Rogers playing hardball with City of Ottawa over municipal access charges

As reported by Cartt.ca, https://cartt.ca/rogers-asks-crtc-to-mediate-in-ottawa-city-rights-of-way-impasse/

Rogers is asking for the CRTC’s assistance in breaking an impasse in which the cable company and the city of Ottawa cannot come to an agreement on certain terms for a new municipal access agreement (MAA).

The parties have been working since their previous 10-year MAA expired at the end of 2020 to resolve particular issues related to matters primarily centered on the cost of relocation.

Rogers writes in its Part 1 application, made public on Friday, that the parties have agreed on many terms of the new MAA, including that relocation costs – with some exceptions – should be shared based on a sliding scale, where the city’s cost decreases over time.

But issues including definitions of terms and what to include is where they diverge on those matters. Rogers, for example, says the two agree that the sliding scale should not apply to city projects that involve the forceable removal of transmission lines for beautification, aesthetics or for the transit of other major infrastructure projects. But the parties cannot agree on the inclusion of particular definitions of beautification or aesthetics and language allocating to the city the costs of relocating Rogers’ lines, Rogers says.

Rogers alleges, for example, that the city is trying to cram limiting definitions of what beautification and aesthetics mean to reduce its cost liability to Rogers, which alleges the city is trying to implement these definitions to reduce the need to waste resources by squabbling over specific project characterizations.

“The Commission has consistently held where relocation costs ‘are incurred as a direct result of work undertaken by or on behalf of the Municipality for beautification, aesthetics, or other similar purposes, such costs are to be borne entirely by the Municipality,’” Rogers said in its application. “At no time has the Commission considered it necessary to specifically define the terms ‘beautification’ or ‘aesthetics,’” adding the CRTC, which has a model MAA for guidance, previously rejected such need for definitions and the city has not shown their need in this case.

Rogers is asking for these definitions to be removed from the proposed MAA and to include a paragraph that details that the city is responsible for all such costs on projects that are simply for beautification or aesthetics.

The parties also disagree, according to the application, on whether the city should bear any of the costs of relocating Rogers’s transmission lines that are supported by or attached to third-party support structures. Rogers alleges the city says it should not bear the cost of relocation if the cable company’s lines are attached to third-party structures, which, in this case, would typically be owned by Bell or Hydro Ottawa. Rogers alleges the city also doesn’t want to pay for relocating Rogers’s lines to temporary locations to accommodate those city projects.

But Rogers argues that “large portions” of its transmission lines in the city are attached to third-party structures, and it alleges the city is arguing for their exemption because it does not provide consent nor is it a party to these attachment discussions.

Rogers, however, argues that the city is required to consent to the placement of its equipment on third-party structures “by virtue of the MAA.” It also alleges the city has allegedly not shown any justification for exempting such costs.

The cable giant also said there is disagreement as to whether the MAA should provide separately for the sharing of relocation costs for transit and other major infrastructure projects. Rogers argues this type of negotiation should be done outside of the MAA and on a case-by-case basis. The reasoning is that, “it is not appropriate for carriers, alone, to assume large relocation costs for extraordinary infrastructure projects, particularly where there has been some degree of government funding.”

But the city disagrees, alleges Rogers, on the basis that reviewing projects on a case-by-case basis would add time and costs to the city and that it would not commit to provide additional relocation costs beyond the 17-year sliding scale endorsed by the CRTC.

Rogers, however, says it won’t add additional funding – as these are large projects with typically big budgets – and that the assessments would be done on extraordinary projects that occur infrequently. The concern for Rogers is that it would effectively be subsidizing these projects because it won’t be compensated for relocating equipment older than 16 years or equipment on third party structures – if the city’s terms are accepted.

The dispute comes after Quebecor filed a Part 1 application asking the CRTC to step in and force the city of Ottawa to pay the telecom costs to relocate its transmission lines to make way for municipal projects.