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

u-wummm-Mnayamtz I (limbs-edition"! i But nothing was said and done Waterloo city council could pick and choose which options to implement. “You can take all oiit. you can take rune of it. you can take some din'mleflflenrysaid'l'llbe looking for the best bang for our _ btrck.‘ Goundliors requested a report fromstafldtowingthemrecostsof ‘ the Nonhdale plan â€"â€" things like servicing or other items not calcu- lated as pan of the bonusing pro . gram; Henry said the consultants' costwasaboutmnl). But noteveryonewasonboard . - with bonusing, Court MarkWhaley ’ ' said developers were racheting up ' their standards to entice people to ‘_ . . live in their projects without finan- cial incentivesebewhereinthecity. ‘ Henry told the Chronicle tax- . payers had paid the costs to r V revamp other areas of the city including uptown. “It’s all Water- . ‘ . lOQ'hesald. ' - e a 0 City Will still have 0 . ROOM FOR SEVEN. to pay$4.8 milhon o DESIRED BY EVEN MORE. ayearuntfl2031 ": Mr "H W Fv’v‘mkrim r? “.“LEXJSWEQE WWII” RIMParkwerereducedto $145 miliionover30years ‘ Halioran said a num~ aspanofthesettlement. “ ' ber of factors influenced In March 2002. coun- the city to settle. putting cil called for an inquiry ‘ taxpayers on the hook. into the RIM Park financ- r 7 ”The key factors that ins. It resulted in a report ' influenced . , , , 5 . from the the deci- ‘ .â€"u > 'F:"r.m_::é presiding ' " ‘ \ sion were i "43’5“" justice in / ,. m M the recov- : 3.5;” October , eryof$3 .1. é“ 7% 2003 million in if, . ‘33 w h i c h ‘ 7' ., ,-,, , “A settle- at“ ‘f .. $9“ resulted I [/w‘ W merit. the g. “‘i . j . 1%; ina num- / 1 » kw- -. . . cost of at; V. ' _ vii: ber of _ ~E~ -7:"'“' continued .53 _ . gig; changes - T' .. xx .4 j l e g a l 3;}, ‘ “meg to the way ‘ "_ - action. the fig: the city ‘ §- "’ ‘ \ r- rial: of an conductâ€" } ’ ”â€"3.: K I 1‘ u n s u c - “The keyfactors ed finan- ." 4; MN" ‘ ~55“ cessful . cialtrans- ‘. < ;- A . I judgment that influenced actions. . ' p- ._. and. .‘l‘e the deaswn were ' " possibility 2 0 0 4 , *‘ o r the recovery of additional appeals.‘ ‘ ’ ' lawsuits Halloran 3211:3202 "z, a n d ALL-NEV'JZOi'MNHNiT:1X ”it p P I, a In SJ??? ' " " ‘ pays $2.5 I “M launched 1' million to die city to set- by the city regarding the tie claims against it. its financingscheme. $47,03() ' N “ ‘ N ' l ' employees and agents. The city also paid among others. with no about $200,000 between admission of liability. 2004 and 2011 fighting . . . _ ,. )7 y . Ford and/or his insur- Municipal Freedom of 1. ' . " g ' ‘ ance providers pay the Information and Protec- ue p n Inl I ‘ . * ‘ '1 . . additional $500,000 with tion of Privacy Act ‘ ~’ “‘ ’ * (E? "h, ,_ ii madmissionofliability requests from a local Southwestern Ontario’s Exclusive Dealer ~'~’ ‘" WNW 2002- a "M" 00““ “the cm mediated settlement was oflegal services 805 Woodlawn Rd. W,Guelph - 519-822-9200 ruched With MFP film we last year. city CM) cial. Dave Robson â€" vice Tim Anderson said the ' ' ' ' ' - - - ' - president of MP? at the outstandingdebton RIM sales@guelphmfrnitrnissan.com | www.guelphmfinItrnlssan.com mâ€"aamunm. humus” minim ” . an mn a 7 a. r ance Corn n and the with d servicin of ”2:5... .33....” ... wrfigflcmmwmwwm ”smear: tummy “it: . as. .. .n.Mfiavmfl'fi.uzmwkm.fluzm:mf“m*w‘" '-""'“"‘"‘" Edwina!- hm our which: anal. L.._--__._.__._-_____. -_ .--.-- -_. . .rt..t1~..\\.!_.\. Law... . . ._.â€"AW -