To pulverize or not to pulverize, that is the question

County residents may be interested to know that the topic of road condition and repair was hot over the
last month for Woodlands County Council. In 2020, with financial concerns at the forefront, Council
chose pulverization for cold mix roads needing attention rather than spending more money to fix
problem areas or rehabilitate them.
At a mid-June meeting, Council learned that their Administration had found areas for pulverization,
totalling just over one kilometre. “When we say we are pulverizing a cold mix road back to gravel, it’s
not really back to gravel. It’s a pulverized oil product when the summer comes around and the heat,
along with the traffic, it does bind it together somewhat, but it is not the smooth cold mix road that was
there before,” explained Andre Bachand, Director of Infrastructure Services.
The 1.2 kilometres needing to be pulverized would cost the County between $60-$80 thousand. To
rehabilitate the roads and bring them back to a paved state with cold mix, would cost between $170-
$200 thousand. Councillor Alan Deane said he wanted to know more about using cold mix instead of
pulverization.
Councillor Jeremy Wilhelm also questioned the pulverizing method. Given the County’s better financial
position, he spoke to his colleagues, seeking their thoughts. “This is the one service level that we have
that is most visible to our residents. We’ve been increasing taxes to them the last several years and
decreasing their service levels.” He said he would rather see the service level flatline or slightly increase
rather than decrease.
Councillor John Burrows agreed. “Back in 2019, when we were sitting here having a discussion about
buying a grader and found out that there wasn’t any money in the bank to buy a grader, we were in full
panic mode to try and cut costs and save money. Based on the numbers I’m seeing here, I would support
Councillor Wilhelm’s assertion. I don’t think it’s worth going backwards at this point and time based on
the numbers we’re seeing and based on the taxation that we’re seeing.”
Councillor Bruce Prestidge agreed but felt they should wait until next year’s budget. “We’ve done too
much unbudgeted expenses, and that should stop. If we can’t figure out our budget better than that,
then we shouldn’t be doing it.”
Reeve Dave Kusch wondered if the areas identified could handle a patch job this year and be
rehabilitated next year, saving the cost of doing work this year. “The areas we’ve identified are breaking
up pretty bad. The intention was to pulverize them so that those areas that are that bad, we wouldn’t
have to keep going there to patch,” responded Bachand.
The conversation went around the table several times as Council discussed balancing the situation,
considering everything involved, from the budget to the residents and the growing potholes. Councillor
Allan Deane took a stab at a motion as he tried to encompass everything his colleagues had brought
forward. His motion, to look at cold mix rehabilitation on identified areas and a patch plan to get the
roads serviceable until next year, passed. A second motion was made to bring forward potential roads
for rehabilitation in 2024 to give Council an idea of what next year’s budget would need to be.

Administration brought the information requested to the July 19 Council meeting. The twelve sections,
on five different roads, totalled 1.2 kilometres, would cost $115,000 to rehabilitate and $45,000 to
pulverize. Bachand said pinpointing roads for work next year was difficult, given the rate of
deterioration. “The cold mix inventory is roughly forty-eight kilometres. Based on $85,000 a kilometre,
that’s in the ballpark of 4.4 million dollars. If Council wishes to reestablish a cold mix program,
Administration would put forward an $880,000 budget to do a fifth of the roads and that amount every
year after that, given that the life expectancy of cold mix roads is roughly five years.” Administration
recommended continuing with the pulverization program for 2023.
Councillor Wilhelm started the conversation. “If we are potentially looking at doing a cold mix program
next year, depending on the budget, would this just be a waste to spend the $45,000 if we are just going
to mitigate it next year? Could they be patched in the meantime rather than spending $45,000?”
Bachand said some areas could be patched, but others were “beyond the point of patching.”
Councillor Wilhelm asked what his colleagues felt about reintroducing a cold mix program next year. He
said many of the sections shown are in his division and that with pulverization, he would have
concerned residents coming forward. “If I can at least say that we are looking at rehabilitating the whole
road, that’s something that I can share with them to have peace of mind on their investment into the
municipality by paying their taxes. The quality of road you had before, we’re looking at bringing that
back to you.”
Reeve Kusch said he wasn’t against it but felt keeping the pulverizing program in place for the rest of
2023 made sense. Councillor Bruce Prestidge spoke in favour of it, providing the roads done could
handle it. “I have no problem doing a cold mix program on roads that will not fall apart in six months. If
you cold mix a road and within a year it’s totally gone again, that’s wasted money.”
Councillor Kuelken motioned for Woodlands County to continue the plans for pulverizing through 2023
and to find roads for complete rehabilitation for the 2024 budget. Before voting, Councillor Wilhelm
confirmed that restarting a cold mix program would be an option, to which Bachand said yes. Bachand
added that they would revisit the twelve sections identified and patch what they felt they could
effectively patch and pulverize the rest.
Councillor Deane said continuing pulverization made sense, provided someone else was driving on it.
“Objectively, yes, pulverization does make the most sense unless you live on that road, and then it
doesn’t make sense at all. We are here to serve our residents, and we have to be conscious of the
bottom line, obviously, but we also need to be aware of their concerns.” Council voted in favour of the
motion. Councillor Deane was the lone vote against.