Loading...
1986 Suburban Road Committee ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION 1 ~;~ ~..I , I c;0 ,_1/. ~ 10/liJ{) dflk l MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: D. STOKES THAT THE DESIGNATION AS SUBURBAN ROADS OF ROAD #28 FROM HIGHWAY #3 TO ROAD #45 AND ROAD #56 FROM ROAD #28 TO THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS LIMIT, A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 6.2 KILOMETERS ARE HEREBY REVOKED, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1986. CARRIED. II I ROBERT G. MOORE, SECRETARY AND ENGINEER TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A CERTIFIED COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED ON OCTOBER 3, 1986 BY THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION. R. G. MOORE, SECRETARY:V~ ENGINEER TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN RifA~/COMMISSION '- .,,' ~~I.OI'V.O ./ .~ NYV~_ ~. , " I ~ 9.t1 ~~... a \ &tA\\\\\\ ~\)t.\~ .....z.~tt\\ift .. \?~~ --.:..:.- ~ ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO DECEMBER 3, 1986 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the Municipal Building on Wednesday, December 3, 1983 at 11:00 a.m. in conjunction with the County of Elgin Road Committee. All members were present. Warden Purcell explained the backround of the Hubrey-Radio Road Link talks to date, stating that a meeting of the Wardens and Road Committee Chairmans of the Counties of Middlesex and Elgin on November 21st had agreed to recommend to the respective Road Committees and Councils, the Suburban Road Commissions and Cities that representation be made to the Provincial Government to obtain additional funding for the completion of the Highbury-Hubrey--Radio Road Link in both the Counties of Elgin and Middlesex. The Warden noted that good co-operation had been received from the County of Middlesex and favourablE~ publicity had been received in the newspapers. After considerable discussion bE~tween the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission and the County of Elgin Road Committee. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: D. STOKES WHEREAS TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LONDON AND ST. THOMAS DESIRES TO TRAVEL DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE CENTRES OF BOTH CITIES AND THE EASTERN INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF BOTH CITIES, RATHER THAN USE EXISTING KING'S HIGHWAYS #4 AND #74. AND WHEREAS AS A RESULT, TRAFFIC ON THE WELLINGTON ROAD UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COUNTIES OF MIDDLESEX AND ELGIN HAS INCREASED TO THE POINT THE ROAD HAS REACHED ITS CAPACITY AND WIDENING PORTIONS OF IT TO 4 LANES AND THE CHANNELIZATION OF ALL INTERSECTIONS IS NOW REQUIRED. AND WHEREAS THE IMPROVEMENT OF A HIGHBURY, HUBREY, RADIO ROAD LINK BETWEEN LONDON AND ST. THOMAS WOULD NOT ONLY ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON WELLINGTON ROAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BUT ALSO CONNECT THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF THE COUNTIES OF MIDDLESEX AND ELGIN INCLUDING THE CITIES OF LONDON AND ST. THOMAS, THE LONDON AND ST. THOMAS AIRPORTS, AND PROVIDE THE RESIDENTS OF EACH MUNICIPALITY WITH A MUCH BETTER CONNECTION WITH HIGHWAY #401 WHILE GREATLY IMPROVING SAFETY FOR THE ROAD USERS. CONTINUED . . . ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO DECEMBER 3, 1986 PAGE 2. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: D. STOKES CONTINUED .. . AND WHEREAS AT A MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COUNTIES OF MIDDLESEX AND ELGIN AND THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE WARDENS OF ELGIN AND MIDDLESEX RECOMMENDED TO THE ROAD COMMITTEES OF THE COUNTIES OF ELGIN AND MIDDLESEX AND THE COUNCILS OF THE COUNTIES OF ELGIN AND MIDDLESEX AND THE CITIES OF LONDON AND ST. THOMAS THAT REPRESENTATION BE MADE TO THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE COUNTIES OF ELGIN AND MIDDLESEX TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE HIGHBURY, HUBREY, RADIO ROAD LINK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS THAT REPRESENTATION BE MADE TO THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE COUNTIES OF ELGIN AND MIDDLESEX TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE HUBREY, RADIO ROAD LINK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND ARE AGREEABLE THAT THE PROJECT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN BE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AS THE FUNDS OF THE COMMISSION ALLOW AND ARE AGREEABLE THAT THE WARDEN OF THE COUNTY, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY ROAD COMMITTEE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO MEET WITH PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES AS REQUIRED ON THIS MATTER. CARRIED.II The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman. ~w~d CHAIRMAN ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO OCTOBER 3, 1986 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County Engineer's Office at 11:30 a.m., Friday, October 3, 1986. All members were present as was Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Engineer. The minutes of the meeting of April 22nd were read and approved. The Engineer noted that he had received favourable comments on the Commission's hosting of the Annual Suburban Road Commissions' Meeting in June, particularly with regard to the tour of the Anderson Farms. The Engineer reported that if the Commission had to pay the cost of the two municipal drainson Elm Street and Centennial Avenue and the construction at the intersection of Highway #3 and Centennial Avenue the Commission would be in a fairly large deficit position with the City of St. Thomas 1/2 Mill Levy. The Engineer also reported that the Warden, Chariman of the County of Elgin Road Committee and a delegation from the City of St. Thomas including Mayor Golding had met with the Minister of Transportation and Communications and asked that the Minister provide extra funds for the completion of the Radio-Hubrey-Highbury Road Link. In the event that extra funds were available it would be wise to have as much money as possible available from the City of St. Thomas 1/2 mill for the Commission to undertake work on the link. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND SECONDED BY: D. STOKES THAT THE DESIGNATION AS SUBURBAN ROADS OF ROAD #28 FROM HIGHWAY #3 TO ROAD #45 AND ROAD #56 FROM ROAD #28 TO THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS LIMIT, A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 6.2 KILOMETERS ARE HEREBY REVOKED, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1986. CARRIED. II ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO OCTOBER 3, 1986 PAGE 2. Preliminary figures from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications indicated that the City of St. Thomas 1/2 Mill Levy would raiS~$45,000 in 1987 which would be an increase of approximately $2,000 from 1986. As the County assessment was lower the total expenditures would be subsidized at a higher rate by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The County's construction and resurfacing needs were up above 8% from 1985 and there would be an increase in subsidy allocations in 1987 unless the Ministry allocated funds on a different basis than in 1986. The Commissioners discussed various facets of Commission System finances and noted the proposed changes in the County road system, which the County Road Committee was presently studying. The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED aLtiW'~Jl,.. CHAIRMAN sc.-\ E r''i'l i i e ~~o If', I ~ .~ 3 2 ~..--- ------ 20. ~ .------ /~<----------- \ V II i" 21"'.~ 23 22 21 20 19 ]8 8 T H. \ \ SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION From the Office of the Secretary - Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: WESTERN AREA SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSIONS FROM: ALLAN R. HOLMES, P. Eng. Secretary - Treasurer DATE: August 1986 As requested at the Area Group Meeting in St Thomas, I am distributing a copy of the Brief prepared by the City of Barrie and the Resolution of the City of Belleville. Although the delegates attending the meeting did not support the recommendations, any specific comments from the various Commissions would be appreciated. This would be particularly helpful if the Executive Committee should choose to prepare a response to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. ALLAN R. HOLMES, P.. Eng. Secretary - Treasurer Suburban Roads Commission Association ARH/ecg BRIEF by the CITY OF BARRIE on SUBURBAN ROADS COHl1ISSIONS April, 1986 SUBURBAN ROADS c01:frlISSIONS PURPOSE 1 . The . intent of this brief is to examine the governing legis la tion concerning Suburhan .Roads Com.Gis s ions, the concept of suburban roads, apparent inequities and to provide a summary of concerns and recommendations. LEGISLATION 2. Suburban Roads Commissions are authorized and operate under the enabling legislation of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, .R.S.O. 1980, .Chapter 421, Pirt VIII.\ 3 . For a City having a population less than 50,000 or a separated To\m, the commission shall be composed or three persons, one to be appointed by the City or separated To~'m, one by the County and a third t9 be agreed upon by the two members so appointed and in default of such agreement to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 4. A professionally qualified engineer, employed as a county road superintendent, can be the engineer employed to carry out: the "'-fork on suburban r()nd~; for the cOI:'Jnission. . . . / '2 - 2 - 5. Suburban roads continue to be county roads subject to the direction of the suburban roads commission, but under the jurisdiction and control of the County and the construction and maintenance thereof shall continue to be under the supervision of the County road superintendent. 6. Each commission may designate roads in the county road system as suburban roads and the City or separated To\VTI shall contribute towards the construction and maintenance of such roads. 7.. Under Section 44(1), Part VII of the Act, a county, by by-law, may establish county road system by designating the roads in any municipality in the County that are to form the system. This section also implies an agreement process on the inclusion of boundary-line roads as suburban roads as agreed upon by interested municipalities. 8. Section 68. (2) of Part VIII states that a City or separated To\VTI shall bear the portion of the expenditures on suburban roads equally with the County after taking into account the grant or grants paid by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 9 . Section 52 of the Ac t states, " Eve r:: r 0 a d constructed or maintained as part of a county road systeo shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the . . . / J - 3 - requirements of the l''Iinister.'' Since Section 67(1) states that, "Suburban roads continue to be county roads.. .", it is concluded that the same requirements of the l1inister, for the construction and maintenance of county roads, govern the treatment of suburban roads. CONCEPT OF SUBURBAN ROADS 10. By definition, a "road" has the same meaning as a high\vay. Again, a high\"ay is a pub lic road where traffic has the right to pass and to which O\VTIers of adjacent property have access, a public road, a main road or route. 11. Although there is no clear.definition of a county road, under Part VII of the Act, it can only be assumed that a county road takes the same meaning a's a highHay, as defined above. Thus suburban roads, being county roads, would have the identical meaning. 12. Of the many reasons selecting county roads, it is criteria would be as follows: for constructing and/or assumed that the primary (a) Routes connecting Kings Highways. (b) Routes connecting urban communities. (c) Routes servicing rural land use. " - 4 - 13. His torically, suburban roads provided access for the agricultural community to market their goods in urban centres. Some have classed this concept as the "Hinterland Theory" which, in simple terms,. states that an urban municipality was dependent upon the rural farm areas for the production of food. Therefore, tha t municipality should share, in part, the expense of maintaining and providing roads from farm to the urban market. 14. No clear definition appears to exist for suburban roads, except th\3.t they must be designated county roads. Howeyer, based upon the.. above "Theory", the primary cri teria for suburban roads \,]ould be to provide road access to. urban centres for the rural farm community. INEQUITIES 15. In most cases Suburban Roads Commissions are composed of a member of the City or separated TO~n1, a member of the County Roads Committee and a third member \vho' is county oriented. And, to compound the imbalance, the appointed engineer is usually the county Road Superintendent. Thus, in most cases, decisions by the Commission, in selecting suburban roads, can be vieHed as being heavily weighted towards county needs. .../5 -5- 16. Of much more importance is the lack of a clear definition or criteria for selecting a county road as a suburban road. A city or separated town has no voice in the selection of county roads, particularly when the intent appears obvious that such county roads terminating at urban boundaries will be designated as a suburban road in the future. 17. With the increasing changes in rural land use, the original concept and justification for selecting suburban roads has disappeared. An urban municipality today does not depend on the local agricultural communities to supply its needs. In fact, the urban needs of today, and into the foreseeable future, are being supplied on a global basis. 18. Rural municipalities have changed from a basic agricultural land use to increasing residential, industrial and commercial uses, which have altered the role of urban municipalities from that of dependence to a supplier of employment, goods and services. This altered role has changed the requirements for more transportation routes to urban centres. Because of a lack of integrated good land use planning in counties, urban municipalities are obliged to share an increasing financial burden for more suburban roads without a commensurate increase by counties. .- 6 - 19. More and more township roads are being des igna ted as county roads. Subsequently, more suburban roads are ~eing designated. However, because of a lack of integrated transportation planning, the selection of suburban roads are completed without consideration for the road system in urban municipali ties. Often suburban roads are des igna ted which connect to local or minor collector roads in the urban municipality. Such designations increases traffic on urban roads not designed to accept such volumes, thus increasing urban road maintenance and reconstruction expenditures. And, to aggravate the inequity, the county assumes no responsibility for the increase in costs to the municipality caused by their pelection of suburban roads. 20. In some cases, suburban roads are being designated which are interconnected to an intensive iand use, such as industrial or recreational, which have no direct influence on traffic to or from an urban municipality, but, become a financial responsibility to that municipality. A prime example is a ski resort which is enjoyed more on a provincial or regional rather than on an urban basis. 