A recommendation to sell off several infrequently used and aging pieces of equipment owned by Woodlands County turned into a lengthy debate at the March 2 meeting around supply chain issues and the challenges associated with purchasing new equipment.
Woodlands County councillors ultimately passed a motion to designate two pieces of compaction equipment and a 2016 three-quarter ton Dodge Ram truck as surplus and dispose of all three units at an upcoming auction.
However, councillors also voted 5-2 to defeat a motion to do the same with a 2010 CASE 821 loader. Councillors Peter Kuelken and Bruce Prestidge voted in favour of selling off the unit, while the rest voted against.
Director of infrastructure Andre Bachand stated in his report that the county has four pieces of compaction equipment that have not seen a lot of use over the last several years.
The two pieces of equipment that he recommended designating as surplus were a 2008 Ammann AV85-2 Double Smooth Drum, which has only been used 85 hours since 2017, and a 2013 Volvo SD115 Pad Foot Drum, which has only been used for 183 hours since 2016.
Unless the county gets back into cold mix re-surfacing for roads, Bachand noted, these units are unlikely to see much further use.
He also suggested selling off the Dodge Ram due to the fact it has been having a lot of issues and will likely need a new engine soon. Bachand stressed that if he thought there was value in keeping the truck, he would not recommend auctioning it off.
While there was some debate around whether or not to keep the truck, the fate of the 2010 loader — one of three such units utilized by the county — was the main point of contention at the March 2 meeting.
Bachand noted the county had “replaced” the 2010 unit with a newer Hyundai loader two years ago, but for whatever reason, the county still hadn’t gotten rid of the older unit.
He admitted that having three loaders was handy, but the fact was they were only allotted two loaders within their fleet. And since the 2010 unit will likely need a $30,000 transmission at some point, administration was in favour of selling it off.
Noting that he has fixed such pieces of equipment himself, Kuelken indicated that even if they fix the transmission, something else could go wrong that costs more than $30,000.
Prestidge also said that he recalled this loader being broken down for long stretches of time, as getting the right parts could take months and months.
He also pointed out that CASE loaders are not that popular and finding a replacement transmission might be difficult. And even if it is replaced, there is a danger of the county being “nickled and dimed” by repairs.
“It becomes … a money pit,” Prestidge said.
The rest of council was unconvinced though. Coun. Devin Williams said he couldn’t wrap his head around the idea of getting rid of a piece of equipment that the county needs, as the municipality’s other two loaders are in use at the Whitecourt airport.
Reeve John Burrows said he would have been in favour of getting rid of the loader two years ago, but the county recently had to put off purchasing new trucks due to the high costs involved in replacing them.
“This supply chain thing scares me a lot. It’s a very frightening prospect,” he said.
Burrows proposed holding off on selling the loader and re-visiting the issue in a year, but also passing a motion to the effect that the county will not have three loaders as part of its standard equipment list.
