Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090317 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 13, 2009 MEETING DATE: March 17,.2009 RE: Additional Wind Energy Purchases for Aspen Electric Utility REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that Council consider two different mechanisms to increase the amount of wind energy purchased through the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) through an amendment to the City's 2005 contract. Staff recommends purchasing 5,000,000 kwh of additional wind energy utilizing funds set aside to increase renewable energy production and purchases. Staff further recommends that it sepazately purchase the "environmental attributes" for any wind energy in months where the total available supply exceeds the City's electric demands as explained in this memo and the attachment. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In Mazch 2005, Aspen entered into an agreement with MEAN to increase wind energy purchases to approximately 28% of the electric utility's source of supply, thereby becoming one of the leading purchases of wind energy in the nation on a percentage basis. Council has consistently directed staff to acquire the maximum amount of renewable energy available consistent with physical limitations (electric power must be used at the time it is generated and the sum of all the City's power sources must equal the total demand during a given time). Because MEAN advised that increasing the percentage of wind purchases beyond the level of the 2005 contract would violate this principle, staff was directed to seek other means to continue to reduce the cazbon emissions from the electric sector consistent with the Canary Action Plan. BACKGROUND: hi June, 2008 a work session was held including representation from Holy Cross Energy (HCE). The City Council direction at that time was to pursue an additional wind energy purchase to be used in connection with an "energy swap" with HCE. The concept was that Aspen would sell hydroelectric power from the Ruedi facility to HCE, while at the same time increasing wind energy purchases through MEAN by an equivalent amount. HCE customers in the Aspen urban growth boundary would pay the increased cost of the wind energy for the added renewable energy, thereby keeping Aspen electric customers "whole" while significantly reducing Aspen's cazbon footprint. HCE had identified specific customers who were willing to pay the increased power cost to reduce carbon emissions by purchasing the "environmental attributes" for the hydro power. Page 1 of 3 DISCUSSION: The HCE "energy swap" concept has become a victim of current economic conditions. While significant progress was made by MEAN to make additional wind power available to Aspen at favorable rates and a draft contract between HCE and Aspen was developed, the potential buyers aze not in a position to pay the increased power cost at this point in time. It is possible that other HCE customers within the Aspen azea may be able to commit to purchasing additional power at some point in the future. Entities that have expressed interest in this concept for future application aze the Aspen Valley Hospital and the Pitkin County Airport. Based on the previous discussions during the work session with City Council and HCE staff, staff requested that MEAN set aside 15,000,000 kwh from new wind projects located in Nebraska and South Dakota. These wind projects began production at the beginning of 2009 and the additional energy is available at favorable terms relative to developing a new project at another location. Aspen has yet to commit to purchasing any of the additional wind energy that was has been reserved for Aspen. An amendment to the existing wind energy contract with MEAN is necessary to do so. In December 2008, Aspen's electric rates were revised to be effective April 1, 2009. Approximately $400,000 per yeaz from this additional revenue source has been directed towards increasing renewable energy use for the electric utility. Staff is requesting that City Council consider if it wishes to move forwazd to purchase some or all of the allotment set aside by MEAN for Aspen's electric utility using a portion of this additional rate revenue. This would differ from the original plan discussed during the June work session both iri terms of the amount of wind energy and because there would be no reimbursement of increased cost by a third party located in HCE's service azea. Limitations on Purchasine Additional Wind Enemy Discussions between MEAN staff and City Council during the 2005 negotiations on the existing wind energy contract focused on purchasing the maximum practical amount of wind energy, consistent with the requirement to use the energy when it is produced. Because we now have three yeazs of actual experience with the availability of wind versus the timing of the electric system demands, it is possible to give a more accurate picture of the maximum purchase consistent with this limitation. The attached memo form MEAN explains two different mechanisms to deliver additional wind at purchase levels of 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 kwh. Relationship to Greenhouse Gas Goals. Aspen's electric utility has made substantial progress towards reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions. The 2004 emissions inventory identified 39,571 tons of CO2 emissions for the electric utility. The 2007 emissions inventory identified 19,091 tons of CO2. Because Aspen's goal has been to reach a cazbon neutral utility, funds were budgeted to further increase renewable energy purchases and production (refer to Financial Impacts discussion below). At the recommended 5,000,000 kwh purchase level, the total electric utility CO2 emissions would be reduced by an additional 19%. Purchase of Environmental Attributes. Aspen's past policy when purchasing energy has been to purchase both the energy and "environmental attributes" as a bundled commodity. The MEAN proposal (attached) has two options for dealing with time periods when the available Page 2 of 3 wind energy is higher than Aspen's demand for electric power. Option 1 continues the existing policy of buying the entire bundled (energy and "environmental attributes) commodity, but at a higher cost to Aspen than Option 2. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2009 budget for the electric fund included both revenue and expenditures for the HCE "energy swap". An additional $675,000 was appropriated for increased wind energy purchases from MEAN. An additional $825,000 in offsetting revenue was budgeted from the proposed sale to HCE. Also beginning with the 2009 budget year, $412,000 was budgeted as the annual expense necessary to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions of the electric utility to zero. Because the HCE energy swap will not be completed, neither the revenue nor the expense from that contract will be realized. If Council accepts staff recommendation to amend the wind energy contract with MEAN to purchase an .additional 5,000,000 kwh of wind energy annually, it would utilize roughly $100,000 of the $412,000 budgeted to green the electric resource mix. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If Council accepts the staff recommendation for 5,000,000 kwh of additional wind energy, existing C02 emissions from other MEAN power sources will be reduced. Using 2007 emission factors for MEAN's power sources, the estimated reduction in emissions would be 3558 tons C02 per yeaz. By comparison, the estimated emission reduction for the proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric plant (using higher 2004 emission factors) was estimated as 5167 tons C02 per yeaz. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that we pursue option 2 as detailed in the attachment from MEAN and request that staff be directed to return with a detailed contract to purchase an additiona15,000,000 kwh of wind energy per year. ALTERNATIVES: Two different levels of wind energy purchases are available and aze described in the attachment. If the higher (10,000,000 kwh) purchase level were adopted, it would require a higher percentage of the funds set aside for renewable energy development. If this option were chosen, it is possible that plans for some of the locally developed renewable energy (geothermal, photovoltaic, micro-hydro, hydrogen generation, etc.) would be precluded due to budget limitations. Also increasing to the higher level would mean that approximately 43% (versus 35% for the recommended purchase) of the total energy requirements would consist of wind energy. This level of commitment to a single energy source raises concerns about whether the "energy portfolio" contains the right mix of energy sources to minimize risk if future problems aze encountered in a given energy sector. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: February 19, 2009 Additional Wind Energy Purchase Proposal from MEAN Page 3 of 3 Aspen, CO Additional Wind Purchase Discussion/Options February, l9, 2009 Backeround/historv Aspen, CO is a Service Schedule M participant of the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) and receives their total energy requirements (above their WAPA allocation, Ruedi output and Maroon Creek output) from MEAN. Currently Aspen purchases 18,075 MWh of wind energy annually from MEAN and has expressed a desire to increase their wind purchase from MEAN. Tn consideration of this request, MEAN ran power supply costs analyses using assumptions for loads, Ruedi output and Maroon Creek output based on 2008 data, and with varying levels of additional wind energy purchases. The results of the power supply cost analyses revealed that at certain levels of additional wind energy purchases, there are some months in which Aspen would be purchasing wind energy in excess of their needs. ' OptlonS To address the issue of Aspen's potential wind energy purchases in excess of their needs, MEAN is proposing two options to Aspen: Option 1-Additional end Energy plus "MEAN buy back" Aspen would purchase a desired level of additional wind energy at the then current MEAN wind energy rate (currently $46.00/MWh). If Aspen's wind purchases would exceed their supplemental energy requirements in a particular month, MEAN would "buy back" the excess energy not needed to serve Aspen's load at the then current MEAN base energy rate with credit given in the respective month of occurrence. Aspen would retain the environmental attributes associated with all of the wind energy purchased, including the environmental attributes associated with the portion of energy sold back to MEAN. An example of Aspen's purchase under Option 1 based on 5,000 MWh/yeaz of additional wind energy is below: Pe tember 2008 S kWh _ Aspen Total Energy Requirements 4,621,257 Less Maroon Creek (219,634) Less Ruedi (2,459,566) Less WAPA allocation (374,770) Less current Wind purchase (1,386,015) Less additional Wind purchase 392 333 Net Energy Requirements (211,061) Under this scenario, MEAN would "buy back" the 211,061 kWh of energy not needed to serve Aspen's energy requirements. The credit would be calculated as follows: Excess wind energy (kWh) 211,061 x $.0156« _ $3,292.55 ~~~ MEAN's current summer base energy rate $/kWh. Option 2 -Additional Wind Energy plus Environmental Attributes Under Option 2, Aspen would purchase additional wind energy at a level which MEAN feels would prevent Aspen from purchasing wind energy in excess of their energy requirements. Based on the analyses discussed above, the level of additional wind energy purchases suggested by MEAN is approximately 2,200 MWh per year. Aspen could then also purchase environmental attributes in order to reach their desired level of additional renewable energy attributes. Aspen's purchases under Option 2 based on 5,000 MWh/yeaz of additional wind "resources," would look as follows: Additional wind energy purchases from MEAN 2,200 MWh Environmental attributes purchase 2,800 MWh Total additional wind "resources" 5,000 MWh MEAN will continue to work with Aspen in its desire to add renewable energy to their resource mix, and has apportioned an allocation of wind resources to meet Aspen's goals immediately. The options outlined above aze for discussion purposes only and should not be considered to be binding offers. The terms of any formal agreement regarding an additional wind energy purchase by Aspen would be those set forth in a definitive written agreement signed by Aspen and MEAN. V Yml V ~~„ L Y V V d °' a ffa. E Sc °° Q V S N W ~ M V m a a`a ~~^o~mano o O N ~ ~ W ~i, ~~i, a ~a~a~a~~ ~ w ~» .C ~ yt~NON~- ~ N ~ 0 W g E C C ~ e + C o° ~e Q d $ ` 3 a •- E w N ~ 8 A A pp ~p~ppppp ~N V N~ N ~ ^ a O ~ •~ N ?~p N 0 :7p W O ~ NN~ ~ N » t f 9 N C Oe C O H N Vi M a~ ~ aS ~f0 .l+1Nn^ ~ N a ~ A O VO~i ) w a ^ W N n~t0 N N ~ 0 WH ~ C Q ~~ N W N ~ ~ a N ~ y 9 O $~~ ~ ~ e o O N ~ W O .~ N ~ o ao N ~y O~^N~r W N N N GAO, ~~ Ol f ` W o t N ~ N ONN ~ ~ M N N W m M~ 4 ~ y N ~ ^ ~ ~ Q ~ S S N O n r N n r~ Na W tlJ ~ to a N ~- l+1 M Oi 1~ N V aD ~p ~[f Ol MrN N mN - M Oi M W ~ yM nl 69 L vT g ~ m y u~ ~_ a ~ ; V ~ ~ a d ~ o y'g 5 ov W ;Eaa~iQ ma ~i~ 9 S_~ p m~ C~ c m 7 yotnW a O OJ ~ ~ _' V~ S _ ~ oQ~o~~ m~ ~ a ~~ o >>>W mm ~~~d E p pyy $ u`y ~ m E ~ ~ . aaa ~ F$~~ ' p ~ i ~ t S C C J W C g yyd U a v m ZQ3 ~ W ~ c L O L L CO C E E t0 j V C 6 ~' m C N C E m d m f. U C m ~ T ~ v N N d~ ~ ~ d a~ g ~ N C u&'Z N O MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: April Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: March 9, 2009 MEETING DATE: March 17, 2009 Work Session RE; Aspen Skiing Company's (Ski Co) Appeal for Relief from Stormwater System Development Fee REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that Council not approve Ski Co's appeal for relief from the $48,758 stormwater system development fee that they paid in Apri12008 for the redevelopment of Gondola Plaza. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council requested to heaz Ski Co's appeal at the February 24, 2009, Council Work Session. BACKGROUND: The Stormwater system development fee is defined and codified in the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 25.18 (Attachment A -Land Use Code Chapter 25.18). A system development fee of $2.88 per squaze foot of total impervious area is assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet of impervious azea. This fee was implemented in 2007. Ski Co was required to pay $48,758 in April 2008 for redevelopment of Gondola Plaza. The work in this area removed and replaced 15,810 squaze feet of impervious area and added 1,120 square feet of new impervious area (Attachment B -Calculation of Fee). In January, Ski Co sent a letter to the City Manager requesting relief from the system development fee (Attachment C -Ski Co Request for Relief, Attachment D -Staff Rebuttal to Reasons for Appeal). The City Attorney reseazched City Code and determined there is no appeal process in place for the Stormwater System Development Fee section of the Code. DISCUSSION: Staff feels that Ski Co should not be relieved from this fee for the following reasons: 1. Section 25.18.010 of the Code ,defines "development" as the addition of at least 500 square feet of impervious azea. The Stormwater system development fee is assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment of at least 500 squaze feet. Approximately 1,120 squaze feet of impervious azea was added and 15,810 squaze Page 1 of 3 feet of impervious area was redeveloped during the work done at Gondola Plaza, which meets both criteria set forth in the Code (though only one criteria must be met). 2. The current stonnwater system is undersized for the amount of development currently in the city and is not meeting the water quality goals of the stonnwater program. The system development fee is the means for upgrading and improving that system. 3. The City has not offered relief or an appeal process to any other developments that have paid a stonnwater system development fee. Ski Co argues that the work done at Gondola Plaza was a roof repair, as there is occupied space under gondola plaza, and that the magnitude of the fee seems to discourage repair and redevelopment. They also state that there is no new impact to the stormwater system and that, at the time of fee payment, we could not provide a plan for how the fees would be used. They felt that it would be appropriate and beneficial to use the fee towazds site-specific stormwater improvements. Staff s response to these items: 1. Even if Ski Co was simply repairing the roof (though Gondola Plaza looks very different and serves more functions than a typical roof) approximately 1,120 square feet of impervious azea was added during the renovations. One of the criteria for the fee is the addition of more than 500 square feet of impervious area. 2. The intent of the fee is not to discourage development or redevelopment but rather to recover costs to repair and improve stonnwater management in the City. 3. Staff is prepared to provide a plan, timeframe, and other details for the use of this fee towazds stormwater improvements in the azea of Gondola Plaza. FTNANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Ski Co is requesting relief (refunding) of $48,758. This amount was collected in 2008 and would be removed frorrt the Stormwater Capital Budget for 2009. This impact to the budget will be realized in the capital projects planned for improving the downtown stormwater system. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Returning $48,758 to Ski Co from the Stonnwater Capital Projects budget will decrease the funding available for system upgrades and Clean River Initiative projects planned to improve dischazges to the Roaring Fork River. The stormwater system downstream of Gondola Plaza needs to be upgraded in material and capacity. This portion of the system dischazges into Rio Grande Park, which is being redesigned for water quality improvements similar to Jenny Adair wetlands. Decreasing funding for these projects can potentially decrease the City's ability to remove pollutants from storrnwater and therefore increasing the pollution in the Roaring Fork River. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that Council does not approve Ski Co's appeal for relief from the $48,758 stormwater system development fee that they paid in Apri12008 for redevelopment of Gondola Plaza. PROPOSED MOTION: Move to not approve Ski Co's request for relief from the $48,758 system development fee assessed against the Gondola Plaza site redevelopment. Page 2 of 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Land Use Code Chapter 25.18 Attachment B -Calculation of Fee Attachment C -Ski Co Request for Relief Attachment D -Staff Rebuttal to Reasons for Appeal Page 3 of 3 (b) Subject to the approval of the utilities Director based on previous credit history with the City utilities, the owner of the premises on which the water is used may approve waiver of their tenant's deposit requirement by completing an application which informs the owner of the possibility of a lien upon the premises for unpaid bills, pursuant to Section 25.04.090 above. (c) These deposits will be held by the utilities Director until service is discontinued and final service bills aze paid and will accrue interest at five percent (5%) per annum starting thirty (30) days after receipt of the monies until the date of disconnection. Retum of the unused portion of the deposit plus interest will be made within forty-five (45) days from date the final billing is issued. (Code 1971, §23-110; Ord. No. 27-1985, §1; Ord. No. 68-1994, §15; Ord. No. 57-2000, §8) Chapter 25.18 STORMWATER SYSTEMS Sec. 25.18.010. Definitions. For the purposes of this Title, certain words or phrases aze defined as follows: Development. The proposed development creates at least five hundred (500) squaze feet of new impervious area. Redevelopment. The proposed development disturbs at least five hundred (500) squaze feet of the existing impervious azea. (Ord. No. 22, 2007, §1) Sec. 25.18.020. stormwater system development fee. (a) A stormwater system development fee shall be assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment of the property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area, minus the amount of any stormwater system development fee actually previously paid by the landowner or the predecessor of the landowner for connection to the stormwater system. The system development fee shall be two dollazs and eighty-eight cents ($2.88) per square foot of total impervious azea. (b) The calculation for the credit to be given for property on which the structures aze substantially remodeled or rebuilt shall take into account the amount actually paid for stormwater system development fees in the records as maintained by the City. (Ord. No. 22, 2007, § 1) Chapter 25.20 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 25.20.010. Tampering with meter prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to tamper with any water meter installed on any service connection on the water mains of the City or to place, install or put on or near any such meter any instrument or device which will affect the operation thereof or the reading thereof. It is further declared to be unlawful to interfere with or prevent the Superintendent or any employee of the City from examining and reading any such meter. (Code 1971, §23-150; Ord. No. 27-1985, §1) Sec. 25.20.020. Wasting of water prohibited. ., Page 1 of 2 Message ~~~{/~ Trisha Nelson From: Kiley, Chris (CKiley@aspensnowmass.com] Sent: ~ Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:53 AM To: Trisha Nelson Subject: FW: F~cisting and proposed sq.ft. plaza Trisha; the total area of the work at the gondola plaza is 16,930 sf as noted below from my engineer. Can you verify that the Stormwater Fee that I will be paying (under duress, as you and I have discussed) is calculated as follows: 16,930 sf x $2.88 Isf = $48,758 thanks, Chris ----Original Message----- Fram: Dunbar, Christopher [mailto:cdunbar@wje.