ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Marc-André Le Chasseur (City of Terrebonne)

Ottawa, 27 May 2019

Our reference: 8690-V84-201704198

BY EMAIL

Marc-André Le Chasseur
Bélanger Sauvé avocats LLP
Representing the City of Terrebonne
5 Place Ville Marie, Suite 900
Montreal, QC  H8B 2G2
malechasseur@belangersauve.com

RE:   Application filed under Part I by the City of Terrebonne for a Municipal Access Agreement – Request for information

Dear Sir:

On 12 May 2017, the Commission received an application by the City of Terrebonne (Terrebonne) under Part I to approve the following terms and conditions:

• certain terms and conditions of the Municipal Access Agreement (MAA) that it wishes to establish with Bell Canada, Vidéotron LLP, Rogers Communications LLP, TELUS Communications Company and Cogeco Connexion Inc. (collectively, the Companies); and
• certain specific terms and conditions associated with the following three files, for which work was carried out although the parties did not reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of municipal approval:
  • the Montée Masson/Des Seigneurs project;
  • the Trans-Terrebonne project; and
  • the Île-des-Moulins bridge reconstruction project.

The file was suspended several times afterwards at Terrebonne’s request because of negotiations taking place between the parties.

On 6 November 2018, the file was reactivated at Terrebonne’s request. Terrebonne stated that it and the Companies had agreed to request the reactivation of the file, and were submitting only those clauses that remained in dispute, to be settled by the CRTC. Terrebonne also indicated that the parties had agreed that the MAA would make it possible to settle disputes over the Montée Masson/Des Seigneurs, Trans-Terrebonne and Île-des-Moulins projects.

On 7 December 2018, as per the process established by Commission staff on 6 November 2018, the Commission received from Terrebonne and the Companies information on the issues that remained in dispute and the parties’ arguments for each issue in dispute. On 21 January 2019, the Commission received replies from Terrebonne and the Companies.

On 11 April 2019, in response to the Commission staff’s request, the Commission received a full version of the MAA that it wanted to enter into with the Companies.

In order to continue reviewing the file, Commission staff asked Terrebonne to submit answers to the attached questions by 10 June 2019.

The documents filed with the Commission must be served on all interested parties. Specific filing or service deadlines indicate the date by which the document must be received, not the date by which it must be sent.

Copies of this letter and all related correspondence will be made available to the public on the Commission’s website. Those wishing to designate information contained in their submissions as confidential must do so in accordance with the Telecommunications Act ^Footnote1 and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. ^Footnote2

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.    Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Cogeco Connexion Inc., telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com
Rogers Communications LLP, rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Vidéotron LLP, regaffairs@quebecor.com
Prévost Fortin D’Aoust avocats, m.quenneville@pfdavocats.com
Martin Brazeau, CRTC, martin.brazeau@crtc.gc.ca

Questions for Terrebonne

1. In subsection 3.3 of section 3 of the MAA project, Terrebonne proposed wording that refers to the vertical coordinates (Z axis) of the new underground facilities, expressed in metres above sea level.
   1. Please provide the following information for the period covering the years 2016, 2017 and 2018:
      1. the number of projects at the City of Terrebonne requiring underground work, regardless of whether they are related to the Companies’ equipment;
      2. the number of projects for which the vertical coordinates of the underground facilities were requested;
      3. the names of the companies that had to provide the vertical coordinates of the underground facilities as part of access agreements reached between Terrebonne and telecommunications companies, public utilities and others;
      4. who paid for the establishment of the vertical coordinates when requested;
      5. the degree of accuracy required for the vertical coordinates of underground facilities;
      6. the percentage of requests for the vertical coordinates of underground facilities that were met with answers expressed in terms of sea level;
      7. the percentage of requests for the vertical coordinates of underground facilities that received replies expressed in terms of ground level;
      8. the percentage of requests for the vertical coordinates of underground facilities that received replies expressed in any other format (please specify the format used).
      9. Specify whether vertical coordinates of underground facilities were required to be provided only upon installation or on some other basis. If on some other basis, describe the various scenarios whereby such coordinates were provided.
   2. Does Terrebonne keep vertical coordinates for its own municipal facilities in rights of way? If so:
      1. Are these vertical coordinates of underground facilities obtained only upon installation or on some other basis? If on some other basis, describe the various scenarios whereby such coordinates are obtained.
      2. What is the average cost of obtaining vertical coordinates for municipal underground facilities that are already in place?
      3. What is the average cost of obtaining vertical coordinates for municipal underground facilities as they are being put in place?
      4. Are the vertical coordinates of underground facilities expressed in metres above sea level? If not, specify the format used.
      5. What is the degree of accuracy of these vertical coordinates of underground facilities?
2. Terrebonne proposed rates in section 2 of Annex A of the MAA project. In its observations of 7 December 2018, Terrebonne indicated that these rates are consistent with CRTC jurisprudence in terms of road repair.

   Explain how Terrebonne determined each proposed rate, identifying the CRTC decisions to which it referred, and provide supporting documents. The explanation must contain the data and methodology used to calculate the rates, if applicable.

Date modified:

2019-05-27