Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved an additional $1,221,409.32, taxes included, for AECOM Consultants inc.’s professional-services contract for the west gardens at the Jardin botanique de Montréal (Montréal Botanical Garden). This raises the total authorized expenditure to $6,595,610.32, taxes included. The project’s stated goals include improving access and inclusion and highlighting the gardens’ heritage.
- The added amount is split between $732,845.59 for contingencies and $488,563.73 for incidences (a reserve for possible extra work or needs).
- The added contingency budget brings contingencies to 20% of the original contract amount; the added incidence budget brings incidences to 15%.
- The underlying project includes redesigning six themed gardens, adding a space for children and families, narrowing the west perimeter path, and rehabilitating sewer pipes.
- The original AECOM contract followed a public call for tenders with two bids. The supplied material does not say whether AECOM submitted the lowest compliant bid.
What it means for you#
- Visitors: City staff say the garden work is intended to improve accessibility, inclusion and the visitor experience. This decision funds added professional services; it does not itself guarantee those results.
- Taxpayers: The City’s central budget bears the added expense. The decision does not impose a new fee or tax on visitors.
- The project and AECOM: The extra authorization supports professional work such as completing construction documents, supporting the tender process, and supervising work. The full added amount is not necessarily a guaranteed payment to AECOM.
Money#
The decision authorizes $1,221,409.32 in additional spending, taxes included; city staff report the net expense after tax rebates is $1,062,326.00.
- The added spending is financed through Espace pour la vie’s common asset-maintenance program and local borrowing bylaw 24-033. The City’s central budget assumes the full expense.
- The original total authorization was $5,374,201, including contingency and incidence budgets. The revised total is $6,595,610.32.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not specify which possible extra needs will use the incidence budget or how much of either added reserve will ultimately be spent.
- The decision does not set out a separate approval or reporting process for drawing on the added amounts.
- City staff cite a project value above $25 million and a 69% increase between two construction cost estimates, but the material does not give the current construction budget or final construction cost.
Case for#
- City staff say the original contingency allowance is insufficient: all of it and 74% of the incidence allowance were already committed or spent.
- The work faces uncertainty from aging or undocumented underground infrastructure, soil conditions, water-management needs and the sensitive plant collections. More funding for professional advice and possible extra work could help the project proceed.
Case against#
- The added authorization is substantial: it equals 25% of the original professional-services contract amount, while the project’s construction cost is also rising.
- Much of the incidence budget is for possible additional needs, but the decision does not identify which will arise or explain how spending from that reserve will be reported.