Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set the city’s position on extending two existing contracts for heavy equipment rentals at the Jean-R.-Marcotte wastewater treatment plant’s landfill site. It directed that the first 12-month extension be exercised and that an additional $831,509.29, taxes included, be authorized, bringing the contracts’ total to $2,981,590.48, taxes included. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension would run from October 12, 2026, to October 11, 2027, under contracts with Dragon Construction ltée and Construction Camara.
- Dragon Construction holds lots 1, 2, 3 and 5; Construction Camara holds lot 4. The lots cover a bulldozer, excavator, rigid dump truck, compactor and water truck, rented with operators when needed.
- Of the additional spending, $728,841.08 is for the extension and $102,668.21 covers a deficit from past rentals of equipment not included in the original contracts.
- The contracts were awarded in 2023 after a public call for tenders that received three bids. The materials do not say whether the selected bids were the lowest compliant bids.
What it means for you#
- Wastewater service: The rentals support work at the landfill site for ash and sand from the plant. City staff say this work supports the plant’s ongoing operations.
- Contractors: If the extension is authorized, Dragon Construction and Construction Camara would continue providing equipment and operators under their existing contract terms.
- Agglomeration taxpayers: The expense is assigned entirely to the agglomeration budget. The materials do not state the effect on individual tax bills.
Money#
The proposed additional expense is $831,509.29, taxes included, or $759,278.81 after federal and provincial tax rebates.
- The city’s resolution separates the amount into $728,841.08 for the extension and $102,668.21 for past unplanned rentals.
- The decision summary says the spending would be charged to the wastewater service’s operating budget and ten-year capital investment program.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a breakdown of how much equipment use is expected for each task during the extension.
- They do not explain what controls will prevent further unplanned rentals or deficits.
- The materials do not say whether the extension’s prices were compared with new bids; they say staff consider the existing contract conditions advantageous.
Case for#
- City staff say continuing the rentals would support ash and sand management and help avoid disruption to the wastewater plant’s operations.
- The contracts already include a 12-month extension option. Staff cite satisfactory service and competitive rates from the original public tender.
Case against#
- The decision adds $102,668.21 to cover a deficit caused by past urgent rentals outside the original contracts. The materials do not explain why those needs were not covered by the contracts.
- The extension adds a substantial expense, while the materials provide no expected rental hours or equipment-use quantities to show how the amount was estimated.