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:22 PM To: Kiley, Chris Subject: RE: Exlsting and proposed sq.ft. plaza Chris, My numbers indicate that the total area of the proposed work is approximately 15,810 sf. The newly added paved area is approximately 1,120 sf. Chris From: Kiley, Chris [maiito:CKiley@aspensnowmass.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:58 AM To: Dunbar, Christopher Subject: Existing and proposed sq.ft. plaza Chris, I need this info in order to submit my land use application. Piease provide this AM. thanks a 4/10/2008 >~~~ ~ SNOWMAS5 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK Steve Barwick City Manager City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 January 16, 2009 ASPENC~SNOWMASS. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY RE: Little Nell GondolaPlaza remddel, 601 East Dean, Aspen Co. Building Permit # 0006.2008.AC$U Dear Steve; I am requesting relief from the $48,758 Stonnwater System Development Fee that was imposed on. the gondola plaza roof repair project by the City engineering - Department ~d'he Storinwater Systerri~Devel'opment..Fee-is:descrtbed.in City of:' Aspen Land.:J.fselCode;Sea. 25 :t.8:1~f11~Definitions and 25.18.020 Stormwater 5ystemd3evelapment~eer. ,..::r}: ia', : ^r r;: , ,: -, . ,.... _ .. .,~. 'S'; is c. ~" 9:`.'Fi~ii t~; :°+Eii , ~.}t! . > ~ ;'; , ~ - .::.,: ~. : ',' :: ::... ._ We paid tkus feeuv~full to:the Citprn,Apri] of 2008 in prder<to receive.our. , ' building permiY'for, the above referenced repairs.: As. there does not appeaz to be a defined appeal procedure for this new fee, we aze appealing to you as per Sec. 25.08.010 City of Aspen Water Utility Operation and Control. Our reasons for appeal aze as follows: 1. O.ur project was undertaken specifically to repair the longstanding and worsening leaks into Hie occupied space below the upper gondola plaza. In order to repair the leaks, we had to remove and replace the entire 16,930 sq.ft. of impervious surface area. To this end the project is an emergency roof repair, which does not appeaz to be a targeted activity for the Stonnwater System Development Fee. We aze resurfacing the top of an existing structure. 2:.!.We.do notbelievethat the intent a€this fee is.to discourage repair and _ ,,:tgr}evelapment; }!etthe;nagnitude:o£~us;fee serves.to do:exactlythat. We are making expenditures in excess of $3.OM to improve the privately- ;;;; ze:::,.oycmed;~puhliely=accessible plaza and feel that this fee serves to penalize ' ~, ,: vs foz.making~these improverstents,-~:::~ : ~.::%; . ;; :::..;>;: , "~ :, ~::ai3i: The'gondolaplazahasBeen'connectedto.the,existingstor,~nwatersystem ~. , for~over 20 yeazs, and this project does not result in at~y additional impact P.O. Box 1246 Aspen, CO 61632.1248 9T0.92S•1220 ® mmea a Rge.a not pww.aspensnewmass.csm on the system. There is no nexus between our current work and stortnwater system impacts. 4. Credit is allowed for stormwater system development fees previously paid, yet City records do not hidicate that the gondola plaza was previously ]evied a stormwater system fee, providing the appearance that the City is attempting to garner fees in arreazs for this project. 5. At the time of fee payment, the City Engineering Department could not provide a plan, timeframe, or any other detail regazding how these fees will be utilized, or whether they will even be earmarked for stormwater system improvements. Given the project's location at the base of Aspen Mountain and the Little Nell slope, it seems that a contribution from the Applicant towards site-specific improvements to the stormwater system infrastructure would be more appropriate and would benefit both the Applicant and'the City of Aspen. forward to reviewing our appeal request with you at your eazliest submitted, Aspen Skiing Company cc. David Bellaclc, Aspen Skiing Company A-~-ut,~nvv~~l- D Response to Appeal dated January 16, 2009 ~ RE: Little Nell Gondola Plaza remodel, 601 East Dean, Aspen CO Building Permit #0006.2008.ACBU 1. Approximately 1,120 sq.ft. of impervious area was added during the renovations. Section 25.18.010 of the Code defines "development" as the addition of at least 500 sq.ft. of impervious area. The stormwater system development fee is assessed against all properties at the time of development. 2. The intent of the fee is not to discourage development or redevelopment but rather to recover costs to repair and upgrade the City's stormwater system. 3. The current stormwater system is undersized for the amount of development currently in the city and is not meeting the goals of the stormwater program. The system development fee is the means for upgrading that system. The work completed on Gondola Plaza in 2008 added 1,120 sq.ft. of impervious area. 4. The stormwater system fee was not implemented until 2007 and therefore no fees were paid by any development until that time. 5. The City is prepared to provide a plan, timeframe, and other details about how this fee will be used for stormwater system improvements. THE CORY f1F ASPFR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council pp~~~ R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager Imo' March 13, 2009 March 17, 2009 City of Aspen offer to Burlingame homeowners for Phase 2 development Backeround: Over the course of the last year or so, various citizen groups have weighed in on how the City should approach the fmal build-out at Burlingame. The Citizen Budget Task Force appointed by the City Council recommended that the City increase the density so that the valuable land resource was more efficiently utilized. A Construction Experts Group, appointed by the City Manager, recommended a number of things about the next phase of construction -including increasing the number of units from 236 to 293, standazdizing unit sizes so as to avoid the cost of multiple designs and construction vaziances associated with small changes in unit sizes driven by sales category, the use of modulaz construction instead of "stick built", and a different approach to the design-build process. After hearing these recommendations, the City Council put an advisory ballot proposition on the November ballot and the voters by some 56% indicated a preference for building out Burlingame at "up to 300 units" over the 236-unit plan. We have been ui negotiation with the Burlingame Condominium I HOA board since January over a proposal to increase the unit count. We have presented the City's final offer to them and aze in substantial agreement with them on most issues, except for the final unit count and number of single family home sites. The current Declazations require a 100% vote of approval from the homeowners in order to amend the sections that determine total unit count. Previous Council Action: On July 28, 2008, under Resolution 69-2008, the Council accepted and adopted the recommendations from the Citizen Budget Task Force regazding the Affordable Housing Program and planning for Burlingame Phases 2/3. 