1982 Road Committee Minutes
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 17, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the JMunicipal Building
on Wednesday, November 17, 1982 in conjunction with County Council. All
members were present.
The Engineer reported that the prices had been solicited for
"no-parking" signs required under the County Parking By-Law and signs
would be ordered when the by-law was passed.
The Engineer also noted that the County's application had been
rejected for funding as a Canada Employment Development Project but the
projects would be revised and funded with the emergency funds that have
been allocated to assist distressed tobacco workers.
An early meeting with Ms Reigert of the London office of the
Employment Development Branch in London would be arranged to finalize
details of the project and the project would start shortly.
\"
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J.. N. SMYTH
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:
PAYLIST #57 AMOUNTING TO $59,309.25
PAYLIST #58 AMOUNTING TO $48,827.52
PAYLIST #59 AMOUNTING TO $183,052.85
CARRIED ."
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ADJOURN TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
CARRIED."
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONT ARlO
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 1.
on Friday, November " 1982 at 9:30 a.W. All mewbers Vlere presen~ exceQ~
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD cOMMITTEE me~ at the Municipa1. Building
Reeve Mon~eith, Reeve Kelly, and Reeve Smyth. Also present was
M:r. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and C01Dl!t\lnications,
the Engineer and the Assistant Engineer.
. "MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 1 AND OCTOBER 20, 1982
BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE AS 110LLOWS:
1. Walmsley BroS. Liwited have comple~ed paving on Road #28, base course on
Road #32 from Highway #73 to the 1'01ice college Ga~e, and Road #20 in
1'0rt Stanley trom HighVlay fI4 to the arena, the comple~ion of ~he Vlork on
Road #20 betVleen Shedden and Fingal, south of the Village of Shedden, and
Road #20 from the conrail Tracks in Shedden to Highway fl401. The Engineer
stated tha~ he had contacted the chairman regarding the completion of work
on Road #20 inasmuch as there Vlere sufficien~ funds in the budge~ ~o
comQlete ~he job and the work could be added to Wa1.msley BroS. Limited
present contract.
2. Shou1.dering was completed except Road #20 north of Shedden.
3. l'aving had been completed at the airport, only minor trimming, drainage
Vlork and placemen~ of rip rap at the end of the culvert remained to be
4. work was continuing on Road #32 north of the police Col1.ege Gate.
done.
Dirt VIas being hauled from the l'olice college and from a pond just eaS~
of Glencolin. I~ appeared that an ample supply of dir~ Vlould be available
from the pond if the County Y1ished to excavate more of the 1'0nd. Work on
the road Vlould continue as long as wea~her condi~ions would alloVl, and
Vlould Qroceed north of ~he 9~h concession to the top of ~he hill.
S'l'. TlloMAS, OmAR10
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 2.
7.
The salt BUilding at DU~ton at ~be DUnVlicb To;ot\sbiP yards VIaS nearlY
c01l\1l1.eted and al'rangetllent$ bave been rnade ",i~b the 'l'o;ot\$hiQ 01'.
DUnVlich for necessary elect-Cica1. Vlork.
sand QileS Vlere being 1'laced at DU~tOn a$ Vle1.l asVlbi~e s~a~ion.
Tbe motor on the ~ichigan wader bad ~o be l'ebui1.t and Vlork done on the
brakes. 1~ VIas boped to have tbe loader bac\<. in oQeration sbort1.Y.
The culvert on Road #4' at Beer' $ had been cot1lQ1.e~ed.
Drainage on Road #24 at viragS VIaS continuing a$ Vlell as YIOrk on
8.
5.
6.
9.
Roadsl#48 and #54.
CbittiCk con$tl'UC~ion VIaS c-cusbing gl'avel at the pleasant valleY l'i~.
Stl'ipping VIaS underVlay and lligg$ Vlou1.d be hired to pile gl'avel.
'l'be u1'per portion 01'. the FUlton Bridge had been painted.
'l'be sYI8epel' VIas Vlor\<.ing in ~eS~ E1.gin.
There apQea-ced to be sutfiCient Vlor\<. to keep ca$ual etllQ10yees YIOrking tor
10.
11.
13.
several weeks yet.
that tbe Vn1.age of 1'0rt BUrVleH YIOuld ",ish a drain instaHed. 'l'VlO (2)
daYS of Qavemen~ rnar\<.ing Vlork rernained and YIOulll be done early in tbe
SnoVl tence bad not been started, and it VIas li\<.e1.y
12.
14.
next week.
1~ appeared tba~ no turtbel' 1l\oney Vlou1.d be availab1.e frow the l'rovincial
Incentive l'rogramme and an invoice for tIloney a1.1.ocated ($36,600) had
been forVlarded to tbe ~inistl'Y.
An ap1'lication unde-c tbe canada sroploy1l\ent prOgramme' s cororounitY
Deve1.optllent projectS had been rnade.
apQlication Vlou1.d be aQQroved or not.
under tbiS pl'Ogl'at1Jt1le tbe Engineer wa$ hopefu1. tha~ it might be funded
d ~'e )'1iSt announced by tbe l1ederal Govel'nt1lent for ewergency
un er a prograu\l." u.
fund$ to assist in job creation fol' unerop1.oyed tobacCO and otber rura1.
1<0 fUl'tbel' intOl'rnation VIaS available on tbi$ pl'Og-cat1Jt1le.
11' VIaS not \<:tlo;ot\ a$ yet Vlhethe-c tbiS
1.1'. tbe app1.ication VIaS not aQQroved
15.
workers.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 3.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:
PAYLIST NUMBER 53 AMOUNTING TO $57,949.57
PAYLIST NUMBER 55 AMOUNTING TO $56,757.61
PAYLIST NUMBER 56 AMOUNTING TO $527,368.89
CARRI ED . 'f
It was noted that Mr. Wells of the Frank Cowan Company was discussing a
settlement on the Stanat suit with the Canadian General Insurance Company
and the solicitors for Mr. Stanat.
It was noted that the suit by the Lake Erie Ratepayers for erosion damages
was still pending and the Federal Government had expended over $600,000 so far
for defence purposes.
It was noted that the County of Middlesex Road Commi.ttee had inspected the
Middlemiss Bridge on their recent road tour.
The Engineer would again approach the Ministry of Natural Resources with
regard to a timber evaluation, at Lot 137, Houghton (Guysboro Pit).
LAND PURCHASES WERE REPORTED ON AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Engineer had approached Mac Hepburn on Road #22 and would be talking
to Doug Tarry (Road #22) shortly.
2.
Bob Davies was to again contact all ratepayers on Road #3 and several
\
ratepayers on Road #8 south of Wallacetown with regard to road widening.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 4.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. Deputy Reeve Haddow regarding use of salt for winter con~rol.
2. From the Village of por~ Burwell Vlith a resolution au~horizing the County
to do a survey on Addison Street for drainage Vlork.
~"
3. From the Frank cowan Company with regard to 1IIl.1nicipal liability for win~er
maintenance, sidewalks and roadwayS.
4. From ~he Township of Bayham and Matt Schafer with regard to the water
problem on Coun~y Road #38 in S~raffordville east of the canadian
Pacific Railway TrackS.
After discussion
. . .
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEW ART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A DRAINAGE PETITION FOR THE AREA ON
ROAD #38 EAST OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY TRACKS THAT DRAINS WESTERLY
TOW AAD STR1\FFORDVI;LLE.
CARRIED."
,. From the Township of DunVlich wi~h regard to the replacement of a piece of
sideVlalk in Wallacetown that VIas removed during the construction of Road #8.
ltMOVED BY: W. R .. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE 1983 ROAD COMMITTEE THAT WE EXTEND THE EAST SIDE
OF COUNTY ROAD #8 SIDEWALK FOR APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET TO HIGHWAY #3.
The Engineer presented ~he attached proposal wi~h regard to time off in lieu
of payment for overtime Vlhich had been discussed wi~h ~he County of Elgin Road
Department Employees' Association.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 5.
"MOVED BY:
w. R. CAVERLY
/~\
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FOR TIME IN LIEU OF OVERTIME
BE RECOMMENDED '1'0 THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT
HOURLY RATED EMPLOYEES ON A TRIAL BASIS.
CARRIED."
The county's Winter Maintenance Programme VIaS discussed including standby.
The Engineer noted ~ha~ a tenta~ive agreement had been reached Vlith the
Emp1.oyees' Association to reduce the number of men on $~andby each weekend
from four (4) ~o three (3), with these three (3) to consis~ of a snowplow
opera~or, a wingman and a sander operator; and those employees that Vlere no~
on standby Vlould be designated as ~o who VIaS to be first called. This should
eliminate some of the complaints of the past.
The coun~Y' s proposed parking prohibition by-laVl VIaS discussed a~ some
leng~h. It was noted that there Vlere 50 sections of road on which parking
Vlould be prohibited and ~hese had all been discussed wi~h the respective
municipalities. The by-laVl was revieVled at some length and amended.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART'
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED l'ARKING BY-LAW BE
PASSED (AS 'AMENDED ) AND THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE BE ADOPTED.
CARRIED ."
The Engineer reviewed the 1983 programme noting ~hat in all likelihood
Provincial Subsidy Allocations Vlould probably be changed very li~tle from this
year.
Inasmuch as the county's Assessment YIOuld be higher than 1.as~ year the
county's share of the Road Programme Vlould likely be increased and ~he
ST. '\'1lOMAS, oN'l'AR10
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
'PAGE 6.
~inistl'Y of 'l'l'an$por~ation and COtn1l\unicatiOns $bare d.ecreased.
h 1d be oft set b~ an increased etfective contribution
thiS increase s oU J
trOm the city 01'. St. Tb()1lll\$ a$ the present city d.eficit Vlould be paid off
lloWeve-r,
tbi s yea-r.
11' VIas not known ~ether a SUQ1'le1l\ental'Y Drainage AS$essment By_LaVl
Vlou1.d be availab1.e and it VlaI3 e1CQected tbat the Coun~y Drainage
AS$essment Vlou1.d be in the orde1: of $80,000.00 in 1983.
The countY Vlould 1.ike1.y have to $uQP1.y tbe macbine renta1.s, supervision,
and material $ for any l'rovincia1. 01: l1edel'a1. 1ncentiVe progrgroIDe ~hat Vlou1d
be avai1.ab1e. 11' VIas 1.ike1.y that these progrgroIDes could be avai1ab1.e on
$hort notice ~bis ~inter Vlith ~he 1l\ain pl'oject being tree and bl'USb
clea-ring.
'!'here VIaS con$id.erab1.e bridge maintenance YIOr\<. tOr the Val1. and tbe S1'ring
but otber tban tree cutting very 1.itt1.e cou1.d be done in mid_YIinter.
11' VIaS un1.ike1.Y tbat a decision on the ~idd1.ewiSS Bridge replacement
Vlou1.d be made betore the end of the yea1: inasmucb a$ tbe countY 01'. Elgin and
~he Coun~y of ~idd1.e$e~ Road C()1l11l\ittee$' might have a n~bel' of cbange$.
1t VlaI3 unknown as to Vlhethel', Vlhen, or it, sanitary seVlel'S migh~ be
f h struc~ion 01'. county Roads
in$tal1ed in 1'01:1' BurVlell and woney 01' l' e recon
Vlou1.d have to be he1.d unti1. such time as a decision VIaS \<.nown.
Major const1:Uction 1'rojectS wou1.d be the completion of countY Road #32
t f ~~o~\<. on count~Road #22 (l1ai1:vieVl p.,venue), Y1itb Y1idening
and c()1l11l\encewen 0 ~. J
and Qaving on countY Road #3 betVleen 1<eVl c1.a$goVl and Rodney.
11' VlaI3 noted that vel'Y 1.itt1.e money had been $pen~ oU neVI equipment in
._ ~ n n,.Met wore moneY in 1983, particu1.ar1. y
It ~aS noted thal.. "'..= -
1 t' ~.....A 'Oa"jOUL. S
the neVI sick benetit sY$tem, p u$ re ~l'e'Qlen~' -
entitlement$ Vlould increase costS con$iderablY over tbose
in 1982.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
PAGE 7.
The Engineer noted that surface treatment work had been caught up in
\
1982 for the first time in a number of years.
In 1982 winter control was heavy but dust control had been light. The
edge marking progrannne had been carried on under supplementary funds and
it was not known whether or not supplementary funds would be available in
1983 for this purpose.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ADJOURN TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
CARRIED."
~A~ /f~~
V~ &AI~~ r
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
PROPOSAL FOR TIME IN LIEU OF OVERTIME
PROPOSAL FOR HOURLY RATED REGULAR ROAD DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
,(a) To be optional for any employee, however the employee would have
to commit themselves for the season (ie., Summer or Winter).
(b) Effective for any time over 5 hours (overtime) per pay;
ie., 7~ hours at regular pay (all accounting in hours).
(c) Time is banked and can be used for time off upon agreement of
management and employee.
Can only be used to make time up to a normal work day.
Ie., 7:30 to 5:00 p.m. ~ Monday to Thursday.
7:30 to 4:00 p.m. - Friday.
Cd) Time banked to be used prior to start of next season after time
accurr~lated; ie., Winter time for 1982 - 1983 season to be used
prior to December 1, 1983.
S'l'. TllOlMS, OmAR10
OCTOBER 20, 1982
'PAGE 1.
TllE COUN'l"l 011 E1.Gl1< ROAD cQMM1'l"l''''E me~ at the ~unicipal Bui1.ding a~
3:00 p.w., ~edne$daY, Oc~obel' 20, 1.982 in conjunc~ion Vlitb countY Council.
Al1. membe1:S Vlere pre$en~'
TllE m1Gl1<EER REl'ORTED ON 'l'llE ~ORR '1'0 DA'l'f. AS 1'0L1.oWS:
1.
Tbe $and base bad been c01l\1l1eted at the pj.rport, a trave1. coat of Cl'ushed
grave1. bad alsO been comp1.eted. A1'pro~iwatelY 4,,00 ton of crusbed grave1.
had been aQp1.ied to the ToYlUsbi1' of yarmoutb centre Road and concession Vll
Dil't moving bad been co1l\1l1eted e~cept for tVlO or tbree day' $ Vlor\<. ""bich
Vlould be done ..,hen the ground dried up.
'l'he stOrm drain bad been completed e~cept tOr tbe ca~cbQasins and tbe 72"
cu1.vert pipe had been e~tended.
'!'he ~op coat of crushed gravel ",as being ap1'1.ied by T.C.G. ~aterial$ 1.imi~ed
01'. LOndon, being ~be 1.oVlest of si~ quotatiOnS received ..,hicb Vlere as
-roadS.
attached.
A first bil1.ing had been made to ~be City of St. 'l'homas and paymen~
received in tbe gmount 01'. $1.01,000; tbe $econd bitting in tbe gmount 01'.
$58,000 had been bi1.1ed on '\'Uesday. 'l'be payment Vlould be e~ected Y1i~bin
the Vlee\<" A ~hird bi1.1ing Vlould be sent sbort1.Y.
Not a1.1 01'. ~be sand a~ ~he 1'1easant ValleY soutb l'it bad been used, a1.tbough
2.
all tbe s~ripQing bad been done.
l'eters 1\ro~hers ]'aving had paved tbe curb and gutte1: area at ~e1.1ing~on Road
and Roads IfS 2 and #29 and at 1\UrVleH' s Co1:ner s for Roads #14 and 1fl.6, and
had Q1.aced several pa~cbes on countY Road 1fS2 near ~be e~pressVlaY' 'l'be Vlork
at the e~resI3Vlay at Vlellington Road and Road #29 and Road 1fS2 Vlou1.d be Qaid
tOr by the ~inis~ry as par~ of tbe E~resI3VlaY l'roject.
Vlalms1. eY Br 0 s., bad cotup 1.e~ed paving on Road #28 and Road #20 in ]'ort 51' ant ey ·
Tbe ba$e coat Vlould be app1.ied to Road #32 on Thursday.
The $alt building at 1)Ut~on VIaS unde1:""ay.
~ino1: 1:epail'$ bad been made at tbe ~idd1.emiSS Bridge.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 20, 1982
PAGE 2.
Tenders for the paving at the Airport Runway Extension (H.L.8) were as
attached.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF WALMSLEY BROS. LIMITED AT THEIR TENDERED
PRICE OF $33,990.00 FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING AT THE ST. THOMAS AIRPORT
RUNWAY (H.L.8 BASE COURSE).
CARRIED."
Correspondence was read from Dyer, Brown, Solicitors for General Insurance
Corporation, insurers of the County of Elgin with regard to Stanat's claim on
Road #38. It was noted that Mr. Makins of the firm felt that someone from the
County had approached Mr. Stanat with a proposed settlement. None of the
Committee members knew of anyone who had been authorized to approach
Mr. Stanat with a proposal. The Engineer was instructed. to advise Mr. Makins.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT PAYLIST #54 AMOUNTING TO $182,187.22 BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
CARRIED."
The Engineer noted that as very little ~achinery had been purchased this
year and as savings had been made on several projects including the Walkers
Bridge and there were some projects fromtne, Airport job, it would be
financially possible to pave approximately 1.5 miles of road. It was
suggested that Road #20 north of Shedden be paved, and the present contract
of Walmsley Bros., Limited for work on Road #20 between Fingal and Shedden
be extended to cover this paving at the same unit price..
SECONDED BY: VI. R. CAVERLY
'J1\AT VlE rocrEND T11,1', CONTRACT OF VlAU'1S1..EY BROS. 1.1~lTED OF 'LONDON 110R
11.0'1' }i1lt ASl'llALT l'AVlNG ON ROAD #20 NOR'l'1:l OF SllEDDEN (Al'1'ROltlMATRLY 1.'
}i11.ES) p.,T T11.E sA11E m11T l'RICES AS 'l'1:lE1.R C01<TRAGr FOR l'AVl1<G 01< ROAD #20
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHA\N
BE'l'VlEEN 1l1NGAL AND SllEDDEN.
CARRTED. "
The Committee adjOUrned ~o meet 1<Ovember " 1.982.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 20, 1982
'PAGE 3.
~~~
.r::>
CHAIRMAN
October 13, 1982.
'?-I
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROADS DEPARTMENT
~
SUMMARY OF QUOTATIONS RECEIVED
GRANULAR 'A'
1. T.C.G. Materials,
P.O. Box 189,
London, Ontario N6A 4V7. --------------------------$ 3.55 per ton.
2. Alex Newbigging Limited,
R.R. # 1,
Delaware, Onto ------------------------------------$ 3.75 per ton.
3. South Winds Sand & Grave 1 Ltd.,
764 Wharncliffe Road South,
London, Ontario -----------------------------------$ 3.90 per ton.
4. V. W. Ruckle Construction Ltd.,
Brownsville, Ontario~NOL lCO. ---------------------$ 3.90 per ton.
5. Stebbins Paving & Construction Ltd.,
R.R. #4,
Thamesford, Ontario -------------------------------$ 4.45 per ton.
6. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd.,
P.O. Box 220,
Bothwell, Ontario ---------------------------------$ 4.48 per ton.
'~
~\
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEl'AR'l'MEN'J:
- - - --
- .--------
1:\0'1' MIX ASl'HALT PAV1NG 1:\.L.B 'fENDERS
---'~ ---
FOR THE S'f. THOMAS AIRl'ORT RuNWAY
- - -'~ - -
1.. Walmsley BroS. Limi~ed
R. R. #S
London, ontario
N6A 4C3
2. To~1.and (London) 1970 Lituited
F. o. BoX 2815
Station ' A'
London, ontario
N6A 4R4
r;
$33,990.00
$35 ,329 . 00
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
OCTOBER SESSION
1 9 8 2
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. A Contract has been let to Walmsley Bros., Limited of
London, Ontario at $101,307.50 being the lowest of four
bidders for Hot Mix Asphalt Paving on:-
(a) County Road 32 the remainder of the base course
between Highway 73 and the Police College Gate.
(b) Road 47, asphalt patching (spot) one mile south
of Avon and on Road 28 between Highway 3 and Elm
Street.
(c) Road 20, asphalt resurfacing in Port Stanley from
the Port Stanley School southerly.
(d) Road 20, asphalt resurfacing from the south limit
of Shedden southerly to complete the work between
Shedden and Fingal in Southwold Township.
2. Construction at the St. Thomas Airport continues, with
good weather most of the earth moving connected with the
west runway extension (1,800') should be completed this
Fall. Storm drain work and placement of granular base
continues.
3. Work continues on County Road 32 north of the Police
College entrance.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
"
~~)\\\~~
CHA:rRMAN "'----
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COU*TY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Elgin County Municipal
, ,
Building a,t 9:00 Cjl..:m., on October 1, 1982. All members except Reeve Kelly were present.
"MOVED :ijY: M. H. STEWART
SECOND~D BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT T~E MINUTES QF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 BE APPROVED.
CARRIED"
THE ENG~NEER REPORTED ON WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS STA~rING that
1. Earth moving ~ork was continuing at the St. Thomas Airport after being delayed
for a,pproximatj:e1y one week due to wet weather, but good progress was now being
made. Sand fill for the Airport was being obtained from the County's Pleasant
\l:all~y Pit and a service road to the Airport Runway from the Yarmouth Center
Road had beenicompleted and sand base for the Airport Runway was being placed.
Capital Equip~ent (Clark Equipment) had supplied a scraper, a loader and a
bulldozer. Otj:her equipment had been rented from Brent Strickland, Gus Porter and
the compactio~ equipment from Equipment Centre in St. Thomas. Elgin Construction
had not submitted any prices for equipment rental for the project as none of their
compaction eq~ipment was suitable nor did they have a suitable water truck.
Pipe quqtations had been put out and were as attached.
Storm d~ain installation was underway using pipe frrnn County stock.
It was ~xpected that with good weather, the runway portion of the Airportea~th
i~ would be move~ by the middle of next week.
2. County of Midc111esex Road Committee would inspect the Middlemiss Bridge in late
October. It ~ppeared that the Middlesex Committee felt that the bridge should
be replaced rather than repaired and the Engineer would meet with Middlesex
County Engineer shortly to try to set up temporary maintenance work. It was
not likely th~t further funds would be available under the Provincial Incentive
Programme alt~ough Mr. McNeil had not received a final reply from Mr. Claude
Bennett, Minister of Municipal Affairs. An application under the Federal
Incentive Programme had been made for bridge repair work.
3. Construction $urveys on Road 37 would be started shortly as boundary surveys
were underway +
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 2.
4. Alex Newbigging Limited was placing crushed gravel on Road 5 and would be done
early next week.
5. Road 32 had been cleaned up with some seeding done. The curb and gutter at
Concession VIII intersection would be left until next year as only asphalt base
pavement would be placed this year. It was hoped to have 1:he road paved wi thin
two weeks. Some grading work had been done north of the Police College Gate and
as soon as some of the earth was moved at the Airport grading work would be
started on Road 32 again. There was sufficient dry dirt a1: the Police College
that work could be continued even though wet weather might be encountered.
6. Work had been completed at Elm Street in Aylmer and at Ket1:le Creek bridges on
Roads 34 and 37. A considerable amount of clean up work had been done including
sloping at Fingal Hill (Road 16), topsoil work on Road 22, ditching at Wards
Hill (Road 38), slopes repair on Road 52 east of Kettle Creek, ditching for Albert
Gretig on Road 52, erosion control on Road 31 for Kenneth Carmichael and Tony
Delouw. Ditching on Road 36 at Fruit Ridge Road and for Mr. Kneilsen, ditching
on Road 45 for Larry VanAcker and for Cliff Bartlett.
7. Curb and gutter installation on Road 25 at Road 52 and Road 29 would be done next
week. Other work remaining included improvements to the Sot. George Street hill
(Road 26), L. Shaw driveway on Road 45 and improvements to the intersection of
County Road 30 at Concession XIII Yarmouth.
8. White edge marking had been completed and the M.T.C. supplementary subsidy spent.
Pavement marking for the City of St. Thomas had been compll9ted, some work remained
on County Roads to be done after paving has been completed.
9. Bridge painting at Fulton Bridge was continuing.
10. Asphalt patching on curb and gutter areas and pavement had been completed in
Dutton, Iona Station, Shedden and was underway in Fingal.
11.
The C.N.R. had removed the siding on Road 20 at Shamrock Chemicals on September
29th.
12.
It appeared that money might be saved on dust control and this could be put
towards additional asphalt resurfacing.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 3.
13.
Shoulder gravelling had been completed on Road 8 between Dutton and Wallacetown
as well as Road 45 in Yarmouth Township between Highway 4 and Road 36 and Road
45 between Road 36 and Highway 73 in Yarmouth and Malahide Townships would be
gravel shouldred this Fall.
14. Chittick Construction would come in to complete gravel crushing at the Pleasant
Valley Pit shortly.
15. All work other than curb and gutter and asphalt patching had been completed on
Roads 29, 52 and 26 for the M.T.C.
COMMITTEE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH Land Purchase on lRoad 8 south of Road 16
if at all possible to widen the road allowance so that the di"tches could be moved
back from the edge of the travelled road.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:
PAYLIST # 48 AMOUNTING TO $ 65,166.65
PAYLIST # 49 AMOUNTING TO $ 45,070.59
PAYLIST # 50 AMOUNTING TO $ 56,668.61
PAYLIST # 51 AMOUNTING TO $ 5.40
PAYLIST # 52 AMOUNTING TO $110,171.98
CARRIED"
.i,
HOT MIX TENDERS AS OPENED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND WARDEN WERE AS ATTACHED.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY,
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF WALMSLEY BROS., LIMITED AT $101,307.50
FOR ASPHALT PAVING ON COUNTY ROADS #32, #47,#28 AND #20.
CARRIED"
TENDERS RECEIVED FOR PIPE CULVERT required for the St. Thomas Airport
job were as attached.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 4.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD,
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY,
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,772.50 FOR 72" DIAMETER 5" x 1" CORRUGATED PIPE FOR THE ST. THOMAS
AIRPORT JOB.
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY: J. N. SMYTH,
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD,
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$8,837.44 FOR PERFORATED CULVERT PIPE FOR THE ST. THOMAS AIRPORT JOB.
CARRIED"
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS FROM:-
1. The Village of Port Stanley objecting to the removal of the siding to the
Shamrock Chemicals on County Road 20 from the L. & P.S. tracks. It was noted
that the siding was removed on Wednesday, September 29th, and the letter from
the Village of Port Stanley was not received until the 301:h of September.
2. The Village of Rodney with copy of letter from Constable Feenstra noting that
the visibility on Furnival Road (Road 3) was very poor whE~n vehicles were
parked near the intersection of Queen Street (Road 4). The Engineer was
instructed to add a portion of Road 3 at the intersection of Road 4 to the
County I S pr,oposed "No Parking" Bylaw.
3. Mr. Murray Abbott wishing to purchase a portion of Lot 137, N.T.R., Houghton,
owned by the County of Elgin. CU1Luui ttee noted that this lot was now heavily
treed and that value of the timber should be ascertained. The Engineer was
instructed to have the Ministry of Natural Resources make a timber appraisal
of the property so that the Committee could set a value on the property.
4. Mr. E. Stacey, Road 45, stating that at the present time he was not financia'lly
able to pay his share towards rectifying the drainage problem along the County
Road' and wondering if an arrangement could be made to put his share under the
Township taxes. Warden Shaw agreed to investigate.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 5.
5. Deputy Reeve Richard Haddow with information on salt use on roads in the United
States. The Chairman asked that the information be sent to all Road Conunittee
Members.
6.
Township of Yarmouth Conunittee of Adjustment application for Gary Robinson, Lot
20, Range 2, N.E.R., fronting on County Road 52. It was noted that the proposed
application would not affect County Road 52. The Engineer was instructed to
reply to the Township of Yarmouth.
7. The M.T.C. noting that Highway 3 between Eagle and Iona was being considered
for an asphalt resurfacing recycling project and forwarding plans of the proposed
intersection work at County Roads at Iona and Wallacetown for the County's
approval.
8. The Township of Yarmouth requesting that the County place two inches of granular
'A' gravel on Elm Street and the Yarmouth Centre Road being used for haul road
from the County's pit to the ~:t,. Thomas AiL'port Road and 'to replace the surface
'treatment at Highway 3 at Yarmouth Centre if it was damaged during haulage to
the Airport. CUlllJ.LLi ttee instructed the Engineer to write a letter to the Township
of Yarmouth stating that the road would be put back in as good a condition prior
to the Airport work after haulage was completed and that the road would be
maintained by the County and calcium chloride applied as necessary.
THE PROPOSED PARKING BYLAW was discussed and it was decided to review it
at length at the next meeting.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON winter maintenance operations for 1982-83 stating 1.
that with the building of the salt building in Dunwich which 'would start in the next
several weeks, nine sanders would be able to effectively sand County roads instead of
10 which was used in previous years, (one County truck having been sold as scrap last
Spring) .
2. Closer monitoring of the amount of salt used would occur (price of salt will be
10% more in 1982-83 than last year) .
3. Total hourly rated working staff would be reduced by 3 from 1981-82 and total
hourly staff on payroll reduced by 5 from 1981-82.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 1, 1982
PAGE 6.
4. The telephone answering service would again be used.
5. Two night men would rotate and cover Saturday and Sunday daytimes as well as night.
'6. Several of the operators would be used to assist mechanics as necessary.
7. The standby system would be modified to place snowplowing partners together
on the same standby shift and a rotating basis used so that all operators and
superintendents know whose turn it was to be called in if more than one crew
were needed.
8. Discussions had been held with the Union ataff to discuss "time in lieu of
overtime" . CU.LLULLi ttee agreed that discussions should be continued and if a
system could be worked out final approval would be required from Road Committee
and Personnel Committee.
ARNOLD MILLIGAN, A CLASS 5 FOREMAN would alternate 'with the Superintendents
on weekend standby.
IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MONEY AVAILABLE in the Budget, Walmsley Bros.,
Limited hot mix asphalt contract should be extended for hot mix paving between
Shedden and Highway 401. This should be discussed at the next Road CU.LLULli ttee
meeting (October 20).
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART,
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH,
THAT WE ADJOURN TO 9:30 A.M., NOVEMBER 5, 1982.
CARRIED"
~\\..)\~~
CHAIRMAN
'~.
C 0 U N T Y 0 F E L GIN
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT No. 3
FOR
",
MIDDLEMlSS BRIDGE
over the Thames River
at boundary between the
Counties of Elgin & Middlesex
Elgin County Road No. 14
Middlesex County Rqad No. 9
R. C. DUNN & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
747 HYDE PARK ROAD,
SUITE #203,
LONDON, ONTARIO
August 1982
Section
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT No. 3
CON TEN T S
MAP
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXISTING STRUCTURE (1936)
STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION
PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUC:TURE
a) - Supporting Sub-Structure
b) - Waterway Opening
c) - South Abutment Stability
d) - Concrete Conditions of the Pier Caps
e) - Deck Concrete Replacement
f) - Structural Steel Restoration
g) - upgrading the Structure
ESTIMATED COSTS
COUNTY ROAD NEEDS STUDY
TIMING
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
Drawing No. 1 - General Plan and Elevation,
Drawing No~ 2 - Structural Appraisal
Page No.
-i-
-i-
1-2
2
2
3-4
4-5
5
6
7
7
8
8-10
10-11
11
11-12
COUNTY OF ELGIN
MIDDLEMISS BRIDGE
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT No. 3
SUMMARY
The results of the updated Maintenance Inspection Survey
are reported.
The bridge, built in 1936, has reached a point of deter-
ioration such that major decisions must be made~.
Since the 1975 report:-
- the posted Ibad limit has been reduced from 20 tons
to 18 tons;
the south approach span deck requires t'ep1acement now;
- the south bank of the waterway opening is showing greater
signs of scour, by the Thames R~ver;
- the resurfaced pier caps (in 1977) which was only a
"holding action"; are showing signs of distress
indicating that deterioration is continuing.
The major alternatives are:-
- Replace the structure at an estimated cost of $2,000,000.00.
- or Repair the structure for an estimated cost of $435,OOn.no.
These repairs would then extend the useful life of the
bridge for, say, 15 to,20(+) years before replacement
is nece~sary.
It is recommended that a decision be madE:~ to proceed with
the Engineering work and preparation of plans for one of the
alternatives as soon as possible due to the critical condition
oithe present structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In arriving at the final interpretations of the present
site conditions and recommendations in this report, it is
acknowledged that much thought, discussion and advice has
been contributed by Mr. K. L. Kleinsteiber, P. Eng., Municipal
Structural Engineer, Bridge Office, Ministry of Transportation
and CO.uuuunicatione, Toronto, Mr. R. G. Moore, P. Eng., Elgin
County Engineer and Mr. D. H. Husson, P. Eng., ~iddlesex
County Engineer. .
- i -
~CT~
for the
MIDDLEMISS BRIDGE ON ROAD ~14
1) ~
In 1975, R. C. Dunn & Associates Li~it$d, consulting
EngineerS, were retained to inspect.tl1iS bridge tl1oroUgl1-
lY and present a maintenance progral!\ll\e to be followed
to keep tl1e bridge safe for itS legal lOads bY repairing
tl1e deteriorations tl1at l1ad taken place and tl1us extend
tl1e useful time expectancy of tl1e bridge for another 15
to 20 years. Report No.1 waS made at tnat time, (Dec.
1975) .
In 1977, certain minor repairs afil recol!\ll\ended in
Report NO.1, .were. made. Tl1ese were con€lidered a "nold-
ing action" onlY and did not strengtnen tl1e €ltructure.
NO furtl1er work naS been done on tl1efiltructure eltCept for
deck patcning, removal of tne soutn span rail:\.ngs ano.
installatiOn of temporary steel be~ guio.e rails,
since 1981, the soutn €lpan deck slabhafil deteriorated
to €luch an elttent, that weeklY inspections are warranted
to ensure nO portions are collapsing. AS a result of
thiS condition of the south span deck, in JulY 1981, R.
C. Dunn & AssociateS Ltd. were directed to "ascertain
whether or not the load limit on the Middle~isS Bridge
could be removed if a neW concrete o.eck was placed on
the deck in conformance witl1 the neW Bridge code".
BY January 1982, the structural appraisal of tne
elt:\.sting conditions of the bridge had been co~pleted,
presenteo. to M.T.C. Bridge Office and approval of the
appra:\.sal obtained. This appraisal deter~ined that to
replace the concrete ded< and repair the deteriorated
structural steel to ~e 1936 "as-~ilt" sta~aro. would
still re€lult in post~ lo~ li~its of 22-28-32 tOnneS
for the 3 levelS. However, witl1 certain alterations -
'reinforcementS to the tru€lS and approach spans, the
brio.ge coulo. be posted as a "one Lane Bridge" without
load limits.
ThiS report can be broken down into three partS'-
_ The structural Evaluation - appraisal of the
bridge in itS eltisting conditionsl
_ The update of the previOUS Inspection ReportS,
outlining the deteriorated conditions with the
recol!\ll\ended necessary work, with cost estimates,
required to restore the bridge to its original
carrying capacity and thiS elttend t~e useful life
eltpectancy for another 15 to 20 year€ll
- 1 -
1) INTRODUCTION" cont' d. .
- The strengthening of the structure from the 1936
Standards to the 1980 Ontario Highway Bridge
Design Code Standards for a one lane bridge.
The details of this work are also presented with
estimated costs.
2) EXISTING STRUCTURE (1936)
The existing structure was built in 1936. It con-
sists of two northerly approach spans, a main 151 foot
truss span and a single span at the south approach, for
a total length of 313 feet. At that time, the existing
stone piers for the main truss supports, built in 1890,
were considered adequate except for the top 15 feet which
were replaced to suit the new superstructure. The 1936
bridge floor was 4 feet higher than the previous bridge
floor..
The bridge was located as a square cross.ing over the
river in the middle of a sharp 180 degree river bend.
The south pier was protected with steel sheet piling,
added in 1932. Rip rap was added at the base at that
time and also, in the 1975 to 1980 period.
Flo'od relief f9r the bridge is provided by the north
approach road across the river flats which is depressed
approximately 8 feet lower than the high water levels
recorded for maximum floods of the past.
3) STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION
The existing conditions of the Middlemiss Bridge have
been examined and the various members have been checked
structurally according to the New 1980 Ontario Highway
Bridge Design Code. The safe load carrying capacities
of the bridge were governed by the most deteriorated
section of the structure, namely the south approach span.
Thus the controlling present condition Bridge posting
was established to be "18-24-30 tonnes for the 3 levels,
for a One Lane Bridge".
By renovating, rep~iring and restoring the structure
to its 1936 "as-builtff condition, the safe load carrying
capacities would increase to a Bridge posting of "22-28-32
tonnes for the 3 levels, One Lane Bridge".
Further structural analysis was carried out which con-
firmed that it is possible to strengthen the superstructure
sufficiently to carryall legal load limits without re-
strictions. Please refer to Drawing 12 entitled "Struct-
ural Apprai~al" appended to this report.
- 2 -
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
The 1975 and 1977 Maintenance Reports gave written
and pictorial descriptions of the existing conditions
of various parts of the structure. The November 1981
Interim Report and the Structural Appraisal presentation
provided additional records of the existing conditions.
These details are not repeated in this report. The
following paragraphs of this section are supplementary
to the above mentioned reports and are explanatory to
the items as listed in the Estimated Costs to restore
the existing structure. It should be noted, as the
reader proceeds in this report, how interrelated the
major repair items are to each other and thus the im-
portance of completing all the repairs-restorations
during the same construction programme.
a)- Supporting Sub-Structure
Before one can consider the expense of repairing
and extending the life of the superstructure~ one
must be satisfied that the substructure will continue
to give support and withstand the annual action of
the Thames River, as it flows through the waterway
opening.
The supporcing soil conditions have been adequate
up to the present time. There are no signs of
differential settlement between the various com-,
ponents of the substructure. The elevations and
grades confor~ to the 1936 drawings. The closing
of the expansion joints provided is considered
normal. No major signs of distress are apparent
that can be related to soil conditions. Therefore,
continuing soil support of the renewed bridge can
be expected. (Confirmation of this opinion will be
made~ Refer to south abutment stability item follow-
ing) .
The major sub-structure problems are:-
- the action of the Thames River in the Waterway
opening:
- the south abutment stability;
- the concrete condition of the pier caps.
These major problems and solutions are discussed
in greater detail following this general item.
- 3 -
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTJ.:NG sTRucroruRE, con t 'd. .
a} - Supporting Sub-Structure, cont'd...
In order to extend the life of this bridge for
15 to 20(+) years, it is proposed to restore the
pier caps, stabilize the south abutment and south
slope, install modern bearing plates for support
and re-establish the expansion joints with a new
deck. In short, it is proposed to provide a re-
novated sub-structure to carry a re-set and renewed
supe.rstructure.
b) -Waterway Opening
Since 1936, the Thames River main channel through
the bridge opening has moved southward and the north
side of the b~idge opening has filled in, as in-
dLcated on the cross-sections. (See Drawing il).
The south pier was protected against SCOUr by
steel sheet piling driven in 1932 with concrete fill
added against the pier and by stone rip rap in the
channel. Because of the southward movement with
increased scour action, additional rip rap ~a$ been
pl,aced in the 1975-1980 period.
Scour acti;n has taken place between the south
pier and the old abandoned concrete abutment (1917)
to the extent that this old abutment is tilting
forward - toward the river and is no loriger giving
horizontal support to the south abut:.ment. (More
will be discussed later concerning the stab~lity of
the south abutment) .
In discussions with the M.T.C. BJridge Office
Officials, it is agreed that the south pier and "em-
bankment should be protected agains"t further scouring
by extending the south pier rip rap protection
further upstream and the slope betwl3en the south pier
and south abutment should be reshaped and protected
with gabion rip rap. In addition, .the north bank
should be dredged up and downstream from the bridge
opening (approxim~tely 1200 feet) to the 1936 cross-
section in order to provide an adequate, equivalent
waterway opening which would reduce the south side
scour action.
If this Maintenance Programme is adopted, a
thorough hydrological study will be made of the river
action on the above noted changes, at flood times,
coupled with the known relief over the north road
- 4 -
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, cont'd..
b) - Waterway Opening,cont'd...
approach. This study, in co-operation with the
M.T.C. Bridge Office Hydrology Section, is as
necessary to ensure the adequate protection of
the present structure for its expected continued
life as it would be for a new ~rossing nearby.
In the estimates, this phase has been broken
down to show the south pier upstream protection,
the south bank reshaping and protection, and the
north side river channel dredging costs.
c) - South Abutment Stability
Upon examination of the 1936 plans and as shown
on the cross-section provided, one can see that
Engineer Fred Bell was using the old 19l7abutment
as support for the new south abutment against
horizontal dead and live loadings. The south abut-
ment consists of a horizontal concrete shallow
beam bearing seat with a ball~st wall, supported
at each end by a pedestal founded on vertical
c+eosoted timber piles.
10
Scouring in front of the 1917 abutment has
undermined it and it has tipped forward. This
has become more apparent in the past two years.
Thus, it no longer provides horizontal support
for the south abutment.
At the south abutment, it will be necessary to
stabilize it by driving steel batter piles (4) to
underpin each pedestal. In preliminary discussions
with Golder Associates, Soil Consultants, these
piles will be approximate 90 feet long. Ballast
wall sub-drainage will also be installed. An
approach slab will be installed to alter the live
loadings and reduce the horizontal thrusts against
the abutment structure. An approach slab at the
north abu tment wi).l be installed, likewise.
Soil Investigation - The stabilization of the
south abutment is based on present soil information
available. If this maintenance programme is adopted,
then two soil investigation bore hole$ should be
taken to confirm the methods planne~d; one borehole
between the south pier and abutment~ and one south
of the south abutment. A third borehole through
the south pier footing protection should also be
made ~o confirm the stability and integrity of the
south pier.
- 5 -
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.' cont'd..
d) - Concrete Conditions of the Pier Caps
In 1977, the County of Elgin forces chipped and
"repaired" the deteriorating concrete of the pier
caps. It was noted in a report at that time that
the minor repairs and patches did not strengthen
the structure, but should be considered as a holding
action against further deterioration for a period of
time.
In the Spring, 1982, Construction Control Ltd.,
a concrete inspection company, experienced in old
concrete structures examinations, were retained I to
investigate the condition of the concrete forming
the pier caps. This was necessary to enable an
evaluation to be carried out of the supporting pier
caps to determine how best to restore the caps to a
sound and durable condition.
Briefly, from the cores and samples 'taken, Con-
struction Control reported "that the concrete forming
the cap to each of the piers consists of an outer
layer of variable thickness of badly fractured
"weathered" concrete underlain by generally sound
hard concrete containing some cracks". Construction
Control also 'recommend that "In the event it is
decided that the restoration of the pier capa is
potentially an acceptable solution then consideration
should be given to the removal of one larger diameter
core from each pier cap to confirm the initial find-
ings detailed in this report".
As a result of this report, an earlier proposal,
of a complete "girdle" of the piers, has been
modified to the replacement of the deteriorated
shouiders of the pier caps w~th adequate anchorages
into the existing sound main stern concrete of each
pier.
In discussion, Construction Control's Mr. T.
Alexander pointed out that the "weathering" con...
'dition Of the surface concrete will continue to
deteriorate in the pier caps. The repairs con...
templated apply to the conditions now. With delays,
a more elaborate method of repairs can be expected.
However, imrninen t collapse is not forec.ast, inunedia te
repair is not necessary if the structure is to be
replaced in the next year or two.
- 6 -
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUC'TQRE.' cont' d. .
e) - Deck Concrete Replacement
The south approach span concrete deck has badly
deteriorated with the north two approaohspans
developing similar problems. The e:Kpansion.joints
were freed several years ago, but are a source of
continuing maintenance as the supporting concrete
deteriorates. The concrete de~k on the truss span
is sound with weathered edges where the curbs have
been removed.
Replacement of the total length lOf concrete deck-
ing at one time is recorrunended sincle it would cause
only one bridge closing during one construction
season. The restoration of all the deteriorated
structural steel sections can be done for the full
length also resulting in a renewed load capacity
for the entire bridge.
With the neW concrete deck, new deck drains,
expansion joints, curbs, barrier walls and approaches
would be installed.
At the time of deck replacement, when the old
ccincrete has been removed, the structural steel
frames can be" raised by hydraulic j1acks such that
the pier concrete shoulder caps Can be replaced.
At the same time, new bearings would. be installed
to ensure proper expansion and contraction of the
structures for the anticipated extended time.
(The bearings cost $4,500.00 and this is the best
and cheapest time for their installation).
f) - Structural Steel Restoration
The lightweight steel stringers af the approach
spans are badly corroded, especially at the main
supports. At the time of the deck replacement,
the majority of these steel stringers will require
replacement. The exterior stringers of the truss
,span will also require replacement. Several of the
main girders and floor beams have d,eteriorated to
the extent that steel plates will have to be welded
to their flanges to restore them to their original
strength.
After this steel restoration, all steel members
will require priming and painting after the removal
of all rust scale and peeling paint by sandblasting.
- 7 -
,/'"~
4) PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUC'TURE, cont'd..
g) - Upgrading the Structure
The existing structure has been examined and a
structural evaluation of the present conditions
established. (18 tonnes, single loading).
The revised structural evaluation of the restored
bridge to its original "as-built" conditions has
also been reported. (22 tonnes, single loading).
The original bridge was designed using the 1936
traffic loadings for 2 lanes. The latest standards
use heavier traffic loadings per lane. However,
this bridge is now considered a "onle lane bridge".
This results in many of the truss span members,
which were designed for the original 2 lane loadings,
are now capable of carrying the heavier single lane
loads-of todays standards.
The Middlemiss Bridge superstructure can be
strengthened to meet the New Ontario Highway Bridg~
Design Code for a "one lane bridge" with the follow-
ing changes:- (Refer to Drawing #1)
- 3 diagonpl members at each corner and the bottom
chords of the truss span to be strengthened;
- the new decks to be constructed. for composite
action with the steel stringers, beams and
girders.
The estimated cost for this strengthening work is
$45,000.00.
One might question the strengthening of the
structure above the capacity for which it was
originally designed. However, in light of the few
changes and small increase in costs, it would be
prudent to insure against overloads which are known
to use this bridge even with posted load limits.
With the strengthening of the structure, load limits
would not be posted.
5) ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs are based upon recent prices
tendered for the work considered (1982).
The estimated costs are separated into two parts.
Part 11- The costs of the work required to restore
the bridge to the 1936 stan~ards in order
. to extend the life expectanby for 15 to 20
years before replacement.
- 8 -
5) ESTIMATED COSTS, cont'd..
Part 2 - The additional costs of strengthening the
superstructure to carry 1982, !eg~l loads
without a load limit on the structure for
the same extension of useful life.
PART 1 - RESTORATION TO 1936 CONDITION
1) Waterway Opening
a) South bank scour protection
b) North bank dredging, reshaping
2) South Abu~ent Stabilization
3) Repair Concrete Pier Caps
4) Structural Steel Restoration
5) Concrete Work
- Removal of existing concrete
- ~ew concrete decks, curbs, barrier walls
1>
- Approach slabs and ballast walls
- Reinforcing Steel
- Miscellaneous iron, posts, rails,
drains, joints
6) Painting - including cleaning and
sandblasting
7) Site Grading - drainage
8) Miscellaneous Costs
- Soil investigation (south bank)
- Additional pier coring
- County forces
- Engineering
9) Contingencies - 5%
SUB-TOTAL - PART 1
- 9 -
$ 23,400.00
$ 41,400.00
$ 24,700.00
$ 27,300.00
$ 49,700.00
$ 17,720.00
$ 51,000.00
$ 8,200.00
$ 16,800.00
$ 20,600.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 7,000.00
$ 7,000.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 33,700.00
$ 18,600.00
$ 880.00
$390,000.00
(\
5) ESTIMATED COSTS, cont'd..
PART 2 - STRENGTHENING TO 1980 STANDARDS
1) Falsework - Shoring for composite
beam action
$ 8,000.00
2) Weld stud connectors to structural
steel for composite action with
concrete
$ 14,400.00
3) Strengthening truss members to
carry added loads
$ 15,300.00
$ 5,000.00
4) Engineering and miscellaneous costs
5) Contingency
$ 2,300.00
SUB-TOTAL - PART 2
$ 45,000.00
$390,000.90
SUB-TOTAL - PART 1
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
RESTORATION AND UPGRADING
$435,000.00
6) COUNTY ROAD NEEDS STUDY
The Middlemiss Bridge (formerly McIntosh) is
Structure No. 6 in the County of Elgin Road Needs
Study. (M.T.C. Site No. 45 and Middlesex courity No.
139) .
The 1980 A.A.D.T. traffic count is 630 vehicles
for the County road served by this bridge -, river
crossing. .
In the Appraisal Sheets of the Roaq Needs Study,
this .tructure is considered critically deficient on
two counts; the present roadway width of 19 feet is
below the tolerable 22 foot width of bridge required
for the traffic volume served, and the waterway is
considered deficient since the north approach is
flooded annually at high river flows giving relief to
the bridge waterway opening.
- 10 -
~..~
6)
7)
COUNTY ROAD NEEDS STUDY, cont'd..
For a simple Thames River square crossing, one
can refer to the Walker Bridge built downstream in
1981-82 for a total cost of $1,300,000.00. Considering
the Middlemiss Bridge site, 1983-84 costs~ more
elaborate vertical and horizontal alignments, higher
design standards due to traffic volume anticipated,
$2,000,000.00 is considered a conservative estimate
for anew crossing at this site.
TIMING
"TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE"
a) - Maintenance Repair Programme
If the repair progranune were to be adopted,
then it would be wise to plan on th€~ construction
programme for the Spring-Summer of 1983. To delay
longer, only increases the deterioration of the
concrete pier caps, structural steel and continued
spot repairs on the deck and at the same time in- .
creases the repair problems with increased costs.
b) - Replacement Programme
As noted ur\der "Concrete Conditions of the Pier
Caps", imminent collapse is not expE~cted so that
immediate repairs are not required if the bridge
is to be repl~ced soon. Thus, if a 3 year replace-
mentprogramme were adopted, construction could
start in late 1983, with completion by the fall of
1984 and final payment in 1985. During this time,
the old structure could be maintainE~d as a "11mi ted
load" detour until traffic could be rerouted onto
the new structure.
8) CONCLUSIONS
In 1975, a report was presented in which certain
minor repairs were to be made after which it was
'estimated that the Road Authorities would have 2 - 5
years to consider the major alternatives - repair or
replace. It is now 7 years since the first report.
It is beyond the terms of reference of this report
to discuss the merits of a new bridge VB. 15 to 20 more
years with a repair~d old, deficient bridge, traffic
patterns, the counties' overall needs, finances~ etc.
This report does give the Road Authorities the estimated
costs of the two alternatives.
- 11 -
r
NMW/vm
8)
CONCLUSIONS, cont'd..
The repairs-restoration of this bridge have been
detailed in this report and are all consi4erednecessary
to extend the useful life of the bridge for 15 - 20(+)
years before replacement is required. As a safety
measure, the additional strengthening of the super-
structure is recommended to allow all prE~sent day
licensed loads to use the structure since we know that
they now do, even when it is posted., ThE~ total estima ted
costs for this major maintenance repair, restoration and
strengthening is $435,000.00.
The replacement cost for comparison is $2,000,000.00.
The condition of this structure has reached the
critical stage where major decisions and directions have
to be made. The choices are: - Repair? or
Replace?
It is imperative that a choice be made soon, so that
the detailed design and drawings can be completed for the
construction commencing in possibly next year's con-
struction season. (1983).
.....~
,')f F ss 10/,/
~'- , . --Y<
~:s\
f!.; , z
i '- '(I F)'\IER [1'\;
!;~ I\J. ~J.. \\ n ",) '4 In: "
) I'"
~, ,~ \'" '- /J"p,
'" ,,-
\ ." '...... "i'" .J
',," ........... , '/'
"\, c't.-/t"Cf ,)f c"/
.~.,.,'--~, __","w_'-
R. C. DUNN & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
I \ \
L~UUJ'-V. (L~,v-J
N. M. Warner, P. Eng.,
- 12 -
ST. THOMAS~ ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9~ 1982
PAGE L.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Elgin County Municipal
Building at 9:30 a.m., September 9,1982. All memberswe~re present. Also
present was Mr. Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transport.ation and CVlLuuunications,
the Engineer and the Assistant Engineer.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1982 BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications had approved the County's
application for supplementary funds in the amount of $25,000 for safety
items. The Engineer stated that sufficient white pai.nt had been ordered .to
bring the total expenditure on white lining on County and Suburban roads
to $27,500 ($25,000 subsidy), this work would start shortly.
2. The Provincial Incentive money had been all spent as of the end of August.
Although an additional application had been made and Mr. Ron McNeil
contacted, no further information was available with regard to the approval
of it. The Committee still felt that every effort should be made to keep
the employees working and that the programme should be changed if
necessary.
3. The grades for the sanitary sewer for Strachan StreE!t in Port Burwell have
been checked and it was found that although they had been raised they would
not be raised sufficiently to interfere with the County's storm sewer design.
The Engineer stated that it appeared that there could be no storm sewer
work prior to the completion of the sanitary sewers.
4. Surface treatment for Lambton County had been completed.
5. Road #8 between Dutton and Wallacetown had been completed except for gravel
reshouldering which would be done next week.
ST. Tll()l,jAS, ONTp.,R10
SE'P'tBMBER 9, 1982
'PAGE 2.
6.
cu'tb and guttel' and aspba1.t Qatching l'epail'$ had been coIDpleted in
7.
~est LO'tne and "",'te unde'tVlay in j)Ut~on.
A con$idel'able numbe't 01'. mi$Ce1.1aneoUs d'tainage 1''tojectS bave been
comQ1.eted inc1.uding a neVI catcbbasin on the cope1.and Drain on county
Road #5" neal' the shaVl p'topel't y, and the Vlinte't' s dl' ainage sy ste1ll
intO the ~inte1: Drain on centennia1. Avenue (COuntY Road #28) nea't
8.
1:\igh1Nay #3.
CountY Road #37 bad been ,.idened east of Belmont ",itb wO$t 01'. the dil't
being ~aken t1:0m the sbou1.de't Vlest of Belmont.
f,a'ttb bad been cleaned out unde't the G1.enco1.in lI1:idge and Vlould Qe
1.eve1.1.ed 01'.1'. as soon a$ 1<orID Broo\<.s ~ook otf hi$ c'toP$.
The ",1.m St'teet Bridge in Aylme't VIas being c1.eaned ou~.
The Rettie creek 13ddgeS on countY Road ff34 and county Road #37 neal'
Be1.mont ,.ould a1.$O be cleaned out ",ithin tbe next seve'ta1. dayS.
county g'tade'tS Vle'te Vlo'tking on ditching on county Roads #29 and #52
to't tbe ~ini$tl'Y 01'. 'j'1:ansQo'ttation and C01D\llunications. 11' ap1'ea'ted
tbat ve'tY 1.it~le boe ,.o'tk Vlould be 'tequi'ted and mO$t VlO1:k Vlou1.d be
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
done ",itbtbe g'tade't$.
11' VIaS e,q:>ected that mino't ditcbing jobS ",itb g'tadel'$ Vlould be caUgb~
up by the midd1.e of ne"t Vlee\<'. Tbe comQletiOn of othe1: swal1 jobS
Vlould be pu'tsued ",i~hin tbe ne><t ~,.o (2) Vlee\<.s, inc1.uding ditching
on l'inga1. llil1, tOp $oil. on Road #22, the ",idening of county Road #26
(St. Geo'tge St'teet llil1), and ~be in~e'tsection of countY Road #30 and
14.
" c u ty Road #32 tVlO (2) pl'ecast conc'tete cul"e't~s
Vlo'tk VIaS cont~nu~ng on 0 n '
bad been ins~alled and sand base VIas continuing nea't ~he concession'l111
co'tne't. 11' VIas e,q:>ected tbat most of tbe g'tanu1.a't Vlo'tk ,.ould be
CoIDpleted by tbe midd1.e 01'. ne~t Vlee\<. and mos~ td.1D\Iling ,.o'tk ,.ould be
comQ1.eted Y1itbin the Vlee\<.. ~01:\<. Vlou1.d s~al't no'tth of tbe 1'01ice
college Gate to the 9th Conce$$iOn as soon a$ possible Y1itb ditcbing
done as soon as the countY g'tadel'S bad comQ1.eted othe't ~al1. p'toject$.
concesSion XIII.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 3.
1.'. Gra$$ cu~ting had been co1l\Pleted.
16. The GilletS Bridge had been 1'ainted above the deck and Vlork VIas
1. 7. Grave1. shouldering would be done on days Vlhen it VlaI3 ~oo wet ~o move
proceeding on the FUl~on Bl'idge.
18. calci~ chloride had been apQUed to countyRoa>;ls #37, #43 and #32 in
dirt.
the Qast several ;reeks. 11' appeared tbat ~hel'e Vlere nO dust prob1.emS
1. 9 . Tbe Canadian National Rail Vlay had been contac ~ed with r egar d to ~he
on the rest of the roads.
removal of the siding into Shamrock Chewical$ in 1'0rt s~anley and
said that they Vlou1.d do thiS Vlithin the next several Vleeks.
20. The ~arren Street pier had been pa~ched.
21.. The Land surveyor had finisbed his outside work on Road #8 betVleen
DUtton and ~allacetOYltl and Road #5 at ~he ~alkers Bridge.
UMOVED BY:
J
M. R. STEWART
SECONDED BY' ~. R. CAVER!. Y
THAT TllE FOLLOW1NG PAYL1STS BE Al'l'ROVED 110R l'AYMENT'
l' A YL1 ST #42 1IMQ\JN'l'1NG TO $61.,493. 67
l'AYL1ST #44 1IM0UN'l'1NG '1'0 $1.,224.6'
PAYL1ST #45 1IM0UNT1NG '1'0 $61,38,.30
l'AYL1ST #46 1IM0UNT1NG '1'0 $58,000.94
l'AYL1ST #47 1IM0UNT1NGTO $307,396.0'
CARRIED ."
"MOVED B'l' J. N. sMYTH
SECONDED B'l' ~. R. STEWART
'\'RAT 'l'1:lE ENG1NEER BE AUTHOR1ZED '1'0 MARE Al'l'L1CAT10N '1'0 TRE ~lN1STRY
OF TRANSl'ORTAT10N AND coMMUN1CA'l'10NS FOR 1NTER1M SUBS1DY PAYMENT.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 4.
Correspondence was read from the City of St. Thomas.
,~
"Moved by:
Seconded by: Kennedy (Of the council of ~he City of S~. Thomas)
Lang
Au~horizing ~he engagemen~ of the County of Elgin to under~ake
cons~ruc~ion of ~he runVlay ex~ension and re1a~ed works a~ ~he
St. Thomas Municipal Airport.
Carried. "
After discussion · · ·
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS TO UNDERTAKE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENSION, WE DO
SO ON A TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS WITH THE CITY TO BE BILLED IN
THE USUAL MANNER.
CARRIED.tl
The Engineer repor~ed ~hat he had heard no~hing further from ~he
insurance company with regard to Stana~, although he understood that
negotia~ions were taking place to resolve the matter.
The committee agreed to place tVlin 36" pipes in ~he ditch in fron~ of
the property of Dolores Beer on County Road #45 near Coun~y Road #36 for
approximately 100 fee~, inasmuch as the ditch was eroding and creating a
hazard to the property and the present ditch tine could not be main~ained
properly.
)~
The Engineer reported that Mr. Frank Clarke and ~ had vieVled
)
Highway #3 east and wes~ of S~. ThomaS. Both bridges were badly in need
of cleaning ou~ and stream diversions; also ~he road VIas in need of
resurfacing. Mr. Clarke sta~ed tha~ he had reported ~his ~o his superiors
and was wai~ing for fur~her information for the next Road committee mee~ing.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 5.
QUota~ions Y1ere as at~ached for gravel resurfacing on Coun~y Road #5.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE QU()'\'ATION OF ALEX NEWBIGGING LIMITED BE ACCEPTED FOR THE
SUl'PLY AND PLACEMENT OF GRANULAR · A' GRAVEL ON ROAD #5 AT THEIR
QUOTED PRICE OF $3.58 PER TON.
CARRIED."
QUota~ions were as attached for structural plate culvert for culver~
on County Road #28 (McCallum Drain).
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LIMITED AT $6,198.83
(INCLUDING l'ROVINCIAL SALES TAX) FOR THE SUPPLY OF 82 FEET OF
90 IN CH STRUCTURAL pLATE PIPE, F. 0 · B., WllITE STAn ON GARAGE
(UNASSEMBLED) ·
CARRIED."
QUo~a~ions Vlere as attached for building ma~erials for the salt
bui1.ding on the DUnVlich Township prpperty in Du~ton.
"MOVED BY:
J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
tHAT THE QUOTATION OF DUTTON BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED, DUTTON,
ONTARIO, FOR THE BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE NEW SALT SHED
LOCATED IN DUTTON IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,316.03 BE ACCEl'TED.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 6.
quotations for 10 inch, 36 inch and 42 inch pipe were as attached.
ttMOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED By:L. ~,. SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTA'l'10N OF ARMCO CANADA LIMITED AT $4,223.33
FOR 10 INCH, 36 INCH, AND 42 INCH PIPE.
CARRIED."
The possibility of a grant from the canada Community Deve10Qmen~
project was discussed and i~ VIas noted tha~ $403,000 had been a110ca~ed
in the Coun~y of Elgin. The Commit~ee felt that every effort should be
made to make an application under this programme.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME
SUBJECf TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. From the County of Middlesex Engil).eer stating that the coun~y of
Midd1esex's position had no~ changed with regard to surveying on
Road #37 betYleen Avon and Highway #73. The Engineer VIas instructed
to proceed with surveying before construction on the road whenever
a survey party was available.
2. From the Minis~ry of Transportation and communications with approval
of a SUQP1emen~ary Subsidy of $25,000 for safety related items.
3. From the Ministry of Transportation and Communica~ions, Regional
Director regarding proposed improvement$ on Highway #4 from Union
to por~ S~an1ey. The Engineer VIas ins~ructed ~o send copies of this
to the Village of 1'0rt S~an1ey and ~he Township of Yarmouth.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 7.
4. From ~he Region of lla1.ton Y1i~h a copY of theil' brief to the provincial
Cabine~ asking that the consolida~ed Rearing Board's decision to make
a portion of the RighVlay #401 corridor a study area for hydro
transmisSion ~oVlers be overturned by the cabinet.
5. A Zoning By-LaVl from ~he Village of port s~anley rezoning property on
6. From ~he toYlU$hip of Yarmou~h Vlith a notice of winor variance application
Main s~-ceet for tisbing use.
on Road #27 to alloVl l'eter voskamP to build his greenhOuse closer to the
side ya-cd than alloVled by the by-laVl.
Repairs to the ~iddlemiss Bridge f1.oo-c ~ere diSCUssed Y1ith i~ being
noted ~hat a repor~ of the consultan~ had been previous1.Y sent to all
members of the committee.
After diSCUssion · · ·
"MOVED BY:: L. J. SMVl
SECONDED BY: J. N. sM'l'l'R
1'l:lAT WE REcOMMEND TO 1'l:lE ~IDD1.ESEX couNTY ROp.,D COMMITTEE 1'l:lAT WE
REl'LACE 1'l:lE ~IDDLEMISS BRiDGE.
CARRIED ."
schedule VIas gone tb-cough item by item and approved. The Engineer VIas
Schedule 'A' 01'. the pa-cking by-laVl VIas diSCUssed and ~he proposed
instructed to add a claUse for County Road #14 in lona Sta~ion. Inasmuch
a$ a parking by_laVl had just been received from the solicitOl' i~ ~aS noted
that nO one had an opportuni~y to revieVl i~. The committee asked that ~he
by_laVl be forVlarded to al1. council members and have ~he counci1. members
l'eply to the Coromit~ee as to their ideaS Y1ith regard to the by-1.aVl.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
PAGE 8.
Hot mix asphalt paving was discussed and it was noted that portions of
County Road #32 would be ready for a base coat shortly. Patching was
required on County Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) now that the Winter's
Municipal Drain had been installed. A small amount of patching was
required on County Road ~7 one mile south of Avon. It was felt that
County Road #36 should not be resurfaced at this time inasmuch as it would
be used to haul sand from the Pleasant Valley Pit to the St. Thomas Airport
and the next job of priority should be done.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE ENGINEER BE EMPOWERED TO CALL TENDERS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT
PAVING AS FOLLOWS:
1. PATCHING ROAD ~7 (1 MILE SOUTH OF AVON).
.2. PATCHING ROAD #28 (CENTENNIAL AVENUE) SOUTH OF HIGHWAY #3.
3. ROAD #32 BASE COAT PORTION NOT DONE PREVIOUSLY BETWEEN HIGHWAY #73
AND THE ONTARIO POLICE COLLEGE.
4. ROAD #20 IN PORT STANLEY AND ROAD #20 BETWEEN SHEDDEN AND FINGAL.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: M. H . STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE WARDEN AND CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO OPEN ~ND AWARD TENDERS
FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVING.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ADJOURN TO 9:00 A.M., FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1982.
CARRIED."
~~~\\J~~
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN
CULVERT PIPE QUOTATIONS
72" - 5" X 1" CORRUGATED
SEPTEMBER 28, 1982
:tJ
1. Armco Canada Limited
P. O. Box 3000
Guelph, Ontario
NlH 6P2
$6, 772. 50
2. Fawcett Metal Products Limited
P. O. Box 304
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 4A4
$10,701.90
3. E. S. Hubbell and Sons Limited
P. O. Box 118
Thamesville, Ontario
NOP 2KO
NO BID
4. Canada Culvert and Metal Products Limited
P. O. Box 578
Maple, Ontario
LOJ lEO
NO BID
5. Corrugated Pipe Company Limited
P. O. Box 176
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6Tl
NO BID
6. Koppers International Canada Limited
P. O. Box 3458
Cambridge, Ontario
N3H 5C6
NO BID
7. Westeel-Rosco Limited
3022 Osler Street
London, Ontario
NO BID
COUNTY OF ELGIN
-----=
CULVERT PIPE S'l.JW~y FO].
'.
PERFORATED PIPE
- . ----
\.
1. ArmcO Canada Limited
P. O. BoX 3000
Guelph, Ontario
N1B 6P2
~.
