hotel
February 21,. 1983
Present:
Mr John Stephen
Mr D. Whitley
Mr M. Howe
Mr J. King
Mr K. Brown
Mr D. Gifford
Mr A. R. Holmes P. Eng.
President
Vice-President
Director
Director
Director
Director
Secretary-Treasurer
1& 2 Group Meetings
That the Minutes of the Western and Eastern area Group
~,1eetings be referred to the Annual Meeting ·
Ona Motion by Mr Whitley
Seconded byMr Brown
. . . . . .. carr; ed
3.
4.
Appointment of Auditors
ThatMr J. King and Mr D. Whitley be Auditors for
1983- 84.
On aMotion byMr Howe
Seconded by Mr Brown
. . . . . .. ca rri ed
Matters Arising
The Comm; ttee di scussed the programme for the )~nnual
Meeting.
That the Agenda as submitted be approved for tlheAnnual
Meeting.
On a Mot;on by MrWhitley
Seconded by Mr King
. . . . . .. ca rri ed
2
5.
Election of Officers for 1983 - 84
The Committee recommended the following slate of officers
for 1983 - 84:
President:
Vice-President: .
Past-President:
Secretary-Treasurer:
MrD. Whitley
MrJ. King
MrJohn Stephen
Mr A. R.Holmes, P. Eng.
6.
Suburban RQads Commission Questionnaire
The Committee reviewed the summary of the responses to the
Questionnaire.
That the summary be referred to the Annual Meeting for
discussion.
ana 'Motion by Mr King
Seconded byMr Whitley
. . . . . .. carri ed
The Executive adjourned at 2:45 pm.
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION'ASSOCIATION
1982
Comm~i'ss ion Amount 1980 Population of
Class City or Sep. town County
1. Chatham 15 B .40,696 Kent
2. l.ondon 55 E 261,841 Middlesex
3. Owen Sound 15 B 19,637 Grey
4. Stratford 15 B 26,292 Perth
5. St. Marys 10 A 4,719 P,erth
5. St. Thomas 15 B 27,679 Elgin
7. Sarnia 15 B 49,764 Lambton
B. Windsor 30 D 196,512 Essex
9. Barrie 15 B 38,011 Simcoe
10. Orillia 15 B 23,768 Simcoe
11. Brantford 20 C 73,055 Brant
12'. Gue lph 20 C 73,165 Wellington
13. Belleville 15 B " 35,102 Hastings
14. Brockville 15 B 19,973 Leeds and Grenville
15. Gananoque 10 A 4,855 Leeds and Grenville
l5. Prescott 10. A 4,740 Leeds and Grenville
I \
L7. Smiths Falls 10 A I Leeds
l8. Cornwa 11 15 B 46,045 Stormont, Dundas and
[9. Ki ngs ton 20 C 61,217 Frontenac Glengarry
~o. Pembroke 15 B 14,010 Renfrew
~1. Peterborough 20 C 61,241 Peterborough
~2. . Trenton 15 B 14,829 Northumberland
~3. 'Smiths Falls 10 A 8,875 Lanark
SUMMARY
POPULATION OF CITY OR NUMBER OF ANNUAL
CLASS SEPARATED TOWN COMMISSIONS DUES
A o - 10,000 5 $10.00
B , 10,000 - 50,000 11 .15.00
C 50,000 - 100,000 5 20.. 00
D 100,000 - 200,000 1 30.00
E Over 200,000 1 55.00
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
HARCH 8, 1983
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the Engineer's
Office on Tuesday, March 8, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. All Commission members
were present., Also present was Warden E. H. Marr of the County of Elgin.
The Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 1983 were read and
approved.
The Engineer reported that winter control had been extremely
light, the total County cost to the end of February was approximately
$70,000 compared to over $300,000 in 1982.
Gravel shouldering was proceeding with all Suburban work other
than Roads #11 and #16 having been completed at a cost of approximately
$35,000.
The clearing of trees and brush was continuing on various Suburban
Roads.
