Summary#
Montréal city council approved a contract with L.M.L. Paysagistes et frères inc. to replace the indoor synthetic turf at Stade de soccer de Montréal, 9235 avenue Papineau, in Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension borough. The decision authorizes up to $1,175,929.52, taxes included, for the contract and related budgets. City staff say the work is intended to provide a safe playing surface and limit the field’s closure.
- The contract price is up to $1,022,547.41, taxes included. It covers removing and replacing the turf, installing sports equipment, replacing the protective net in front of the stands, and maintaining the turf during an eight-year warranty period.
- Council also authorized $102,254.74 for contingencies and $51,127.37 for quality control and technical expertise.
- The city must evaluate L.M.L. Paysagistes et frères inc.’s performance under the city’s administrative rules.
What it means for you#
- Soccer players and other facility users: The indoor field is scheduled for replacement in September and October 2026. The decision does not set out the length of any closure or how access will be affected.
- Taxpayers: The city centre will cover the cost through its sports-equipment protection program. The decision does not create a new fee or benefit for residents.
Money#
The maximum authorized spending is $1,175,929.52, taxes included, or $1,073,780.39 after tax rebates.
- The city says the net amount is provided for in its 2026–2035 capital program and will be financed through local borrowing bylaw 24-010.
- The public call for tenders received three bids. Two were compliant; L.M.L. was the lowest compliant bidder. Its bid was 0.53% below the city’s internal estimate.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not say how long the field will be closed or what alternative arrangements, if any, will be available.
- It does not explain how much of the contingency and technical-expertise budgets will be spent.
- The full turf specifications and terms of the eight-year warranty are not set out in the materials.
Case for#
- City staff say the existing turf, installed in 2015, is worn and cannot be kept safe beyond 2026 through repairs.
- Staff say the chosen EPDM infill meets safety standards and resists intensive use.
- The lowest compliant bid was close to the city’s estimate, and the awarded bid was the lowest of the two compliant bids.
Case against#
- One concern is that the total authorization is higher than the contract price because it includes contingency and technical-expertise budgets; the materials do not say how much of those amounts will ultimately be used.
- The materials do not compare the chosen turf and infill with other options in enough detail to assess their relative cost or performance.