2. Koppers In~erna~iona1. Canada Limited
P. O. BoX 3458
cambridge, Ontario
N31:1 5 C6
3. Westeel.RoscO Limited
3022 osler Street
London, Ontario
4. Corrugated pipe Company Limited
P. O. BoX 176
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6Tl
5. Fawcett Me~al ProductS Limi~ed
P.. o. Bo X 304
Waterloo, Ontario
N 2J I-+A4
6. canada culvel'~ and Me~al l'roduc~s Limi~ed
P. o. BoX 578
Maple, Ontario
LO.1 lEO
e~'
7. E. S. Hubbell and Sons Limi~ed
P. O. BoX 118
Thamesville, Ontario
NOP 2KO
SEPTEMBER 28, 1982
$8,837.44
$.9,696.12
$9,750.30
$9,917.46
$12,407.52
$13 ,923 .60
NO BID
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
SEPTEMBER SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
,1:'\
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
i,,~
1. Walmsley Bros. Limited of London have completed thei.r asphalt
paving contract on County Road #8 between Dutton and Wallacetown..
All work other than' gravel shouldering has been completed on this
road. A portion of the gravel shoulder will be surface treated
next year.
2. McLean-Foster Construction Limited of St. Marys have completed
their contiact for the County of Elgin for the construction of
the Walkers Bridge.
3. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing have approved
two (2) allocations for the County Road Department under the
Ontario Employment Incentive Program. The initial allocation
was $16,600 arid the second was $20,000. All money ctllocated
under this program has been expended and we have requested
through the County Government Committee an additional allocation
of $22,000 under thi s program..
4.
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has approved
a subsidy allocation of $29,000 for Municipal Drain Assessments.
'~
We had originally requested $45,000 in subsidy moniE~s.
I.\i\~--.j~
5. The Ministry of Transportation and Connnunications has approved
a subsidy allocation of $25,000 so the County and th~ St. Thomas
Subuliban Road Commission may continue their white edge marking
safety program on paved roads this year. This will allow the
Committee to expand the program which was start.ed last year.
6. Work is continuing on County Road #32 between Highway #73 and
the Police College. It was hoped that this work, with the
asphalt base coat will be completed before mid October.
Grading will continue on Road #32 north of the Police College
as weather and funds permit.
~,
COUNTY ~F ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT - SEPTEMBER SESSION 1982
PAGE 2.
7. Several small grading projects are underway on various County
Roads including County Road #37 east of Belmont, along with
drainage and ditching on Road #16 (Fingal Hill) and Road #26
(St. George Street Hill).
WE RECOMMEND
1. That a by-law be passed stating that the County of Elgin has
no objections to the passage of a by-law by the Township of
Bayham to close the travelled road in Lot 28, Concession VIII,
shown as Part #3 on Reference plan llR 2412.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
~~) ~) ~V~~
CHAIRHAN'
f'i-'
./
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
QUOTATION FOR CULVERT PIPE
1. Armco Canada Limited
P. O. Box 3000
Guelph, Ontario
NIH 6P2
2. E. S. Hubbell and Sons Limited
P.O. Bo x 118
Thamesvi11e, Ontario
NOP 2KO
3. Westee1-Rosco Limited
1 Atlantic Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M6K lX7
4. Fawcett Metal Products Limited
P. O. Box 304
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 4Aq-
5. Corrugated Pipe Company Limited
P. O. Box 176
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6Tl
c'
6. Koppers International Canada Limited
P. O. BoX 3458
Cambridge, Ontario
N3H 5C6
7. Canada culvert and Metal Products Limited
P. O. Box 578
Maple, Ontario
LOJ 1 EO
v
$/+,223.33
$/+,411.00
${+, 596.00
$1...,600.20
$l...,849.52
$5,211.60
$5,485.73
COuN'l"l OF ",1,G1,1< ROp.,D DEi' p,R'\'M.11l'\'!:
'\',,1,
S~A.R'{ OF ;UQ'tA.'!:1,ONS FOR
S\ll'l'1,'i 011 90 1,Nca STR\lCTURtJ-. fLA.TE cULvtR'!:
~CCp.,1.1,m\ pJV.1,~ CO~T'{ ROp.,D #.28
1.. p,rwco canada 1,iwi~ed
1>. o. BOX 3000
G\.1e1ph, onta-rio
2. lNestee1 ROscO l_imited
3022 Osler Street
London, ontariO
3.
ROppel'S Intetna~ional canada 1.imited
1>. o. BoX 3458
camQl'idge, putatiO
N31:\ 5C6
1.,
\
\~, '
.'
SEl''!:EMBER 7, 1.982
$5,193.30
$6,198.83 (lN1,'tll 70'0 SA1.ES '!:b$)
$6,431.00
$6,560.00
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
QUOTATIONS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS
FOR THE DUNWICH SALT BUILDING
1. Elgin Co-Operative Services
Princess and Centre Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
2. Dutton B~i1ding Products Limited
P. O. Box 176
Dutton, Ontario
$7,165.74
$6,316.03
co\WT"i 01' ELGIN ROAD DEl' ~1ili!
UO'l'A't10l'l S fOR cR\lSl1EDGAA V~
eoWi''i ROAD #5 _ ALDBOROVGfi AND Duml1Gfi '1'QVlNSll11'S
~\
\~\
:1..
Ate1\. 1<eVlbigging Liroited
R. R. #1
De1a~are, ontariO
2.
Johnston BroS. (Both",ell) 1.troited
1'. o. 1)O}{ 220
Both~e11, ontariO
3.
BaQins\<.Y '1'-cuc\<.ing LiWited
. R. R. #3
lZomo\<.a, ontat'io
4.
T.e.G. eon$tl'Uction Ltroited
'F. o. BO}{ 189
London, ontat'io
N6A 4V7
5.
Ruron construction
125 lZei1 Drive
chatham, Onta-rio
6.
south 1iItndS sand and erave1. Liwi~ed
764 Vlhal'ncttffe Road south
London, ontat'io
\~
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
$3.58 pel: Ton
$3.83 :pet' Ton
$3.97 pel: Ton
NO BID RECEIVED
NO BID RECEIVED
SUPPLIER Of
BA$1.NSR"i '1'R\lCR1NG Ll}U TED
ST. THOMAS ~ ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 1.
at 9:30 a.m., AuguS~ 18, 19B2. ALl members Y1ere present inc1.uding ~he
TllE coUNTY 011 ELGIN ROAD coMMITTEE met at the MUnicipal Building
Engineer and Assistant Engineer.
"MOVED BY: ~. U. STEW ART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SllAYl
'l'llAT TllE MINUTES OF 'l'llE MEETINGS OF JUNE 2B AND JULY 14, 1982
BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
TUE ENGINEER REPORTED ON TllE YlORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
1.. Yleed cutting waS continuing with one woYler, Reeve Ke1.1.y noted tha~ he
had received a list of roads tha~ Mr. c. Stafford the Yleed InspectOl'
Y1ished to have Y1eeds cut on and Qresented tbem to the commit~ee. The
Engineer no~ed tha~ same 01'. the roads had been completed and
con$ideration Y1ou1.d be given to doing ~he rest a~ any ear1.y date.
paint QrevioUsly o-cdered ~or edge marking had been cOmQleted. I~
Y1aS no~ knoYln as ye~ as to Y1hetber the county's SUQplewen~ary By-1.aw
Y10uld be approved. If i~ Y1as approved additional roads could be
2. YelloYl centre line pavement marking had been completed and tbe whi~e
edge marked.
3. Curb and gutter repair and road pa~cbing Y1ith hot mi" asphal~ under
tbe incen~ive progrgm labour had been campleted in Rodney and Y1as
underYlay in West LOrne. ()o.e Y1ee\<" s Y10rk remained in Ylest Lorne, and
DU~ton would be patched ne"~.
top of the 2 spans YIOuld be cOmQ1.eted this Y1eek. A considerable gmount
of bulldozing Y1i1.1. be required unde-c ~he bridge before ~he manlit~
could be ,moved in ~o complete the YIOrk under ~be bridge.
4. l'ainting ,on the GilletS Bridge Y1as continuing, tbe green pain~ on ~he
ST. THOMAS, ONTAR10
AUGUST 18, 1982
'PAGE 2.
,. Machinery -ceQair Y1as continuing Y1i~h Y1ol'k on Grader #14 and the
JCB Loader. champion Equipment had agreed ~o suPQ1.y neYl hydraulic
tineS for Grader #20 under Y1arranty, if the Coun~y Y1ou1.d insta1.l
6. j)eca1.s Y1ere being placed on county vehic1.e$ as $Oon as the vehicles
them-
became available for any 1.ength of time, as most vehicle$ Y1ou1.d
have to have the doors repainted before the deca1.$ could be placed
on theW as the present Y10rding Y10uld shoYl on eithel' side of the
7. cu1.vert repair on Road #"12 near llighYlay #74 bad been comple~ed
decal-
e1\.Cept fo-c some winor tr~ing Y1ork. ~ore t-cee cu~ting Y1ou1.d be
required upstream co"'" next ~inter. 1'1ates had been sa1.vaged trOm
the upstreaw to corop1.e~e the ring$ on the doYlUs~ream side, and
concre~e cut oft Y1al1.s and concre~e Y1ing Y1al1.s had been insta11.ed
both uQstream and doYlUs~ream to prevent further erosion.
Road #14 and county Road #16 (BUrYlel1' s corners) bu~a$p.ha1.ting
bad no~ yet been comQle~ed.
at the centennia1. school and sou~b of Elm Street Y1ere underYlay as
""re repair$ to the COQeland Drain at the ShaYl property on
8. curb and gutter had been p1.aced a~ the intersection of county
9. Severa1. ama1.l drainage job$ on county Road #28 in.Yarmou~h ToYlUshiP
Road #51.
OUly minor c1.eanup Y10rk other tban 3 dayS grave1. sbouldering
remained to be done on county Road #8 betYleen DUtton and
1.0. AL1. Y10rk a~ ~a1.kers Bridge including seeding bad been comQleted
VJallacetoWU-
11.. rbe sand pad 1.ocation at the DUnYlicb ToYlUsbiP Garage bad been
by ~cLean_Foster construction Limited.
a$phalted and salted $and Y10uld be moved and the sal~ s~orage
building started in late September.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 3.
12. Surface treatment work for Lambton County would start next Monday.
The County of Elgin had also been asked to do 5 miles for the
Muncey Indian Reserve (2 days) and would be done on the way back
from Lambton.
13. Grading work on Road #32 was continuing with the sand pad having been
completed from Highway #73 to Smith's Curve. Crushed gravel will be
completed during the week. Some shouldering remained to be
completed. The precast concrete culvert at the Smith's Curve would
be completed by the middle of next week and work would start on the
installation of the one at the 8th Concession's intersection.
Drainage work was nearly completed and top soil work would be
started shortly. It was hoped to have everything completed, ready
for a base coat of asphalt by the end of September.
Work starting northerly from the Police College Gate would start
once a number of small jobs in Yarmouth and Southwold had been
completed. These jobs would be started shortly with the hope that
widening of Road #37 at the C.P.R. Tracks could be completed before
the school buses started up in September.
14. Calcium chloride had been applied to County Roads #28, #37 and #43.
Inasmuch as the Township of Malahide was hauling sand over County
Road #43 it would require a third coat shortly. Other gravel roads
in the County seemed to be reasonably satisfactory for the time
being.
15. The concrete box culvert on Road #38 at Richmond had been cleaned
out. The center box had approximately 6 feet of dirt washed into
it along with tree trunks, stumps, etc.
16.
Quotations were being requested for 82 feet of 90" structural steel
pipe for the culvert at the McCallum Drain on County Road #28 near
Road #45. An Engineer's report had been adopted by the Township of
Yarmouth which\would require the culvert being lowered by approximately
2 feet. rnasmJCh as the present culvert was badly undersized and its
ST. TlloMAS, ONTAR10
AUGUST 18, 1 g8 2
'PAGE 4.
conditiOn Y1a$ unknoYlU, it Y1ou1.d be a Y1aste of money to 10Yle-c tbe
1 t ~d ~t ~~aS SUgge$ted ~ba~ a neW cu1.ve-Ct be in$ta1.1ed
p~e$en~ cU vel' a.. ~ w
17.
to a g~ade tha~ would alloYl futU-ce c1.eaning 01'. tbe d~ain.
Tbe fi~st al1.oca~ion of 1'~ovincia1. lncen~ive woneY of $16,600 bad
Qeen $pent and the second a1.10cation 01'. $20,000 Y10uld be sQent by
the end of AugU st.
Tbe Enginee~ $Uggested tbat a thi~d allocation
of $22,000 be ~eque$ted altboUgb it Y1a$ unHke1.Y that it Y10uld be
apQ-coved. The Coro1l\it~ee ag~eed tbat a -ceque$t sbou1.d be made to
~he countY Gove~rnnent Coro1l\ittee to~ ~be lncentive moneY and the
Enginee~ sbou1d contact Mr. ~c1<ei1., ~.1'.1'. to as\<. fo-c hiS
a$Sistance in obtaining tbe g~ant.
NO intOl'mation bad been ~eceived f~om tbe canadian National Rai1Y1ay
with ~ega~d to ~bei~ p1.ans fo~ ~emoval of tbe o1.d ~~ac\<.s of ~he LOndon
and 1'o~t StanleY 1.ine. Tbe Enginee~ ~ec()llllllended ~bat the side c-cossing
intO Sbarorock Chemicals at Road #20 in 1'0~t Stan1.eY be l'emoved thiS Fall
and aSQha1ted in, as ~he p-cesen~ c~ossing was e:><t~emelY ~ougb and tbe~e
Y1ou1.d be conside~ab1.e gmount 01'. t-cuc\<. t~affic on Road #20 thiS 11 at 1. intO
ToP_~otcb Feed g~ain elevato~$'
1<0 l'ep1.y bad been ~eceived f~om the County of ~idd1.ese:>< Y1ith ~ega1"d
~o E1.gin' s ~equest fol' thei~ 1.a~est poliCY on Road #37.
Vla1.ms1eY Bl'Os. 1.imited had been 1'aid tO~ thei~ cont~ac~ fo~ paving
Road #S and tbeil' boldbac\<. YIOu1.d be he1.d tO~ tYlO Y1<'e\<.s until $uch tiwe
as theY bad ce~tified tbe comp1.etion 01'. ~bei~ cont~act.
p., notice had been l'eceived f~om O.~.E.R.S. l'ega~ding pensions and
f 1 1983 an emplo~ee ~o's lengtb 01'. $el'vice Y1i~h the
~bat a$ 0 Janual'Y , J
1 totale'd 90 YIOu1d Qe eHgiQ1e fol' ~etil'elllent Y1ithout
cou.nty P us age
~eduction (tO~ ea~ly ~eti~ement) al~bough they Y10uld be undel' 6' yea~S
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 5.
old. The Engineer noted that there were 4 eligible employees in the
County Road Department and that he was contacting them to explain the
scheme to them.
Information had been received from Giffels and Associates and
from the Ministry of the Environment that the Ministry hoped to call
sanitary sewer tenders for the Village of Port Burwell this Fall.
Redesign of the system was underway inasmuch as a force main could not
be placed underneath the harbour as it might be dredged up and would
have to be placed on the Port Burwell Bridge. The Engineer stated
that it might be necessary to place the outlet for the Wellington
Street (Road ~2) storm drain, (being approximately 1,000 feet of 24")
prior to the installation of the sanitary sewers.
Redesign might
raise the sanitary sewer depth to the point where it would be higher
than the storm sewer outlet.
The Engineer reported that he had met with representatives of the
United Co-Operatives of Ontario in Port Stanley at Carlow Road. The
United Co-Operatives were contemplating the ,:erection of two bulk storage
buildings on their property south of the Top-Notch Feeds for the storage
of potash. The Engineer reported that the United Co-Operatives were
agreeable to asphalting the driveway to the County Road at the north
end of their property. This would eliminate the movement of trucks on
the south end of Carlow Road and eliminate some of the complaints from
the local residents regarding noise and dust.
The oversized school signs as requested by the Village of Port Stanley
on County Road #20 would be erected shortly.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 6.
same~hing be done to imQrove ~he roadside ditching in front of her
MrS. Dolores Beer on county Road #45 near Road #36 had requested ~ha~
property inastnUcb as it Y1as e>ttreme1.y deep (8') and erosion Y1as taking
place at a rapid rate, threatening ',not only her property but the road
a$ Y18U. The C=i~tee agreed that .the ChaiPllan and the i'larden should
vieYl the problem as i~ aQpeared tha~ the only solution to the Qroblem
'""s the instaUation of appro>timate1.Y 200 fee~ of 36" pipe.
destroyed by a county wowel' Y1as diSCUssed. The C=it~ee agreed that
A c1.aim by Mr. Elmer ~alik tor an irrigation adaQter, supposab1.Y
as the adaQter Y1aS on county Qroperty Mr. Ma1.ik had placed the Qipe at
his oYlO risk. The Engineer Y1as ins~ructed ~o advise Mr. Mati\<. that the
county Y10uld nO~ pay for tbe adapter.
Bob Davie$ reQorted that be had nO~ had, as ye~, an oppor~unity to
continUe land pu-cchase on Road #3.
~he i'la1.ker$ Bridge and it Y1as hoped to have bo~h p1.anS shortly.
The land SUl'veyor Y1aS comp1.e~ing his Y10rk on Road #8 and Road #, a~
amoun~ of Y10rk ~beY Y1ere going to do on the clitf young property on
The Ket~le creek conservati0n Autho-city had decided ~o 1.imi~ the
county Road #28. No Y10rk on tbe road a1.lOYlance would be done and
therefore no road Y1idening Y10uld be necessary.
ascertain a reasonable grade for an en~rance ~o the Dave FergUSon
Bob Davie$ reported that SUl'Veys had been carried oU~ ~o try to
proper~Y on county Road #30 and that he and Reeve ~on~ei~h Y1ou1.d
meet ~. Fe~guSOU agaiUe
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLIST BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT'
PAYLIST NUMBER 36 AMOUNTING TO $62,214.56
PAYLIST NUMBER 37 AMOUNTING TO $1,326.85
PAYLIST 'NUMBER 38 AMOUNTING TO $142,274.51
PAYLIST NUMBER 39 AMOUNTING TO $457.32
l'AYLIST NUMBER 40 AMOUNTING TO $'8,963.29
PAYLIST NUMBER 41 AMOUNTING '1'0 $199,986.91
PAYLIST NUMBER 43 AMOUNTING TO $52.128.71
CARRI EE) ."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. From the Village of Rodney Y1ith thanks for the work done by the County
Road forces on Road If3 in the Village including asphalt pa~ching, curb
and gutter repair and surface treatment.
2. From the Village of Rodney requesting a flashing ligh~ installation
at Furnival Road and QUeen S~reet on the recommenda~ion of
Cons~able Feestra. 11' was noted tha~ ~he recvuuuendation was not
enclosed and discussion on ~he matter was postPoned,until ~he next
3. From the Ministry of Transporta~ion and Communica~ions s~ating that
meeting.
they were agreeable to paying the Coun~Y for repairs ~o Coun~y
Roads #2', #26, #29 and #52 forYlork at the St. Thomas ExpreSsway to
an upse~ payment 'limit bf $24,000. The 'Engineer notedA:hal! ,YIi~h ~his
was a commitment that the portions of road could be accepted back into
the County Road System.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 8.
"MOVED BY':
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY' M. 11. STEWART
TllA.'\' 'HE i1<DICATE '1'0 TllE MINiSTRY OF TRANS1'ORTA'l'lON AND CO}1M1JNICA'l'lONS
THAT 'HE ARE PREl' ARED '1'0 RECOMl1END '1'0 co1JNTY COUNCIL '\'1!1\T '!'RE COUNTY
OF ELGiN ASSUME AS A 1'OR'l'lON OF TllE co1JNTY ROAD SYSTEM 1'0R'l'lON 011
ROADS Blli1.T BY TllE MI1<iSTRY OF TRANS1'ORTA'l'101< AND CO}1M1JNICATiONS p.,T
TllE INTERSEcriONS OF T1lE ST. T1l0MAS ERl'RESSWAY ON ROADS f/!l', #26 AND
#,2 AND TllE REJ\LiGNMENT OF co1JNTY ROAD #29 WEN:
(A) TllE MINISTRY OF TRANSl'ORTA'l'lON AND c()MMUNl CA'l'l 01< S HAS l' Al D '!'RE
COST 011 '!'RE 'HoRK OF NECESSARY IM1'ROVEMEN'l'S AS OUTLiNED 11< TllE
MINISTRY OF TRANSl'ORTA'l'lON AND c()MMUNICATIONS'LETTER OF
(B) AFtER T1lE A1'l'ROVAL BY '!'RlS cQMMr:rTEE OF A DRAFt l'LAN SllOVUNG
1982 07 15; AND
THE AFFEcrED 1'0RTiONs '1'0 BE REVERTED.
CARRIED."
4. From McLean-Foster construc~ion Limited requesting additional time to
complete the 'Halkers Bridge contract inasmuch a$ ~beir trimming and
seeding creYlS bad been rained out. it Y1as noted tha~ a1.tbOugh the
YIOrk Y1as nOW complete i~ had no~ been comp1.e~ed by July 30, ~heretore
the Company cou1.d be subject to a penalty claUse and to avoid this an
extension of tiwe Y10uld be necessary.
"MOVED BY:
J. 1'1. sMYTH
SECONDED BY: 'H. R. CAVERLY
THAT 'HE EXTEND T1lE CoMPLETION DATE TO AUGlJST 27, 1.982 FOR '!'RE
COM1'LETiON OF T1lE 'HAJ.,lZERS BRIDGE BY ~CLEAN_FOSTER CONSTRUCTiON
LIM1.'l'ED AS pER '!'REIR REQUEST OF JULY 29, 1982 ON TllE
REco}\1'\ENDA'l'lON OF OUR CONSULTiNG ENGINEER NOEM 'H~ER OF
R. C. DUNN AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 9 ~
5. Frow the Townsbip of Bayham Y1ith regard to the closing of a portion of
~he ~rave11ed road through Lot 28, concession VIII, east of Eden.
tt~OVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. s. MILLARD
'\'1;lAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL '\'1;lAT A BY. LAW BE l' ASSED STATlNG
'\'1;lAT TllE coUNTY OF E1.GIN liAS NO OBJECTION TO TllE CLOSI1<G OF TllE
TRAVELLED ROAD 11< LOT 28, CONCESSION VIll, BA"{RlIM TOWNSllIl' S1l0WN AS
PART #3 ON REFERENCE l'LAN llR 241.2.
CARRIED ."
6. From the Ministry of Transportation and communications Y1ith 1981
Audit Report noting ~hat no adjU$tmentS to Coun~y expenditures
7. From the Christian FarroerI3 Federation Y1ith tbeir coromentS on the
for 1981 had been made.
consolidated llearing Board deci$ion regarding the p-coposed Ontario
llydro Routes trom the Br)1ce Nuclear 1'1ant to the On~ario llydro
8. From Delcan Engineering offering services regarding energy management
Grid system.
sys~ems tor bui1.dingS, vehicles and street lighting. 11' "as noted
~bat the County Road Department had no partiCular need for their
9. From the Township of Yarwou~h Y1i~b a zoning by.1aYl to rezone 1.and
services at this time.
10. From tb~ Township of Yarmouth Y1ith a zoning by.1.aYl to rezone 1.and
for Estate llousing on county Road #33 (llarper).
for businesS purposes on llighYlay #3, in concession IV for a variety
11.. Dyel',Brown, Barris~ers and Solici~ors 01'. London regarding the case
store (Lynn Allen).
of the StanatS vs. tbe County of Elgin, Dyer, Brown acting for the
coun~Y's Insurance Company, the Genel'a1. Accident Assurance company.
It "as noted ~hat S~ana~ "as requesting ~he amount of $2,750 for
damages supposablY sustained Y1hen his property Y1aS flooded in
March of 1982. It "as noted ~hat he a1.so Y1ished ~he coun~Y to
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 10.
install a drain from the County drain at Richmond (on Road #38)
westerly to his property around his property and back to the County
Road. The Engineer noted that the length of such drain would be
approximately 670 feet and would require 4 catchbasins and the cost
of the pipe which could be taken from county stock would be
approximately $2,000 plus installation. A written agreement would
have to be required from Stanat, ~s well as permission from property
owners to the east of his property to allow the County to put the
drain on their pr9pe};1::.Y., The Chairman" Warden and Reeve Stewart
reported that tbE'Y had viewed the problem and were of the opinion
that in due course the drain would be required for Road #38 and it
would be cheaper to go around the property than it would be to dig
through the front lawn and the asphalted driveways. The CVLLlluittee
was in agreement that the Engine~r advise Dyer, Brown that if a
settlement could be made on the monetary issues with the County's
Insurance Company and Mr. Stanat, the County was agreeable to the
installation of a drain providing the necessary agreements,
permissions, etc., were forthcoming from the Stanats.
12. From the Ministry of Transportation and Communications requesting
the County to assume portions of Highway #3 from the intersection
of Wellington Road easterly to the Kettle Creek and from the east
limit of St. Thomas easterly to Road #28 which would no longer be
King'S Highway once the designation of Highway #3 on Talbot Street
was removed inasmuch as the St. Thomas Expressway i,s now designated
as Highway #3. The Engineer reported that these portions of road
would require considerable maintenance and would cost a considerable
amount of money to the County for both Summer and ~rinter maintenance
and that careful consideration should be given to this prior to the
acceptance of the road. The present condition of the Kettle Creek
and Dodds Creek Bridges was unknown and the proposed split in costs
on the Kettle Creek Bridge between the City of St. Thomas
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 11.
and the County was not known at this time. The matter was referred
back to the Engineer for further information from the Ministry of
Transportation and CUHllU\.lnications and report at the next meeting.
Mr. Jame s Shewchuck, . Ontario Hydro in attendance . . . with a
presentation to the Committee with regard to the Ontario Hydro's plans
for a route study involving the County.
If a route from Nanticoke generating station or Middleport D.S. to
a transformer site in southwest London area was chosen, it could pass
through Elgin. Mr. Shewchuck stated that the affected municipalities
would be asked for representation on a land use study and the County
for a technical person to serve on a Liaison Committee to consider
technical matters with regard to these proposed corridors. It was
also noted that the Consolidated Hearing Board had made the 6 klm.
wide corridor along Highway #401 into a potential corridor for a
transmission tower site as well. Some members of the Committee were
somewhat surprised that the Consolidated Hearing Board had not approved
the proposed corridor (M-l) from southwest London to the Bruce Nuclear
Plant but had approved a corridor (M-3) from the Bruce Nuclear Plant to
the Essa Transformer Station at Barrie as part of the main Ontario grid.
The Engineer noted that the Per sonnel CVHlluittee and Mr. Charle s Stafford
were agreeable to having Mr. Stafford act as the By-Law Enforcement Officer
for parking by-laws on County Roads. Mr. Stafford is to act upon the
written request of the municipality to the County Clerk or upon the request
of the County Road CVHlluittee transmitted to the County Clerk. The Engineer
was instructed to have Mr. Hennessey draw up the necessary by-laws for
parking restrictions and a by-law to appoint Mr. Stafford. These by-laws
to be ready for review by the next Road CVHlluittee meeting.
ST. THOMAS,. ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 12.
The Engineer noted that the winter maintenance and standby programs
would be discussed at the September or October meeting and noted that
rearrangement of standby would be proposed to try to reduce costs.
The attached report along with a report from Mr. Norm Warner of
R. C. Dunn and Associates with costs for the replacement of the
Middlemiss Bridge Floor was noted and the Committee agreed to discuss
the report at the next meeting to allow members time to review the
report at their L.cdsure.
The Engineer noted that within the next month the C:vlLuuittee' s
Program for the year would have to be finalized. He stated that there
was sufficient money in the budget to complete the gravel resurfacing
(as budgeted) on County Road #5. Some asphalt patching work was required
on Road #47 south of Avon (South Dorchester) and Road #28 (Centennial
Avenue), Yarmouth Township. Costs for storm sewer outlets for Road #42
in Port Burwell would have to be investigated prior to sanitary sewer
installation.
It appeared that the top coat of asphalt on County Road #32 from
Highway #73 to the Police College Gate should be left to 1983, to give
the road time to settle.
As sanitary sewers are being placed in Port Burwell next year
(which would mean considerable urban work next year) grading work
should proceed this Fall as far as time on County equipment would
allow on County Road #32 and that ditching work on County Road #3
between Rodney and New Glasgow should be delayed until 1983. This
would allow the Township of Aldborough time to receive several drainage
reports ,and to call contracts as drains would be requirE~d to provide
outlets for the ditching.
Cleaning under the Glencolin Bridge on Road #40 and the Elm
Street Bridge on Road #53 and the Kettle Creek Bridge on Road #34
would be done shortly.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
AUGUST 18, 1982
PAGE 13.
There would be some difficulty in ascertaining the exact costs of
the small jobs that have been planned by CVUlluittee but there should be
some money after this work was done to allow for some asphalt resurfacing
on County Roads, the Engineer felt that at this time his preference would
be Road #36 north of Road #45 in Yarmouth Township. Further,':discussion
of asphalt paving would be considered at the next meeting.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE ENGINEER BE EMPOWERED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR THE SUPPLY
AND APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 'A' FOR GRAVEL RESURFACING ON ROAD #5.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT WE ADJOURN TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
<:) t'.~ \ ~\ ~\'\ '~
~~~t<.A.1 ~ II(~~:-~)
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MIDDLEMISS BRIDGE OVER THE THAMES RIVER ROAD 1114,'
AUGUST 16/82
SUMMARY:
Traffic Count _ A.A.D.T. South of Middlemiss Bridge.
1980 630 Vehicles
1982 (observed June 7-9)
580 Vehicles
A considerable number of heavy trucks which are going (for the
most part) from Highway #401 to Middlesex County.
No apparen~ reasons to expect a large increase (decrease) in
traffic in next 10 years.
PRESENT DEFICIENCIES OF BRIDGE AND EFFECT OF
REPAIRS ON THEM
(a) Deficient waterway - road closed when River is in flood.
(b) Load limit _ present bridge restricted to 18 ~onnes - which
should res~rict the loads carried by ~rucks on the bridge.
(c) Alignment (roadway).
(d) Single lane especially for trucks.
A new floor and other repairs would only remove deficiency (b)
load limit.
Bridge would then be able ~o carry single lane full highway
loading.
A new bridge Y10uld remove deficiency (b), (c) and (d) completely
and make a slight improvemen~ on (a). I~ is unlikely ~he cos~ of
removing deficiency (a) would be economical a~ ~he site for many
many years.
TIMING
The time for the repairs as suggested by the Consultant are
probably valid for a 2 to 3 year period (other ~han inflation).
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MIDDLEMISS BRIDGE OVER THE THAMES RIVER ROAD #14
PAGE 2.
After that time it is likely that sufficient repairs could be
made to still rehabilitate the bridge to the point of removing the
load limit.
However, as time goes on the number and the cost of these
repairs will increase to the point where the cost of thesl~ repairs
is uneconomical to the benefit gained. (This will be a political
judgement [as we may have already reached that point. J)
In the meantime repairs (becoming more expensive and more
frequent) will need to be continued. It is also very likely that as
time goes on and the bridge deteriorates the load limit on it will
have to be lowered.
It should be pointed out that:
(a) The pier footings are over 100 years old an unknown quanitity
and the south one mayor may not have been undermined.
(b) F0r a Thames River bridge pier and abutment mOVl~ments have
been quite tolerable up to now.
(c) In spite ofnumer ous tests the pier concrete caps must
still be considered suspect and without some repairs
(as recvuuuended in the report) could deteriorate or
crack without much warning causing at best a nasty maintenance
job and at worse failure of the bridge.
Until major work is done on the bridge constant inspections will
be required.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the :Municipal Building
on Wednesday July 14, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. All members were present and also
Frank Clarke of the Ministry of Transportation and Connnunications, the
Engineer and the Assistant Engineer.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1982 BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Grass cutting was completed with the exception of s~me roads in Dunwich
and Aldborough Townships.
2. Weed spraying had been completed by South Dorchester, Malahide, Southwold,
Aldborough, and Dunwich Townships.
3. It would be necessary to place calcium chloride dust layer on Road #43
north and south of Calton before the end of the week. The rest of the
gravel roads were in very good condition.
4. The sweeper had been repaired and was back working.
5. Pavement marking was underway again and all roads in East and Central
Elgin will be completed this week.
6. Surface treatment work had been completed, no problems had been
encountered and the work looked very good except for Road #45 which had
been subjected to very heavy trucking. Three and half days of work in
Kent County had also been done.
7. The Incentive progrannne work was proceeding including curb and gutter
repair in Rodney and the painting of the Gillets Bridge east of Sparta.
8. Sign work was continuing.
9. Frink of Canada had completed repairs to all truck boxes on the County
Mack Trucks.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 2.
10. Clean-out work underneath the Glencolin Bridge and the Kettle Creek
Bridge had been organized and the owners of the adjacent lands to
the Elm Street Bridge in Aylmer were being contacted in preparation
for work there.
11. More work was required on the culvert on Road #52 near Highway #74.
Repairs had also been made to the steel culvert on Road #40 a mile
south of Springfield.
12. A considerable amount of work was required on the JCJB Loader,
(particularly the braking system) which would be donE~ as soon as
possible. This seemed to be an economical alternati1{e as the rest of
the loader was in quite good condition.
13. Many of the small miscellaneous grading jobs had been postponed as
the ground had been too wet until last week.
14. Road #8 between Dutton and Wallacetown was being paved, cleanup work
was underway. Most work other than seeding would be completed by
July 25.
15. Work on Road #32 had been started with ditching underway between
Highway #73 and Smith's Curve. Shoulders on last year'ls grading
work were being widened and topsoiled. The watermains of the
Carnation CVU1!iany and the Aylmer Public Utilities Cormnission had
been lowered.
16. The revised maintenance estimates had been examined and it appeared
that the estimates of May were still valid.
17. Gordon Bedford had returned to work after being on Workmen's
Compensation.
18. Employment was being sought for Ron Cook by the Workmen's Compensation
Board. lt was unlikely that he would be able to resume his previous
duties with the County as too much bending, lifting, standing, etc.,
would be involved.
19. Contributions to the Walkers Bridge reception by McLean-Foster
Construction Company Limited and R. C. Dunn and Assoeiates Limited
were noted and the Engineer was instructed to thank them.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 3.
20. Land purchase was proceeding as rapidly as possible on Road #3 and
Mr. Davies felt that he would be able to contact the rest of the
land owners within the next two weeks.
Reeve Monteith and the Assistant Engineer reported on their meeting
with Mr. Dave Ferguson on Road #30 and agreed to a survey to see if it
was practical to put in an entrance for him on the south side of the
high hill on his property.
"MOVED BY:: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 27 AMOUNTING TO $54,995.94
PAYLIST NUMBER 28 AMOUNTING TO $266.59
PAYLIST NUMBER 29 AMOUNTING TO $56,652.36
PAYLIST ~UMBER 30 AMOUNTING TO $1,096.17
PAYLIST NUMBER 31 AMOUNTING TO $59,876.39
PAYLIST NUMBER 32 AMOUNTING TO $101,351.73
PAYLIST NUMBER 33 AMOUNTING TO $98,049.05
PAYLIST NUMBER 34 AMOUNTING TO $173,816.18
PAYLIST NUMBER 35 AMOUNTING TO $1,874.26
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. From the Ministry of Transportation and CVll11l!l.lnications stating that
the subsidy on drainage assessments would be $29,000. The Engineer
stated that it was too soon to ascertain the amount of carryover
into 1983. It was noted that the Eaton Drain in Dunwich and Dutton,
would not be started until very late in the year thus would not be
payable until 1983.
2. From the County of Middlesex regarding the Elgin-Middlesex Boundary.
Reeve Monteith noted that one of the members of the Middlesex CVl111uittee
had indicated to him that there might be a policy change by the
ST. TItOMl\S, ON'l'AR10
JULY 14, 1982
1>AGE 4.
3.
~idd1.e$ez C()tll1littee froID their polic1 $tateroent of June 1.1. Tbe
Engineel' Y1aS instructed to ascertain tbe pl'esent teelings of the
countY of l1idd1.ese~ and report at the nezt meeting.
Frow the Vi1.1age of ]'ort StanleY regarding school zones on county
Road #20. Tbe Engineer noted ~ba~ tYlO neYl large schoo1. signs had
been Qurchased and Y1ou1.d be erec~ed prior to tbe $tar~ of $choo1.
in septemQer and that the Qrttat:io l'rovincia1. 1'01 ice bad been asked
to streng~hen theil' radar pa~-cols on thiS road. 1t Y1a$ a1.so noted
tbat the la$t time tbe radar pa~ro1.$ had been strengtbened in tbe
area tbe tuaiority of the QeoQ1.e charged by the pot ice Y1el'e
4.
t:e sidentS of ]'ort Stan1.e1.
Fr"'" tbe vi1.1.age of 1'ot:t Stan1.e1 regarding G. ~ccrea, 251. Eas~ s~reet,
1'ort Stanley regarding drainage. The ",ngineer stated tbat he had wet
Y1itb the C1.erk~Tl'ea$urer and ~he Road SU1'erintendent of 1'ort, Stan1.ey
d they had a1.1. agreed that tbere Y1ere nO prob1.e1l\S on ~he count1
an ,
Road. Tihe C()tll1littee noted tba~ they had 1're'lTious1.Y tuadeill proposal
to the ~ccrea$ l'egarding the $hal'ing of CO$t$ on a municipal dl'ain.
Tbe Engineer reported tbe Road SUQerintendent 01'. 1'0-Ct Stan1.ey bad
ezawined tbe out1.et of tbe drain and had found that tbe ti1.es at tbe
out1.et were coIDing apart and that tbe erosion Y10uld continUe unle$S
-repai-r s '#e-re made.
11' Y1aS noted tbat these ti1.es bad been installed
5.
by a private developer.~ .
Fr"'" ~be TOYlUsbiP:of ~alabide 'ilith zoning BY_1.aYlS ~o rezone 1'roperty:
(a ) "\Ie st of p.,y 1.mer on lligh'ila1 #3 to re si dentia1. ·
6.
l'ar~ of LOt 31., concession VI1l for an addition tOr ]'a~bYlay
l'ub1.isbel'$ (a printing concern).
From the ToYIU of p.,ylmel' Y1itb zoning B1-1.aYl$ to l'ezone for:
(a) A mobi1.e food sale$ on the lGA parking lot on Jobn Street.
d J h Street$ a$ residential.
(Q) A pOl'tion of pl'Opel't1 on Spl'UCe an 0 n
(b)
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 5.
7. From the TO"Wl1ship of Yarmouth, Committee of Adjustment notice:
(a) Regarding a garage for Fred Smith on Centennial Avenue (Road #28).
(b) From Richard Driesman minor variation in the Village of Sparta on
King Street.
8. From the County Government C111l1.I.1dttee requesting information on the
methods the County Road Committee uses for tendering.
9. From the International Joint CvulLuission regarding the water level s on
Lake Erie stating that they felt that there was no E~conomic benefit
to placing restraining structures on Lake Erie to control the level of
the lake.
10. From the Joint Consolidated Hearing Board regarding the Ontario Hydro
route from the Bruce Nuclear Plant stating that the approved route
would be easterly to Essa in Simcoe County. The Committee noted that
a main transmission line would still be required from Middleport to
London and might pass through a portion of East Elgin.
11. From the Ontario Drainage Tribunal with _a decision regarding the
Putman-Banion Drain. The Engineer noted that' the assessment for
County Road #52 had been raised by $650.00 and the assessment of
Mr. C. Scultz lowered by a like amount.
The Cl1l.111uittee discussed this matter and while noting their unhappiness
with the Tribunal decision, they felt that another appeal to the
Tribunal for that amount of money was not worthwhile.
The EngiJneer reported that he had met with Don Husson, County Engineer
Middlesex and Mr. Norm Warner from R. C. Dunn and Associates Limited and
they had agreed that Mr. Warner would cV1lI.plete his report on the Middlemiss
Bridge with the information at hand and forward the info]~ation along with
a tentative c,ost of replacement of the floor and associated work to the
County Engineers as soon as possible so that it could be considered by
both Committees at their next regular meetings.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 6.
Correspondence was read from the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications stating that although they agreed the alignment at the
intersection of County Roads #52 and #29 was not particularly good,
because of the weaving movement of traffic there was little that could
be done to improve it and that the Ministry was not prepared to make
any major improvements at this time.
The Engineer was still of the opinion that something had to be done
at the intersection even if it were just a small length of curb and gutter
put in for traffic control at the intersection. The Engineer was
instructed again to approach the Ministry to seek a short term solution
to the problem.
The Engineer noted that he had written the Canadian National Railway
regarding the improvement of their crossings on County Roads of the old
London and Port Stanley Branch from St. Thomas to Port Stanley but as yet
had received no reply.
The Provincial Government's Incentive Programme was discussed and the
Engineer noted that the first application of $16,600 had been approved by
the Ministry and it would be spent by the end of the month. A second
application for $20,000 had been forwarded and it was expected that
approval for this would also be given shortly.
The Engineer was given authority to forward a third application to the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs after consultation with Ministry Officials
(perhaps another $20,000).
Reeve Monteith, Chairman of the County Government Cormnittee noted
that to his knowledge no other County Committee was particularly
interested other than the Museum and requested that this be included in ,
the County's present programme. Reeve Glover was requested to co-ordinate
the work with the Engineer.
ST.. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 7.
Correspondence from M. J. Hennessey, County Solicitor was read in
which he stated that he felt that a County By-Law to appoint a By-Law
Enforcement Officer would have to have the By-Law Enforcement Officer
named in the by-law, and a by-law merely appointing a by-law
enforcement officer of another municipality without naming the person
involved by name would not be legal. The Connnittee discussed the matter
at some length and felt that the present parking by-laws should be
updated and instructed the Engineer to have one of his staff proceed with
the work. The matter of appointment of an enforcement officer was
discussed at some length.
"MOVED BY: M. H.. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE REQUEST THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
POSSIBILITY OF ENGAGING CHARLES STAFFORD AS A BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF COUNTY PARKING BY-LAlN'S.
THE EXTENT OF THE ENFORCEMENT TO BE DEFINED BY THE COUNTY ROAD
COMMITTEE.
CARRIED ."
The 1982-1983 Winter Maintenance was di scussed. Thl~ Engineer reported
that he felt that with the new salt storage buildings in Dutton and Bayham
Townships sander routes could be revised so that nine vehicles could be
used rather than the present ten. It was noted that one of last year's
sander trucks was no longer in operating condition and had been sold.
The sander was in poor condition and would have to have been replaced within
a year or so. It was felt that the new system would give better service to
West Elgin and as good as service in Central Elgin and East Elgin as
previously. This would reduce the dead loading costs.
The Engineer stated that he was going to meet with a number of other
County Engineers to discuss their system of winter maintenance and standby
hoping that a new system could be evolved that would reduce costs for
Elgin.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JULY 14, 1982
PAGE 8.
The Engineer stated that a report would not likely be available
until at least September.
"MOVED BY: W.. R. CA VERL Y
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ADJOURN TO AUGUST 18, 1982 AT 9 :30 A.M. AND THAT THE
CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE AUGUST ACCOUNTS.
CARRIED ."
~~) ~)o.~G~
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
SECOND REPORT
JUNE SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
WE RECOMMEND
1. That a by-law be passed authorizing the Warden and Clerk to sign
land plans expropriating land for the widening of Road #32 on
Lots 15 and 16, North Gore Concession and Lot 16, Concession VIII,
all in the Township of Malahide. This will allow thle daylighting
of the Concession VIII and Hacienda Road Intersection on Road #32.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
~~
II'
f
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 28, 1982
PAGE 1.
at 4:00 p.m. in conjunction Y1ith County council. All members Y1Sre
TllE co1JN'\'Y 011 ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met on Monday June 28, 1982
present.
i~ being noted an application had been made by the Library Board for
The Incentive EmP1.0ymen~ l'rogrromne Y1as diSCUssed at some leng~h
aPQroximate1.Y $4,32' Y1hich Y1ou1.d c01l\e out of the initial alloca~ion
leaving ~he Coun~y Road Committee $16,600. It Y1aS noted that a
$econdary application had been made for additional funds and the Committee
hoped to hear about thi$ by mid JU1.y.
tYlO application$ waybe a tbird application could be made and ~he money
cou1.d be uti1.ized. It waS decided to diSCUSS the wa~~er further at the
The Engineer stated that depeuding upon the approva1. of these
neX~ Road Committee meeting.
Y1hicb the moto-c had blown up 1.ast winter had been sold to Jim l'oYl8rs
The Engineer reQorted that Truck #56, a 1972 1.ouisvil1.e, in
for $1,000.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAVl
SECONDED BY: L. N. S~Y'ni
THAT WE REcoMMEND '1'0 COUNTY COUNCIL 'HlAT A BY-U"W BE PASSED
AUTHORIZING '\'fIE "WARDEN AND CLERK TO SIGN LAND l'LANS
EXl'ROl'RIATl1<G LAND FOR THE "WIDENING OF ROAD ff3 2 ON LCYl'S 15
AND 16, 1<ORTH GORE CONCESSION AND LCYl' 16, CONCESSI01< VIll
ALL IN THE TOIffiSHl1' OF MALARIDE.
cARR-TED .n
The commit~ee adjOUrned to "Wednesday, JU1.y 1.4, 1.982.
~c;J1~
lJ~
-
CHAIRMAN
~ J.:'
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTE~
FIRST REPORT
JUNE SESSION
, 1982
7
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Construction on all County road projects was seriously hampered by
the wet weather of tate May and early June.
2. A revised maintenance budget has been adopted by you.r Road Cvuuuittee
in the amount of $1,479,000 and distributed with the County Road
Committee minutes.
Increased costs are estimated for winter control and your Committee
was informed by the Ministry of. Transportation and Cv.umynicati,ons
that the Supplementary By-Law for safety edge marking would not be
approved by the Ministry, your Committee has incorpo:rated some
edge marking into their regular budget.
3. The Engineer has been instructed to contact the Canadian National
Railway regarding the restoration required at County Road cr'ossings
after the removal of railroad rails on the Canadian National
Railway's St. Thomas to Port Stanley line.
4. An application has been made to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing under the Ontario Employment Incentt.ive Programme for
l
$20,929 being the initial allocation for the County. Proposed
.
work includes repair and renovation of buildings., rejlairs and
renovations to eXisting bridges, roadside improvements iric<Luding
.
repairs and renovat"ions to drainage facilities. An ClLdditional
application of $20,000 has also been made to continue this work
when the initial funds run out. The Ministry has also been
contacted to ascertain if there are further funds tha.t might be
available later.
Continued . . .
I.
PAGE 2.
COUNTY 011 1?LG11< ROAD C01:ll'fi.TT"'1?
!!R&!J}~ ~1?~&10~ 198-1
1.
'that the canadian Nationa1. Rai1.Y1ay Qe xe,\ue$tedtO give the 1.ocal
wuniciPalitieS the fi-C$t xight of xefu$al fol' the xight-of-,;rl\Y of
tbe 'talQot subdiviSion bet~en St- thoWa$ and 1.~ke Erie-
'WE REcoMME'ND
ALL OF W\11C1i 1& R1?&l'1?Ct]'IJL1.Y &U~TT1?D
CHA.IBMAN
~
\
S't. T1iOMl'-S' 0l'ITAR1.0
JUNE 2, 1982
1? AGE 1.
't1:1:'E COUN'fi 011 E1.C1.N ROAD C~'l"l'EE met at the ~unicipal Building
(\ 30 J.i.....e 2 1. 982 Ail membe1: S Y181:e p1:esent. Ai SO p1:e$ent Y1el'e
at ,,: a.m., ~,.' ·
1!\1'. ?rank c1.al'ke of the ~inist1:Y 01'. 'lXansp01:tation and co;oro.unicatiOnS, the
Ell%inee1: and the A$$i$tant Enginee1:.
"MOVED B~:
VJ. R. CAV'ERL~
SECmlDED wn J. 1<. sM'fl'1:\
'l'1:1:p.,'t T1iE ~1'l\l'tES 011 't1iE ~r:rUlGS 011 }J'R1.1. 21., 23, MA'l 6,
p,NU l1i>'l 19, 1982 BE }J'l'ROVED.
cARRIED-"
Ar.1:angetnent$ fo1: tbe official opening of the ~alkel'$ lI1:idge on
JulY 9 Y1e1:e diSCU$$ed. 1.t Y1a$decided to $end in'\Titation$ to tbe ~iniste1:
of lligh""aY$, Mr. James ~cGUigan' ~.1'.?' the land oYltle1:$ in the al'ea,
_ _ R-1
Mr. JOhn. Aidl'ed, l'lini$tl'Y of 'lXan$pOl'tatiGn and c()tlll1l\1n~cat~on$ eg~ona
Office Staff in 1.ondon, Mr. Ren ~einsteibe1:' MUnicipal St1:Uctu1:al
~.' ~ t~e con$u1.tant$ R. c. DUnn and A$$ociate$, and the contract01:
I:,Ingl.neeJ. , ,1.1.
'the Ell%inee1: 1:epOl'ted. that salt b1:ine bad been app1.ied to county
g1:ave1 1:0ads in ~e$t Elgin and ca1.ci~ chl01:ide applied on county g1:a'\Tel
1'0ad$ in East ",1.gin. 'fhe amountS app1.ied Y181:e quite c1.ose to the estimated
a1l\ountS Qut the "tesults of both Y1ou1d Qe e1\.t1:e1l\elY difficult to a$ce1:tain
a$ the condition$ had Qeen e:l<t1:e1l\elY dt:y Y1hen both mate"tials bad been placed
, and the 1:eCent '\Te1:Y heavY 1:ain$ baq Y1ashed mOst of botb mated,als off the
1:0ad. 1.n all likelibood aU 1'0ad$ YIOu1.d 1:equi1:e a $econd application Qefol'e
the end of June and same mileage 01'. l'oad$ Y10uld ha'ITe to ha'ITe a thi1:d
apQlication. 1.1' appea1:ed that in a good yea1: the1:e Y10uld be $ignificant
sa'ITingS with the salt Q1:ine.
~Ct.ean 110$te1: con$t1:Uction Co1l.\1?anY J.,hnite'd.
ST. THOMAS, ONT ARlO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 2.
A. 10 foot diameter structural steel culvert plate on County
\Road #52, approximately 3/4 of a mile west of Highway ffl4 had been
damaged severely in the storm of May 27. From 2 to 3 inches of rain
fell within a very short time. Sticks had lodged in the! cuI vert along
with many corn stalks and created a dam thus overtopping the inlet end
of the pipe (6 feet). A section of the pipe (42 feet) had turned up
and had been severely damaged although the road had not been washed
out. The entire section would have to be replaced at a cost of
approximately $15,000. Work was p-roceeding as weather permitted.
The Engineer reported that the 7% Provincial Sales Tax now
applies to all capital items purchased including culvert: pipe, asphalt
cement, emulsion, calcium chloride, etc. No estimate of additional
costs for the rest of the season was available.
Mr. Frank Clarke reported that the County's Supplementary
By-Law for pavement edge marking would not be approved and that it was
not likely that the full amount of the Drainage Assessmemt By-Law would
be approved.
It was noted that $20,000 subsidy ha.d b~en received for
Drainage Assessments in 1981 and that the County had requested $45,000
in drainage subsidy for 1982.
THE ENGINEER. REPORTED ON THE' WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Weed spr.aying lists have been distributed to the various Townships;
and some Townships had begun work.
2. Pavement marking was continuing and should be complE~ted within the
week after which white edge marking would be applied for the City
of St. Thomas and the County.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 3.
3. Grading on Road #8 had been progressing very nicely until the recent
heavy rains which had stopped the project completely. It was unlikely
that any work could be done for at least a week even with dry weather,
however curb and gutter work was continuing in Wa1lacetown.
4. Gravel resurfacing had been completed in north Southwold (Roads #17,
#18 and #20).
5. Cleanup work on Road #38 near Straffordvil1e has beem hampered by
heavy rains.
6. A drain on Road #47, east of Road #48 had been repai.red.
7. A ditch on Road #45, at the L. Shaw property had beem cleaned out.
8. Culverts on Road #37 east of Avon at G10ble's had be~en removed
cleaned and replaced.
9. Fencing work had been completed for the time being on Road #32 and
was underway on Road #37.
10. Machinery repair was continuing with a casual worker being assigned
to help the mechanics in the shop.
11. Two trucks have been received back from Frink Canada, and another two
trucks were there presently. It was hoped that all the body work
could be completed within the next three weeks.
12. Drainage work would be done on Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) as soon
as the Winter's Drain has been installed.
13. As the culvert repair on Road #52 was under Suburban Road Commission
control, the road would have to be reverted to the County as the
Commission did not have money in its budget for this use. Road #28
(Centennial Avenue) would have to be reverted as considerable work
is required on the road this summer including, priming, drainage, and
asphalt patching.
14. Gravel shouldering would be cOfIlpleted shortly on Road #45 in Bayham
and would be started on Road #40 between Glencolin.. and Springfield
as time permitted.
15. The County's land surveyor was continuing his work on County Roads #3
and #8.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 4.
16. '\'he county had been successful in purcha$ing the Y1idening fr01l\
Mrs. Gre~n on Road 1f37 east of the C.l'.R. Tracks, thuS the
culvert Y1ou1d be installed on county Road #37 and the ea$t
appr 0 ache s ~o the rail. road tr acks YIi dened thi s S\1fi1lll.er.
17. Reeve Monteith noted that he Y1a$ stilt negotiating Y1ith Mr. David
Ferguson Y1ith regard ~o Road #30.
The committee agreed that ~i1fred smith should be presented Y1ith hi$
retirement Y1a~ch and cheque at the county Council meeting on June 28 as
he Y10uld l'etil'e shortlY after tbat date because of ill hea1.~h.
Ronald cook Y1a$ still on Vlor\<nlent s compensation and had e1<hauSted all
sick time and houday time (back injUry).
Gordon ]edford Y1a$ off on Wor\<nlen's compensation and wight be off 1'.01'
$evera1 mon~h$ (rupture).
S01l\e ca$Ua1 Y10rkers from previoU$ yeal' s had been reca1.1ed.
"MOVED BY:
M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHA~
THAT TIlE FOL1.OWLNG PA'lLISTS BE APPROVED 110R PAYMENT.
l'A'lLIST NUMBER 22 AMOUNTING '1'0 $51.,236.32
PA'lLIST Nffi'iBER24 AMOUNTING TO $2,474.76
l'A'lLIST NUMBER 2' AMOUNTING '1'0 $,1.,81.,.06
l'A'lLIST NUMBER 26 AMOUN'l'INGTO $2Z,,4,7.90
CARRIED ."
QUotations for grade-C blades Y1ere at attached.
II~OVED BY: ~. R. CAVER:LY
SEC01<DED BY: J. N. sM'iTIl
TIlAT WE ACCE1'T TllE QUOTATION 011 VALLB'l BLADES 1.I14ITED 110R 300,
6 1100T GRADER BLADES AT $17.42 PLUS l'ROVINCIAL SALES TAlC DEL1'N"'RED
'1'0 THE COUN'l'Y GARAGE AT WHITE STA'l'10N.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 5.
North shore Gravel and Ken Ntford for pea s~one prices and they had
The Engineer reported tha~' he had canva$$ec1the local sUP1'liers,
agreed to supply $~One (as much a$ they could) at $1.90 pe-c cubic
yard Which Y10uld be a competitive price Y1ith s~one tha~ Y1ou1.d be
Qurchased from TCG Materials 1.iwit~d and trucked into the county Garage
at $5.,0 Qer ton. 11' Y1a s not 1 ike 1. Y ~hat either Ntf or d s o-C North. Shore
Grave1. toge~her could produce enou~h pea stone for the county's
requirementS and that stone Y10uld stilt have to be brought in.
destroyed their Niagara Fan$ plant and they had been forced to move their
The Engineer reQor~ed tha~ a fire at Norjohn con~racting 1.imited had
plant in Chathaw to Niagara Fans in order to $UPP1.y their cUI3~oIDers. There
Y18re increased costS in transporta~ion because of thiS. 11' Y1aS noted that
even Y1ith the increased cost Norjohn contracting 1.imited Y1as still the 1.oYles~
bidder ·
"~OVED BY: J. N. SMYTli
SECONDED BY: R. S. M1u.ARD '
TillS WE ACCEPT TllE QUatA'l'10NOF NORJOllN CONTRACT1NG 1.1~1TED 011 63. 3
CENTS 1'1lR CAl,LON 110R RSlR AS1'liAt.T EM\Jl.S101<, F .O.B. TliE1R N1AGARA
F AL1.S 1't.ANT 1NSTEAD OF F.O. B. TliE1R CRAT1:1AM pt,ANT DUE TO A F1RE Kf.
THE PLANT.
CARR1 ED. t1
The Engineer presented and discussed tbe proP9.sedsUrface ~reatroent
The coun~y of Rent had requested appro><iwatelY 4 ndle$ of surface
programme for 1982.
treatment, the Township of liarYlich 3 wiles, ~he Vil1.age of liighgate a
mile. All Y10rk Y10uld be done from ~he)'ti<igetown Yard and Y1ou1.d Qrobab1.Y
involve three (3) days Y1ork; at the satue tiwe YIOrk in WeS~ E1.gin YIill be
done. Stone YIOuld be Qurcha$ed from TCG ~aterials Limited.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 6.
1IMOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT THE ATTACHED PROGRAMME OF SURFACE TREATMENT WORK ON VARIOUS
COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
The attached Maintenance Budget was discussed at some length and it
was noted that the budget would have to include pavement edge marking
inasmuch as the supplementary by-laws were no longer available. There
was also an increase in the cost of surface treatment because of the
expanded progr~e. The Engineer stated that it was too early in the
seaSon yet to ascertain the total maintenance expenditures necessary.
Maintenance expenditures would be examined again when the sur,face
treatment programme had been completed.
'~MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE ATTACHED PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUDGET IN THE: AMOUNT OF
$1,479,000 BE ADOPTED IN PLACE OF THE BUDGET ADOPTED
FEBRUARY 18, 1982.
CARRIED.1I
The Engineer presented the attached proposed Truck Rates for 1982.
1IMOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: R. S. MILLARD
THAT THE ATTACHED TRUCK RENTAL RATES BE ADOPTED FOR THE PERIOD
MAY 1, 1982 TO APRIL 30, 1983.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 7.
Qer the hour from some eight (8) equipment oY11lers in the Col1n~y he had
The Engineer noted that althoUgh he had requested equipwent p-cice$
onlY received quotations from Strieb Trucking, Strickland Bulldozing and
Enterprises 1.imited, and Verne Riggs, althoUgh equipment fr01l\
Mike Die~rich and Milan Lee had also been rented. The Commit~ee felt it
strange that feYl rep1.ie$ had been received inasmuCh as construction Y1as
at a 10Yl ebb ,~hroughoU~ the county.
THE ~EErlNG ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
. . .
AFTER LUNCH · · ·
with Reeve SteYlart and Frank Clarke absent.
CORRESl'ONDENCE WAS RE.!\D AS FOLLOVlS ~
1.. From ~he Onta-cio Good Roads ASSociation Y1ith thankS for the Engineer' $
2. From the Ministry of Natural ReSOurces stating that they Y10uld prepare
services at ~he recent GuelQh Road schoo1..
a repOl't and mark ~he t-cee$ at the White Station property after the
3. From the Ontario Blue Cross Y1ith notification of an inc-cease in rates.
end of september.
4. FrOW the ToY11lship of southYlOld Y1i~h a zoning By-LaYl for residen~ial
, . Fr om the ToY11l of Ay 1.wer with a zoning By- LaYl for a veter inary clinic
at the Ta1botvi11e Gore.
6. From ~he Village of por~ Stanley Y1ith a zoning By_LaYl fol' a QortiOn
on Highway #3.
of the beacb on Edith cavell Bou1.evard to beach commercial.
regarding the smith fatality on county Road #16 at Middlemal'ch
7. From the Ontario Provincia1. 1'01ice Y1ith a' copY of an acciden~ report
8. FroID the To_ship of Yar1Ilouth Y1ith notification of a meeting for a
(high spe.ed).
zoning By-Law Amendment by Mr. Bric .seiden a~ the intersection of
High"ay #4 and County Road #51.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 8.
9, The Ministl'Y of Transportation and communications Y1ith formal approval
of county By~LaW #S2-l to revert a portion of Chatham s~reet to the
10. From Mr. Donald carnegie Y1i~h a reque$t for a 30 day exten$ion in
village of 1'0-ct BUrYle1.l.
time to rewove the gas line on county Road #2 betYleen DUtton and
We$t Lorne. The coromit~ee authorized the Engineel' ~o give
~r. carn~gie a 30 day extension to the first of JU1.y to rewove the
gas line \and ~o dean up tbe county Road.
11. From the .Ontario Municipa1. Board Y1ith a no~ice of a Rearing on
12. From the Town of Aylmer Y1ith a zoning By~LaYl for rezoning Qroperty in
June 24, .an appeal by Ur1IIamo Far1ll$ Limited.
the area of the A)'1.mer sales Arena.
The Engineer reported tha~ he had been negotiating Y1ith the Ministry of
Transpor~a~ion and communications' Officia1.S regarding the transfers to the
County of Elgin of portions of the road the Ministry had built in lieU of
county Road #29 and county Road #52. '\'he negotiations had been ca-cried on
over several years and an agreewent had been reached on those portion$ of
road that "oU;:\.d be_TElVerted td the. countY ;
the roads inc]uding ditching, dl'ainage and surface treatment on the $ervice
The Engineer repor~ed that the Ministry had agreed to upgrading Y10rk on
road which Y10uld be county Road #29, etc. DiSCUssions Y1ere s~i1.1. underlolOY
regarding the inter$ectiOn of the neW county Road #29 and Vlelling~On Road
which the coromi~tee roemberI3 agreed Y1a$ presentlY very poorlY deSigned. It
Y1as hoped to resolve all other watters other than the intersec~ion design
short1.y. '\'he County Y10uld wake the iroprovementS and bill the Ministry.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 10.
Warden Shaw and the Reeve reported on the complaint of Mr. Stacey
on Road #45 at Valerie Street in Yarmouth Township. They reported that
the roadside drainage water was presently going across Mr.. Staceyts
property and into his house basement and his well. This occurred because
the property had been filled in since the County drainage system had been
put in and proper care had not been taken by the house building contractor
to take the drainage to a proper outlet. The matter was d scussed at some
length and it 'Was felt by the CVl1uuittee that the County had some re sponsibil ity
in the matter. The Engineer was instructed to write to Mr. Stacey suggesting
that the County would continue the drain to a proper outlE~t and reshape the
lawn, providi~g that Mr. Stacey paid the sum of $600.00 and did the fine
grading and reseeding of his lawn.
The Engineer reported on the Middlemiss Bridge stating that although
a written report was not yet available the Concrete Consultant had found
that there was approximately 8 inches of poor concrete all around the edges
of the piers of the Bridge. The piers centres themselves were not in bad
condition, however no tests were made on the bottom stone portion of them
which were over 100 years old. The Engineer felt that if the floor only
was to be replaced it should be done within a two (2) year period" at a
tentative cost of $250,000. The bridge would be closed to traffic for a
minimum of three (3)months. A new bridge would cost between 2 million
dollars to 2~ million dollars at todayts dollars. It would have to be
built over a t.hree (3) year period (County financial requ:irements). An
Environmental Assessment would be required two (2) to thrl~e (3) years
lead time would be required for engineering and approvals, etc. The
present floor would likely have a maximum life of five (5) years and this
would require some patching and a reduced load limit for .a portion of that
time. By that time serious damage would have occurred to piers, structural
steel, etc.
The Committee discussed the matter at some length and decided to
ascertain the feelings of the Middlesex Road Committee before asking for
a formal written report from the Consultant on either replacement of the
floor or the replacement of the bridge.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 9.
correspondence Y1a$ noted from the Coun~y Clerk with regard to a
Reso1.ution from ~he Village of Port s~anley regarding the closure of the
Talbo~ Subdivision of the Canadian National Rai1.way betYleen por~ Stanley
and St. Thomas.
After some discussion · · ·
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: J. N. sMYTH
THAT 'dE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE C!>NADIAN NATIONAL RAIL'dAY
BE REQUESTED TO GIVE THE LOCAL MllNICIl'ALITIES THE FIRST RIGHT OF
REFUSAL ON THE TALBOT SUBDIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN ST. THOMAS AND
LAKE ERIE.
CARRIED."
The Engineer waS ins~ructed to mee~ Y1ith the officials of the canadian
National Railway Y1ith regard to work required at ~he Coun~y Road crossings
when the rails were removed.
Correspondence was read from the Village of port Stanley requesting
permission to build approximately 3,000 square feet of concrete side~alk
on Warren Street (County Road #21).
"MOVED BY:: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT l'ERMlSSION BE GRANTED TO THE VILLAGE OF PORT STANLEY TO REl'LACE
AT THEIR EXPENSE APl'ROXlMATELY 520 FEET OF SIDEWALK ON WARREN STREET,
COUNTY ROAD #21 AS PER THEIR REQUEST OF JUNE 1, 1982.
CARRIED."
Correspondence Y1as noted from the village of port s~anley reque$ting
better $igning on County Road #20 neal' the port Stanley School becaUse of
the exces$ive speed limit. The Engineer Y1as instructed to examine the
signing in the area and make necessary improvementS.
ST. 'l'RQMA.S, ONTAR1.0
JUNE 2, 1982
'PAGE 11.
co-.:-.:e$pondence 1toom the ~inist-.:Y 01'. ~unicipal N'fai-':S and 1l0u$ing Y1a$
noted ;dth tbe Gove-.:",nen~' s p-.:ovincia1. ()tlta-.:io EtnP1.oyroent 1.ncentive
11' Y1aS noted tbat the countY of Elgin had been anocated an
'Pr 0 g-r anu:ne ·
initial al1.ocation of $20,925 and that thiS Y1o-.:k YIOuld include payro1.1
cost$ plu$ standal'd benefitS. The pl'Ogl'gW1l\e Y1aS available to all the
municipalities.
'the Enginee-.: "a$ in$tl'Ucted to pl'oceed ;dth an app1.icatiOn to the
M;ini$t-.:Y fol' t.h-.:ee (3) p-.:oject$: (a) -.:epai-': and -.:enovation of buildings;
(b) -.:epai-': artd -.:enovation of b-.:idge$ and st-.:uctul'e$; (c) -.:oad$ide
i1lll?-':Ovement$ including l'epai-':$ and l'enovatiOns to d-.:ainage $ys~em$' 'the
Engineel' Y1a$ alsO in$t-.:ucted to make an additiona1. application fo-': $20,000
to continue p-.:ojectS #2 and ff3 into the tate $UllIlIlel' and fan.
