A controversial motion to amend Mckillop's traffic bylaw, reducing the speed on all roads from 80 km/hr to 60 km/hr, was unanimously rescinded today after Councillor Mark Strong put the motion forward. "I think that would need a lot more consideration."
The draft amendment says the change was to "limit the dust created from traffic, protect residents within the municipality, Limit damage and maintenance to municipal roads, and limit damage to crops adjacent to roads.
Over the last year, there have been several speed reductions in the RM. However, Acting CAO Box explained those reductions didn't require a bylaw amendment because it states that the speed is 80 km/hr unless otherwise posted. But changing the base speed from 80 would require an amendment.
RM of McKillop Council Meeting - April 6, 2023
Reeve Bob Schmidt said, "Oh, ok so we could keep it in at 80 and just change specific roads to 60?" Box said yes, and Schmidt responded, "So that may be a solution." Councilor Wild agreed, "That would probably be the best."
Schmidt said the matter arose when the council discussed how dust affects crops, hay land and pasture. Schmidt said he heard from many people. He supported Public Works Manager Travis Herman's suggestion to "provide the reasons for doing this." Herman said the three main reasons would be better gravel retention, less dust and less road maintenance.
Council discussed the effect of dust on ag land. Strong asked if cattle graze after a rainfall. Councillor Wild responded, "They will, but within a week it is dusty again. But also you cannot spray fields with chemical when its covered in dust, or the chemical will not take in ..to kill the weed…it isn't the entire RM just the higher traffic roads that really require that…I think we should just need to prioritize the roads that are needed to be done."
Reeve Schmidt said some of the feedback he received led him to believe they should consult with the ratepayers who use the roads, "It really comes down to what our motivation is, if it's to save the roads, keep the gravel on the roads…because if you do alot of that, you don't have to do alot of dust control." He said it saves money which others agreed with.
Currently, the RM of McKillop offers free dust control within the RM. Other RMs offer dust control, but it's not free.
To test how much longer it would take to get to the meeting doing 60 rather than 80, Councillor Wild said he drove 12 km's to Bulyea at 60 km/hr, and it took him 1.6 minutes extra. *
Councillor Bruce Bondar said he had been passed by grain haulers who weren't doing 60 km/hr. Whitrow responded, "well they are supposed to be." Bondar said that was his point, that people are "supposed to be, but they don't. So what you are doing is putting in these road signs. Some may go to 60. But what you are doing is you are just making people break the law."
"You are reinventing the wheel here. Eighty has worked since I've been alive," said Strong. He said he received negative feedback from four farmers on the change. The CAO said they received several emails and a walk-in opposing the change.
Councillor Howard Arndt, who put the original motion forward, said they were trying to keep costs down because of the increase in costs to maintain the roads due to the increase in traffic. "Everybody talks about we've got to find a way to cut money…guess what, if people want that level its going to cost more. And I'm sorry I have no problem with tax increases if people want and expect greater quality of service." Councillor Bondar responded, "They want the same quality of service. But you are right, it's a balancing act. What do you want to pay for?" However, he didn't think this issue would assume the RM would raise taxes because they hadn't gone through the financials yet.
Councillor Whitrow noted that when they reduced the speed in his area to 60 km/hr, he initially received complaints, but then after they took the time to explain why they had done it, he hadn't received any additional complaints.
Councillor Garry Gilbert said he thought the RM didn't do a good enough job explaining the reasoning behind the decision to the public. When Strong asked if the signage had been ordered, answers were not immediately forthcoming from his fellow councillors. A/CAO responded that some signs had been ordered that had yet to be delivered. Strong said, "That sort of signalled to the public that they weren't going to go through a bylaw amendment to do it."
Councillor Whitrow responded to Strong, "how do you mean that signaled to the public? they didn't know whether we had signs or not. We had signs in stock and the signs that we had in stock are the ones that they put up."
When Strong asked again if they had ordered signs because he was told by a ratepayer they had, he asked if there was a directive at the last meeting. The CAO and Councillor Whitrow responded no. Councillor Strong then apologized for the question.
Ultimately, the council voted unanimously to rescind the motion. They will be working on getting more feedback and providing reasoning to the ratepayers behind the matter.
