Summary#
Montréal city council approved 12-month extensions for snow-removal towing contracts for the 2026–27 winter season. The resolution authorizes $866,866.46 in additional spending, taxes included, for five contract lots in Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, Ville-Marie and Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension.
- The extensions go to Sauver Remorquage Ludos Auto inc., J.M.A.C Remorquage Transport et Déneigement, 9216-1686 Québec inc. (Remorquage TGF) and 9513-0068 Québec inc. (Autopromo Montréal).
- The authorized amount includes $642,123.30 for the contracts, plus $128,424.66 for contingencies and $96,318.50 for changes in quantities. The resolution says the total value of the contracts will rise to $2,489,096.46, taxes included.
What it means for you#
- Residents of the named boroughs: The contractors will provide towing services for snow-removal operations during the extended contract period. The city says it does not have its own tow-truck fleet for this work.
- Taxpayers: The agglomeration will pay the full expense. City staff say the city’s financial framework will not be affected.
Money#
The resolution authorizes $866,866.46 in additional spending, taxes included.
- The contracts’ original costs were increased by 35% to cover contingencies and changes in quantities, according to city staff.
- City staff say the required budget credits are in the operating budget of the Service de la concertation des arrondissements et de l’expérience citoyenne.
What is unclear#
- The resolution lists five contract lots, but the staff summary describes seven, including two lots for Remorquage O secours inc. The resolution does not include those lots in its spending authorization. The materials do not explain this difference.
- The contracts are described as extended for 12 months and for the 2026–27 winter season. The summary gives November 15, 2026, as the start date but does not give an end date.
Case for#
- City staff say towing is needed for effective and safe snow removal, and the city has no tow-truck fleet of its own.
- Staff say they considered contractor performance, costs and contract timing, and recommend the extensions with the boroughs’ agreement.
Case against#
- The decision adds spending and relies on existing contractors for another season. The materials do not provide a comparison with the cost of seeking new bids.
- The difference between the five lots authorized in the resolution and the seven described in the staff summary makes the full scope of the extension unclear.