'the Enginee-.: Y1a$ a1.$O in$t-.:ucted tD a$Cel'tain whethel' 0-': not fu-.:thel'
money wight be availab1.e at a late-.: date and if $0 to make an app1.ication
1'.0-': thiS. 11' Y1aS felt that many p-.:ojectS on\ the county Roads Y1hich $hou1d
be done Y10uld not be done because of tack 01'. fund$ pa-.:ticu1.al'1.Y in the
cul ve-.:t, b-.:i dge maintenance and dl' ai nage -.:ep ai-': a-.:ea s. '
. . .,th
The Enginee-.: -.:eported that he bad had severa1. meet~ngs "'-
Mr. llenne$$ey. the countY' $ solicitOr and had a$cel'tained the fo1.lo;dng:
Tbat a countY EO'l,ineer or a Road SUQerintendent Y1as not auto1l\Otica1.1Y a
By-LaYl Enforcewent Officer by virtue of hi$ position butYloUld, like any
other e1lll?loyee of countY council, have to be appointed by a specia1. by_laYl.
h d h .t~ to delegate to a local
The solicitor YIOndered if the county a aut or~ J
1.
2.
municipality the poYler to appoint a By-LaYl Enforcewent Officel"
1:le would
4.
dete-croine thi$ and l'epOl't.
'the solicitOr YIOuld draYl up a properlY Y10rded by-1aYl tOr 1'ar\<.ing
re$trictiOns if l'eque$ted. 'the pl'e$ent countY by_1.aYl$ Y1ere not property
Y10rded uide-c the neYl l'rovincia1. Offence$ Act.
A unifo1'ttl!'d 1'01 ice Officer Y1as required to stop a moving vebic1.e to
enforce overYleight 1.oad$ on county Bridge$.
3.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 12.
Correspondence was read from the Township of Southwold requesting an
updated by-law on parking at Fingal on County Roads #16 and #20. The
Engineer stated that he would reply to the Township stating that the
present by-law was not updated and the present by-law could not be
enforced.
Correspondence was read from the Township of Yarmouth requesting the
County Engineer enforce parking restrictions on County Road #27 at Lot 19.
Again the County Engineer stated that he was not in a position to enforce
the by-law. The Township also requested that the County erect "no parking"
signs on Road #52 near tot 20, Range II, North of the Edgeware Road adjacent
to the property of Mr. Gary Robinson, The Engineer noted that this could not
be done without a proper restrictive parking by-law.
The Township also wished the County Engineer to notify Mr. Walter Burke
to remove the tires from the County Road allowance on County Road #27
immediately. The CVlluLLittee instructed the Engineer to pr~ceed to have
Mr. Burke remove his tires or face charges.
After considerable discussion the matter of parking enforcement and
by-lawswas left until the following meeting.
The Engineer noted that future Roads meetings would discuss an updated
County Road Programme and also suggested that the County's winter maintenance
standards be discussed along with the County's winter standby policies, etc.,
in an effort to reduce winter maintenance costs. These costs were now up to
approximately 1/3 of the County's maintenance budget. It was noted that
between complaining residents and the Ontario Provincial Police, calls much
more material was being used for winter maintenance than was perhaps really
necessary. the County's liability in the matter would have to be determined
and the Engineer stated that he hoped that some methods could be arrived at
to reduce the cost. It was noted that the new salt storage depot at Dutton
should reduce costs somewhat.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JUNE 2, 1982
PAGE 13.
"MOVED BY:
J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED :BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE AOJOURN TO JULY 14, 1982 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
WL \J ~~j
~~
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
GRADER BLADE QUOTATIONS
300 GRADER BLADES 6' TO WHITE STATION
."
1. Valley Blades Limited
P. O. Box 126
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 329
2. E. S. Hubbell and Sons Limited
P. O. Box 118
Thamesvil1e, Ontario
NOP 2KO
3. Letco Limited
P. O. Box 295
Cambridge (p), Ontario
N3H 2K9
4. Crothers Limited
1 Crothers Drive
Toronto, Ontario
M4H 1 Ai
NOTE:
June 1981 Tender to Valley Blades @ $ 17.145
$17.42
$18.36
$19.80
$20.95
,,.
~
~
COt11'ARlSO~ Of COS'!:S ~ 1'>1.DDER #l hND #2
#" ~ ~01')obn contl'ac~ing Liroi~ed ~ Tho-co1.d.
#2 ~ p,scenco ~ ClaJ:Kson.
\
,
JUNE 1, 1982
~
u.) cap.,TllAl'i (1'>) 1<lAG,!o3A l1tJ.its
63.3 ~ 63.3 $
Base 1?~ice
nelivel'ed to s~. Tbotuas
to lona
to Rodne"j
Dittel'ence ~o St. Tha1l\as
to lona
to RodneY
Ditfel'ence to st. Thomas
to lona
to RodneY
'~"
72.7 <t-
72.7 <j:,
72.7 <j:,
~
9.4 <f
9.4 <f
9.4 <t-
~
11.4 <f
11.4 <t-
12.2 <t-
16.0 <t
11.6 <j:,
19.3 <t-
~
3/3 <j:,
4.9 <t-
6.6 <j:,
.t'
~
69.6 <t-
51..0 <j:,
81..0 <t-
81.8 <t-
RATE 1ROl'i
~
12.1 <j:,
1(.\-.3 <j:,
1.6.0 <j:,
cOUNTY 01' ELG1.N ROt>.D ~ AR~
SURF t>.CE TREt>.TMEN1 PROG~E 1982
1. Road #2
~. Road #3
\ 3. Road #3
~, 4. Road #3
From Road #15 ~est of Ecker Drain.
RodneY. conrail 'tracks to Road #4.
Nortb limit of Rodney to Rigb~aY #401.
_ Patcbes nortb of Rigb~aY #401 to second
road sotltb of Road #6.
5.
Road #6 . Rent cotlnty Line to Black' sLane.
Road #16 . (a) Finga1 Bridge to Noble Ttlfford Drive.
6.
(b)
FergtlS Gron Drive to ~est of F. JoneS
Rotlse (as marked).
Finga1 east limit of ctlrb and gtl~ter
to Road' #20 (incltlding intersect1.on).
. (c)
7. Road #19 . Rigb~aY #401 overpass.
From Road #36 to tOp of port Brtlce Rill.
From city of St. Thomas limitS to Road #52
otber tban ne~ hot mil< patcb.
8. Road #24 ...
9. Road #30 ...
10. Road #40 -
11. Road #42 ..
12. Road #45
13. Road #48
14. Road #51
15. Road #52 ...
~,
\
~ 16. Road #54 ...
From Road #45 to Rigb~ay ff3.
East of port Btlr~ell to Norfolk cotlnty
Line (1978 and 1979).
Jaffa to Road #40 (1976).
East of Road #47 (1978).
(Garage Road).
(a) portion previOtlS1Y in tbe centre.
(b) 1:\igb~ay ffl3 ~esterlY.
(\ of cbarges to Ol<ford) (0.6 Miles)
'* 'FiniSb tlP Road #24 bet~een Del<te,r and Road #36
o .8 Mi 1 e S ::t
0.3 MileS
1.0 MileS
0.7 MileS i
1.5 MileS
4.0 MileS
0.2 MileS i
o .3 Mile S ::t
0.2 MileS
3.5 MileS i
).6 MileS
2.3 MileS
4.3 Miles
5 .1 Mil e S
1.8 MileS
0.9 MileS
2.0 MileS
0.9 MileS
0.3 MileS
.----
30.7 MileS +
~ -
:::;:::;00--
1.0 MileS i
OPERATION
A - Bridge and Culverts
- 1 Bridges
- 2 CUlverts
B - Roadside Maintenance
- 1 Grass CUtting
- 2 Tree Cutting
- 4 Drainage
- 5 Roadside Maintenance
- 6 Tree Planting
- 7 Drainage Assessments
(Maintenance)
- 11 Weed";.Spraying
~
~
MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1982
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AND COUNTY
1982 TOTAL,
COUNTY
76,000
75,000
25, 000 21 ,500
70,000 65,000
...
90;000 83,500
18,aOD 14,000
6,000 5 ,500
2,000 2,000
16,000 13,000
REVISED MAY 1982
REVISED MAY 1982
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
1982 TOTAL
COUNTY
1,000
76,000
75,000
3,500
25 , 000 22,000
80,000 74,000
75,000 67,000
18,000 12,000
~
3,000 3,000
3,000 2,500
16,000 13,500
5,000
6,500
4,000
500
3,000
~
,...~
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
1,000
3,000
6,000
8,000
6,000
500
2, 500
"
REMARKS
No change.
No change.
Present budget nearly
spent.
Pr{)gr;:lmm~ curtailed.
No change.
Shortage of trees.
Increase in work by
Township s.
No change.
MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1982
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AND COUNTY
REVISED MAY 1982
OPERATION
1982 TOTAL
C - Paved Road Maintenance
1 Repairs to Pavement
75,000
- 2 Sweeping
25,000
- 3 Shoulder Maintenance
65,000
- 4 Surface Treatment
1 25 , 000
D - Gravel Road Maintenance
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads
30,(JQO
- 3 Calcium Chloride
58,000
COUNTY
65,000
22,000
60,500
102,000
..
25,000
48,000
REVISED MAY 1982
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
1982 TOTAL
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
3,000
4,000
25 , 000
5,000
12,000
PAGE 2.
REtlo\R.K S
No change. Hot mix
patching 1ate~ work
curtailed.
No change.
Prograrmne cut.
Cost per mile down but
programme expanded to
32 miles.
Reduction in amount of
work done.
Increase due to sal e s
tax and dry weather.
Salt brine some savings.
- A Prime 8,000 2,000 6,000 9,000 9,000
5 Gravel Resurfacing 98,000 89,000 9,000 88,000 76,000 12,000 Some saving s in programme
10,000
75,000
75,000
3,000 25,000 22,000
4,500 55,000 51,000
23,000 135,000 110,000
5,000
27 ,000
22,000
1 0, 000
60,000
~ 48,000
MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1982
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION AND COUNTY
REVI SED MAY 1982
OPERATION
E - Winter Control
Total
F - Safety Devices
- 1 Pavement Marking
(Centre Line)
- 2 Signs
- 3 Guide Rail
- 4 Railroad Protection
(County's Share of
Crossing Protection)
- 6 Edge Marking Paved Roads
Previous Bu~get $1,454,000
Supplementary By-Law 27,500
Total $1,481.500
PAGE 3.
REVISED MAY 1982
1982 TOTAL
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBA.l\J
ROADS
REMARKS
COUNTY .
1982 TOTAL
COUNTY
496,000
411,000
85,000
540,000
440,000
Increase in costs for
past Winter.
100,000
40,000 31,000 9,000 38,000 29,000 9,000 Reduction in vehicle
repair costs.
70,000 62,000 8,000 60,000 55,000 5,000 Replacement programme
cut back.
8,000 5,000 3,000 8,000 5,000 3,000 No change.
44,000 37~OOO 7,000 44,000 37,000 7,000 No change.
9,000
3,000
6,900
19,000
.. 11, 000
8,000
Supplementary By-Law
not approved by M.T.C.,
same programme as 1981.
,$1,454,000
$1,242,000
$212,000
$1,4~9, ooq
$1,259,6)00
$220,000
~
RECOMMENDED TRUCR Rt\TES FOR 1982
~
sing1 e Axle
Tandelll (14 · 15 Ol. yd.)
1 .. 3 mileS
4 mile ave'J:age
5 mile ave'J:age
6 mile ave'J:age
7 mile ave'J:age
8 mile ave'J:age
9 mile aVe'J:age
10 mile ave'J:age
10 .. 20 mileS
ove'J: 20 mileS
~
I"~
\,
~
~
~ 1 1/2 times tonnage.
1981
::;...;..--
$22.00
$ 29 .00
~
~
$32.00
.97
.88
1.25
1.11
1.42
1.28
1.58
1.44
1.73
1.59
1.88
1.72
2.03
1.85
2.10
2.10 + 13~ ton mile
1.97
1.97 + 12<t-
tOn mile
3.40 + 10~ tOn mile
3.1 7 + 9<t-
tOn mile
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
SECOND REPORT
MAY SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
WE RECOMMEND
1. That a By..Law b~ pass~d expropriating Parts #1 and #2, plan
llR 2373 to widen County Road #32.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPEC'I~FULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONT ARlO
MAY 19, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met in conjunction with County
Council on Wednesday, May 19, 1982 at 4:30 p~m. at the Municipal Buildings.
All members were present.
The attached proposed agreement between Mr. William Hare and the
County 'Of Elgin was presented and discussed.
"MOVED BY:
J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT'WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
AND MR. WILLIAM T. HARE AND THAT WE ACQUIRE THE LAND SHOWN AS
PARTS #1 AND #2, PLAN 11R 2373 TO W!r:DEN COUNTY ROAD #32. A COpy
OF THE AGREEMENT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE ROAD COMMITTEE MINUTES.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED
EXPROPRIATING PARTS #1 AND #2, PLAN 11R 2373 TO WIDEN COUNTY
ROAD #32.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLIST BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 23 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,982.35
CARRIED."
I
ST. T1:\Ow.-S, ONTAR1.0
l!1A~ 19, 1982
'PAGE 2.
. f RS1" EmtllSiOtl were as attacbed.
QIlotat'l.ons or '"
"MOVED'B~:
SECONDED B'H J. N. ~
'fllA,T 'fllE QUoTAT1.0N 01' NORJffi\N CoNTRAcT1.NG L1.M,1.TED FOR RS1R
C1:\lit1:\~ PLAl'fr AT 63. 3 cE1'l1 S
cAT10l'l1.C EMJ.ll.S1.0N, l' .O.B. T1:lE1.R
pER G~LoN BE ACCE1?TED.
~. R. CAVERL~
CARR1.EUe"
1.t ~aS noted tbat
cJ:ossingS and mal<e ~ ,--
.... . 't"\Q.
d to renort at tbe ne>tt ,~~~-' ·
abandonntent an r
gasoli:ne
ada for diesel ftle1 and
The Engineer's agreement ~itb petro.can
.tb tbe last Road (}OIIllll:ittee M,intltes ~as approved.
as sent out 'W1.
The 'Engineet:
d d p.au. ;:),tUVVP.
'0 'dae bad been ma e, an
~rl. 0 __~n Ul.er
t d over tbe nortb app.v-
:\1e-rel y t:us e
stt:inge-rs 'We-re se 11 tb~ st-ringe-rs a~
-renlace a '
't ~otlld be necessarY to r ·
floor ~aS replaced 1. 1 tbe concrete corl.ng
, e ort f~om constrtlctiOn contro on
tbe same tl.me. A r l'
~as not available.
ST. T1:\QW-.S, oN'fAR1.0
MAY' 19, 1982
1> AGE 3.
. oted tbat tbe ne~ 'Provincial BIldget bad tal<ed
The Bngl.neer n t previOtlS1Y tal<ed
'\....aSed itemS whicb .,ere no
. . 11 Y pU1: CLt
most of tbOse tJlll,nl.c1.1'a . calci1l11l cblotide,
cement, l1l11lber, signS, etJlll,lS1.0ns,
stlcb as aspba1t cement, to paY tal< on tab6Ur
~nicipalitieS ~otlld also bave
and ctllvert pipe, etc. . 11 itlll?Ossib1e to estimate
."'-.1 it ~aS practl.ca y
.1: S done. 'NLt1. e ld
for any otltside repal. f tbe year and ~otl
. b ~50 000 for the rest 0
. t cotl1d eas1.11 e.. ' d
tbe total iropact 1. f dtlSt control ba
. . b as tbe first layer 0
uent yea1: s l.na smuc
be greater in stlbseq . e and otber 5\1pplies bad
king paint, ctllvert p1.1'
been coropteted, pavement mat
been ptlrcbased before M,a1 14.
. t ted tbat a ne~ M,aintenance 'BIldget ~otlld be presented
The Eng1.nee1: s a
b it ~aS very diffiCtllt to keep
n. d ca-mittee meeting even tbotlg
at the ne'$.t }.'\.oa w....
b tlse of tbe rapidlY increasi11,g costs.
~ithin btldgeted all'OtlntS eca
The meeting adiotlrned to Jtlne 2.
Cl\IS~
_ h' 7tl day of 1\\1ril, 1992.
T\nS J\Gl<FI:j'\f}H made in dwllcate t ~s 1 .
1) b 1 -w E E N:
'frill Cal1NRJ\TlaN 0'1' 'frill ca~ 0'1' 1'.LGIN
~n1T"l lRPOAA110N"
bereinafter called tbe "COUl~'. CO'
0'1' TI'IB rlRSI pJ\RT
":-
'\IlILL~' <:f tbe To\'ll1,sbir of Malabide, in
u;eCo\,lUty 0 1'.1g1n,
_ 11 :\ In_'I\'OT~"
bereinaiCter ca eu ,~
0'1" nm S1'.CQND pJ\RT
_ and -
, . Co\,lUtY 'Road No. :'>2,
, iCor tbe rurposes of reconstructtng
',\'llE~ the co\,lUtJ' CorporaHon, . f' a: 'Plication for a"Ppro\1al
, "co\,lUt Road", bas gi \1en not~ce 0 :l tS 1>
hereinafter called the y . 0. -ribec\ in schedul.e ,,~'
. te from Bare tboSe lands more rart~cUlarlyeSc
to e)(1?ropr1.a
. . s to whether the taking of tbe lands is
,~lfI '\I!\1ERBJ\5 Bare bas requested an ~nqU:ln' a .
t\l'OO b' · of tbe
f' 50""0. and reasonablY necessary in tbe acbie\1ement of tbe 0 ject:l'1es
a~r , v.P
to tbiS agreement;
C \,lUt Corporation ~s trespassed upon tbe
NID '\I!\:1ERl']I,S Hare fUrther alleges that the ,0 Y
f " t tbe north of thoSe
',\_ :\' S c""'.e'. dule ,,~' and otber lands 0 ,.are 0 .
lands descr~oeu ~n"
Co\,lUty corporation;
d 1 "~'.
described in Scbe u e ' f the '1arious matters
, . \1e a reed upon a settlement 0
NID '\I!\1ERBJ\S tbe rartles heretO ba g
,
, ' f "",, mutual covenantS
~ " _,.' ,.. ~ ~~ ::" \ l' t in cons~deratlOn 0 t"e
NOVl 'nIFRf.l:all,E 'n n s j\C,11l11<\\:N1 \~l IN\.SSU I t l,\ .
. /1 h . the narties bereto cO\1enant and agree as follows:
conta~neu ere~n ,,' ~
. . \'01 i th Hare as follows:
1 'the county Corporation covenaP,tS and agrees ,
. ' Ma '., 1982 Fourteen
la) tbat it will pay to Bare on or before :of " ,
Hundred l$l, 400.00) UOllars,
f 't 'f\'als along tbe
that it will place stakes at 100 oot ~n e
, d 1 "~'
northerlY limit of tne lands described ~n Scbe u e ·
0. . r'ng "Practice tWO
tbat it will install according to goO eng:lnee ~
, 0 feet in lengtb <)110. 1S incbes
(2) steel culvertS, each be~ng :, .
0. by the partieS so
in diameter at locations to be agree upon "
I C unty ROad to Hare 5
as to provide reasonal)lC access from t le 0
in issue.
.~
lb)
lc)
,
- L. -
lands to the north of the lands described in Schedule "A"
and the County agrees that each of such culverts will be
provided with gravel approaches to pennit reasonable access
to Hare's lands from the County Road.
(d) that it will disconnect the tile now connecting the catchbasin
and the junction box which are said to be located on the lands
described in Schedule "A" and that it will, by a further tile
or tiles to be connected to the said junction box, carry the
water brought to the junction box across the County Road~
(e) that it will complete (b), (c) and (d) above on or ,before the
substantial completion of the reconstruction of the County
Road opposite the lands in Schedule "A" and in any event on
or before December 31, 1982.
(f) that it will pay Hare's solicitor $582.35 , being legal costs
incurred by Hare in connection with the issues between the
parties.
2. Hare covenants and agrees with the Connty Corporation as follows:
(a) that the Connty may forthwith take possession of the
lands described in Schedule "A" for the purposes of reconstructing
the COlmty Road.
(b) that he will forth\vith withdraw his request for the inquiry
described in the reci tals contained here~in.
(c) that he will not object nor cause anyone to object in any
manncrif the County Corpor::ltion completes the expropriation
of the lands described in Schedule "A" and following the payment
described in J (a) above, he will have no claim or demand for
the market value of such lands, for injurious affection arising
therefrom or for interest or costs, if the County Corporation
completes the expropriation.
. (d) that upon pcrfonn:lncc of (a), (h), (c) and (d) of section 1,
that he will deliver a deed to the COilllty Corporation of the
lands described in Schedule "A", the title to be good and free
from encumbrances.
(e) that he hereby releases the County Corporation its agents,
- 3 -
servants and workmen from all claims, demands and costs
arising from or in any way connected with any trespass or
alleged trespass upon the lands described in Schedule "AU
or lying to the north thereof up to and including the date
of this agreement.
3~ This agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
WITNESS:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
..
WILLIAM T. HARE
THE CORPORATION OF TIIE COUNIY OF ELGIN
;" d
.(!
(':--7., /h/C,,:- -':;' /
/. ..:.,.... "',:.,. ",..,~.-;/~A ~
./ /~?'''-~ <>.-(,
~-.
SCI [I)LJLE "A"
, "
)
.J
ALL ANI> SINGULAR tha t certain parcel or tract of land .and
\{
1~
lying and being in the Township of Malahide in the
Part of 'Lot 12, Concess ion VI 11, and being more
Part 1 and Part 2. on a pJ an deposi tcu in the Registry Office.
Division of Elgin (No.ll) as Number 11H 2373.
..r
, ,
. )
f'
,,'
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
>,1
RS1K EMULSION QUOTATIONS MAY 19, 1982
,,(
,"
(A) - 1980 Price 57.0 cents per gallon.
- Delivered to St. Thomas 65.1 cents per gallon.
- Low Bidder - Flintkote Company of Canada.
(B) - 1981 Price 78.1 cents per gallon.
- Delivered to St. Thomas 86.3 cents per gallon.
- Low Bidder - Norjohn Contracting Limited.
1. Norjohn Contracting Limited
P. O. Box 100 .
Thorold, Ontario
L2V 3Y8
F.O.B. Plant - 352 QUeen Street
Chatl1am, Ontario
Asphalt Content 67%
Freight Via Thompson Transport:
To St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
Total Cost to St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
2. Asenco
2201 Lakeshore Road West
Mississauga, Ontario
F.O.B. Plant - Clarkson
Minimum Asphalt Content 67%
Freight Via Thompson Transport:
l
To St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
Total Cost to St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
63.3 Cents' Per Gallon
9.4 Cents Per Gallon
9.4 Cents Per Gallon
9.4 Cents Per Gallon
72.7 Cents Per Ga~lo~
72.7 Cents Per Gallon
72.7 Cents Per Gallon
69.6 Cents Per Gallon
11.4 Cents Per Galton
11.4 Cents Per Gallon
12.2 Cents Per Gallon
81 Cents Per Gallon
81 Cents Per Gallon
81.8 Cents Per Gallon
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
RS1K EMULSION QUOTATIONS MAY 19, 1982
3. T. J. Pounder (Ontario) Limited
R. R. #2
Brampton, Ontario
F.O.B. Plant - Brampton
Minimum Asphalt Content 67%
Freight Via Thompson Transport:
To St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
Total Cost to St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
4. Chevron Asphalt Limited
43 Industrial Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4G 122
F.O.B. Plant ~ East Toronto
Freight Via Thompson Transport:
To St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
Total Cost to St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
5. McAsphalt Industries Limited
P. O. Box 247
West Hill, Ontario
M1E 4R5
F.O.B. plant - West Hill
Minimum Asphalt Content 67%
Freight Via ThompsoR Transport:
To St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
Total Cost to St. Thomas
To Iona
To Rodney
76.0 Cents Per Gallon
11.4 Cents Per Gallon
11.4 Cents Per Gallon
12.8 Cents Per Gallon
87.4 Cents Per Gallon
87.4 Cents Per Gallon
88.8 Cents Per Gallon
89.0 Cents Per Gallon
12.7 Cents Per Gallon
14.3 Cents Per Gallon
16.0 Cents Per Gallon
101.7 Cents Per Gallon
103.3 Cents Per Gallon
105.0 Cents Per Gallon
,/,
90.0 Cents Per Gallon
12.7 Cents Per Gallon
14.3 Cents Per Gallon
16.0 Cents Per Gallon
102.7 Cents Per Gallon
104.3 Cents Per Gallon
106.0 Cents Per Gallon
PAGE 2.
'> ;,::...." .,..,'~.t(Ji"."n'n'_'.;-"~'.:"_~'."''''_<'_'..'''"F;I''"~j;J.."~J,"'. "','1"~~\".~_-";:I'r/''''':.-r<~1>~.~lI.%.<J~;~.MI;J1~<';:,\{'''''~;::U'\1il:'lii;!ts;"..~~~~~~-MJi:i~iSl:~~~"\"\t,""~~i.Wl'#~N'"~~~fW$'~~\h..tt~.1MM'"'\I~~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT
MAY r:SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
t'
1. A tender has been let to Walmsley Bros. Limited, of l,ondon for
aspha1 t paving on County Road #8 between Highway #3 a,t
Wa11acetown to the south'limit of Dutton in the amount of
$90,518.75; also included in the Contract is hot mix asphalt
paving for the Village of Dutton in the amount of $9,250.
(Total Contract #99,768.75.) The County of Elgin will supply
the asphalt 'cement. It is expected that the work will be done
approximately mid summer.
2. Johnston Bros., (Bothwell) Limited have completed grave11ipg
of County Road #9 in Aldborough Township.
3. The Engineer has been authorized to proceed with surv'eying and
engineering work on County Road #37 between the Oxford County
Line and the east limit of the Village of Belmont if the"
County of Middlesex is agreeable to paying their 50% share.
4. The Engineer has been authorized to proceed with tne erection of
a salt storage building on the Township of Dunwich property at
Dutton as well as the necessary grading, base and paving work
I'
for a salted sand storage pad on the same property.
5. Salt brine will be used for dust control rather than calcium
chloride on gravel roads in West Elgin. This is on l:1m
\
,~
experimental hasis and it is hoped that there will bE! 'significant
savings over the cost of calcium chloride.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHAIRMAN
ST. T1:\OMAS, ONTAR1.0
MAY. 6, 1982
1> AGE 1.
T1:\E c()ll1'lT'i 01' ELG1.N ROAD c~T'fEE met at tbe }1\1nicipal B\1ilding
b d u: 6 1(\82 at (\ .30 a 1\1 All member s el<cept Reeve Ste~art
on T tlr s aY ",ay ,7 7 · ..
'We-re p-resent.
HMO'\tED BY.:
SECONDED BY: J. N. ~
T1:\AT T1:\E loflJ'lllTES 01' THE Mf,ET1.NGS 01' lMRC1:\ 29 AND Al'R1.L 7, 1 982
~. R. CA\TERLY
BE AP1>ROVED.
CARRIED ."
Tbe tenders for bot mil< aspbalt paving on cotlnty Road *', and tbe
Village of DUtton were, opened and ~ere as attacbed.
T1:\E ENGINEER RE1'ORTED ON T1:\E woBl<- TO DtSE AS FO'LLOVlS:
3.
Fotlr (4) cotlntyeroployeeS bad attended tbe Ontario Good Roads Association
Road scboo1s at tbe university of Gtlelpb. Tbe Engineer bad served as
in strtlct or for, tbe Bri dge Maintenance cotlr se for tbe senior Road Scboo 1.
The St. Jobn nubtllance cotlrse bad been cOt\lPleted by 21 employees and it
bad been qtlite ~ell received.
The MinistrY of Nattlral ReSOtlrces bad rec(}lll!1lended tbat an inventory be
made of tbe available timber at tbe White Station Gravel pit. Tbe
C(}lll!1littee instructed tbe Engineer to contact tbe Ministry of Nattlral
ResOtlrces and bave tbiS inventory made.
1.
2.
4.
C t Road ff37 ~as diSCtlssed
Tbe stattlS of enginee,ring and Stlrvey ~ork on otln Y
d d~'. ee~ by -residentS of
in tbe 1,igbt of recent reqtlestS to tbe War en an ",ngl.n
botb Nortb and sotltb DOrcbester. Tbeo,1osi"t;\;;on of tbe cotlnty of Elgin on
iroprovementS to tbe road ~aS disCtlssed.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 2.
"MOVED BY: R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
T1:\AT WE PROCEED WIT1:\ SURVEYING AND ENGINEER1.NG ON cQUNT'l ROAD ff3 7
FROM THE OXFORD coUNTY LINE TO BELMONT IF TIlE COUNTY OF M1.DDLESEX
IS AGREEABLE TO PAYING T1:\EIR SHARE (SCY7.).
CARRIED."
5. The removal of snoW fence had been completed.
6. Sander s had been removed from some County trucks and all hired trtlcks
by April 14. 1.t had been necessary to pay the hired trtlckers standby
time until then.
7. The motor in Truck #56 had disintegrated.
8. Reqtlired safety cbecks ~ere being made on the COtlnty's trucks (prLor
9. Repairs ~ther tban Trtlcks #70 and #72 had not been too seriotlS althotlgb
to June 1).
spring problems on Mack trucks 1#34 and 1#38 were ~aiting tbe Mack Service
Representative to call as some of the previous ~ork done by Mack Trucks
Limited had not been done satisfactorily.
10. One truck had been taken to Frink Canada for dtlmp bOl< repairs and others
would follow shortly.
11. Repairs had been IJlade to the Willey' s Bridge fl oor and ~otll d continue ort
the players and port Burwell Bridge floors. Most bridge floors had been
cleaned.
12. Sign repair and straightening ~as continuing.
13. Some gtlide rail and catch basin repairs had been made.
14. Tests on the concrete piers on the Middlemiss Bridge ~ould start on
15. Gravel crtlshing was tlnder~ay at tbe County's Pleasant Valley Gravel Pit
and it was expected that 12,000 ~ tons wotlldbe crtlshed prior to the
Contractor's need to go to otber ~ork.
May 11.
ST. 'f1:\oMAS. ONTAR1.0
MAY. 6, 1982
1> AGE 3.
16.
SbOtllder,ing gravel bad been placed on cotlnty Road #40 SOtltb of cotlnty
Road #45. . cotlnty Road #45 bet~een Motlnt salem and calton and cotlnty
Road #45 in Baybam To\<Usbip east of 1:\igb~aY #19. some ,.ark bad been
done bet~een caltan and 1:\igb~ay #19 ~itb ~ork on tbe billS yet to be
17.
complete~.
craV'el restlrfacing on Stlbtlrban Road #28 (centennial Aventle) bad been
cotnP1ete,d and tbe road ~otlld be calc.i\11l\ cblorided an FridaY.
1 f. patch~~g ~otlld be started on cotlnty Roads #17. #18.
crave r,e stlr aCl.ng ...
and #20 in sotltb~old Ta\<Usbip an Friday.
Jobnston Bros.. ('BOtb~ell) Limited bad started placing gravel an
cotlnty Road ~ in AldborOtlgb To\<Usbip on MaY 3 and ,,;otlld be done
18.
19.
Tbe tbree (3) laid--off clasS 1. LabOtlrers bad been recalled to ~ork.
j)Il.st contr:Pl ptber tban Raad #28 bad not been started and a good rain
c",eded prior to placement of calci\11l\ chloride,.
ea-r 1 Y ne'}{t~eek.
20.
21.
22.
condition. Cou.ntY Road ff37 ~aS still cttl,tte soft and dtlSty.
. . d.' the \Tillages of 1ilest 1,Orne and Rodney.
s,,;eepl.ng ,,;as tln er~aY l.n
l'averoent marking bad been started on MondaY ~itb good progreSS baving
been made. 1.t appeared tbat tbe skiP line problem had been solved
altbOtlgb nO invoices bad been received yet for ~epairs.
Some roadside sbOtllder grading bad been completed.
Tree planting bad alsO been cotnPleted.
some minor ~ork ~otlld be recttlired on cotlnty Raad ff38 botb east and
~est',ofStraffardville. 1.t ,,;as not kno\<U as yet bo~ lpUcb reseeding
23.
24.
25.
26.
~otlld be necessary as tbe graSS bad not yet gro\<U.
Some repairs bad been made to tbe cotlrt 1:\otlSe 1ilall and it ~aS e:><pected
tbat a cre,,; _,.auld cotnP1ete tbe repairs earlY nel<t ~eek.
had bee~ installed in 1ilallaceto\<U and culvert crasstngs ~ere
Sto-rm se~e-r s ~..
1t ~aS e'}{pected
27.
28.
d R ad .m. bet~en j)Il.tton and 1ilallaceta\<U.
being ma e on 0 trV
tbat mo,st of tbiS ~ork ~otlld be cotllJ'leted by tbe end of nel<t ~eek and
tbat ctlrb and gtltter ~ork in 1ilallaceta\<U ,.atlld be started sbort1Y.
ST. T1:\oMAS, ONTAR1.0
MAY. 6, 1982
"PAGE 4.
Grading ~otlld be started on Cotlnty Road #8 as soon as Srave1
restlrfading in North sotltb~old ~aS completed.
Eartb and sand base ~otlld be placed for tbe salt storage pad at DUtton
at the same time.
sand for COtlnty Road #32 bad been acqtlired from Bill Ward.
~ application
29.
30.
to tbe ~inistrY of Nattlra1 ResOtlrces for a Wayside pit l'er!1lit ~aS tlnder~ay.
SotIle dirt ",ptlld be acqtlired from tbe To'Wtlsbip of ~alabide by ditcbing on
'\Ta'tiOUS 'toadS.
Stor!1l drain ~ork ~otlld be reqtlired near Jack S!Ilitb's.
1.ntersectiOn laYOtlt at concession VI1.1. (Road #32) bad been comple,te,d.
bad been necessary to btlY sotIle el<tra propertY at tbe intersections for
day ligbting tbre,e (3) corners. Ditcbing ~otlld be reqtlired to tbe sptltb on
tbe To'WtlsbiP rbad in orde~ to keep tbe ~ater from tbe Teeple Drain going
It
31.
32.
33.
easterly intO tbe FUller Drain ~ater sbed.
tbe t~O (2) ~ater lines, bydro, and tbe A!1lte1com Telepbone at tbe
o .to 0.... It ...,.,.a.s e""ected tbat a pre cast concrete ctllvert ~otlld be
l.nter seC 1. ,.. w ~r
1.t ~otlld be necessary to move
''s soon as a decision ~aS made on tbe concrete
34.
and fpr ed~e markingS.
Both flasbing lightS in Finga1 and on Road #26 bad been installed. SQ!1le
1. t... Road #20 wotl1d be ctlt to improve visibility in Finga1.
t't e e l.i\1vs on
cleantlp ~ork WOtl1d be done arotlnd tbe Bayba!1l salt Sbed at tbe Baybam
To'Wtlsbip Yard incltlding topsoil and seeding ~ork.
1.t appears tbat winter control costS bad been greater to date tban last
o stS n....elimina-r"\1' figtlres indicated tbat a 5"/. increase
year' s entl.re CO . .. J
in tbe btldget ~otlld be reqtlired and a revised maintenance btldget ~otlld be
presented to tbe committee at tbe Jtlne roeeting.
35.
36.
37.
ST .T1:l0MAS, ONTARIO
1AAY. 6, 1982
PAGE 5.
LAND 1'URCl:1ASES nRE REl'OBTED ON AS fQL1..CJiIS:
1. The cotlnty SolicitOr, Mr. M. J. 1:\ennessey waS a~aY on holidaYS and nO
information ~aS available ~ith regard to the agresnent ~th
Mr. ~il1iam 1:\are. The Engineer stated that the hoped to have the
information ear).y nel<t ~eek so that if an agreement had been
reache,d it wotl1d be presented to the committee at cotlnty cOtlnci1 on
2. The LandStlrveYDr was contintling his ~ork on cotlnty Road IfO and on
May 19.
3. A>l agreement had been received fr'om the \!eterans Land Act ~ith regard to
county Road #3.
Mr. Millard on cotlnty Road #22.
4. Mr. Tarry and Mr. Bachner ~otlld be approached shortly ~th regard to
property on cotlnty Road #22.
5. Mr. Davie s stated that he hoped to have an agreement shortl Y ~th regard
to property on Road #37 east of the C.p.R. Tracks.
6. Reeve Monteith stated that he had one (1) meeting ~th Mr. FergtlSon
~th regard to his property on COtlnty Road ff30 and that more wotl1d be
CORRESPONDENCE FRON 'f1:lE co1JN't'l'S PERSONNEl. coMM1T'tEE ~A5 NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
necessa1CY.
1. A letter stating that the summer castla1 ~loyees wotl1d be claSsified
as neW emPloyees each year as far as the rtlling on relatives hiring
wotl1d be concerned. The Engineer noted that of the eleven (11)
employeeS last year not t\1,Ore than fotlr (4) wotl1d meet' thiS rtlling,
and the,.se relationshiPS ~otlld have to be investigated.
2. A letter stating that it would be necessary that Mr. Ronald cook take
the ftlll difference each pay between hiS ~o't1<men' s compensatiOn
paytnentS and his fUll paY, na11le1y 2\ days per paY tlntiL Stlch ran otlt.
1.t ~aS 'not known ~hen Mr. cook wotl1d be able to return to ~ork.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 6.
-"
protection of 1:\uman RightS ~n Ontario had been received by the personnel
The Engineer noted that Bill #7, an Act to revise and el<tend the
committee. The Third Reading had been given the bill in December of 1981
althotlgh it had not yet been proclaimed by the Lietltenant Governor.in.
Cotlncil. The :Engineer stated that in his opinion that when the Act ~as
proclaimed it ~Otlld be illegal to discriminate against employment to
any person becatlSe of marital or family sa~ttls.
EtWloytnent which ~aS approved by the committee.- The committee reqtlested
The Engineer presented the attached, application for summer castla1
that a coPy be forwarded to the personnel committee.
The :Engineer noted that in all likelihood Wilfred Smith ~ould retire
~.~^
dtle to ill health after his sick time and holidays ~rtln otlt early in
July.
The Engineer reported that Gordon Bedford had had an operation and
it was not known ho~ long he ~otlld be off.
Road 1.nSVections of EaSt and West Elgin ~ere diSCtlSsed.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
TIlAT TIlE TENDER OF VI AUlSLEY' BRaS. Ll11!ll'f:JID AT $99, 768. 75 FOR 1:\O'f MIX
ASPuALT PAVING ON ROAD #S AND IN T1:\E V1.LLAGE 01' DUTTON BE ACCEPTED.
SUBJRcr TO Al?PROV AL 0'1' TUE V1.LLAGE 0'1' DUTTON.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY:
R. S. MILLARD
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
T1:IAT TIlE Ji'OLWmNG PA'lLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PA'lL1.ST #18 AMOUNT1.NG TO $47,623.57
PA'lL1.ST #19 AMOUNTING TO $393.02
PA'lLIST #20 AMOUNTING TO $50,272.84
PA'lLIST #21 AMoUNTING TO $47,135.94
CARRIED ."
correspondence was read from the Township of DUnwich advising that
an additional piece of property had been acqtlired by the Township at
their yard and that they were in agreement for the cotlnty to btlHd a
salt shed on th&ir property as ~ell as a salted sand pad and that the
County cotlld proceed at any time with this ~ork.
"MOVED BY:
J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
TIlAT WE PROCEED mTIl TIlE NECESSARY GRADING, BASE AND PAVING WORlZ FOR
A SALTED SAtilD STORAGE PAD ON PROPERTY OWNED :BY TIlE TOWNS1:\1.P OF IJlJNWIC1:\
AT DUTTON AND T1:\AT TIlE ENG1.NEER RE INSTRUcTED TO PROCEED WIT1:\ T1:\E
EREcT1.ON OF A SALT SmoRAGE BUILDING ON T1:\E TOWNSHIP PROPERTY AS WELL.
CARRIED."
The attached dtlst control comparison costS bet~een tlsing calcium
chloride or brine soltltion ~as presented. The Engineer recommended that
salt brine be tlsed on Cotlnty Roads in West Elgin.
"MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE USE SALT BR1.NE SUl'PL1.ED BY DEN MAR BRINE L1.M1.TED AS A DUST LAYER
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CALCIUM C1:\WRIDE ON ROADS #9 AND #5 1.N ALDBOROUGl!
AND DUNWlCR TOWNS1:\Il'S AT A COST OF $2.30 PER BARREL OF SOLUTION.
CARRIED."
ST. 'fl1,oMAS, Ol'lTAR1.0
MAY 6, 1982
'PAGE 8.
The atta~hed stlrface treatment check list ~aS presented and
diSCtlssed,' .nth the Engineer noting that the original estimates were for
. t 1....1 22 ..-n''l..leS ho~ever the costS estimated in the Btldget were
apprOl<l.ma e~J 'u '
higher than present indicatiOns. 1.t ~aS felt that it might be
ad'\1antageo~p"; to do as !tI\1ch SIlrface treatment ~ork as reqtlired in 1982.
"MOVED B"l ':
SECONDED BY: R. S. M,1.1J.AlUl
T1:\AT T1:\f. ENG1.N'EER BE A\l'f1:\OR1.ZED TO RE~ST QUO'fAT1.0NS FOR RSlR
AS'P1lALr:D EMULS10N.
J. N. sM.'fIll
cARR-lED ."
The Engineer reported that at a recent seminar the tlSe of rubberized
asphalt e-.:ndlsion ".,as diSCtlssed and that a qtlotatcLOn ~aS el<J'ected from a
c01l\1?anY which is going to do some work for the M,iniStr1 of TransportatiOn
and C01l\lllUnications near Ringsville in abotlt t~O (2) months. ThiS qtlotation
~otlld be c01.ll1'ared to the cost of emtltsion laid by cotltlt1 forceS.
tirl official opening for the ~alkers Bridge ~aS diSCtlsSed and it ~as
~~. . 1 . du~ing the first t~O (2)
decided to attempt to have the o~~l.Cl.a openl.ng .
weeks in Jtll1 pre,ferablY the 7th or the 14th. The M,inister of Transportation
and Co1l\lllUnications, the 1:\onotlrable Ja!lleS Sno~ wotlld be invited to open the
bridge. The Chairman ~as atlthorized to meet .nth the Chairman of the cotlnty
of M,iddlesel< C()tlllt\ittee and make the appropriate arrangementS.
2.
petrOo;~da ackno~ledging the Engineer' s reqtlest to i1.ll1'rove the
disCOtlntS presentlY being received on gasoline and diesel ftlel (a
meeting .nth petro.canada on M,aY 7 is ~ri",ed and attached).
From the co;poratiOn of the cit1 of St. Tho!l\as approving the Stlbtlrban
ROad COtDllli'SSion 'BIldget in the amotlnt of $40,350.
COlUU'S1?Ol'lDENCE ~AS READ AS fOLL~S:
1.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 9.
3. From the Township of Aldborough stating they would cut weeds on
County Rpads in A1dborough Township at $21.00 per hour. The
CVU1Luitte~ accepted.
4. From the Town of Aylmer with a Zoning By-Law #10-82.
5. From the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with a copy
of a letter to the Township of Malahide stating that the Ministry
of TraRsportation and Communications were of the opinion that
illumination at the intersection of Highway #3 and County Road #35
at Orwell was a matter for the local municipalities.
6. From the Township of Yarmouth with a Zoning By-Law' rezoniJ:!:g land to
Highway CUu1Luercial on Highway #3 between the St. Thomas City Limits
and Centennial Avenue.
7. From the Township of Yarmouth with a Zoning By-Law zoning land north
of New Sarum on Highway #74 as an automobile repai.r shop.
8. From Mr. R. Fraser of London oomplaining.1ab.out the~!dust corlclttioI).scon
County Road #20 in Port Stanley. The Engineer noted that Mr. Fraser
had encountered the dust conditions on the Sunday when tractor
CcfM~
trailers were loading a boat leased by ~ Grain. It was noted
that there was very little that the County could do about the
situation. The Engineer noted that he had replied to Mr. Fraser.
9. From Touch and Ross Limited, stating that the County owed apprQximatetY
$850.00 with regard to the Renash Tractor and Equipment Limited
receivership. The Engineer noted that it was possible that the County
might be sued inasmuch as the County had put in a counter c1ai:Ql with
regard' to warranty on the JD644 loader which had been purchase~ from
Renash Tractor and Equipment and we'thad yet to receive a satisfactory
reply regarding the warranty considerations.
10. (a) From the Globe and Mail with information stating the unsafe
installation of propane in vehicles. The Engineer stated that
he had conversations with Mr. George Potter, Chief of the
Ministry'S Equipment Section who stated that some care should be
used in the selection of vehicles that would be equipped with
ST. T1:\ffi'\AS, ONTARIO
MAY. 6, 1982
'PAGE 10.
~as not necessarilY an economical move fpr
nO vehicles ~ere factorY eqtlipped
~otlld have to be done.
service bet'Ween Osha'Wa and
to economic hard times.
propane and that it
atl vehicleS and that as yet
~ith p1COpane and conver s;.ons,-
(b) WJ. article stating that the ferry
'\...,... '\\."le'" 'fork had been abandoned dtle
osu.-wego, 1.... V\I
t d that it ~as dotlbtftll that the
The COllJll'ittee member s no e
service ~otlld ever start
d ~o~t stanle~.Cleveland Ferry
propose <. 1
.' t to the end of carlo~ Road (Road #20~ ~otlld
U4l' thtlS l.1l\Provemen s
not be necessary at thiS time.
, d c~nications stating that a
From the Ministry of rransportatl.on an
, 1:\' h~aY ff3 bet'Ween
, ld b let for asphalt restlrfac.l.ng on l.g
cont-ract -wou e
d Uigh~aY ffl3 bet~een Mlmer and port Brtlce
St Thomas and hylmer an on
. . d #45
,& at the intersection of cotlnty Roa ,
~th the e~c.eptl.on O. an area
ld b made to variotlS
d Ui h~aY ffl3 and that imprDvement s 'ifOtl e
an g f h
. 'the 'Enginee~ ~as instrtlcted to send a copY 0 t e
inte-r sect1.ons.
' d Th Engineer al SP
h rt'o.......nshiP of Yar!1lotlth and Malahl. e. e
letter to t e . W" d
: . .. h d the Ministry to have improvementS mae
noted that he had approac e
to the take off lane on 1:\igh~aY ff3 at cotlnt'j Road ff36 $0 that tM
, riht hand condition might be remedied.
present tlnsatl.sfactory g
, ' Tribtlnal setting the 19th of MayaS an
12. From the ,Ontar1.0 Dral.nage
f land o'WUers againSt their asses~ent on the
appeal by a n\l!1lber 0
11.
'Putman D1,: ain.
. 1 tter to them fro!1l the Cptlnty
ackno~ledgl.ng a e
tree on the McFadden property on fUrnival
The Engineer stated that he had been
to assist in the removal bf
. _... in the Iiyd-ro' S
_,......~;;:;J
13~
Fro!1l the Ontario 1:\ydro
regarding the removal of a
Road (w-oad ff3) in Rodney.
. Ii~d-ro
'1:. 1 '.... getting the Ontar1.01
unSucce sSJ.,u 1.~~
d h t the removal of t"V
thiS tree. 1.t appeare t a
d to be a problem ~hereas catllPlete co.ope.v-
chath~ district seeme
1 dilltrict' s in
. d from 1:\~drot s Strathroy and AY mer
had been recel.ve ,1
simila-r matte-rs.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 11.
14. Fr01l1 the ToW1l of Aylmer with a Zoning :By_Law rezoning the old Aylmer
Library at the intersection of sydenham and Centre Streets to
15. From the Ontario Hydro stating that ~ork wotlld~ start shortly on the
commercial use.
line bet~een the Btlchanan Transformer Station and the St. Th01l1as
Edgeware Transformer Station.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED FOR DINNER
. . .
AFTER DINNER · · ·
Absent Reeve Kelley and Ree,ve Monteith.
Machine,ry rental rates from Brent Strickland ~ere noted.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ACCEPT T1:\E RmITAL RATES OF STRICKLAND BULLDOZING AND
ENTERPRISES LIMITED DATED APRIL 26, 1982, FOR USE ON COUNTY
ROADS IN 1982 AS OCCASIONED.
110 RT MICHIGAN SCRAPER 16 cu. YDS. $75.00
82-20 TEREX DOZER AND WlNCR 180 R.P.. $60.00
814 CAT DOZER 180 R.P. $60.00
14-50 CASE DOZER 130 R.P. $50.00
11-50B CASE DOZER 115 R.P. $42.00
114 CASE LOADER 1~ CU. YDS. $40.00
266C KOEHRING ROE 1\ CU. YDS. $55.00
CARRIED."
The committee Stlggested that rental rates be solicited from other
Contractors in the local area including Mike Dietrich in Dun~ich;
James Willson in Springfield; Don Ryckman, e,tc. The, Engine,e,r stated
that this will be done prior to rental of any eqtlipment.
ST. Tll<mAS, ONTt.R1.0
MAY. 6, 1982
'PAGE 12.
Trtlck rental rateS we1:e disCtlssed. The C()'[D111ittee felt that in all
likelihood abotlt l~k wctlld have to be added to the 1981 rates and
referred the entire matter to the Engineer for ftlrther sttldy and a
recommendatiOn for the Jtlne meeting.
1.t waS noted that if an agree!1lent ~as made .n.th the Ministry of
-~d cororounicatiOns ~ith regard to the assumption of
stlbject to tltility and ,.aterma1.n ease!1lents.
The diSpOsal of a number of itemS of tlSed e<ttlipment ~aS diSCtlssed.
Al-thOtlgh it ~otlld be desirable to get as 1!lI1ch moneY as possible for these
.. t of some ite!1lS ~otlld not
items, cost of tendering, advertl.sl.ng, e c.,
,.arrant the el<J'ense of moving these itemS any distance to an auctiQn sale.
. ' d nd felt that some itemS wctlld probablY be better
The C()'[D111~ttee agree a
d . . b tbeir valtle in today' s economic climate ~aS very
sc~ape ~na5muc as
. 'ld b bl~ do the COtlntyts image more harm than gOOP
limited and l.t ~otl pro a J
by placing these items on the open market as all items,.ere ~orn otlt.
(2) ders a 25 year old
1.ncltlded in these items~ere Trtlck #56, t~O .. san '
set of scaleS, several old p1J11lps, an old brtlsh chiPper, and a rolle1:.
El<J'endittlres to date wer,e diSCtlssed, the Engineer stated that a
. d constrtlction Btldget ~otlld be forthcoming for the
revised Mal.ntenance an
nel<t Road c(lttll1littee meeting.
C01\strtlction ]l\1dget ~otlld be at a minitnUm.
1.t ~aS felt that revisions to' the
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MAY 6, 1982
PAGE 13.
The attached comparison Needs Study Update for 1981 and 1982 was
presented along with revised Needs Study Tables. It 'was noted that
this update had been done at a minimum cost and that most Counties
put out a printed report with copies at a cost of $20.00-$30.00
each.
The C~>nnnittee agreed to study the updates and to take note of it
for future discussion with regard to progrannning of County construction
projects.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ADJOURN TO JUNE 2, 1982 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
~ ~_~.",...J ~\ ~\}
.^~
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN
TENDERS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT
1982 CONTRACT 'A'
~.
SUMMARY OF TENDERS
/'
1. Walmsley Bros. Limited
R. R. #8
London, Ontario
N6 A 4 C3
2. Riverside Construction Company
T.C.G. Construction Limited
P. O. Box 189
London, Ontario
N6A 4V7
3. Towland (London) 1970 Limited
444 Second Street
London, Ontario
N6A 4H4
4. R. E. Van Gassen Limited
P. O. Box 70
Cedar Springs, Ontario
NOP 1EO
$99,768.75
$113,231.00
$114, l~,88. 00
$164,070.00
colll:lTY 01' ELGlN ROAD DEPARTMENT
- - - ~
--- ~ -- =-
t mal<imtlm of 6 monthS and can be terminated ~thotlt notice, ~t
1. positions applied for tlSing this application form are for a
APPLl CATl ON FOR SUMMER (CASll AL) EMPLO'lME1'l1
- ~ - ~ -
any time tlp to that time by the Cotlnty.
2. positions available are for the most part Otltside labour and
thtlS applicantS mtlSt be physiCally fit to hold thiS type of
3. COtlnty poliCY ~ill not allo~ the hiring of any relative (to
position.
the third generation) of any present Road Department
Employees incltlding sonS, fatherS, grandsons, grandfathe,rs,
brothers, brothers-in.law, son_in-la~s, father.in-la~s,
nephe~S, tlnc1 e , fir st cotlS in. (Read mal e and! or f e1l\Sl e.)
A list of Road Department personnel is available for yOUr
4. county poliCY ~11 not allo~ the hiring of any person oVer the
inspection.
age of 65 years of age.
,.--- ...-
GIV"ENNAMES --- -
NbME OF APPLICANT
SURNAME
ADDRESS
'l-
-----
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE OF BIRTH
-
NAME OF "LAST EMPLOYER
---
---
TO
---
EMPl.OYED FROM ----
TYPE OF WORK
----
NAMl\: OF SECOND LAST EMl'LOYER
-:--
...............
TO
EMPLOYED FROM
----
..----
CONTINUED ·
TYPE OF WORK --
,
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR SUMMER (CASUAL) EMPLOYMENT
LAST SCHOOL ATTENDED
NAME
HIGHEST GRADE ATTAINED
PAGE 2.
DATE:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS MOTOR VEHICLE
LICENCE:
TYPE
NUMBER
SKILLS: (DESCRIBE)
PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: (IF ANY)
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUEitAND .TltAT
I AM NOT RELATED'TO ANY PRESENT COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES IN
ANY OF THE PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIPS.
DATE
APPLICANT
*************************
FOR COUNTY USE ONLYr
EMPLOYMENT APPROVED BY
DATE EMPLOYMENT BEGAN
DATE TRRMINATED
RATE OF PAY
PER HOUR
.ilf
. '
*~rl(**~~~******~(***1~
.1
DA1~E
. '
J '~
J982 DUST CONTROL COMPARISON
,~ '
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
e:
1. LIQUID CALCIUM CHLORIDE - Supplit'r - Pollard Bros. Limited
"..
Cost: $J41.!+5 per tnn
RecorrnnC'ndpd Appliciltion 5 Tons per mile - 20 Feet wide.
Cost Per Mile
$ll~1.45 X 5
$707.25
2. BRINE SOLUTION - Suppl ior - Den Mar Brines Limited
Cost: $396.7lj, per mile - 20 Feet wide.
Based on, 166 BBL of solution per mile.
Compo sit ion - 13'10 Ca Cl, 1. 0% Na C1, 2% Mg C1
Cal ciurp. Content = 166 X 422 X 13'10 ;:: 9100 1 bs. = 4.
J. County RO;ld~; It>, //9, 1/17, 1118, and 1/20.
T6tal Road Mileage = 26.9 Miles
(a) Liquid Calcium - 26.9 Miles @ $707.25 per
(b) Brinp Solution - 26.9 Mil~s @$396.74 per
In FF]~RENGE
t.
1
. '
coUNTY OF ELG1.N ROAD DEPARTMENT
~. ~ -=- . -'- -==
SURFACE TREATMENT C1:\ECR LIST
~ -
1.0 Mile +
-
1\
,t."
1. Road #3 .. An area north of 1:\igh~ay #4011
"1 <., 2. Road #b ... Rent County Line to Black's Lane (1975)
3~ Road #16 ... (a) Fingal Bridge to Noble Ttlfford Gate.
(b) FergtlS Cron Drive to West of F. Jones
'House.
(c) Fingal from East limit of Village to
Road #20.
4. Road #19 ... Highway #401 overpass.
5. Road #2(+ ... From Road #36 to top of 'Port Brtlce UU1.
6. Road #30 .' From City of St. Thomas limitS to Road /f.:!?
other than,ne~ hot mil< patCh.
7. Road #40 ... Fr om Road #45 to 1:\igh""ay ff3.
8. Road #42 ... East of port ]3\1r~ell to Norfolk COtlnty
Line (1978 and 1979).
9. Road #45 ... Jaffa to Road #40 (1976).
, \ 10. Road #48 - East of Road #47 (1978).
, ~;i
11. Road #51
t~ 12. Road #52 ... (a) portiOn previOtlslY in the centre.
(b) Highway #73 westerly.
13. Road #54 ... Net
"
1.5 Mi.l~$
4. 0 Mi.l e's +
, -
0.2 Mile +
, .....
O.3'Mile :t
O.2.,}1tle
3.5 Mill. ~s +
""""
0..6 Mile
2.3 Miles
4.3 MileS
5.1Mit~$
1.8 MileS
0.9 MileS
2.0 MileS
0..9 Mile
0.3 Mile
-
~& Miles
~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
".,~c SURFACE TREAtMENT CHECK LIST
CHECK LIST B
1. Road #11+ - Road #13 to Midd1emi ss (1978).
2. Road #23 - North of Port Stanley Limits (1976).
3. Road #24 - Dexter to Road #36 (1978).
4"
,-,/"
/;> /~ r.t
A, . '" _ ,'Ai/() l "''''
t/~ ~ .,
I/'
PETRO-CANADA
SUMMARY OF DUSCUSSION
MAt' 7, 1982
(
\/.'~
_AJ,;", V <J
A~,-"
,~.., T (~, 'j .{iLv}
CJ '
~.
7.J Ol) l'
,.
DIESEL FUEL
I ~tt ~
Tank Wagon Price Discount
From 3.5 Cent s Per Litre to 5.5 Gents
GASOLINE
Tank Wqgon Price Discount
From 2.5 Cents Per Litre to 3.5
Rodney Tank Prices to be same as White Station.
Agreement to be extended from May
(ie., ,a new 2 year agreement for now.)
,d
,\"
ij
\ '
,~f
1982 NEEDS STUDY UPDATE
COMPARISON WITH 1981
MAY 6, 1982
1. CONSTRUCTION NEEDS
1982
1981
(a) County Bridges: (I) 1979 Base + 11%
3,776,000
3,049,000
(II) Present Year Base
142,000
342,000
(b) Road's: (I) New Needs 1979 Base + 15%
(II) 1-5 Y~ar 1979 Base + 15%
( II I )- Present Year Base
(IV) Present Year Spot Drainage
5,870,000
6,260,000
5,366,000
5,366,000
1,321,000
1,472,.900
390,000
374,000
$l7,016,OOO
$16,712,000
2. RESURFACING NEEDS
(a) 1979 Base + 27%
5,545,000
6,356,000
(b) Present Year Base
NIL
332,000
$5,545,000
$6,688,000
ENTITLEMENT
1979 Base items in the 1982 column will be increased further by an
inflation factor for 1983.
In 1982 the Entitlement was 6% on construction and 10% on
resurfacing, less 2% of entitlement (for a total of $1,544,000).
It might be assumed that' the 1983 Entitlement woul d be 6% of
construction plus 10% of resurfacing with an override of 5-6%
increase in total entitlement over 1982.
6% of Construction Total of $16,712,000 = $1,003,000
101'0 of Resurfacing Total of $6,688,000 = 668,000
Tot al
$1,671,000
Plus Inflation for 1982 (8%)
134,000
$1,805,0'00
Override $1,544,000 + 5~I'o = $1,629,000 (ie., Construction .and Resu',tfacing
Budgets)
~-
, ~
\
I
- r
1 '
- j
~r-
<Jo~ "", t- ;!
A... ~
~. A.." di <:)
fqU~' V O'l'
V) q;..
57 16
138 40
99 28
192 56
201 29
108 3.3
79 22
4 2
90 26
147 42
221 37
21 7
26 8
83 24
104 30
L24 37
4
APPENDIX
c~:
-
I II I I
t,
I'
SU"MMARY OF
ROAD" SECTIONS
REVISED
- - - ~~~~ - - -. - - - - -
LENGTH
L
o C A
T ION
'~
..J
~
w A.A.OT: CR. PRo
..J
~
I - 5
REPLACES
19 82
NEEDS STUDY
...!.:.\-..- -
~iJj~s 76 - Sl
PAGE 1.
/969
CD.
19 79 CONSTRUCTION
BASE COSTS
/98 2
BASE
COSTS
NOW
6 - 10
RE-
SURFACE CONSTRUCT! 0 N
r NOW, I';-POT DRAIIiJ~ESURFACE
84
121
191
24
37
55
Top of Hill to Kettle Creek
At Concessions 7 and 8
0.1 0.1
--
0.3 0.2
1.8 1.1
--
1.0 0.6
1.4 0.9
--
1.2 0.7
6.2 3.9
--
5.0 3.1
---
Road #56 to Highway #3
St. Thomas Limits to Road #28
From 1.0 Km east of Road #25 to Beginning of Pav't
From C & O'Entrance to Kains Bridge
Road #27 to St. Thomas Limits
Ald.-Du1;l. Townline to Ecker Drain Culvert
Kettle Creek to Road #25
1.4 0.9
1870
840
2060
3029
23 100 . X
25 82
92
135
489
43 77 X
52 71
280
275
560 34 68 X
23 65 X
240
304
2448 -21- -2L --L. ~ 038
800 48 56
2710
0.7 0.4 440
5.6 3.5 200
4.8 3.0 1020
3.6 2.2 1340
Highway #19 to East Limit of Port Burwell
Belmont East Bridge to Highway #73
C1achan to Thames Rivet
North Limits Wal1acetown to South Limits Dutton
Road #23 to Road #22
I
I
2.91l.8
1.9'1.2
I
O.Z,O~l
,<'
Concessions L2 & 13 t'b Middlesex Line
Road #4 7to East Limit of AVGm
West Limit of Avon to Road #47
Highway #3 to Road #2
fRo ad #9 to 0.6
SOUth "lfimiti:of She'dd-en.fo Highwa,y-"~:,,~:'r
Of9,Km Squtn:.bf Roap.", #5.6", ~'o ROCld.:#5~~""
Road #22 to 1. 0 KmW~ st of Dexter
East Limit of BelmoIlt to Belmont East, Bridge
Road #42 to Concessions 2 and 3 Bayham
1 . 3 O~8
3 . 7 .2.3
570
280,
340
57fJ'
200
200
760
411
62 55
46 51
37 50
57 49
60 49
54 46
46 46
4-9 4~
225
X
X
366
322
X
48~
306
12
x
6{}
49 40
51 40 X
5
211
(/ ~
". 0 ~ d
~.,,' ~~ ~
v cr <;)
~<v ~. v 0 f:l'
~
APPENDIX
c
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUDY
PAGE 2.
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
REVISED
APRIL
/9 82
- PAGES 76 - 8/
L.u.On,~C--.,Au,,-r-nl-O "N
LENGTH 19_79__ CONS'TRUCT/ON 198 _ 2_ BASE COSTS
A.A.Or: CR. PRo CO BASE COSTS RE-
~ w SURFACE 'CONSTRUCTION
-!
-! NOW I - 5 6 - 10 NOW, SPOT DRAlNIRESURFACE
~ ~
~ ,------... -
0.2 0.1 1340 68 39 - 66
-
0.5 0.3 130 , 46 39 66
-- --
_ 5.2 ).2 - 29~ ---2.Q ~ --1L_ 343
1.1 0.7 830 ---22~-- 167
4.9 3.1 165 49 38 628
---- ----
2.5 1.6 385 59 37 X 343
-- - -~- - --- -
2.7 1.7 295 55 37 X 178
----
5.3 3.3 280 57 3'7 701
._~--
3.4 2.1 390 60 3~_ 'n'. '-} 469
0.7 0.4 755 66 36 188
2.2 1.4 165 53 36 12
2.7 1.8 420 62 35 140
1.611.0 150 52 35 17
2.7 1.7 200 56 35 X 525
p.610.4 2600 77 33 168
I
3. 4 2~1 820 .69 33 51-8
25 8
91 26
122 37
30 8
152 43
97 28
125 37
149 42
23 8
177 50
291 26
15 4
[92 26
10: 32
3
I
16 4
,72 20
, '
't6S 45
7J~ 20
19';" 6
lOO~' ' 2.9
82' 23
109 34
24 8
Highway #3 to North Limit of Wallacetown
.
Road #25 to 0.5 Km West of Road #25
Highway #73 to West Limit of Avon
Highway #401 to Concessions Gore and 4
From Cone. 4 & 5 Malahide to South Limit Richmond
Road #45 to 0.9 Km South of Road 456
East Limit of Avon to Oxford Line
From Lot 17 to Norfolk Line
End of Pavement to South Limit of Wal1acetown
Road #42 to Highway #19
From 0.5 Km West of Road #25 to Expressway
From R.R. at Kent Line to Blacks Lane
Road #52 to Road #11
Police College Gate to Road 452
King Street to Queen Street ,Rodney
Blacks Lane to West Limit of~R~dn~y
. Highway' #3 toNorthLimi,~ of Shedden
~
0.7,0:.4
810
r ,'70 .'.33 -
- -. ... - ,,-,,'.
. - - : -' "" .' . - -, .'~. .. - "
, . .'""'. '.
, &om i.4 ,KmWest of'~Q:.ad #40 to Road #40
'i~4 '0.:9 ' 1320'
'7333
lio~d#f8 t 0 Middle,sei_.Lin,~
-.' - - -
Rclfld'#7~. to' Black sL~ne.
-- -,' - "'-" - . . , .
, R()ad#2~'to,R6ad' #25 ,
North Limit oJ Sanitary,
Road #30 to 0.3 KIn West
South Limit of Wa11acetown of Highwav #3
1:.6:
-230" 66
1)10 71
0.3~ 0,. 2
27
?f..
x
1,b.
0.3 LO.2
</~ A
A.. 0 I.... ~
~. ,,' ~ ""
u ~<:>
~ 0" vcr ~
,,~ Q:O
120 37
164
34
37
85
151
80
89
102
133
150
64
36
178
3
I
I 43.
I ' 5,6~
I "',',..",c,::
I '-as.:
1\41;'
I i~rk~u'
i' ' , ",' ,
It f5,S
I .
1
45
9
9
24
43
23
25
30
39
43
20
9
51
2
APPENDIX
.c
REV J 5 E D _ _ _ _1\P_~JJ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ I 9 82
- PAGES 76 - 8/
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUDY
PAGE 3.
