Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved an addendum to its existing lease with Hydro-Québec. It authorizes Hydro-Québec to remove contaminated soil from City-owned land in Mercier–Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and dispose of it off-site, in exchange for a rent reduction. City staff say the goal is to leave the land ready for future redevelopment and greening.
- The land is lot 6 573 741, at the intersection of rue Pierre-de-Coubertin and boulevard de l’Assomption. Hydro-Québec uses it as a construction site for a new electrical substation.
- The resolution authorizes a rent reduction of up to $148,761 before taxes. Staff estimate the soil disposal will cost $148,761 before taxes, with the reduction based on Hydro-Québec’s actual invoices.
- The existing lease is for four years from September 1, 2025. This decision changes that lease; it does not create a new program or require the City to carry out the disposal work.
What it means for you#
- Hydro-Québec: May remove the contaminated soil and dispose of it off-site. Its rent to the City will be reduced based on actual invoices, up to the authorized amount.
- City and residents: The City gives up rent revenue to offset the disposal cost. City staff say the work would leave the land ready for later redevelopment and greening; the plan for that work has not yet been set out here.
Money#
The estimated disposal cost is $148,761 before taxes, offset by reducing rent Hydro-Québec owes the City.
- The amount is based on actual invoices. The materials do not give a separate estimate of the City’s net financial effect.
- The resolution describes the reduction as a maximum annual amount, while the staff summary describes $148,761 as the total estimated cost. How those descriptions relate is unclear.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the addendum itself, so its full terms and any disposal requirements cannot be checked.
- They do not say where the soil will go, what standards or checks will apply, or how the City will verify the work beyond using actual invoices.
- The materials do not explain whether the $148,761 limit applies to one year or to the whole disposal work.
Case for#
- City staff say removing the soil now would leave the land ready for the City’s later redevelopment and greening plans.
- Staff say that without this arrangement, the City would have to pay future costs to dispose of the soil after the lease ends.
Case against#
- The City gives up rent revenue to cover the work, and the materials do not show how the cost compares with other options.
- The missing addendum and unclear time period for the stated maximum make it harder to assess the full financial terms.