It was noted that the County of Grey had requested their Engineer
to prepare a report on how the present Owen Sound Suburban Road System
could be amalgamated into the County Road System and the financial
advantages, if any.
The attached statement of expenditures on Suburban Roads for 1982
was presented.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN
THAT THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 1982 BEAADOPTED AND FORWARDED
TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 8, 1983
PAGE 2.
The Engineer reported that it appeared that the Suburban Commission
would be in a financial position to reassume Road #28 (Centennial Avenue)
from Highway #3 to County Road #45 as a Suburban Road for 1983 inasmuch as
only minor maintenance was anticipated on the road and this maintenance
could be incorporated into the 1983 Budget.
"MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT THE FOLLOWING ROAD IS HEREBY DESIGNATED AS A SUBURBAN ROAD
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PART VIII OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
(A) ROAD #28.
CARRIED."
The proposed Budget for 1983 (as attached) was: examined in detail.
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN
THAT THE DRAFT BUDGET OF MARCH 1983 IN THE AMC~NT OF $286,500 AS
ATTACHED BE ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE
CITY OF ST. THOMAS FOR APPROVAL.
CARRI ED."
The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman.
~1fPk:-
CHAIRMAN
j/
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
EXPENDITURES 1982
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN .ROAD COMMISSION
The following is a Sunnnary of Expenditures on St. Thomas Suburban
Roads in 1982.
In accordance with Ministry of Transportation and Communications'
practice, Payroll Burden such as Holidays with Pay, Sick Time, etc.,
has been distributed to various projects and does not appear as a
separate item.
CONSTRUCTION
(a) Miscellaneous grading Road #30 (Radio Road)
$
391.82
(b) Surveys and Land Purchase.
976.57
$ J,368.39
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
MAINTENANCE
(NOTE: Letters and numbers correspond to Ministry of Trqnsportation and
Communications' Account Numbers.)
A - Culverts and Bridges
- 1 Bridge s
- 2 Culverts
$ 199.36
31,228.36
]3' - Roadside Halnten':Jnc.C'
-.1 Grass Cutting
- 2 Tree Cutting
- 4 Drainage
- 5 Roadside Maintenance, Washouts, Shouldering, etc.
- 7 Drainage Assessments (repairs only)
I
- 11 Weed Spraying
1,938.57
4,633..33
13,946.76
11,343.10
436.55
1,752.79
C - Hard 'Top. 'M.'dntenancc (P.'lvf'd Ronds)
- 1
- 2
- 3
Sweeping
Shoulder Maintenance (including gravelling,
ditching, etc.)
2,238..81
2,828.42
8,546.31
Repairs to Pavement
- 1+
Surface Treatment
28,366..23
D - Loose.TopMaintenance (Gravel Roads)
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads
- 3 Dust Control (Calcium Chloride and Salt Brine)
- 5 Gravel Resurfacing
4,166.46
3,871~65
11,154.Q5
Continued . .. .
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
EXPENDITURES 1982
PAGE 2.
MAINTENANCE
(Continued)
E ... Winter Control
... 1
- 2
... .3
4
Snowplowing
Sanding and Salting
$ 21, 095 . 16
70, 1 09. 78
3 , 1 23 . 04.
.3,155.23
97,483.21
Snow Fence
--/(
Winter Standby
Total Winter Control
F ... Safety Devices
... 1
... 2
... 3
... 4
... 6
OVERHEAD
Pavement Marking
Sign s
Guide Rail
Railroad Protection
8,853.24
7,497.24
2,238.73
7,018.51
10,590.91
Edge Marking
( F ... 6 Was funded in part by a Supplementary Expenditure
By-Law in the amount of $27,500 from the M.T.C. ...
Subsidy Rclte 90.909%.)
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
$~6_Q~}J_2. _29
1. Superintendence, including County Engineer,
Superintendents, and Vehicles
$ 9,657.25
2.. Clerical
3. Office
5,040.80
1,397. 23
4. Garages (White Station and Rodney), Stock and
Timekeepers, Maintenance, Heat, etc.
5'. Tool s
6. Radio
8,200.94
491.66
331.79
7. Traffic Counts and Needs Study Update
589.67
649.50
8. Training Courses
220.09
9. Miscellaneous Insurance
TOTAL OVERHEAD
$ 26,578.93
OVerhead is charged against the St. Thomas Suburban Road Connnission
Roads on a percentage basis of the cost ofconstructi'Jn and maintenance
on the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads as a pe>rcentage of all
construction and maintenanc<::. and 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 1982 the OVerhead Charge to the St. Thomas
Suburban Road Commission was 8.2%
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
EXPENDITURES 1982
PACE 3.
SU1iMARY
(a) Construction
$ 1,368.39
(b) Maintenance
260,332.59
(c) Overhead
26,578.93
. (d) Items Not For Subsidy and Conunittee Members
Expenses and Memberships.
432.16
(e) D:rqinage Assessments Construction (50% Ministry of
Transportation and Conununications' Subsidy)
233.72
$288,945. 79
TOTAL
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY CIry OF ST. THOMAS
TOWARD THE ST. THOMAS SUBRUBAN ROAD COMMISSION
A calculation of Ministry of Transportation and Communications
payable on the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Road Expenditures.
1. Subsidy on F- 6 Pavement Edge Marking is 90.909%
of $10,590.91.
$ 9,628.09
2. Subisdy on Drainage Assessment 50% of $233.72.
116..86
3. Subsidy on Items Not For Subsidy.
NIL
4. Average Subsidy Rate on Operations Expenditures
76.4703% of $277,689.00.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY $222,.094.56
212,349.61
Total St. Thomas Suburban Road Conrrnission EXpenditu:res $288,945.79
Less: Minist:ry of Transportation q.nd Corrnnunications
Subsidy
222,094.56
$66,851.23
BALANCE
Share of City of St. Thomas 50% of Balance
$33,425.62
J
Add: Deficit for 1981.
9,773.57
SUBTOTAL
$43,199.19
Deduct: Contribution of City of St. Thomas for 1982
(1/2 Mill Levy )
40,350.00
DEFICIT TO 1983
$2,849.19
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
R. G. MOORE, ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
ENGINEER AND SECRETARY TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBRUBAN
ROAD COMMISSION
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
BUDGET
CONSTRUCTION:
Drainage Assessments
La.rid Purchase (Road #30)
Surveys and Miscellaneous Surveys (Roads #28 and #30)
MAINTENANCE:
A... Bridge sand Culvert s
... 1 Bridges
... 2 Culverts
B ... Roadside Maintenance
... 1 Grass Cutting
... 2 Tree Cutting and Brushing
... 4 Drainage
- 5 Roadside Maintenance
... 6 Tree Planting
... 7 Drainage Assessments (Maintenance)
... 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 Dust Control
... 4 Prime
... 5 Gravel Resurfacing
E ... Winter Control
Total
... 1 Snow Plowing
- 2 Sanding and Salting
... 3 Snow Fence
... 4 Standby and Night Crew
F ... Safety Device s
- 1 Pavement Marking
... 2 Signs and Signals
MARCH 1983
$ 10,000
5,000
10,000
$ 2_5, O()_Q_
$ 3,000
2,000
5,000
15,000
6,000
1,000
2,000
11, 000
4,000
54,000
17,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
3,000
55,000
9,000
8,000
..
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
BUDGET - MARCH 1983
PAGE 2.
MAINTENANCE: (Continue.d)
F ... Safety Device s (Continued)
... 3 Guide Rail
- 4 Railroad Protection
- 6 Edge Marking
$ 3,000
8,000
11 , 000
$231,000
OVERHEAD:
Total OVerhe~d $416,000
St. ThQWas Suburban RoadConnnission Share 8.0%
$ 30,000
:.,
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
1983 BUDGET
SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION:
(A) DRAINAGE ASSESSMENTS..
