The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Rinaldo argued that commercialâ€" industrial taxes are about 25% higher than residential property taxes, on averâ€" age. There was, also, in the minds of many regional councillors â€" a need to compromise â€" given the softness of the commercial building industry. At $2.36 per sq. ft., Halton will only be recovering 75% of the true costs of commercialâ€"industrial development according to regional finance director Joe Rinaldo. That upsets some taxpayerâ€" advocate groups, who believe developâ€" ers should pay the full 100% ($3.15 per sq. ft.). Gerald King, a spokesman for Taxpayers Coalition Burlington, said paring down the levy by 25% amounts to a subsidy for builders â€" one which will cost Halton taxpayers $33 million over 20 years because they must pick up the shortfall. When the administration and finance committee approved the $2.36 charge Wednesday, it set the stage for eleventhâ€" hour negotiations between Halton and the developers before the matter goes to full regional council on Feb. 17th. But if the levy is approved there, its opponents will almost certainly appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Halton‘s system of development charges for commercialâ€"industrial building is based on a squareâ€"footage levy, currently $1.15 per sq. ft. Under the proposal being debated Wednesday, it would climb to $2.36 per sq. ft. by Jan. 1st, 1995. The idea behind the charge is that it will offset the costs Halton bears for new building including: road networks, utilities, and various publicâ€"sector serâ€" vices. At the end of an administration and finance committee meeting that lasted almost five hours, a frustrated Halton regional chairman Peter Pomeroy warned he may abandon compromise and take a tougher stand against develâ€" opers balking at higher building fees. A show of force by Halton land developers orchestrated to display their displeasure with proposed new building taxes may have backfired Wednesday. By ROB KELLY Special to the Beaver Developers not happy with region‘s compromise "The best they can come up with is that they‘re going to object to it anyway because business is bad," Pomeroy said. "That suggests to me that possibly we should go for a much higher square footage cost because if we win, we‘re Pomeroy was irritated by the posture struck by the developers at Wednesday‘s meeting, in view of what he saw as Halton‘s attempt to hold out an olive branch. at Appleby Line in Plaza) NEW ST. Lo DispOAL or SETâ€"UP FREE |f MATTRESS PRE-leHREANNGED LAYAWAY Pomeroy voted in favor of the $2.36 levy, but said after the meeting he intended his comments as a warning, ""We‘ve gone through this whole process of debate, and they‘ve said they‘re going to appeal no matter what. If they don‘t accept a compromise position, I may change my vote." "I came to the meeting figuring we had a consensus here," said Oakville going to win big." Orthosupreme $2875et... $499 Super Firm Double $309 : Single Mattress Queen $329 : Extra Firm Single Mattress Biopedic Medium Support Single Mattress Regular Firm Single Mattress unior Sleep If developers can‘t accept that, "I find it abhorrent, quite frankly," Bird added. "I, personally, think the developâ€" ers should pay the whole thing. If, in fact, there‘s going to be an appeal, I would suggest we revert back to full cost recovery." councillor Keith Bird. Backing off to $2.36 per sq. ft. was ‘a major concesâ€" > 3 sion‘. John Vail, a real estate broker opposâ€" 117 147 ‘Q7 4 large reversible storage drawers. Maple Mon.â€"Wed. 10:00â€"6:00 Thurs., Fri. 10:00â€"9:00 Sat. 9:00â€"6:00 Double $309 Set §539 Queen §329 Set $579 Double $159 Set $269 Queen $179 Set $329 Seton 5139 Double $119 Set $199 Queen $159 Set $299 Set... $199 Double $139 Set $239 Queen $169 Set $289 If the new fees are approved, the $1.15 charge will go to $1.42 per sq. ft. on March 1st; $1.89 on Jan. Ist, 1994; and $2.36 at the beginning of 1995. Jackie Cutmore, the executive viceâ€" president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, said the levy would create a "loseâ€"lose situation" in which "no jobs will be available, with no building." ing the new charges, told councillors, "We need to be more competitive than this. It‘s nice to be number one in someâ€" thing, but not in taxes." He wanted a freeze on the levy for two years.