Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
Yes on the first part, but no to the second. Additional costs would have been continued to be assigned to the Flames by the City had they simply agreed to eat this first one.
|
The reverse is also true.
We could also really unpack the term 'additional costs' - IMO 'previously ill-defined costs' is more accurate...the city wasn't pulling these costs out of their rear end, and there's not reason to believe there would be any 'new' costs (though other ill-defined costs would be likely in a project of this scope).
The city agreed to take on 53% of the road/sidewalk costs. Sounds like a good-faith partner to me.
We'd really need to drill into the details of the climate mitigation costs - ie. who would receive the future cost savings.