Feasibility of Establishing a Telecommunications Authority and
Related Matters Respecting Rights-Of-Way Access and Use
The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report
(January 11, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer subject to amending
Recommendation (3) to read:
"(3)the CAO be authorized, as previously recommended, to establish the
inter-departmental Working Group given the Corporate-wide and strategic purpose of
its tasks and that a Steering Committee to the Working Group consisting of three City
Councillors be established and that the Striking Committee be requested to recommend
Council representation having regard to the fact that Councillors Silva, Moscoe and
Fotinos have indicated in interest in serving on this Steering Committee;"
The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (January 11, 1999)
from the Chief Administrative Officer:
Purpose:
At its meeting of December 11, 1998, the Economic Development Committee deferred
consideration of the report Feasibility of Establishing a Telecommunications Authority and
Related Matters Respecting Rights-of-Way Access and Use, pending a response from the
Chief Administrative Officer on amendments proposed at Committee. The purpose of this
report is to comment on the compatibility of the proposed amendments with the CAO intent to
introduce a corporate-wide and strategic City approach to telecom issues.
Financial Impact and Implications:
There are no immediate or direct expenditures arising from the recommendations of this
report. The decisions made will, however, effect the ability of the City to develop more
comprehensive principles, policy and procedures respecting the use of its property and assets
by telecommunications providers. In addition, two of the proposed amendments involve
matters of Corporate-wide finance policy. Accordingly, the CAO is recommending the
involvement of the Chief Financial Officer in those matters.
Recommendations:
It is, therefore, recommended that:
(1)recommendation one of the telecommunications report dated November 26, 1998, from the
Chief Administrative Officer, be deleted;
(2)any viable proposal from a telecommunications provider be subject to a full business case
analysis by the Telecommunications Working Group and the Chief Financial Officer to
identify the benefits that will accrue to the City on pre-determined factors and the merit of
entering into an Agreement where the provider requires a term exceeding five years;
(3)the CAO be authorized, as previously recommended, to establish the inter-departmental
Working Group given the Corporate-wide and strategic purpose of its tasks and further, that
the Economic Development Committee consider whether the interests of Councillors would
be better met by serving as a Steering Committee to the staff Working Group;
(4)a suitable alternative to the Corporate Services Committee for reporting by the Working
Group is to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for action and to each of the
Economic Development and Corporate Services Committees for information; and
(5)the proposed motion to add recommendation (5) to the November 26, 1998 report of the
Chief Administrative Officer, be deferred pending recommendations from the Chief Financial
Officer on overall City finance policy strategy and practices.
Council Reference/Background:
At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer
to:
-report to the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the desirability, structure and
terms of reference for a Telecommunications Authority for the City of Toronto; and
-report on whether any telecommunications network Agreement with a term longer than five
years should be signed until such an Authority has been established.
The CAO reported on the above directives to the December 11, 1998 meeting of the EDC by
providing context on the use of City rights-of-way and road allowances by
telecommunications providers, as well as an overview of the telecom legislative environment
for municipalities. In addition, the report recommended a coordinated inter-departmental
approach by the City to deal with operational matters in the short-term, as well as a strategic
approach to future telecom network matters internal to the City and with external
organizations.
Overview of Original CAO Report Approach:
City stakeholders in telecommunications initiatives were convened in a series of three
meetings by staff of the CAO in order to ascertain the nature and extent of their current and
past involvement and the legislative, operating and financial matters specific to
telecommunications initiatives. In this manner, City staff from Legal, Information
Technology, Works, Economic Development and Finance reached agreement on the best way
to exchange information and facilitate coordination, internal and external planning with
respect to future telecom initiatives.
In making its recommendations, staff recognized that enabling access to municipal
rights-of-way by telecom providers for network development/expansion is only one aspect of
City responsibility and that the future emphasis must be far more strategic. Specifically,
external demand, as well as potential financial gain by the City, must be planned for and dealt
with in the context of a City telecommunications plan. Such a plan requires the City to define
and integrate its own telecom and other interests and its own possible uses of its
rights-of-way, for example. Principles, policies and procedures must also be recommended for
Council approval in order to balance and coordinate potentially competing internal priorities
along with the expected demands from external organizations.