21. Another example is the designation of county roads which perr1it a by-pass of traffic to urban centres. The argument that.: such roads should reduce traffic to and thus benefit the urban centre has been utilized to justify their designation as suburbnl1 roads. Such an argument .1.ppears .../7 " - 7 - weak and lacks credence when an urban municipality is adequately served by a network of Kings Highways and particularly when one considers the historical definition of a. suburban road. 22. The original intent of The Pub lic Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, vlith regard to Suburban Roads Commissions, is not the intent of this brief.. ~'Jhat is of concern is that the legislation has not kept pace with the evolving changes in land use and transportation requirements of modern society, especially in rural areas. 23. There is no clear definition of a suburban road or a county road, for that ~atter, which would assist immeasurably to clarify obvious grey areas of interpretation and application of the legislation. 24. There is good argument that urban municipalities must be involved in determining transportation needs between so-called rural lands and urban centres. The concern is the ~ember constitution of Suburban Roads Commissions which, in some cases, is heavily weighted to county poli.cy decisions with the final approval being vested '.-lith the t1inister of Transportation and Communications. Public participation is virtually non-existent as is the parti.cipation of cities nnd separated tOHns i.n the selection of count) roads Clnd ultimately suburban roads. . ../8 . , . . - 8 - 25. The lack of integrated land use and transportation planning between rural and urban jurisdictions is considered to be a major ir.lpediment. Lack of planning leads to needless isolation of all local factors, which must be considered, in dealing \vith modern society's mixed social needs. 26. Encroachment of intensive rural land use, ie. residential development adjacent to but outside. urban boundaries, has resul ted in higher land values and thus higher taxation for rural lands. Hithout any doubt, most residents in these areas depend on the urban municipality for employment, goods and services. Such developments. result in suburban road requirements with no change in the cost sharing formula and no participation by the rural residents for the increased maintenance ot construction of urban roads to service their needs. Thus, more taxation monies are enjoyed by the county with no responsibility tOvJards as s is ting an urban municipality for its increased costs. RECOl.il.1ENDA T100:8 27. Considering the inequities and concerns, outlined a b 0 v e , i tis s t r 0 n g 1 y r e C 0 InIT1 end e d t h.:.1 t Par t V I I I u ::: t h C? Fub 1 ic Tr ans portLl t ion and lligll\JC1Y Ir;;prO'lCIJGIl t Ac t , R. S . O. 1 9 8 0, C h.J. P t e r 1+ 2 1 bed e 1 e t ed, 0 II the b (l s i s t h t1 t the S '--l h 1l r b (l n . . ./9 . ~ .. - 9 - Ro ads C omm is s ion 1 e g ~ s 1 a t ion is consideration for the modern transportation planning. antiquated and lacking in con~ept of land use and 28. Failing recognition of the need to abolish the above legislation, the follo\ving recommendation is offered to improve a system which has not kept pace ~vith modern times. (a) That the Public Transportation and Improvement Act, particularly Part revised or amended to provide: High\vay VIII be (i) .A clear and modern definition of a suburban road and a county road to ensure against any misinterpretation or misuse by participating jurisdictions. (ii) A more equitable balance of membership constituting Suburban Roads Commissions. (iii) A provision for the public, cities and separated towns to participate in the selection of integrated transportation routes affecting all parties with vested interest~. . . . /10 .. , ~ RF A I S'i.v / 18 (iv) - 10 - A more equitable cost for suburban road sharing formula maintenance and construction in view of the rapidly changing rural land use. PART I TRANSPORTATION AND COMf\iUNICATIONS "" TC-8 REQUEST TO REPEAL LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE FORUATION OF SUBURBAN ROADS CONll\HSSIONS (86-140-6) From: City of Belleville Whereas the legislation existing in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act authorizing the formation of Suburban Roads Commissions, is considered to be ou tmoded in the present con- text; and Whereas in view of the contribution of the ~,linistry of Transportation and Communications, the concept that rural municipalities cannot afford to build farm to market roads, is no longer valid; and Whereas these roads serve not only those engaged in agricultural but residential, commercial" and industrial developments, as well; Therefore be it resolved that the Government of Ontario be requested to repeal the legislation authorizing the formation of Suburban Roads Commissions. Committee Recommendation: Section Comment Small Urban Section COSU 1\1) : Section, not endorsed. At the 1986 Annual }leeting of the Conference Action: ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO APRIL 22, 1986 PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County Engineer's Office, 450 Sunset Drive, on Tuesday, April 22, 1986 at 4:00 p.m. All members were present as well as the Engineer. The minutes of the meeting of February 12, 1986 were read and approved. The Engineer reported that approval had been received from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to exchange roads in the Suburban System in accordance with the resolutions forwarded by the Suburban Road Commission last December. The Engineer reported that the Suburban winter control budget had been overspent by approximately $10,000 and that the County's entire winter control budget had been overspent and a new maintenance budget would be required. It appeared that there could be some savings on drainage, repairs to pavements and signs on the Suburban Road Commission system. It was hopeful that a new Suburban Road Commission budget would not exceed the $230,000 originally expended. The County's $1,912,000 overall maintenance budget would .have to be raised to approximately 2 million dollars to cover 1986 requirements. The Commission discussed the hosting of the Suburban Road Commissions' Annual Meeting on June 11th. A bus had been reserved for the afternoon and arrangements made with Gladys Axtell for lunch. It was suggested that arrangements might be made with Marian Millman for the reception. It was decided to see if the tour could include the Military MUseum, Jumbo and Anderson's Horse Farm. The meeting adjourned to the call of the Chairman. ~ ?jC--7 ,4tAf~-I It.. ~...~ CHAIRMAN ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1986, PAGE 1. THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION met at the County Buildings, 450 Sunset Drive at 4:00 p.m., on February 12,1986. Present were Mr. Donald Stokes, appointed by the City of St. Thomas as the representative for a three year term from February 1, 1986 to January 31, 1989, Mr. Albert Auckland, appointed by the County of Elgin as the representativ~~ for the period of February 1, 1986 to January 31, 1989, and Mr. Robert Martin. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND, SECONDED BY: D. STOKES, THAT ROBERT N. MARTIN BE APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1, 1986 TO JANU~RY 31, 1989. CARRIED" "MOVED BY: D. STOKES, SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND, THAT ROBERT MARTIN BE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1987. CARRIED" '.'MOVED BY: D. STOKES, SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND, THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO FOR 1986 BE PAID. CARRIED" "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND, SECONDED BY: D. STOKES, THAT THE HONORARIUM FOR ROBERT MARTIN BE $175.00 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1987. CARRIED" THE MINUTES of the meeting of December 9, 1986 were read and approved. ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1986, PAGE 2. THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Winter control remained high on suburban roads. 2. No reply had as yet been received from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications regarding the transfer of roads to and from the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission. 3. Little new information was available on pipe arch culvert failures. THE HOSTING of the Western Ontario Group of the Suburban Road Commission was discussed. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND, SECONDED BY: D. STOKES, THAT WE HOST THE WESTERN GROUP OF THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11,1986 AND THE ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE, SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONERS BE ADVISED. CARRIED" COMMISSION DISCUSSED the statement of expenditures of the st. Thomas Suburban Road Commission for 1985 as attached and being part of the County of Elgin's Road Committee Report of January 1986 to County Council. It was noted that a large deficit (over $9,000.00) was carried forward from 1985 to 1986 because of increased maintenance in the area of the Plowing Match last year. The cost of maintenance and repairing the Bostwick Road was more than double the original estimate. Increased costs over the estimate were incurred for signing, litter pickup, ditching and grass mowing. "MOVED BY: D. STOKES, SECONDED BY: A. AUCKLAND, THAT THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AS DETAILED IN THE REPORT OF THE ELGIN COUNTY ROAD COMMITTEE JANUARY 1986 SECOND REPORT BE ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS FOR THEIR INFORMATION. CARRIED" COMMISSION DISCUSSED the County Road Committee draft budget of February 7, ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1986, PAGE 3. 1986 and the attached Suburban Road Commission budget, both having been previously forwarded to the Commission. AFTER DISCUSSION. "MOVED BY: A. AUCKLAND, SECONDED BY: D. STOKES, THAT THE DETAILED BUDGET OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $291,500 AS PROPOSED IN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE REPORT OF FEBRUARY 7, 1986 BE ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS FOR APPROVAL, AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS BE NOTIFIED THAT THE 1/2 MILL CONTRIBUTION TOTALLING $43,200 WILL BE REQUIRED IN 1986. CARRIED" THE MEETING ADJOURNED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN. <'~/ /' ('.......