LENGTH
COSTS
LOCATION
to
/9 79 CONS,TRueT/ON
BASE COSTS
,CONSTRUCTION
NOW, ,ISPOT,~AIlitESURFAC~
9
/98 2 BASE
RE-
SURFACE
A.A.DT: CR. PRo
~ tLJ
-1 ::!
~ ~
--
0.6 0.4 210 67 26
2.8 1.7 1620 80 25
-- --
8. 2- 5. 1 110 /.., 24
01
.- ,--
9.5 5.9 75 65 24
1.0 !0.6 570 75 24
I
1 .9 11.2 230 71 24
I
0.3 10.2 1200 80 23
r
3.9 i2.4 8350 88 23
j
1.4 10.9 ,2510 84 23
I
1.3 10.8 613 77 23 20
4.2 :2.6 215 71 23
1.0 0.6 1180 81 22
7.5 4.7 85 70 21
0.7 0.4 200 73 21
3.1 1.9 795 81 20
0.8 0.5 ' '5~O 79 19
4.8 3.0 ',1625, 85
- , . '. ~ - ,-. - . : "- -':" "
3'~'j~'2:.( "5B'06;~. ~89;
Highway #74 to East Limit of Belmont
Highway #73 to 1.4 Km West of Road #40
Road #3 to Highway #76
Road #8 to Road #14
From 1.0 Km West of Dexter to Dexter
Road #45 to Concessions 4 & 5 Malahide
Highway #4 to East Street Port Stanley
Road #52 to Middlesex Line
St. Thomas Limits to Road #52
Road #42 to Lake Erie
Road #42 to Road #45
Highway #4 to Start of Curb and Gutter
Road #5 to Road #8
Southwo1d Townline to G.N.R. Tracks
East Limit of llest Lorne to ;Ald.-Dun. Tmvn1ine
52:,'-,' ; Road ,#39', to Highwayc #}4"',:,'
lB:~,'Ft6n1~,~ts/28 ,&29:t:o,,~R.o~~:1~.5 '
,'2 Road #3 to West Litnit sof'West LOrne "
340
~.?~t~;,
J6~~~,:;
14, 'South Limi t of Iona to Highwa;,.y. #3
16, l~oad'#4S to 0.1 KmVJest: of Ke t,t Ie Creek
- . q, . ,,'- .
. '25,0:' . ': Highwa:rs~3 ' arid#4-to' Ro:ad':#5 2~
41" "Highway #19 to Uni~n Str~~!: ,Vienna
50' 15
7()
?n
17
.85
Road #8 to End of CUrb arid Gtitter
- - --
9:.4' 4~()'
O.2~ 0.1 .
3.42.1,
:1599;
800",
1410
NO'l'"1-,'}, f.im; f,.R of Fi nQAl to Sq11t-h I,iTTdt- R of ~h,~r1rlA;n
NOW
I - 5
6 - JO
147
60
66
52
12
45
30
49 45
41
93
'34.
....
u-~ ..l..'
A,.- 0 J... ~c
~-J... ..... ~ '"
(; ~<>
<v o' v ~
'" ~ ,<:0
-
128
137
144
185
267
284
- .
31
59
143
168
6
II _
14
18
27
41
42 . .,14
51
116..
38
40
42
52
20
52
8
18
42
45
3
13
20
APPENDIX
c
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
REVISED
LENGTH
L
o C A
T ION
~
....J
~
East Limit of Richmond to Lot 114
1.1 0.7
--
3.0 1.9
6.0 3.7
--
3.0 1.9
4.9 3.0
4.3 2. 7
Highway #3 to 0.3 Km South of Concessions 7 & 8
McConne11s Gate to 1.3 Km West of Port Burwell
Highway #73 to West Limit of Springfield
Lots 14 & 15 R 1 S.U.R. to Lots 6 & 7 N & S U.R.
Orwell Road to Highway #73
ConcesSion 4 & Gore to Road #9
From Road #20 (South) to Road #19
2.9 1.8
3.8 2.4
4.0 2.5
5.6 3.5
2.0 1.2
5.3 3.3
6.3,3.9
1.3,0.8
Road #40 to McConne1ls Gate
Highway #19 to Norfolk Line
Lake Erie to Highway #3
3
5
8
Road #6 to Thames River
Road #9 to Walkers Bridge
South Limit of Dutton to North Limit of Dueton
From Curb and Gutter to Roa;d #14
North Limit of Shedden to Highway #401
-8.4i5.2
t -.,. _
- 3 .8j 2. 4
~3~9'<'~j~~~5 .tQH~gln~ay~:
40 Ro~d;#(fOtoS(jut1i Limi1:
\~~::l ,~~~;, .,71q :
3.5 ,~2::2~:' ""'f~.5~~tl5
- .
!toad #16 to South VHllitofI.ona
15 End OI CUrb to Road #2
':\6~ r.once.s s:Lon__2,& 3, to So.uth Limits o'f Sparta
0.8 0.5
1.4.0.9
;~~,WitL :}::;~:;;:~:::ih::;:~:N9t~li~ft..~. s~f~ ..... ;~1~~~t~~:~$J';'.~~~';;,~~'
. ;i!'35:':;" ~~ti~';"~~gh~~y' #;6:'t.J1i;~d~;#5t~. ~},l~:2:~~2J
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUDY
PAGE 4.
APRIL
19 82
-'- PAGES 76 - 8 J
LLJ A.A.OT: CR. PRo
....J
'~
CD.
/9 79 CONsfRUCT/ON
BASE COSTS
/98 2 BASE
COSTS
NOW
I - 5
6 - 10
RE- ,
SURFACECONSTRI/CTI 0 N
. __~,2:,~POT~~~~(~_RE~,~,RFACE.
960 85 17
--
815 84 17
780 84 17
-----:--~
1320 86 17
---
110
180
90
108
129
87
695
1200
740
227
84 17
86 17
85 16
80 16
23
850 85 16
. , ~- '~-
815 85 16
420 84 15
945 88 15
90 78 15
1480 88 15
420 84 15
700 86 15
150
168
60
277
124
20
108 .
I
800 '87 14
6 ~,q L"" ,,~.~. 14
10
42
u' ~ A-
t..... 0 J... ~
~'A."" ,~'"
u ~ Q
fq o' vfJ ~
VJ ~ ~
145
148
167
66
113
189
33
58
154
169
173
174
190
47
49
86
45
68'"
42
42
45
20
36
53
8
17
44
46
48
48
54
14
14
24
14
APPENDIX
c
R E VI SE D _ _ _~~:p;,_ __. ___ __ I 9 82
- PAG.ES 76 - 8/
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
LENGTH
L
o C A
T ION
~
-1
':II::
.81 24,.. Ro~d.#36 to Highwgy#73(~or~$ruc~J
103' 30 'j Road "#5 2 to CQnc~ ssi<>ns< 12'aiid, l3
D 7'2Q~' l.i Km. N Pt. Stanley to LpfS14&. 15 S.u .a~.
81 23 Joseph St. to North Liinit. Sanitary Sewer
156 44 We,stLimit s of E~ent,q Highway #19
l?q ~R T~r 114 rn W~~r Limit of, Straffordvi11e
1.3 Km \Vest of Pt. Burwell to N Limit of Pt. Burwell 1.3 0.8
East Limit Port Burwell t~ Lot 17
1.6 1.0
6.6 4.1
1.1 0.7
1.6 1.0
0.6 0.4
3.5 2.2
1.5 0.9
1.2 0.7
3.2 2.0
5.5 3.4
2.9 1.8
0.8 0.5
Road #43 to Highway #19
North Limit Port Stanley to 1.1 Km North
Road #24 to Concessions 2 & 3
From Elm St. to Highway #73 (Aylmer)
0.6 Km North of Road #9 to Thames River
Road #19 to Middlesex Road #15
Road #46 to Highway #3
Highway #3 to Corinth
Highway #73 to Road #47
Road #47 to Road #54
Oxford Road #20 to Elgin Road #48
Road #13 to Highway #4EH
Highway #401 to Thames River
Dexter to Road #36
1.8 1.1
3.5 2. 2
3.8 2.4
South Limit Tona. Station to R., R. Tracks
0.2 0.1
S.buth Limit Fingal tOR.oad#16
0.2
6~,~3'.9.'
'4. 02.~5 ,.'.
" 2.;'~Q",
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUDY
PAGE 5.
I.Ll A.A.OT: CR. PRo
-1
~
CD.
19 79 CONS'TRUeTION
BASE COSTS
198 _!-_ BASE
COSTS
RE-
SURFACE
'CONSTRUCT/ON
N~' , '" J,spor DRAIIiIRESU R FAC~
1-5
6 - 10
NOW
690 87 14
440 85 14
835 88 14
.---
700 88 13
- - ----
320 85 13
1100 89 13
430 87 12
350 87 12
235 86 12
520 88 12
680 86 12
490 87 12
450 87 12
605 89 L1
667 89 11
390 86 11
39
48
48
105
36
138
165
112
L2
54
105
134
0.3 O~2 420 93 8
4.6 2.9 1050 94 7 . lq
.
(".~
.(... 0 ~ <:
~.J...."" ~ ~
v ~ <:;)
(q O' vcr ~
V) ~ ,<:-0
188
22
55
130
131
184
186
187
2
10
11
28
60
78
106
116
13'2
1:}6 40
367
39
44
53
8
16
38
38
52
52
53
2
3
3
8
19
22
32
36
APPENDIX
c
SUMMARY
OF ROAD SECTIONS
L
o C
A
T ION
.1____1
-, ,
End of CUrb to Beech Street
Pearce Park to End of Pavement
East Limit Finga1 to Lots 28 & 29
West Limit Straffordvi1le to Highway #19
Highway #19 to East Limit Straffordville
Highway #74 to Orwell Road
West Limit of Springfield to Road #40
Highway,#73 to End of CUrb and Gutter
West Limit West Lorne to East Limit West Lorne
QUeen Street to North Limits Rodney
North Limit Rodney to Highway #401
North Limit Dutton to Highway #401
Highway #3 to 1.9 KIn North
Road #24 to Road #27
Highway #73 to Police College Gate
Road _#27 to North Street- (Spar.ta)
38 East LimitsStraffordville to :Norfolk Line
20
11
14
Nor.tnLimi t Mount Saleni :1:0 Highway '#'3- ,.
Roaq,,#Lp tc) .. East River. Road;."
. -.., ' . -: - ~~ p"
- .' - .-
.,,' ',',', '". ',,', '" ,,', ,,' ,', " .. ",' ','" ','"",',,.~,', " ',.."',, "",': ,'" "., '
1.2- .l)ln';vestof:. H~ghway 1#+: ,t~:R:fgflwCl-Y#B:<<~~<~r.:
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUDY
PAGE 6.
REV IS E D __ _~E.:tJ,.,_ _ _____ __ _ I 9 _~_4_
- PAG,ES 76 - 8/
LENGTH
19_79_. CONSTRUCT/ON
BASE .COSTS
/98 _4._ BASE
COSTS
RE-
! SURFACE
~
-1
~
w A.A.DT: CR. PRo
-.J
~
CD.
CONSTRUCT/ON
NOW, 'SPOT ORAIN~,,~S~RFACE
NOW
I - 5
6 - 10
0.6 0.4 1520
0.8 0.5 90
91 7
92 6
24
3.6 2.2
--
0.4 0.2
1645 _~~I__
1060 96 6
0.3 0.2
960
96 6
3.7 2.3
1150
93 6
--- ,--
0.9 0.6 1310 93 6
----
0.2 0.1 1520 93 6
'-
1.4 0.9 1580 96 5
0.7 0.3 2030 94 5
1.6 1.0 1840 95 5
0.8 0.5 1440 94 5
1.9 1.2 500 94 5
3.2 2.0 700 96 5
3.2 2.0 635 92 5
I
n.3 0.2 950 94 5
4.5 2.8
10.
..
461
4~Q..:2:~.~t
,1:~-2 0..7
,._~.8 0.-5-
. 2.11.:3:,
2~() 1 ~2
2.5 1.6
Ftottl:C.N .,Tr acks t(}High-W~~~~i,
L?ts, 6 . &7 N~& S U.R. .to S~Limits of Fingal
Highway #4 to Road #26
Highway #3 to South Limits Iona St?tion
81ft
440
730
95
96
<./~ ~
A.,.. 0 A.,. ~
~. ,,' ~ ""
u ..:s <:)
Iq O' vcr ~
~ ~ ~o
61 19
69 20
77 21
111 34
146 42
170 46
175 49
176 49
254 16
52 16
54 16
63 20
65 20
75 20
93 27
94 27
95 27.
- ~
. 96,' 27
APPENDIX
c
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
L
o C A
T ION
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUOY
PAGE 7.
RE VI SE D APRIL 19 82
__________u_____ ,
- PAGES 76 ~ 81
LENGTH
/9 79 CONSTRuCTION
BASE COSTS
/982 BASE
COSTS
RE-
SURFACE
~
..J
:lie
w A.A.Or: CR. PRo
..J
NOW
I - 5
6 - f 0
CD.
CONSTRUCT/ON
.. NOW, ~T ORAlNJRESURFAC~
~
.. J___
_ r....., I I I
From 1.9 KIn N. of Highway #3 to Southwold Station
Road #16 to North Limit Finga1
Road #20 to Highway #4
West Limit Belmont to Highway #74
North Limits Port Burwell to Highway #19
Corinth to Oxford Line
Road #5.2 to North Limits of Springfield
North Limit Springfield to Road #48
Road #20 to East Limit Fingal
Road #8 to Road #14
West Limit Finga1 to Road #20
Erie Street to Bridge Street (Port Stanley)
Start of CUrb to N. Limit of Port Stanley
Highway #401 to Road #18
..
Highway #4 to East Limit of Union
East Limit of Union to Road #22
Road, #22 to We st Limit of Spa:r:ta '.
W~,stI,i1id;t."~:,Sp~r~~? t.oRoad #36
-' ~
l.O];. .... . 29..' .'J~.oad#25t<>,< ;t'..~OKn1 East,
ios-' ',.31 :':' :(J~oad#29.t~:::~oad #52:
11'1:'
.139.c. 40
140
142
16
From 'No;r~tl1 S.td~~ettopleasaBt Vcilley:'Ro'ad" .~.
G1encolin to'South Limit Spr~!lgfield .
South Limit Springfield to Road #52
Highway #73 to Road #40
40
42
4.0 2.5 355 95 4
--
0.4 0.3 1160 95 4
- - --
0.4 0.3 1200 95 4
---
0.5 0.3 670 95 4
---
0.6 0.4 920 95 4
1.6 1.0 470 97 4
0.3 0.2 410 96 4
2.5 1.6 395 96 4
, -
0.3 0.2 1590 97 4
Il.6 7.2 480 95 3
0.5 10.3 920
0.3 0.2 590
0.4 0.3 1180
96 3
97 3
97 3
0.3 0.2
0.3 0.2
1.8 1.1
6.7;4:..2" .'
96,
98
98
3
3
3
370
1081
1057
860
~ '. . - - ~ -, - - --. - .
t':.61~(): ; >3t60 .
< "t'
, r.8'f].;'~l;"':~,::
3 .42:.1'"
O~8' 0.5
4.1 2.6
740 96. 3
880, 95 3
(/~ ,,J,.
A.,.. 0 A.. ~
I~~. v~~
~~
158 45
71
172
5
8
13
46
110
112
115
118
47
47
2
3
3
14
34
35
36
36
44
45
45
52
160
161
181
1.82- 52
:'4U ,.:'1. ~o:
62/'< ,2f{'
126 '~3'8
127 38
153 43
APPENDIX
c
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
LOCATION
East River Road to 1.2 Km West of Highway #4
Road #48 to South Limit of Avon
South Limit of Avon to Road #37
Ecker Drain to Road #8
Road #2 to King Street (Rodney)
Highway #401 to Road #U
R. R. Tracks to Road #13
Kettle Creek to West Limit Belmont
Road #45 to Highway #3
South Limits Sparta to Road #27
pleasant Valley Road to Road #45
Highway #3 to West Limit of Eden
Highway #4 to Road #22
Road #22 to Road #36
Highway #3 By-Pass to Road #25
Road #25 to Road #30
~~inIl~~~of,~otMixt~ RO(i<li!31,'
west. Limit of RodneytQ Road #3 .
.Road,~:to 'Ena,of~cl1~b:~RdGUtt:er
Will:Llin :St.-t6 ~i~st:,. fp6rt:'stan:tey)
~ig!tway, #3 toWes~ Limit' of Richinond
~
, '
" .
. '
, '
West Limit Richmond'to East Limit Richmond"
South Limit Richmond to Road #38
REPLACES /969 NEEDS STUOY
PAGE 8.
REVISED ____.AP.R.IJ~__u___. /9 __?_~
- PAG.ES 76-- 81
LENGTH
19_}9. CONSTRUCT/ON
BASE COSTS
198 _ _2.. BAS E
COSTS
RE-
SURFACE
~
..J
~
w A.A.or: CR. PRo
..J
~
CD.
CONSTRUCT/ON
N O~:.....,~OT ORAllilRE5URFACE.
NOW
I - 5
6 - 10
1.0 0.6 610 95 3
5.5 3.4 450 96 3
0.2 0.1 480 97 3
-----
2.2 1.4 555 98 2
---
0.8 0.5 2600 98 2
4.5 2.8 1170 97 2
1.1 0.7 760 97 2
0.9 0.6 670 98 2
4.9 3.0 1107 97 2
0.5 0.3 620 98 2
1.1 0.7 1010 97 2
4.4 3.4 410 97 2
,
2.1 ~.3 1820 98 2
7.1 4.4~ 1440 98 2
1.8 ~.l 1100 97 2
!
4.9 3 . 0 31'30 91 2
g~:~:,_9,.~ '~c:?~f:}.::,_
0.6 Q.4 ....820'
,1..8: 1.1:
o ~5 0.3
0.3 0:. 2
o
o
o
i
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
i
I
i
i
I
I ,,'/O~ r ~.1.. ~
I ~. ,,' ~ <::>
I v o' vO ~
I. ",tv ii!f Q:O
I 162 45
APPENDIX C
REPLACES /969 NEEDS- STUDY
PAGE 9.
SUMMARY OF ROAD SECTIONS
REV IS E 0 _ _ _ _~E.I.L __. __ _ _ _ . I 9 _82_
- PAGES 76 - 81
LOCATION
~
..J
~
llJ A.A.DT CR. PRo CD.
..J
~
/9}9__ CONSTRUCTION
BASE COSTS
RE-
SURFACE
198.2. BASE
COSTS
LENGTH
NOW
f - 5
6 - 10
CONSTRU C TI 0 N
..
NOW' SPOT DRAIN. RESUR FACE
- "I
~
166
6.1 3.8 1095
98 0
98 0
45
Road #36 to Road #35
Road #40 to Road #43
3.7 2.3 1380
----
*
TOTALS
5444
4666
168
5005
1321
374
332
.'
d'-"
BRIDGE
NO
48
49
6
26
4
8
22
23
16
24
43
27
46
')')
..)L.
,;
"""
9
Page }_ _
.,,~
PAGES 82~ 83 and 84 of the
1969 NEEDS STUDY
REPLACES
APPENDIX :J
SUM/I,1ARY OF BRIDGES
Revised ___~.QI!_...,., ...., /9.?)..
19_~__
BASE COSTS
/979 CONSr'"
BASE' COSTS
JURISDICTION
ROAD
LOCATION
A,A.O.r C.R PRo CD
NA,tV! E
NO
PRESENT
FUTURE
NOW ELGIN LOCAL NOW ELGIN LOCAL
1
Cook's
I
43 I Lot 1, C~ncession V, Bayham
F.l gin
Elgin-Middle.
15 68 --K 765 765 ____.ID.&in
Elgin
165
165
630
15
42
68 X 745 745 __-
59 X 682 682
E1.gi.n
Elgin-Middle.
Phillmore
43 Lot 3, Concession S.S.T.R., Bayham
14 iLot C, Concession III, Dunwich
Middlemiss
Jamestown
ILot 28, Concession II, Yarmouth
50
18 52 X 484
484
Elgin Local
Tate s
i
iLot 7, Concession A in B.F., Dunwich
Elgin~Middle. Local
Elgin Elgin
Elgin Local
50
1..L 50 X 836
_~6
Fleming Cr. N.
Robbins
3 Lot 11, Concessions II and III, A1dborough
Lot 5, R 1 and 2 E.R.R~, South\vold
Lots 3 and 4, R 1 W.R.R., Southwo1d
Lot 49, E.S.T.R.N.B., Southwold
880 \ 55 50 X 112 112
~~
20 13 50 X 572 57~
Elgin Local
Fulton
60 1 29 , 45
I
50 I 40 37 X 47 47
Elgin-Middle. Local
Lings
Meeks
Lot 16, R 1 N.U.R., Southwold
120 1 50 35 I X 445 445
840 ; 69 34 I 374 374
. I
100 65 24
60 6522
80, 21
Elgin
Local
Elgin
Elgin
Glenco1in
40 Lot 21, Concessions VII and VIII, Malahide
Lot 27; Concessions III and IV, Yarmouth
Elgin
Local
Gil1etts
Vienna
Lot 14, Concession III, Bayhcftn
Elgin
Local
n~ 1_~....+- T.l.....~..
DIi::,LUlV1U.. nlli:: ~'-
34 Lot 15, Concession XV, YarmQuth
Elgin-Middle. Elgin,;,;Midd1e.
14 Lot C, Concess1onVIII,.Dunw1ch
- - .. " .
iiOf:"ht1f;,;f~6tiCe~~~~~~~~.}::~1~:~}~~gll~
;,,~r~~~l~~~~~iii;il'.ii,~~~
. -, ',-',.- ,.-_.
:~ag'tli~eii:"
~?stiiie~~:;~f;
, 46 Lots 5 and 6, c()li~~s~ion' IX,
3 Lots 14 and J?_, Conc-assion B.F., Aldhorough
1010100
o
Elgin-Middle. _ Elgin-Middle.
2
. W aJ:'d?yj.ll~
Page _?_
APPENDIX D
REPLACES
PAGES 82) 83 and 84 of the
1969 NEEDS. STUDY
SUMMARY -OF BRIDGES
R . d MARCH 82
eVlse .u...H' __ ,. ....,,19......
.----,.
/979 CONSTfN
BA SE "COSTS
/9..8.i
BASE COSTS
BRIDGE ROAD
NO NAME NO LOCATION
,li,
3 Walkers 5 Lot 1, Concession C in B.F., Dunwich
----:i
5 lvilleyt s 8 Lots 14 and 15, Concession A in B.F., Dunwich
11 Port Talbot 16 Lot 24, Concession II, DunhTich
14 Gov. Drain No.3 - Lot 24, Concession III, Southwo 1 d
15 Gov. Drain No.1 - Lot 26, Concession III, Southwold
17 Talbot Creek 20 Lo t s 15 an d 16, S.T.R.N.B., Southwold
18 St. George St ~" 26 Lot 47. N.T.R.. Yarmout~
~~
19 Dodd's 25 Lot A, Gore Concession, Southwold
20 Fingal 16 Lot 45, N.T.R.E., Southwold
21 Kaint s 33 Lot 1, Concession VIII, Yarmouth
25 Warren Street 21 Village of Port Stanley
28 Players 45 Lot 25, Concession V and VI, Yarmouth
-
29 Patterson 30 Lots 8 and 9, Concession XI, Yarmouth
30 McGinnis ..- Lot 9, Concess'ions XIII and XlV, Yarmouth
A.A.D.T. C. R PRo CD
NOW ELGIN LOCAL NOW ELGIN Lo.CAL
o
18C 180
80 100
1
420 1100
o
510 ilOO
l
o
~---
400 ~ 100 0
t---------------
!
400 1100 0
~-------
1410 1100 0
I ! \ I I I
, I
~27l0,~100 0
4470 ~
1810 ,100 I 0 I
i
360 100 0
1220 ~~ l
1380 I 98 0 . 5C 50 1
---- ------..,
467 100 0
100 97
o
40
200 100
o
Orwe 11
Lot 28, N.T.R., Yarmouth
JfJR1SDIC TION
PRESENT
FUTUl?E
Elgin-Middle. Elgin-Middle.
Elgin-Middle. ~in-Middle.
Elgin
Elgin
Elgin-Middle. Local
Elgin-Middle. Local
,Elgin Elgin
Sub. Road Sub. RC);:!d
Sub. Road
Sub. Road
Sub. Road
Sub. Road
-'
, 1\
Sub. Road
Sub. Road
Elgin
Elgin
Elgin
- -
Sub. Road
Elgin
Sub. Road
~~~in~Middle. Loca~
Local.
_ ~ ,~.-_,--:~ ,_' _', ._", '--"_-:'':''Zi'~'' -
~ - _,. - - - - . ~._ _:, - -\.:,' - "0-
-tQcal':~~~"~:'
. - - - -. -. - .
RIQi.n
T .(1(';:J 1
BRIDGE
41
42
45
47
50
51
53
56
58
59
60
61
62
74
REPLACES
PAGES Q2~83and84 of the
1969 NEEDS STUDY
A PPE/VDIX :J
Revised __.... __~GH.. ..., , /9.;??.
SUMMARY OF BRIDGES
NO
NAME
Elm Street
Dingle
Port Burwell
Calton
Richmond
Ro1son
West Eden
/979 CON$T 'N
BASE COSTS
19.52,..
BASE COSTS
JURISDICTION
ROAD
LOCATION
A.A.D.T. c.R. PRo CD
NO
NOW ELGIN LOCAL NOW ELGIN LOCAL
PRESENT
53 Town of Ay1~er
Town of Aylmer
42 Village of Port Burwell
45 Lot 4, Concession IV, Bayham
38 Lot 112, N. and S.T.R., Bayham
38 Lot 119, N. and S.T.R., Bayham
o
El'gin
1520 . 100
650 100
Rl~in
. ..
o
o
Elgin
92'"
92
11090 100
835 100
960 100
1050 100
Elgin
o
o
o
Elgin
Elgin
I
44 !Lot 16, Concessions VlrI and IX, Bayham
o
El2in
410 100
1920 100
Elgin,
o
Kettle Creek 52 I Lot 5, Concession X, Yarmouth
F.1~jn
Kettle Cr. Cu1. 45 !Lots 6 and 7, R. 2, E.R.R., Southwo1d
26 1St. George Street at C.N.R.
610 100
2710 0
o
o
Dodd's Creek
Garton
VanOrder
Springwater
Page _.J_
FUTU.RE
Elgin
TO('.::ll
::lgin
:21 gin
Sl gin
.:=:1 gin
~l~jn
Sl gin
-:;-loin
ILot 24, Concession III, Southwo1d
!
Sub. Road I Sub. Road
E1 stin-Midd1e. lI.oca1
I
400 100
1400 100
440 100
830 . ,100
o
o
o
o
52 Lot 18, Concession X, Yarmouth
Sub. Road
42 Lot 14, Concession I, Bayham
Elgin
Elgin
35 Lot 28, Concession VI, Yarmouth
Sub. Road
Elg in
Elgin
cauNTY ,OF ELGIN cauNCIL
EAST ELGIN INSPECTIaN
APRIL 28, 1982
1.
LEA VB COURT BOUSE 9: 00 l\,. M, ·
, L' 'tS to Road ~27
Road ~22 (Fairvie~ l\,venue) from st. Thomas Cl.ty l.ml. .
2.
Land purchase and engineering underlliay.
portion of hydrO poleS
3.
moved bac]>, and some ditching done.
~ _ TOP soil and seeding on ~est side sotlth of Road ~45
one (1) A,' ~ 1~rth of Road ~ 4 5, ~ppro~j,n\a tely 1/4 mile.
Road 1\2~' to Road: ~27 - NO defl.cl.enc:Les.
Road 1\24 to Del<ter _ Deficient, requireS reconstructiOn (not
4.
Road ~24 from Del<ter to ROad ~36 - Deficient, requireS resurfacing
programmed) ·
5.
(not programmed) .
Road ~36 to sparta _ Deficient, requireS resurfacing (not
6.
programmed).
Road ~36 sparta to Road ~45 - NO deficiencies.
ROad ~36 from Road ~45 to Bigh~aY ~3 - Deficient, requireS resurfacing
7.
8.
(not programmed).
1:\igh",ay 1\3 to l\,ylmer _ l\,'llffiBR LIBBJl>RY caFFEE l\,ND DaNUTS
(caURTESY TOVIN ,OF l\,YLMBR)
1:\igh",ay 1\73 to Road ~45
Road ~45to Road ~40 ~ Deficient, ~ - M,a)Or
~idening, ditching, and resurfacing required; ~ -
, . d some engineering and
complete ,preconstructl.on, sUXVeYl.ng an
9.
10.
11.
land purchase completed.
Road ~40 to M,ount salem - NO deficiencies.
Road ~45 M,ount salem to calton - Gravel shouldering underlliaY 1982
12.
13.
14.
(maintenance) ·
Road ~43 _ caltOn to Road 1\42 - Gravel.
Road ~42 to port Btlrlliell _ Deficient, requireS resurfacing (not
Road ~42 east of Bigh~ay~19 and Road 1\50 to be
15.
rebuilt after sanitary Se~er Installation.
16. 1:\igh~aY 1\19 to straffordVille - Noting salt storage building built
in 1981 bY County of Elgin on TO~nshiP of Bayha1l\ property.
programmed).
COUNTY OF ELGIN COUNCIL
EAST ELGIN INSPECTION
APRIL 28, 1982
PAGE 2.
17. Road #38 east of Straffordville - Resurfaced and ditched in 1981.
18. Road #38 - Straffordville to Highway #3 - Completed except for
minor tri~ning. Tree planting on slopes in 1982.
19. Highway #3 to Road #40.
20. Road #40 to Glen Colin - Deficient, resurfacing required (not
programmed) .
21. Township of Malahide Road to Ontario Police College.
22. DINNER AND INSPECTION OF COLLEGE.
23. Inspection of Wildlife Area - Operated by the Ministry of Natural
Resources.
24. Road #32 to Highway #73 - Construction 1981 and 1982.
25. Road #32 north to Road #52 - Construction in 1982 and beyond.
26. Road #52 to Springfield.
27 . Roads # 49, #48 and #47 to Avon - Surface treated last: year.
28. Road #37 - Avon Westerly to Belmont - Improvements programmed for
1982 east side of C.P.R. Tracks if property can be purchased.
29. Road #34 Westerly from Belmont.
30. Via Middlesex County Road to Middlesex Hubrey Road. County of
Middlesex wishes to improve connection south of Belmont-Glanworth
Road about 1985-1986.
31. Diversion required at County of Elgin Boundary.
32. Road #30 to Road #52.
33. Road #52 to Road #25.
34. Wellington Road.
35. Road #26 (St. George Street) - Flashing lights erected at Cowan
Park Curve.
36. Minor improvements planned on St. George Street Hill 1982
(maintenance) .
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 23, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at 12:30 p.m.,
April 23, 1982 in conjunction with the West Elgin Road Inspection.
All members were present except Reeve Monteith and Reeve Millard.
"M0VED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE COUNTY ENGINEER BE INSTRUCTED TO REPLACE THE CULVERT
PClSTS AROUND THE GRAVE SITE, IN THE OLD COURT YARD, MONDAY
APRIL 26, 1982. PUT CALCIUM ON THE GRAVEL PORTION OF THE
OLD COURT YARD. POINT UP AND MORTAR~HE NORTH EAST CORNER
OF THE OLD WALL WHERE IT JOINS THE NEWER SECTION, AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
CARRIED."
The meeting adjourned to May 6, 1982.
~CL~J~\ ~~
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY 01' ELG1.N ROADDEfART~
::::: =--
1.NS:PEC't1.0N . ~EST ELG1.N Al'R1.l, 23, 1981-
-
"
1. Road #26 (St. George Street) - Clearing completed on hill.
Removal of old gtlide rail · ~idening of shOtllder.
LEAVE COURT ROUSE · 9 :00 A.M.
1.roprovement of vision at C.N.R. Tracks to come.
cotlnty of Elgin (St. ThomaS Stlbtlrban Road C()11l1\\iSsion o..ns hotlse
on east side of C.N.R. Tracks).
:property reqtlired from city of St. ThomaS to iroprove alignment
2. Flasher lightS inst'alled at Co~an park corner.
3. ~ellington Road. 1'rimesite Developments · nO action presentlY.
4. Road #29 _ proposed reversion by Ministry of Transportation and
communications. 1.ntersection iroprovement ~th Road #25 reqtlire~'
additional stlrface treatment and drainage reqtlired.
north of track.
5. Road #52 . ~est of Road #25 - Ministry of Transportation and
communicatiOn~reversion of part of Road #52, et~.
6. site of 1985 1.nternatiOnal plo~ing Match'. (!.~!'$.tion of cotlnty
7. Road #11 . COFnE _ Note LingS Bridge, bOtlndary bridge with
Roads in area.
Middlesex.
B. llOtlndary Road bet~een sotlth~old and J')elaware to Gotlnty Roads #17,
#19, #18, and #20 . gr ave 1 re su.rfacing is re q\)ir ,\,d in the area.
9. sotlth~old To..nshiP Gore Road to Road #14.
10. MiddlemisS Br"dge.
11. Road #14 to Road #13 to wtton.
12. Road #2 . wtton to AldborOtlgh To..nline · portiO~ in poor
condition.
13. Road #2 _ ~e st Lorne to Rodney.
14. Road #4 . ~est of Rodney · Approved for Engineering.
15. LUNCH
16. Road ff3 . RodneY to Righ~ay ff3.
17. Road ff3 . Sotlth of 1:\igh~ay #3 · ReStlrface ~hen road bet~een
RodneY and 1:\igh~ay ff3 is restlrfaced.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
INSPECTION - WEST ELGIN APRIL 23, 1982
PAGE 2.
18. Road #3 to Road #9 - If time Road-#3 and Road #6.
19. Road #9 - Aldborough to be gravelled 1982.
20. Road h5 - to Walkers Bridge.
21. Via Dunwich Roads to Tates Bridge - Floor repairs have been
made. New floor will be required within a few years.
22. Road #9 to Road #8 to Dutton - Salt Storage Site.
23. Dutton to Wa11acetown - Ditching and resurfacing 1982.
24. Road #8 - South of Highway #3 approved for engineering.
25. Road #16 to Finga1 - Flashing lights installed.
26. Road #20 to Highway #401 - resurfacing required shortly. New
drain required in Shedden.
27. Road #20 to Port Stanley if time. Resurfacing required in Port
Stanley. Improvements made at Kettle Creek just north of
Warren Street.
28. Road #23 - East Street Drain.
29. Garage - Crests on County Trucks.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 21, 1982
PAGE 1.
on April 21, 1982 at 2 :00 p.m. in conjtlnctj.on with Cotlnty Cotlncil. All
THE COUNTY OFRLGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Mtlncipal :Building
member s were pre sent.
Mr. William Hare Itnd received from the County Solicitor Murray J. Hennessey
A draft agreement between the County of Elgin and
tlnder the date "f April 7 was presented and d'Lsctlssed. Several stlggestions
were made and the CV1,."ittee reqtlested that the final agreement be brotlght
to them prior to signing. The Cv",n,ittee felt that a By-'LaW shotlld be
passed by County Cotlncil so that when an agreement was concltlded that the
Warden and Clerk would be authorized to sign it.
. 'MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED :BY: :M. .::H:. .ST~EWART
THAT WE REcOMMEND TO cOUNTY cOUNCIL THAT A :BY-LAW BE PASSED TO
AUTHORIZE THE WJ\RDEN AND CLERK TO S1.GN AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARD
TO THE t>.CQlJISIT1.0N OF PART OF LOr 12, CONCESSION VIII, MALAllIDE
TOWNS1l1.P A!lD SHOWN bS PARTS #l AND #2 ON A PLAN REGISTERED IN
THE coUNTY OF El>GIN REGISTRY Om CE AS llR 2373.
CARRIED."
The Engineer was instrtlcted to have the new trtlck bOl<eS on
Trucks #83 and #84 painted a c:hruLLt\:: yellow.
~emeeting adjourned to April 23, 1982.
~ \J~,~"r-
CHAIRMAN
COUNT'l 01' ELG1.N ROAD CoM}1ITTEE
APR1L SESStOlt
1982
~
TO 't1:\E VlhROEN ,/\NO M.EM.BE\l5 Of T1:\E ELGIN COUNTY COUNC1.L
'l O\l It It 0 t-,\l COl'il'il'l"t\': EitEl' 0 \{'\' S AS fO L LO\<J S :
1.
1 . th Vlarde,n and Clerk to stin
'that, a By-loa~ he passed to a~t.,orl.ze e
, 't' of "art of LOt 12.
t <.,,;th ....egard to the acq~l. S1. 1.0n ~ . '
an agreemen w" . '
. h n t!tS #1 and #2 on
. ,rIll ~alahide To~shl.p and s o~ as Fa
conceSS1.on v ' n
a ptan registered in the Co~ntY of Elgin Registry Office as
~E RECOMMEND
llR 2373.
t-,LL 01' Vl\lICU IS RESl'ECtWL'L'l $UllM'f.'!:'tioll
~\.~
Cl\A1I{M~
._""-_......,.,.,.....~..,.
c}
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMl.TTEE
FIRST REPORT
.' ---
APRIL SESSION
1982
TO T1:\E WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN COUNC1.L
yOUR ROAD COMlUTTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the quotation of Johnston Bros., (Both~el1) Limited at
$3.84 per ton for approl<imately 7,20p tons haS been accepted to
supply and apply Granular 'A' crushed gravel from pits in the
Romoka area on COtlnty Road #9 bet~een Road #3 and Road #5. It
~as the lo~est of fotlr (4) qtlotations received.
2. The qtlotatiOn of C. R. Chittick construction Limited of R. R. #3,
Ilderton, ontario at 67 cents per ton has been accepted to crtlSh
gravel and a pile of pit rtln gravel at the Cotlnty' s pleasant valley
pit. It ~as the lowest of fotlr (4) qtlotations received [seven (7)
firms ~ere reqtlested to quote].
3. The quotation of ArmCo Cflnada Limited has been accepted for ctllvert
pipe at $16,310.05. It ~as the lowest of sil< (6) qtlotations
received.
4. The Engineer has been authorized to proceed 'With repairs to the
Frink Dump Boxes on the county Mack Dump TruckS #83, #84, #88,
#69 and ff)0. These repairs 'Will be done by Frink canada and a
portion of the cost ~ill be absorbed by them tlnder a policy
,~
5. The inspection of County Roads in West Elgin by th~ County Road
committee is scheduled for April 23.
arrangement.
6. your ,Committee has decided to proceed 'With construction of
Road ff32 and to leave those projects that ~ere scheduled for the
Village of port Btlr~ell in abeyance tlntil 1983, inasmuch as it
appears that tenders for the sanitary sewers in port Burwell
cannot be called tlntil late Fall at the earliest.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT .. APRIL SESSION 1982
PAGE 2.
7. Tenders will be called for asphalt resurfacing for County Road #8,
between Highway #3 at Wallacetown and Dutton. The tender will
include work to be done for the Village of Dutton. It is expected
that these will close in early May.
8. The Engineer has been authorized to proceed with engi.neering
surveys on County Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) from Highway #3 to
Road #45, County Road #4 from the west limits of Rodney to the
Kent County Line, and County Road #B from Highway #3 southerly to
the road into Pearce Park. This surveying must be completed
before proceeding with the engineering design of these roads. It
will also provide some of the requ~red information should an
Environmental Assessment be necessary.
WE RECOMMEND
1. That:: a By...Law be passed stating tha.t the County of Elgin has no
objection to the passage of a By-Law by the Township of Malahide
to close portions of Road Allowance (previously Road #32) for
eventual sale by the Township to Jack Maitland Smith and
described as follows:
All and singular those certain parcels or tracts of land and
premises situate, lying and being in the Township of Ma1ahide, in
the County of Elgin, and Province of Ontario, being composed of
Part of the Road through Lot 12 in the Eighth (8th) Concession
and Part of the Road Allowance between Lot 13, Concession VIII
and Lot 13, North Gore Concession, all in the said Township,
more particularly described as follows:
Premising that the westerly limit of said Lot 13, North Gore
Concession, is North One Degree, Four Minutes, Twenty Seconds
East (N 10 4' 2ry' E) and relating all bearings herein thereto.
Commencing at the North-West angle of said Lot 13, in the North
Gore Concession;
Thence South One Degree, Four Minu~es, Twenty Seconds West
(S 10 4' 20" W) along the westerly limit of said Lot 13, North
Gore Concession, a distance of One Hundred and Twenty-Eight and
Fifty-Nine One-Hundredths Feet (128.59');
PAGE 3.
j,
coUNTY 01' ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
FIRST REPORT. APRIL SESSION 1982
. ~~ ~
Thence Sotlth Sil<ty-Three Degrees,Thirty-Three Minutes, Twenty
Seconds west (S 611 33' 20" W) along the northerly limit of
COtlnty Road #32 as widened by plan D 1224, a distance of
seventy-FOtlr and Forty-TwO One.1:\tlndredthS Feet (74.42') to a
point;
Thence North one Degree,Fotlr Mintltes, T~enty Seconds East
(N 10 4' 2ry' E) a distance of Two Utlndred and Twenty-Eight and
Eighty.Five One_1:\tlndredthS Feet (228.85') to a point in a line
being the, ~esterlY el<tension of the sotltherlY limit of Lot 13,
concession VIII;
Thence south Eighty.Nine DegreeS, Two Mintltes, Ten SecondS East
(S 890 2' lry' E) along the sotltherly limit of Lot 13,
conceSSion V1.1.1., and itS ~esterly el<tention, a distanCe of
Five 1:\tlndred and Fotlr and Eighty_FOur One.1:\tlndredthS Fee,t
(504.84' ) to a point in the NortherlY Limit of countY Road #32
as ~idened by plan D 1224;
Thence Sotlth Sil<ty-Seven DegreeS, Three Mintltes, Fifty seconds
West (S 6703' 5ry' W) along the NortherlY Limit of s.aid
county Road #32 as ~idened by plan D 1224 a distanCe of one
1:\tlndred and Sil<ty-T~O and Ninety.One One.uundredthS Feet
(162.91' ) to the northerlY limit of Lot 13, North Gore
concession;
Thence, North Eighty-Nine Degrees, T~O Minutes, Ten seconds west,
(N 890 2' 10" W) a d i st ance 0 f Two 1:\tlndre d and Ninety and TwO
One.1:\tlndredthS Feet (290.02') to the point of commencement.
ALL OF Wll.1.C1:\ IS RESPEctFULLY S1JBM1.T'fED
.-.-- -----
C1:lAIRMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 1.
at 9:30 a.m.. 41ril 7. 1982. All member s were pre sent. Al s!> pre se,nt ~a s
TllE c()UNT'l OF ELGIN ROAD cQMM1T'fEE met at the Mtlnicipal BUilding
Mr. Ro~ard Green,ly of the Ministry of Transportation and CO!llllltlnications,
along with the Engineer and Assistant Epgineer.
Warden sha~ and members of the committee pai4 tribute to the late
Reeve J. B. Wilson of Sotlth Dorchester.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONt)ED BY: J. N. SMYTH
'fH,AT TllE M1.mrtES OF TllE MEETING 01' MARCH 10. 1982 BE APPRoVED.
CARRIED."
TllE ENGU'EER REFORTED ON TllE woRK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
,- I
1. The 'heavy winter stortll of April 6 had been cleared and sanders and
snowplo~s were still at ~Qrk althotlgh it had been necessary to ptlt
the 'snowplo~s back on the trtlcks; most graders bad Stlcessftllly
cleared their areas. A sander had been previOUslY removed fro~ one
of the trtlcks and another trtlck had not been licensed btlt all roads
~otlld be opened and sanded by noon. It ~aS noted that most Ministry
of Transportation and commtlnicatiOns' sanders had been removed from
contract as of March 31. winter control costs to date are
2. SnoW fence retl\Oval had been started on April 5 btlt wotlld no~ have
approximatelY $350,000.
to be postponed for atleast a ~eek becatlSe of the severe driftin~.
3. 'tree Ctltting ~as nearly finished with Road ff3 sotlth of Rodney
4. considerable flooding had Occtlrred in the last month partiCtllarlY
having been completed.
Road #37. Road #42 and Road #18. A complaint by Mr. RaUl on Road 1f38
east of Straffordville had been investigated as had been complaintS
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 2.
on Road #45 by Mr. A. E. Stacey, A complaint by Mr. Stanat on Road #38
at Richmond had been investigated by the County's Insurance Adjusters.
5. Pit run gravel was being piled at the County's pleasant Valley Gravel
Pit. Crushed gravel was being hauled from the Pleasant Valley Gravel
Pit to Whites Station. It was hoped to start gravel shouldering on
Road #45 near the Bayham-Norfolk Townline '-shqrtly, howE~ver the severe
weather of the last several days would probably delay the work by a
week. It was hoped to gravel Road #28 south of Elm StrE~et sometime
later in the month. It was also hoped to gravel County Road #20 and
roads in North-Southwold after Road #28 was completed.
6. Discussions were being continued with the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications who refused to convert to the County portions of )
the road that they had built near the St. Thomas Expressway. The
County had b~en requested to send a list of deficiencies to the
Ministry.
7. Flashing light signals were erected on Road #26 (St. George Street)
and on Road #16 at Fingal.
8. Needs study update sections would be done as soon as possible.
9. The concrete tests on the Middlemiss Bridge piers woul~ be de1ayetl until
such time as the ground dried out al1d the Thames River had receded.
10. A number of holes had appeared in the floor of the Tait1rs Bridge and
while temporary repairs have been made a new floor o~ the whole
bridge would be required within a few years.
11. Conditions have not been suitable for the sweeper to opl~rate.
12. The TD 8 Dozer had been returned by Southwestern International Pay1ine
after they had made the necessaryrepa,i~s under warranty,.
13. The storm sewers in Wa11acetown on Road #8 would soon be started.
14. It was hoped to start tree planting next week.
15. The sign repair maintenance programme was nearly complete and signs
would be straightened on County Roa'ds as soon as condit:i.ons allowed.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAe1E 3.
16. 1.t ~aS noted that the Ontario Provincial police, as ~ell as Office~s
of the Ministry of Labotlr ~otlld no~ lay charges fo~ violations of
safety eqtliWroent for people ~orking along the roadways. Stlch items
as lack of safety vestS, hard hatS, and safety shoeS will be inc1tlqed
in the charges that cotlld be laid.
one of the COtlnty StlperintendentS on April 3 to e~ne the treeS at
the Whitel Station Gravel pit.
The Assistamt Engineer reported that the constrtlction Safety Seminar waS
17. 1.t ~as reported that the Minist~y of NatU,ral ResOtlrceS wotlld meet with
attended by fotlr (4) emPloyees and they fe~t that the information received
from the seminar waS qtlite tlseftll.
1:\e also reported that the St. John ~tllance First Aid Cotlrse ~as
tlnderway and it tOO appeared qtlite 5\1ccessftll.
1.t ~aS noted that fotlr (4)' e11ljJloyees ~otlld attend the T. J. Mahoney and
p,p,der son Road school s on MaY 3 to MaY 5.
LAND l'1JR,CllASES WERE REl'ORTED upON AS FOu,owS:
1. No further information ~as avi{i,lable on Road ff32 - Willia1ll 1:\are.
2. All plans on Road #8 other than concession V Sotlth of A had been
3. The plan for Road #40 . J3U,r~ell at Glencolin,- had bee,n completed and
completed.
4. The Assistant Engineer ~as contintling negotiations with property owners
registered.
5. Reeve Monteith stated that p~o~ ~ather conditions had prevented him
on Road #3.
from seeing Mr. David Fergtlson.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 4.
Warden Shaw reported that the County's Personnel Committee had offered
the County of Elgin Road Department Hourly Rated Employees a 77 cenffiper
hour increas~, effective the 1st of April 1982. This being 9% calculated on
Category III, Machine Operator. Wa.rden Shaw al so stated that the County
W9rkmen had accepted this offer and this acce,ptance wotlld be considered by
the Personnel Committee and forwarded to County Council on April 21 for
their recommendation.
It wa s noted that Warden Shaw had reque'sted that the Engineer forward a
letter to the Personnel Committee requesting a clarification of the County's
policy regarding hiring a relative with regard to Castlal Summer Help with
those employees having previous seniority. Warden Shaw sta.ted that the
Committee would deal with this at their next meeting.
It was noted that in all likelihood Wilfred Smith would not be able to
return to work although his doctor had not officially stated this. His
sick time would last for another month, with holiday time to follow.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYLISTS BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 13 AMOUNTING TO $291.00
PAYLIST NUMBER 14 AMOUNTING TO $49,718.64
PAYLIST NUMBER 15 AMOUNTING TO $2,002.16
PAYLIST NUMBER 16 AMOUNTING TO $46,364.53
PAYLIST NUMBER 17 AMOUNTING TO $144,986.08.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 5.
"MOVED BY:
M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT THE WARDEN OR CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A PAY~IST FOR PAYMENT
TO MR. MURRAY J. HENNESSEY REGARDING PAYMENT FOR LAND FROM WILLIAM J. HARE
ON ROAD #32 AND ASSOCIATED COSTS THEREWITH.
CARRIED."
Calcium chloride quotations were as attached.
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ALLIED CHEMI~A4 CANADA LIMITED FOR BAGGED
CALCIUM CHLORIDE IN 40 KG. BAGS IN TRUCK LOAD LOTS F.04lB. WHITE STATION
AT $f04.04 PER TONNE AS PER THEIR QUOTATION FOR THE 1982 SEASON.
i
'cARRIED."
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ACQEPT THE' QUOTATION OF POLLARD BROS. (CALCIUM:> LIMITED FOR
LIQUID CALCIUM AT THEIR QUOTED PRICE OF $141.4.5J:lE:R FLAKED TON
EQUIVALENT IN TRUCK LOAD LOTS ON ANY ROAD IN ELGIN COm~TY FOR THE
1982 SEASON.
CARRIED."
Quotations for culvert pipe were as attached.
"MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF ARMCO CANADA LIMITED, DATED MARCH 16, 1982
FOR THE SUPPLY OF CORRUGATED CULVERT PIPE IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,310.05,
F.O.B. WHITE STATION GARAGE.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 6.
QUotations for gravel resurfacing on County Road #9, Aldborough Township
were as. attached.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED B~: L. J: SHAW
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LIMITED AT
$3.84 PER TON TO SUPPLY AND APPLY APPROXIMATELY 7,200 TON OF GRANULAR' A'
GRAVEL ON ROAD #9 BETWEEN ROAD #3 AND ROAD #5.
CARRIED."
Gravel crushirlg quotations for crushing gravel at the County's pleasant
Valley Pit were as attached.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J.!'I. SMYTH
THAT WE ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF C. R. CHITTICK LIMITED OF R. R. #3,
ILDERTON, ONTARIO AT 67 CENTS PER TON FOR CRUSHT::NC:; GRAVEL AT, THE
COUNTY'S PLEASANT VALLEY GRAVEL PIT.
CARRIED."
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. From the Village of Port Stanley with a zoning by-law for the medical
centre on Highway #4. It was noted that several objections had been
forwarded and that there would be no Ontario Municipal Board Hearing
on the matter.
2. From Mr. Ron McNeil with a letter from the Minister of Revenue stating
that the matter of the County's objection to t,he Retail Sales Tax
Rebate was under investigation particularly with regard to the method
of calculations.
3. The London Free Press article with possible sale of Conrail in Canada
to eitber the Canadian National or Canadian Pacific Railway.
',1--,
1'1
ST,. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 7.
4.
From the Ontario Municipal Board with a Hearing date for an appeal
-.,\
from the County Land DiviiiQRCvul1J.dttee concerning the property o~
Yehia Emara in South Dorchest~r.
5. From the Ministry of Transportation and CUul1,llunications with ClPprova1
from the Minister, James Snow for the reversion of Road #22 to the
; ,
County from the Suburban Road CUHI11d ssion.
6. From Petro Canada stating that they would consider the County's request
for a drop of 3 cents per litre in the price of diesel fuel.
7. From the Office of the Consolidated Hearing Board stati.ng that the
County's request to be further advised with regard to Ontario Hydro
and their transmission corridor would be considered and the County
advised.
8. From the Ontario Good Roads AS$ociation with grader OpE!rator updating
progrannne.
9. From the County of 'Elgin persconne1 Comrp.ittee requesting the County of
Elgin Road CUHl1llittee establish a policy on Winter Standby prior to
next season. The Engineer st.afea'ltli~t he had a number oS! ideaS in
this regard andvWQu1d bring them to Cormnittee for discussion and
implementation prior to ne~t 'Fall with the information being forwarded
to the Personnel Connnittee.
10. The Township of Bayham with an amendment to their Zoning :s.y-1aw.
11. From the Township of Ma1ahide with an amendment to the.ir zoning
By-law.
12. From the Township of Ma1ahide with a By-Law to close a portion of the
road between Lots 12 and 13, Concession VIII near County Road #32,
Jack Smith. This road closure was done many years ago. with an
incorrect description used. This By-Law would correct this
description from ownership to Mr. Smith.
ST. T1:\OMAS, oNTAR1.0
A1?Rl'L 7, 1982
1? AGE 8.
"MOV'ED B~:
SECONDED BY,: J. N. sM'lT1:I
T1:\AT VIE RECoMMEND TO COUNTY COUNC1.L 'f1:\AT A 'B'l.u.Vl BE PASSED STAT1.NG T1:\AT
T1:\E co\lN'f'i 01' ELG1.N 1lAS NO OBJEcT1.0NS TO T1:\E CLOS1.NG 01' T1:\E FOLLQVl1.NG
ROAD ALIffilN'lCES 1.N T1:\E T()\<ll'l5U1.l' 01' ~1.DE.
,
ALL AJ'\D S1.NGULAR T1:\OSE CE~TA1.N pARCELS OR TRAcTS 01' LAND AJ'\D PR1lM1.SES
SITUATE, L'l\1.NG AJ'\D BE1.NG 1.N T1:\E T()VlNSU1.l' 01' MALA1:\IDE, 1.N T1:\E coUNT'! 01'
ELG1.N, AJ'\D i1'MV1.NCE 01' ON'fAR1. 0, BE1.NG COMl'OSED 01' pART 01' TUEROlJl
T1:\ROUGll LOT, ~VE (12) 1.N TUE E1.G1:\T1:\ (8T1:\) CoNCESS1.0N AJ'\D pART 01' T1:\E
ROAD ALLOVlllNCE BF:rVffi'EN LOT T1:\1.RTEFJ'l (13) CONCESS1.0N E1.GUT (8) lIND LOT
TU1.RTE'EN (13) NORT1:\ GORE CONCESS1.0N, ALL 1.N T1:\E SpJ.D T()VlNSU1.P, l:10RE
l' ART1. CULAR'LY DESCR1.BED AS rOLLOVlS:
1'REMlS1.NG 'lJl\JI,T T1:\E vlESTE1U,'i L1.l:11.T 01' 5A1.D LOT T1:\1.RTEEN (13), NORT1:\ GORE
CONCESS1.0N, 1.S NORT1:\ ONE DEG1U'$, FOUR M1J'l\lTES, rwE1'l1Y SECONDS EAST
(N 10 4' 20" E) AJ'\D RELATING ALL BEAR1.NGS ll~Eilllll T1:\ERE'f0.
CoMMFJ'lC1.NG AT T1:\E NORT1:\_VlEST AJ'\GLE 01' SA1.D LOT T1:\1.RTEFJ'l' (13), 1.N T1:\E
NORT1:\ GORE CONCESS1.ONl
T1:\ENCE so1J't1:\ ONE DEGREE, FoUR M1J'l\lTES, rwFJ'lT'l SECONDS VlEST (S 10 4' 20" Vl)
AJ..Ol'IG T1:\E VlESTERl.Y L1.M1T 01' SAID LOT T1:\1.RTE'EN (13) , NORT1:\ GORE CoNCESSION,
A D1. STAJ'\CE 01' ONE UUNDREDlIND rYffiNTY. E1.Gl\'f AJ'\D 1'1 Yfy .NINE ONE_1tfll'itlRErrt1:\5
-w. R. CA V'EFJ}l
fEET (128.59');
TllFJ'lCE sout1:\ S1.ZXY _ T1:\REE DEGREES T1:\1.ro:Y. T1:\REE M1N\lTES, TVlENTY SECONDS VlEST
(5 630 33' 20" Vl) ALONG T1:\E NORT1:\ERLY L1.M1T 01' COUNT'! ROAD NO. 32 AS
Vl1.D'EN:ED BY pLAN D 1224, A D1.ST~GE 01' SEVFJ'lT'l.FOUR AJ'\D FORTy.T\<O
ONE_1iUNDREunlS nT!:t (74.4 'l,' ) TO A 1'o;tN'f 1
T1:\'ENCE NORT1:\ ONE DEGREE, FollR l:11.J'l\lTiS, rwE1'l1Y SECoNDS EAST (N 10 4' 20" E)
A D1. STAJ'\CE 01' rwO UUNDRED AJ'\D rw~. E1.mtr lIND E1.G1:\'f'\'. F1.vE ONE.1:\IJND'(tEunlS
FEET (228.85') TO A p01.NT 1.N A L1l'lE BE1.NG T1:\E VlESTERLY EXT'ENS1.0N 01' T1:\E
S01J't1:\ERLY LUfI-T 01' LOT T1:\1.RTE'EN (13) CONCESS1.0N E1.GlIT (8);
T (S 89" 2' 10" E)
T1:\ENCE SOU't1:\ E1.G1:\'f'\'.N1.NE DEGREES, rwO l:11NUTES TFJ'l SECONDS EAS
ALONG T1:\ES()llTllERLY L1.M1T 01' LOT TU1.RTEEN (13) CONCESS1.0N E1.Gl1T (8), AJ'\D 1.TS
VlESTERLY ERTE1'l11.0N, A D1.5TAJ'\CE 01' FIVE 1:\IJNDRED AJ'\D FOUR AJ'\D E1.Gl1TY.FOUR
CONT1NUED · · · ·
ST. TUoMAS, ONTAR1.0
A"PRIL 7, 1982
"P AGE 9.
\
"MOVED BY:
'W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED B'l: J. N. swrr1:\
CONTINUED · · ·
ONE_UUNDREut1:\S FEF:r (504.84') TO A 1'01.NT 1.N 'f]:lE NOR'f]:lERLY L1.M1.T 01'
coUNTY ROAD NO. 32 AS ~1.DENED BY PLAN D 1224;
T1:\ENCE SOU'l11:\ S1.}(TY. SEVEN DEGR11IES, 'l'11REE M1.l'lUTES, F1]l'fY SECONDS ~EST
(S 670 3' SO"~) t>.LONG T1:\E 1l0R'f]:lERLY L1.~T 01' SA1.D COUNTY ROAD NO. 32
AS VI1.DENED BY l'LAN D 1224 AD1.~TANCE 01' ONE 1J,1ll'lDRED AND S1.ZTY.~O AND
N1.NF:rY_ONE ONy,..1J,1ll'lDREDT1:\S T!E~ (162.91') TO 'f]:lE NOR'f]:l~Y L1.MITOF
LoT 'f]:l1.RTEEJ'l (13), NO~1:\ GORE COllCESS1.0N;
TUENCE NOR'!':}\, m.G1:\T'i-N1.N'E DEGRJ;:ES. 'f\<I0 MlmrrES, TEN SECONDS ~EST,
(N 890 2' 10" ~) A D1.STANCE 01' 'f\<I0 UUNDRED AND N1.NETY AND T~O
0N'f.-0 1J,1ll'lDRE1!1t1:\Sl'EET ( 290.0 f' ) TO 'f]:lE 1'01.NT 01' C~NCf.M,ENT.
CARRI 'ED ."
"
14.
From the Village of springft~ld with a zoning by.la~.
From the To.,uship of Malahilt<?; regarding overhead lightS at the intersectiOn
of 1:\igh~ay ff3 and Cotlnty Ro~d ff35. The COro!1litteeconsidered thiS as a
b. d lt ~~l.'tb b~ the t~O (2) local mtlniCipalitie,S yarmotlth and
matter tOe ea w J
b f. ld be the local residentS
Malahide as main recipientS of the ene l.t ~otl
13.
17.
of tbe area.
From the TO.,u of Aylmer .,ith fptlr (4) zoning j}y.la~s.
From the TO.,uship of Yarmotlthi,iith noti,Ge that a petition had peen
",," . n.-ain on cotlnty Road #22.
recei"ved for, the reconstrtlctiOnof the .,c"enZl.e U.. '
Fr om the Mi.ni stry 0 f Tr an sportat ion and coro!1ltlniC at ion s gi vi ng a t,,/o (t)
year approval of Elgin By-La~ /lS2.10 setting ~eight limitS on the Thames
RiVer BridgeS and enclosing an a;,proved coPy of Middlesel<\S By,..La~ #4393,
a by.la~ covering the same priQges.
From the 14:inistry of the f;nvirOn:!l\ent .,ith reviSed regtllations ~hich basicallY
e,l<emptS municipal Cotlnty Road projectS from any enviro~ental assessment if
~ork is completed or tendered prior to November 31, 1982.
18.
15.
16.
ST. T1:\OMAS, 0N'fAR1.0
A?R1.'L 7, 1982
'PAGE 10.
The Association 'Of MtlniCipalitieS of Ontario ~ith a \'Iaste Manageroent
seminal: ·
1.nforroatiOn from the 1.nte~natiOnal Great LakeS Advisory B'Oard reqtlesting
any information that ~otlld affect the levels of the Great LakeS.
A letter from l'lrS. Jacqtleline sida~ay with a cotnPlaint abOl1t oil on
Beech Street in Aylmer. The Engineer stated that he had replied to
l'lrs. Sida~ay with a copy to l'lr. Glover stating that with regard t'O thiS
matter she shotlld C'Ontact Sterling 'Ftlels inasroUch as he~ claim waS against
them rather than the C'Otlnty.
.' t ting that theil:
Front the Ministry of TransportatiOn and C01lll1'tlnl.catl.ons s a
contract fa!: surfacing on 1:\igh~aY #401 bet~een the Dtltt'On and Shedden
Interchanges had been reviseo;} to precltlde any tlSe 'Of contractor' s trtlcks
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
on cotlnty !'toad ff38. L''''-
over to tb:e cotlnty' s 1.nstlrance company an" ~:.- ^,Htlster waS
Front the GOtlnty' s ?r0perty C<Jl\l!1littee reqtlesti;\g an estimate
fol: a pa-rking
24.
lot. After some disCtlssion · · ·
"MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY: \'I. R. CAVERL'i
T1:\AT \'IE RECO~D TO T1:\E PROPERTY cOMMlT'fEE T1:\AT T1:\E PRESENT CONcRJrtE BLOcK
GARAGE BE \DEMOL1.S1:\ED AND A STORAGE 'B\l1.LD1.NG BE EREctED 1.NS1.Dt T1:\E JA1.L
GROUNDS AND T\l'E pJl$A 01' T\lE GARAGE BE 1.NCORl'ORATED 1.N'f0 A ypJ,U{1.NG .wr.
cARB-1.ED ."
M. 11. ST~ART
25.
D 1'),' 0 Co'1'V'\tY Road J/J,O reqtlesting entrances on C'OtlntY Road #40,
From on .1.ne, ~.. tr
d t front 1969 stating that entrances ~otlld
stating that he ha an agreeroen
be provided for field entrances.
the COtlntY'S obligatiOns had been roet sonte time agO and the Engineer ~aS
instrtlcted to advise Mr. yineO.
The Co1lll1'ittee ~aS of the opinion that
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 11.
26. From Mr. A. E. Stacey, County Road #45 with flooding problems.
- '~ The matter would be investigated by Warden Shaw, the Drainage
CVl1uuissioner from Yarmouth Township and the Engineer.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED FOR DINNER
. . .
AFTER DINNER . . .
Correspondence was read from Enterprise (Gilbert Bouw) of Dutton requesing
permission to erect "propane available" signs on County Road #8 near
Highway #401.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SAHW
THAT ENTERPRISE (GILBERT BOUW) OF DUTTON BE ALLOWED TO ERECT TWO (2)
STANDARD PROPANE AVAILABLE SIGNS AT HIS EXPENSE ON COUNTY ROAD #8 AND
ROAD #2.
CARRIED."
From McFadden Trucking on County Road #4 west of Rodney requesting truck
turning signs. The CVluudttee was of the opinion that truck turning signs
were not required on this road and directed the Engineer to advise McFadden
I
Trucking.
From the Extendicare Nursing Home in Port Stanley requesting permission or
that the County erect signs at various locations in the area showing the
Extendicare Nursing Home. The CUl1ullit.te"e was of the opinion that as this was a
commercial establishment Extendicare would be responsible for placing their
own signs on provate property rather than on the road allowance. The Engineer
was instructecl to so advise the Extendicare Nursing Home.
ST. THOMAS, oNt:~10
APR1L 7, 1982
l' AGE 12.
bo l<e s on COtlnty Trtlcks #83, #84, #88, #89, and ~ o. A1 though Trtlcks f#33
The Engineer reported that seriptlS repair s ~ere "i;\<:i:Uirl!d on the d\11llP
and #84 have in el<Cess of 150,000 J,<U!, on them the life expe,ctency of these
trtlcks ~a s at 1 ea st another 1~0, 000 to 200,000 J,<U!, and that repair of the se
bol<eS and/or l1eJ,ilaceroent ~as t.he most econ01llical alternative at this time.
It ~aS noted th~t the cost of all of the work cotlld be in the area of
$25,000 btlt tha~ the repairs had been very much discOtlnted by Frink Canada
throtlgh a stlndrY policY adjtlstroent and selling the rest of the material at
cost. The C()1ll1tlittee noted that stabilizers on the hoists were a necessity
~ith the size of the boKes that the COtlnty ~aS tlSing and the tlSage that
they ~ere bei~g ptlt throtlgh. 1.t was also noted that the Township of Bayham
had installed stabilizers on their trtlck bol<eS as well.
After some diSCUssion
. . .
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVIlRl..'i
SECONDED BY: J. N. sMYT1:\
T1:\AT T1lE ENG1.JmER BE A1lT1l0R1.ZED 'to PROCEED wtT1l RE1' l\1RS TO FR1.NR TRUCK
BOXES ON TRUCKS #83, #84, #88, #89 AND ~o BY FR1.NR CANADA AS OIlTL1.NED
1.N T1:\E1.R t.JrrfER 01' MARCli 22 AS AlfENDED.
cARR1ED."
