Police station contingency transfer approved

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position for the agglomeration council to approve a $114,975 transfer, taxes included, from incidental expenses to contingencies for work at the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal’s (SPVM) PDQ 21, at 1669 rue Berri. The transfer would raise the landlord’s maximum contract amount to $2,345,490, taxes included; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The money is for additional work under the lease with 9227-9702 Québec inc. The decision summary says the work was provisionally accepted on February 28, 2026.
  • The transfer moves budget already set aside for incidental expenses into the contingency budget. City staff say the total budget for the work remains unchanged.
  • The agglomeration would pay the full expense because the SPVM reports to it.

What it means for you#

  • SPVM and PDQ 21: The transfer would provide more contingency funds for additional work at the police station.
  • 9227-9702 Québec inc.: The landlord’s maximum contract amount would increase by $114,975, taxes included.
  • Taxpayers: The decision summary says the agglomeration would pay the cost. It does not add to the project’s total budget, according to city staff.

Money#

The proposed transfer is $114,975, taxes included; city staff say it would not increase the project’s total budget.

  • The amount moved from incidentals to contingencies. The decision summary shows incidentals falling from $183,960 to $68,985, taxes included, while the maximum contract amount rises from $2,230,515 to $2,345,490, taxes included.
  • The revised total for the work, including incidentals, remains $2,414,475, before tax rebates. The summary lists rebates of $105,000 for GST and $104,737.50 for QST.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not itemize which additional work the requested contingency would cover.
  • The resolution says the money will be charged after the required budget transfer, but does not give further detail about that transfer.

Case for#

  • The decision summary says the expanded work left too little contingency money for changes and other extra costs. Moving funds from incidentals would add contingency without increasing the project’s total budget.
  • City staff say the additional work is needed for PDQ 21 to function.

Case against#

  • Reducing incidentals leaves less money in that budget for other related costs; the materials do not explain whether the remaining $68,985 is sufficient.
  • The materials do not specify which additional work the new contingency will pay for, making it difficult to assess whether the amount is adequate.