City moves to extend telecom lease five years

Summary#

Montréal city council adopted a position supporting a second five-year extension of the City’s lease to Terrion LP for a telecommunications site in Montréal-Est. The proposed extension covers 401.4 square metres of City land and sets total rent at $94,328, excluding taxes. The city council’s position is adopted; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The site, beside avenue Broadway Nord, includes a telecommunications tower, shelter and antenna.
  • The proposed lease runs from November 1, 2025, for five years.
  • Terrion LP would pay the rent, electricity costs, property taxes and other costs related to the lease.
  • The lease extension was negotiated; the materials do not describe a call for tenders.

What it means for you#

  • Terrion LP: If the agglomeration council approves the extension, the company can continue using the site under the lease’s terms. City staff say Terrion LP resulted from a merger and reorganization of Telus Communications Inc.
  • City taxpayers: The City would continue receiving rent for land that staff say is not needed for municipal purposes. The council’s adopted position alone does not confirm the lease extension.
  • Other residents and businesses: The decision does not directly change their rights, fees or services.

Money#

The proposed lease would bring the City $94,328 in rent over five years, excluding taxes.

  • City staff say the revenue will go to the operating budget of the Service de la stratégie immobilière (Real Estate Strategy Service).
  • Terrion LP must pay electricity, property taxes and all other costs related to the lease.
  • No estimate of the City’s administrative or other costs is provided.

What is unclear#

  • The full lease terms are not included in the supplied material.
  • The material does not explain how the rent was set or compare it with other possible lease terms.
  • The material does not give an estimate of costs to the City beyond the stated rental revenue.

Case for#

  • City staff say the land is not needed for municipal purposes and recommend continuing the lease.
  • The extension would keep an existing telecommunications site in use, while the tenant pays the rent and site-related costs.
  • City staff say that without approval, the tenant would have to find another site.

Case against#

  • The City would commit the land to this use for another five years; the material does not compare that choice with other uses or lease options.
  • The lease was negotiated, and the material does not explain whether other potential tenants or terms were considered.
  • The full terms are not supplied, so readers cannot assess all conditions attached to the extension.