Road Inspection of West Elgin RO~ps on APril 23. The C()1ll1tlittee Members
DateS fot: Road InsepectiOns ~ere diSCtlSsec1 and it ~as decided to have a
diSCtlssed the variOtlS things to be noted. The Engineer ~as instrtlc;ted to
draW up an itinerary.
that engineering ~ork wotlld have to be completed prior to land ptlrchase in
Engineering,,~ork for ftlttlre constrtlction ~aS d1l-sCtlssed and it ~as noted
the ftlttlre bec;atlse of the Environ1!\Cntal A5sesSlllent regtllations. After
some diSCUssion · · ·
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
APRIL 7, 1982
PAGE 13.
"MOVED BY':
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED lW: M. U. STEWART
T1:\AT TWE ENG1.NEER WE 1.NSTR1JCTED TO PROCEED mTl:l ENGINEE'R1.NG S1JRVE'lS
--...
\
ON:
(1) ROAD #28 · T1:\R01JGI:lOur.
(2) ROAD #4 FROM RODNEY L1.MITS TO RENT coUNTY LINE.
(3) ROAD #8 FROM 1:\1Gl\VlAY ff3 TO PEARCE pARR ROAD.
CARRIED."
~otlld have to be made on the COtlnty'S constrtlction programme becatlse of the
The Engineer noted that the time ~aS rapidlY app'toaching ~hen a deci'l;ion
need for materialS on one job oranpther. 1.t ~aS noted that the best
information obtained by Reeve Smyth and the COtlnty Engineer indicated it ~as
very tlnlikely the sanitary se~er project tender call for the, Village of port
Btlrwell ~otlld!be made before early Fall. Little, if any, ~one,y cotlld be
expended on the Cotlnty Road System in the village as the selwer Contractor
~otlld not have completed his ~ork.
"MOVED BY: M. 1:\. STEWART
SECONDED Wi: W. R. CAVERLY
T1:\AT WE PROCEED W1.TU CONSTRllCT1.0N 01' ROAD ff32 AND LEAVE T1:\E VILLAGE OF
PORT J3\JromLL PROJEctS IN ABE'lANCE FOR 1982.
CARRIED."
restlrfacing from DUtton to Wallacetowth 1:\e felt that thiS shotlld be done
The Engineer reqtlested pertlliSSion to call tenders for asphalt pavement
as soon as possible so that the amotlnt of money left in the btldget for
asphalt re5\lr,facing cotlld be ascertained. 1:\e alsO noted that it ~as
diffiCtllt to tell at thiS stage ~hat the needs on cotlnty Road #20 ~otlld
be tlntil stlch t'ime as the potash seaSon ~aS over and he deter~ined ho~
many trtlckS were tlsing COtlnty Road #20 from port StanleY to north of
Shedden.
ST. 'f\\,OMAS. oNTNl-1.0
A'PRIL 7, 1982
'PAGB 14.
"MO\1ED B~~
SECONDED 13Y: ~. U. ST~ART
'f1:\l'.T 'f\\,"B ENG1.NEER BE AJ,ftUOR1.ZED TO GA1'L TENDERS FOR UoT Ml'lt A5l'WJ.T
1'A~ ON ROAD fIS 13f,'r\'lEEN U1.~AY ff3 AND DUTTON (ALSO V1.LLAGE 01'
D1J'fTON 1.1' 'f\\,E'! \l1.SUED TO BE 1.NCLUDED).
J. l'l. S~1:l
cl\RR1ED ."
"MO\1ED B~:
SECONDED BY: J. N. SlflTll
'f1:\l'.T 'ilE ADJOURN TO AJ?R1.L 23 AT 9 :00 A.~. FOR A'ilEST f,1..G1.N ROAD
\It. R. CA\1ERL~
Il'lS'PEcT10N ·
REGIfLAR ~'EF:t1.NG MAY 6, AT 9 :30 A.~'
CARRIED ."
C\lA1R}\A'N
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
CALCIUM CHLORIDE QUOTATIONS 1982
MARCH 1982
(A) LIQUID
1. Pollard Bros. (Calcium) Limited
P.. O. Box 280
Harrow, Ontario
NOR IGO
- Flake Ton Equivalent Including Federal Sale:s Tax
- $141.45 per ton
2. Miller Paving Limited
P. O. Box 250
Unionville, Ontario
L3R 2V3
- Flake Ton Equivalent Including Federal Sales Tax
- $142.95 per ton
(Last YearS Price - Pollard Bros. Limited $125.55 per ton.)
(Increase 13.9%)
(1980 Price - $109.80 per ton. Increase to 198230.2%.)
(B) BAGS
1. Allied Chemical Canada Limited
201 City Centre Drive
11th Floor
Mississauga, Ontario
L5B 2T4
-Metric - F.O.B. White Station in Truck Load Lots
- $204.04 per tonne
(1981 Price $182.74. Increase 11.7%.)
(1980 Price $155.72. Increase to 1982 31.3%.)
"
,::'1
COUNTY OF ELG!N ROAD DEPARTMENT
,QUOTATIONS FOR CULVERT PIPE
(..
,1
1. Armco Canada Limited
P. O. Box 310
Etobicoke, Ontario
M9C 4V2
2. Westeel-Rosco Limited
1 Atlantic Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M6K 1X7
3. Koppers International Canada Limited
P. O. Box 426
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 4A9
4. Corrugated Pipe Company Limited
P. O. Box 176
Stratford, 'Ontario
N5A 6Tl
5. E. S. Hubbell and Sons Limited
P. O. Bo:x 118
Thamesvil1e, Ontario
NOP 2KO
6. Fawcett Metal Products Limited
P.O. Box 304
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 4A4
7. Canada Culvert and Metal Products Limited
P. O. Box 578
Maple, Ohtario
LOJ lEO
iit
,I,
$16,310.05
$16,843.90
$16,865.74
$1 7 , 23 O. 07
$18,971.95
$~~3 ,832.09
N()t Received
I~'
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
!jf<
QUOTATIONS FOR CRUSHED GRAVEL
COUNTY ROAD #9 - ALDBOROUGH TOWNSHIP
1. :Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) :Limited
P. O. Box 220
Bothwell, Ontario
2. Alex Newbigging Limited
R. R. #1
Delaware, Ontario
3. Babinsky Trucking Limited and
South Winds Sand and Gravel Limited
764 Wharncliffe Road South
London, ontario
4. T.C.G. Construction Limited
P. O. Box l89
London, Ontario
N6A 4V7
5. Huron Construction
125 Kei1 Drive
Chatham, Ontario
hi
APRIi" 7, 1982
$3,,84 Per Ton
$ 4 ,. 1 7 Per Ton
$4.17 Per Ton
$5.40 Per Ton
NO BID RECEIVED
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
GRAVEL CRUSHING QUOTATIONS,
35,000 TONS.
"
,<
1. C. R. Chittick eonstruction Ltd.
R. R. #3
Ilderton, Ontario
NOM 2AO
2. Cayuga Material and Construction Limited
R. R. #4
Cayuga, Out'aria
NOA lEO
3. V. W. Ruckle Construction Limited
Brownsvi1le, Ontario
NOL 1CO
4. Lyle McBeth
1242 Baseline Road West
London, Ontario
5. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited
P. O. Box 220
Bothwell, Ontario
6. Jack Tanner Construction Limited
R. R. #2
Stratford, Ontario
.\
7. Gordon Wiseman Limited
R. R. #1
Woodstock, Ontario
APRIL 7, 1982
67 G~nts Per Ton
68 Cents Per Ton
70 Cents Per Ton
83 Cents Per Ton
NO QUOTATION
NO QUOTATION
NO'QUOTATION
ST. THOMAS, ()N~ARIO
MARCH 29, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at 4:00 p.m., March 29, 1982
in conjunction with County Council. All members were present.
"MOVED, BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT '!'HE FOLLOWING PAYLI ST BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
PAYLIST NUMBER 15 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,002.16.
CARRIED."
The attached letter was read from Mr. M. J. Henn€!ssey, County
Solicitor regarding Mr. William Hare. ~fter discussion. . .
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE ENGINEER BE INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED WITH A SETTLEMENT
WITH MR. WILLIAM HARE AND HI S SOLI CITOR IN THE METHOD
OUTLINED BY MR. M. J. HENNESSEY OF HIS LETTER OF MARCH 26.
CARRIED.' ,
The Engineer reported that there was very little crushed gravel
at the County's Pleasant Va11~y Pit and suggested that quotations for
crushing be called to close on the date of the next Road Connnittee meeting.
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. B. WILSON
THAT 'THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR
CRUSHING GRAVEL AT THE COUNTY'S PLEASANT VALLEY GRAVEL PIT.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 29, 1982
PAGE 2.
It was decided to discuss the prop~s'ed inspection of roads along
with the Ontario Police College at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned to April 7, 1982.
C\\" .,~
.~~j~.~
CHAIRMAN
*.
Murray J. Hennessey, B.A., B.C.L.
March 26th, 1982
Mr. Robert G. Moore,
County Engineer,
79 Stanley Street,
St. Thomas, Ontario
Re: County of Elgin and Hare
Re: Part of Lot 12, Concession 8, Township of M~l~hide
Dear Sir:
Following our excursion to the site in question, we have had an
opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Hare's Solicitor on two
occasions.
We have now reviewed wi th Mr. McKay all of the Plans which y~ou provided
to me indicating the location of the various drains and junction boxes.
We have also considered the law on the subject relative to the usual
findings in Compensation Hearings and the cost to be borne oy the
Expropriation Authority.
We have estimated that in addition to any compensation and/o.r damage
which the County would have to pay to Mr: Hare, the County' would un-.
doubtedly be called upon and ordered to pay Mr. Harets legal costs on
any Compensation Hearing, as well as the cost of any appraisals
reasonably obtained by Mr. Hare. In addition the County would be
called upon to have an independent appraisal of its own to support its
proposition and pay its legal costs. I would estimate in conclusion
the County would be paying in excess of any compensation ordered, a
further sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars or more.
Following our iliscussions, the following proposal ~las made:~
a) Mr. Hare would be paid compensation and damages in the amount
of Fourteen Hundred ($1,400.00) Dollars.
b) Thb County would install two culverts to provide access to the
property. The diameter and length of these culverts, including
gravel approaches would be specified in a S~ttlement Agreement.
....2
J{J2~!f~~
Barristers & Solicitors
198 Centre Street, St. Thomas, Ontario P.O. Box 548 N5P 3V6 Phone 633-3310
Page 2, Lr. to Mr. Rohert G. Moore
c) That the tile between the junction boxes and the catch basin
indicated on the Plan that you left with us would be ~isconnected
and the waters i~ the junction boxes beCarried across the road.
d) That the North limit of the lands being acquired by the County
be staked with wooden stakes at One Hundred Foot (100')
intervals.
e) That the County enter into a Settlement Agreement, to be prepared
by Mr. McKay.
f) That the County pay Mr. McKay's costs which have been estimated
at approximately Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, details of
which would be provided to us.
I have advised Mr. McKay that I would consider the matter in the light
of the cost to the County of ,any further proceedingas~~opposed to any
rights that the County is exercising.
Maving considered this matter I am prepared to reconrnend a settlement
on the above terms, plus the delivery from Mr. Hare of a Deed to the
County, free and clear of any encumbrances. This latter requirement is
simply to remove any doubts or questions arising from our expropriation
procedure.
I would recommend that the County give its immediate attention to this
proposal and provide us with a reply as quickly as possible.
Yours very truly,
M. J. l~e~",~es,soeY &
Per: , ~
M. J. H~ nessey,
Associates,
---',
MJHjmlh
coUNT'! 01' E1,.G1.N 1l.0A~
MARca 29, SESS1.0N
1982
~
TO T1:\E VlARDEN AND ME}\BERS 01' 'f1\E ELG1.N COUNT'! COUNC1.L
YOUR ROAD Co11M1.TTEE REl'ORTS AS FO~S:
~E' RECOMMEND ~
1. That a By~La~ be passed atlthorizing the 1,larden ~nd Cler\< to sigt\
land plans to aCqtlire land to ~iden Cotlnty Road #40 at G16t\colit\.
ALL 01' Vll\1.ca 1.S RES1'EarJ;'l'll.L'l S\l13M1.~ED
Cl:lA1.~
ST. ruOl'lAS, ONTAR1.0
MARGfl 10, 1982
'PAGE 1.
'tflIl' cQ\lN'I'l 01' ELG1.ll ROAD CoMMlTTEE met at the MtlniCipal 1\t1ilding
at 9 ~30 a.m., WednesdaY March 10, 1982. pJ.l tnembers~ere present. pJ. so
present ~ere the Engineer and Assistant Engineer.
"MOVED BY':
SECONDED B\'~ J. N. ~
ruAT ruE M1.mrrES 01' ruE MEF:t1.NG5'O'F FEBRUARY 11 AND FEBRUARY 18, 1982
~. R. CAVERLY
BE pJ?'PROVED.
CARRIED."
TUE 'ENG1.NEER R'El'ORTlSD ON ruE WORR TO DKrE AS F01J.01ilS~
1.
winter control costS to date ~ere appr~>limatelY $310,000.
. ,.."'" ' to ~,,,",,,,"."" -<.'11."1:h annrol<imatelY 2/,3 of the ~ork having been
T1:ee Ctlttl.ng ~aS con l.ntll.ng w ,~~.' , ,
completed.
1 b 0 .. s"'t' 0''''c1~''n1.'1e,d at the Pleasant valley Gravel pit. Verne 1:\iggS
Grave ~aS el.ng ."r
wotlld be c011lPleted'bY the end of the week 'With draglining gravel otlt of the
2.
3.
"Wate't: ·
~ appointment had been made 'With the Engineers of Frink canada Limited to
el<amine the trtlck bOl<eS on all cotlnty DUmP Trtlcks.
ffi34 ~ere, in partiCtllarlY poor shape and el<tenSive repairs and/or replacement
"Wo~ld be 't:eq~i't:ed.
The bo1teS on'trtlckS ffi33,and
4.
7.
1.nStlrance invoices had bee1l received from Frank Co~an cotlfany Limited and
have been checked a1ld placed on the acCOtlntS for paytllent.
orrie ostrander had rettlt:ned to ~ork.
The provincial saleS Tal< Rebate had been appealep and Mr. R. R. McNeil's
d f d' the appea1,. It "Wa s
(M.l'.1'.) assi st~,ce haS been, aSke or regar l.ng ,. '
noted that the appeal ~aS balled on the reqtlest of the cotlnty to have
formulas tlSed by the Ministry of Reventle brotlght tlp to date inasntlch as
. 1 5 time 0 the cost of ~hat
the asphalt cement costS ~ere approl<l.mat.e 'I 0 ,
they were when the formulas were dra'Wtl tlp and the Ministry of Reventle had
5.
6.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 10, 1982
'PAGE 2.
not changed the forIDtllas to match the times. AS a reStllt the total
amotlnt in appeal ~aS in el<cess of $500.00 compared to a rebate of
8. The COtlnty Atlditors had completed their ~ork.
9. No mention had been made in Minister James sno~'s speeches at the
10. Bob D..vi- reported that the St. John Atnbtllance COtlrse had been
ontario Good Roads convention abotlt ftlnding for safety devices.
organized for Friday afternoons in April and that foUr (4)
employees ~otlld be sent to a constrtlction Sa~ety Seminar (registr"tiOn
fee,$10.00 each) on March 24 in London.
'f'WO (2) to complete the T. J. Mahoney school ~hi ch they had previouslY
started and Glenn Cross and John Brown to the advanced cotlrse ion'
lltlman ~lations ~hich ~as .. valtlable cotlrse for foremen.
The Engineer ~otlld again teach an Adv/il"lced COtlrse in Bridge Maintenance.
$386.00.
11. Fotlr (4) employees ~otlld be sent to the ontario Good Roads School.
1.AND 1'URCllASES WBRE REPORTED ON AS FOLLOWS:
1. Road #40 . A signed agre,ement had been received from, Robert Btlr~ell, as
well as his consent to allo~ the county c~o register the land plan. A
by-la~ ~otlld be reqtlired so that the Warden and Clerk could sign the
land plan.
"MOVED BY': W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: M. 1:\. STtwART
T1:lAT WE REcQ'MMEND TO coUN'fl' COUNCIL T1:lAT A BY.I,AW BE PASSED AUT1:\OR1.Z1.NG
TUE WARDEN AND CLERR TO SIGN 1.ANDP1.ANS TO ACQUIRE W1.DEN1.NG FOR ROAD #40
AT GLBNCOLIN.
CARRIED."
2.
ST. ru()l4AS, ONTAR1.0
MARC1:l 10, 1982
'PAGB 3.
3.
ROad #'6 ~ ~other plan ~otlld be forthcoming shortlY. The t~O (2'~,
that ~e~e al~eaBY in circulation ~otlld be registered within the ~ek.
oiuted by the 1'roV'ince to
Road ff32 . An tn<\tliry Officer had been app
. ' . 1.' ....to the cotlnt'" S re<\tlest to e><1?ropriate property from
l.n<\tll.re .. J
Mr. VIi 11 ia!1l Uare. The 1.n<\tliry Of ftcer ~a is prepared to meet rea sona b 1 Y
earlY in April. The Engineer stated that mtlch engineering ~ork ~otlld
_^ r~ N^ Rhead and that it ~otlld
be re<\tlired for the in<\tliry if it ~e'~ _v l>V -
k to get thiS informatiOn available. The
ta\te so!1le ciaYs or even ~ee s
Chairman and 'fJarden ~ere atlthorized to disCtlSS the matter "nth
. . to Whether he ~otlld act for the
Mr. }1. uennessey, cotlnty soll.Cl.tor as
U y he agreed to act
cotlnty (Note: 1.n diSCtlSSions ~ith Mr.}1. enneSse J
d he ~otlld proceed to ascertain ~hat
for the cotlnty in thiS matter an
t ' s part and ~otlld set tlP
. ,,"ld be necessary on the cotln Y
p-repa-rat1.0ns 'W'Ov
4.
"MOVED 'B-:L:
In J. SllA"W
SECONDED y,"{: J. B. Vl1.LSON
rut.! T1:\!E FOL1ffil1.l'G 1'A'{L1.STS BE p.J'1'RO'lED FOR 1'A"{M,EN1.
l' A'{L1. S't ~ER 8 ~OUl'1T1.NG TO $56,401.67
l' A'{L1. ST J'lIThI,BER 9 ~omlT1.NG TO $3,992. 00
l' A'{L1.ST J'lIThI,BER 1 0 ~OUl'1T1.NG TO $45,437. 22
l' A'{L1. ST J'lIThI,B1!oR 11 ~o1JNTING TO $178. 25
l' A'{L1. ST J'lITh1BER 12 ~omlT1.NG TO $219,614.78
CARR1"ED ."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 10, 1982
PAGE 4.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. From Mr. Howard Greenly, regarding Road #39 Chatham Street in Port
Burwell, ~stating that he was prepared to approve the County's By-Law
to revert a portion of Chatham Street to the Village.
2. A letter to the Ministry of Transportation and COmfi~nications regarding
truck haul routes for the resurfacing of Highway #lI.Ol between Dutton
and Shedden Interchanges was noted. The Engineer reported to the
Ministry tha't there was an 18 tonne Load limit on the Middlemiss
Bridge at the present time which might have to, be reduced depending
upon the evaluation of the concrete piers which wou.1d be done within
the next month. He"al-so noted that County Ro"ad #8 north of Dutton
would not sustain he.avy trucking and the Ministry Vjrould be resp~.nsib1e
for any damages that might occur.
"MOVED BY.: J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION'S BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,400 BE APPROVED.
CARRIED."
The Engineer noted that an offer had been received for certain timber
on County Property at Whites' Station from Ken White. The Engineer was
instructed to get an appraisal from the Ministry of Natural Resources an~
report back to the Cvuuuittee.
The Engineer presented the attached summary of quotations for a used
dozer to replace the County's present John Deere 450C Dozer.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 10, 1982
PAGE 5.
"MOVED BY':
J. B. WILSON
SECONDED B'l~ M. R. STEWART
T1:\AT WE ptJRc1:\ASE FRoM SOUTU_WES'f 1.NtERNAT1.0NAL P A'lL1.NE 1.NCOlU'ORATED
A USED 1.'$'fERNAT1.ONAL TD 8E DOZER SER1.AL NUMBER 7704, AS pER T1:lE1.R
LETTER OF J l\NUARY 25, 1982, COl'11'LETE mT1:l NECESSARY REP A1.RS, W p,RRAJ'lTl
TO NOVEMBER 15, 1982 WITU TRE COUNtY' S J01:\N DEERE 450C DOZER AS A
TRADE-Ul AT A NET PR1.CE 01' $28,000 PLUS 1'ROV1.NC1.AL SALES Tp;J.,.
CARRIED_"
Mrs. A. M. BI1~hanan noting the poor condition of COtlnty Road ff37. The
corre,spondence ~as read from pilkington Far1llS Limited and
Engineer ~as instrtlcted to ackno~ledge the correspondence.
property Lot 8, concession 11, on COtlnty Road'if30. Reeve Monteith stated
correspondence ~aS read from colin Fergtlson with regard to his
that he ~otlld meet with David Fergtlson in the near ftlttlre ~ith regard to an
entrance on COtlnty Road #30,,,so that David FergtlsOn wotlld not have to tlse
colin,FergtlSon"s property to get to his own.
Road ProjectS and also a revised summary of Road Needs Sections. The
The Engineer presented the attached Engineering StattlS Report on COtlnty
Committee agreed to sttldy both matters prior to the nel<t meeting.
"MOVED Bll ~ M. 1:\. STEW ART
SECONDED BY~ J. B. WILSON
T1JAT WE ADJOURN TO AJ,>R1.L 7, 1982 AT 9 :30 A.M.
CARRIED."
at::>~ ~)~~
\: ) ~ ------" -
- Cl:IAIBMAN
\',
coUNTY OF ELG1.N ROl>,D DE1'AR'J'MEN'f
-~ - ~ ... -...
-- - ~ - -
MARCH 1982
QUO'fAT10NS FOR CRAWLER TRACTOR ANO DOZ.ER
.- - ---- -
We presently have a John Deere 450C Crawler Do1-er, 6-waY blade,
ptlr cha sed in september 1. 9 75 a s a tl se d 1 o~ hotlr machine. Ol:igi11al
cost $24,700, pltlS taX, 219 ctlbic inch diesel motor; dire,ct drive
power shift, hi.lo'W reverse tranSl,ll.iSsion; 11 feet-10 inches 1011g"
2328 sqtlare inch track area. Operating ~eight approl<imatelY 7 tons.
presentlY not being tlsed, needs a co~lete rebtlildin~ of
undercarriage, sprocketS, front idlerS, track rollers and grousers.
gUOT~lON~
1. Sotlth~West InternatiOnal 1'ayline 1.ncorporated
R. R. #4
London, Ontario
N6A 4138
. International TD 8E, serial #7704, nO~ haS appro:><imatelY 1,750 hours.
. 239 ctlbiC inch motor. 1.2 feet,,!6 inch long, operating ~eight OV'Elr
8 ton, 2393 sqtlare inch' track area.
_ tOtlrqtle converter transmission.
~ ~arranty tlntil November 15, 1982 on all po~er train c~Qnents.
. machine stlbject to inspection and all irregtllarities rectified.
pin and btlshing ttlrn in Fall of 1982 at Suppliers cost.
_ Trade $28,000 + TaX.
_ presentlY on rental at $15.00 per hotlr (engine hotlrs). PresentlY
o~ing as of (March 1) approl<imatelY 172 hotlrs, ie., $2~580.00.
. Will not be charged if machine is ptlrchased (ie., net valtle' at
March 1 is $25,420 + Tal<.)
2.
Renash Tractor and Eqtlipment Limited
P. O. BoX. 670
Lambeth, Ontario
NOL 1 SO
(COMPANY PRESENTLY 1.N RECElVERS1:\I1')
_ 1979 John Deere 450C ~ approl<imatelY 700 hotlrs.
_ net price $23,100.
_ 6 monthS warranty.
3. Case 1'o~er and Eqtlipment Limited
R. R. #3
Lambeth, Ontario
(a) Case 450B . Ne~ (no demonstrators available).
_ full warranty.
_ 207 cubic inch motor, 53 horse power, 4 speed po~er shift
transmission, operating ~eight 5 3/4 ton, length 12 feet.
_ 16 inch grousers, 2176 sqtlare inch track area.
. (Machine is smaller than JD 450C, and much smaller than
TD BE. )
^~rpr Trade $29,060 + Tax.
l?AGE 2.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
QUOTATIONS FOR CRAWLER TRAC'l'OR AND DOZER
-" ~- - ,"
3. Case po~er and Eqtlipment Limited
R. R. #3
Lambeth, Ontario
<b) Case 850B, demontrator 42 hotlrs.
. net price after trade, #36,800.
. 336 ctlbic inch motor, 75 horse ho~er.
~ Larger than our needs.
RECOMMENDATION ~
- . -
1\\1Y International. We have a John Deere and the lnterrillHonal is
a mtlch better machine for Otlr needs. The John Deere tranStllission is not
the best, the torqtle converter machine is mtlch better. InternatiOnal
warranted for ftlll tlSe year. We have checked ~ith other owner. ~ho hll'\Te
s~itched from John Deere to International. The 1.nternattonal is a: better
trim and dozer ~ractor ~ith leSS maintenance.
The case 450B Dozer is smaller than the 1.nternatiOnalort:he John
Dee,re and thotlgh ne~ is toO small for otlr needs (though probably a good
al ternati ve f or a John Deere 350). The Ca se 85 OB is toO 1 a:tge and
costs much mo're.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING PROGRAMME
STATUS REPORT ON ENGINEERING PROGRESS
,
1983
t'
~ .
1. Road #42 and Road #50 - In Port Burwell after installation of
Sanitary Sewer s.
OUtside surveying completed, engineering complete to point of
review after final plans available from Sewer Consultants.
Estimates for 1983 will require updating because of changes in
design and inflation.
2. Road #32 _ Surveying completed, engineering and cost est,imates
completed. Estimates for 1983 will require updating because
of inflation and amount of work completed in 1982.
3. Road #3 _ Rodney to Highway #3. Surveying completed. Land
purchase proceeding, engineering underway, ditch grades
tentative, land owners being contacted. Cost estimates
started. Engineering and cost estimates to be completed as
as soon as possible.
Work in 1982 dependent on funds available and other needs
assessed after Spring breakup.
1983 - 1984
1. Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) - Surveying nearly done, land
purchase in Concession V completed, some done in other
concessionS. Some surveying work may be required after
pretiminary intersection design. Engineering completed from
1/2 mile north of Road #45 to south of road between
Concession IV and V. Estimates for this section are
preliminary only. Engineering on remainder 50%:t. Some
quantities tabulated. Engineering to proceed as rapidly
as possible this Spring and Summer.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING PROGRAMME
STATUS REPORT ON ENGINEERING PROGRESS
PAGE 2.
1985
Some roads in the Wellington Road-Bostwich Road Area required
for International Plowing Match. No surveying or engine~ering work
as yet done.
1984 - 1985 RESURFACING
Hi~h Priority Work Includes:
(a) Road #36 - north of Road #45.
(b) Roaq #36 - south of Sparta.
(c) Road #20 - north of Shedden.
(d) Road #20 - between Finga1 and Shedden.
(e) Road #20 - in Port Stanley.
(f) Road #45 - Jaffa to Highway #73 (should be done with portion of
Road #45 between Highway #73 and Road #ll.0).
No surveying or engineering work done.
Curves should be surveyed, plotted and checked for supet' elevation
and tangent rUn 04t.
Some granular work could be required.
Some ditch grades might be required.
Full surveys not required.
STATUS OF OTHER PROJECTS
1. Road #45
- From Highway #73 to Road #40.
- A aombination resurfacing, ditching and grading project.
- Not programmed as to date.
- Some trees cut, some property purchased (Wa1carius;).
- Surveying completed.
- Engineering work (quantities from Luton to Road #.0)
proceeding.
- Objective - Engineering and cost estimates by Fall.
~"
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING PROGRAMME
STATUS REPORT ON ENGINEERING PRQGRESS
PAGE 3.
"J
2. Road #20
Urban section south of Highway #3 in Shedden.
Surveying done and plotted, preliminary engineering.
.. ,Our drainage needs to be finalized in Spring as well as
grades, etc.
Purpose to co-ordinate our future drainage needs in a
rebuilt urban section for the replacement of the Horton
Municipal Drain expected in a few years.
Projects other than drain,rep1acement is not a high priority.
3. Road #26 (St. George Street)
- Survey -, originally done in 1965. Additional work done
between bridge and C.N. Tracks in 1979 - updating required.
.. Preliminary design done on section on St. George Street Hill.
Purpose to ascertain property requirement to see if house at
C.N.R. Tracks could be sold. Result - If hOllse could be saved
slope would start at veranda corner.
- Difficulty in property acquisition throllgh Cowan Park was the
reason no action taken previously.
4. Road #30 (Radio Ro~d, Concession XIII)
- Middlesex is committed to building road between Be1m.ont-
G1anworth Road and County Boundary.
- Pre1 itninary surveying and prel iminary plotting in Elgin is
done and R. Collard is examining Middlesex propo~~a1 s regarding
alignment.
- Much ,;.vork remains, project certainly could be subject to
Environmental Assessment because of new alignment
requirements.
5. Cooks Bridge - Road #43
- Preliminary alignment study by Spriet and Associates in 1969.
.. Project abandoned for time being as too expensivE~ for benefits
(no cost estimate ever given realizing that a sirni1ar expenditure
required at Phi11more Bridge).
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING PROGRAMME
STATUS REPORT ON ENGINEERING PROGRESS
PAGE 4.
6. Road #20
... Highway #4 to Beach.
... Location plans only, needs depend on Ferry Service to Cleveland
r'"
start up.
7. Middlemiss Bridge
... Tests t,o ascertain quantity of concrete in piers scheduled for
April 1982.
COUNTY 01' ELG1.N ROAD COMt11.TTEE
MARCH SESSION
1982
~
,~"
TO T1:\E If ARDEN p..ND MEMBERS 01' T1:\E ELC1.~ COUNTY COUNC1.L
YOUR ROAD COMt11.TTEE REl'ORTS. AS FOLLOlfS
1.
That the Btldget of the St. Th~s Stlbtl~ban Road commission in the
amotlnt of $251,400 be approved. The Btldget is detailed in the
second Road committee Report.
ALL 01' VI1:\1.C1:\ 1.S RES1'EcTf\JLL'( SUBM1.TTED
VJE RE coMMEND ~
CHAIRMAN
"~
COUNTY OF ELGIN RQAD COMMITTEE
.--~ - --
- ..- -~ --
SECOND REPORT
- - ~
MARCH SESSION
1982
TO T1:\E WARDEN AND MEMBERS 01" T1:\E ELGIN cOUNTY COUNCIL
yOUR ROAD COMM1.TTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS
'NE RECOMMEND:
1. That the Rebate to Urban MtlniCipalities be 25% of their Road
LeVY as in former years.
2. That the ,attached statement of proposed ~rk and expendittlreS on
COtlnty and St. Thomas Stlbtlrban Road commission Roads be approved
and a resolution passed adopting the statement of work and
el<penditure'S and that a statement be forwarded to the Ministry
of Transportation and cOu"uanications for approval.
3. That a resoltltion be passed reqtlesting the Ministry of TransportatiOn
and communications to approve the sum of $45.000 in Stlbsidy MoneY
for Drainage Asses~entson COtlnty and St. Thomas Stlbtlrhan Road
commission Roads in 1982. (Stlbsidy rate for Drainage t>.sses~entS
4. That a resoltltion be passed reqtlesting the Ministry of Transportation
is 50%. )
and CotntnUnicatiOns to approve the Stlm of $25.000 in Stlhsidy Money
as a Stlpplementary Allocation so that the Cotlnty and the St. Thomas
Stlhtlrban Road commission can contintle with their ~hite edge marking
safety programme on paved roadS.
5. That the Cotlnty Road LeVY for 1982 be $896.000.
ALL 01' WHICH 1.S RESl'EcTFULlX SUJ3MI.T'fED
CHAIRMAN
B. co\lN'f'l ~
~ 0 d (incltlding land ptlrchase,
1 coro:p,letion of 'ilalkers Brl. dge heo!!) count~ of 'Elgin
. 0 t t an approac 0 J
e,ngineerl.ng, con rach' '11 be billed to th~ as
Share,. (Middlesel< S are .n.
~ork progresses.)
o . f ~ork tri11Jllting, seeding,
2. ROa~ ff38 . compl";,tl.on ;gh~aY 4f3 to Uigh~aY #19
dral.nage, etc., .rom
(Straffordville).
d r ading not charged to
3. }1iScellaneotlS StlrveYs an 0 g ro' ectS (incltldeS
maintenance or const~tlctl.on'p ctJs for ftlttlre
Stlrveyson constrtlctl.on prole
year:: s ).
) ,nnent for hyd'ro line
R d #22 (Fairvie~ Aventle · par-. d" etC
oa . On tOp S01.1, see l.ng.' .,
moved in 1981 and fenCl. ~, 1980 and \.981 to
..1;' h" etC done 1-'0.
on cil.tC l.ng, ., 0 nt. al SO incltldes
f rlitate hydrO 11.ne movetlll' , 0
aC 0 0 ,. for f\1ttlre constrtlct1.0n.
eng1-neer::1-ng 'W'or::r-..
COUllTY 01' ELG1.N RoAD DEl'ARTMENT
~
~
'<"
o d C ~nications objective
Total }1inistry of rransportatl.on an 0 for 1982.
h.
ST. T1:\OW.5 SUBURBAN RON> CO~ sS 1.0N
Land 1?tlrchase Road #30.
constrtlctiOn Roads ff30 and #5 2.
(ThiS is cleantlP from previOtlS ~ork,
antiCipated. )
'0.0 ne'W' 'W'o-rk is
1.
2.
SUBURBAN CONSTRUCTIoN TO!AL
4.
s.
Land 'Pu-rcbase:
(a) Road #38.
(b) Road #45 ('ile st 0 f Road #40).
0( c ) Road #37. d to
(1.\\\1'roveme,nt s ~i11 be charge
maintenance and paid 5ff/. bY
Mido.lese'}{. )
(d) Road #32-
(e) Road #3.
(f) Road #22.
(g) Road #8, DUtton to 'ilallacetO~.
(h) Road !IS, sotlth of Road #16.
(i) Road #40, Glencolin.
(j) MiscellaneOtls.
$1,001,000
$10,000
.--------
~
$180,000
10,000
20,000
5S,oeo
$ 8,200
1,300
1,,000
11,000
54,000
15,000
5,500
12,000
1,500
~
TO!AL ]j\ND 1'URC1:\ASE
115,000
"PAGE 2.
COUNT'i 01' ELG1.N ROAD DEPARTl1E1'l1
~
B. ~ (CON't1.J'lUED)
complete Road ff32 from Stl\ith' s wrve to police
college Gate (no tOp coat of asphalt).
coUNTY CONSTR1JCT1.0N T~AL
126,000
-------
~~
6.
~
Total l1inistry of TransportatiOn and c~nicatiOns
Objective Less St. Thomas St1bUrban Road constrtlction
and cotlnty constrtlction $1,001,000 .($10,000 +- $506,000)
$485,000
11 .Roads mL2 and #50, after installation of sanitary
port Btlr~e _. tr . . d' ton
se~ers. DOeS not incltlde trl.tI1Illl.ng, see. l.ng or r
asphalt coat.
. EVen if provincial sanitary Sewer WOrk is not
carried otlt tlntil la~e in the, seaSon some
ftlnds ~ill be reqtlired for engineering, etc.
~
$285,000
~
$223,000
Road #32 . From 1:\igh~aY #73 to Stl\ith' s Wrve.
. 1.ncludes Base coat of t>.sphalt onlY.
. ~ork cannot proceed tlntil property
acqtlisition is c~leted.
~
$365,000
Road #32 ~ From police college Gate to Road #52
(no asphalt).
~ This road can be done in approl<imatelY
5, stages starting from the police
college Gate.
the property ne,eded haS been acqtlired.
Inasnuch ,as all ~ork cannot be done, (for lack of ftlnds) a decision
on ~hich job ~ill proceed will have to be made by la~e, l1ay or earlY
~
Ju.ne.
~
$543,000
"'inistr" of 'transportatiOn and c~nicatiOns ReStlrfac~ng
"' J ObjeCtl.Ve.
CON'tlNUED · · · ·
PAGE 3.
colJNT'l 01' ELG1.N ROAD DEl' ARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
~
$7,000
CQMl'LJ'.'f1.0N 01' 'ilORR FROM 1981
Road #38 . co~letion of ~ork east of straffordville.
MAJOR 1'ROJECf FOR 1982
Road f#3 . Conrpletion of ~ork het,.een lligh~aY ff3 ~nd ~tton
incttlding tlrban ~ork in 'ilallace,tO~; dl.tchl.ng,
seeding, repaving, ctllVertS, etc.
_ To complete approl<imatelY.
~
Road #3 _ Uigh~aY .#3 to RodneY. At a mini~m, engineering
funds.
~
Othe~ than Road #38 and grading, tri~ing, top soiling on
Road #B nO ~ork ~ill be co~itted tlntil after sp~ing
Break~P and a ftlll report to the Road co~ittee bY the
Enginee~.
MinistrY of Transportation and coromtlnicatiOns Objective
(ThiS haS been redtlced 5% by the Ministry of TransportatiO)
and c~nicatiOns from needs approved laSt yea~ by them.
@"~1.N~Y ~
$273,000
2.
T) . t' etc ''''ite Station and Bayba!1l salt 1\UildingS.
I: a1..n l..ug\, ., VHL
salt btlilding, paving, etc.' at DUnd~iCh TO~~iPsJ~~':n~Yiand
DUn~ich To~ship haS been reqtleste to prov,; e
area for a salt BUilding and sand storage p1.1e.
B1J1LD1.NG RE 1J1.REMEN1S
1.
~
1. 1.tnJ,lICdia te Re,qtlirement s.
(a)
(b)
~11 btllldozer to replace John Deere In 450C.
Tractor and post hole atlger to replace present
obsolete post hole atlger.
~ Co~lete report by Mayor Jtlne detailing ftlttlre needs.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
PAGE 4.
!1AINTENANCE.
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD Crn1Ml SSl ON ~D coUNTY:
1982 TOTAL
coUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
OPERATION
A ... Bridges and culverts
.. 1 Bridg~s
76,000 75,000 1,000
.. 2 culverts
B .. Roadside Maintenance
.. 1 GraSS cutting 25,000 21 ,500 3,500
.. 2 Tree cutting 70,000 65,000 5,000
.. 4 Drainage 90,000 83,500 6,500
.. 5 Roadside Maintenance 18,000 14,000 4,000
_ 6 Tree planting 6,000 5,500 500
_ 7 Drainage Assessments 2,000 2,000
(Main'tenance)
.. 11 Weed Spraying 16,000 13,000 3,000
C _ Paved Road Maintenance
.. 1 Repairs to Pavement 75,000 65,000 10,000
_ 2 sweeping 25 , 000 22,000 3,000
_ 3 Shoulder Maintenance 65,000 60,500 4,500
... 4 surface. Treatment 125,000 102,000 23,000
D .. Gravel Road Maintenance
_ 2 Grading Gravel Roads 30,000 25,000 5,000
... 3 Calcium Chloride 58,000 48,000 10,000
4 prime 8,000 2,000 6,000
.. 5 Gravel Resurfacing 98,000 89,000 9,000
E _ Winter control
Total 496,000 411,000 85,000
CONTINUED · · · ·
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
PAGE 5.
1982 TOTAL
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
OPERATION
_ 4 Railroad protection
(cotlntyts Share of
crossing protection)
40,000 31,000 9,000
70,000 62,000 8,000
8,000 5,000 3,000
44,000 37,000 7,000
F _ Safety Devices
_ 1 Pavement Marking
(Centre Line)
_ 2 Signs
_ 3 Guide Rail
_ 6 Edge Marking Paved Roads
9,000
3,000
6,000
TOTALS
.ll. 4.54, 000.
-
$1,242~000
------
,$212.000,
~
NOTE: A supplementary By-Law request to the Ministry of Transportation
and communications for Safety (White Edge Mar~ing) $27.500
This amount in addition to $9.000 budgeted above required to do
most of the road system. (Some lower volU1lle roads would not
be done).
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENTS
Municipal Drainage Assessments against County Roads are estimated at
$90.000 (work completed and billed in 1982). Ministry of Transportation
and Communications subsidy 50%.
URBAN ...REBATES
payment ,based on 25'7. of their Road LeVY to Town of Aylmer and villages.
Ministry of Transportation and communications subsidy 50%.
couNTl Of EW1.N ROt..D DEP ARW1',N't
~
~
All TotalS include payroll BUrden.
superintendence includes a vehicle charge.
O"PERATI0N
sup e-r intendence
GarageS (White Station and RodneY)
ToolS
Radio
Needs St\1dy Update and -rraffic countS
T-raining couJ:ses
Cle-rical
pe-rlU-i t 5
MiscellaneoUs 1.nSurance
TOTAL
Of [tee
AnnortiO~ent of ~erh~d:
St. ThomaS sub\1rban Roads (appro><imatelY 1.3%)
countY Roads
"PAGE 6.
1982
124,000
97,000
6,000
4,000
8,000
4,000
66,000
.. .. ..
2,000
16,000
--------
~
$ 24,000
3 000
~
000
~
co1JN't'l Of Eli~lN RO@.~Tt1JmJ
~1'END1.1:\lRES (COuNTl AND ST. 't1:l0l'lAS SUBURBAN ROADS)
~
(,
1. constJ:uction:
(a) Roads and BridgeS construction.
(b) New Machinery and salt Storage 1\uildingS'
(c) Asphalt Resurfacing and A.SSOciated ~ork.
$1,001,000
273,000
543,000
1,454,000
2. 'Maintenance:
(a) Roads and BridgeS.
(b) safetY (White Edge Marking) - supplementary
By"'" La~ ReC\.ue st.
27,500
3'21,000
50,000
3,. ovethe.ad"
90,000
RebateS to urban MUnicipalities.
MuniCipal prain Assessments.
1.tems Not subsidiZed by the Ministry of Transportation
and communicatiOnS:
(a) Charge regarding AdministratiOn by Cler~'s $4,830
Office.
(b) Miscellaneous MembershiPS, LiabilitY ~
1.ns\1rance, Suburban Road 1.tems, etc.
(countY and St. 'thomas Suburban Road
coraro.iS s i do.. )
7,000
--------0
~
4.
5.
6.
3.
Ministry of Transportation and c(J!l1lll1lnications Nortnal
subsidY A.11ocatiOn: (A.1readY A.llocated)
(a ) on oper at ion (subSidY Rate 16. 4% :!:).
(b) on urban RebateS (50"/.).
~nistrY of -rransportatiOn and communicatiOnS subsidy
. (SOCII) (sUnnlementarY 1\y-LaW Request.) .
on pra1.nage ,. .rr
Mini strY of TranSportatiOn and c(J!l1lll1ln~catiO~S subsidY
on Safety (White Edge Marki.ngS)' (911. subS1.dY)
The ~i.tY of St. Thomas Share of 1982 St. Thomas
Suburban Road 1\udget.
~
$2,152,500
23,500
1'.
45,000
25,000
2.
O 500
3 ,
--------
6 500
~
4.
f'
EX"f>ENDITURES
$3,712,500
RECE1.l'TS ~
C01JN't'l ROAD 1..EV'l ~
TO 't1:lE ~ARDEN AND M-Et'11\ERS Of 't1:lE C01.lN't'l Of ELG1.N Co1.lNC1.L
':lOUR ROAD CO~TTEE REl'ORTS AS f01.LOWS
coUN't':l Of EW1N ROAD CO~TTEE
MARGa S"ESS1.0N
1982
~
1.
f t.1 000 be budgeted for MoSqllitO control for t"he
'that the 5\.111\ 0 ,\,'
, _ ",hiS ~i.ll allo~ for the ~ecessarY
Vl"E RECOMM-END1
pteventiOn of enCephali1:1-'" ..--
" 1 d the 'undati.ng of personnel ttaini.ng,
perm1-t rene~a s an r
f "to cont~ol to be
't a nrogtaroroe 0 mosqU1-
inSurance, etc. to perm1- r
place~ in action if necessatY for the conttol of e~cephalitiS'
ALL Of "mIca 1.S ~Sl'EC'tf\ll.l.':l $1.l1lM1.TTED
Cl\A1.~
~
TO 'tJ:lE ~l\1lDEN AND MmtBERS Of 'tJ:lE co\JN't'{ Of ELC1.N COUNC1.L
co1JN1'i Of ELG1.N ROAD C~~E
'MAlteR SESS10N
1982
'{OUR ROAD CO~1:'J:EE REl'ORTS AS fOLL~S
'!:
1.
~e have requested the TownshiP of ~nwich to provide sufficient
land SO that a salt Storage BUilding and salted Sand StO~age
l'ad maY be constructed this year at the TownshiP property in
~ttOn. ThiS would provide better service to ~est Elgin as
salt 'iNOuld not have to hauled from the county Garage at White
'I'
\
station.
1.
That a resolutiOn be passed by county council as follO'iNs:
'WREREAS Members of council, 1\oard Members, ~fficers, ,persons
emplOyed by the county of Elgin and persons volunteering to
assist in MUniCipal activttieS are sometimeS called upon by
the countY of Elgin, etc., to use a motOr vehicle within the
scope of their dutieS.
AND 'WREREAS theSe pe~sons maY not have anY insurance coverage.
or such inSurance coverage as theY may have maY not cover a
liability imposed by laW upon them resulting from bodilY
injury to or death of anY person or damage to property
a~tsing directly f~om the use or ope~ation of anY automobile
not owned in whole or in part by or licensed in the name of the
county of Elgin, or 'iNhere the inSurance coverage of the employee.
volunteer, Board Member of Member of council which doeS in fact
cover the said liability imposed by laW for bodilY injUry to o~
deat~ of any person o~ damage to l'roperty, may not be adequate
in groount to meet anY jUdgment against theSe persons;
f El On a5su'\.U.e the
TUEREfORE be it resolved that the county 0 g1-
liability imposed by laW upon each and everyOne of itS
members of the county of Elgin, 1\Oard, emPlOyeeS or volunteers,
for bodtly injury to or death of anY person or dgroage to
property arising directlY from the \1se or operation bY such
CON'rlNUED · · ·
1tlE RECoMMEND:
P AGB 2.
coUN!Y Of ELGrN ROAD CO~TTEE
persons acting within their scope of dutieS ~ith the countY of
Elgin, where the automobile is not o"",ed in ~hole or in part
by or licensed in the name of the county of Elgtn;
l'ROV1.PED that the county of Elgin assumptiOn of liability as
set out above in all circumstances is appltcable onlY where'
(a) The Member of the councilor Board, Officer, employee or
volunteer doeS not have insurance for the above said
liability; or
(b) The said ltability set out herein is not covered by
(c)
insurance ~hich they have tn force; or
There ts an e><cess of a judgment over the amount covered
by their personal insurance with respect to the said
liabtlitY, tn whieh case the county of Elgin shall be
responsible only for the e><cess of the judgment
provtded al~ays that the countY of Elgtn liability shall
in nO event e~ceed $10,000,000 for damageS for anyone
OCC\1rrence or accident, or serieS of occ~rrences or
accidents resulting from one cause.
l'assage of the resolutiOn will allo~ the countY to provide
1 ' t
additional liability coverage for employeeS, vo unteers, e c.,
d b"l n licY (Additional
through the county' s Non~()1NUe A.Utomo 1. e ,0 ·
premium $230.00 yearlY ~ half chargeable to roads.)
ThiS would be especiallY desirable in the case of a number of
councillors, county ~orkroen or residentS of Terrace Lodge or
Elgin Manor, riding in the same vehicle.
ALL Of m11.C\\ 1.S RE$l'Ec:r:FIJLLY SU1ll'11.TTEP
C1lAl~
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 1.
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Municipal Building on
Thursday February 18, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. All members were present. Also
present were the Engineer, Assistant EnginefAr and Mr. Frank Clarke of the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON THE WORK TO DATE AS FOLLOWS:
1.. Winter control costs to date were approximately $270,0010. There has been
very little si~n,of abatement except in the past few days. All equipment
was in reasonably good condition. A grader had been rented to Yarmouth
Township to assist them in the past week with snow removal.
2. Mr. Dale McIntyre has resigned as of February 26. No replacement would
be hired ~ntil future workloads were ascertained.
3. Orrie Ostrander was hospitalized with a suspected heart attac~.
4. Work had re:.sumed at the Pleasant Valley. p,it. Pit run gravel was again
being draglined out of the water by Vern Higgs and the gravel was be;L;;ng
hauled anQ. S~9ckpiled by County Trucks.
5. Trees were being; cut on Road #32 at Ray Abels and Steve McEown's and
tree cutting was continuing on Road #45. It was expected that it
would be a week before work was completed on Road #45.
6. A signed agreement had been received from Robert Burwell for the
property s01;1th of the Glencolin Bridge. The County's Land Surveyor
had been instructed to complete a plan on the property as soon as
possible and an interim payment would be made to Mr. Burwell with
the next accounts.
CORRESPONDENC;E WAS READ FROM THE.~ FOLLOWING:
1.
Cor~espondence was read from the Ministry of Natural RE!SOUrCes in which
they statedi that f~ee access to the beach from County Road #39 would
continue to be provided at Port Burwell. The new road and parking lot
location would provide free access to the beach from the location
shown on the map they previously presented to the Road Committee. The
ST. 't1:lol'lAS, 0N'tAR1.0
fBBRUARY 18, 1982
~AGB 2.
2.
Engineer ~tated that a copY of the letter would be forwarded to
Mr. RowarQ. GreenlY of the Ministry of -rranSportatiOn and couununicatiOnS
to see wheth~r or not it met with the Ministry's approval.
d.' t d f~,..m the ontario Trucking ASSociatiOn to ~arden
correspon.ence was nO e .VU. '
Shaw re<tU\)sting that they be contacted if projectS of interest to the
3.
ASsociatiOn would be forthComing.
from the 9"tario MUniCipal 1\oard noting that a Rearing had been set
for rezoning on the ~oodlynn farm property on Rtghway #4 jUst south of
Mr. Davie~ reported that a first aid course to be giVen by the St. John
AmbulanCe waS being set up to complY with the requirementS of the \<Ior\Ol1en' s
t. 11,o'a....d It was honed to put the course on in l\pril on ];'ridaY
cO'illPensa 1.0n " .. . r
st. ThomaS.
afte-rnoon5.
The committee agreed the course waS desirable and if there were
. h . ld t be filled by countY EmPlOyeeS asked that some of the
open1.ng stat wou nO
'fovnsh:l.ps be notifie~ as they might wish to send some of their employeeS to
The Engineer presented the attached 1\udget Statement and 1\udget.
the cou't:se.
Mr. Lyle ~ells of the ];'rank Cowan Company in attendance · · ·
Re discussed the countY' s tnsurance using the attached informatiOn that
waS previouslY sent to the committee by the Engineer and answered members
inquirieS' Re noted ,that in the past year the CompanY had developed a system
to add to the non-ovned automobtle inSurance pcIJltcy wherebY the countY could
h. h rson would have on their
ass\Jl\1e the ltability. over and aboVe that w 1.C a l'e
ovn private cat! whil\) they might be engaged in countY Business. It was
noted that this would be partiCularlY desirable when a councillor used his
car on road in~pectiOn or if a volunteer were to take a n\Jl\1ber of restdentS
, . f a CountY ~or\Ol1an took a
from Elgin Manor or Terrace Lodge on a tr1.P or ~
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 3.
number of other County Workmen to a job site. In this case a person's
liability would probably be over and above any liability he would
ordinarily have QY using his car for his own use. The extra cost of this
was estimated at $11.5.00 per year charged to Roads and another $115.00 for
the re st of t,he Count),',.
Mr. Wells also stated that in the future that the present moving
liability permits insurance would not be a separate policy but would be a
part of the Cpunty's liability policy and as such ther,e would not be a
premium every time a moving permit was issued (costs in liability insura;nce).
Mr. Wells-also connnented on the present insurance liability policy w:hich
I
contained an environmental liability clause for municipaliti.es. He stated
that he did not know how long this could be carried on inasrr~ch as the
Government felt they were going to make a major change with regard to
environmental da~ages. If such occurred the cost would be prohibitive for
any Municipality to :purchase insurance for this and it would be a direct
cost upon the Municipality to defend themselves against any law suits.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
. . . .
AFTER LUNCH . . 41. .
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A RESOLUTION BE PASSED BY
COUNTY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, BOARD MEMBERS, OFFICERS, PERSONS EMPLOYED
BY THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND PERSONS VOLUNTEERING TO ASSIST IN MUNICIPAL
ACTIVITIES ARE SOMETIMES CALLED UPON BY THE COUNTY' OF ELGIN, ETC., TO
USE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHIN';iTHE SCOPE OF THEIR DUTIES.
AND WHEREAS ,THESE PERSONS MAY NOT HAVE ANY INSURANCE COVERAGE, OR SUCH
INSURANCE 'COVERAGE AS THEY MAY HAVE MAY NOT COVER A LIABILITY IMPOSED
BY LAW UPON THEM RESULTING FROM BODILY INJURY TO OR DEATH OF ANY
CONTINUED . . . .
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 4.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CA VERL Y
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
CONTINUED .. . .
PERSON OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE USE OR OPERATION
OF ANY AUT~)MOBILE NOT OWNED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY' OR LICENSED IN THE
NAME OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN, OR WHERE THE INSURANCE CO~ERAGE OF THE
EMPLOYEE, VOLUNTEER, BOARD MEMBER OR MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHICH DOES IN
FACT COVER THE SAID LIABILITY IMPOSED BY LAW FOR BODII~ INJURY TO OR
DEATH OF ANY PERSON OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE IN
AMOUNT TO MEET ANY JUDGMENT AGAINST THESE PERSONS;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ASSUME THE LIABILITY
IMPOSED BY LAW UPON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF ITS MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY
OF ELGIN, BOARD, EMPLOYEES OR VOLUNTEERS, FOR BODILY INJURY TO OR
DEATH OF ANY PERSON OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE
USE OR OPERATION BY SUCH PERSONS ACTING WITHIN THEIR SCOPE OF DUTIES
WITH THE COUNTY OF ELGIN, WHERE THE AUTOMOBILE I S NOT OWNED IN WHOLE
OR IN PART BY QR LICENSED IN THE NAME OF THE COUNTY OF' ELGIN;
PROVIDED THAT THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AS'$UMPTION OF LIABILITY AS SET OUT
ABOVE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE:
(A) THE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OR BOARD, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR
VOLUNTEER DOES NOT HAVE INSURANCE FOR THE ABOVE SAID
LIABIJ~ITY; OR
(B) THE SAID LIABILITY SET OUT HEREIN IS NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE
WHICH, THEY HAVE IN FORCE; OR
(C) THERE IS AN EXCESS OF A JUDGMENT OVER THE AMOUNT COVERED BY
THEIR PERSONAL INSURANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID LIABILITY,
IN WHICH CASE THE COUNTY OF ELGIN SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE ONLY
FOR THE EXCESS OF THE JUDGMENT PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT THE COUNTY
OF ELGIN LIABILITY SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED $10,000,000 FOR
DAMAGES FOR ANY ONE OCCURRENCE OR ACCIDENT, OR SERIES OF
OCCURRENCES OR ACCIDENTS RESULTING FROM ONE CAUSE.
CARRIED."
ST. T\1m1AS, 0N'tA.R1.0
fE1IRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 5.
HMOVED "B~:
SECONDED 1\"i: j. 1\. W1.LSON
..",..1Il cO'dllN C~l\N'l L1.1:UTED 't1:lE fOLLO'<l1.NG
T\lA.T "\ffi REN~ W1.T\1 T1:1:E r'-""'"
1.NsURllNGE 1'\)1..1. c1.ES :
1. couNTl MlJN1. C1.l' AL L1.A1I1.L1.'t'l 1.NCLUD1.l'IG ERRORS lIND ~ SS1. ONS; AND
l'1?ll}f1.T S 1. S SU AN CE S ·
2. NOl'l_O'dN1?D AU'tO.
M. 1:\. ST~ART
3. YLEET.
4. fLOt..T1?R CoVER LNG :
(t..) NOll J,..1.CENS1?D E<1fL~'
(1\ ) R'PJ)1.0 EQU1.pMENT.
( C) SUR'lE'fl-NG EQU1.l'~'
(D) Rl1,N'tED OR LEt..SED l'ROl'ER't'l Of ar\1ERS,
(E) TOOLS, STOcR l'IATER1JJ..S, SNO'dr'ENCE, ETC.
( f) V'ALUt..1\LE l' pJ'ERS ·
,...11.,1'.' rf\lt,....",.. '[;IrrC 1.N mlG1.N1?ER' S Off1.CE.
(G) 11IJ""~'u""" D' .,
, ...:t ("SO 1Ql0'dN t..S ENG1.N1?ER1.NG 1'0L1.CY)'
1\OlLER AND l'IAC1t1.NER' ......
5.
6 . "\ffiED Sl'Rf\11.NG.
1. MOSQU1.ItO S1'UY1.NG (Lf NECESSARY)'
8.
"BOND ·
COmrr't ROAD DEl'AR~T 1\\l1.LDLNGS (f1.RE AND C~RE\1ENS1.VE)'
cpJ.tRl'ED ."
9.
Mr. ~ell S left the meeting · · · ·
DisCUssion on the
. d The co~ittee amended the BUdget
Budget cont1.n\1e ·
f &10 000 the gmOUnt for miscellaneous
&?o.oOO tOm ~ '
. _~ired to have more projects
on l'age 9 by increasing to ~--.
su~veYs and g~.ading constructton as theY d"~
, d SO that C<Jll!lll.ttteeS in future yearS WU".-
surveyed and eng1.neere
d d wtth should land pu~chase
-h. ..'~;_..c.:e.,.off n~o,ectS that could be procee e
greate'!:.cC 0.., . r. >
d h b nco-r-rected and
(The Budget encloSe as ee
o~ anY other probl~ms shOW up.
totalS changed.)
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 6.
The C()!l1lll.it\tee felt that the ]\Udg~t should be reco1ll!l\ended to County
Council as soon as possible.
"MOVED BY:
'M. H. STEWART
SECONDED 1\'{: L. J. SHA~
THAT WE RBcQMM.END TO COUNTY coUNCIL 't1:lAT 't1:lE REBATE TO 1JR1\Nl
MUNlC1.l'AL1TIES BE 25'7. OF 't1:lEIR ROAD LE'l'lS AS IN fORMER YEARS.
CARRIED."
"'MOVED BY:
M. H. STEWART
SECONDED RY: J. 1\. WILSON
THAT WE REcQMM.END TO comITY COUNCIL THAT A ROAD LE'l'l Of $896,000 fOR
1982 BE ADOPTED.
CARRIED ."
"MOVED BY:
SECONDED Jl'{: L. J. SHA~
THAT WE RECQMM.ENP TO comITY COUNCIL THAT A RESOLUTION BE l'ASSED ADOl'TING
'M. H. STEWART
THE A']:TAC1\ED l'ROl'OSED STATEMENT Of ~ORK (DRAFT If\. OF 1IUDGET DATED
FEBRUARY t8, 1982 AS AMENDED) AND EXl'END1.'rURES FOR 1 98 2 AND THE
STATEMENT BE FOR~ARDED TO 't1:lE MINISTRY OF TRANSl'ORTATlON AND
coMMlJN1 CA'1lI ONS FOR pJ>l'ROV AL.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED 1\Y: ~. R. CAVFJiJ..Y
THAT WE REC~ TO COUNTY COUNC1.L't1:lAT A RESoLUTION 1\E l'ASSED
REQUEST1.NG THE M1NISTRY OF TRANSl'ORTATlON AND CoMM1JN1.CATIONS TO
pJ>l'ROVE THE sUM OF $45,000 1N SU1\SIDY MONEY FOR DRAINAGE
ASSES SMEN'l1S ON cOUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUB1JRBAN ROAD cOMMl S S1. ON ROADS
IN 1982.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE T.
"MOVED BY:
W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. B. WILSON
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A RESOLUTION BE PASSED
REQUESTING THE~INISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
APPROVE THE\ SUM OF $25,000 IN SUBSIDY MONEY (AS A SUPPLEMENTARY
ALLOCATION) SO THAT THE COUNTY AND THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR SAFETY PROGRAMME (YJHITE SAFETY
EDGE MARKINGS).
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE SUM OF $1,000 BE
BUDGETED FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL FOR THE PREVENTION OF ENCEPHALITIS.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY:
L. J. SHAW
SECONDED ;E')Y:M.H. STEWART
THAT WE BUILD A SALT STORAGE BUILDING AT THE TOWNSHIP OF DUNWICH
GARAGE SITE IN DUTTON WITH THE TOWNSHIP OF DUNWICH TO PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT LAND FOR THE BUILDING AND FOR A SALTED SAND PILE SITE.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY; M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L.. J. SHAW
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR THE
PLACEMENT OF CRUSHED GRAVEL ON COUNTY ROAD #9 IN ALDBOROUGH
TOWNSHIP.
CARRIED."
S'T. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 8.
"MOVED BY: J. B. WILSON
SECONDED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR THE SUPPLY
OF CULVERT PIPE NEEDED FOR 1982.
CARRIED."
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO CALL FOR QUOTATIONS FOR THE SUPPLY
OF CALCIUM CHLORIDE IN LIQUID TANK LOAD LOTS AND BAGGED (TRUCK LOADS).
CARRIED."
The Engineer stated that he would have tractor quotations with the
County's John Deere 450C as a trade-in; available at the next meeting.
It was decided that a programme for future construction should be
discussed by the Committee as soon as possible and the roads under
consideration inspected during the CVUULLittee' s Spring Road Inspection.
"MOVED BY: J. N. SMYTH
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT WE ADJOURN TO 9 :30 A.M., WEDNESDAY MARCH 10, 1982.
CARR:I ED."
~\ ~~-.~
CHAIEtMAN
The following is a Ust of 1'0lici.es in effect on countY llUtldings,
~Of~
1.NS~CE REV1.'E\'l 1982
1ebl:uatY 1982
l'roperty and Liability.
1'1: ank Cowan Comp anY and were due JanuarY 29, 1982.
UnleSs otherwise stated 1'01iCies are thrOugh the
~t
1. w<19! A1..l-~1.1.1.!f.
LimitS per claim $10,000,000.
The countY' s General l.iabtlity policy protects' roadS, non licensed
equipment, the Court Rouse 1\lock and contatnS a libel and s1,ancWt:
claUse ·
The Elgin Manot: and any spt:aying LiabiUty is in5urea ~t\det
other !lolicies.
1.n 1982 l.ta bili t y waS $5,423 ( sub sidi zed) being $181. 00 charged to
29 unlicen s~ d unit sand $196. 00 (nOn sub si di zed), (Total $6,219 · ()O
for countY RoadS.)
1.n 1981 the subsidized cost: is the s~ and the non subsiaized
. reduced to $132.00.
1
1.ncluded as Named 1.nsured, ,couu.ty councillors, St. Thomas Suburban
Road ommnission~rs, County EmPloyeeS, and Volunteers.
Incl\1deS l'ersonal 1.njutY LiabilitY (libel and slander), Leg~l
Liability with regard to Ltquot: License t..ct, Environmental and
1'011utton Blanket contractual Agreements.
, Li bolity Clause which covetS the
The 1'0licy contains the EmPloyer s a 1-
county tn the case an employee is not conSidered a wor\alUln under tne
,
~ot:kmen's compensatiOn BOard.
The 1'01iCY in 1982 is tht:ough the Guarantee CompanY whereas in the
past the Gore Mutual 1.nSurance coml'au.Y has handled most of the
2.~
Liability LimttS, $10,000,000 protectS County against damage suits,
etc., involving vehiCles not owned by the county, but working for the
county (eg. private dumP truckS, private cars, etc.)' Ltability for
liCensed vehicles borrowed or acquired by the CountY is $50,000
poliCY.
($100.00 Deductible).
The coverage includes all emplOyeeS and
fr'
PAGE 2.
COUNT'! Of ELGIN
1.NSU~CE REV1.B'<l 1982
officers of the county. The cost in 1981 waS $310.00 and ~or
'b'l't Extensto~'
o d!. 310 00 cost to nrovide "contractual l,1.a 1. 1. Y .
1982 1. s ~ . . r
C n"l,imi ted recotlf.\\endat i onS is $115.00.
as per yran\< cowan ompa.J
3. to.\l'tQMOt1.~ . u (34 items) in the Road
.~ , r 1982 haS been drawn l'
A ne'" schedule fo "valued'" 'totl/.l
f vehicleS have been
Denarttl\ent. to. number 0 ' 1 s is $911,000 ($881,000
r t Veh1.C e
f 11 Road Departmen
aggregate value 0 a . ~500.00 Ueductible to a
d to gO f-rolU- a 'I'
tn 1981). 1.t is propose ' 1916). ~e e><pect a
the $500.00 1.n
obl (~e ~ent to
d!1 000 Deduc t 1. e . 1"" su:r ance CQ st s.
~ , ' '11 cut ou-r .l\..
o 0 1982 ~h1.ch ~1.
o t Rat1.ng 1.n
fu~the~ 5% Me~1. olicy cost in 1981
.' 0 000,000 our fleet p
LtabilitY Litl\1.t 1.S $1 , 1982 it ,",lot be $12,626.00.
. $13 381.00). 1.n
(at ~ene,"al time was ,h fleet in 1982,
e on t e
se a Blan\tet coverag ,
1.t is proposed to u \<ind and size if one 1.S
f vehicle of a srone use,
'e ~eplacement 0 't lost. L Othe~
1. ., , d value of the un1.
f the aSS1.gne '
lost ~egardleSS 0 h val\1ed atlWu:nt 1.n
'11 be patd for at t e
1 d itemS ,"hich ,"1.~
than va ue
the poliCY.]
(a)
(b)
o t (including snow plo,.;.ng equiptl\ent).
Non liCensed eqU1.pmen
'"
4.~
cove 1: 5 :
(c)
d base stationS.
RadiO equtpment includtng antenna an
d borro,"ed or leased.
