City funds urban wood reuse project

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted an orientation to award the Centre de valorisation du bois urbain (CVBU) up to $309,848 to process city wood from March 30, 2026, to December 31, 2027, and approve a funding agreement. This sets the city’s position; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to reuse wood from tree removals and return products or services to the City and linked municipalities.

  • The proposed agreement covers up to 3,500 tonnes of wood, at a stated cost of $80.48 per tonne.
  • CVBU would return value to the City as reclaimed-wood products or services: up to 80% of the contribution for marketable wood and up to 20% for non-marketable wood.
  • The agreement allows up to four half-day training sessions on preparing and stacking felled wood.
  • The City would receive all reclaimed-wood products under this agreement; unlike the previous agreement, it would not provide CVBU with wood as an in-kind contribution.

What it means for you#

  • City services and linked municipalities: Their units could obtain CVBU’s reclaimed-wood products or services. The decision does not create a direct benefit or application process for residents.
  • CVBU: If the funding is approved, it would receive payments in stages, tied to wood volumes collected and reports approved by the City.
  • Residents and businesses: The decision does not directly change taxes, fees, or rules for residents or businesses.

Money#

The proposed contribution is capped at $309,848 and would be paid entirely by the agglomeration.

  • It would be financed through the existing agglomeration borrowing bylaw RCG 19-024, the ash-borer action plan.
  • The agreement sets nine payments: an initial $28,168; payments linked to each 500-tonne milestone and an approved interim report; and a final $20,120 after the City approves the final report.
  • The summary gives both a maximum of 3,500 tonnes at $80.48 per tonne and a maximum contribution of $309,848, but does not explain how those figures reconcile.

What is unclear#

  • The agreement itself is not included, so its full terms and any consequences for unmet targets cannot be checked.
  • The materials do not explain how the City will choose or value the products and services returned, or how much value it expects to receive in practice.
  • The summary does not explain the difference between the per-tonne figure and the maximum contribution.

Case for#

  • City staff say the arrangement gives the City a way to handle wood from tree removals and receive useful wood products or services in return.
  • Staff say the $80.48-per-tonne cost compares favourably with other City waste-management contracts, and that local social-economy partners are involved.
  • The staged payments and required reports link payment to collected volumes and reported work.

Case against#

  • The City would commit up to $309,848, while the value of products and services returned depends on the type of wood and is capped at different percentages.
  • The unexplained difference between the stated per-tonne cost and the total maximum makes the funding calculation hard to assess from the available material.
  • The summary says the contribution would average about 10% of CVBU’s annual budget. It does not explain what would happen to the work if this funding were not renewed.