1 Discussion: In general our proposal to the Burlingame homeowners is: • A total of 272 total units, of which there would be 21 single family lots (the 6 already sold and the other 7 lots in Phase 1; and an additional 8 lots in Phase 2). ^ The elimination of the $60 per month transit/mobility fee that is part of each unit's monthly assessment -this would presumably reduce their monthly assessments by $60. We would also eliminate. the free membership in the CazShaze program and the free Dial-a-Ride that is part of what that fee covers, but would continue to place a CazShaze vehicle at Burlingame (and probably add up to 2 more vehicles as Phase 2 is completed). ^ As of Mazch 151, the HOA is behind on its obligation to remit the mobility fee money to the City by slightly over $65,000; if our proposal is approved we would forgive that debt. ^ The pazking ratio that governs the number of pazking spaces would be raised from 1.67 to 2.0 (which would include loading zone spaces and guest parking spaces at a ratio of 1 to every 4 units) and control of the pazking program would be fumed over to the HOA. For Phase 1, we would construct, at our expense, an additional 28 pazking spaces and add 55 spaces to the 272-unit plan in Phase 2. If the HOA determined to continue with the pazking rental program, those rental revenues would be theirs to keep (currently the declazations provide that the City receive those revenues -although no revenues have been turned over to the City to-date) - if the HOA decides to make those spaces free, they will be free to determine how-to allocate those additional spaces. ^ If the HOA gathers the agreement of all adjacent property owners, easement holders and open space boards to amend the dog restrictions, the City Council is prepared to consider amending the necessary documents and agreements to lift that restriction in accordance with the HOA's proposal and enforcement plans. ^ Under the terms of the Declazations, the purchaser of each unit should have made a capital reserve contribution to the Condo 1 association and to the Master HOA. These fees ($300 to the Master HOA and 2/12 of the annual assessment at the time of sale to the Condo 1 HOA) were due at each sale closing. Those fees were never collected. Despite the legal responsibility falling to the purchaser, the City of Aspen has made good on those payments to the tune of $27,300 to the Master HOA and $52,450 to the Condo 1 HOA. This now constitutes Burlingame's capital reserves and absolves each purchaser from having to make those payments retroactively. This was an act of good faith on the part of the City of Aspen and is in addition to the neazly $50,000 that was contributed to the HOA as "start up" money by the City. This money is the HOA's no matter how the vote on the City's proposal for Phase 2 ends. Under the terms of the Declazations, the homeowners must nnan;mously approve changes to the unit count. We aze prepazed to begin the process of holding that vote to see if there is agreement on the part of homeowners to our proposal. We anticipate that a unanimous vote is unlikely, and in the event that less than 100% agree to our proposal, but more than 2/3 DO agree, we would move to amend the Declarations to allow fora 2/3 approval to such changes. This is permitted by Colorado 2 law (CCIOA). If the homeowners voted to change their approval level from 100% to 2/3, we would resubmit our proposal and seek another vote on the changes. If that vote was successful, the necessary PUD amendments would be filed and the development plans fora 272-unit Burlingame would be subject to the City's development review and approval processes. Summary of Citv's Proposal and Ne¢otiations with HOA: / 272 total units - includes a total of 21 single family lots (14 more than currently exist) - HOA still proposes 264 units and 39 single family lots / Elimination of the $60 per month mobility fee from homeowner's assessment (includes elimination of the free dial-a-ride program and free registration for CazShaze) / Forgiveness of the approximately $65K in debt owed to the City in late mobility fee remittances / PazkinQ at a 2.0 ratio -increases by 28 spaces in Phase 1 (including loading zones (6) and visitor pazking @ 1 per 4 units) and 55 spaces in Phase 2 (at 272 units/14 sf home sites) / PazkinQ program turned over to HOA administration -they can rent the spaces and keep the revenue or provide them to owners under whatever regimen they choose. / Puts burden on HOA to create a new trail to the river (although Parks is planning on a single track dirt trail to the AABC where a trail does access the river) and removing of restriction on dogs NO agreement on: / Prohibition in attempts to alter unanimous consent provision in declazations (we will attempt to alter provision if initial vote is less than 100% and greater than 67%) / Prohibiting the City from failing to develop single family lots or developing them as multi-family units except by unanimous consent (we contend no such consent is required) / Prohibition against any future changes to development plan (we agree to abide by any consent provisions in existence) The $60 per month transit fee will be removed from homeowners' monthly dues. / As of Mazch 1St, the HOA is behind on its payment of transit fees to the City, to the tune of neazly $65,000. Under the city's proposed agreement for Phase 2, this debt would be forgiven. If the plan is voted down, that debt will become due to the City. / The Homeowners Association will be allowed to keep all rental pazking fees should the HOA continue the paid parking program. The proposed agreement between the City and the HOA toms over control of pazking to the HOA -they can set up a paid pazking program or they can dispense the additional pazking spaces however they see fit. Should 3 the HOA continue to rent pazking spaces, this would provide an additional revenue source to the HOA budget. / The pazking ratio in the Phase 1 azea and in the Phase 2 area will be increased from the originally planned 1.67 spaces per multifamily unit to 2.0 spaces per multifamily unit. This will add 28 pazking spaces to Phase 1 -including loading zones and guest pazking spaces. "Bonus spaces" (those spaces behind the tuck-in pazking spot) will not count towazds the pazking ratio, nor would CazShaze allocated spaces. These additional spaces will be allocated by the Homeowners Association. If the HOA chooses to allocate some of these additional spaces as rental spaces, this may additionally benefit the HOA budget. / In addition to the 7 single family lots previously sold as part of Phase 1, the 272 unit plan includes the addition of 6 single family lots to Phase 1 (those lots platted and unsold) and 8 single family lots to Phase 2. If the City's Phase 2 272-unit proposal is voted down, no additional single family lots will be developed and sold. / Phase 2 will have the same aesthetic appearance, high quality construction and environmental standazds as Phase 1. As .part of the City's subsidy in constructing and selling the project, the City will be investing in high-quality design and construction so the ongoing operational maintenance expenses will be less of an burden to the homeowners. This has been a guiding principle in the design and construction approach the City is taking with Burlingame Ranch -the city is NOT "being cheap" in constructing Burlingame at the expense of the homeowners. / The Phase 2 buildings will have a few more units than the Phase 1 buildings, but the building footprints aze no lazger than the Phase 1 buildings. Because of this more efficient use of land, the percentage of open space in the Phase 2 azea will be compazable to the percentage of open space that exists in the Phase 1 azea. The 272-unit plan has more units and fewer buildings in Phase 2 - so the "unit per mechanical system" ratio.is less and will cost less per unit to maintain going forwazd. Should the increased density be approved - and the homeowners decide to create one homeowners association for the entire development -the increased number of units bedrooms and the decreased number of buildings should create efficiencies in the operation of the community, and that efficiency should reflect itself in the monthly homeowner's assessment (more units sharing common costs should result in lower Master Association dues and may result in Condo ' Association savings as well). / Phase 2 will have more covered pazking available to more residents than in Phase 1. / The Pazks department is working on "Harmony Pazk" at lot C and also on a trail to the top of Deer Hill as well as a trail to the ABC to better connect Burlingame to the trail that goes down to the river and the bridge crossing to the Rio Grande Trail. 