Moveable propertY of others rente ,
ToolS, stoCk, materials, snowfence, etc.
surveytng eql1 tpment.
(d)
(e)
val\1.able pape-r s.
Engineer'S Office, furnitl1~e, etc.
(f)
(g)
h 53 items (Total val\1e
The non ltcensea equiptl\ent float . as
$1,689,000 in 1982 some of which are valued.) 1'01iCY
(a)
, ~144 000 and tools and supplies
Sno," 1'1 o,.;.ng equipment 1. S" '
93 000 1.n 1981 the "alue
at $60,000 for a total of $l,B , ·
d!1 91Q 000 1.n 1982 equipment and sno," plo,.;.ng equipment
~8tS '1" 0'. ·
ueducttble $1,000.
COUNTY OF ELGIN
INSURANCE REVIEW 1982
PAGE 3.
is again blanketed (except for those items valued).
Cost for 1982 estimated at $10,114.50 which is a reduction
,...
from 1981. (Rate for most equipment .55% of li.sted 'Value.)
(The liability covered under County Liabilty Pc.licy.)
(b) Surveying equipment $5,600 value blanketed for 1982 All Risk
Cost 1% - $56.00 Premium - $100.00 Deductible on los$es.
(c) Radio equipment $56,000 - Cost 1% - Premium $560.00.
Deductible $100.00, -All Risk.
(d) Moveable property of others to Value of $150,000 _ Premium $100.00
per year losses paid on actual cash value. Protects County for
rented, borrowed and leased equipment.
(e) Too1s,.material, snowfence, etc. - $1,000 Deductible per
occurrence -Value $60,000 - Premium $393.00.
(f) Valuable papers - replacem~nt including any necessary work to
regather the information - Value $100,000 (Premium included).
(g) Accounts Receivable (including information to regather the
information) $100,000 - ie., ledgers, invoices, etc.
(h) Furniture, etc., etc., - Replacement Value $37,000, 1982 Costs
(Engineer's Office)
$92.00 ($84.00 in 1981).
;-:
5. BOILER AND MACHINERY POLIC~ (ALSO KNOWN AS ENGINEERING POLICY)
Policy insures boilers, pressure vessel s, tanks, 'etc., including
,
boiler, hot water tank, air tank, etc., at County Garages and
air tanks on compressors, sprayers, etc.
For repair and replacement of equipment due to rupture, etc.
Limit p(~r accident $1,000,000. Premium in 1981 $567.00.
Premium in 1982 the same.
6. WEED SPRAYING
Liability $10,000,000 per spraying day (Policy also covers
Mosquito Spraying when endorsed). Also in name of Elgin-St. Thomas
Health Unit.
Premium Weeds $392.00 for 1981, $462.00 for 1982.
COUNTY OF EI.GIN
INSURANCE REVIEW 1982
PAGE 4.
7. BOND
Blanket bond in amount of $300,000 on all County Employees and
.i
Members of Council for the protection of the County against theft,
vandalism, etc. Total Premium $1,300 - Road Department share in
1981 was $260.00, same in 1982.
8. INSURANCE ON MOVING PERMIT S
A continuing policy which protects the County against su~~s because
of issuance of Moving Pe'rmits. Cost per premium $6.00 issued.
(Taken out of the $10.00 paid by the applicant.) (Liability Limit
$1,000,000.)
9. COUNTY GARAGE BUILDINGS
All Peril Policy including fire, wind, malicious acts, damage from
falling objects (ie. radio tower), water pipe rupture.
Replacement cost clause to Main Garage Building, White Station only.
$1,000 Deductible.
1981 VALUES
1982 VALUES
Main Garage
$486,000
$544,000
150,000 (Valued)
25,000 (Valued)
Storage Building (Hangar)
150,000
Old Storage Building
25,000
White Station Salt Storage
30,000
34,000
10,000 (Valued)
Rodney Garage (Grader Shelter)
10,000
,
Bayham Township Salt Storage
26,000
25,000
$726,000
$789,000
1981 Premium $2,827 plus $49.00 (short term on Bayham Township Salt
Building). In 1982 Premium $3,150.
10. ERRORS AND OMMISSIONS
Protects the County against those items which are of an error and/or
orrunission type by Council Members and Employees rat.her than a
Municipal Liability type.
Total County Preimium in 1982 is $825.00. Chargeable to Road
DepartmE~nt ?
11 . WORKMENlt S COMPENSATION
Asse ssmE~nt rate in 1981 was $1.55 per hundred. ThE! assessment rate
for 1982 will be $1.75 per hundred.
~'RANK COWAN COMPANY LIMITED
vltenic~1 (MuI .9ZI~()1 fiz4tbP41lce
TELEPHONE (519) 458~4331
PRINCETON, ONTARIO
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROAD DEPARTMENT
RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT
1982
INDEX: Cost Analysis
- Page 1.
Description of Coverage - Pages 2 to
7
FRMIK COWAN COMPANY LIMITED
PRINCETON,
ONTARIO
THIS IS A CONDENSED REPORT OF YOUR INSURANCE PROGRA}~. NOTHING HEREIN ALTERS
THE TEID1S, CONDITIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE PRINTED INSURANCE CONTRACT.
Renewal Date of Contracts: Various in January
Fe b T"t~~ L~\l./ S =
r
Page 1.
- COST ANALYSIS -
CLASS
COST APPLICABLE TO
ROAD DEPARTMENT
TOTAL January, 1982 COST
NON-OWNED AUTOMOBILE
Including Excess
$
342.00
$
310.00 \/
OWNED AUTOMOBILE
Including Excess
12,626.00 I
14,865.00
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
Including Excess
7,709.00
..; 5,423.00-Subsidizab1e
,.; 732. OO-Non-
Subsidizable
SPRAY LIABILITY
Including Excess
462.00
..;
462.00 Non-
Subsidizable
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
v'
825.00
NIL
CRIME 1,300.00
260.00
ENGINEERING 567.00
567.00
CONTENTS & EQUIPMENT FLOATER
Total Sum Insured $ 2,625,865.00
Total Sum Insured applicable to
Road Dept. $2,141,600.00 11,494.00
10 , 830 . 00 ,( v
92.00-Engineer's
Office
PROPERTY INSURANCE
Sum Insured ($789,000.00) 3,150.00
3,150.00 "I
$
~..
.~
34,452.00
40,714.00
Renewal Changes:
Values on Licensed and Unlicensed Equipment completely updated and Fleet
Policy amended to a "Blanket" Replacement Cost Basis with no li.mit applying
to any loss (except vehic],es insured on Valued basis) except the limit
which would apply to tl1C replacement of a destroyed vehicle or vehicles.
Property Policy amended to a "Blanket" Basis insuring all Road Department
properties on a Replacement Cost Basis, with the exception of properties
insured with a specific limit of liability.
Physical Damage limit on Automobile Policy increased to $ 1,000.00 Deductible
All Perils.
'Page. 2.
,
_ DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE -
V ~ON-OWNED AUTOMDBILE:
1'rotects the legal liability of the County, its Officers qnd Employees while acting
within their capacity as such, against claims arising out of accidents involving
vehicles not owned by them but being operated on their behalf.
Limit of Protection
Excess Limit of Liability
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 5,000,000.00
Legal Liability for Physical Damage
$
50,000.00
NOT INCLUDED
contractual Liability Extension
RECOMMENDATION: - Contractual Liability Extension
Attached is a copy of a resolution which if passed by Council will
enable us to extend the Non-Owned Automobile Policy to cover Members
of Council, Board Members, Officers, Employees and Volunteers for
claims arising out of the use of their automobiles while on Municipal
business for amounts in excess of their own personal automobile
liability coverage.
Additional Annual Cost to include Contractual Liability Extension
on County's Non-Owned Automobile Policy for present limits
including excess . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · $ 230.00
Additional Annual Cost to Road Department for
Contractual Liability Extension . . . · . . . . . · $
115.00
\!. OWNED AUTOMOBll,E :
Insures vehicles owned py the Road Department on a "Blanket" Replacement Cost
Basis with limitS applying only to those vehicles insured on "Valued" 1\asis.
List of vehicles insured
(SeeO'Page 4)
Limit of Protection
Excess Limit of Liability
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 5,000,000.00
$
1,000.00
All Perils Deductible
IN CLUDED
Statutory Accident Benefits
,
,i MUNICIPAL LIABILITY:
Protects the legal liability of the County for claims because of bodily injury or
death resulting out of the operations of the County including the Road Department
and for damages to or destruction of property caused by accident or occurrence,
Limit of Protection, including Personal
Injury Liability, and Employer's Liability
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 5,000,000.00
Excess Limit of Liability
Page 3.
- AUTOMOBILE FLEET SCHEDULE -
,... AMOUNT USED FOR
ITEM COUNTY NO. DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE RATING PURPOSES
1. 1 1978 Dodge Diplomat $ 12,000.00
2. 2 1980 Chevrolet Impala 12,000.00
3. 3 1980 Chevrolet Impala 12,000.00
4. 4 1980 Chevrolet Impala 12,000.00
{I
5. 44 1974 Fruehauf Float Trailer 17,000.00
6. 55 1972 Ford Tandem Dump 25,000.00 VALUED
7. . 56 1972 Ford Tandem Dump 25,000.00 VALUED
8. 63 1974 Ford Tandem Dump 25,000.00 VALUED
9. 64 1975 Dodge Tandem Dump 25,000.00 VALUED
10. 66 1976 Ford Super Cab Pickup 12,000.00
11. 94 1981 Dodge Pickup 13,000.00
12. 69 1976 Chevrolet Van 13,000.QO
13. 70 1976 Ford Tandem Dump 60,000.00
14. 72 1977 Ford Tandem Dump 60, OQO.. 00
15. 73 1977 Dodge Pickup 11,000.00
16. 74 1977 Ford Stake Truck 17,000.00
17. 75 1966 Ford Truck 18,000.00 VALUED
18. 77 1977 Dodge Pickup 11,000.00
19, .. 78 1977 Dodge Pickup 11,000.00
20. 79 1978 Ford Double Cab Pickup 14,000.00
21. 80 1978 Ford Double Cab Pickup 14,000.00
22. 81 1978 Ford Double Cab Pickup 14,000.00
23. 82 1978 Ford Double Pickup 14,000.00
24, 83 1978 Mack Dump 75,000.00
25, 84 1978 Mack Dump 75,000.00
26. 85 1979 Chevrolet Pickup 11,000.00
27, 86 1979 Chevrolet Van 13,000.00
" 28. . 87 1979 Dodge Club Cab 12,000.00
29. 88 1979 Mack Dump 75,000.00
,
30. 89 1980 Mack Dump 75,000.00
31, 90 1.980 Mack Dump 75,000.00
32. 91 Tandem Diesel, GMC, 1974 28,000.00 VALUED
33. 92 1981 Ford Super Cab Pickup 12,000.00
34. 93 1981 Ford Pickup 13,000.00
Items 35 to 39 Inclusive - County Horne vehicles
RoaQ Department Value - $911,000.00
covera~;e is provided on an "All Risk" Bas is with coverage applying on a Blanket '
\ Replacement Cost basis appli,cab1c to all Unlicensed Equipment, Sno",plo",ing
Equipment, Survey Equipment and communicatiOns Equipment including Road Department
MLsccllaneous Equipment.
\ Tol;11 \)1 ankl~l Nnounl of 1 nmn:-allCl'
(Lest of l'roperty Insured - See Page, 6 and 7)
Moveable property of Others (unitS under annual lease $
\ or lease purchase agreement ezcluded)
Engineer'S Office Contents
.
Total Sum Insured - Road Department'
-
-- ,
-
\t
Insures the legal liability of the County for bodily injury or property damage
\C1aimS arising out of the county's spraying operattons governed by the 1'esticides
Act of ontarto, the Regulattons under the 1'esticides Act of OntariO, and by the
l'est Control l'roducts Act (canada).
'\ SPRAY LIABIl,ITY:
-
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 5,000,000.00
Limit per Spraying Day
ExcesS Limit of Liability
Agrees to pay all sums ",hich the County shall become obligated to pay by reason
of the liability imposed upon it by a court of civil law for damageS because of
a ",rongful act but specificallY e><cluding any claims which w~uldbe-insured
under the Municipal Liability contract.
V \ ERRORS .AND OMISSIONS:
$ 1,000,000.00
$ 1,000.00
Limit of Liability
. Self-Insured Retention
\"
Legal liability with respect to the issuance of moving permits is carried.
with the limit on the policY being $ 1,000,000,00,
pAB-ILLTx..- M~TS:_
\ ~' '
. 9R1ME:_ (~v~ ,-.(j\. ,,) .
'./
The County carry a commercial Blanket Bond ",hich coverS all employees of the
\county, including the Road Department employees,
commercial Blanket Bond Penalty _ All,EmployeeS $ 300,000,00
Coverage is provided on a Broad 'Form 1\lanket l'olicy insuring noilers, 1'ressure
Vessels and MiscellaneouS ElectriCal ApparatUS at the County ~orkshop White
'Station Garage. In addition portable are insured usuallY operating from
the County ~orksboP, Repair or Replacement in the event of a loSS,
\Limit per Accident $ 1,000,000.00
ENGINEERING:
-- ... -----
, '
CONTENTS fu'iD EQUl1'MENT fLOt..TER:
..:::..---- -- _:..---
$
1,95L~,600.00
150,000.00
$ 37,000.00
------
$ 2,141,600.00
-
--:--
\
\
\
\
\
\
--
,-.
No.
~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
_ EQUI"PME~
~ . ~alue used for "purposes
of ~lanket Insu~ance
$ 60,000.00 LIMIT
115,000.00
115,000.00
115,000.00
120,000.00
"PROFERT'! INSURED
7 .
~.~
1968 Champion Model D600
1914 d\aropion 600 B
1976 Champton D-140
1919 Champion 13-140
1979 Charopton D-140
1910 John Deere Model 1020RU I'<
Side Mounted 'Mo~e~
1970 John Deere Model 1020RU I'<
Side 'Mounted Mo~e~
1911 John Deere Model JD1020RU
Tractor I'< Side Mounted
'MoV3e-r
1971 John Deere Model JD1020RU I'< Mo~er
1973 John Deere Model JD301
Tractor I'< stde Mounted
Mo~e-r
Tractor 1[23 1913 John Deere Model JD301
Tractor I'< Side Mounted
}'\o~er.
1973 internatiOnal Model 2300^ I'<
18S0 "Loader
1915 Massey fergu50n Model 135 I'<
Mo~e~
1975 ford Model 3550 I'< Loader
1915 John Deere Model 450C Bulldozer
1916 John Deere Model 350C 1\ulldozer
1911 John Deere Model JD510 1\ackhoe
1918 ford Model 550 front End
1,oacleX & .Bac\<-hoe
TractOr j133 19-18 Ford Mode\ 550 )'ront End
"Loader & ~acknoe
1976 JCB Model 418, 2'1 cubiC 'iards
front End 'Loader
1971 ~tc~igan Model 125B
John Deere J6441'>
1955 Galton Tandem Steel ~heeled Roller
Model TC5-BG
1962 Galton 9_~heel Rubber Tired
Roller, Model 9-C
1916 Galion 9_~eel
1968 Etnyre _ 2500 Galton DistributOr
1966 Ring seagrave Model UE~8, 8
cubiC Yards
]968 KID~ seB~r"ve Model ~88_420l
\ ,(/ n K \ \11\ ~;"a\\r"Ve tolD'''" \ \\1\'\'0\8
19-/2 Fri.nk
1972 frink
1915 Ring seagrave Model UDTS
1915 Ring seagrave Model UDTS
1971 Ring seagrave ~odel uuTQ
1980 Ring Seagrave Model R-61-1
(Truck ~t5 6)
sander 1114 1980 King seLlgrave Model K-61-2
(BrookS Truck)
1966 ~ald "pavement Marking E~uip~ent,
courpressor, 'Btc.
Grader ~t14
Gr adcr ~t17
Grader 1tlB
Grader. ~t19
G-rader ~t20
T~acto-r it17
14,000.00
14,000.00
14,000.00
8.
T-racto-r #18
Txacto-r #19
T~actO~ #20
T~acto-r #22
9.
10.
11.
12..
Trac t.or ~t26
T~ actor it2.7
'f~actO~ it28
'iractor ~t29
Tractor it30
Tractor inl
'fractor it32
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
l,oader. it4
"Loader. it 5
"Loa(ler it6
Roller ~tl
Roller
it2
Roller in
Sander it3
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27'.
2R.
'19.
30.
31'.
32.
33.
34.
35.
S r\ rrd (' r
;;;JI\dl..' t'
ift\
II r)
itS
if9
itlO
1tll
1t12
~t13
sander
sander
sander
sauder
sander
Sander
36.
37 .
14,000.00
14,000.00
14,000.00
6,000.00 "LI'MIT
15,000.00
17,000.00
16,000.00 "Ll'M~T
40,000.00
60,000.00
40,000.00
40,000.00
65,000.00
150,000.00 "Ll'M1'i
110,000.00
5,000.00 "LI'MIT
3,000.00 "LIM.IT
40,000.00 "LIMIT
50,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
,
35,000.00
Item No.
~-
/,"'''' 38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
County No.
Scales #1
Scales #2
Scales #3
Page 6.
Description
Value Used for Purposes
of Blanket Insurance
Bros. Vibrating Roller #1 $
Model VP4D
Bros. Vibrating Roller #2
Model VP4D
1958 Canadian Scale 30 Ton
1968 Canadian Scale 30 Ton
Canadian Scale 50 Ton
1956 Cleaver Brooks Car Heater
1965 Jaeger 125 CFM Compressor
1966 Wayne Brush Chipper
1969 Etnyre Chip Spreader
Power Curber Model #G3000
Overhead Crane - Richard Wilcox Model
11-230
Rotary Hoist - Dover
Elgin Pelican III Sweeper
Condor Man Lift
Snow Plowing Equipment
Road Department Miscellaneous Tools,
Equipment, Materials and Supplies
Communication Receiving and Tranffinitt-
ing Equipment including Base Stations
and Antennae
All Survey Equipment including levels,
transits and miscellaneous equipment
TOTAL BLANKET AMOUNT ON ROAD
DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT . · · ·
. . . .
Moveable Property of Others
(Units under annual lease or lease
purchase agreement excluded)
Engineer's Office Contents
4,000.00 LIMIT
4,000.00 LIMIT
5,000.00 LIMIT
5,000.00 LIMIT
20,000.00 LIMIT
3,000.00 LIMIT
15,000.00
.7,000.00 LIMIT
55,000.00
5,000.00 LIMIT
25,000.00
10,000.00
80,000.00
30,000.00
,.'
144,000.00
/
60,000.00
/
56,000.00
5,600.00 /
/"
$1,954,600.00
$ 150,000.00
$ 37,000.00
TOTAL SUM INSURED - Road Department - $2,141,600.00
NOTE: DEDUCTIBLES apply as follows:-
,
$ 1,000.00 applicable to all items with the exception of
Survey Equipment and Communications Equipment which
are subject to a $ 100.00 Deductible.
VAl-rES ~ "HL:nk.et Insurance" completely updated on all items with limits now
,<11"1,1 yiilg to val-ion::; pieces of equipment and resulting in total Sum
Insured for Road Department beior'revised from $2,199,000.00 to
$2,141,605.00.
-=~A " <COWA "COV -:lA \ Y L V -
March 1981
f
EDITORIAL:
Recently the number of Property-Casualty
Insurance Compa~ies operating in Canada has
incre~sed along with an accompanying increase
in the use of off shore reinsurance operations.
All of this has contributed to an on going
competitive situation within the insurance
i industry where such companies are cutting
premiums unrealistically in the interest of
, their cash flow situation.
i
, Many of these newcomers are attracted to
Canada because of the high interest rates and
I operate 'as if they were in the business of
, cash flow rather than the insurance business.
It has been reported that the Federal
Superintendent of Insurance is currently
I reviewing the whole question amid rumors of
possible bankruptcies or failures and the
likelihood is that some companies may withdraw
from the marketplace or from writing specific
classes of 'coverage. In the claims area there
have been instances where large payments have
been delayed after settlement amounts agreed
I upon.
! Insurance buyers are being urged to ask
themselves what they know about the security
of the markets being used in view of this 1<
large volume of reinsurance .being obtained
, overseas.
I
j UNDER-INSlffiE~ MOTORIST COVER:
! Insurer's are now able to provide
! additional benefits to those persons insured
~f by an automobile policy who have a claim
;~,against another motorist for injuries or death
: but where he has insufficient insurance to pay
:. the claim. Yo~ can provide for a limit of
~coverage of the difference between the
liability insurance limit of your policy and
that carried by the motorist at fault. For
1 example, if your policy has a limit of
$1,000,000 and your driver, employee or
passenger obtained a judgement of $500,000
against the motorist responsible and that
motorist was insured for only $200,000, your
I driver, employee or passenger would be able to
\ claim the difference of $300,000 from your
1 insurer. The coverage would also apply if the
I responsible motorist was not insured. The cost
\\,wil~",1?~,.J)e~~~.~~$ 5 Cin.d, $20 per vehicle insured
ED
dependant upon the limit of liability inf?ured
and the amount of any credits applying to
automobile fleet policies.
If you wish this cover added to your
policy please provide us or your local agent
with appropriate instructions.
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE:
We now have two optional extensions to
offer under the Errors & Omissions Policy.
Lawyers tell us that failure to
administer employee benefits properly would
constitute a breach, of contract whiCh is
excluded under this policy. Therefore, the
insurer's have agreed to extend the. policy to
pay any sums for which the insured might
become liable through causing an error or
omission in the administration of an employee
benefit program. Employee benefits would
include such things as group life insurance,
accident insurance including death ~nd
'. dismemberment cover, hea:Lth insurance; pension
plans, Workmen's Compensation, unemployme1;lt
insurance, Canada Pension Plan and social'
security and disability benefits. This cover
can be added to the existirtg policy up to the
limit of liability applicable and subject to
the same self insured retention for an
additional premium.
It is also now possible to add a c14use
to the policy whichwolJld-~pi'ck\.lp:"'an"cla1IIl~
where the act, error or Omission occurred
prior to the inception da.te of the policy.
Our policy includes an e'Xtensionof a twCS
year discovery period which would follow
termination of 'coverage but now, if required
by an insur~d, we can extend the policy ,
prior to inception for an additional premium
subject of courset to a ]>rovision that the
cover would be invalidated if it was
discovered that it had been purchased with
the knowledge of an event or occurrence
which might give rise to a claim.
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS:
Frequently we are asked to insure
agreements whereby a School Board Or a
MunicIpality wishes to hold another party
harmless. When you agree to hold harmless
ano t.~,C:,-r;, _.,~~r ~Y.:_L._ ~.~, ,,~~_.._!~P',~.;:,!~~.~~,,1~_.__!.~~..!,!,~~_~.l,2.!!.."..j
,Ge as;~ing-"~niimi t~(l"-iiab'iii ty .
Ho14, harmless clauses hav~ no limit
f'Jhereas a liability policy does have a limit.
This means that if an accident occurs resulting
in a claim in excess of the policy limitst our
client would have to bear the excess. When
entering into such agreements, you should make
certain that the liability assumed in the
agreement never exceeds the policy limit.
There is another app~oach which may be
even more satisfactory. Instead of agreeing
to hold harmless another party, you could agree
to insure the risk to a stated limit. When
this is done, you would not leave yourself
liable to pay f~r a loss which is not covered.
MAINTENANCE OF REGULATORY SIGNS (STOP & YIELD):
In recent years, there has been an
rlncrease in both frequency and severity t of
Ibodily injury and property claims agaj"nst
Municipalities arising out of motor vehicle
accidents occurring at intersections controlled
~y regulatory signs.
1 In most of these claims, it is alleged
'that the' Municipality controlling the
intersection, is responsible because of a
lmissing sign. . In other cases, it is alleged
lthat the sign was obstructed, incorrectly
ierected or was in a state of disrepair.
I The consequences to a Municipality of a
lmissing Stop Sign are serious and there is
\
Ilittle defence against municipal negligence in
I these cases'. Negligence is decided based upon
'the Municipality's planned sign maintenance
,program and the speed with which they react in "
J
ireplacing a sign following discovery of its
'absence or obstruction.
I The sign maintenance program should be
'detailed with respect to frequency of ~
inspection, and with a recording system to
prove dates of inspection. .
No regulatory signs should be erected
unless asa pre-requisite, a Th:rough Road
f
\By-Law has been enacted and approved by the
IMunicipality responsible for the Through Road
.1 and also by the Ministry of Transportation and
+Communications.
i When the By-Law has been passed, then signs
[should be erected adhering strictly to the
iregulations under the H.T.A. respecting standard
ISign height and distances, vertically and
(horizontally.
; Any Municipality who does not erect and
!maintain regulatory 'signs with proper authority
and responsibility, could be involved in serious
iliability situations.
SCHOOL WORKSHOP ACCIDENTS:
!
j From time to time, WE~ seem to experience a
!rash of accidents inv6lving injuries to students
loccurring in School Workshops. When this kind
'<"of accident occurs in industry, the Workmen's
.j
, ,.' ", .,",. '.. . ',,' . ,'" . thr; '". '.. ".,..',
C6mpensa~tloii~~Boa't(rT~ln'(;i!~ti~~y\~~a;:r'y;"pU t
detailed investiga ~~LontP_~~e int~rest$.o;
protecting the workman' a.t'lden~\lr~~,~."Hhatth~
employer maintains an adequate 'stand:ardof'
safety. This is g~lerallyachievedby having
all machinery inspected regularly with the.
emphasis on safety ~lnd 1;'epairs carried out
where necessary and with no delay. It goes
without sayings that a faulty piece Of
machinery should not be used pending repair.
Quite apart fr(:nn the consideration of -the
LIABILITY of School Boardss it could be
suggested that such machinery should be even
safer, if that is pl:)ssible, than that used in
industry, simply be4:=.auseschool ma,c.hinery is
being operated by unskilled people with no'
experience and with different levels of
intelligence. Supe:r:vising a class.QJ students
is undoubtedly enough of a strain for the,
teacher in charge w:ithottt; ha:ving to conte.nd
with machinery being used in a state of,
disrepair.
CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY (NON OWNED AUTOMOBILE):
A number of ou:r clients havepU'l:'cha.sed
this cover where we insure l:Lability, which
they have assumed u1Llder contJ::'act. .
The only way the COVer can'he in effect
is where a Resoluti1on hasbeenpa.ssed by the
Board of Trustees or by the Council.
Therefore, even if .an endorsement is issued
following instructions ttom lilnAdmJ:p.~strative
Officer, for example, the cover cannot be.
effective until the con.tract is effe,ctive.and
this can only be achieved by meaIlsof a '
Resolution. If there i8no contra~t., there is
no cover, so purchasers ~ust ens~re that a
Resolution is indee,d passedinnnediately.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979:
This amendment which has receiVed Roya.l
Assent and ~rillcome into .fcr.<:.v~'upt.)a, '
proclomation, provides for . ,the sp.eeq.y ,cl~anup
of spills of pollutants, restoratibn of thE!
environIllent and in addition, sets alIlore.
rigorous standard of civ.il liability for
owners of pollutants or persons having control
of pollutants which are .spilled. \
An important legal conseq'Uence of thi.s
amendment is that owners and persons having
control of a spilled pol,l\,lta.nt are~bsolutely
liable for damage directly 1;'esulting from. the
spill. The liability does not, therefore, . !.
depend upon fault or negligence. '
The consequences of this ;1.egis:tationa:re
so far reaching that we~ould rec.ornmend tha.t
Municipal Officials express concern .to their
Legislators of the effect it will, have on
Municipal Governm(:l.nt, particularly in the
I
provision of sewer and water services. .l?erhap~
Municipalities should expect some ~unity.
ITEM # YEA.ol{
1. 1968
2. 1974
3. 1976
4. 1979
5. 1979
6. 1970
7. 1970
8.
1971
9.
1971
10.
1973
COUNTY OF ELGIN
MACHINERY LI ST - FLOATER POLl CY
ITEM
Grader #14 - Champion Model 0600
Grader #17 - Champion 600 B
Grader #18 - Champion D-740
Grader #19 - Champion D-740
Grader #20 - Champion D- 740
Tractor #17 - John. Deere Model 1020RU &
Side Mounted Mower
Tractor #18 - John Deere Model 1020RU
Tractor & Side Mounted
Mower
Tractor #19 - John Deere Model JDL020RU
Tractor & Side Mounted
Mower
Tractor #20 - John Deere Model JDI020RU
Tractor & Side Mounted
Mower
Tractor #22 - John Deere Model JD301
Tractor & Side Mounted
Mower
-"-C"~O - ~~-;';T--- --'::-->'^~_--"
JANUARY 1982
SERIAL #
68-6 00B386 283 2
74-600B-1232-6649
740- 21- 277-9685
740-21-666-11863
.'
740-22-123-12187
115135
115113
131650
131654
183518
,
1980 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
90,000
95,000
98,000
98,000
1 0, 500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
"
NOTE: Those Items Valued Represent Total
Value Receivable. Others are
Blanketed, Replaced Machine for
Machine.
1981 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
1982 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
97,000
60,000 (Valued)
102,000
115,000
- 105,000
115,000
105,000
115,000
105,000
120,000
13,000
14,000
13,000
14,000
13,000
14,000
13,000
14,000
13,000
14,000
.;,
~
COUNTY OF ELGIN
MACHINERY LIST- FLOATER POLICY
JANUARY 1982
PAGE 2.
1980 GUARANTEED 1981 GUARANTEED 1982 GUARANTEED
ITEM # YEAR ITEM SERIAL # AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
11. 1973 Tractor #23 - John Deere Model JD301 183515 10,500 13,000 14,000
Tractor & Side Mounted
Mower
12. 1973 Tractor #26 - International Model 2300A & A470002BOO0898 11,000 13,000 6,000 (Valued)
1850 Loader
13. 1975 Tractor #27 - Massey Ferguson Model 135 & 446547 12,000 14,000 15,000
Mower
14. 1975 Tractor #28 - Ford Model 3550 & Loader 13,500 16,000 17,000
15. 1975 Tractor #29 - John Deere Model 450C 233311 42,000 50,000 16,000 (Valued)
Bulldozer
16. 1976 Tractor #30 - John Deere Model 350C 249188 32,000 40,000 40,000
Bulldozer
17. 1977 Tractor #31 - John Deere Model JD510 265671 50,000 60,000 60,000
Backhoe
18. 1978 Tractor #32 - Ford Model 550 Front End 34,000 40,000 40,000
Loader & Backhoe
19. 1978 Tractor #33 - Ford Model 550 Front End 34,000 . 40,000 40,000
Loader & Backhoe
20. 1976 Loader #4 - JCB Model 418, 2 1/2 Cubic Yards 5601 55,000 65,000 65,000
Front End Loader
/
COUNTY OF ELGIN
MACHINERY LIST - FLOATER POLICY
JANUARY 1982
ITEM #
YEAR
21.
1977
22.
23.
1955
24.
1962
25.
1976
26.
1968
27.
1966
28.
1968
29.
1970
30.
1972
31.
1972
32.
1975
33.
1975
34.
1977
ITEM
SERIAL #
Loader #5 .. Michigan Model 125B
Loader #6 .. John Deere J644B
340392DW
Roller #1 .. Galion Tandem Steel Wheeled
Riller Model TC5-8G (Valued)
Roller #2 - Galion 9-Wheel Rubber Tired
Riller, Model 9..C (Valued)
Roller #3 - Galion 9-Wheel
SPC-LW-12-5806
.'
Etnyre - 2500 Gallion Distrubutor
J 2557
Sander #3 .. King Seagrave Model HEVS,
8 Cubic Yards
"66..123
Sander #4 .. King Seagrave Model HDT88-4201
63-381
Sander #5 .. King Seagr ave Model HDTC88
70536
Sander #8 .. Frink
EX-10-059l-72
Sander #9 - Frink
EX-10..0590-72
Sander #10 .. King Seagrave Model HDTS
75482
Sander #11 - King Seagrave Model HDTS
75483
Sander ~2 - King Seagrave Model HDTQ
,
1980 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
14,000
5,000
35,000
45,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
PAGE 3.
1981 GlJARANTE;ED 1982 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT AMOUNT
~ -
170,000 150,000 (Valued)
105,000 110,000
14,000 5,000 (Val ued )
5,000 3,000 (Valued)
40,000 40,000 (Valued)
50,000 50,000
16,000 12,000
16,000 1 2, 000
16,000 12,000
16,000 1 2, 000
16,000 1 2, 009
16,000 12,000
16,000 12,000
16,000 1 2, 000
COUNTY OF ELGIN
INSURANCE FLEET LIST
JANUARY 1982
ITEM # YEAR TRADE NAME
.
26. 1979 Chevrolet Van 3/4 Ton
27. 1979 Dodge Model D272, 3/4 Ton
Club Cab
28. 1979 Mack Tandem Dump Truck and
Box (White)
29. 1980 Mack Tandem Dump Truck and
Box (Red)
30. 1980 Mack Tandem Dump Truck and
Box (Red)
31. 1974 GMC Tandem Diesel
32. 1981 Ford F250 Supercab Pickup
33. 1981 Ford F350 Pickup
34. 1981 Dodge Pickup" Model D-342
! \,
SERIAL #
1980 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
VEHI CLE #
86 9,000
D27JE9C127618 87 9,000
RD685S7292 88
DM685S-44884 89
DM685S-44891 90
YJH904V590576 91
(Valued)
1FTFX25E8BKA21191 92
2FTHF35G6BCA51734 93
IB7LD34T5BS175939 94
$232,900
,
'> '"
1981 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
11,000
1 0, 300
73,000
73,000
73,000
25, 000
1 0, 3 00
12,000
11,600
.$88 L,1 00
">
PAGE 3.
1982 GUARANTEED
AMOUNT
13,000
12,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
28,000 (Valued)
12,000
13,000
13,000
$911,000
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE:
This is a brief report on the proposed budget for 1982 on priorities
indicated at the February 11 meeting.
SUMMARY
Total expenditures are estimated at somewhat over 3 and 3/4 million
dollars. Besides ordinary maintenance and construction :Ltems, the
proposed budget includes municipal drainage assessments in the amount of
$90,000; and a supplementary by-law request in the amount of $27,500
(of which we would receive 91% subsidy for white edge marking on paved
roads ).
As we will not know for some time how much if any of these two
items might be approved by the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications th~ total County Levy is unknown. The County Levy in
this budget is based on the assumption that both items ,...rill receive
full approval. It may be that the Committee will want to budget for
a lesser County Levy on the assumption that the full amount may not be
approved and if by chance the full amount was approved the extra portion
would have to come out of the County's contingency fund.
The budget of the St. Thoma s Suburban Road CVlluui s s:ion is bal anced
by the end of 1982, ie., the deficit from 1981 would be removed
inasmuch as the 1/2 mill levy would include the deficit plus the share
of the City of St. Thomas for road costs on the Suburban System in
.
1982.
PAYROLL BURDEN
Payroll burden is distributed throughout all construction and
mainte~ance accounts and is based on percentage of actual labour used.
The total holidays will decrease in 1983 (for other than salaried
employees) as all back holidays must be used up in 1982. Under the
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET - SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 2.
new system of payment for safety footwear the costs of safety equipment
will also decrease in 1983. It is very difficult to estimate sick time
and this item will likely increase as our work force on the average is
becoming older. (There are no scheduled r(~tirements this year.)
MAINTENANCE
The largest single item in the maintenance budget is winter
i,
I
control. Winter control is difficult to estimate as at b~st it is a
gUess and estimates can rapidly deteriorate and end up being an utter
disaster. We have found in the past it is necessary to redo our
maintenance budget early in May.
OVERHEAD
We anticipate no out of the ordinary overhead expenditures other
than we are trying to promote several training courses. It is hoped
we can get our First Aid Course off the ground and into the classroom
before the Workmen's Compensation Board lowers the boom on us. We
are also going to have to promote some kind of nrivers~ School prior to
instigation of in the cab examinations by the Ministry fOr Truck
Drivers Licences.
CONSTRUCTION
Our largest problems regarding the construction budget are early
decisions on the Port Burwell Sanitary Sewers installation and the
hope that we can obtain the necessary land to complete the portion of
Road #32" from Highway #73 to Smith's Curve as soon as possible.
Resurfacing priorities will not be completed until Spring. Most
equipment purchases will be considered in the late Sunnne~r or early
Fall other than the purchase of several items and the erection of
a salt storage building at the Dunwich Township yard in Dutton.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
',. ..' ..' j.? .' /' /4.ft..,
- ( / II"
'- ~ t.., -' " . I / (Jr~"--P
R. ~~. ~OO~E, ~U~/y ENGINEER
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
SUMMARY
EXPiENDITURES (COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS)
1. Construction:
(a) Roads and Bridges Construction.
(b) New Machinery and Salt Storage Buildings.
(c) Asphalt Resurfacing and Associated Work.
2. Maintenance:
(a) Roads and Bridges.
(b) Saf,ety (White Edge Marking) - Supplementary
By-,Law Request (91% Subsidy).
3. Overhead.
4. Rebates to Urban Municipalities.
5. Municipal Drain Assessments.
6. Items Not Subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications:
I '
(a) Charge regarding Administration by Clerk's
Offlice.
(b) Miscellaneous Memberships, Liability
Insurance, Suburban Road Items, etc.
$,4,830
2,170
RECEIPTS
1. Ministry of Transportation and CVluu,unications Normal
Subsidy Allocation: (Already Allocated)
(a) On Operation.
(b) On Urban Rebates (50%).
2. Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy
on Drainage (50%). (Supplementary By-Law Request. )
3. Ministry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy
on Safety (White Edge Markings).
4. The City of St. Thomas Share of 1982 St. Thomas
Suburban Road Budget.
EXPENDI TURE S
RECEIPTS
$3 , 772, 500
2,876,500
COUNTY ROAD LEVY
$ 896,,000
DMIT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
AS AMENDED BY
ROAD OOMMITTEE
$1,001,000
273,000
543,000
1,454,000
27,500
327,000
50,000
90,000
7.000
$3, 772.500
$2,752,500
23,500
45,000
25,000
30, 500
$2,876,500
(Presuming all By-Lawsare Approved by the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications.)
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET - SUMMARY
I,
County Portion of:
(a) Drainage Assessments.
(b) Safety (White Edge Marking).
'~..
1981 Levy
$855,000
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 2.
$45,000
2, 500 .
$47,500
1981 County's Share of Operational Expenditures (prior to County
Audit)
:Estimated
1981 Expenditures
$3,468,563
$831,772.17
SUMMARY OF EXPEND\r~
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS
(A) Construction and Land Purchase:
Road #30 and Road #52.
(B) Maintenance.
(C) Overhead.
(D) Drainage Assessments.
SHARE OF CITY OF ST. THOMAS
1. Regular Expenditure 50% of Cost after deducting
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Subsidy (76.4%) i
2. Drainage Assessments 50% of Cost after deducting
Mini stry of Transportation and Cvuuuunications
Subsidy (50%).
"
3. Items Not Subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation
and CCJllul1unications (50%).
TOTAL SHARE OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS
(ADD: Deficit From 1981.)
LESS: 1982 1/2 Mill Levy
TOTAL
CREDIT TO 1983
$ 10,000
212,000
24,000
5,000
$251,000
$ 29,028.00
1,250.00
200.00
$ 30,478.00
$9,773.57
$ 40,251..57
40,350.00
$98.43
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
PAYROLL BURDEN
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
These costs are distributed through other Construction and ~laintenance AccQunt$.
ITEM
1979
1980
1981
1982
Medical 3,071 2,487 2,476 2,500
Holidays With Pay 109,381 136,438 145,434 170,000
Sick Benefits 41 , 282 49,175 40,401 54,000
Inclement Weather and Standby 5,048 6 , 289 5,648 6,000
Workmen's Compensation Insurance 12,618 14,616 14, 141 18,500
Pension, Canada and O.M.E.R.S. 69,561 71,547 80,458 88,000
U.I.C. 16,132 16, 789 22,942 23 , 000
O.H.I.P. and Extended Health
Care 28,377 30,375 30,624 33,000
Long Term Disability 4,666 6 , 237 9,366 13,000
Safety Equipment 4,503 5,313 7,391 8,000
Life Insurance 257 542 1,000
TOTALS $294,639 $339,523 ,$359.423 $417,000
PAYROLL BURDEN DISTRIBUTION
1978
1979
1980
1981
Total Labour
9 23 , 384
1,041,504
1,080, 764
1,147,503
Less Labour in Payroll Burden
148,742
157,556
193,327
192,871
Less Severance Pay R. O'Meara
2,136
NET LABOUR
774,642
883,948
PAYROLL BURDEN
277,961
294,639
885,301
339,523
954,632
359,423
PAYROLL BURDEN % OF NET LABOUR 35.8825%
33.3321%
38.3511%
37.6505%
1982
Total Labour ES'timated at
$1,270,000
Less Labour Charged to Payroll Burden
232,000
NET LABOUR
.$1,038,000
Payroll Burden as a % of Net Labour
417.,000
1,038,000
=
40.2'%
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 MAINTENANCE BUDGE~
(Maintenance Comparisons for 1979, 1980 and 1981 include County and Suburban Roads Expenditures.
Burden.) -
OPERATION
A - Bridges and CUlverts
- 1 Bridge s
- 2 Culverts
B - Roadside Maintenance
- 1 Grass Cutting
- 2 Tree Cutting
- 4 Drainage
- 5 Roadside Maintenance
- 6 Tree Planting
- 7 Drainage Assessments
(Maintenance)
- 11 Weed Spraying
e- Paved Road Maintenance
- 1 Repairs to Pavement
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
All totals include Payroll
1979
1980
1981
1982 ESTIMATED
COUNTY
63,849
32,016
20,652
76,000
75 , 000
3,350
3,189
11,897
12,468 18,643 21,773 25, 000 21 , 500
55,578 95,953 98,142 70,000 65,000
56,623 68,564 87 , 906 90,000 83,500
10,754 7,279 16,660 18,000 14,000
2,399 7,000 5,642 6,600 5,500
2,462 894 4,842 2,000 2,000
5,418 13,827 11,417 16,000 13,000
169,672
91,512
82,569
75,000
65,000
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
1,000
3,500
5,000
6 , 500
4,000
500
3,000
10,000
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 MAINTENANCE" BUDGET
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 2.
OPERATION
1979
1980
1981
1982 ESTIMATED
COUNTY
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
G - Paved Road Maintenance (Continued)
- 2 Sweeping 11,695 15,452 23,664 25 , 000 22,000 3,000
- 3 Shoulder Maintenance 15,873 46,526 81,191 65,000 60,500 4,500
- 4 Surface Treatment 82,944 97,512 73,083 125,000 102,000 23, 000
Road #8 - Ditching, etc. 78,980
Road #3 - Ditching, etc. 5,110
D - Gravel Road Maintenance
- 2 Grading Gravel Roads 17,118 26 , 01 2 23 , 140 30,000 25, 000 5,000
- 3 Calcium Chloride 43,358 49,560 50,905 58,000 48,000 10,000
- 4 Prime 2, 8 29 6,595 1,342 8,000 2,000 6,000
- 5 Gravel Resurfacing 91,827 58,769 142,938 98,000 89,000 9,000
E - Winter Control
Total 359,431 260,443 366,369 496,000 411,000 85,000
- 1 Snow Plowing 74,053 20,953 68,613
- 2 Sanding and Salting 227,951 190,204 247,958
- 3 Snow Fence 30,183 24,855 26,203
- 4 Standby and Night Crew 27,244 24,431 23,595
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 MAINTENANCE BUDGET
OPERATION
F - Safety Device s
- 1 Pavement Marking
- 2 Signs
- 3 Guide Rail
- 4 Railroad Protection
- 5 Stump Removal
- 6 Edge Marking
TOTALS
1979
1980
26,672 28 , 1 06
62,321 47,671
5,648 2, 257
3 0, 082 28,568
$1,132,371
$1,006,348
Maintenance
$1,454,000
$327,000
Overhead
Total Overhead and Maintenance
40, 000 31,000 9,000
70,000 62,000 8,000
8,000 5,000 3,000
44,000 37,000 7,000
1981
1982 ESTIMATED
COUNTY
3,000
$1,242,000
Supplementary Ministry.of Transportation and Communications Request for
Safe~y (White Edge Markings). $27,500
33,402
67,119
5,795
45 , 097
11,612
16,332
9,000
$1,387,579
$1,454,000
$1,781,000
,.f
, DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 3.
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN
ROADS
6,000
$212,00~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 ESTIMATED BUDGET
DRAFr #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
OVERHEAD
All Totals include Payroll Burden.
Superintendence i.ncludes a vehicle charge.
OPERATION
1979
1980
1981
1982
Superintendence 85,477 90,599 115,933 124,000
Gar age s 64,375 73,682 91,621 97,000
Tools
19,915 29,366 24,126 6,000
Miscellaneous Repairs
Radio 2,979 3,393 3,587 4,000
Needs Study Updat'e
8,784 7,148 1 0, 143 8,000
Traffic Counts
Training Courses 3,710 1,373 1,553 4,000
Clerical 41,.517 44,990 52,833 66,000
Permits 94 80 CR. 12
Miscellaneous Insurance 2,198 2,175 2,371 2,000
Office 18,087 15,178 13,892 16,000
Machinery Overhead 3,719 1,993
White Station Rehabilitation 5,979 459 100
Severance Pay 2,311
TOTALS $256,834 $272,587 $316,171 $327,000
Apportionment of Overhead:
St. Thomas Suburban Roads (approximately 7.3%)
$ 24,000
County Roads
303,000
'"
$327,000
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
CONSTRUCTION
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 9.
Total Ministry of Transportation and Communications Objective.
A. ,ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
1. Land Purchase Road #30.
2. Construction Roads #30 and #52.
(This is cleanup from previous work, no new work is
anticipated.)
SUBURBAN CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
B. COUNTY OF ELGIN
1. Completion of Walkers Bridge (including land purchase,
engineerJng, contract, and approaches) County of Elgin
Share. (Middlesex Share will be billed to them as
work progresses.)
2. Road :1/38" completion of work, trimming, seeding,
drainage, etc.) from Highway #3 to Highway #19
(Straffordville ).
3. Miscellaneous surveys and grading not charged to
maintenance or construction projects (includes
surveys on construction projects for future
years ).
4. Road :1/22 (Fairview Avenue) payment for hydro line:
moved in 1981 and fencing, top soil, seeding, etc.~
on ditching, etc., done in 1980 and 1981 to
facilitate hydro line movement; also includes
engineering work for future construction.
5. Land Purchase:
(a) Road #38.
(b) Road #45 (Walcarius).
(c) Road #37.
(Improvements will be charged to
maintenance and paid 50% by
Middlesex.)
(d) Road IIJ 2.
(e) Road #3.
(f) Road #22.
.
(g) Road #B, Dutton to Wallacetown.
(h) Road #8, South of Road #16.
(i), Road #40, Glencolin.
(j ) Miscellaneous.
$ 8,200
1,300
1,000
11,000
54,000
15,000
5,500
12,000
1,500
5,500
TOTAL LAND PURCHASE
6. Complete Road #32 from Smith's Corner to Police
College Gate (no top coat of asphalt).
COUNTY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
FUNDS REMAINING (Total Less Suburban & County)
$1,001,000
$10,000
$lO,~OOO
$180,000
10,000
20,000
55,000
115,000
1 26, 000
$506,000
$485,000
"
cOUN1:'l OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET - CONSTRUCTION
- -
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
"PAGE 10.
-- -
PRIORITY , A'
-- -
1'ort 1\urwell _ Roads #42 and #50, after installatton of
sanitary sewers. Does not include
trimming, seeding or top asphalt coat.
_ Even if l'rovincial work is not carried
out until late in the season some funds
will be required for engineering work,
etc.
PRIORTfY , B'
... - -
Road #32 _ Fr0tll Highway #73 to Smith' s curve.
rneludes Base coast of Asphalt only.
_ ~ork cannot proceed until property
acquisition is completed. (Estimate
includes fencing Bardawil1 property.)
PRIORITY , C'
--
Road #32 _ From 1'01ice college Gate to Road #52
(no asphalt).
_ This road can be done in approximatelY
5 stages starting from l'olice college
Gate.
.ro
$285,000
$223,000
$365,000
"
DRAFr #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 11.
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPAKfMENT
1982 BUDGET
RESURFACING
Ministry of Transportation and CVllullunications Resurfacing Objective. $543,000
<1\
1.. Road #38 .. Completion of work east of Straffordvil1e..
$7,000
2. Road #8 '. Completion of work between Highway #3 and
Dutton including urban work in Wa11acetowtl;
ditching, seeding, repaving, culverts, etc.
3. ROCid #3 .. Highway #3 to Rodney. At a minimum, enginE~ering
funds.
4. Remainder uncommitted until Spring (full report May),.
<Ill
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
1982 BUDGET
DRAFT #1
FEBRUARY 18, 1982
PAGE 12.
NEW MACHINERY AND BUILDINGS
Ministry of Transportation and Communications Objective
(This has been. reduced 5% by the Ministry of Transportation
and CVllulLI.lnications from needs approved last yearby them.)
$273,000
BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
1. Painting, etc., White Station and Bayham Salt Buildings.
2. Salt bUilding, paving, etc., at OUnwich Township proplerty.
(Ar,ea must be large enough 'for a sal t building and sand
pile to serve West Elgin. Rodney yard sand pile phased
out for County use [might still be used by the Township of
Aldborough].)
EQU~PMENT REQUIREMENTS
,1. Innnediate:
(a) Replacement for JD 450C Dozer.
(b) Tractor and Post Hole Auger.
2. Being Considered:
(a) Replacement of Ford Backhoes.
(b) Photocopier (we are rapidly wearing out the old one).
3. Other equipment and needs to be evaluated and reported to Road
Connnittee by mid-sunnner, taking into account money available
and the projects Council wishes to do in the next few years.
crt)
_f,
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTTEE
FIRST REPORT
FEBRUARY SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
The following is a Summary of Expenditures on Elgin County and
St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission Roads in 1981.
In accordance with Ministry of Transportation and Communications'
practice, P$lyroll Burden, such as Holidays with Pay, Sick Time, etc., has
been distributed to various projects and does not appear as a separate
item.
CONSTRUCTION COUNTY ROADS
PART #1 _ A$phalt Resurfacing, Associated Ditching, Shouldering, etc.
(a) Road #38 in Bayham Township from' Canadian Pacific Railway Tracks
in Straffordville to Norfolk County Line, approximately 2.7
miles.
(b) Road #45 in Southwold Township from Road #16 at Middlemarch
southerly for approximately 1 mile.
TOTAL PART #1
PART #2 - Construction Roads and Bridges
(a) Road #5 Walkers Bridge (Elgin's Share after charges to
Middlesex County).
(i) Land Purchase for right-of-way and approach fills.
(ii) Engineering Fees paid to bridge and soils c.onsultants.
(iii) Payments to Contractor(McLean Foster Limit€:d of
St. Mary's).
(iv) Materials supplied to Contractor, clearing, approach
grading and graveling, etc. by County of Elgin.
\,
TOTAL EXPENDITURES WALKERS BRIDGE
".1
(b) Road #32 in Malahide Township from Highway #73 to
County Road #52.
(c) Road #38 in Bayham Township between Richmond and Canadian
Pacific Railway Tracks in Straffordville.
(d) Roads #42 and #50 in Port Burwell (Engineering).
(e) Miscellaneous grading and engineering.
TOTAL PART #2
$402,529.62
87,644.40
$490,174.02
'-:
$ 7,951.87
34,640.89
313,810.19 /
37,999.11
$3;G4,402.06
$298,507.45
154,544. 78
1 , 085 .37
8,922.37
..$857 , 46 2. 03
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
PAGE 2.
PART #3 - Miscellaneous
(a) Rebate of Provincial Sales Tax Paid in 1980.
$
563.25 CR.
(b) Land Purchases including Roads #2, #3, #8, #32, #38
and ~5.
87,233.91
(c) New and used machinery.
179,741.40
(d) Completion of Salt BUilding, Whites Stationj started
in 1980.
8,553.41
(e) Salt Storage Building at Township of Bayham Garage on
lIighway#19.
41,851.87
(f) Machinery ownership costs, etc., charged to accounts
receivable and townline accounts.
31,146.43 CR.
TOTAL PART h8 $285,670.91
,
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COUNTY
$1, 633 ~306. 96
CONSTRUCTION ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ROADS
(a) Road #22 (Fairview Avenue) in Yarmouth Township, engineering
grading, ditching, drainage, fencing, etc.
$21,553.07
(b) Miscellaneous work Road #30 (Radio Road) and Road #52
between Road #30 and Road #25 (Wellington Road).
292.86
(c) Land Purchase Road #22 and Road #30j etc.
8,408.35
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BY ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION
$30,254.28
TOTAL CqNSTRUCTION COUNTY OF ELGIN AND
\ ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
$1,663,561.24
I
i',.
~
MA1.N'fENANCE -, COUNT)' ROI\1lS
PAGE 3.
LetterS and numbers correspond to Ministry of TranSpoJ:tatiOn and
cotomunications' Account Numbers.
COUNTY
~
A ~ culvertS and Bridge S
_ 1 BrtdgeS (including MiddlemisS,
fUlton, Belmont and
Gil1e.tS, etc.)
20,186.S4
7,953.31
... 2 cul ve-rt 5
1\ _ Roadside Maintenance
... 1 G-raSs cutting
.. 2 T-ree cutting
.. 4 nrainage
_ 5 Roadside Maintenance, ~ashoutS,
Shouldering, etc.
... 6 Ttee planting
_ 1 prainage AssessmentS (repairs only)
.. 11 'Weed Sp-raying
C ~ Hard TOP Maintenance (l'aved Roads)
_ 1 Repairs to l'avement
... 2 s~eeping
~ 3 Shoulder Maintenance (including
gravelling, ditching, etc.)
~ 4 surface Treatment
ST. TllOMAS
SUBURBAN ROAD
coMMlSS10N
~
5 ,103 .08
4,609.23
10,021.99
31,010.80
21,365.26
59,613.58
'rO'r AL
~
466.02
20,6S2.56
3,943.33
11,896.70
18,83S.99
90,152.33
14,790.52
11,600.50
2,931.04 21,173.03
1,990.22 98,142.S5
13,115.13 81,905.65
5 ,059 . 23 16,659.13
538.1S 5,641.83
232.31 4,841.60
1 ,395 . 23 11,411.22
51,5S1.81
2,298.82
21,511.06
82,568.61
23,664.b8
81,190.64
64,126.11
8,351.10
13,083.21
5,109.92
_ 2 Grading Gravel Roads
_ 3 Dust control (Calcium Chloride)
18,980.12
Road ~ _ ~allacetO~ to D\1ttOn, 18,980.12
~ To~shiP' surveYs,
ditching, drainage, shouldering,
fencing, etc.
D _ Loose ToP Maintenance (Gravel RoadS)
19,081.49
42,035.20
1,342.25
91,464.24
4,058.54 23,140.03
8,869.42 50,904.62
1,342.25
51,414.02 142,938.26
~ Road #3 _ Ne~ clasgo~ to Rodney 5,109.92
~Ugh Township, surveys,
etc., for ditching and drainage.
_ 4 Dust control (l'rime)
_ 5 Gravel Resurfacing
55,660.42 12,952.40 68,612.82
210,571.64 37,386.13 247,957.77
22,380.75 3,821.95 26,202.70
19,820.28 3, 775. 25 23,595.53
MAINTENANCE - COUNTY ROADS
COUNTY
ROADS
E - Winter Control (Total)
- 1 Snow Plowing
- 2 Salting and Sanding
- 3 Snow Fence
- 4 Winter Standby
(Pro Rated to St. Thomas Suburban
Road Commission on a mileage
basis [16%J)
PAGE 4.
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION
ROADS
TOTAL
1981 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Conmission $366,368.82
1980 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission $260,442.69
1979 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburpan Roads Corrmission $359,'430.62
1978 Winter Control County & St. Thomas Suburban Roads Conmission $315,003.94
F - Safety Devices
- 1 Pavement Marking
25,163.54
- 2 Signs
61,752.20
- 3 Guide Rails
4,840.81
- 4 Railroad Protection
37,930.55
- 5 Stump Removal
11,611.79
8,238.56 33,402,10
5,367.21 67,119.41
954.27 5, 795. 08
7,166.58 45,097.13
11,611.79,
9,882.15 16,332.11
373,414.59 1,387,579.05
\
- 6 Pavement Edge Marking 6,449.96
TOTAL 1,114 164.46
(NOTE: F-5 and F-6 were funded under a c>uptl.emeIlcary
Safety Non('y J)y-Law in "lmount of $25,000
Subsidy from the Ministry of Transportation
and Con~unications [90.909% Subsidy Rate]. )
OVERHEAD - COUNTY
1. Superintondence, including County Engineer,
Superintendents, and vehicles
2. Clericq1
3. Office
4. Garages (Wldte Station nndRodney), Stock &
Timekeepers, Maintenance, Heat, etc.
5. Tools and Miscellaneous Repairs
6. Radio
7. Traffic Counts and Needs Study Update.
8. Training Courses
9. Permits
103, 760,. 08 12,172.97 115,933.05
47,285,.92 5,547..51 5 2, 833 . 43
12, 43 2 '. 89 1,458.61 13,89L.50
8 2, 1. 08 . 23 9,512.99 91,621.22
21,592.44 2,533.19 24,125.63
3,210.12 376.61 3,586.73
9,016.64 1 , 126 .62 10,143.26 ,
1,389.75 163.04 1,552.79
12.00 12.00
1'AGE 5.
10. Miscellaneous Insu~ance.
2~122.47
100.00
249.01
2~311.48
100.00
~
RehabilitatiOn of ~hite StatiOn G~avel l'it
(Ministry of Natu~al Resources l'erroit)
TOTAL OVERllEAD
---- --- ----
~~~
11.
overhead is charged against the St. ThomaS suburban Road commission
Roads on a percentage basis of the cost of constructiOn and
, .. th 5t ThomaS suburban Road cowmission Roads as a
'\.U.a~ntenance on e ·
f 11 const~uctiOn and maintenance on both St. ThomaS
pe-rcentage 0 a
Suburban Roads and countY Roads (urban rebateS, equipment
pu~chaseS drainage asses~entS, itemS not for subsidY, etc., a~e
, ) 1n 1981 the
'd red ~n determining the overhead percentage · .
not conS1. e> > 50
overhead Charge to the St. Thomas Suburban Road cowmisslon was 10. 1..
~
$48,448.S8
Rebate to Town of t..ylmer and villagesof 25% of thei~
Road LeVY
l'ay~oll 1\u~den totaled 359,423.33 in 1981 ~aS dist~tbuted
in accordanCe with Ministry of TranSportatiOn and
cowmunicatiOnS standard practiCe to the various ope~atiOnS'
"
lTmlS N<)'l: SU1\SlDIZEIl Wi: THE
MINlSTRY Of TRAJ'lSpORTt..T10N AND c~lCt..T1.0NS
~
5T. 'TllOl.-1.A5
SUBURBAN ROAD
COUNTY CoMM15510N
~ -~ ~
1,197.30 111.90 1 ,309 .20
162.44 762.44
214.00 214.00
-------- ---- --------
~ ~ ~
Road LiabilitY InSurance
Misce1lane?Us (including membershipS, etc.)
St. ThomaS subu~ban Road commission, feeS
and E><penses and MembershiPS
TOTAL
PAGE 6.
SUMMARY
COUNTY
ROADS
ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISSION
ROADS
TOTAL
(a) Construction
(e) Items Not For Subsidy
1,633,306.96 30,254.28 1,663,561.24
1,114,164.46 27~~4~4.59 1,387,579.05
283,030.54 33,140.55 316,171.09
48, LI.L,.8. 5H Nfl.. !.~H , 1,I+H ~ .5tJ
1,959.74 325.90 2,285.64
40,000.00 NIL 40,000.00
(b) Maintenance
(c) Overhead
(d) Urban H.ebatf~~:~
(f) Drainage Assessments Construction
(50% Ministry of Transportation
and Communications') Subi sidy)
,
SUBTOTAL
3,120,910. 28
337,135.32 3,458,045.60
ADD 1981 Stock Balance
71,930.71
NIL
71,930.71
DEDUCT 1980 Stock Balance
61,412.64
NIL
61,412.6t
TOTAL
3,131,428.35 337,135.32 3,468.,563.67
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY CITY OF ST. THOMAS
TOWARD THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
1. Ministry of Transportation and CU1~1~nications
Subsidy Rate on Item -
F-6 (Pavement Edge Marking) is 90.909%
- Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Subsidy on 9,882.15 @ 90.909%
$ 8,983.76
<'l
2. Ministry of Transportation and Cvuuuunications
Subsidy on all other items (except items Not
For Subsidy)is calculated at 75.42%
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Subsidy on 326,927.. 27 @ 75.42%
246,568.55
TOTAL MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
SUBSIDY $255,552.31
~~
Total St. Thomas Suburban Road Connnission Expenditures
LESS MiI1istry of Transportation and Communications Subsidy
BALANCE
337,135.32
$ 81 \I 583 . 01
50% of Balance Payable by City of St. Thomas $40,791.50
c
PAGE 7.
ADD Deficit From 1980 ~; 8 t 432. 07
SUBTOTAL 49,223.57
DEDUCT Contribution of City of St. Thomas for 1981 39,450.00
o
DEFICIT TO 1982
$ 9,773.57
i!J
CALCULATION OF NET COUNTY EXPENDITURE
(EFFECTIVE ROAD LEVY)
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SUBSIDY
(a) General Subsidy Allocation
$2,551,000
~i
(b) Supplementary Drainage Subsidy
20,000
(c) Special Safety Item Allocation
25,000
TOTAL $2,596,000
TOTAL County Road and St. Thomas Suburban Road
Commission Expenditure. $3,468,563.67
DEDUCT - Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Subsidy 2,596,000.00
- Portion of St. Th.omas Suburban Road CVllul1ission
Expenditure Payable by City of St. Thomas 40,791.50
(ESTIMATED) NET COST TO COUNTY OF ELGIN
$ 831,772.17
The 1981 Road Levy by County Council was $855,000
It is noted that the County Levy was based on the following:
(a) No deficit on St. Thomas Suburban Road Cvuuuission System ($9,773).
(b) An additional $10,000 to match a like amount in Ministry of
Transportation and Communications Subsidy of Drainage
Assessments which was not approved.
(c) A saving of approximately $3,000 in Items Not Subsidized by the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
In addition work was performed for and materials sold to various
Municipalities and others, work was also performed. on Boundary
Roads and billed to the Counties of Oxford and Middlesex. The
cost of Walkers Bridge Construction (and Engineering, etc.,)
chargeable to the County of Middlesex was charged to them
(Total $380,270.53). Priming, surface treatment was done for
various local Municipalities, the County of Kent and the
Oneida Indian Reserve and billed to them.
Hot mix asphalt paving for the Township of Southwold, Township of
Yarmouth, Villages of Port Stanley and Dutton was included in
County, Contracts and billed to the Municipalities.
\
.
'"
PAGE 8.
THE TOTAL OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR 1981 TOTALED $1,142,108.77
THUS TOTAL PAYMENT VOUCHERS FOR 1981 TOTALED $4,610,,672.44
l"l
(This compared to $4,063,223.87 in 1980 and $3,684,009.90 in 1979.)
As in prev'ious years the Road Department was requestE~d to have some
trained personnel available for a possible Mosquito Control
Programme to prevent the spre;ld of etlc('phallt:l[i. Tho net cost of
the Programme (charged against the general government account was
$441.77).
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHARI~1AN
\
'I' " J,
&1 '
Ii"~
1'1"
tl
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
THIRD REPORT
FEBRUARY SESSION
1982
TO THE WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
YOUR ROAD COMMITTEE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
WE RECOMMEND:
1. That a By-Law be passed stating that the County of Elgin has no
objections to the passing of a By-Law by the Township of Malahide
to close part of the original road allowance between Lots 10 and
11, Concession IV, Township of Malahide which may be described as
follows:
All that part of the original allowance for road betwE~en Lots 10
and 11 lying Northerly of the limit between the north-.half and
the south-half of said Lots 10 ~nd 11, lying easterly of
Highway #73 \videned as shown on Polan D193, save and e)i:cepting
'therefrom that certain parcel or tract of land and prE~mises
lying and being in the said~Township of Malahide and Province of
Ontario and being composed of Part 1 on a reference plan deposited
in the Registry Office for the Registry Division of Elgin (No. 11)
as number llR 571.
2. That a By-Law be passed prohibiting parking on County Roa~#2 in the V.;i,llc3;ge of
West Lorne between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a"m. the
,
following day from December 1 to March 31 of the following year.
This By-Law is passed at the request of the village of West Lorne
to allow them to do winter Maintenance Work at night on various
streets. The Village of West Lorne has agreed to enforce the
By-Law and to pay for the erection of the necessary signs.
3. That the County Representative on the St. Thomas Suburban Road
Commission, Mr. Albert Auckland, be authorized to attend the
annual meeting of the Suburban Road Commissions' Association to
be held in Lambton County in June.
ALL OF WHICH IS :RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
CHARlMAN
ST. THoMAS, 0N'tAR1.0
"FEBRUARY 11, 1982
y AGE 1.
on Thursday, february 11, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. All memberS were present.
MSO present we1Je the ~ineer, i'.ssistant Engineer and Mr. yrank clarke of
the Ministry of TransportatiOn and comrounicatiOns.
T1tE cOIlN't'l Of ELG1.N ROAD cOMM1.TTEE met at the Municipal ]\Uilding
"MOVED B'l ~ ~. R. CA VERL'l
SECONDED 1\'H J. N. SM'l'fH
T\1A't 'tHE M1.NUTES Of J AN1lAR'l 26, 1982 1\E Al'l'ROVED.
CARRIED ."
THE "ENG1.NEER REFORTED ON 'tHE ~Oro<. TO Dt..TE AS fOLLOWS:
1.
~inter control co's1t? had been very heavy, sanding as well as snow plo",ing
1 th AlthOUgh nO -roads had been
had been very constant for the aSt mon · ~
closed for anY length of time certain gravel roads and countY Road #3
bet",een New Glasgo," and Rodney were the worst for snow drifting. 1.t
appeared that there waS more drifting on roads Which had narrow road
allo",ances tha\t thOse ~ch had been widened and raised. fortunatelY
the number of comPlaintS had been fairlY light. The Village of DUttOn,
the TownshiP of 'larmouth, the City of St. 'thotllas and the TownshiP of
DUnwich had been aided at timeS in the past several weekS with sno'"
removal. Bridge floors weJ;e being cleaned of sno""
It ~aS noted that
2.
if a sUdden thaW c~ there ",ould be serio\1S flooding in all ",ater
. sheds because of the depth of the snow pack.