~ -<(~ '-7 -~~, CHAIRMAN. COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN COUNCIL YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS: JANUAHY SESSION 1986 St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads in 1985. The following is a Sumnary of Expenditures on Elgin County and In accordance with Ministry of Transportation and Communications' has been distributed to various projects and does not appear as a practice, Payroll Burden such as Holidays With Pay, Sick Time, etc., separate item. CON STRUc..'T ION (A) Bridges: (1) Silver Creek Culvert Replacement, County Road 1142. Mulahidc Town~hip. ('llotal Expenditure 1983 to 1985 inclusive was $ 685,042.73) (2) Rehabi~,itation of the Port Burwell Bridge, County Road #42, Port Burwell. (3) Rehabilitation of Players Bridge, County Road #45, Yarmouth Township. . TerrAL $ (B) Roads: (1) County Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) from St. Thomas City Limits tQ County Road #27, Yarmouth Township. (Project cost to date [other than land] 1983-85 is $ 931,486 (2) County Road 1132 (Police College Road) from Ontario Police College to County Road #52, Malahide Township. Project cOBt (Otlll'l' t1WlI l'lIld). 19110 - U!"i was ~n,445,232. (3) County Road #42 and County Road #50 in Port Burwell, Project cost. 1983-85 $ 412,397.36 22,758.84 169,721. 53 108,633.47 301,113.84 362,780.97 213,9.15.19 57,486.14 Contif,tued . . . ." comfry OF ELGIN ROAD CrnMITTEE ~litLF.EPOR'1' - JAN.UARY SESSION 1986 (8) Hoada. (eonttnued) (4) Land purchase including surveys, etc. (5) Surveys and engineering work on roads for future construction.& Misc. Grading. ., (c) Asphalt Resurfacing: (1) County Road #3 from Highway #3 to Rodney in Aldborough Town5hlp. (Project Cost) $ 747,524.64 (2) County Road #3 from County ROAd #9 to Thames River in Aldborough Township. (3) County Road #36 cOlllpleti.on of work for 1985 from County Road #45 to Highway #3 in Yarmouth Township. (4) County Road #39 in Port Burwell. (5) CQunty Rp8d #42 fr9rn ~tt~~b~th Street in Port Burwell easterly approximately 1 mile, Port Burwell and Bayham Township. (6) County Road #52 from Highway lf74 to County Road AGO, Yarmouth Township. (D) Miscellaneous: (1) Credit on machinery ownership costs, etc., charged to accounts receivable, town1ine accounts and miscellaneous machine credits. (2) New and used machinery and major repairs to presently owned equipment. (3) Drainage assessments charged against County roads. (4) Development of Sparta Gravel Pit, Yarmouth Township. PAGE 2. 4,471.23 28,589.70 TOTAL $ 667,243.23 11,706.72 107,852.60 4,271.43 39,725.14 135,335.04 334,960.00 TOT AL $ 633,850.93 21,285.25 Credit 321,726.16 32,862.41 8,997.59 TOTAL $ 342,300.91 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES 'A', 'a', 'C' AND '0' $ 1,944,50B.91 CO~Y OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPQR'I'_- ,1ARUARY SESSION 1986 (B) Roads: (Continued) (4 ) Land purchase including surveys, etc. (5 ) Surveyo:l AmI enp.fttflf'rfnp. work on rOrld~ for future construction.& Misc. Grading. * (C) Asphalt Resurfacing: (l) County Road #3 from Highway //3 to Rodney in Aldborough Township. (Project Cost) $ 747,524.64 (2) County Road #3 from County Road #9 to Thames River in Aldborough Township. (3) County Road #36 completion of work for 1985 from County Road #45 to Highway #3 in Yarmouth Township. (4) County Road #39 in Port Burwell. (5) County Road ~2 from Elizabeth Street in Port Burwell easterly approximately 1 mile, Port Burwell and aayh~m Tqwoshtp. (6) County Road #52 from Highway #74 to County Road #30, Yarmouth Township. (D) Miscellaneous: (1) Credit on machinery ownership costs, etc., charged to accounts receivable, townline accounts and miscellaneous machine credits. (2) New and used machinery and major repairs to presently owned equipment. (3) Drainage assessments charged against County roads. (4) Development of Sparta Gravel Pit, Yarmouth Township. TarAL $ Tar AL $ TarAL PAGE 2. 4,471.2:3 28,589.70 667,243.23 11,706.72 107,852.60 4,271.43 39,725.14 135,335.04 334,960.00 633,850.93 21,285.25 Credit 321,726.16 32,862.41 8,997.59 $ 342,300.91 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES 'A', 'B', 'C' AND '0' $ 1,944,508.91 COlfNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMJ""I'EE Sl.!;CONU IillPOH'l' - JANUARY SESSION 1986 (E) ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMlSSIONCONSTRUCTION (1) MiQc~llanedUS surveys 404 enginGcring. (2) Land purchase. (3) Drainage asse ssments charged against St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads. TOTAL COST BY ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAO COMMISSION TOTAL COUNTY OF ELGIN AND ST. TlIOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION CONSTRUCTION PAGE 3. 