Comment 70505

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 12, 2011 at 15:59:13 in reply to Comment 70504

So say Rheem (or any other site that fits the Veledrome track footprint), doesn't have to be torn down to remediate. Say we add any other remediation costs (area around site) on top of the $5M investment from council.

Say that cost is an additional $5M. Money that would be going to improve a neighbourhood that needs to be spent at some point and isn't directly for the Veledrome - It just turns out it would benefit the project.

The Pan Am governing body would be putting money into this facility wherever it goes right? It's just that $5M investment for a totally new facility that I believe is estimated at $15M or so, isn't enough to cover the difference of what Troops group has in the budget to pool in.

I know this idea is starting to smell like the Ivor Wynne refurb which we later found couldn't be re-used and what's to say that Rheem or any other site wouldn't later reveal the same inability to be a re-use project, but get IO to one of these sites now.

Council to IO: "What's it going to cost to remediate, gut, and build a track with some seating in here (Rheem/Victoria/Gage), and perhaps some windows?" IO to council after some research: "25M + $10M for remediation." Council to IO: "Okay. Have a nice day."

or

IO to council: $10M plus $5M in remediation - guaranteed no cost overruns. Council: We'll give you $4.5M for build and cover remmediation. (isn't the magic number 44% of costs?)

Just grabbing some numbers from the sky obviously but at least we would know.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds