Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
So if I’m reading that right CSEC agreed to step away from 50-50 and cover reasonable cost increases. And the most recent increases were $19M but the City was covering $9M, so almost the original 50-50 split. That doesn’t sound outrageous.
I am thinking like others that this is a revenue issue and not a cost issue.
|
They way I'm reading CSEC's position - I think they have concerns about these "infrastructure and climate costs" as being reasonable and needed in the first place.
I guess I'd have to see some additional details on what these climate and infrastructure costs are for exactly to properly form an opinion. Sounds like solar panels are desired - but what constitutes the infrastructure improvements? Sidewalk or road widening? Urban Realm improvements? It's all relative to what was specified in the July 2021 agreement @$608.5M. I presume they have a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and associated costing that adds up to that $608.5M as an exhibit to that agreement.
It would seem that these climate change and infrastructure costs never made it in to that WBS schedule. Bunk's comments provide some interesting context in that it might have been discussed as and left as a condition of occupancy, but not legally documented as such in the WBS and agreement. So it would seem CSEC has reviewed these costs and ultimately said - I'm not paying for this - it's not necessary. So let's see what these details are first before assigning blame?