CAO Comments and Recommendations Respecting the Proposed Committee Amendments:
Amendments to the CAO report were proposed and tabled at the Economic Development
Committee on December 11, 1998, with their consideration pending comment by the CAO. In
the following sub-sections, each proposed amendment is compared with the intent of the
original CAO recommendation, and final CAO recommendations are presented.
(a)Original and Proposed Recommendation One:
The CAO recommended that a Telecommunications Authority, as currently defined, not be
established by the City since regulation of the industry is under federal jurisdiction and no
authority exists for municipalities to establish such a body. Specifically, the jurisdictional
authority for the regulation of telecom providers by the municipality does not exist beyond
that already in place to permit access (upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to)
and construction in its rights-of-ways.
The motion at Committee proposed that this recommendation be deleted since the intent of the
Committee has been addressed by other CAO recommendations. The CAO concurs with the
Committee in this regard.
(b)Original and Proposed Recommendation Two:
The CAO recommended that protection of City interests and its own use of the rights-of-way
be maintained without imposing a five-year term for Agreements with telecom providers. The
motion at Committee proposed that "a five-year term for Agreements with telecom providers
be imposed until such time that a report is submitted (by the Working Group) to the EDC on a
strategic direction on telecommunications".
The original CAO recommendation of November 26, 1998, was premised upon the fact that
current Agreements between the City and telecom companies cover a period beyond that of
five years to allow for recovery of initial investment capital by the companies. At the same
time, the current Agreements contain conditions that protect the interests of the City including
provisions allowing for City access and use of the space and infrastructure if determined
necessary by the City.
While the intent of the proposed Committee amendment is to provide additional flexibility to
the City and minimize commitments to contractual obligations until the potential impacts of
any new Agreement can be understood within an overall City telecom strategy, it should be
pointed out that Council adoption of a five-year term restriction for any new telecom
Agreement could be to the detriment of the City. If considerable financial or other benefits to
the City can be shown to accrue to a proposal with a term exceeding five years, the CAO
wishes the City to have the option to enter into longer term Agreements. In addition, the tasks
of the Working Group may require longer than six months to complete. If the EDC
amendment were approved, the City would be limited to terms of five years or less for an
extended period of time.
The CAO is, therefore, recommending a further amendment to recommendation two. The
CAO amendment enables better assessment of any new Agreement without adding undue
pressure to the efforts of the Working Group or limiting opportunities to the City and
recommends that:
-any viable proposal from a telecommunications provider be subject to a full business case
analysis by the Telecommunications Working Group and the Chief Financial Officer to
identify the benefits that will accrue to the City on pre-determined factors and the merit of
entering into an Agreement where the provider requires a term exceeding five years;
(d)Original and Proposed Recommendation Three:
The CAO recommended the formation of an inclusive inter-departmental Working Group by
the CAO for the purpose of exchanging information and facilitating coordination, internal and
external planning with respect to telecom initiatives. The motion at Committee proposed that
the Working Group be established by the Information and Technology Services Division of
the Corporate Services Department and that its membership be expanded by the addition of
Councillors Fotinos, Silva and Moscoe. In summary, the Committee has supported the intent
of the original CAO recommendation to form an inclusive inter-departmental Working Group,
and the roles, responsibilities and tasks for the Working Group contained in Appendix 1. The
amending motion, however, would result in a different leadership focus.
The CAO recommended that his office establish the Working Group for several reasons. First,
the CAO mandate includes the provision of strategic and objective project and issue
management on matters of corporate-wide interest and/or across departmental lines. Second,
meetings Chaired initially by CAO staff would ensure issue coordination and supports a
forum lacking any single operating area bias and/or domination. Third, the Commissioner of
Corporate Services considers it the role of the CAO to lead strategy development with
Corporate-wide implications. The Commissioner wishes to participate by bringing technical
expertise on information technology, real estate/property/asset management, and other
telecom related matters from the departmental perspective.
The CAO report did not recommend the inclusion of Councillor members on the Working
Group since it was anticipated that Councillors may wish to create a political group on
Telecommunications subsequent to the Working Group recommending a strategic plan and
recommended future direction. It is expected that there may need to be a fairly intensive focus
on operating matters in order for the Working Group to arrive at tasks of a more strategic
nature. In this regard, Councillors may determine that their interests will be better met by
serving as a Steering Committee to the staff Working Group.
It is, therefore, again recommended that the CAO be authorized to establish the
inter-departmental Working Group given the Corporate-wide and strategic purpose of its tasks
and further, that the Economic Development Committee consider whether the interests of
Councillors will be better met by serving as a Steering Committee to the staff Working Group.
(e)Original and Proposed Recommendation Four:
The CAO report recommended that the inter-departmental Working Group report to the
Corporate Services Committee through the CAO. The motion at Committee proposed that
"the inter-departmental Working Group report to the Economic Development Committee in
six months time on the roles, responsibilities and tasks listed in Appendix 1 of the report on
future reporting and organizational structures in relation to the Strategic Direction on
Telecommunications".
It was intended by the CAO that reporting be to the Corporate Services Committee in
recognition of the Corporate-wide impact and cross-departmental nature of telecom matters.
These include City needs and uses for its own infrastructure, best uses of these assets in the
interests of the public and businesses, as well as longer-term matters covering finances, asset
management, strategic policy and technology, in addition to economic development. It is the
position and recommendation of the CAO, therefore, that a suitable alternative for reporting
by the Working Group is to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for action and to
each of the Economic Development and Corporate Services Committees for information.
(f)Proposed Recommendation Five:
A motion at Committee proposed adding a recommendation that "Appendix 1 of the report be
amended by adding the following under the category titled 'Recommend Principles, Policies
and Procedures for Council Approval including':
-the Works Department to maintain revenues from right-of-way fees".
The CAO comments on this proposed amendment are that while the amendment appears to
state continuation of the status quo, its approval would actually formalize certain financial
practices that require consideration as part of overall City finance strategy. It would,
unintentionally, have implications for all Departments, as well as on the overall budget
process in a time of unprecedented challenge. There is a need to examine all City financial
practices and policies in an integrated fashion to identify improvements. Approval of the
amendment is considered premature and the CAO is recommending, therefore, that it be
deferred pending recommendations from the Chief Financial Officer on overall City finance
policy strategy and practices.
Appendix 1
Potential Roles, Responsibilities and Tasks of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on
Telecommunications
-Monitor, plan and coordinate internal and external telecommunications initiatives;
-Define and integrate City interests and responsibilities including:
-Public ownership and trust;
-Economic development;
-Protecting the safety of the travelling public;
-Preserving the integrity and work life of rights-of-way;
-Cost-recovery/compensation from access to rights-of-way; and
-Revenue generation from the use of municipal facilities.
-Develop a telecommunications plan in collaboration with telecom providers to manage and
regulate the City's rights-of-way including:
-Goals and objectives, short-term and strategic long-term (e.g. single platform);
-Responsibilities and control vis-à-vis other government levels; and
-Facilities, property, infrastructure and assets covered;
-Recommend principles, policies and procedures for Council approval including:
-Design, location and assessment goals;
-Principles such as equal treatment and opportunity for providers, uniform right-of-way
regulations and co-location encouragement;
-Policies to reinforce principles such as standards, availability of municipal facilities for
development and expedited access;
-Network master plan and provider construction schedule requirements;
-Performance and impact measures;
-Leasing policies and rates for the use/rental of City facilities/property/assets;
-Rates, exclusive use, restoration, decommissioning and term/tenure of use; and
-Fair and just cost-recovery and compensation.
-Review and recommend telecom development control policies including:
-Application procedures;
-Alterations and additions;
-Visual and environmental assessment and impact guidelines; and
-Application requirements and community matters such as notification, site sensitivity and
scale of facility.
-Promote economic development and telecommunications development including:
-Publication of City initiatives, policies and procedures on Internet;
-Mapping of telecom network coverage, geographical areas and capacity;
-Creation of an inventory of connected buildings; and
-Provision of an inventory of buildings in the City available to telecom companies.
--------
(Report dated November 26, 1998,
from the Chief Administrative Officer)
Purpose:
Council has directed the Chief Administrative Officer to examine the feasibility of the City
establishing a telecommunications authority. In order to provide context, the use of City
rights-of-way and road allowances for telecommunications infrastructure is reviewed and an
overview of the legislative environment for municipalities is provided. This report
recommends an approach for the City to deal with its operational matters in the short-term
while setting the stage for a strategic approach to telecom network development. An initial
focus on the City's own rights-of-way uses for telecommunications purposes and responding
in a coordinated manner to external organizations is the recommended starting point.
Financial Impact and Implications:
There are no immediate or direct financial implications arising from the recommendations of
this report. The future access and use of municipal rights-of-way by telecommunications
providers and their affiliates will require the City to develop more comprehensive principles,
policy and procedures respecting the use of its property, assets and infrastructure.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City of Toronto not establish a telecommunications authority, as defined at this time,
since regulation of the industry is under federal jurisdiction and no authority exists for
municipalities to establish a body of this type;
(2)protection of City interests and its own use of the rights-of-way be maintained without
imposing a five-year term for Agreements with telecom providers;
(3)Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to form an inclusive inter-departmental
working group for the purpose of exchanging information and facilitating coordination,
internal and external planning with respect to telecom initiatives; and
(4)the inter-departmental working group report to the Corporate Services Committee through
the Chief Administrator's Office on City needs and uses for its own infrastructure, best uses of
these assets in the interests of the public and businesses, as well as longer-term strategic
matters.
Council Reference/Background:
At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, the City of Toronto Council adopted Clause 2 of
Report No. 16 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, Amendment to Agreement
to Facilitate the Expansion of Access Rights to Municipal Road Allowances - MetroNet
Communications Group Incorporated. Specifically, the Report extended the City's Municipal
Access Agreement with MetroNet to the new boundaries of the amalgamated City of Toronto.
The former agreement of 1997, permitted MetroNet to enter public street allowances for the
purposes of installing, maintaining and operating a fibre optic telecommunications network,
only within the boundaries of the former City of Toronto.
In the context of Council's desire to maintain open and fair access to the public highway and
City infrastructure for any qualified party, Council also directed that public tendering be used
to lease spare City-owned conduit capacity for telecommunications purposes. In addition, the
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was directed to:
-report to the Economic Development Committee on the desirability, structure and terms of
reference for a telecommunications Authority for the City of Toronto; and
-report on whether any telecommunications network Agreement with a term longer than five
years should be signed until such an Authority has been established.
The Telecommunications Environment:
The telecommunications industry has, in recent years, been undergoing significant change and
growth in terms of technological advances and the convergence of mediums. At the same
time, the operating environment of the industry has been changing to one of increased
deregulation. Competition began in long-distance telephone services during the early 1990's,
with local competitive carriers receiving approval in 1997. Demands for increased bandwidth
and a range of voice, video and data services continue to contribute to the pressure within the
industry to develop new networks based largely on fibre optic technology.
Located on or within the public road allowances and other rights-of-way in the City of
Toronto is an infrastructure of active, spare and decommissioned water pipes, sewer pipes, gas
mains, television cable, Hydro poles and attachments and traffic control system duct and
conduit structures, for example. Some of this infrastructure is City-owned and was originally
installed for its own service delivery purposes. Public utilities and the private sector own other
of the infrastructure, both active and inactive. Telecommunications companies often wish to
access and use/modify these systems for network development. This option mitigates the
construction costs and disruption to pedestrian and traffic flow that is usually involved when
installing new telecommunications networks.
Cable, gas, phone and electric companies and their affiliates are among those expected to
approach the City to access its rights-of-way and/or to use City-owned or other existing
infrastructure. Some are interested in telecommunications development and others wish to use
existing City-owned infrastructure for businesses such as heating and cooling, utility related
operations, or water and sewer provision.
City of Toronto Involvement with Telecommunications Companies:
The municipality performs two key roles in enabling the placement and installation of telecom
systems. First, companies need to acquire consent to access municipal rights-of-way such as
the road allowances and, second, they may wish to negotiate for the use of the City's own
infrastructure, or that of others.
The stated goals of the City in responding to companies involved in telecommunications
development/delivery have been to:
-foster the development of a state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure to benefit the
business community;
-obtain enhanced and valuable fibre optic services accruing directly to the City; and
-enhance economic development while realizing direct revenue for the City.
Overview of Major Telecommunications Agreements:
In 1997, first with the former City of Toronto and two months later with the former
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a telecom agreement was finalized with MetroNet
Communications Group Inc. (MetroNet). This agreement was the result of a Request for
Proposals process to enter/access public street allowances for the purposes of installing,
maintaining and operating a high-speed, fibre optic telecommunications network. The
MetroNet Agreement involves the modification, refurbishment and leasing of a
decommissioned high-pressure water main system in the downtown core, as well as other
City-owned decommissioned pipes. Thus benefits accrue to the company by reducing its
construction costs and benefits the municipality in terms of economic development, direct
return for the use of the public highway, and services for the City (dark fibre and preferred
network rates).
Similarly, in June of 1998, Council approved a pilot project arrangement with Consumers' Gas
to allow it to lease a portion of its decommissioned (abandoned) system of gas mains to
MetroNet for the installation of telecommunications equipment within the road allowances of
the City. The approval of the City was required respecting this new use of existing
infrastructure within the municipality's rights-of-way. MetroNet's use of the Consumers' Gas
pipes results in less capital cost and faster expansion; the City experiences far less street
disruption for underground work on existing conduit; and Consumers' Gas obtains returns on
an unused asset.
In approving these initiatives, Council ensured marketplace competition as well as protecting
the interests of the City of Toronto through performance requirements, approved third party
sub-leases, and construction and workmanship responsibilities, for example. Similarly, several
former municipalities, now a part of the City of Toronto, have agreements with Rogers
Cablesystems with respect to access to the public highway for the installation of cable
television equipment.
Principles Underlying City Telecommunications Agreements:
It has been the goal of the City in seeking to develop a standard form Municipal Access
Agreement to simultaneously promote and protect the interests of the public, competitive
business development and the municipality. The Municipal Access Agreement of the City is
consistent with a model telecommunications agreement developed and endorsed by the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the principles of FCM to ensure that
municipalities are:
-able to control the number and type of aboveground and the location of below-ground
telecommunications infrastructure;
-are not subject to any financial burden due to the manner of use of rights-of-way by telecom
companies;
-not responsible for the costs of relocating telecom infrastructure if so required for planning or
other reasons deemed necessary by the municipality;
-are not liable for economic loss, legal costs or physical restoration costs for disruption of
telecom services arising from municipal actions; and
-entitled to receive revenues (as do the federal and provincial governments) greater than their
direct costs as compensation from those accessing municipal property for profit.
Legislation/Regulation Applying to Telecommunications and to Municipal Rights-of-Way:
(a)Federal Jurisdiction Respecting Telecommunications:
The regulation of the telecommunications industry is under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Government. The Telecommunications Act, 1993, gives telecommunications service
providers and operators such as MetroNet, Bell Canada, Cantel and cable television
companies, the right to enter into and break up the public highway for the purpose of
constructing, maintaining, or operating their equipment. The carrier must obtain municipal
agreement to do this prior to the construction of a transmission line. Where such agreement
cannot be obtained by a company on terms and conditions satisfactory to it, the company may
apply to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for an
order permitting it to install the equipment on such terms as the CRTC may order.
(b)Municipal Jurisdiction:
Under the Ontario Municipal Act, municipalities have the authority to regulate the use of the
public highway, and to authorize and regulate, for example, the installation (putting-up,
laying-down), construction and maintenance, of infrastructure including that for
telecommunications. There are also municipalities such as the former City of Toronto that
have additional special legislation allowing the municipality to require persons wishing to
place and maintain telecommunications equipment in the public highway and road allowances
to enter into an agreement with the City.
(c)Provincial Transfer of Responsibilities:
As part of the transfer of provincial-municipal responsibilities undertaken during 1997, the
Province of Ontario is now receiving the revenues from Gross Receipt Taxes (GRT) that were
formerly paid to municipalities. This represents a loss to the City of the 5 percent GRT
formerly paid to it by Bell Canada. Without this source of revenue or alternate mechanisms to
enter into agreements to collect fees, which reflect a reasonable return to the City from
telecom operators to offset the cost of maintaining rights-of-way, municipal taxpayers bear the
cost of accommodating telecommunications companies (as opposed to the users of telecom
services).
(d)Legislative Changes Respecting Telecommunications Uses:
In February of 1998, the Ontario Government passed regulation, O. Reg. 34/98 to the
Municipal Act. The regulation attempts to preclude municipalities from using their powers
under Section 220.1 (the "user fee" provision) to impose fees, except for permit or
administrative fees, on telecommunications common carriers with respect to locating those
works within the public highway. The regulation applies only to rights-of-way access matters
and not to municipal charges for the rent or lease of City-owned equipment or infrastructure.
More recently, the province passed Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act as part of the
deregulation of the electricity industry. The Bill includes provisions providing electricity
transmitters and distributors with the right to access municipal highways without municipal
consent for the purposes of installing equipment. It also permits them to use such easements
for the provision of telecom services (without compensation) or to enter into agreements with
third parties for that purpose.
Impacts of Legislative Changes Respecting Telecommunications:
As directed by Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services shall be reporting on the form and provisions of a standard
municipal access agreement extending across the new City of Toronto. The impact of
legislative changes on the nature and content of the standard agreement may be discussed at
that time, anticipated as being early in 1999.
Bill 35 permits telecom providers and their affiliates to use easements in place for the
transmission of electricity for telecommunications purposes. The extent to which this
provision may be viewed as an alternative to seeking consent from municipalities for access to
the public highway has yet to be determined.
Feasibility of Establishing a City Telecommunications Authority and of Limiting Agreements:
In order to prepare this report, senior staff of the Chief Administrator's Office convened three
meetings with City staff from Finance, Legal, Information Technology, Economic
Development and Works. As a result of this collaborative and informative process, it has been
determined that the municipality (or the Province) does not have the ability to legislate in the
federal area of telecommunications by seeking to regulate the operations of the telecom
industry. The extent of municipal authority is to grant access to the public highway upon such
terms and conditions as may be agreed to, and to grant permission for construction. The
telecom industry is under federal jurisdiction and a federal authority, the Canadian
Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), regulates private telecom
providers by determining the level of service provided and the rates to be charged to
customers, for example. Accordingly, telecom matters such as dictating areas in the City
where a company should provide service, are beyond the constitutional authority of the
municipality.
The proposal to establish a Telecommunications Authority implies the desire to create a body
with regulatory powers vis-a-vis telecommunications providers that is over and above that
already exercised by the City with respect to regulating access and construction within the
public highway. As indicated above, such attempts to regulate the telecommunications
industry would impinge upon an area of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it would be outside
the jurisdiction of the Province to grant such powers and beyond the jurisdiction of the City or
any such "Authority" to exercise them.
If the suggestion is to create a body that will merely assume the decision-making authority of
City Council with respect to those matters presently within its jurisdiction, such an initiative is
unnecessary. In any event, given the Provincial policy towards the use of municipal property
by telecom providers illustrated by statutory provisions such as O. Reg. 34/98 and Bill 35, it is
highly unlikely that the Province would grant the legislation required to establish such a body.
It is, therefore, recommended that the City of Toronto not establish a telecommunications
authority, as defined at this time, since the regulation of the telecom industry is under federal
jurisdiction and no authority exists for municipalities to establish a body of this type.
The Chief Administrative Officer was also asked to report on whether any City
telecommunications network Agreement with a term longer than five years should be
permitted in the absence of such an authority. According to staff familiar with the industry and
the process of negotiating such Agreements, telecommunications companies must commit
significant capital investment for their network installation. Companies require time,
commonly ten years or more, to offset their construction and operating costs and to realize
reasonable returns. It is, therefore, recommended that protection of City interests and its own
use of the rights-of-way be maintained without imposing a five-year term for Agreements with
telecom providers.
Recommended Approach for Managing Telecommunications Issues:
Telecommunication facilities require a network of towers, antennas and associated structures.
With increased demand for mobile telephone services, the Internet and the accompanying
de-regulation of the telecom industry, there has been a significant increase in the demand for
such facilities. Many of these facilities require the use of municipal rights-of-way and
City-owned facilities (buildings, water towers and vacant land, for example). Cities have a
number of direct interests in regulating rights of way as follows:
-Public ownership and trust;
-Economic development;
-Protecting the safety of the travelling public;
-Preserving the integrity and work life of rights-of-way;
-Cost-recovery/compensation from access to rights-of-way; and
-Revenue generation from the use of municipal facilities.
Both the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM) have passed resolutions requesting clarification from the federal
government on access and management issues regarding municipal rights-of-way. In
summary, AMO wishes to see legislation recognizing the costs borne by cities with respect to
the use of rights-of-way by private organizations and the right of municipalities to recover
legitimate costs and to share in profits generated by such use. FCM is working at the federal
level to address similar issues through its Sub-Committee on Telecommunications, chaired by
Councillor Moscoe from the City of Toronto. Options include appearing before the CRTC to
ask for a determination of the rights of municipalities under the Telecommunications Act.
At present, different areas of the City of Toronto are involved in separate aspects of telecom
issues. Each is aware to varying degrees of developments in the industry and approaches to the
City for the use of its rights-of-way. Furthermore, each of these areas has different
perspectives and operational responsibility for telecom matters. For example, Economic
Development participates in a community development initiative to provide promotional and
networking information to new media companies. The interest of this group in
provider-friendly City access policies requires consideration with a number of other
cross-departmental City responsibilities such as accessibility, availability, usage regulations
and preservation of the condition of City property. Balancing and coordinating these
potentially competing priorities, along with those of the public, will be best achieved in a
collaborative forum of City staff.
The City needs to deal with its operational matters in the short-term while setting the stage for
a strategic approach to telecom network development. It is, therefore, recommended that the
Chief Administrative Officer form an inclusive, inter-departmental working group for the
purpose of exchanging information and facilitating coordination, internal and external
planning with respect to telecom initiatives. In this manner, all involved staff will be apprised
of both internal and external telecommunications issues arising across departments and
recommendations to Standing Committees and Council will be better coordinated internally.
In addition, articulation and agreement on principles recognizing the valid interests of all
internal and external stakeholders will place the City in a stronger position to manage its own
rights-of-way uses and infrastructure. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services
was directed by Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 to develop a
comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for developing a telecom
infrastructure network. That department also has the lead role in preparing a standard
Municipal Access Agreement for the approval of Council. These directives are areas of
primary interest to many areas of the City and will require the type of collaboration available
in the recommended inter-departmental working group.
It is, therefore, recommended that the inter-departmental working group report to the
Corporate Services Committee through the Chief Administrator's Office on City needs and
uses for its own infrastructure, best uses of these assets in the interests of the public and
businesses, as well as longer-term strategic matters.
An overview of the potential role, responsibilities and tasks of the inter-departmental working
group is attached to this report as Appendix 1 for further development in early 1999.
Conclusions:
This report has considered the issue of establishing a telecommunications authority and
concluded that it would be premature for the City to pursue this avenue. The jurisdictional
authority for regulation of telecom providers by the municipality does not exist beyond that
already in place to permit access upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to, and
construction in its rights-of-ways. Furthermore, long-term Agreements now in place between
the City and telecom providers/affiliates protect the interests of the City and allow the City to
use its own property if so needed. Accordingly, it is not recommended that any future
Agreements be limited to a term of five years despite the absence of a Telecommunications
Authority.
This report has also explained that the deregulation of the telecommunications industry has
resulted in an increase in the number of companies competing to utilize municipal
rights-of-way. In turn, this has resulted in a need at the City to monitor usage rights of the
various interests and to ensure internal and external communication, planning and
coordination. To this end, it has been recommended that an inter-departmental working group
be established whose responsibilities will include identifying the current and potential uses by
the City of its own infrastructure. It has also been recommended that the working group report
to the Corporate Services Committee on telecom matters of immediate cross-departmental
import while also working towards a longer-term strategic approach to telecom network
development.