City extends snow-removal contract for sites

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted an orientation to exercise the first six-month extension of the snow-removal contract with 178001 Canada inc. (Groupe Nicky) for lot 2. It also set its position in favour of authorizing an additional $193,215.49, taxes included; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The contract covers snow removal at parc Frédéric-Back, Le TAZ and Stade de soccer de Montréal, with abrasive spreading when needed.
  • The extension would run from November 1, 2026, to April 30, 2027, at the financial terms in effect for the 2025–26 season.
  • The city council’s orientation is to charge the expense to the budgets identified in the decision file.

What it means for you#

  • Users of the three sites: If the agglomeration council approves the orientation, the contractor would continue snow-removal services during the 2026–27 winter season. City staff say the work supports safe access; that is an expected benefit, not a guaranteed result.
  • Taxpayers: The decision concerns an added contract expense, not a new tax or fee.
  • Contractor: 178001 Canada inc. would receive the extension if approved by the agglomeration council.

Money#

The proposed added expense for lot 2 is $193,215.49, taxes included.

  • The contract would be extended for six months at the same financial terms as the 2025–26 season.
  • The decision directs the expense to be charged according to the financial information in the file. The summary assigns lot 2 costs, net of tax rebates, to the city’s Culture, Sports and Recreation service for Le TAZ and Stade de soccer de Montréal, and to the Espace pour la vie, grands parcs et Mont-Royal service for parc Frédéric-Back.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not explain how the city assessed service quality, beyond saying the responsible services were satisfied.
  • They do not provide separate tax-included amounts for each of the three sites.
  • The contract includes a second six-month extension option, but the materials do not say whether the city plans to use it.

Case for#

  • City staff say the extension maintains snow-removal services needed for access to the sites in winter.
  • The extension keeps the same financial terms as the 2025–26 season.
  • The responsible city services recommend it based on their satisfaction with the work.

Case against#

  • The decision continues the contract without providing site-by-site tax-included costs or service-quality measures.
  • The materials do not compare the extension’s cost with other options for providing the service.