Pretty much all lease departments have to handle this some way. The existing workflow is to create CAM cost to handle maintenance but these CAM costs aren't specifically linking to a maintenance request or a project. So the idea was it would only satisfy the lease agreements which handle a blanket CAM cost.

However, in real life, leases in which the client is acting as the tenant, don't have true control to set up the lease agreement this way because they use the landlord's version of the lease agreement since the tenant doesn't own the building. So as a result, some lease practices don't deal with monthly CAM costs because the lease agreement is based on individual 'demand' maintenance requests asked by the tenant. There would be an approval for this maintenance request and the process enables the tenant to know the estimated cost to do the work. The missing piece here is that the lease costs doesn't truly link the cost back to the maintenance work request. Nor does it link that lease cost back to a project (which would be specific to the lease).

So the workflow for those who do not deal with CAM work similar to this:
1. An intake portal for tenants who request something
2. Workflow that basically follows maintenance/project management
3. The approved estimated cost goes into the lease cost (with linkage to the work order or the project). This becomes an approved cost in the lease. And actually more than one approval is usually required. Ie. a Property manager, a Director, etc.
4. After the work is complete, then yes there is a chance of CAM reconciliation at the end. Or better yet if the system can tell what the difference is based on completion of the work order or project and auto create the CAM reconciliation.