4 / The Burlingame HOA will be free to pursue the lifting of the dog restriction by working with the adjacent property owners and the Open Space boazd - if the HOA gains their approval, the City Council is prepazed to consider revising the declazations and covenants to permit dogs (under the proposed restrictions of the HOA). What happens if the homeowners turn down the City's proposal? If the first vote is less than 67% approval, or if the vote to change the voting requirements following a failed vote is unsuccessful, or if a final vote under new voting requirements is unsuccessful, the City is prepared to build the final phase of Burlingame at 236 units with no additional single family lots and would amend the plat to exclude some of the acreage, reserving it for either open space or for a possible change of mind on the part of future Burlingame homeowners (under whatever voting requirement is in effect at that time) as to the number of units. Thus we would build out at the existing 236-unit limit and preserve some of the acreage for something that would be defined in the future. Until that time it would remain as undeveloped land. All of the City's offer would be withdrawn if our unit count change is unsuccessful -all of the status quo agreements/arrangements would remain effect. ^ Next phase is built at 236 units with NO additional single family homesites ^ NO reduction in the transit fee ($60 per month) ^ The HOA owes the City in past due transit fees neazly $65,000 and that debt would become due ^ NO additional pazking Next Stens: There needs to be a vote on the City's proposal by Burlingame homeowners. If that vote is less than 100%, we would put to a vote by homeowners a change in the approval requirements - as permitted by Colorado law. If that vote was successful, we would resubmit the City's proposal and vote on it again. So the sequence of events/votes would be: ^ BG Master HOA meeting vote called for on City's proposal ^ VOTE on city's proposal If less than 100%, but more than 67% -- then .. . ^ BG Master HOA meeting to change voting requirements from 100% to 67% ^ VOTE on proposed requirements change ^ BG Master HOA meeting to vote under new requirements ^ VOTE on proposal under new requirements Attachments• ^ 272-unit proposed conceptual site plan that the City is proposing ^ Construction Experts Group's 293-unit conceptual site plan ^ Possible 236-unit conceptual site plan if the City's proposal is rejected Details of HOA's proposal, City's counter-offer and Status of Agreement: (1) Phase One Punch List The City shall complete or address to the Condominium Board's satisfattion all Phase I punch list issues presented by Board. t The City, in conjunction with the HOA, has prepared a punch list and will complete it b In Agreement (2) We believe the alteration of the The City does not agree with this Changing unanimous consent vote legal interpretation and will not the provision set forth in Article XII, agree to limit the right of the unanimous Section 6d of the Mazter Master Association to seek to consent Declaration requires unanimous change the consent provision to Not In provision of consent of the owners in the what is permitted by state law. Agreement Master Master Association. The City Decs shall not attempt to change our unanimous consent voting requiremenu except by unanimous consent (3) Single The City will develop a new The City has not found the single Family Lots Phaze II/III plan that will include family lot program to be of The City is all 26 single family lou as benefit either to the City (one of offering to set originally designed with single the original purposes of the aside an family homes. program waz that single family additional 14 lou lots would subsidize the (6 single family multifamily development- lou in Phaze (- instead it has needed subsidy those lots from the City) or to the lot platted and owners who have found it unsold -and 6 difficult to build homes within the single family lou Category limits. in Phase 2) -for a total of 21 lou - if the HOA agrees to the other changes the City is proposing. The HOA proposes a total of 39 single family lou az originally planned for. (4) Density The City will present a new plan The CEG's proposal is for 293 (unit count) to the HOA that includes a total uniu. The voters approved reduced density (28 additional an advisory resolution in The City uniu or less) based on re- November 2008 that calls for "up proposes Phase inclusion of all single family lou to 300 uniu". The City's proposal 213 at 272 total az originally designed and with is for 272 total uniu. uniu and no buildings not larger than eight buildings with and ten uniu. We believe the design more than I I parameters of our buildings that uniu. call for some I I-unit buildings and some 14-unit buildings are compatible with the Ranch The HOA haz , vernacular that guides the accepted the development design. The building design, footprinu of these buildings are but proposes no not appreciably larger than the more than 264 buildings in Phaze I. total uniu. (5) Consent No single family lou in Phaze I The City does not accept this needed shall be altered without interpretation of the declarations. around use compliance with Article XII, We do not believe that the Not in of single Section bd of the master number of single family lou is Agreement family lots declaration (unanimous consent subject to the unanimous consent of owners). The number of (or any consent provision) of the single family lou in Phase I shall owners. remain 13. (fi) What The Burlingame Owners want to We propose to provide a plan B6 Owners vote on approval of a final plan for owners to vote on that will Will vote on for additional uniu. City shall not change the number of uniu, present a complete (not- ~ buildings, parking spaces, etc. This We are in preliminary) plan to owners to vote should not prevent future substantial vote on that will not be modified City Councils and future HOA agreement at a lacer dace by the City. members from entering into new agreemenu -subject to the voting provisions in force at the time. m Design Owners desire a community that The City desires the same review is environmenully efficient and outcome and agrees to follow all guidelines built within the same Design design review guidelines and Review Guideline requiremenu green building standards as (8) Quality of construction end number of HOAs (9) Porking that Phase I waz required to be built within. The City shall commit to follow all design review guidelines and green building standards az required in Phase I. Owners are concerned about increased maintenance costs associated with the Cites proposed use of cheaper building materials in Phaze II/III. The City will commit to maintaining a high quality of construction commensurate with Phase I buildings and will create a separate condominium association for Phase II/III so that Owners in Phase I are not burdened with these additional cosu. The City will add parking spaces to Phase I and Phase 111111 to equal two parking spaces per two and three bedroom unit, one parking space for one bedroom uniu. These parking spaces should not be distributed as visitor spaces or handicapped spaces. Visitor and handicapped spaces will be in addition to requested spaces. required in Phase I. The City denies proposing to use "cheaper building materials' in Phase 2/3 and is committed to the same high quality of construction commensurate with Phase I buildings. The issue of how many condo associations to create and how the burden of costs is to be distributed should be Carefully thought out by the Condo I Association. Their request is premised on their belief that Phases 2/3 could "shift" costs to the owners in Phase I. We believe the likelihood is that any "subsidy" would flow to Condo I owners, not the other way. However if they want to create separate azsociations, the City will not oppose that notion. The City proposes to add additional parking to the development that would increaze the parking ratio from 1.67 to 2.0 (excluding the 26 "bandit" parking spaces behind current tuck-in parking spaces from the calculation) and will include visitor, loading zones and handicapped spaces (as required by code). The City would retain the In Agreement In Agreement However the analysis of who bears a greater burden for future condo association cosu should be carefully examined by the Condo I Board before making a final recommendation about how to structure the association memberships going forward. In Agreement with the City's proposal 8 to add az many az 3 additional parking spots to the project total, dedicated to the CarShare program -and not count those spou towards the new 2.0 ratio. (10) Parking Families need two car availability See the proposals under #9 - loading even if transit is an option. The Parking. The proposal will include zone and City's plan will evidence that loading zones and visitor parking visitor there will be adequate parking in az proposed by the HOA. Phase II/III for both Phase II/III units and spillover from Phaze I In Agreement design for fuwre parking in with the City's Phaze II. There will also be a Proposal loading zone included in front of the Commons Building and in each of the six original "neighborhoods." Visitor parking will be located near each building at a ratio of I space per 4 units. (11) Open The new Phase II/III plan will The City believes its design for Spate in emphasize open space, in Phase Z3 is driven by this Design particular buildings clustered concept. around courtyards with usable In Agreement open space and sidewalks similar to the courtyard located on Molly and Lindvig Courts. (12) Bus The City will acknowledge the The City acknowledges no such size wastefulness of a full sized bus at thing. The HOA's proposal is Burlingame Ranch and will driven in part by a desire to change the bus service to a lower the costs and to pass on In Agreement smaller shuttle bus unless and that saving to the HOA. Our with the City's until ridership indicates a need proposals (see #I S -Transit Fee) proposal for afull-sized bus. do that while retaining the right of transit experts/staff to size the bus appropriate to the route and demand. Additional concerns are related to the environmental impact of a larger bus. (13) Available transit will provide Under our proposal (see # I S - Fr'equency greater incentive for bus Transit Fee), the City will of transit ridership than reducing parking eliminate the transit fee -and service spaces. The City will offer an thereby treat BG homeowners extended bus schedule. The and their transit service on equal summer schedule should be increased to include mid-day service as well az evenings and weekends. (14) Transit fee The City will eliminate the $60 transit fee. We realize this would require a change to the PUD. Therefore we request a full review of the PUD with final amendments submitted to council for approval. footing with the rest of the City residents. Thus service will be determined by demand and the ability of the City's Transit Fund to service and fund that demand (service is subject to both increazes and reductions az the fund revenue varies). Given current plans to perhaps extend the BG route to the AABC/Airport, we see increased frequency az a likely outcome. Certainly when Phaze 2l3 is completed and occupied, demand should increase and frequency should follow. The City proposes to eliminate this part of the assessment, subject to a vote of the HOA in support of the enure City proposal. We will then amend the PUD accordingly with all changes, and eliminate the services associated with the assessment (I) dial a ride, (2) car share membership, and (3) the mobility allowance. Homeowner's Dues transit service $27.50 dial-a-ride $15.00 Carshare $10.00 mobility allowance $ 750 monthly total $ 60.00 annual total $720.00 monthly revenue @91 units = $5,460 monthly revenue @236 uniu - $14,160 Budgeted Costs ~FY 2008) West Side Transit Service In Agreement with City's proposal In Agreement with City's proposal (~ $454,458 dial-a-ride: $ 55,660 carshare: $ 25,000 mobility allowance: 97 00 annual total $632,118 (15) Pnrking rental (16) $300 assessment nt initial unit sale (17) 2/12 dues assessment at ench unit sale The City will eliminate the requirement for the Mazter or Condominium Association to pay the $75 per space rental income to the City. If any spaces continue to be available for rental aker satisfaction of paragraph 6 above,thefundsfor such spaces shall remain the property of the Mazter or Condominium Association, as Mazter Declaration Article IV § 14 required the City to collect $300 from the first owner of each Unit purchased from Declarant at the time of the initial sale of each Unit and in accordance with Master Declaration Article IV § 14 in the sum of $27,300 (at $300 per 91 units sold). Condominium Declaration Article I I § I I.I I required the City to collect 2l l2 of the estimated annual assessments for common expenses for each unit upon the transfer of title to any unit (not just to the original owner). The City will create a Working Capital fund in accordance with the Condominium Declaration in the sum of $49,710 (per the following per 64 initial uniu sold): a.I51BRUnia@$215x2= The City will agree to this change - in concert with the rest of the changes to the parking program and subject to the HOA's approval of all changes proposed -and turn over administration of all parking spaces to the HOA. They may continue to charge for spaces or not as they see fit. The City sees this as Phase I issue and not associated with Phase 2/3 changes. Despite the legal obligation for these azsessments being the responsibility of the purchazer, the City has provided this sum to the Mazter HOA az an act