Machinery repair had been relattvelY light in spite of the heavY work,
",ith one sander motor havtng seized up.
Donald zellas had been convicted on theft of a cattle beast last Fall
..._ 'It" ",as sentenced to 1 day in j atl and
belonging to l'eter HepOUL'" ..-
ftned $150.00. A complete report had been forwarded to the county'S
3.
~e-rsonnel committee.
ST. T11OMAS, oN't1lR1.0
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
1> AGE 2.
5.
Drag lintng of gravel had been stOPl'ed at the 1'1easant ValleY l'tt
inasmuch !;S all county Trucks were buSY sno~ 1'10wing.
Some county l'ersonnel and Trucks were engaged in cleaning up
. t 1y I. 000 litreS of buncker fuel that had spilled from a
appr o~l;ro.a el. f-\",
Sterling "FUel Tanker on Beach Street in Mlroer on februarY 10. The
costS ~ould be tnVOiced to Sterling "FUelS.
NearlY all ~eplacement signs for ~est Elgin had been made, but present
deep snow conditiQns predlt,u.ded erection.
Tree cutting Wa? being carried out occasionallY: as most personnel were
1.
4.
6.
9.
engaged in ~inter control.
l'arts for t~e flasher lightS at fingal had ar~ived and Ontario 11ydro had
been asked to erect them as soon as poss\ble.
t..ppro><iroatelY 550 treeS had been ordered from the Ministry of NatUral
ReSources jjor planting on the countY Roads tn the spring and in
e><cess of 500 had been ordered for 1a~outh and south~old Townships, and
for the ViLlage of 1'0rt Stanley.
8.
"MOVED BY:
'},u J. SRA~
~~N~D~: J.B.~LS~
T1IAT T11'E fQLLOW1.NG l't..'fL1.STS 1\E APl'ROVED fOR l'A~'
l' A'fL1. ST tMlB'ER 1 p,MQilNT1.NG TO $51,251. 12.
l'A'fL1.ST tMl1\ER 3 p,MoiJN'f1.NG TO $210.35
l' A'fL1.ST tMl1\ER 4 p,MoiJN1:1.NG TO $51,511. 43
l'A'fL1.ST tMl1\ER 5 p,MOilNT1.NG TO $1,482,52
U'fL1. ST NUMBER 6 p,MOilNT1.NG TO $54,1;81.10
l' A'fL1. ST tMl1\ER 1 p,MoiJN'f1.NG TO $ 212,881.96 ·
CARR1.ED ."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 3.
CORRESPONDENCE !WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. From Debbie apd Rich~rd Robilliard, County Road #45, thanking the County
for their good jpb of Winter Control.
2. From the St. Thomap Suburban Cvulluission with a copy of a letter to County
Council notin~ that County Road #22 had been reverted to the County of
Elgin from the St. Thomas Suburban Road Connnission, subject to the approval
of the Minister of Transportation and Cvulluunications. This has been done
inasmuch as the Cvulluission felt that they would not be able to fund any
work on the road within their Budget for 1982. It was also pointed out
\
that if major repairs to pavements were necessary on the remaining system
it would be necessary to revert those portions of roads to the County
al so. It was n?ted that the Cvulluission had carried the deficit from 1980
through 1981 and added about $1,000 to it as this deficit should be
removed as sopn as possible, the Cvulluission's 1982 Budget should be
reduced by the deficit amount. It was noted that possibly some
mileage under $ubur'ban jurisdiction should have been reverted to the
County last. yearsp,that the deficit would not have belen so high.
3. From the Townshi~ ?f Malahide, stating that they wished to pass a by-law
to close a portiQn 9f the road between Lots 10 and 11, Concession IV,
Township of M:alahide, east of Highway #73. It was notled that a new
description of the road allowance was required before the Ministry of
Transportation and Connnunications would approve this road closing.
This descri.ption would amend the descriptions used in By-Law #81-43
as amended by By-Law #81-49.
"MOVED BY: W. ~. CA VERL Y
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STATING
THAT THE CC)UNTY OF ELGIN HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PASSING OF A BY-LAW
BY THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE TO CLOSE THE FOLLOWING ROAD ALLOWANCE:
CONTINUED . . . . . .
ST. T1l0Ml\St 0~TAR1.0
fEBRUARY 1 , 1982
'PAGE 4.
\,"M,O\1ED "BY:'
w. R. CA\1ERLY
SECONDED 1\Y: J. ji1. sM'iTtI
CONT1.NUED It · ·
X Of ~D ~D l'~1.SES,
ALl. ~D S1.1i\G1JJ..AR Tl-lAT CERTt..1.N l'ARCEL OR TRAC
_ ... 01'\1. DE IN TtlE CO\lNT'l
S1.TUA'tE, "LY1.NG AND B'E1.NG 1.N 't1:l'E 'tQlllNStl1.1' Of ~-
Of m,G1.N AND l'~OV1.NCE Of 0N'tAR1.0 BE1.NG CoMPOSED Of l'ART Of TtlE
O A n 1\~'EN LO't S 1 0 ~D 11, CONCESS1. ON 1.V,
OR1.G1.NAL Alo~~CE fOR R "'-'
MORE l'ART1.e1J1.AR"LY DESCR1.1\ED AS fO"LLOVlS:
ALl. 'tl-lt..T l'ART t;W 'ttlE OR1.G1.NAL AL"LOVl~CE fOR ROAD 1\E'tWEEN LO'tS 10 ~D
tiE NOR't1:l-l-lA"Lf AND TtlE soU1:tI-
11 "LY1.NG NORTl1.$~Y Of TtlE L1.MIT BE1:\'IEEN 't
rrs 10 '>.'D 11 "LY1.NG EASTERLY Of tl1.G1:l'ilAY ff13 mDENED AS
tlALf OfStJ.D Ll;!k "" '
10.""1 D103 St..'lE ~D E1tCE1"t1.NG TtlEREfROM T1:1AT CERTA1.N 1'ARCEL
S1l0WN 01'\ 'P'L~'1 r " 7 ,
.co 'T /0,,""1 D.. , Io.""1D l'REJ'I.1.SES "LY1.NG ~D 1\E1.NG 1.N TtlE St..1.D 'tQlllNStlll' Of
OR TRACT Ox: u~'1 . ~'1
MAIJ>l-l1.DE ~D l'ROV1.NCE Of ON'tAR1.0 AND 1\E1.NG coMPOSED Of l' ART 1 oN A
REfERENCE l'LAN Dm'OS1.'tED 1.N TtlE REG1.STRY off1.CEfOR TIlE REG1.STRY
D1.'l1.S1.0N Of E"LG1.N (NO. 11) AS mJM.1\ER llR 511.
c1\BRIED."
4.
d'.' f....o~ the vtllage of ~est "LOrne ,.as noted in ,.hich the
co-r-respon ence 1-. 'U'
kin B _LaW on countY Road #2, which
'lillage agreed to enforce the l'ar g"
't night snow removal operatiOnS and that
theY had ~equested, to perm1.
". u"red to ~orce
theY '#ould, erect and matntain anY necessary S1.gnS req 1.
the 1\y_La'" as ,.ell.
"'MO\1ED BY:
1\ ~1.LSoN ~G
SECONDED BY: J . . ~ 1\E l' ASSED 1'ROIl1.1\1.T
TO coUN'tY Co\lNC1."L 't1:1AT A 1\y_"LN
TIlt..'t ~E RtlCO~ND S't LoRNE 1\E1:\'IEEN TIlE
. #2 1.N TIlE V1.1J.,AGE Of ~
l'ARlZ1.NG ON couNTl ROAD G Dt..Y fRoM DECEMBER 1 1.N
D i .00 t...M. TtlE f01J..O'll1.N
IlO\lRS Of 11 :00 l' .M. ~ · . TtlE V1."LLt..GE Of ~EST LoRNE
'tIlE fOLwmNG "fEAR'
. ANY YEAR 'to MARC1:1 31 Of LON Of 'tl-lE NECESSARY S1.GNS,
D TO l'AY fOR TIlE ERECt
rrO ~'fORCB TIlE BY-LA.~ ~
A "'" cA1lR1.ED."
14.. 1\. STtwART
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 5.
5. From Howard Greenly, District Municipal Engineer, Ministry of
Transportation and CVllluu.1nications stating that the Ministry of
Transportation and Corrnnunications was not prepared to recvllu.llend the
reversion of County Road #39 (Chatham Street) to the Village of
Port Burweill unless existing rights of free accesS to the public
beach were guaranteed. The Engineer noted that. he had communicated
this to the l-:linistry of Natural Resources (David Ward), he asked
Mr. Ward t,o send a letter to Council stating that these rights would
be guarant1eed so that the Ministry of Transportation and Cvulluunications
could recvlluuend reversion of the road to the Village.
Reeve Smyth noted that in all likelihood an Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing would be required to approve increased costs of the sewerage
treatment system anq., that it appeared that it would b,~ late Fall at
the earliest before any constnuction would be done.
6. From the Town of Aylmer with zoning by-laws: (a) To permit the
Roman Catholic Church to erect a rectory at Pine and .John Streets.
(b) To allow a garage to be erected on property facing St. Andrews
Street.
7. From the l'ownphip pf Southwold with notice for request of minor
variance from Doelman Farms Limited on County Road #52 to allow
them to build a house for farm help which was 80 square feet, less
than the requirements of the Township of Southwold Zoning By-Law.
8. From the Ministry of Transportation and CVllu.mlnications noting that
the Highway Traffic Act has been r'evised so that half-load
regulations were no longer automatically in effect and that ~ach
Municipality would have to pass a by-law stating which roads would
be subject: to half-toad and the length of time that these would be
restricted to reduce loads and noting that signs would have to be
erected 011 these roads notifying truckers. Inasmuch as thi s would
have to be done prior to March 1, ma~y municipalities would have
considerable difficul ty meeting thi s dead 1 ine. It ~ras al so noted
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 6.
that the by-l{lw wou14 have to be enforced by the municipalities'
police force or by-law enforcement officers rather than the Ontario
Provincial Police which was the case as the old section was under
the Highway Traffic Act. It was noted that the County of Elgin had
passed ,a by-law a considerable number of years ago abolishing the
half-load :period and as such no action will have to he taken by
County Council.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED ON LAND PURCHASES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Road #22 - The plan for'the Olde property would be registered shortly.
'Lt was expected that the plan for the Paul property would be received
as soon as th(F lan<:l$urveyor could add one iron bar which was rather
difficult the~e days for snow banks. The reference plan for the
Millard px'operty (which is under the title of the Director of Veterans
Land Act) had been registered and an agreement with Mr. Millard would
be signed shortly. fl'Ir. Bachner had been contacted and seemed agreeable
enough to sell although he wished to put off the actual agreement until
Spring.
2. The plan On Road #8 ,for the first mile north of Wallacetown had been
received. The first notices were being sent out. It was expected to
have the plan for the second mile north of Wallacetown within the
week.
3. Road #32 .. The Farm Credit Corporation had given permission to pay
Mr. Hermsen directly. The plans for the Sm-ith and Abell properties
had been completed, registered and final payment was being made on
the February accounts.
4. Final payn~nt for the Ward property on Road #38 was also being made
on the Fefuruary accounts as permission to pay Ward Farms had been
given by the Farm Credit Corporation. Thi scompleted all the land
purchases on Road #38.
ST. 't1:loMAS., QNTAR1.0
fE1\RUAR~ 11, 1982
"PAGE 1.
~'ll' m llare had hired W:. ,,1.11 iaro McRaY
The Engineer noted that W:. 1. 1.a
11. t ctfot hilU- ~ith
. "_'_ ,,~Aova and Co 1.ns 0 a
of the fi1!tl\ of McRaY' to1C"-,,Y' ,--
" R d #32 and had for,.arded a letter
~egard to the e>q?rop~1.at1.0n on oa
. d 1 "nth a statement of claim. 'the
asktng for an 1n<1U1.rY 1\oar a ong
. ,. ",~;{aV as soon as possible and
Engineer ,.as instructed to meet: ,-\r.
diSCUSS the ,.hole matter "nth him.
'the Engineer repo~ted that he had received a phone call from
. "'...... RoUe-rt Bu-r~el1;',:
.." n 1 ;",' _0<'. repre sent 1-ng ..... '. .. .
'P.11.-r~e 11
5.
6.
that he did not ,,~,-- ~u "~.",,,e
he ,.as havtng.. t:touble getttng' a mortgage.
.11' to sell and an
1 d t'\...1.' $ difficulty and ,.as 'Il1- 1.ng
had nO'tN $0 "e].L
f. ,...... tl.all ,.ould likelY be received in due course.
agreement rom..... "
. h.b 'S of the forroe~
c~ittee ,.as agreeable to proceed1.ng on t e as1.
The
ag-reelU-ent.
h had met with a numbe~ of land
'the Mststant En~ineer reported that e
d ,. s d s()1lle of their
o,d #3 the TuesdaY previoUS an u1.Scus e
o-wnet $ on }.'\.oa '
.._ ~ne Efigineer had signed a
7.
ST. TlloMAS, 0N'tAR1.0
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 8.
miniro:um stan~ard opposite the Simon property would be required. 1.t
waS pointed out by a member of the cororoittee that an e><tra 5 feet on
either si1de WQul~ be very advantageoUS for winter control (snOW plowi.ng).
1.t was al\SO noted b)' Reeve RellY that Road #3 in the 11th concession was
oneof the worllt sn\l~ roads in the county. The Engineer reported that
ditching and wi.\l.eni1\f!, had proved very beneficial on county Road #'>
and on Road 1f3~ iU$t south of the 1'0lice college. 'the cororoittee felt
that they should attempt to keep to the standard width of 100 feet if
at all po.ssible bartng any unusual problems of treeS, drainage, etc.
The Engineer $tatedt~at the owners would again be contacted as soon as
weather condit ibnS ~erroit ted.
'the Engineer n~tedj;.hat factors under Secti.on 63 of the ASSesStllent Act
were availab~e for some VillageS, the Town of Aylmer, the city of St. Thomas,
the TownshiP ,of A.1dbi;>rOugh, and the TownShiP of Malahide. Factors fo>: other
VillageS and 'Town!;hi\>s were also available tbXoughout the l'>:ovince, and there
waS constderable variation in theSe factors "mtch could not be e><plained by
anY member of the conuni-ttee. Reeve Montetth was of the optniOn that the
inforritatiOn should be circulated to the Road cororotttee and that the countY
Gover~ent COttl11ltttee would diSCUSS it and ta\<e anY appropriate action.
't1:l~ MEr:t1.NG ADJOURNED fOR LUNCIl · · ·
AFTER LUNC1:l · · ·
Fran\< Clarke Absent · · ·
'the Engineer n\)ted that ~inter control cost's to date were in the order
of $240,000. These costS were htgher than ~tnter control costS in the
spring of 1981 ($224,000). The Engineer reported that other countieS in
the area as '!tell as other ro:unicipalitieS had e><perienced greatlY increased
The 1\udget figu>:e would have to pe in the order of 1/2 million
costs.
dol1atS fo-r the -yea-r.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 9.
It was all so noted that several Municipal Drain Reports had been received
in the past week and it was eS',timated that drainage costs would be
$20,000 should be added for drainage assesSltlents with the County's share
considerably higher than the $70,000 originally estimated. It was felt that
of this being $10,000. It was not known whether the entire by-law for
drainage assessments would be approved by the Ministry of Transportation
and Cv,",,,Utlications. A final decision as to the amount of drainage
assessment funded through supplementary by-laws would have to be left until
June or July when the amount of the by-law approved by the Ministry of
Transportation and Cvuul1unications would be known.
noting that rnany of the maintenance projects were projects that had been
Maintenance and Consrruction priorities were discussed at some length
would contain sufficient funds for weed spraying although a pribrity Ihad
cv,",,,itted by the Cv.wuitt'ee last year. the Engineer stated that the Budget
not been notE~d. The Engineer was instructed to proceed with a
Maintenance and Overhead Budget based on the priorities as listed in the
draft.
It was decided that machinery and housing allocations would not be
made until such time as a second report was available from the Engineer.
The Cvuuuittel~ fel t that a sal t storage building in DUtton was highly
desirable. Several pieces of equipment would be reqUirE~d reasonably soon
and that other equipment purchases would be postponed until a
comprehensive budget was available. It would not be known whether or not
any money would be left ,over from the allocations for other uses until
Fall (probably depending upon the total Winter Control Costs).
DiSCUssing the resurfacing budget it was noted that it was necessary to
complete Road #38 east of Straffordville and the project which was started
on Road #8(between Dutton and Wallacetown. It was likely that of the total
allocations 'an,; amount in the order of $150,000 should be left. This would
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 10.
not be allocated until such time as the problems of Spri.ng breakup were
examined by GVlluuittee. The Engineer reported that presemtly Road #20,
between Shedden and Fingal and north of Shedden were in better shape than
anticipated and there was some apparent breakup on Road #36 north of
Road #45 parti~ulatly at the curve one mile north of Road #45. If any
ditching, etc., was <lone on Road #3 the cost of this work would have to come
out of the resurfacing budget. The construction budget was discussed at
some length. Tt was noted that cormiji'tmEant.s had already been made to
complete the Walkers Bridge, and complete Road #38. Regarding Road #22
the hydro bill for moving pole lines in the amount of approximately
$40,000 was on the February accounts, and funds for trimming, seeding,
fencing, etc., would be required. No major work would be anticipated in
1982.
It was noted that land purchase costs were high because of commitments
from previous years. It appeared that the land surveyor was getting caught
up in his work and that costs in future years might be somewhat less
inasmuch as this year's programme contained CVllUllitments from prior years
plus a desire tp p~rchase property a year ahead of construction. The
Engineer noted because of the Environmental Assessment Act a long range
programme would have to be developed in which the surveying and engineering
would have to be completed considerably ahead of land purchase. Land
purchase wou:ld have to be completed and paid for ahead of any work being
done. This had not be'en the case in the past in which the engineering
work was jusit bein~ done ahead of construction and final land purchase
payin.e'nts 1;lad:,,;nbt~bgerir'made'untH1.,rconstruction work h?d been completed.
It was noted that with construction funds remaining the prime
priorities df the CV1~ullittee were:
1. Completion of work which was already started on Road #32 from
Smith's ,Curve to the Police College Gate, including considerable
shouldering, trimming, and seeding work as well as culvert and
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 11.
drainage work and grading at the road intersection between Lots 15
and 16, and, Concession VIII and on the road north of the Gore
Concession.
2. The rebu,ildin~ at Roads #42, and #50 in the Village of Port Burwell
after the instaLlation of the sanitary sewers. There was a consensus
of opinion th~t it was not likely the sanitary sewer work would
proceed very far this year. Sufficient funds would have to be
allocated and saved until such time as a true indication of the
project 'was avai~able.
The Engineer wap instructed to draw up a budget with this being the
first priority. If this work did not materialize it was decided that
work shot,1ld continu~on Road #32 with the top priority being the section
from Highway #73 tp Smith's Curve if it was possible to acquire the
property from William Hare. If it was not, the work would proceed from the
Police College Gate northerly on Road #32 in suitable sE~ctions so that a
section could be c~mpleted and left and funds diverted E~ither to Port
Burwell or to the west end of Road #32 if necessary. The Engineer was
instructed to have a Budget available for the next meeting on February 18.
"MOVED BY;: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT WE 'RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
ON THE ST. THOMAS ,SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION, MR. ALBERT AUCKLAND,
BE EMPOWERED TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SUBURBAN ROAD
COMMISS]ON ASSOCIATION TO BE HELD IN LAMBTON COUNTY IN JUNE.
CARRIED."
It was decided that if an additional meeting was required for the
Budget after the February 18 meeting, it would be held on February 26.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
PAGE 12.
"MOVED BY: M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: J. B. WILSON
THAT WE :ADJO~ TO FEBRUARY 18, 1982 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
~~j~~~~
CHAIRMAN
c()1JN'l"1 01' ELG1.N~.RO.n. DEl'A"R'rMENT
~.
~ENANCE~J)(i1TI.
DRA'FI #1
JANUAR~ 26, 1982
1\esides routine work Maintenance l'rojects for 1982 include ~
3.
Road #16 ~ ftngal Uill, slope work, dttching, etc.
Road #16 at Road #14 ~ curb and gutte~ for traffic control.
Road #16 at Road #20 (fingal) - F\.ashtng Light installation.
Road #26 ~St. George Street at Cowan l'ark) ~ flashing Light
install ati on.
1.
2.
6.
Road #26 ~St. George Street utll) ~ Cleartng of brush.' treeS,
etc.,tO iropro~e viston and to alloW traff1.C to
use full width of road (nearlY done)'
Road #26 (St. George Street Uill) ~ Removal of ~ld gui~e ra~l,
widening of shoulder as much as poss1.ble us1.ng d1.rt
from south east quandrant of canadtan NatiOnal
Biilway Tracks and presentlY owoed cou~tY property.
(ThiS will improve vtsion at the croSS1.ng.)
.Replace gutde rail, some drainage pipe maY alSo be
-reC\.ui-red.
1.ntersection Road 1f30 at road betWeen concession )(11.1. and Z1.V
to bring TowoshiP w>ad intO curve on Road 1f30 at
-right angles.
7.
4.
5.
8.
Road #37 ..
East of canadian l'actftC TraCks. Replace pipe
crossing wtden road shoulders and place .
guide ra~l. (Depends on acquisiOn of widen1.ng
from south DOrchester Land owner.)
9. Gravel ShOulders of:
(a) Roae. #40 from Glen colin to sprtngfield.
(b) Roae. #40 _ Road #45 east of Mount salem (pattiallY
completed).
(c) Road #45 _ caltOn to Mount Salem.
(d) Road 1145 ~ canon to UlgbwaYIfl. q ~ patch.
,
(e) Road jf4S
~ 'there are lotS more, only limited by innount of moneY avaiJable.
_ HighwaY #19 to Norfolk countY Line.
(some gravel in 1'1easant valleY,l'tt
Stockpile alreadY charged to th1.S
p-roject.)
10. Bridge Maintenance:
studY and repatr as necessary MtddlemisS Bridge.
(a)
(b) l'aint handrail ~ardS\Tille Bridge.
(c) StreaIll dtversions ~ 1\elmont ~est
.. Elm Stteet Aylme-r.
"
~~
(d) flonr beamS ~ Vienna.
continued · · II
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BUPGET
DRAFT #1
J)~UARY 26, 1982
PAGE #2
10. Bridge Maintenance: (Continued)
(e) Finish painting Gillets Bridge,on to Fulton and Meeks as a
minimum.
(f) South Fleming Creek Bridge - Road #3, concrete wingwall and
abutment repair.
(g) Concrete repairs - Richmond - Road #38.
11. Road #33 .. Kains Hill - Cleaning of brush, trees, etc., to improve
vision and to allow traffic to use full width of road.
(completed)
12. Various Roads - Prume and ,trim trees that were plante!d some years
ago by County.
- Road #20 - Shedden-Fingal completed.
- Road #16 - Dunwich, completed.
- Road #48 and others yet to come.
13. Repairs to Pavement:
As Needed - It appears that more work should be done on Road #28
(Centennial Avenue) north of Elm Street and that
patching will be required on Road #30 (Radio Road)
between Canadia,n Pacific Railway Tracks and Road #52.
If a major project is encountered it would have to be
done under resurfacing (Final decision May).
14. Prime: Old Projects
(a) Road #29 - Between Mini stry of Transportation 8Lnd
Connnunications") reconstruction and w8lter
tower.
(b) Road #37 - In Belmont.
(c) Road #28
For 1/2 mile south of Road #56.
N(~w Protects
,
(a) Road #28 - southerly to Concession VI and VII E~ad.
15. Signs:
Programme replacement of damaged and worn out signs throughout
the County. (Most intersection and curve signs placed in
1967-1969 era, will have been replaced.)
16.
White Edge Marking:
<'
Extent' of programme to be determined by Corrnnittee. . Last year'>>s cost
$16,332 (white paint same price as last year $6.05) (yellow to
$6.25 from $5.55).
GENERAL NOTES
1. Miscellaneous repairs shown in past as an overhead itlem will be
included in Machinery Rentals. Thus book charges for equipment
will increase.
2. Vehicle licences for equipment payable in 1982. Again book charges
for vehicles will increase. (We will purchase some part year
licences.)
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26$ 1987
PAGE #3
3. Stripping and stockpiling of gravel at County Pleasant: Valley Pit
continues on a time available basis. These costs are charged to
the gravel and gravel charged to projects on a per ton basis.
Probably we will require crushed gravel by Fall, by which time we
hope to have another pile ready to crush (call quotattons for
crushing ).
4. Some leveling and clean-up required at White Station Gravel Pit
to keep Pit and Quarries Inspectors happy. (We might get a
little of our deposit back as well.)
5. We did some outside painting last year at the garage, we ought to
finish it this Summer.
6. Labour: Wle must carefully evaluate all projects so that we can
utilize our present staff to the fullest.
In view of high unemployment it would be nic~~ to try
to use as much local labour (and ~quipment) as possible
to assist our local economy. (It's better than paying
Wiel fare. )
,
''lI!If"''".'
\ ,
COUNTY OF ELGIN
.--
1982 GRAVEL RESURFACING l'RIORITlES
. -' - -
DRAFr #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
1. Road #9, Aldborough Township ~ Last done in 1975
(approximately 4.7 miles in length). Call a
contract for early spring (ie., late April or
early MaY) and work off Highway #76 first.
Gravel from Komoka Area. ESTIMATED
2. Road #5, AldborOUgh-nunwich Townline - Last done in 1975
(appro><imatelY 3.8 miles in length). Fall
contract so contractor can ha\11 over ~al~ers
Bridge. Gravel .from Komoka Area. ESTIMATED
3. Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) - Road #45 to 1/2 mile
south of Elm Street. Complete work started
in 1981.
4.
Road #17 MCL (Middlesex to pay 50'/.)
Road #18
Road #20 _ complete work started tn 1980
(Total mileage 4.3 mtles.)
and 1981.
ESTIMA!ED
~ By County Trucks in Spring - transhipped from
White Station. some gravel at garage presentlY.
_ Gravel being hauled on m~ld dayS as time permits.
5. Haldimand-Norfol~ Townline - Co\1nty of Elgin Share.
6. MiscellaneoUs - re: spring 1\rea~\1P, etc.
$38 ,000 :t
22,000 :t
8,000 :t
24,000 i
3,000
3,000
~98,OOO
----
"
;~l"I'-----' ,
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1982 SURFACE TREATMENT
CHECKLIST AND PRIORITIES
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
(SA) 1. Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) - North 1/2 mile south of
Elm Street
0.5 Miles *
(SA) 2. Road #29 - Section between Ministry of Transportation and
Cvulluunication~ rebuilt section and wateti
tower.
o . 5 Mi 1 e s '1(
3. Road #0 - Kent County Line to Blacks Lane (1975)
2.5 Miles 'J(
4. Road #23 - Portion not hot mixed (1976)
1 . 0 Mi Ie s 'k
5. Road #24- Wier Hill (east of Road #23) (1976)
0.4 Miles *
6.' Road #45 - Jaffa to Highway #73 (1976)
2.6 Miles
7. Road #45 - Highway #73 to Road #40 (1976)
2.6 Miles
1.8 Miles *
0.2 Miles *
6.8 Miles
2.6 Mi 1 e s ~~
8. Road #48 - Road #47 to Oxford County Line (1977)
9. Road #54 (Elgin Share) - Oxford Boundary Road (11977)
10. Road #42 - Road #40 to Port Burwell (1977)
11. Road #40 - South of Mount Salem (1978)
12. Road #24 - Dexter easterly~to Road #36 (1978)
2.4 Miles
13. Road #14 - Road #13 to Thames River (1978)
14. Road #42 - pdrt Burwell easterly (1978)
3.2 Miles
1.0 Miles 'k
OVER HOT MIX
15. Road 1152 - east of Highway #74.
16 ~ Road #24- Road #36 to Port Bruce
1 . 0 Mi 1 e s 1(
3 . 8 Mi l' e s ~'( ,
17. Road #16 - St., Thomas to Road #45.
3.0 Mile s '1(
18. Road #3 - north of Rodney a couple of miles
2.0 Miles *
Miscellaneous Patching on all roads.
1 . 5 Mi 1 e s 'k
(NOTE: Priority Items Marked 1()
21.8 Miles 'k
Estimate $5,800 per mile = $126,400
Say $125,000
SECOND PRIORITY
Road #45 from Highway #73 to Jaffa 2.6 miles (1976), probably should
leave this portion and consider resurfacing it when the portion east of
Highway #73 is done.
This would complete the upgrading of Road #45 from Norfolk Boundary
to Middlemarch.
~
~
DR.A.vr #1
JAmJAR'Y: 26, 1982
. unicatiOnS constructton MoneY
Mintstry of Transportat1.on and carom AllocatiOn $1,001,000
Road /f32 _ FrOm east of smith corner to 1'01tce college
Gate (NO tOp course of asphalt).
d #42 and #50 ~ 1'0rt ]\Ur\oJell ~ (1.nclude drat~ag~, curb
Roa sand gutte': and base asphalt coat ~ tr1.~ng, etc.
and tOp asphalt in 1983.)
~
(ALL EST1.l'IATES SUl\JECl' TO f\lR'J:1:lER RE"F1.N~1',N't)
ComPlete ~alkers 1\ridge ~ 1.ncluding land purchase and.
apptoaches, etc.
1.
Corop 1 e te Road. jf38 ~ Fr om 1:li ghway jf3 : 0 1:lighwaY .If\. 9 ,
lIayhalll and Malah1.de To,""sh'-PS.
3. Road #22 (fairv:i.eW Avenue) ~ MOve ~ydrO Li~e, fencing,
tOpso1.1, seed1.ng, etc.
2.
4.
Road #30 and Road #5 2 (St. Thomas subU~ba~) - comPleti.on
of \oJor~, tr1.~1.ng, etc.
5. MiscellaneoUs surveYs ~ gra.ding constructiOn, etc.
subu,:ban Road #22. and Road #30
Road #32
'"
Road #3
Road #38
Road #45 (~alCariuS)
Road #31 (at C.l'.R. Tracks)
Road Ifi!> _ DUtton to ~allaceto,""
Road #f!> _ south of Road #16
'MiScellaneoUs
6.
Land 'PU1:cbase ..
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
7.
8.
$180,000
10,000
50,000
5,000
10,000
$17,500
12,000
54,000
8,200
\,600
1,600
(>,500
12,000
4,400
~
"
118,000
120,000
'tOTAL
300,000
..-------
~
~.~
FUNDS REMA1N1.NG
OTRER 'WORK
~ 1 ~ base base asphalt; from
, d' g g-r anu a.\. '
(a) Road #32 ~ cra 1.n , t of smith C\1,:ve
1\igh~aY #73 to eas
. nular baSe, d,:ainage, etc.
(b) Road jf32 ~ Grad1.ng, gra) f nolice college Gate to
(NO ASp1:lA-LT -r0111 x;
Road #52.
"
$220,000
$365,000
COUNTY OF ELGIN
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 2
NOTE:
t>
(,
It will likely be nec~ssary for the County to assume Road #22
as the St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission will not
have enough money to do any work. (Even pay the Hydro
Relocation Invoice.)
,
1982 BUDGET
DRAFT A
JANUARY 26, 1982
Total Resurfacing Allocation.
$543,000
1. Road #38 - Complete work east of Straffordville including
,Ontario Hydro Invoice for pole moving, etc.
7,000
t:>
2. Road #8 - From Highway #3 to Dut'ton. Work to include
Wallacetown Urban Section north of
Highway #3 including drainage and
replacement of curb and, gutter. Rural
section replacement of culverts, completion
of catch basin replacement, drain extensions,
ditching, top 'soi1 replacement, seeding, hot
mix paving and shouldering. (We will make
recvluuLendations on depth of asphal t to be
placed and whether or not certain areas
should be "milled" to reduce asphalt required
in several months.)
I,
j
3. Road #3 - Highway #3 to Rodney. If it is Committee's
~esire to ditch, etc., a portion of this road
in 1982 the cost should be charged to the
Resurfacing Budget.
4. If Road #3 Project is stalled hecau,se of land purchase
problems lJ perhap s CVLllLuittee might wi sh to proceed with
work on Road #45 between Road #40 and Highway #73.
5. If the Spring Breakup is Severe major asphalt patching
\
will have to be charged against the Resurfacing
Allocation.
6. Likely rE~surfacing priorities for straight resurfacing.
(a) Road /120 - Complete between Shedden and Fingal.
(b) Road #20 - Port Stanley from Arena to Highway n~.
(c) Road #36 - North of Road #45 (presently surface:
treatment ).
,
(d) Road #36 - South of Sparta (1 mile surface
treatment and 1 mile mulch). '
(e) Road #20 - North of Shedden.
C'<
l)r
1982 BUDGET
DRAFT A
JANUARY 26, 1982
MACHINERY-HOUSING ALLOCATIO~
1. Completion of Bayham Township Salt Building.
(Should include second coat of paint. )
$273,000
2. Completion of White Station Salt Building.
(Second coat of paint.)
tl
3. Salt Stor'age Building - West Elgin preferably at Dutton at the
Dunwich T.ownship Yard site. An early deci sion should
be made so that Dunwich Township can acquire extra land.
4. Purchase of new machinery':
Immediate Needs
(a) Trade 450 John Deere Dozer as undercarriage is ::;0 poor
tractor is no longer runable.
(b) Post Hole Auger - Present auger(s) are so obsob~te no
parts are available. Unfortunately none of the present
tractors have 3 point hitch hydraulics. Probably should
trade one of older tractors.
Rest of equipment to be evaluated in terms of need noting
potential use and future Ministry of Transportation and
Connnunications'" funding.
- (Full report likely~May or June.)
,
(',
ST. T1:1oMAS, ONTAR1.0
JANUARY 26, 1982
"PAGE 1.
MUnictpal 1\Utlding at 9:30 a.m., JanuarY 26, 1982.
T1:1"E cOUNT'! Of m.c1.N ROAD c~TTEE met at the Elgin county
All member 5 ~eL;e
p-resent.
communicatiOns, the Engineer and the Assistant Engineer were also
Mr. 1'1:ank Clarke of the MtntstrY of TransportatiOn and
present.
"'MOVED 'BY ~
SECONDED B'l: J. N. sM'l't1:l
T1:J,AT 't1:l"E M1.NlJTES Of 't1:l"E j,ffi1J:f1.NG Of J p,NIJAR'l 5, 1982 BE APl'ROVED ·
v:J. R. c!:\VEFLY
CARRl $:D."
't1:l"E ENG1.NE"ER REPORTED ON TJ:1"E ~oRR TO Dt..TE AS fOJ.,J.,OYlS:
A.1thbUgh sno"'1'lowing had not been difficult tn the last few weeks sanding
_~ A~~er the storm of JanuarY 23
and salttng operattonS had beE}n conS1:au~' r>~-
a partiCularlY lar!';e a1lIount of salt and salted sa.nd had been used tn an
attempt to try to clear the r~ads of ice as fast as 1'0ssible.
UnfortUnatelY freezing con~itiOn6~Y mid_afternoon precluded a complete
clean-UP althoUgh conditions were reasonablY good. 1.t waS noted that
verY little unfavourable publiC response had been recetved through the
commi1:tee's ~inter control 1'01icies in compariSOn to the considerable
amount of publicitY the .City 9f St. Thomas snow removal policY had
,,>
1.
2.
generated.
Stripping and gravel piling ~aS continuing at the 1'1easant valleY l'it.
, h uth end of the area Where
Sufficient stripptng had been done at t e SO
the old buildtngs stood to uncover a face of gravel over 20 feet high.
. ~ ~.;, & nr ~d:lan' ha.d" b~en p!:eV"tO)1 S 1 yanti.ct\'l'ted
Tht s waS not <:>nlY.e. rouch!,;~.e!'''''-' · ~-<",. -
in the area, but the gravel ~as alsO a better quality than e><pected.
S(l\l\.e bru,shing had been done on Road #24 and #26. T>;ee cutting on
Road #22 (fairvie~ Avenue) was completed for the present and some
trees had been cut on Road #45 betWeen1:1igh~aY #13 and CountY Road #40.
3.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 2.
4. The exhaust fan system at the County Garage had been cV111,pleted.
5. Shop sign work for East Elgin 'would be completed by the weekend,
although not all the signs had been erected as yet. An inventory
was being made of West Elg~n and work would continue. It would
also be necessary to make up a number of signs as stock for
replacem~nt for vandalism lpss in the Summer.
6. It was noted that the sweeper would require major repairs (in the
area of $9,000 to $11,000) however this seemed to bE~
desirable
compared to the price of a, new sweeper ($75,000) and considering
that major cV111,ponents of the sweeper (motor, transmi.ssion, apron,
and sprockets) were still in reas.onably good conditi.on.
7. An invoice had been received fr9m-the Broer's Services Limited for
repairs to the Michigan Loader torque converter and transmission
totalling approximately $14,000. It was noted that both had been
completely overhauled and the ~achine was purchased used four (4)
years ago for $76,500. The Engineer noted that used machines of
the same age were still worth ~pproximately the samE~ amount.
8. Work was being planned by the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk on the
Norfolk Township-Bayham Townline ,'opposite Concession III, Bayham
Township. The Region expected tp replace a small wooden bridge
::,
with a culvert during thepummer and would attempt to widen the
road through Concession III on the Elgin side. The land would
be bought in the County of Elgin's name with E~gin paying
Registry Office costs, but with., the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk
doing the buying and paying for the land. It was noted that
the County's Agreement with Hal~i'mand-Norfolk on the Townline
stated that Haldimand-Norfolk would pay all construction costs
on the Road oppositeConcessipns III and IV, Bayham ~rownship and
Elgin would pay all construction costs opposite Concessions I and II,
Bayham Township. The maintenance '~ost of the whole road was still
shared on a 50/50 basis (all maintenance work by Haldimand-Norfolk).
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 3.
9. Ontario Hydro had been ins~ructed to proceed with the installation
of flashing lights on Road #26 (St. George Street). Parts for the
flashers on Road #16 (Fingal) 'Were still backordered from the
manufacturer.
10. Trees for roadside planting were being ordered within the next several
weeks from the Ministry of Natural Resources.
11. The Personnel Cvuuuittee hao decided to proceed with medical s by
Dr. Webster for County Road Personnel as soon as possible.
12. It was understood that an application by the VillagE~ of Port Burwell
would have to be made to the Onta~io Municipal Board because of the
increased costs for the Sanitary Sewer System. Tenders could not be
called for the system until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board's
approval is received. It was exp~cted that at least two (2) months
would pa.ss between the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board and the
award by the Ministry of the Environment of a contract. It was not
known how long the Ontario Municipal Board's approval might take as it
was not known whether a hearing would be necessary (the length of time
I
could vary between two (2) months and six (6).
The Engineer and the Assistant En~ineer reported on a meeting with
Mr. Jim Miller of the Ministry Qf Agriculture and Food r1egarding his
meeting with some residents on Cpunty :Road #3 and members of the Elgin
County Federation of Agricul ture. Mr. .. Miller fel t that the main concerns
of the land owners were reasonably dpcumented in the letter which was
forwarded from the Federation of A$riq.1lture to County Council. These
were loss of agriculture land, drainage problems, and environmental
cleanup afterwards. Mr. Davies stateq,cthat approximately 14 ac~es waS
required to result in a 100 foot r~.ght-of-way for four (4) miles of road
and approximately 10~ acres of it wa$ presently being farmed with six (6)
acres of that having been presently acquired. It was also reported that
two (2) municipal drains were in progress in the area, the Antonuk Drain
of which a preliminary report had been issued
and a petition by Mr. Conrad
Felder.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 4.
There was some discussion as to whether several of the other drains were
adequate for today's conditions~ The drain having been put in some years
ago when less intensive farming operations were practicE!d. The southerly
three (3) municipal drains have a drainage area of approximately 1,000
acres the County Road Allowance as wid~ned would contribute only 2% to
the water shed.
The Committee felt that perhaps it might be desirable to try to clean-
up some of the County Projects with trinnning, top soiling and seeding, etc.,
a little faster than may have been done in the past. It was noted that this
work was very dependent upon weather cDnditions and in the past years
conditions for this kind of work had been universally dtilfficult.
The Engineer reported that the Personnel Connnittee had agreed to
consider the request for Annual Holiday Carryover for Danny Welch and
William Sloetjes for ~ day each as they were called in for Winter
Control Work when they were on their holidays.
The Engineer reported on the Middlemiss Bridge as j:'ollows: The
Ministry of Transportation and CV1Luuunications had agreed with Mr. Norm Warner
of R. C. Dunn and Associates' appraisal of the load carrying capacity of the
Middlemiss Bridge. The limiting factor on the bridge with the south span
handrail removed was still the south span which would carry 18 tonnes. The
north span and the main truss span w~uld carry slightly more weight than
the 18 tonnes. The Engineer reconnn~nded that the present County By-Law
be amended from the present 20 tonnes to 18 tonnes to conform with the
Ministry of Transportation and Connnunications4) apprai sal '.
It was also noted that the present load limit on the bridge could be
removed for single lane - single truck traffic by making any necessary
repairs to the piers plus a new composite deck.
ST. T1l0MAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 5.
tWO-way traffiC wi1;hout a load limit could be carried. 1.nasrnuch as it waS
It would be virtually impossible to strengthen the main trUSs so that
nearly impossible for tWO (2) trucks to meet on the bridge, ehis would
probablY not be a factor to be considered. 1.t appeared that before any
further decisions could be made it w9uld be necessary to ascertain and
evaluate the present condition of the pters so that a cost estimate ~:f
repairs required if any, could pe made. Mr. ~arner had secured an
estimate ($5:,850) from constructiOn control Limtted of Toronto to core
the pier's and make the necessary tests, TwO (2) or three (3) dayS of on
site work would be required and the county would be required to supplY
labour. a roanlift, and a dozer to move the roanlift. The approval of the
county of Mtddlese>< for this project had been given to the Middlesex
Engineer last Fall and he was of the opinion that the work should proceed
as rapidlY as possible.
"MOVED BY:
L. J. S1lAW
SECONDED 1\'{: M. H. ST1!iW ART
't1:lAT THE ENG1.NEER BE A1!'tHORIZEP TO l'ROCEED ~1.TH CONCRETE TESTS ON
't1:lE 1'1ERS OF THE MIDDLEMISS 1\R1.DGB Y11't1:l CONSTRUCT1.0N C()lil'tROL
L1.M1.TED TO DO THE TEST ~ORlZ. IT ~AS UNDERSTOOD TilAT 't1:lE Ul'SE'I
L1.M1.T ON T1lE1.R ~ORlZ ~ILL 1\E $5,850.
CARRIED."
H'MOVED BY:
J. N. sl1YTll
SECONDED J3'{: ~. R. CAVER1,'{
THAT WE RECoMMEND TO cQUN't'{ COUNCIL THAT A B'{_LA~ BE l'ASSED TilAT
mLL IN EFfECT AMEND THE l'RESENT 1\'{-LA~ RESTRICT1.NG VERICLE LOADS
ON colJN'!:'{ BRIDGES AND mLL RESTR1.CT 't1:lE GROSS l\LLO\<ABLE VEH1.CLE
~EIG1lT Of VEH1.CLES US1.NG THE M1.DDLEMISS BR1.DGE TO 18 TONNES.
CARRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
'PAGE 6.
Land l'urchases were noted as followS:
1. The plan on Road #45 regarding ~alcartus had been registered.
2. Road ff3 2 _ an agreement had been obtained fr 0tII Mr. Abel: Mr ·
Smith'S agreement had been forwarded to Mr. Robert Hall (sOlicitor)
of Aylmer and an agreement from hint was expected shortly. A
release frOtll the farm credit c~rporatiOn ~~a not yet been received
3 . Mr. ROY Dor an of. the county Road Dep artment woul d serve the
fo-r Mr. Hermsen.
necessary papers on Mr. ~iHiam Hare and his sonS on Road #32 today
and the:necessary notices would appear in the Aylmer ExpresS on
4. Road #22 _ A land plan regal:dtng the l'aul and Olde l'roperty was
Wednesday.
5. Road IfO _ A" land plan on th~ first mile north of ~allacetown on
expected shortly frOtll the land surveyor.
Road IfO waS expected shortly frOtll the land surveyor.
correspondence was read fro!" the Township of Bayham requesting the
county giVe their approval to twO (?) road closingS.
"'MOVED BY:
J. B. WILSON
SECONDED 1\'l: M. H. STEWART
T11AT WE REcOMMEND TO coUN'J:'l COUNC1.L THAT A B'l-LA~ BE l'ASSED STATING
THAT 't1:lE COUNT'l Of EW1.N HAS NO 01\JEc:r1.0NS TO THE l'ASSING Of A
B'l-LA~ 1\'l THE TOWNSH11' OF BA'llUIM TO CLOSE:
ALL THAT l'ART OF SECOND STREEt L'llNG ~ESTERL'l FROM THE ~EST L1.M1.T Of
~EST STREEt EXTENDED So\lT1:1ERL'l AND f,XTEND1.NG ~ESTERL'l TO THE LINE
J',zr1ilEEN LOTS 124 AND 125, NORTH TlILBOT ROAD ACCORDING TO l'LAN 205
fOR THE V1.LLAGE OF STRAFfORDV1.LLE.
Ci\RRIED."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 7.
"MOVED BY:
M. H. STEWART
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED STATING THAT
THE COID\fTY OF ELGIN HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PASSAGE OF A BY-LAW BY THE
TOWNSHIP OF BAYHAM TO CLOSE (1) PART OF THE ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE
BETWEEN LOTS 123 AND 124, NORTH TALBOT ROAD BEING ABOUT THE NORTHERLY
TWO-THIRDS OF SAID ROAD ALLOWANCE AND (2) THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN
LOTS 15 AND 16 IN THE GORE CONCESSION SOUTH OF THE 8TH AND NORTH OF THE
NORTH TALBOT ROAD IN THE TOWNSHIPDF BAYHAM.
ALL AND SINGULAR THAT CER,TAIN PARCEL O~ TRACT OF LPND AND PREMISES,
SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE TOWNSHIP OF BAYHAM IN THE COUNTY OF
ELGIN AND PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, BEING COMPOSED ()F PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ALLOWANCE FOR ROAD BETWEEN LOTS 12.3 AND 124 NORTH TALBOT ROAD MORE
PARTICm~ARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PART #1
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LIMIT OF SAID ROAD ALLOWANCE
DISTANT 2,400 FEET MEASURED NORTHERLY THEREON FROM A POINT IN ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LIMIT OF TALBOT ROAD;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LIMIT TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE CENTRE LINE OF THE EAST BijiANCH OF BIG OTTER CREEK;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTRE LINE OF THE EAST BRANCH OF BIG OTTER
CREEK A DISTANCE OF 33 FEET MORE OR LESS TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
CENTRE LINE OF THE SAID ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE CENTRE LINE OF THE SAID ROAD ALLOWANCE TO
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE LINE JOINING THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 123 AND THE NORTH-WEST. CORNER OF SAID LOT 124;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST PESCRIBED LINE A DISTANCE OF 33 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO A POINT IN THE NORTH-WEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 124;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLr LIMIT OF SAID ORIGINAL ROAD
ALLOWANCE A DISTANCE OF 4,200 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO A POINT DISTANT
2,400 FEET MEASURED NORTHERLY THERON FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTHERLY LIMIT OF TALBOT ROAD;
THENCE lWESTERLY 66 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
CONTINUED
ST. 't1\()MA.S, ONTAR1.0
JANUARY 26, 1982
1> AGE 8.
"MO'lED 1\'l: M. 1\. STtvl ART
SECONDBD "B'l: L. J. Sl\A~
( CON'rlN1JED )
~
C~C1.NG t..T A 1'01.N't 1.N 't1:l"l> NORT1\ EAST C01U<ER Of LO't 123 NORT1\
TALBOT ROAD;
't1:lENCE.SO\l'tWERL'l ALONG T1\E WESTERL'l Ll},fl.T Of S!\.1.D OR1.G1.NAL ROl\D
1>J..1.O~ilNCE TO 1.TS urrERSEct1.0N \il1.T1\ T1\E Cl',N'tRE L1.NE Of T1\E E!\.ST BRilNC11
\
\
\
\
CREER A D1.STANC1l. ur JJ ,"''''. --
CENTRE .L1.NE Of Tll1l. si\.1.D OR1.G1.NAL ROAD AL~p,NCE;
TllENCE \NOR't1:lERL 'l ALONG T1\E Cl',N'tRE L1.NE Of 't1:lE Si\.1.D OR1.G1.NAL ROAD
1>J..1.O~p,NCE TO 1.TS 1.N'tERSEct1.0N ~1.'t1:l 't1:l1l. L1.NE J01.N1.NG T1\1l. NORT1\- El\ST
C01U<EROf si\.1.D LO't 123 p,ND T1\E 1'IOR't1:l ~EST C01U<ER Of si\.1.D LO't 124;
T1\ENCE MESTERL'l ALONG 't1:lE L!\.ST DESCR1.1\ED L1.NE A D1.STp,NCE Of 33 fEET
MORE OR LESS TO T1\1l. l'LACE Of 1\EG1.NN1.NG.
cp.JUl1.'ED."
1.
h C u tY pass a 1\y-LaW
];'rom the Village of ~est 1.Orne requesting that t eon
R d #2 (}lain Street) in ~est LOrne frOll\.
to prohibit parking on county oa
t 7-00 a m frOll\ December 1 to Mar~h 31 of the following
11:00 p.m. O' .'
d the 'By..La~s to
c~ttee ~aS tn agreement to rec~en
of ~est 1.Orne would enforce the 1\y_La~
The Engineer was instructed
yea-r.' The
CountY Council tf the Village
d ....ect and tilatntatn the necessary stgns.
an eJ. \"
to contact the Village of ~est LOrne.
. h ny of a 1ette-r to
. .f "atural Res\,urces.n,.t a COr
];'rom t~e M1.n1.stry 0 "
. that the MinistrY of Natural ReSources ~ould
~arden ShaW stat1.ng
1 ervice road to the lot, as shO~ on
build a parktng lot and a grave s
1 . .fChath8)ll 'Street .e><~ension. The
the plan, that would take the l' ace 0
parking lot would be tntended for the use of fishermen and others
. . 55 to the T\ier and breakWall areas.
requ1.r1.ng acce r
CORRESl'ONDENCE ~t..S REA.D fRoM T1\E 1'OLL()Vl1.NC:
\
2.
ST. 't1:lOMAS, 0N'tARI0
JANUAR~ 26, 1982
'PAGE 9.
from James Snow, Mtntste.t:. of l1tgh~aYs with regard to the Talbot
3.
Ttail signS.
4. from the 'to""shiP of southwold with a zoning 1\y~La~ for the
scidroore l'ropertY on Road #20 jUst north of l'ort StanleY'
rezont~ a portion of it to estate restdential.
5. A Programme from the Ontario MUniCipal Roads AssociatiOn and the
M\1nicipal Engineers' ASsoctatiOn meeting of februarY 22, 23 and
7.
24 in 1 o-r onto · '
'From tne ontario Good Roads j\.Ssociatton with nottce of a management
course for MUnicipal Engineers on }\arch 28 to March 31. It waS
noted that thiS was the first cpurse sponsored by the Ontarto Good
Roads ASSociatton for some years and the Engineer SUggested that
perhapS attendance in the future might be of value.
from the Nattonal ASSociatiOn of countY Engineers with a notice of a
NatiOnal meeting tn MontiCello, NeW York, March 30 to APril 1. 1.t
~as noted that thts ~as the first time that a conference had been
held reasonablY close to Can~~a since the one in Detroit 10 to 12
years ago at ~htch time the race rili'tS had intervened and attendance
from the ontario representatiVes had been made impossible.
from E. .J. MCea:be-and ~. M\1rraY $eeleY of the Ministry of
-rransportatiOn and C()tt1ll1unicatiOnS with regard to proposed work by
the Ministry of -rransportation and c(J!l1lll1lntcatiOns on l1igh~ay fI4 near
countY Road #23. 1.t waS noted that tt waS the Mtnistry' s intentiOn
to mod"i.fY the vertical and horizontal geometriC$ . of the road at
countY Road #23 and resurface the rpad at the same time and that the
prograr<1lltng had been advanced from 1986 to 1984. 1.n additton
measures to make drivers aware of the curve ~ould be taken such as
installatiOn of chevron~ and winter control conditions ~ould be
B.
6.
closelY monitOred.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 10.
9. From Ontario Hydro with notice that the Consolidated Hearings Board
would meet on January 26 at Stratford regarding the Ontario Hydro's
Environmental Assessment plan cgrridor location. It was noted that
when the hearing was completed alternative transmi.ssion route
locati:ons and transtormer station sites, etc., would be examined and
interested parties notified.
Paveme:nt marking paint quotation~ were noted as follows from Ibis
Products Limited (supplier to the County for the last number of years),
White @ $6.05 per gallon, which wa$ the same price in 1981; Yellow @ $6.25
per gallon, last year's price $5..?5. It was noted that last year's price
was accept1ed in the Fall of 1980 which allowed the Company to make the
paint through the Winter, deliver it to the County and invoice the County
in mid-Winter. The Engineer alsg noted that Ibis Products Limi,ted supplied
parts for the County's Wald Paint Marker and were endeavouring to repair
the skip line mechanism. If unrepairable the replacement would be in the
neighbourhood of $5,000.
"MOVED lBY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
THAT THE ENGINEER BE AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE YELLOvl PAINT (APPROXIMATELY
2,500 GALLONS) AT $6.25 PER GALLON, WHITE TRAFFIC PAINT (APPROXIMATELY
1,350 GALLONS) AT $6.05 PER GALLON FROM IBIS PRODUCTS LIMITED.
CARRIED."
A delegation from the Elgin County Branch of the Federation of
Agriculture met with the Committee. The delegation included Mr. Tom Ford,
Mr. Wilfred Cowan, Mr. William Prieksaitis, and Mr. Albert ~nderploeg.
The members of the Federation had forwarded a letter to Elgin County
Council. It was noted that one of the concerns of a number of the farmers
was drainage. It was noted that one new municipal drain had a preliminary
report on it and that Mr. Conrad Felder was also in the process of
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 11.
petitioning for a new drain. It was>;:j;lso noted that several of the other
drains were old and perhaps do not have capacity for modern agricultural
practice s.
The County Road Allowance from the three (3) southerly drains was
less than :2% of the total drainage area involved in the drains and it was
noted that over 3/4 of the drainage area of the drains was from lands
east of County Road #3 and the owner$ pn the West sidE~ were receiving a
large amount of surface water from these lands. The surface water was
such that it would be impracticaL to provide a drain large enough to
provide complete capacity for run-off. The use of grass waterways was
discussed at some length and rec.;.nu...uended on'..some.:.of.thest~epep grade,'(:)n
the lands west of the road. It was. noted that in the present farming
practice no grass waterways were being used. The FedE~ration expressed
concern that the local drainage problems should be discussed with
individual owners before any work was done and roadway ditches should,c:'be
regrassed ,as soon as possible to prevent erosion from extreme run-off.
The deilegation was al so concerned about the amount of farmland being
taken and ,asked whether it was necessary to take a 100 foot right-of-way
the whole distance. It was realized by all concerned that there were
certain ar,eas that 100 feet would be required. Some discussion occurred.
on items df drainage, maintenance of shoulders, maintE~nance of the ditch
and a storage area for winter snow as reasons that thE~ 100 foot road
allowance ,was required. It was agreed that the meeting had been
mutually beneficial and that the Federation Representatives would
discuss the matters with the various owners in question.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
. . .
AFTER LUN (''H . . .
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 12..
The Engineer was instructed to review the propoSE~d work on
County Road #3 taking into conrideration the concerns of the owners and
make parti!cular note of drainage grade locations, break point, and whether
or not in some places a road allowance less than 100 feet might be
adequate. The Engineer felt that a majority of this work could be done
before the February 18 meetin~.
A draft report on 1982 Rpad Expenditures was discussed by Committee
and it was decided that the report would be forwarded to all members as
the First :Report of the Committee to the February County Council meeting
(thus there would not be any nee4 tp send a report out twice with the
minutes.)
The Engineer's Revised Report 9n Road Expenditures, the Ministry of
Transporta.tion and COul1uunications's Allocations and the necessary Road
Levy for 1982 (report attache9) wa$ ~iscussed at some length. It was
noted that a 2% Construction cut back had been made by the Ministry
from theil:;' announced programme because of financial restraint. It was
also noted that machinery and housing costs would be funded at 95% of the
Counties I:,equest rather than the 100% total previously approved by the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications (from the last year\
NeedsStudy Update).
Priorities for both Maintenance and Construction Budgets were
examined and it was decided to devote most of the next meeting to the
discussion so the Engineer could prepare the first draft of a Budget
for the FE~bruary 18 meeting. It was noted that GQ\lnty Council would
meet as a Finance Committee on March 11, thus the Budget would have to
be approvf~d and forwarded to Council Members prior to that time.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE 13.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: L. J. SHAW
THAT WE ADJOURN TO FEBRUARY 11, 1982 AT 9:30 A.M.
CARRIED."
%~,,-~J\~ \~~
---- -~ --
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
~1AINTENANCE BUDGET
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
Besidesroutin€~ work Maintenance Projects for 1982 include:
1. Road #16 .., Fingal Hill, slope work, ditching, etc.
2. Road #16 at Road #14 - Curb and gutter for traffic control.
3. Road #16 at Road #20 (Fingal) - Flashing Light installation.
4. Road #26 (St. George Street at Cowan Park) - Flashing Light
install at ion.
5. Road #26 (St. George Street Hill) - Clearing of brush, trees,
etc., to improve vision and to allow traffic to
use full width of road (nearly done).
6. Road #26 (St. George Street Hill) - Removal of old guide rail,
widening of shoulder as much as possible u.sing dirt
from south east quandrant of Canadian National
Railway Tracks and presently owned County property.
(This will improve vision at the crossing.)
Replace guide rail, some drainage pipe may also be
required.
7. Intersection Road #30 at road between Concession XIII and XIV
to bring Township Road into curve on Road #30 at
right angles.
8. Road #37 .. East of Canadian Pacific Tracks. Replace pipe
crossing, widen road shoulders and place
guide rail. (Depends on acquision of wideming
from South Dorchester Land Owner.)
9. Gravel Shoulders of:
(a) Road #40 from Glen Colin to Springfield.
(b) Road #40 - Road #45 east of Mount Salem (partially
completed ).
\
(c) Road #45 - Calton to Mount Salem.
(d) Road #45 - Calton to Highway #19 - patch.
(e) Road #45 - Highway #19 to Norfolk County Line.
(Some gravel in pleasant Valley Pit
Stockpile already charged to this
project.)
!-
Th~re are lots more only limited by amount of monE~y available.
10.
Bridge Maintenance:
(a) Study and repair as necessary Middlemiss Bridg(~.
(b) Paint handrail Wardsville Bridge.
(c) Str,eam diversions - Belmont West
- Elm Street Aylmer.
Cd) Floor beams - Vienna.
Continued . . .
'(' .....iI', ,.'^": .t<....',...,~.~~&.l..I.1:'wi.'IM;~-....,;n.,.,(,..' .I".~\;i. '.,. . '1 t,' '''."-....4 ,- ...i:,,,\ .H~ /."" "'"' 'j:Y" "';"1 "f'~'Il.~~~ 1- WI -~\iUH.~';';""-;_""''''R.....;...a.,...;'''''''ol<M''''''_'''''''''''.oO\''''''':~___~_...w.-~...~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE #2
10. Bridge Maintenance: (Continued)
(e) Finish painting Gi11ets Bridge on to Fulton and Meeks as a
minimum.
(f) South Fleming Creek Bridge - Road #3.
(g) Concrlete repairs - Richmond - Road #38.
11. Road #33 - lKains Hill - Cleaning of brush, trees, etc., to improve
vision and to allow traffic to use full width of road.
(completed)
12. Various Roads - Prume and trim trees that were planted some years
ago by County.
- Road #20 - Shedden-Fingal completed.
- Road #16 - Dunwich.
- Road #48 and others yet to come.
13. Repairs to Pavement:
,
As Needed - It appears that more work should be done on Road #28
(Centennial Avenue) north of Elm Street and that
patching will be required on Road #30 (Radio Road)
between Canadian Pacific Railway Tracks and Road #52.
If a major project is encountered it would have to be
done under resurfacing (Final decision May).
14. Prime: Old Projects
(a) Road #29 - Between Mini stry of Transportation and
Cormnunications':l recortstruction and wat€~r
tower.
(b) Road #37 - In Belmont.
(c) Road #28 - For 1/2 mile south of Road #56.
New Proiects
(a) Road #28 - southerly to Concession VI and VII Road.
15.' Signs:
Programme replacement of damaged and worn out signs throughout
the County. (Most intersection and curve signs placed in
1967-1969 era, will have been replaced.)
16. White Edge Marking:
Extent of progrannne to be determined by Cormnittee. Last year"'s cost
$16,332 (white paint same price as last year $6.05) (yellow to
$6.25 from $5 .55 ).
GENERAL NOTES
1. Miscellaneous repairs shown in past as an overhead item will be
included in Machinery Rentals. Thus book charges for equipment
will increase.
2. Vehicle licences for equipment payable in 1982. Again book charges
for vehicles will increase. (We will purchase some part year
licences.)
"
,~
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
PAGE #3
3. Stripping and stockpiling of gravel at County Pleasant Valley Pit
continues on a time available basis. These costs are charged to
the gravel and gravel charged to projects on a per ton basis.
Probably we will require crushed gravel by Fall, by which time we
hope to have another pile ready to crush (call quotations for
crushing).
4. Some leveling and clean-up required at White Station Gravel Pit
to keep Pit and Quarries Inspectors happy. (We might get a
little of our deposit back as well.)
5. We did some outside painting last year at the garage, we ought to
finish it this Summer.
6. Labour: We must carefully evaluate all projects so that we can
utilize our present staff to the fullest.
In view of high unemployment it would be nicE~ to try
to use as much local labour (and equipment) as possible
to assist our local economy. (It's better than paying
Welfare. )
\.
,"
..",
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1982 GRAVEL RESURFACING PRIORITIES
1. Road #9, Aldborough Township - Last done in 1975
(approximately 4.7 miles in length). Call a
contract for early Spring (ie., late April or
early May) and work off Highway #76 first.
Gravel from Komoka Area. ESTIMA'rED
2. Road #5, Aldborough-Dunwich Townline - Last done in 1975
(approximately 3.8 miles in length). Fall
contract so contractor can haul over Walkers
Bridge. Gravel from Komoka Area. ESTIMATED
3. Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) - Road #45 to 1/2 mile
south of Elm Street. Cvulplete work started
in 1981.
4.
Road #17 MCL (Middlesex to pay 50%)
Road #18
Road #20 - Complete work started in 1980
(Total mileage 4.3 miles.)
and 1981.
ESTIMA~rED
- By County Trucks in Spring - transhipped from
White Station. Some gravel at garage presently.
- Gravel being hauled on mild days as time permits.
~
5. Haldimand-Norfolk Townline - County of Elgin Share.
6. Miscellaneous - re: Spring Breakup, etc.
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
$38,000 i
22,000 :t
8,000 i
24,000 :t
3,000
3,000
$98,000
,
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1982 SURFACE TREATMENT
CHECKLIST AND PRIORITIES
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
1. Road #28 (Centennial Avenue) - North 1/2 mile south of
Elm Street
0.5 Miles *
2. Road #29 - Section between Ministry of Transportation and
CVllullunications) rebuilt section and water
tower.
0.5 Miles *
3. Road #6 - Kent County Line to Blacks Lane (1975)
2.5 Mile s *
4. Road #23 - Portion not hot mixed (1976)
1.0 Miles 1~
5. Road #24 - Wier Hill (east of Road #23) (1976)
0.4 Miles *
6. Road #45 - Jaffa to Highway #73 (1976)
7. Road #45 - Highway #73 to Road #40 (1976)
2.6 Miles
2.6 Miles
1.8 Miles 'i'(
O. 2 Mi 1 e s 1~
6.8 Miles
2.6 Miles *
2.4 Miles
8. Road #48 - Road #47 to Oxford County Line (1977)
9. Road #54 (Elgin Share) - Oxford Boundary Road (1977)
10. Road #42 - Road #40 to Port Burwell (1977)
11. Road #40 - South of Mount Salem (1978)
12. Road #24 - Dexter easterly "to Road #36 (1978)
13. Road #14 - Road #13 to Thames River (1978)
14. Road #42 - pdrt Burwell easterly (1978)
3.2 Miles
1.0 Miles *
OVER HOT MIX
15. Road #52 - east of Highway #74.
1.0 Miles 'i'~
16. Road #24 - Road #36 to Port Bruce
\
3 . 8 Mi 1 e s 'i'(
17. Road #16 - St~ Thomas to Road #45.
3.0 Miles 1~
18. Road #3 - north of Rodney a couple of miles
2 . 0 Mi 1 e s 1~
Miscellaneous Patching on all roads.
1.5 ~i1es *
(NOTE: Priority Items Marked 1:)
21.8 Miles 'i'(
<)
Estimate $5,800 per mile = $126,400
Say $125,0010
SECOND PRIORITY
Road #45 from Highway #73 to Jaffa 2.6 miles (1976), probably should
leave this portion and consider resurfacing it when the portion east of
Highway #73 is done.
This would complete the upgrading of Road #45 from Norfolk Boundary
to Midd1emarch.
/"
DRAFT #1
JANUARY 26, 1982
Road 1f32 _ 1'1:om east of smith corner to 1'0lice college
Gate (No tOp course of asphalt).
d #42 and #,,>0 ~ 1'0rt ]\Urwell ~ (lnclude drai~age, curb
Roa s and gutter and baSe aSl'halt coat ~ tr1.roming, etc.
and tOp asphalt in 1983.)
Road #32" Grading, g-canula-c base, base asphalt; froro
llighway #73 to east of smith cu-cve
Road 1f32 ~ Grading, granular base, drainage' etc.
(NO ASPll~T) from 1'01ice college Gate to
Road #52.
