Comment 119496

By mkuplens (registered) - website | Posted June 21, 2016 at 11:32:23 in reply to Comment 119481

Worth noting: the MoU requires the city to pay for utility replacement that was already scheduled and budgeted. So, if we had King St water/sewer replacement on the books, staff could've assessed a 'savings' value for them but the resulting savings would have been $0, as we'd have to pay for the work.

Clever Collins, though, figuring out the right way to frame the question to make his argument look viable.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds