Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position in favour of authorizing an extra $303,927.75, taxes included, for Kemira Water Solutions Canada inc. to supply acidified 5% aluminum sulfate to the Pointe-Claire drinking-water plant. This would raise the Lot 3 contract total to $883,374.16, taxes included, without changing its term, which runs to December 31, 2026. City staff say the goal is to maintain water-treatment performance and supply through the end of the contract. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extra purchase would add quantities to an existing framework agreement; it would not change the product or unit prices.
- The original agreements followed a public call for tenders with nine bids in total. The materials do not say how many bids were for Lot 3 or whether Kemira’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.
- Staff say the extra quantities are needed because use of the acidified product rose beyond the original forecast.
What it means for you#
- Drinking-water users: The decision concerns a supply used at the Pointe-Claire plant. It does not directly change residents’ water bills, rights, or water-quality rules.
- Taxpayers: If the agglomeration council approves the spending, the agglomeration would pay for it from the Direction de l’eau potable’s operating budget.
Money#
The proposed additional spending is $303,927.75, taxes included.
- The contract total would rise from $579,446.41 to $883,374.16, taxes included—a 52.5% increase.
- The agglomeration would cover the full cost. Staff expect lower-than-planned use of non-acidified aluminum sulfate to leave a budget surplus in that product’s allocation, but the materials do not give an amount for any offset.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give the extra quantity of aluminum sulfate to be purchased.
- They do not quantify any budget surplus from lower use of the non-acidified product or say how much it would offset the added spending.
- The materials describe the contract as ending December 31, 2026; they do not clarify whether the 12-month extension option mentioned for the broader agreements applies to this lot.
Case for#
- City staff say the added supply would avoid a shortage before the contract ends and help maintain treatment performance.
- Staff say using more non-acidified product or reducing the acidified-product dose could worsen treatment, especially in summer, and affect compliance with drinking-water rules.
- Staff say buying outside the contract could bring supply risks, delays, and higher costs. They also report that the non-acidified product currently costs more per tonne.
Case against#
- One concern is that the added amount is substantial: it raises this lot’s contract value by 52.5%.
- The original quantity forecast was based on past use and projected needs, but about 80% of the planned quantity had been used by January 1, 2026. The materials do not quantify the extra demand expected through year-end.
- The materials do not give the value of any expected budget offset or compare it with the added cost.