4,$96.79 12,157.84 14,504.54 $ 31,259.17 $ 1,975,768.08 ~ COUNTY OF ELGtN ROAD COMMITtEE .SECOND REPORT - JANUARY SBSSION 1986 P AG E 4. MAINTENANCE - COUNTY ROADS *NOTE: Letters and numbers correspond to Ministry of Transportation and Communications' ---- Account Numbers. if A .. Culverts and Bridges .. I Bridges .. 2 Culverts B .. ROAd~ide Malntenanc~ .. 1 Grass Cutting .. 2 Tree Cutting .. 4 Drainage - 5 Roadside Maintenance, Washouts, S}~ouldering, etc. - 6 tree Planting - 7 Drainage Assessments (Repairs Only) - 11 Weed Spraying C .. Hard Top Maintenance (Paved Roads) .. I Repair 9 tOI Pavement - 2 Sweeping .. 3 Shoulder Maintenance (including gravelling, ditching, etc.) .. 1-4- Surface Treatment D .. Loose Top Ma:i.ntenance (Gravel Roads) .. 1 Drainage, Gravel, Prime, etc., Road #26 (Bostwick Road) .. 2 Grading Gravel Roads - 3 Dust Control (Salt Brine) - 4 Dust Control (Prime) .. 5 Gravel Resurfacing E .. Winter Control .. 1 Snow Plowing .. 2 Sanding and Salting .. 3 Snow Fence .. ~ wt"t~r Rthhdhy * Total Winter Control * 1984 Winter Control 1983 Winter Control 1982 Winter Control $458,201 $210,955 $497,778 COUNTY ROADS ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS TOT AL 76,835.23 53,083.71 88,256.50 66,795.81 11,421. 27 13,712.10 41,290.25 10,930.26 52,220.51 14,837.86 8,288.62 23,126.48 129,411. SA 33,255.34 162,666.92 32,886.87 18,687.86 51,574.73 1,169.27 - - 1,169.27 5,115.13 697.76 5,812.89 11,242.73 508.14 11,750.87 119,442.47 20,683.38 16,859.46 3,120.75 136,301. 93 23,804.13 192,210.22 111,437.63 20,338.78 212,549.00 111,437.63 55,898.66 55,898.66 33,261. 55 6,418.73 39,680.28 41,992.05 11,997.76 53,989.81 3,669.52 3,469.92 7,139.44 102,761. 67 7,435.77 110,197.44 154,580.62 29,237.69 103,826.31 253,620.59 40,957.91 294,578.50 23,031.23 4,371.35 27,402.58 ~n,"17n.1I7 :I,,;lO.'27 ?7, In'l. 7'1 455,010.91 78,IB6.22 533,197.13 Continued . . . COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT J/~UARY SESSION 1986 .tL1.Ltim.~:IJi,~9,!l~TL,!lu"'ll1~ COUNTY ROADS PAGE 5. ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS TOTAL F .. Safety Devices .. 1 Pavement Marking (Center Line) 44,955.90 7,985.49 52,941. 39 .. 2 Signs 73,194.75 20,274.92 93,469.67 3 Guide Rail 11,469.31 1,196.53 12,665.84 .. 4 Railroad Protection 34,2+8.60 6,231.95 40,450.55 .. 6 Edge Marking 40,967.14 6,137.29 47,104.43 .. 7 Stump Removal 2,075.85 5,080.65 7,156.50 TOTALS $ 1,653,223.58 OVERHEAD .. COUNTY COUNTY ROADS 1. Superintendence, including County Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Superintendents and Vehicles. 116,585.62 2. Clerical 63,281. 90 3. Office 29,033.47 4. Garage.. Stock and Timekeepers, Maintenance, Heat, Etc. 96,246.13 .5 .. Too 1 5 14~S24.75 6. Radio 4,438.03 7. Needs Study Update and Traffic Counts 7,574.51 8. Training Courses 2,076.11 9. Miscellaneous Insurance 2,180.15 10. Retirement Benefits (Sick Time Paid to Retired Employees) 14,218.01 11. Deferred Time 1,397.33 TOTALS 351,556.01 $ 348,134.23 $ 2,001,357.81 ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS ~ 10,137.88 126,723.50 5,502.77 68,784.67 2,524.65 31,558.12 8,369.23 104,615.36 # 1,263.02 15,7B7.77 38S.92 4,823.95 1,035.37 8,609.88 180.53 2,256.64 189.58 2,369.73 14,218.01 1,397.33" 29,588.95 381,144.96 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 Cqnnnission Roads as a percentage of all construction and maintenance on both St. Thqmas Suburban Roads and County Roads (urban rebates, equipment purch-a~,es, drainage assessUlents, items not for subsidy, etc., are not considered in determi.ning the overhead percentage)8 In 1985 the Overhead charge to the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission was 8%. COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT - J~UARY SESSION 1986 !.!!~r: I~ I j !_~~inlt f!i Rebate to Town of Aylmer and Villages of 25% of their Road Levy (Subsidhed by the Hini stry of Trf.1n~pot"trJt fOil and Cnnllnun{C,lt l.on~) Distributed Labour Costs and Payroll Burden totaled $ 427,840.34 in 1985 & were distributed in accordance with Ministry of Transportation and 1ll Communications standard practice to the varl.ou5 opl'rations. ITEMS NOT SUHSLDIZED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTAtION AND COMMlrnrCATI0NS COUNTY ROADS ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS .. 1. Road Liability Insur.ance 1 ,101. 00 104.00 2. MIscellaneous (Including Memberships, Road CotnmHtee Inspections, H9spitqlity SYlt~$? EtG~) 4,190.24 222.60 3. Invoices from the County Clerks Offich for Preparation of Employee Payroll 4,540.70 4. Payment for Accumulated Sick Time to Employees Still in Employment of the County of Elgin 21,619.96 5. Payment to St. Thomas Suburban Road CommIssioner (Fees and Expenses) 150.00 6. International Plowing Match (County Exhibit, Erection of Snow Fence, Etc.) 29,403.25 7. Urban Rebates Not Subsidiz(!d by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications 3,341. 85 TOTALS $ 64,217.00 $ 476.60 Total Rebates to Town of Aylmer and Villages were $ 55,779.59 PAGE 6. $ 52,437.74 ~ 1,205.00 4,412.84 4,540.70 21,63<"), 96 150.00 29,403.25 3,341. 