of good faith. The City sees this az Phase I issue and not associated with Phaze 2/3 changes. Despite the legal obligation for these assessments being the responsibility of the purchaser, the City haz provided this sum to the Condo I HOA as an act of good faith. In addition, the City haz ensured that all future transactions are done in accordance with the declarations and that purchasers remit these assessments at In Agreement with City's proposal Completed Completed 11 $6,450 b. 29 2 BR Uniu @ $270 x 2 = $ 15,660 c. 40 3 BR Units @ $345 x 2 = 427.600 $49,710 (18) Trnil to River In addition, the City shall calculate all sales of units that occurred beyond the initial sale and add a contribution for each subsequent unit sold as required by§ I I.I I. The City shall install a walking trail to provide direct Burlingame Ranch access to Roaring Fork River and Rio Grande trail connector bridge. The eaziest route to the river, and a route that is being used now, is on private property. There is little likelihood that the owner would grant an easement for this trail. The other more direct route would access public property (either the City or Pitkin County) but due to steep slopes would present challenges with engineering and building a sustainable trail. The County Open Space Board's management plan of the Red Butte Open Space does not allow for human activity on the par[ of the trail east of the bridge located behind the closed gate. The City of Aspen Open Space Board haz determined that the slopes which would provide direct access are intact wildlife and riparian corridors which should be protected as such. The City haz plans to build asingle-track dirt trail between BG and the AABC. In addition, the City Open Space Board is exploring a new more direct trail route off the single track to AABC, which will provide a more direct and less In Agreement with City's proposal 12 impactful trail to the bridge. (19) Future City Council shall sign a j36 resolution and P.U.D. development amendment that would ensure limited that no additional uniu will be built in Burlingame Ranch Phaze I or Phase II/III in the future, other than the number the owners approve in this month's vote. (Qp) Storage for future buildings Storage should be within the same units building az the unit (21) Dog Removal of the no dog restrictions restriction. We would agree to indoor dogs only unless they are fenced in a yard or running area, on leazh at all other times unless in a park where they are permitted unleashed. We would adopt rules, fines, penalties to enforce this, and liking the restrictions would of course be subject to 2/3 owner approval vote per the condo & master association dots. The City proposes that the HOA allow the Open Space Board and Staff to pursue better alternatives for a more direct connection to the Stein Bridge. The City does not feel like a provision that attempts to bind future parries (future City Councils and future HOAs) from entering into agreements that change the provisions of the declarations is wise or permitted as a matter of law. Building designs for Phaze 2/3 include "parking buildings" (Uphill buildings) and "storage buildings" (Downhill buildings). This proposal of the HOAs was predicated on the kind of buildings designed for Phaze I. We cannot agree to this because the buildings are not designed to accommodate this notion. The City proposes that the HOA approach all adjacent property owners and easement holders to see if they are willing to consider this change. The adjacent property owners are the County Open Space Board (Red Butte Ranch), City of Aspen Open Space Board (Burlingame Open Space, Deer Hill), Aspen Valley Land Trust (conservation eazement holder on all open space properties) and the residents at the Double Bar X Ranch or TS Bar X LLC which now owns most of the land. Not in total Agreement In Agreement with City's proposal 13 The City remains skeptical about the ability of the HOA to enforce In Agreement rules governing dogs, az the with City's City's own experience in proposal enforcing restriction on animal owners haz shown it to be a burdensome and difficult proposition. The City did not do any enforcement of the dog restrictions when it was running the community up through May 2008. The HOA's property managers recently discovered dogs living in the community and adopted fines and penalties for harboring dogs and for feces, etc. in December; and have instructed O'Callaghan property management to proceed with notices to the offending owners. If the HOA presents the Council with a plan and an agreement by all parties, the Council will consider lifting the current restrittions according to the HOA proposal. 14 0 0 N C~ ~ a° ~pn^~ ~lbrd ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ c ~ „~ 1- ` ~9 J- ~~~uu a ~~ •~ L G G - •'a ~ V; V'] Vl v] :` ~-zzzz ~, d~~~~ J ~+ u.. u ~~ ~ ~ `~ Z ~ ~. ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ z ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r, `' e ~ u u ~ '. c,~`.~~v~ p O -~~ c 'r~i . 4~ ~ cC ~~ ~~~~m ~f d ~ ~. O ~~tii, ~ ~s, "_._ ~ si, .~3' iS-._._'- ----- -~ cam!] 2 ~ ~ ~ Li- a ~ ~~ _ ~ ; N y'M'.D~ w ~ i R ~ ~ ~ i t `7 ~ 14) 1 i ! ~ f _ ) uj ~ ~. ~~ ,~ ~. ~ V l Y 't\ ~.-~~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ,. -- _ z r ~ ~ ~ rs r l +' /~ ~ ~ ~, ~'~ J f ~° Gyp: ~ f { ~_~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ O a cr ~ l ~. r C , o .y fr/ ~ ~ r Orr ~,,_, ~ ~ c. y . , ` ~ `J- /! o r ~ • L~tl ~ _ ^ ~ ~ -----~---~--~-~---' ~ o yr .O N - ~ ~ s ~ ~ "' ~? ~ i u ~ Z N ~ ~ ~ ~3 , ~ t~t~rr~.y1 ~ cn I p Np ~,J °,~ ~ uo~ot~o~~ 11') 4*~ ~ Z~~ n ~\pr ~~Z il ~. ~, ~ ~ ! ~ O m~-~~~ ~j ~ 5Qz OzQ~~ ~, ~ ¢u..;~J w 2~~~~ I ~¢ c~UF" z~ s 0 0 N it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ dr' ~ ~ ~ ~m-ll ~ '.~ "~Jr GJ ~ ~ GS. ~ ~ ~ + ~~uuu~uw ~ \ ~ G' G G G C. G :~ nC`n~ HF~--I- e r z n S,~ ~ G7 ~ ~ ~ z J ~ a ~ ~ ~ = O~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~, u. .~~~ 2 LL F- ~ ~ ~ A~, ~ n O ~: ) _ O ~ Q ~ as ~~ i ,,..// -1 Q C2 5 l' ~ ' -`7 ~ rJ J 2' ' > ~ a 'U ~ • • ,fsv. ~ ~r ~~/rs yi O L,~ : O i-- • .., ~, ~ 7, r s Z 'e. ~ ~'~ ~ ~ I-- a ~ a \,~ • ~ '~ ! a i .~ to O V1 1~~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~.~V ~. Y ~ L~ ;~ ~ w u-w~ F q -, I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -7 ~ J ' 1 v a ~ i !~ ± ~ ~ 3 ,--~ ~ ~ I J = ` r t a ...1 ~ _ 1 r a 1 ' ~~ „r i 3 1 1 3 `1 R ` ' ~`~'L ~D.r 1 ~.~ l~ ~ 1~1~~1 `5 r~11 _ ' J! !'~ 1 o' 3 ,t ~' ~ 1 1~~/ '( ~ 1 ~i 1 ` > .~'~ !/I~ r' ~ cv G al ! ! p ~~ • `~ ~~ ~~ ~ z sy \ r-- c, O ~ C.. Z a 1 ~ ~ F- ~ F ~ ~ ~~ ~ C7 ~I ~ ~ ~~ ;r, ri ; ':a z O ~ N ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ `y u p `j r ,' ~ wo~o~~d ~o , O Z~ 5~ ~) ~ Q~ z V v ~ _ w¢~ ~~wL~ .! ~:.~ "" ~~r r v ~ u~~V ~, wQZ~~ ~j ~ G~zo~ 0 0 N (h ~_ ~ ~~+, ..! ~ t 11 f L ~ i ~' SLWfI b i S t ~ rJ s a „'~ ~ -f• ~ G~ ~~ ~ t r '~ ~ ~ a 9 ~ 9e ^ i 1 ° z I ~ n n j ~ .~ T • S~~ ~ G ~a'~~ ~ 6 o Vr, G ~~ u ~~ ~ Y j Y' i cG 0 r: 'r a Y- ~• ~, ii.. ~ as a.....""----_..---"-"' _1 ~ s ~ •.1 ~~ I N Q ,~, ? v e ^ a e ,` • - i 1 Z q ~ ~ ~ . ~'--V~ N e1 ~ e r :~ ~ 11P ~'~ •~ ._ ___ ~ ~ CCU l ~1 e, .~ ~ ~ 1 ~ s f ~' 1 l ~' f J (f 'il y~ ~O ~J, /// ~~~- ~ i° o ~ ~_oo~ s z =' u ~ O_ c ¢ ~ ; ~ ~ _= ~ z c!I ~ONtI NdMjzG r ~ W ~r~~ O~OCcn,S~ ,~ ~ 7- ~~~ r~ [- U Z~ 5 w~~ If ~ i~ Z J cn~~QV~~ ~~ ~ wu~ ~~J~~O ~ ~ L~zo~ L1~~Zca. n~ I. c. ~~~nf-c.