~
~
MinistrY of T-cansportatiOn and C~unicatiOnS constructiOn MoneY
Allocation
~
t~L EST1.l'IATES SUBJEct TO fIlRTllER REf1.NEl11',N't)
1.
COlllPlete ~alkers Bridge _ 1.ncluding land purchase and
apptoaches, etc.
2.
COlllPlete Road 1f38 ~ 1'1:0r0 llighway #3 to llighwaY .lfl.9,
1\ayha1ll and Malahide Townsh1.ps.
Road #22 (fairvieW Avenue) - MoVe llydro Line, fencing,
etc.
3.
Road 1f30 and Road #,,>2 (St. Thoroas $UbU~ba~) ~ coropletiOn
of ~or~,. tr1.rom1.ng, etc.
4.
Miscellaneous surveYs ~ grading constructiOn, etc.
Suburban Road #22 and Road #30
Road #32
"
Road #3
Road #38
Road #45 (~alcariUS)
Road 1f31 (at C.l'.R. Trac~s)
Road #l _ DUttOn to ~allacetown
Road #l _ south of Road #16
'MiScellaneoUs
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
6.
Land "pu-r cha se ..
1.
8.
~
~
1.
2.
I Of) 1/1{) 00
J
$180,000
10,000
50,000
5,000
10,000
$11,500
12,000
54,000
8,200
1,600
1,800
6,500
12,000
4,400
-----
TOTAL
"
118,000
120,000
300,000
--------
~193.000
~
d"O g j, 000
$220,000
\
$365,000
1982 BUDGET
DRAFT A
JANUARY 26, 1982
c
Total Resurfacing Allocation.
56
~5 '-131 OOu
1. Road #38 - Complete work east of Straffordville including
Ontario Hydro Invoice for pole moving, etc.
7,000
2. Road #8 - From Highway #3 to Dutton. Work to include
Wallacetown Urban Section north of
Highway #3 including drainage and
replacement of curb and gutter. Rural
section replacement, of culverts, completion
of catch basin replacement, drain extensions,
ditching, top soil replacement, seeding, hot
mix paving and shouldering. (We will make
recommendations on depth of asphalt to be
placed and whether or not certain areas
should be "milled" to reduce asphalt required
in several months.)
3. Road #3 - Highway #3 to Rodney. If it is Committee's
desire to ditch, etc., a portion of this road
in 1982 the cost should be charged to the
Resurfacing Budget.
4. If Road #3 Project is stalled because of land purchase
problems" perhaps Cvuuuittee might wish to proceed with
work on Road #45 between Road #40 and Highway #73.
5. If the Spring Breakup is severe major asphalt patching
will have to be charged against the Resurfacing
Allocation.
6. Likely resurfacing priorities for straight resurfacing.
(a) Road #20 - CVlllplete between Shedden and Fingal.
(b) Road #20 - Port Stanley from Arena to Highway 1/4.
(c) Road #36 - North of Road #45 (presently surface
treatment).
\.
(d) Road #36 - South of Sparta (1 mile surface
treatment and 1 mile mulch).
(e) Road #20 - North of Shedden.
c
1982 BUDGET
DRAFI' A
JANUARY 26, 1982
MACHINERY-HOUSING ALLOCATION
g'CJ73/VDa
"
1. Completion of Bayham Township Salt Building.
(Should include second coat of paint.)
2. Completion of White Station Salt Building.
(Second coat of paint.)
3. Salt Storage Building - West Elgin preferably Dutton at
Dunwich Township Yard site. An early decision should
be made so that Dunwich Township can a,cquire extra land.
4. Purchase of new machinery:
InnnediatE~ Needs
(a) Trade 450 John Deere Dozer as undercarriage is so po'or
tractor is no longer runable.
(b) Post Hole Auger - Present auger(s) are so obsolete no
part s are available. Unfortunately none of the, present
tractors have 3 point hitch hydraulics. probably should
trade one of older tractors.
RE~st of equipment to be evaluated in terms of need noting
potential use and future Ministry of Transportation and
Connnunications'" funding.
- (Full report likely, Mayor June.)
,
Cl
~
~\,
i~
I/\~,
,"
JANUARY 1982.
DRAFT #2
PAGE 1.
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE:
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1982
This report is a review of the methods used by the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications to arrive at our Subsidy Allocations
for 1982 and the method of calculating the County Road Rate.
The Ministry of Transportation and CVlluuunications has adopted
a policy of .a single subsidy rate (other than Drainage Assessments,
Urban Rebates and replacement of County Bridges on Township Roads) for
Counties and Regions. This single system replaced the system presently
used for Townships and Villages of 50% Subsidy on Roads, 80% Subsidy on
Bridge s.
The Ministry of Transportation and Cvuuuunicat:ions has al so
adopted a policy of allocating subsidy funds based on proven needs and
the setting of a desirable sPtending allocation. An explenditure over
the desirable expenditure allocation will not be subsidized and any
spending under the allocation will result in loss of subsidy at the
maximum subsidy rate (approximately 91%).
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications matches the
amount of money that the County would raise at 1.25 mills on its
\
Provincial Equalized Assessment and then subsidizes the County at 91%
for each dollar of the desirable expenditure allocation in excess of
the amount subsidized at 50% (matching grant). (See attached
calculations.)
The Subsidy Rate for 1981 was 75.42% (other than Safety
Devices being a Supplementary By-Law), while the Rate was 74.4% in
1980, 74.3% in 1979, 73.6% in 1978 and 74.9% in 1977.
DESIRABLE SPENDING ALLOCATION
The desirable spending allocation is the total of Needs shown
in the precE~eding year's (1981) Needs Study Update as approved by the
Tl\E COUN't'1 Of ELG1.N ROAD C~.'t'tEE l't..GE 2.
TO 't1:lE cat..1.~ AND MEl:11\ERS Of J ANU AR'l 1982.
REl'ORT ON ROJ>,D EJtl'ENDITURES fOR 1982 DRAl"t '-2.
. d co~unicatiOns.
Ministry of rransportat1.on an
The total allocatiOn is
divided tntO three parts:
(a) constructiOn
(b) Asphalt Resu,;faci.rtg
(c) Fi~ed costs.
h costS of thoSe Roads and
A\1proved construction costS are t e
tly deficient or will become deftcient in the
'B-ridgeS which are presen
. . dd
. d The deficiencies are catalOgue an
coming five (5) year per1.0 ·
(a)
~
, d C~unicatiOnS\
. ' f -rransportat1.0n an
d. to 'M1-n1- st-rY 0
listed aCco~ 1-ng t i~ntovementS'
. C stS a-re 51.'0 "J:"
. 1 d d in construct1.0n 0 '
. -lso 1.nc u e d un to
criter~a. ~ ' a sectiOn of roar
necessa,;Y to br1.ng
. costS, etc., d
such as pra1.nage to Need Study Up ate
lso ,;evieW attached
1 ble standards. (See a
to e-ra .
previoUslY sent out.)
The costS are based
on Mintstry of TransportatiOn and
t f const-ructiOn
whicb ,;ep,;esent the cOS s 0
, factO'; to update them.
.. ....~~_... a..... .l.on
. . ,.r~ed costS
co~unicat1-ons apP
,_ .~f'-"
'n December of 1918 plUS an ·
t'\...e"I.T ~e-re 1-
as l~' J t' on and co-rorou.~~"'~
f' rt' nsno-rta 1-
. .< the MinistrY 0 .ra r . ·
1.na~ch' as ne;ilbeJ: ete all the construct1.0n 1.n
h moneY to COlU-pl
.' have enoug )
the ~unici.pal1.t1.es f 30Cl1 (-reducing balance
b. ti ve O' 10
. a constructiOn 0 )ec s
a five year per1.od, . od bas been set. Thi
. f' (S) yea-r pe-r1-
leted 1-n a 1-Ve
of the wo,;k to be comp ActuallY the accomplisbroent
__^ducin~ balance.
, ls 6% per yea,; on tbe ~ . ,d on mid 1981 and
equa . ,-~ ,~A.e>< 1. S baS€-
"
d resurfacing and minO';
t..spbalt ReSu,;facing is the approve
f roads like ditching, granular, shoulderS' etc.,
associ~ed costS 0 ' ·
,., r 0' ~nt standards and "n.dths.
(b) t..snabll:. Resurfacin
db '1 t to proper geomet.L.~ ~.E>"
that alOe al,rea y \11.
t should be resurfaced in the
d "11.' sted\\ are the toads tha
rrhe -roas
coming fi,.ve (5) year period.
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE PAGE 3.
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1982 JANUARY 1982.
DRAFT #2.
(b) Asphalt Resurfacin~ (Continued)
The Programme provides that:
(1) Double Surface Treatment Roads should be covered with
three (3) inches of Hot Mix in the 8 to 10 year period
after construction or earlier if severe breakup occurs.
(2) Mulch Roads and Hot Mix Roads should be covered in the
15 to 20 year period after construction.
(3) Hot Mix Roads of 1 1/2 to 2 inches in depth should be
covered as soon as possible to stop breakup (elephant
tracking). (All completed except Road #24 from Road #36
to Port Bruce.)
Inasmuch as the Ministry of Transportation and Cvul1uunications
does not have enough money to complete all the resurfacing necessary,
they have set an objective of 50% of this work in the five (5) year
period or a yearly objectiv~ of 10% again on a 1978 Price Index,li As
the asphalt price has increased more rapidly than anything else it is
doubtful if the yearly objective reaches much more than half their
objective. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications inflation
index for 1981 was 27%. The Ministry of Transportation and
Communications has reduced the Asphalt Resurfacing Allocation in 1982
\
by 2% al SOt.
(c) Fixed Costs
TheS0 costs include Maintenance of Roads and Bridges on the
County and St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission Road System, Overhead
Charges, Machinery Replacement, Building Improvements, and Purchase of
Gravel Pits, etc. A tentative 1982 Budget (Maintenance and Overhead
Charges) was required in 1981 and a Machinery Replacen~nt Schedule for
five (5) years was required in 1979. (Of course the price of machinery
has increased nearly as much as oil prices.) The Mini.stry of
Transportation and Communications has also set up Maintenance criteria
for expenditure per mile of road. Although the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications applied the criteria in the Fall of 1976 the long range
effect on our Maintenance Allocation still remains to be seen. OUr yearly
maintenancE~ requests have always been reduced and our only salvation has
'tWl1. COUN't'l 01' ELG1.bl RON) C~'!:'tEE l' AGE 4.
'to 'tWl1. Ct\t..1.~ p,l'\D ~BERS 01' J p,l'\\l p$.'l 1982.
RE1'OR't obl ROAD EZ1'J'l'\D1.'tllRES 1'OR 1982 DMt't #.2.
(c) ~ (continued)
",hich has allo",ed uS to catch
blight \oIi nte r s the 1 a st t"'O (2) year s,
een .. . ' tC
, a~el shoulder~ng, e ·
0< the surface treating. patch~ng. gr
up on some l-
. . 'S as to11o~S:
our 1982 spending Allocat~on ~
.6~ of bleeds of $11,000,000 (Roads
con s t "ruc t 1. on 10
(LeSS 2%1
0.' < bl eds of $5.540,000
Asphalt Resurfacing 1 ,. O. e
(Le sS 20/01
and. B"rid.ge S )
$1 ,001,000
543,000
C t"" and. St. 'tbomaS
d. ""erhead cost s on oun ]
'Maintenance an vv
Subut:ban Roads
1,7B1,000
273,000
----------
~
~e~ 'Macbine"r1
d' allocation of $3.345,000 in
('this compares ",ith a spen long
19B1. )
, d COtOlllunications' SubsidY Rate
'the 11.inistry of 'tl:ansportat~on an
, <is countieS and
. . th the rate for ~ar~ou
is based on an abilitY to paY ~
beds of t:oad.
5(f/ and 8(f) according to t e ne
Regions ~arying bet",een' ·
d the moneY a~ailable.
s1 stemS an
subsidY on that moneY that
._,\l1\\E'd ASseSSl\lentS used by
"
ot:
.:JJv}
\. ~l-\-V' . z,ed.
oads bsid~ tion
ban R is su _ . nO" orta
Subur . < ",ork total - i~e ~s < '!1:ansp
00 ~. the b}'ect Ol-
68.2 and he 0 . istrY be
'1,2 ount er t ~ 11.~n must
~ e al1l e o~ '. 91,. line
een th nditur ..,.,,, ~s fine
bet'" _~ne ~erY
So a
(91%). (ArtY \;;s'"r-
any e~enditute under the objeC"~'-
and CotOlllunicatiOns and 9'/. county. )
"",a 1 ke d" for ma><imum sub sid Y ·
TO THE CHA1.RMAN AND MEMBERS OF TIlE COUNTY 01' ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE PAGE 5.
RE1'ORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1982 JANIJ'ARY 1982.
DRAFT #2.,
The effective subsidy rate for 1982 ",ill be approximately 76.4%
(75.42% in 1981 ).
total maximum subsidy payable in 1982 at $2,776,000 compared to
The Ministry of Transportation and communications has set a
$2.551,000 in 1981, $2,276.000 in 1980, and $2,088,000 in 1979.
(at S(fk Subsidy) are available, though last year ",e only received about
We hope the Supplementary By-La"'S for Drainage Assements
2/3 of the amount we requested.
1981, MINISTRY OF 'tRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICAT10~S' ALLOCATlONS,
(a) construction Objectives.
$ 543,000
(i) Resurfacing
1,001,000
(ii) construction
11,54lttO~
(b) Fixed Costs.
$ 273,000
(i) New Machinery and Housing
440,000
(ii) overhead and Fringe Benefits. etc.
1,341,000
-
(iii) Maintenance
:tb 054,000,
-
"
$1,544,000
Total Allocation:
(i) construction
2,054,000
(ii) Fixed Costs
-
$3,598~OOQ
Minisbry of Transportation and Communications subsidy Allotll\<\nt. iSl
On operations
$2,752,500
23 , 500
On Urban Rebates
-
TOTAL
$2,776,000
-- ............--
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE PAGE 7.
REPORT ON ROAD EXPENDITURES FOR 1982 JANUARY 1982.
DRAFT #2.
(,
were made for (ie., gravel resurfacing and surface treatment) if at all
possible after Winter Control Costs are met.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
R. G. MOORE, COUNTY ENGINEER
P.S. It is not necessary that a Supplementary By-Law be requested for
Drainage Assessments. The Assessments can be taken from
normal construction money. This method of course reduces the
monies available for other construction purposes.
P.S.S. TherE~'s no harm in asking for a Safety Suplement:ary By-Law
again this year. Chance of approval by the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications ???
\
~., t) ,,~ ~ '4} :, (J r
ELGIN
DRAFT Ifl-
'; ,JANUARY 1982
_I. CALCULAt'\ON O~- CRANT UNDr:R I;Pl',:R 'I tr:R l'HOGHAM
~"">;"'_..:":.::-"'!;:~_" ,,_ ,>>' '"., ,'~,: ;",. ..d' :::0: ,.:; _";'" ,. '-, ....C... ,:' ".... ", -; .' ." -";-', .':' c,:~:'::"",=
~
~,:r!.;p 1. Approve d FCxpcnoil\l re on Road s ;. "il
B ridges to which Grant A pplics (Itt...~,n 1)
$ 3,597,000
STEP 2
.
County EfCc)rt of 1. 2.5 Mills on Total
County Assessment (Item F)
1. Z5 x IteO'\ F = 1. ZS x $475,000,000
1000 1000
Plus Sep. lJrban Contribution at O. 5 Mills
o. 5 x ItemG ::: 0.5 x $ 80,700,,000 $ 40,350
1 000 ',~ .' 1000
= $ 593z750
o
, Total Local,Effort at 1. 25 Mills
= $ 634,100
......-. . ---,""'--
..
STEP 3 Road Effort at 1. ZS Mill:3 equals the
total Local Effort in 'Step 2 plus an
equivalent amount of grant
2 x Step 2 = Z x $ 634,100
STEP 4, Unmet Road Effort at 1. ZS Mills =
Step I1ninus Step 3 (Unless Step 3
is greate r than Step 1)
..
$ 1,268, 2??
.....----....... -...........
$ 2,328,800
STEP seAl .
Where there 1s an Unmet Road Effort
at 1. 2.5 Mills Grant applying to it is
Step 4 " o. 90909 =
$ 2.328,800 x O. 90909 " $ 2, H7 ,089
Plus Grant equivalent to Total
Local Effort (Step Z) $ 634,100
Total Calculated Amount of .C4 ant
$ ,2,751,189
... .-........ ....._-~
- or,'. ~.
8010 of App.:r.oved Expe.ndit....(e ,"
(Item 1l = 0,. 8 x $ "
-'$'
... , J
...........--.-.... ..
J.
Whichever is' the'lesser
OR
..~.~ .',
5 (Ar-, $,:' .'
"
STEP 5(B}
Where there is no Unmet Road Effort
at 1. 25 Mills Grant.is 50"10 of Approved
EXPC1'lditure (Item 1) :: o. S x Step 1 ::
0.5x$
.5 tB) $;o~
" ...., t.'" p 6
~:'.:-.... .
Grant applying to Urban Rebate Paid
50<10 of Item H:: o. 5 ~ $ 50,167
= $
25,084
Plus Grant applying to Approved
Expenditure (Step 5(A) or Step 5(5)
$ 2,751,189
Minus Receipts from Property Disposal**
__11/0 o! It"n~ N '" 0.. x $- " $.
Total Grant:
$ . 2 . 776 273
s.....r ,1_>:::-,.;:.- J:.....;::.:o:;..:::'.": ::...::'::-=
;5TJ,:U Total Grant-Payable under Upper Tier
Program iSt The Alloca.tion (Item A) or
Step 6. whicbever is the lesser
$ ~~~'.~~?.~~29,~:.:,~",:, '~
** Perccntage to be used is that applicable to year in whkh property
wa.s purchased. If more than one rate ap?lies. attach separate
calculation to S\lppO rt amount o! subsidy claimcd and note years
in which purchascs made. .
DATE
DRAF!_#2 :-_~_~~~_1.2.81..
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
COMPARISONS 1981 AND 1982 BUDGETS
DRAFT #2
JANUARY 1982
c.
Assessments (From Ministry of Transportation and CVlll1llunications):
1981
1982
Farm and Residential
268.8 Million
274 Million
Commercial
110.4 Million
III Million
Resource Equalization
94.6 Million
89.9 Million
473.8
474.9
(474 Million)
(475 Million)
Ministry of Transportation and COul11L\.1nications Assessment For:
1981
1982
St. Thomas
78.9 Million
80.7 Million
(1 / 2 Mi 11 Levy)
$39,450
$40,350
Local Effort at 50% Subsidy:
\
1981
1982
County
474,000,000 X 1.25 Mills
= $592,500
475,000,000 X 1.25 Mills
= $593, 750
City of St. Thomas
78,900,000 X 0.5 Mills
= 39,450
80,700,000 X 0.5 Mills
= 40,350
'\
$631,950
$634,100
/.
1981
1982
Ministry of Transportation and
CVlll1llunications Construction Allocation $1,048,000
Asphalt. Resurfacing 455,000
$1,001,000
543,000
Maintenance and Overhead 1,617,000
1,781,000
Machinery and Housing 225,000
273,000
ADD: Safety Devices
27,500
NIL
$3 , 37 2, 500
$3,598,00~
Increase 6.68%
""
COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD DEPARTMENT
COMPARISIONS 1981 AND 1982 BUDGETS
JANUARY 1982 - DRAFT #2.
PAGE 2.
1981
1982
'"
County Levy
$855,000
$884,000
Effective Subsidy Rate Approximately 76.4% for 1982.
\
..
J
co1.lt1't'l 01' ELG1.l'\ ROAD C~'t'tEE
~
J~UARY 19B2
S'ESS10N
'to 't1l1'. \oIp$.DEl'\ lIl'\D M.~B1'.RS 01' TllE COUNTY 01' ELG1.l'\ COUNC1L
'lOUR RON) cQMM'LTTE1'. RID'OR'tS AS 1'OL1ffilS:
1.
t f CountY Road l'\o. 32
VlhereaS fot the purposes of impro~emen 0
. ' l'\ 13 to the ",est limit
..:\' g ..t:....o~ the east 1 im~t of ll~gh"'aY o.
e '}{tenu.1.n1- J. 'LLL
d 16 concession V1.1.1. all in
of the road a110",ance bet",een LotS 15 an '
. . riate all right,
, t: "'~ 1ahide it is elCped~ent to e~rop
the 'to"",sh~P O. pa '
. t' lands described as follO"'s:
title and c~nteres ~n
& l' b 'ng part of
h' < "alahide in the CountY O. E g~n e~
1.n the TO"",s ~p O. p
. '1:.1111. and being more partiCularlY described as
Lot 12, concess~on v
1 d. n ....t 2 on a plan deposited in the Registry Office for
1?a-rt an . s: aJ.
( 11) s number llR 2313.
the Regist;1:y Di~ision of Elgin l'\o. a
t tbat the council of the corporation of the County of Elgin
\ole tectUeS ' '
b 'd la~ds b" e",nropr~at~on.
cctuite t e sa~ ,. ] .~ .
do take the necessarY stepS to a
2.
'0 GOod Roads ASSociation and the
That the membershiP feeS in the Ontar~
, ' of canada be paid.
Roads andctransportatiOn ASSOc~at~on
f 1!.1 in' s membet on the St. 'thomaS
That Albert ~ckland (the County 0 g
d th Ontario Good
b o. d co~iS~ion) be authorized to atten e
subu-r an D-Oa I~LU."
. ",ith the usual con~ention allo",ance
Roads ASSociatiOn con~ent~on
paid by the county.
b)' ectionS
f 'Elgin baS nO 0
d stating the countY 0
'that a 1\Y~La'" be passe rtion of the toad
hip of 'latmouth of a pO
, b" the'to"",s 11
to the cloS1.ng ] b rt' '\NnSbiP and. Lot '
. "\TV ya"rmout .1.0
16 concesS1.on ~ ,
allo",ance bet",een Lot ' #2 on Rete-rence
d h \Nt\. as 1?a-rt
t: u lmont an S 0
, "\TV 'Village o~ ve
conceSS1.on ~ ,
VI'E R'ECO'M'M'E~D
1.
3.
-plan llR '2274.
, n an
" the \oIarden and Clerk to s~g
'that a By~La'" be passed author~z~ng
, l' S on
'tb the Village of Rodney to place ",ater p~pe ~ne
ag-reement 'VJ1.
t ~,ll be similar to the agreement the
rt'h; s ag-reemen w....
. L' _" reg$tding placement and
4.
. . __ An countY Road.s.
;;
PAGE 2.
_ coUNT'! 01' ELGIN ROAD COMMITTEE
1'lRST RE1'ORT _ JANUARY 1982 SESSION
~ ~ --. ~ .---=-----
5. That a By-La'" be passed to amend the consolidated county Road
System. being a By_La'" to re~ert to the Village of 1'ort p,ur",ell
that portion of Road #39 (Chathron Street) ",hich lieS south of
a point, 1592 feet south of the southerlY limit of 1'itt Street.
This .,t11 a110'" the Village of 1'ort BUr",e11 to close the portion
of Chathron Street south of the Ministry of l'latura1 ResOurces
",orks garage. so that a se",age Treatment plant can be built by
the Ministry of the Environment to service the Village of
1'ort Bur.,e11.on a portion of ",hat is no'" Chathron Street.
6. That a By-.La'" be passed authorizing the \oIarden and Clerk to
sign land .,tdening plans as necessary in 1982. The schedule
attached to the By-La'" al1lends the schedule to the By-Law
passed at the December 1981 session of county council.
7. That the county Road committee act as needed in 1982 as the
connnittee on:
(a) solid and Liquid \oIaste Disposal.
(b) M.osquito control for the preventiOn of encephalitis.
(c) provincial or Federal 1.ncentive \oIork 1'rograromes or a
(d) The Abandonment 1'roposa1S of the canadian National Railroad
similar type pt:Ogt:annne.
regp.rding that portion of the Talbot SubdiviSion bet",een
port Stanley and St. Thomas (London and port Stanley
Railroad ).
(e) Lake Erie Erosion.
ALL OF 1iIHICH 1.S RES1'ECTFULLY SUJ3M1.TTED
-
--
CHAIRMAN
~
SCtlEDULB A 01' J)'{_LA'iI #.
1982
;..;.---
LOtS 6 and 1. concesSions -pt, 1-, 1-1., and 1-1.1.,
AldborOugh To.,uship.
LOt 1, concession 'C'. the Broken Front, To.,ushiP
ot D\1n~icb.
LotS 10 to 13,inc1usi~e. concession VI1.1. and 1.1-,
'to.,ushiP of oon.,1.ch.
LotS 12 and 13, concession V South of A. V1.,
and V1.1.. 'to.,ushiP of oon.,1.ch.
LotS 1 and 8, concession 1.V, V, VI, and V1.1.,
To.,ushiP of 'laril\OUth.
LotS 8 and 9, concession 1-1.. To.,ushiP of
yaJ:mouth.
LOt 85. l'\orth of TalbOt Road. 'to.,ushiP of
M.alabid.e ·
LOtS 12 and 13. concession V1.1.1., To.,ushiP of
'Mal abid.e.
LOt 13, l'\orth Gore concession, 'to.,ushiP of
'Malahid.e.
Road Allo",ance Bet",een concession V1.:1. and
l'\orth Talbot Road, To.,ushiP of M.alah~de.
Road Ailo",ance j)et",een concession VI1.L and
l'\orth Gore. To.,ushiP of M.alahide.
'!1:a~elled Road 'th1:ough LOt 12, concession V1.1.1.,
To.,ushiP of Malahide.
LOtS 4 to 12 inc1usi~e. concessionV1.1., 'to.,ushiP
ofsoutb DOJ:cbesteJ:.
LOtS 21 and 22, concession V1.1., To.,ushiP of
south Dot:cbesteJ:.
LOtS 11 to 22 inc1usi~e~.concession 1.V and V,
To.,ushiP of M.alahide.
1. county Road. # 3
2. county Road # 5
3. countY Road. # 3
4. countY Road. # 3
5. county Road. #22 ...
6. countY Road. #30
7. county Road. #32 -
8. county Road #31
9. county Road 4f31
10. county Road #45
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 5, 1982
PAGE 1.
BU i 1 ding at 9:3 0 a.m.. January 5. 1982. All member s e1<Cept Ree~e \oIil son ",,,,re
present, also present ",ere the Engineer and Assistant Engineer.
T1:lE colJl'\TY OF ELG1.N ROAD CQMl'l1.'tTEE met at the Elgin county MUnicipal
"MOVED ,B'l: \01. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED B'l: J. l'l. sM'iT1:l
THAT 'llllE lfil'l1.1TES 01' T1:lE RON) C~'!:'tEE 11.EF:I1.NGS 01' NOVEMBER 4,
l'lOVEMBER 19, AND DECEMBER 10, 1981 BE AJ>1'ROVED.
CARRIED."
THE J'l'\G1.l'lEER REFORTED Ol'l THE \oIORlZ TO DKrE AS 1'OLLOVIS:
1. Sno"1l 1 o"nng had been reasona b 1 Y 1 ight in the past fe'" "reeks. 'three sno..p 1 o"'s
ha~e been remodeled to fit the graderS lea~ing as e)l:tras one Old Slo'" speed
"V" 1'10'" "mich could be remodeled to fit a grader, and an 8 Foot One \oIay
se~era1 ne'" style plo"'S ",ould ha~e to be purchased.
2. sanding and salting ",as quite heaVY although there had not been a large
1'10'" ",hich was in poor condition. The Engineer noted that se~era1 of the
sno..plo"'S ",ere quite old including one "V" 1'10'" that ",as purchased in
1945. He stated that in the ne)l:t fe'" years if much plo",ing ",as done
3. Road #28 (centennial A~enue) south of Elm Street had been partlY gra~el1ed,
cu1~ertS had been placed and sOllIe ditching ",ork done. More crushed gra~e1
",ould be required in the spring so that the north mile could be primed
accumulation of sno~.
4. StriPping ",as being continued at the 1'leasant Valley 1'it. The County'S
ne~t surorn.et:.
450 John Deere Dozer had been retired from service inasmuch as the
_.._ ^ 'l'Dj~Oz,et: 'WaS being
tracks and undercarriage "rere cOlllpletelY ",orn out.
rented from south"restern 1.nternatiOnal pay1ine 1.ncorporated on an "as use~1
basiS (readings from the hour meter on the machine). (1.t ",as ",~",cted that
ST. TlloMAS. ON'ft$.1.0
JANUARY 5, 19B 2
1? AGE 2.
the ComPanY ",ould try to
countY truckS as time permitS. ",ere hauling
valley 1'it to \olhiteS Station Gara~e.
-."uld start shortlY and a pit run
tb count~ if at all possible.)
sell the D<>1'er to e J
gra~el from the 1'leasant
E1<Ca~atiOn of gra~el from under",ater
gra~e1 stockpile ",ould be
to date, ho.,e~er the trees ",hich had
Shedden and 1'ingal and
BJ:usbing at1d.
ome d
ted s 11'S lete
plan i\I1r",e cotnP
been. tot d. been )
",es ha et . )
d ffl.6 treeS e Stre _ 1 _ lligh",a ~al
Roa f some Georg inc~a on a Reil\O
go 6 (St. nro~ tree ood.
tin #2 io < a '" d.
cut oad Ontar states on the _ dere
and R , h the Act call cons~
llill) , d ",~t 'cipal <irst ld. be
'f~e ~n~ s ~ ",ou lice.
cl ar~ '\1l.e. Who ha , sion , 1 1'0 at
been ces. o"",er erm~s ~inC~a eet)
llo",an ing er's p '0 1'ro e SU
d a abut d 0"'" tar~ ~org S
roa f the lan he On (St.. ligbt
ty 0 the by t #26 the
proper d\ .,ithout be laid or Road -11 erect #20 in
the ",00 s could lightS f llydrO ~ .or Road
ot d. chaJ:ge shing taJ:io . gbt s t tain.
fla d On l~ cer
beft an the an < ~ the . not c. tbe
t .0. ",as 0'-
entS date 'ority
comPon li~erY he ma)
some de ted t
eC
d. insp
ba
B.
componentS tot:
Co",an 1'ark had been recei~ed
as soon as posSible.
1'ingal ",ere still backordered and a
:-.d Chairman and Engineer
9.
10.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 5, 1982
PAGE 3.
and control. They had visited the 11.iddleroisS Bridge to inspect the
concrete to determine the best ",ay to ascertain the quality of the
concrete in the piers. The CO!1lpany ",ould make a proposal to
Mr. \oIarner to be discussed by the Midd1ese1< and Elgin Engineers
~o ",ould make recommendatiOns to their Road committees.
Road #40. Although the road ",as slushY at the time, the road had
been sanded pre~ious1Y' I.nformation on the accident ",as extremely
11. There had been a fatal accident on county Road #42 east of county
12. some Machinery repair ",as under",ay. An in~oice ",as on the accountS for
sketchy.
the repair of the motor of Grader #17 (rebuilt ",ith a ne'" head). An
invoice had not yet been received for the repair of the 11.ichigan Loader
(transmiSsion. and torque con~erter). The Elgin s",eeper ",ou1d be
carefullY inspected to determine the extent of repairs required.
se~era1 employees that ",ou1d receive pay in lieu of holidays. t"'O
employees that had been called off holidays to ",ork ",ou1d ha~e to be
gi~en the option of carrying holidaY time into 1982 (~ day each).
13. Most employees had used their 1981 annual holidays, although there ",ere
"11.0VED BY: J, . J. SHA\oI
SECOl'lDED BY: 11.. H. STE\olAR't
THAT THE FO:LLOVl1.l'lG PA'lL1.STS BE Al'1'ROVED FOR l' A'[MEt'l'I.
l' AYLI.ST NUMBER 51 JI}10UNT1.l'lG 'to $46, 526 · 61
l' AYL1.ST NUMBER 52 JI}10UNTI.NG TO $49,984. 96
1'AYL1.ST NUMBER 2 (1962) JI}10UNT1.l'lG TO $152.531.06.
CARRIED ."
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 5, 1932
PAGE 4.
"11.0VED BY: M. H. STEWART
TRAT \olE RECoMMEND TO coUNTY COUNC1.L THAT THE 1982 RON) COMMITTEE Ac::r. AS
NEEDED AS:
SECONDBD B'l: \01. R. CAVERLY
(A) SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE DI.S1'OSAL coMMiTTEE.
(B) 11.0SQU1.'t0 CONTROL FOR T11.B pW;:VENT1.0l'l OF BNCE1'HALITIS.
( C) 1'Rovr.l'lCIAL OR FBDERAL 1.NCENTAT1.VE WORlZS OR S1.M.1.LAR 1'ROGRAW'lE.
(D) ABANDONMENT 01' T11.B LONDON AND 1'ORT STANLBl' RAILWAY BRANCH B'l
CANN)1.lIl'\ NAT1.0l'lAL RAIL\oI A'! ·
(E) LAKB J!,R1.E BROSIOl'l.
CARRIED ."
correspondence ",as read from the Village of 1'ort :BUr",el1 requesting that
the county close, the south end of Chatham Street (County Road #39) south of the
Natural ReSOurces storage buildings, to allow the 11.inistry of the Environment
to build a se",age treatment plant in the area using a portion of the road
Mr. Da~e wa;rd, of the Ministry of Natural Resources in attendance.
Mr. \oIard e~lained that the se"'age. treatment plant had to be placed in the
all o~ance ·
area immediately south of the Natural ResOurees storage roam as thiS ",as the
only area that had been appro~ed by the Environmental Rearing Board for the
se",age treatment plant and the mo~ement of the plant to another site ",ou1d
require a ne'" hearing ",hich ",ould cause considerable delay. Ree~e smyth
e~ressed the vie'" that if another hearing ",ere required for the construction
of the se",age treatment system for the Village, the grantS and financing,
etc., fr011l the Federal Government would in all likelihood be lost and the
village ",ou1d be unable to install a se",age treatment plant in the
foreseeable future. Mr. \oIard stated that the 11.inistry ",as prepared to build
a gravel road and a parking lot near the ",harf so that it could be used by
Fishermen, hikers. etc.. and that access to the beach ",ou1d be unhampered
ST. 'tRQM.AS. 0l'l'tt$.10
JANUARY. 5, 1982
'PAGE 5.
for bathers. sight seers, etc.
The Engineer e~lained that to close the road the county ",ould ha~e to
re~ert the portion of the road ,under consideration to the Village of port
Bur.,ell so that the Village could pass By~La"'S to close the road.
After same further discUssion · · ·
"'MOVED BY:
SECOl'lDED :BYc~ 11.. R. STJ'.\olART
T1J.AT \olE RECO~D TO c()\lN'ty COUNC1.L T1:lA't A :BY~ LA\oI BE l' ASSED 'to ilM.J'l'\D
'tRE COl'lSOL1,!JA'tED c()\lN't'l ROAD S'lS'tEM B'l~LA\ol TO REVER't TO TRE V1.LLAGE
01' 1'OR't J)1JRlHELL T1J.A't 1'OR't1.0l'l 01' ROAD if39 (cMT1:liIM. S'tREE't) ml1.Cfl L1.ES
so1J'tl!. 01' A ;p01.l'lT. 1592 FEET souT1:l 01' T1:lF. S01.l'tRERJ..'l L1.11.1.T 01' 1'1.'!:'t
J. N. sM'iT'fl
CARRIED ."
STREET ·
The Enginegr reported that the Village of Rodney ",as seeking permiSsion
to lay a ",ate': line on county Road if3 (1'I1rni~al Road) from one (1) mile south
of Rodney north ,to their ",ater to",er ",hich ",as just north of the conrail
t d tbat tbe Village had not yet entered into an agreement
'tracks. 1.t ",as nO e
",ith the county for the placement of ",ater pipeline on county Roads. The
Engineer recanm>ended that' an agreement ",ith the village be obtained similar to
the agreementS ",ith other 11.unicipalitieS so that Rodney' s plans could be
appro~ed ",hen the village' s consultantS had completed them.
"MOVED B'Y::
SECOl'lDED B'l ~ L. J. SRA\oI
T1J.AT \olE ]lJ!. CO~ D T1J.A't A :BY ~ LA\oI BE l' AS SED A1J'tl!. OR1.? 1.l'l G T1:lF. \01 ARD El'l lIl'lD
cLEJUZ 'to S1.Gt'l !IN AG]lJ!.~T mT1:l TRE \T1.LLAGE 01' RODl'll1.'l 'to ;PLACE \oIA'tER
1'1.l'EL1.l'lES <;ll'l couNt'! ROADS.
'M. 'fl. STf.\'! ART
cARRIED-"
ST _ THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 5, 1932
PAGE 6.
correspondence ",as read from the Township of 'larroouth ",ith notice of a
proposed By.La'" to close a portion of the ~oad al10",ance bet",een the Borden
Ice cream 1'lant in :Belmont and village of :Belmont Hydro Transformer site.
This road a110",ance had never been opened.
"MOVED BY: L - J - SHAW
THAT \olE RECoMMEND TO cOUNTY COUNCIL THAT A B'l.LA\oI BE 1'ASSED STKrING THE
SECONDED B't: J. N. SMYTH
coUNTY 01' ELGIN HAS NO Ol\JECTIONS TO THE CLOSING BY THE TOWNSHIP OF
YilRMmrrH OF A 1'ORT1.0N OF THE ROAD ALLO\oIANCE BETWEEN LOT 16, CONCESS1.ON XV,
yiIRM()1J'rH T()\olNSHI1' AND LOT 17, CONCESSION XV. VILLAGE OF BELMONT AND SHOWN
. AS 1'ART #2 ON REFERENCE PLAN llR 2274.
CARRIED_"
It ",as noted by camroittee that a number of accidentS had occurred on
High",ay #4 bet",een 1'ort Stanley and Union, the latest last month causing
2 deaths. The Engineer read a letter. that he had written to the Regional
Director, E. J. Mccabe of the 11.inistry of Transportation and camrounications
(London) requesting that the Ministry's Engineering and Traffic Staff
1'ersonnel in~estigate this partiCular section of road in an effort to make
recotOlllendations that might pre~ent future accidentS and stating that the
CountY of Elgin ",ould co.operate in this regard.
correspond~nce from Mr. \oIayne 1'etrie. Solicitor on behalf of
Mr. and 11.rs. Gary McCrae. 251 East Street, 1'ort Stanley ",as noted in ",hich
Mr. 1'etrie cottrfilained about the condition of a drain crossing hiS property
",hich ",as acting as an outlet for ",ater from County Road #23. The Engineer
stated that he:had contacted Mr. 1'etrie and explained to him that the only
method the County could do to.,ard the cost of repairing of the drain outlet
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY' 5, 1932
PAGE 7.
",ou1d be through a municipal drain as the drain had been put in as an
extension of the e1<iSting drain by the builder of 11.r. 11.cCrae's house.
The committee Le1t that a drainage petition should be for",arded to
Mr. 1'etrie for the Mccrae'S signature if the 11.cCrae's desired a
contribution from the county.
"MOVED BY':
J. N _ SMYTH
TRAT \olE REC()MMEl'\D TO c()\ltlT'l COUNCIL THAT THE l1l1.MBERSll1l' FEES W THE
ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION AND THE ROADS lIl'\D TRANSPORTATIOl'l
SECOl'lDED BY: M. H. STl1.\olART
AS SOC1.AT1. Ol'l OF CANADA BE l' AlD.
cARRIED ."
"11.OVED B'l: \01. R. CAVERL'l
THAT \olE REcoMMEND TO c()\ltlT'l CoUl'lC1.L TRAT ALBERT A\JeKLAl'lD (TllE coUNT'!' S
SECONDED J\\'l: L. J. SllA\oI
MEMBER ON THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD cOMMJ.SS1.0l'l) BE AU'tHORIZED TO
A'!:'tEND THE ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIAT1.0l'l CONVENT1.0N WITH THE USUAL
CONVENT1. ON ALLcMlIl'\CE l' AlD BY THE couNTY.
cARRIED_"
CORRBS1'Ol'lDENCE \oIAS READ FROM. THE 1'OLLcMING:
1. From Ontario HydrO regarding their south",estern Ontario 1'lans Stage
Study En~ironroenta1 Assessment, stating that they had not as yet
recei~ed c()lllll\E'ntS from the county on a1ternati~e plans and that they
proposed to proceed "nth the recororoenlted plan to de~e10p a route
from the B'ruce l'luclear Site to a proposed Transformer Site near Loudon
and a route from the proposed Transformer site at London to their
11.idd1eport Transformer Site. The Engineer ",as instructed to reply to
Ontario Hydro stating that the county had made theii: concerns kno.m at
2.
ST. 'tHOl'IAS, 0l'l'tAR1.0
JANUAR'l 5, 1982
PAGE 8.
~ould.
3.
, that tn~ ,._H....~~-J
and stat~ng ._Ao...taken.
. """g ~oul d. be u."~_.
f re hea1:~" .
be notified ,.hen utu . B,,_La'" for property V"
. th a zon1.ng 'J
, of 'laril\oUth "'~ 11 '" the
Fr01ll the To"w.sh~P of Elm Street to a 0
. 1 Avenue) south
d #28 (Centenn~a t · ng ectuiplllent.
county Roa d re"air e1<ca~a ~
~,." a""" t"\~e an I:'
4.
o"w.er to construct a building ~v ~~--
f'I'I h'" of 'laril\OUth "nth a zoning By-La'" on property on
'FJ:om the .l.o'W"ClS 1.1:'
110'" the o"w.er to erect a ",ork
LOt 22. concession 1.'1 near sparta to a
, d building materials,
shoP and for the stOrage of ectU~plllent an
1 'th a zoning By-La'" to rezone property f1:0m
From the 'to"w. of AY mer ~
. ' 1 on the north",est corner of 11.yrtle and
residential to camroerc~a
5.
h' of 11.alahide ",ith a zoning By_La'" to rezone p1:operty
'Fro11\. the TO'W"ClS 'l.P
on 1:\igh",ay #3 just east of 'terrace LOdge from camroercial to
Talbot StreetS in Ay11ller.
6.
1 . th thanks for the countY 1!;ngineer'S
_~ ~o~t stan eY ~1.
':~tOl1littee 1:\earing on the Canadian
t:esid.ential.
7.
B.
From J al1le S. sno"" ~...... ,;.:.er
. " A r 1"0"""- -
that he had proposed a Systemat~C a
t ' ~ith t.IL\:;
Rail1:oad y,~anch Line l'let",orks in co_opera ~on -
l'lational Rail",a'f' Canadian 1'acific Rail",ays. and canadian 'transport
. d. <1eSting that all abandor<<nentS presentlY under
c01.'('lI'O.iSS1.on an t:eClv.
. . be held. ~ithout
consideration by the canadian Transport C~~ss~on
s't. 'tlloM.AS' 0J'ftAR1.0
J~ARY 5, 1982
"PhGE 9.
orders until such time as a study ",as cotnP1.eted and the 1'ro~ince had
to make representatiOn to the canadian Transport
Report #56 on the "FUture of
..hat anY unUsed rail
9.
10.
nominal sUtll. 'h progratOllle for the
. G d Roads ASSociatiOn ~t a
1'1:o1ll the \mtar~o 00
Y 22 to February 24.
, < om 1'ebruar. ' that
con~ent~on ~r De1<ter request~ng
, 1'arker on county Road #24. near
1'1:o1ll ~. Cl~fton ted because of
. (T"\O)(tet:) be et:ec
d rone s~gnS ~ h
speed limit signS an n . bl' c llall and the churc ·
t<1xning intO the ~ 1.
nle ",ere u . < "
accidentS ",here peor . recluded erect~on Ol. an]
b .~ nJ:esent pol1.cy p
d that t e~. r d r
'the ~ittee note l' t Office e1<cept un e
, that did not ha~e a oS
~nicipal~ty built up area ",as
also noted that the
.,... ",as d that
'the Engineer state
11.
c~unicatiOns stating that the
$50.00 in the future.
12.
fee for a roUnicipal
1'1:o1ll the Coil;ntY Clerk
1'ersonnel coromittee as adopted by
January 1982 each department ",ould be
st of Clerical salarieS and benefitS to co~er ",n
CO .
1:. l1s based on the nUtllber of chequeS issued in the pre~~ous "Y"~--
O. payro c . h
h's ",ould be a non~subsidizab1e iteil\ by t e
'the Engineer noted that t ~ .
. and c(Jll\llttlnicatiOns and as such ",ould
11.inistry of 'transportat~on
, ,the al1l0unt that ",oul d be
1 Count" W'" thuS ~ncreas~ng
increase the tota ]
, ' . increasing the County W~Y'
rebated to the Urban ~nicipal~t~es. aga~n
13.
ST. 't\1.()1:\AS. Otl'tAR10
JANUAR~ 5, 19B2
"PAGE 10.
14.
Cl ~k .,ith a copY of the \oIeed 1.nspectorlS Report.
]'rom the cauntY e.
d. t to nlace mice guardS
d. . d. d. that the county shoul attetl'!'. r
lt ~aS eC1. e
around deceduous treeS that ",ere planted along countY Roads in the
tutut:e.
15.
council meeting. .l"~ ,,-_..
. ld. b thegoveJ:ning ~~~~oJ:
CotOlllittee roeet~ngs "'ou e
, ld. be for",aJ:ded to all members.
the m1.nute s cou
]'rom the 11.inistry of 'transportation and conJOllnicatiOns. 11.urray Seeley
Regional Traffic nead. noting the County's concern, ie.,the ,
.. . h",a at county Road 1.ntersect~ons
deterioration of signS on ~ng s n~g . y
d. . th n ungt: ad.ing ot
_:-.:> 11.inistry ",ould procee ~ a r
~p. al so noted.
16.
that partiCular location.
ding the county
. . f 109 St (;eoJ:ge Street cotOlllen
]'rom M:r. Gordon R~ck"'oou 0 ·
d. th dead tt:ee on
t efficient ",ay they remo~e e
",orkmen for the prdmP ·
17.
lB.
suit again:,st the l:'l,-,,~,;,;ry
salt dal1lage to his oJ:chard. 1t-
planS to J:educe the amount of salt applied to \\'-0"'.-'
TnE 11.EF:t1.1'<G ADJOUlUlED FOR LUNCH
. . .
AFtER LUNCtl · · ·
ST. TROMAS, 0l'lTAR1.0
JANUARY 5, 1932
1> AGE 11.
TRE J'l'\G1.l'lEl1.R Rl1.l'ORTED Ol'l LlIl'\D 1'URCHASES AS fOLLQ\JIS:
Land plans for county Road /IS bet",een DUtton and \oIallacetO'Oltl ",ere being
dra'Oltl up an<l it ",as e~ected to circulate the plan for the south mile in
the neJ<t t"'O or three .,eeks. The plans fo-r the rest of the Road to be
1.
2.
Circulated shortly thereafte-r.
BO b Da~ie s had met ",i th W. 1'ete-r Rent:z; and W. Doug .simp son regar ding
propertY fo-r ",idening Road /IS south of \oIallaceto'Oltl. The o'Oltler s
re~uested that the county ascertain ",hether or not it ",as absolutelY
essential that a 100 foot right~of~"'aY be obtained. The Engineer stated
that thiS ",ould re~uire some Engineering ",ork and ",hereas a full su1Ney
",ou1d be a~oided it ",ould likely be necessary to do some field ",ork in
the area so that sections could be ploted up and the right~of~",ay
3.
necessary ascertained.
on countY Road #45 in Malahide 'to'OltlshiP the plan for Mr. Eldon VlalcaduS had
been coropleted and ",as being circulated.
All plans on Road #38 had been registered and .,ith payment on the January
accountS all paymentS other than t,O Mr. Vlillial1l \oIard had been completed.
countY Roadc, #22, final payment to 1'eter Repburn "'80S made in the January
Accounts. 1'lanS for \oIillial1l 1'aul and Mrs. Bertha 01de ",ould be
corop 1 ete d shortlY' 1.t ",a s hoped again to contact 11.r. BaC1<ner and 11.r. Sam
4.
5.
The Engineer felt that he ",ould try to -reach
6.
an agreement ",ith 11.ayor Doug 'tarry sometime in the Spring.
BOb Da~ies reported that he had contacted a large majority of the o'Oltlers
. ,.__.' __A bad successfullY
11.illard in the near futu-re.
count.~ Road ff3 bet.,een l'le'" Glasgo'" and jl.Ou,,"'y <>,,- -
on . J
. n" ",as hopeful of completing
concluded a%reement s .,ith o~er hal f of tnem.
agreementS ~th se~eral more in the ne1<t month or SO afte-r he had an
opportunity to re~ie'" some of their drainage p-roblemS ",ith them. 1.t
appea-red that t"'O propertY o'Oltlers might be some",hat more difficult to
deal ~th at thiS time although he ",as hopeful that he ",ould be able to
conclude agreementS ~th e~erybodY by Sp-ring.
ST. TRoMAS, 0l'lT1\R1.0
JANUARY 5, 1932
PAG'E 12.
7.
county Road #32, the ~gineer reported that Mr. Anderson's final payment
",as on the January Accounts. 'the plan had been registered fo~
Mr. Rermsen and a release from the Farm credit corporation requested.
1.t ",as noted that a plan for Mr. Jack smith ",as ready to be
circulated and that a considerable al1l0unt of laud (3/4 of an acre) ",ould
be required from Mr. smith as Mr . smith p~esent1Y had title to a portion
of the coun'tY Road e~en though the C,?untY ",as presentlY using the road
(Mr' smith acquired title from the countY by purchase some years ago),
'the Coromtttee felt that they had nO alternati~e but to paY Mr. smith for
any property ",hich he had legal title to ~ich ",ould be necessary for
road .,idening and the ~gineer ",as instructed to paY Mr. smith the usual
rate and to proceed .,ith the re~istration of the plan as rapidlY as
The En~inee:r ",as also instructed t'" trY to conclude an agreen>ent ",i'th
Mr. Abel for the property required fr(Jffi him as rapidlY as possible. 1.t
",as al so noted that mo st of the pr9pert y required fr om 11.r. Able ",as
being used as the tra~elled r9ad and that the countY had previouslY signed
a deed to him for it. Again the CotOlllittee felt that Mr. Able should be
poSSible.
paid for that prope~ty that he had legal title to using the present
. t (' '2 000 ner acre and $12 per rod fo~ fence
compensat~on arrangen>en ~e., ~, r
allowance ).
The acquisitiOn of property from Mr. \oIill ial1l Rare ",as diSCUssed and it
",as decided that it ",ould be necessary to proceed ",ith e~ropriation
kno",ing iu all likelihood that all legalitieS ",ould ha~e to be obser~ed.
"'MOV'ED BY:
\\J. R. CAVERLY
SECOl'lDED B'l< J. l'l. SM'iTH
\ol11ERJ!.AS FOR 'tR11. 1'\llU'OS E S 01' 1.1'll'ROVl1,MtNT 01' co\JNTY RO N) #32 E1-TJ'l'\DI.l'lG
FR011. THE EAST L1.11.1.T 01' H1.G\:l\'IA'l 4f13 TO TWE m;ST L1.l:UT 01' THE ROAD ALL()\ollll'lCE
B~11.J'l'\ LoTS 15 AND 16, COl'lCESS1.0l'l '11.1.1. ALL 1.N Tl:IE TO\olNSR1.l' 01' MALlIllI.DE,
1.'t IS l1,1U'ED1.J'l'\'t 'to l1,1U'R01'R1.AT11. ALL R1.caT. T1.TLE lIl'lD 1.N'fEREST 1.l'l LAJ'DS
CONT1NU'ED · · · ·
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
JANUARY 5, 1982
PAGE 13.
"MOVED BY: W. R. CAVERLY
SECONDED BY: J. N. SMYTH
CONTINUED . . .
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
IN THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE IN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN BEING PART OF LOT 12,
CONCESSION VIII AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ,~S PART 1 AND
PART 2 ON A PLAN DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY OFFICE FOR THE REGISTRY
DIVISION OF ELGIN (NO. 11) AS NUMBER llR 2373.
THE ROAD COMMITTEE FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN THEREFORE
REQUESTS THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE C~JNTY OF ELGIN DO
TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ACQUIRE THE SAID LANDS BY EXPRORIATION.
CARRIED."
The Engineer noted that the schedule of a by-law passed in December to
authorize the Warden and Clerk to sign land widening plans as necessary in
1981 - 1982 contained several errors and that a new by-law with an amended
schedule should be passed. (Schedule 'A' of the proposed by-law is attached
to the minutes.)
"MOVED BY: L. J. SHAW
SECONDED BY: M. H. STEWART
THAT WE REeOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED AUTHORIZING
THE WARDEN AND CLERK TO SIGN LAND WIDENING PLANS AS NECESSARY IN 1982.
CARRIED."
The Engineer presented Needs Study Update Cost Sheets containing priority
lists for both roads and bridges and a summary of total costs upon which the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications 1982 Subsidy Allocations were
based. The Sheets were reviewed and discussed at some length noting that
probably in the construction programme the priority rating' (PR) of projects
should be considered by Council and Committee when deciding what projects
to do first.
s't. Tll01<lAS. Ol'lTAR1. 0
JANUAR'l 5, 19B 2
'PAGE 14.
'the Engineer presented a draft on
, d cororounicatiOns' n
11.inist~y of Transportat~on an
~inistrY of 'transportation ana
for 1982. 1.t ~as stressed that the
t finalized their subsidy allocations and as
c~unicatiOnschad not as ye
, , r~he c~ittee felt that
~ ld l'kel~ ha~e to be re~~seu, L
such the dra.t "'ou ~ ]
the draft report should not be circulated to all council l1e'I'bers but held
, <' 1 reno~t coul d be for",arded. J
until such t~roe as a .~na "
the 11.ethod of Ascertaining the
<.1 locations and Subsidies
d 't ",as noted that
f 1982 ",as diSCUssed an ~
The construction 1'rograroroe or ' here ",as a considerable
" d \oIidenings (",h~ch t
, d. tot: countY ~oa
funds ",ould be requ~re ' he order of $180,000), the
, < \oIalkers Bridge (~n t
h ~let~on o. d
ca~ryo~er), t e CO . . ",ork ",here ",ork ",as one
R d. #38 some tJ:1.roro.l.ng
k on county oa '
comPletion of f#Or ' #42 and Road #50 in 1'ort
32 funds for~ork on Road
last yea~ on Road # . ld be called by the
d that a contract ",ou
h as it appeaJ:e
Bur",ell inaSl\l\llc a ~o1<imatel y $60,000
< sanitary se",er s. .pp
< h En~iro~nt .or )
11.inistry o. t e .' oad #22 (1'air~ie'" A~enue ·
, d for const~uct~on of R
mini'((l\l1l\ ",ould .be requ~re beSt he could for
d estimate costS as
. tt:ucted. to tJ:Y an
The Engineer ",as ~ns ' ld. b asce~tained ",hether o~
. that l.t cou e
R dcc~ittee meet~ng so
the ne){.t oa
h nJ:o-\ects.
f ds for any ot er" ~
not the~e ",itL be any un ' on a~ed roads ",ere highlY
h. te edoe mark~ngs p
, . eed that '" ~ ~ '
~he cotOl1l~ttee agr ' stS of theSe ~n
to est1.mate CO
d the Engineer to try
desirable and inStructe d. to t:e'Vie~ the countY
'nstJ:'Ucte
. The Engineer ",as ~
the 11.aintenance BUdget. ' from 'Frank Co",an Co~anY
and to ha~e a respresentat~~e
1.nsurance co~erage
, . t possible.
n.. d cotOl1littee roeet~n& ~
at the ne){.t p..c:)a
'f~O'lED B'l ~
~. R. CA'lBRL'l
SECOl'lDED B'l ~ J. l'l. ~ll
J..~tAR'l 26 1982.~ 9~30 A.11..
'tl\.A't \olE pJ)J o\llUl TO 8J.w '
CARR1BD ."
~""'l'~~l~~',~<lW'I~~I'l~~"_'__
COUNTY OF ELGIN
,SCHEDULE A OF BY-LAW #
1. County Road # 3
2. County Road # 5
1982
Lots 6 and 7, Concessions IX, X, XI, and XII,
Aldborough Township.
Lot 1, Concession 'C', the Broken Front , To~mship
of DUl1wlch.
3. County Road # 8 ~ Lots 10 to 13,inclusive, ConccsslonVtlIand lX,
Township of Dunwich.
4. County R9ad# 8
5. County Road #22
County Road #30
County Road #32
County Road #45
Lo~s 12 and 13, Concession V South of A~ VI,
and VII, Township of Dunwich.
Lots 7 and 8, Concession IV, V, VI, and VII,
Township of Yarmouth.
Lots 8 and 9, Concession XI, Township of
Yarmouth.
Lot8S, North of Talbot Road, ToWJ.lSh'i.p of
Malahide.
Lot 13, North
Malahide.
Road Allowance Between Concession VIII and .,
North Talbot Road, Township of Malahi4e.
... ' : , "'.: ,', . -- ," '. ~:, '.
Road Allowance Between Concesslion.'vtII/\,:AriJd
North Gore, Township of Malahi.de.
Travelled Ro'ad Through Lot 12'1 Concession vII;t,
To~ship of Malahide.
.. Lots 4 to 12~incl'Usive,
of ~outh Dorchaster.
Lots 21 and 22, Concession
South Dorcheste~.
Lots 11 to 22 inclusive,.. ConclBssio,nIV and V,
Township of Malahide.
TO MEMBER8 Oll'THE (;OUNTY OF EI..GIN ROAt) COMMITTEE:
RE: 19$1 NEEDS STUDY UP,DATE
We (-3nclose updated sheet s from the 1981 (January 1) Need$ Study.
'We have ftnt\\11y receiv~d the Ministry of l"tal"l$port.atiQl1, and
!
q~lllt,nuni,(.1at.iQnSI pt~intout and have manf;lg~(l to com.e t:o an a8:r:e(un~'flt wi,t.n
on the costs. [Please note the sumrq,ary does no.t 'tncludeany wOJ:'l<
in 1981..]'
Heaclit1gs for the Road Sections are as f.ol1ows:
1. D. T. C. ... Ignore thi s is an internal coding.
2. Co. :Rd. Np.- The County Roa.d Numb~r and the Location of.the
considerat: i.on.
, particular s~c:.tion of that County Road under
3. Length in Kilometers and Mi,les.
4.. Bridge and R. Road .... Gives the Bridge N\lmber or Rail RoadCt'9ssinS
Number :i.f tl1ere is one on that particy.lar
Section..
;;. A.A.O..T. "" Annual Average Dailytratf1c on the rQadelectlo:n.
6. C.R~.... Condition Rati.ng out of lOOt Gives a rating
~r,
l<r'"
condition of the roadsectiQTt, i.e., grade, cU't~vatt1.ret
structqra,l adequacy, width of pa'vCi1tllellt: ~ wi.dt:h o:f ~hptd.Q~'rS'.
condi tlan <.)1' sUt' face (r ic.1~abil it:y) forpave~l !~Ut' f:ac~s, ~~tc.
G~)'nerat 1'1 tbe higber the number the hfrttercQI'l.d:t t;:lonthe
ro.ad is in. (Note the ratingou some short sE~ction$ of
road may be misleadIng as the number only indicateethe
conditions of the vet:y short section whereas the road on
~~~ithet r~lde mJgh.t be qtdte g()od.)
7. P.R.... PtiQt'!ty R~t. i.ng. A QombilltHd.t,n cJfcond:f.t :tt1tl ,~nd tt'tlff:it;
count. A lQwconditton rating plus a high traffic count
wi.ll give a high priority rating.
S(lbJect to political deci sions, ordinarily the road with a
htgh priority rating shou1dbept:ogramrned prior toe, road
with a lower priority rating.
COUNTY OF ELGIN
1~8l NEEDS STUDY UPDATE
SubSidy Allocations are
C.D. '"" Cr:ltically Deficient (f.n our case) 1.s Structut;'ally
Deficient, ie.., subject to severe breakup becauseo',f
inadequate base and drainage. The Ministry of
T.r.4'lHlpot't::ati()(1 (111,0 CmnmUniCf-lci.OlllS r.(~Bard~ eh..f,;,(~ a$,
th,nt should be built now g money was available.
Co.ts (in thousands of dollars) are divided into:
(a ) ,Now .. Work that should be done no~ if money w~s available.
(b) 1 - 5 (Years) -Work. that should be done within a 5,year
period.
(c) 6- 10 (Years )- - Work that should be done within, a 6,:<'" 10
y~arperiod.~ Work in this catE~gory
not considered wh~n~inistryof
Transportation and CVIUlhuni,cat:i,cJns,
. (d) Resu~rface - Roads that should peasphal t
a 5 year period. Roads will
.adequate,base and ditching. Gradl~1 and
granular base, etc. should be minimal. The
Allocation Rate at the present time for
resurfacing is higher than for constru~tion.
(~) Spot Drainage - Ditching, etc. along roads (mos:tlygravel)..
.. that ~houl d be done to upgrade the road to ~
-,.~",
reasonabl e standard but doe s not include trlaj o"t'
~rading, new road surfacet etc,
(f) (1/;trHl Ct)f;l1~H ... Ar.~ 1979 and f1t(~ ~n.lbj(H:~t tel aft 4HU\U(.11 M1n,[stty pf
Transportati.on find C(mfutunications inflatton ';0 st.
factor.
'r.
1981 Base Costs and spot drai.nage costs are not
subject to an inflation cost factor. If there
are no costs shown the section is considered
adequate and no expenditure is required.
Bridge # .. For County Inventory Purposes.
PAGE 3.
Bridge Natne .. J..ocated on County Road # (if applicable). lfno
numbel:' given the bridge is on fa TownshIp Road..
A.A.D~T. .' Annual Average Daily Traffic.
C.R.- Condition of Bridge<(out of lOO), note that a
95 .. 100 range is virtually problem free (and then we had
Walkers at 5 points).
I
6. C.D.- CrJltically Deficient, in load carrying capacity,
capacity or road width (depending on traffic, single lane
brtdges on low volume Township Roads are.not critic~lly
deficient ).
7.. Costs ~ All Bridges needs are now, and divided between County and
.It)cal &'11<1 betw(~en 1979 Base Cosl: sand
(Ie. D(~(~k' Repai1:s on Port :Burwell t'1nd
8~ Jurisdiction.. Either County (or joint County), or local
':(
municipalities.
... !,1ocal (Townline) Bridge Costs are not included in ~1inist:ry of "
Tra:nsportatlon and Connnunications Allocation.
.. Replacerp.ent of Townline Bridge must be programmed 't-lith
Mit;>.istry of Transportation and Communications 1 to 2 years
(minimum) ahead of replacement. Subsidy i 880% and 12ca1
tnun!ci:ealiti.es, ar.e re spons:tble for lapd purchase an.d
!.t?t?t03~.h "t~ s; t!l.
i
1981 NEEDS STUDY UPDATE SUMMARY
trap.spoit'ts,tion and Communications"
Allocations
~1,J f, 016 , 000
lnll at.1()ntactor a u$<;1d by Mini Atryof Transportatio.n'
Comml.1n!c;ations for 1982 Subsidy Allocations.
Bridge Construction 11%
AsphaitResurfacing 27%
Road COl'ultr,\lct'iot'\ 15%
Calcul~tionofoutstanding needs upon which
Co;nst;ruction Needs (see tables).
(a) County Bridges
(1) 1979 Bas~ $3J40~,000+11%
. '
(i1) 1981 Base
(b) County Roads.
(i) 1979 Base Now $5,104,000 + 15%5.~870,OOO ' .
(ii-) 'l979 Base (l-5 Y'ears) 4,666,000+ 15% 5~366,OO()
(iii) 1981 Base Now
(iv) 1981 Base Spot Drainage
P:t:'esent objective 6% or $1,021,000 for 1982.
0'"
(2), Asphalt Resurfacing (see tables).
t1
$4,366,000 + 27%
$5,545,000
Objective 10% or $554,000 for 1982.
r~,~:,
~..I >,c ;,:, '
.c:,
. ....
. .~tX<: 1
,'" ' ,
! ,:2.L"~'>~;,~
/;,':'",,: I
j ,.2~';i ::>/i' '.
.:a- '.'.'
..,> "J,:';...
",,~:,I
....
',-.--'-.-" -
~.!iiIU;
. .. -
.., c, "'.:'\: I - .', ... ..-:;;:
,"- '12_~~;-;., _, 't- ,. ;;:;;;
-'" " '. ',-
1$
I
i.''';'~~~
","
c",'(),
,,"..
,
OiJ6t
. ,. . ,.. . I
l ~~-J' ~-
~ ~4.;,r':-;-' ~, '" .
1 ~ '~~
~"""I
t;~::;:i'{' ::<oc.: 10
'.' ,.' .,..> , I
:;,~ -'::,-~q::~ ,~~~O!"l . ",L7. 9~
~l-+.~~ft~t\.:# }'~Ol1' LZ ~81
,...':',':;', ": 0,,' :--:;:>,;:_, ,'" '. " "
;$<J10!Ufi ::tl11l1'l:Jsea: L7, i](j
, ',:-' '.', ;' ,;' ,'. '.'.. . " " I
'. -.- -- ~" r ~I
'~.;-'~~::;:~-J;I~.p:.~~.. '.> : i c.,
~a:t '-4' .", , fft '()Z' ~ II
" ", '.' .:' '.,. ~': '.
-'O~---'--l'LTTi!"1 . 3P.,Q I
,~~:r.{~~- '.~ _:::'_ 07. ~9
......, ',.'". . '. .".... ,..';. ' . .
,~:~".,,:~I
- ri <l3~+' ~.. a r ',-oT 9~
~"'\: .,';",' ~: .>:~<.... " ,( '&:"
;~ ~", _ r.,~..,' -.9 '~'~I
,:,'.:. " ::.---.', ,. " """'. . :''':.
, ,-:; ~.- ,.,J~a1i.-- 91. i]~1
;. __ . .~, 'i' "'.','; :.-' . ", ::".. :-", ' . "", I
~lS, ():J. iJ-l1#'..J}t?,:olI,.,..'.--~l f;f;1
. --, ': " .' :', '. .:. :,' ,-: ':::; .,: .,-
::_,~,:P=1o:i2~~'--Jl : Z~
" : T _
'.'.. "
?Wtt::~ j
.QtK)H- a1
',' .,'
-..' ::., :'
Lot 16~
40 . Lot 21, .
, Lot 27 ,
T..'"\t
1--