85 $ 64,693.60 COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT - JANUARY SESSION 1986 PAGE 7. SUMMARY COUNTY ROADS ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS ~ (A) Construction 1,944,508.91 (B) Maintenance 1,653,223.58 (C) Overhead 351,556.01 (D) Urban Rebates 52,437.74 (E) Items Not For Supsidy 64,217.00 31,259.17 1,975,768.08 348,134.23 2,001,357.81 29,588.95 381,144.96 52,437.74 476.60 64,693.60 DEDUCT: 1984 Stock Balance SUBTOTALS $ 4,065,943.24 $ 409,458.95 $ 4,475,402.19 126,671. 06 $ 4,602,073.25 64,857.03 TOTALS $ 4,537,216.22 ADD: 1985 Stock Balance (Total for Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy $ 4,472,522.62 ) CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY CITY OF ST. THOMAS TOWARD THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROAD SYSTEM Calculation of Ministry of Transportation and Communications payable on the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Road System Expenditures. 1. Average Subsidy Rate on Operations Expenditures of $ 408,982.35 was 75.33% or 2. Subsidy on Items Not For Subsidy of $ 476.60 is nil $ 308,086.40 TOTAL SUBSIDY FROM MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS BALANCE $ 308,086.40 $ 409,458.95 $ 308,086.40 $ 101,372.55 $ 50,686.27 $ 469.01 $ 50,217.27 $ 41. 200.00 $ 9,107.27 Total St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Expenditures LESS: Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy Share of City of St. Thomas 50% of Balance ~: Surplus From 1984 SUBTOTAL ~: 1/2 Mill Contribution for 1985 from City of St. Thomas DEFICIT TO 1986 COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT - JANUARY SESSION 1986 PAGE 8. CALCULATION OF NET COUNTY EXPENDITURE (ACTUAL ROAD LEVY) Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subisdy in 1985 was $ 3,356,000 Total County Road and St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Expenditures 4,537,216.22 LESS: Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy 3,356,000.00 LESS: Cost to City of St. Thomas of the St. Thomas Suburban Road Corrmission 50,686.27 NET ESTIMATED COST TO COUNTY OF ELGIN (SUBJECT TO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AUDIT)1,130,529.95 The 1985 Road Levy Provided $1,117,000 plus $18,000 toward a Supplementary By-Law which was never approved by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. (Total Levy $ 1,135,000) Total Voucher Payments in 1985 were $ 5,140,613.89, in 1984 were $4,600,436.61 and in 1983 were $5,343,165.36. The difference between the total voucher payments and total road expenditures included: (a) Work done on Townline Roads and Bridges and invoiced to County of Middlesex and County of Oxford. (b) Surface treatment work for various municipalities including City of St. Thomas and County of Kent ($ 173,114.42) (c) Hot mix paving and other work, etc., for various local municipalities ($143,744.71) The County of Elgin Road Department in 1985 participated in 3 Employment Programmes in addition to the work listed above. (a) Government of Canada '85 Summer Incentive Programme (Surveying Assistance) at a value of $ 4,700.00 (b) Canada Works Programme (Federal) in the Spring and early Summer (to relieve local unemployment) $9,433.19. (c) Ontario Youth Corps Programme (Provincial) work completion of 1984 programme and 2 programmes in 1985 ($ 68,414.00) COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD CO~~JITTEE SECOND REl?OHT - JANUARY SESSION 1986 PAGE 9. to the General Government Account. Control Progr<.tlIllnQ for the prcveuLion of cnccphalitis. The cost of $ 266.71 Was charged The Road Department was requested to have personnel available for a Mosquito ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED CHAIRMAN ;; ,\ memorandum JlF, f~>?v/;r; .." ~ Ontario To: Mr. R. E. Thompson District Engineer District 2 London Date: 1986 02 13 Attn: Mr. W. W. Osborn District Municipal Engineer _..".-,_m.'_:'~V:'''_::,~,,>~.,,... ".- "," E.".' 1,';':' ~ 'J >.. V'll ......"" ..r-' '~'<'~j k ""'V ~."... .,~., '\" "'''' '\ P' \ "::' . I I~ !'~ l" -- '.4. Ii !. \9dO ,~) ! \' I", ... <s ( '%' '- ,0 ",\.;~(~ \ U'~'1'. \j\ \" '/~i,- L! {n r ? ,!'\ !I.! \ . '-' .., (I:>. ..... ...,.< .~~..'::.:.;.~~r.~~:~~~~~.\\\ ...' Re: St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission Resolutions .on County of Elgin Roads Nos. 22,25,26:,29 and 52 Please find enclosed one copy of each of the signed originals of four Resolutions passed on December 9, 1985 by the St.Thomas Suburban Roads Commission designating 2.4 km of Elgin County Road 22 and 4.9 km of Elgin County Road 25 as a Suburban Road and revoking designation of sections of Elgin County Roads 25, 26, 29, a total of 11.75 km as a Suburban Road. All four Resolutions upon recommendation of the Deputy Minister have been duly signed by the Minister on February 5, 1986 as required by Section 66 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act RSO 1980, Chapter 421. After noting the approval of the four Resolutions for your records, please forward them to Mr. Robert G. Moore, P. Eng., County Engineer, County of Elgin and Secretary of the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission. OJ ,/. ~e B. L. Nemethy Intermediate T ranspo Municipal Roads office BLN/pb Encl. cc: G. R. Browning, Attn: T. H. Blevins (J. E. Wice)