Montreal approves contaminated-site monitoring funding

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously approved a $67,482.28 increase, net of tax rebates ($73,901.89 including taxes), to the budget of the Service de la gestion et de la planification des immeubles. The money comes from the city’s contaminated-sites environmental liability reserve and is for Les Services EXP inc. to monitor contaminated soil and water at 3550 rue Saint-Patrick in the Sud-Ouest borough. City staff say the goal is to continue environmental monitoring and manage hydrocarbons at the site.

  • The approved funding covers groundwater monitoring, sampling and analysis, hydrocarbon recovery, waste management, and technical reports.
  • City staff say they plan to use an existing framework agreement with Les Services EXP; this decision increases the department’s funding rather than setting up a new program.
  • The work is scheduled for the third and fourth quarters of 2026, with an annual report due in 2027.

What it means for you#

  • Taxpayers: The city will pay for this work from its environmental liability reserve. The decision does not create a new tax or fee.
  • People who use or live near the site: The decision funds monitoring and management work there. It does not set rules for residents or announce a cleanup or redevelopment.
  • City departments: City staff say the property department must report its spending to the environment department every quarter.

Money#

The approved amount is $67,482.28 net of tax rebates, or $73,901.89 including taxes.

  • The total includes a base amount of $61,584.91 including taxes and $12,316.98 including taxes for contingencies (20% of the base amount).
  • The city will cover 100% of the expense through its contaminated-soils environmental liability reserve.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not say what conditions would allow the contingency amount to be used.
  • This decision does not give a timeline or plan for cleaning up the contamination.
  • It does not explain how this work relates to the site’s possible future uses.

Case for#

  • City staff say the monitoring is needed to track contamination, manage hydrocarbons, and meet the city’s environmental obligations as site owner.
  • Funding the work also covers sampling and reports that document changes at the site over time.

Case against#

  • The decision sets aside a 20% contingency, but the materials do not explain when or how that amount may be spent.
  • The funding pays for monitoring and management; the decision does not require the contamination to be cleaned up.