(B) LAND PURCHASE, SURVEYS, MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
(ROA DS 112(3 AN D //30)
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE
OVERHEAD . (8.. 2% OF TOTAL)
ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY
TOTAL
SHARE OF CITY OF ST. THOMAS:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY ON
OPERATIONS APPROXIMATELY 75% - NET COST TO CITY OF
ST. THOMAS 50% OF REMAINING COST AFTER MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY DEDUCTED.
50% OF ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY.
ADD DEFICIT FOR 1982.
TOTAL
1/2 MILL FROM CITY OF ST. THOMAS WILL PROVIDE
DEFICIT TO 1984
AMENDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1983
$ 10,000
15, 000
$ 25,000
$231,000
30,000
500
$286,500
$35,750..00
250.00
2,849.19
$38,849.19
38,800.00
$
49..19
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 11, 1983
PAGE 1.
THE ST. THOMAS BUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County
Engineer's Office at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 1983. All
members were present. Also present was Mr. Frank Clarke of the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Engineer.
Minutes of the meeting of June 29, 1982 were read and approved.
"MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT DONALD STOKES BE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
ROAD COMMISSION UNTIL JULY 1, 1983.
CARRIED ."
"MOVED BY: D. STOKES
SECONDED BY: A.. AUCKLAND
THAT THE HONORARIUM FOR ROBERT MARTIN BE $75.00 TO JULY 1, 1983
AND THAT HIS CONVENTION EXPENSES BE PAID ON THE SAME BASIS AS
THE COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION.
CARRIED ."
"MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00 FOR THE
ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION AND THE MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR
THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO BOTH
BE PAID.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 11, 1983
PAGE 2.
"MOVED BY: R. N. MARTIN
SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND
THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIl, BE REQUESTED TO
ALLOW THE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE: ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE ,SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION IN JUNE IN
LAMBTON COUNTY.
CARRIED."
The Engineer noted the following work in the late portion of
1982 on the Suburban Road System.
1. Ditching had been completed on Road #16 at the Fingal Hill.
2. St. George Street (Road #26) hill had been widened" guide rail replaced
and the vision improved at the Canadian National Railway Tracks at the
top of the hill.
3. Flashing lights on St. George Street and Fingal were operating quite
satisfactorily.
4. Gravel shouldering had been completed on Road ~5 between Highway #4
and County Road #36 and was underway on Road #5 2 bE~tween Highway #3 and
Highway #73 and on Road #31 and on Road #30. If good weather continued
this work would be completed next week.
5. Winter control had been extremely light to date.
6. There were additional willow trees to cut on Road #52 at the steel
culvert near Highway #74, however the creek diversion had been completed.
7. County Roads #22 and #28 were still under the control of the County of
Elgin and any decision to amend the Suburban Road System should wait
until budget deliberations were completed.
Legislation had been passed so the County of Brant no longer had a
Suburban Roads Comrnissionas the City of Brantford had agreed to contribute
directly to the County Road System without a Commission.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 11, 1983
PAGE 3.
Correspondence was noted from the Ministry of Transportation and
Connnunications stating that the Ministerts Equalized Assessment for the
City of St. Thomas for 1983 would be $77,600,000 the 1/2 mill levy would
amount to $38,800. It was noted that the 1/2 mill levy in 1982 amounted
to $40,350 so the levy in 1983 would be $1,550 lower than in 1982. This
was a result of the Minister adjusting the assessments throughout the
Province. It was noted that most urban assessments had gone up slightly,
and St. Thomas was the only one known that was reduced.,
"MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: R. N. MARTIN
THAT THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS BE ADVISED THAT THE 1/2 MILL. LEVY
($38,800) ON THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION .AND COMMUNICATIONS
EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SUJBURBAN ROAD
PURPOSES IN 1983.
CARRIED."
The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chatman.
d~//?~-
CHAIRMAN