Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway
The bigger issue is that (a) the final construction budget wouldn't have been available until this June and (b) there's nooooooo way the number was coming in below $750 million, with CSEC contractually on the hook for anything north of the City's $287.5 million commitment.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
If anyone thinks that the “pause” was caused by anything other than massively increasing construction costs, give your head a shake.
The mutually agreed deal had the city capped below $300 million, and it was probably looking like C-SECTION was going to have to put in an additional $100-$150 million themselves over what was budgeted for.
|
Just need to correct the bolded...if you dig beyond the infographic, the city's contribution was actually:
323M (incl. things like Saddledome demolition)
+ land value (confidential)
+ share of operating costs
+ insurance
+ liability for major structural repairs
+ some other less tangible costs and opportunity costs (e.g. bus barns land option)
It's funny how numbers get massaged to suit narratives. Not sure where Mr. Coffee's $27M came from? The final dispute was generally reported as $16.7M (though I've also seen $19M):
6.4M for roads - the city agreed to take this on (I think this is included in the $323M above), leaving:
5.7M for sidewalks.
3.8M for "photovoltaic film upon which solar panels will be installed"
2.4M in climate costs that were actually $100k in operating costs annually from 2035 and beyond (2.4M being the NPV).
Even these numbers don't quite square with 16.7/19M, but they're at least close (I think there were some other minor costs related to street-level retail that might square everything?).
We should also remember that green-energy investments typically generate a positive ROI over the lifespan of a project, but obviously we'd need to dive deeper into exactly how utility costs will be paid, projections on energy costs, etc.
So to be pedantic, IMO CSEC can only really claim a $5.7M red herring.