HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090901
9 I I/i~in-k~ss~~--
,;,,; ; r
Aspen Real Estate and Development
• ASC Projects completed '08 -'09
- Gondola Plaza
- Ajax Tavern
- Holiday House Employee Housing
• Affordable housing generally-future involvement
• ASC engagement in Lift 1 a COWOP Process
- Continuing interest and involvement
- Hospitality /bed base
- Mountain Master Plan update I revisions
• Aspen Area Community Plan
• Economy, housing, transportation, etc.
~~ ~,
1
2
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: August 28, 2009
MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009 Work Session
RE: Stormwater System Development Fee
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction regarding potential changes to the
Stormwater System Development Fee and the impacts of those changes.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In May 2007, Council passed an ordinance (Attachment
B) that implemented a $2.88 fee to be chazged to each squaze foot of a site's entire impervious
area, at the time of development or redevelopment exceeding 500 squaze feet of impervious area.
In a Work Session on June 1, 2009, Council directed staff to examine the equity of the fee as it
applies to development and redevelopment, particulazly how it applies to existing development at
the time of additions to or redevelopment of any portion of the site. Council also directed staff to
evaluate how changes to the amount and application of the fee would change revenues for the
stormwater fund.
BACKGROUND: The needs of the Stormwater program were analyzed by staff, consultants,
and Citizens' Review Committee (CRC) in 2006, resulting in a Stormwater Utility Business Plan
and Supplement. This Plan was presented to Counci] and recommended program improvements
and capital improvement projects totaling $31 million. The group also reviewed and
recommended funding mechanisms to generate revenue for the improved Stormwater program.
In May 2007, Council approved a system development fee (Memo to Council and ordinance aze
Attachments A and B, respectively), estimated to generate $19 million over 15 yeazs (or $1.27
million annually), to be assessed against development and redevelopment. In November 2007,
voters approved a mill levy (ballot language and resolution aze Attachments C and D,
respectively) that would generate $12 million over 15 yeazs (or $860,000 on average annually) to
be used for Stormwater improvements.
The Stormwater system development fee (SDF) is defined and codified in the City of Aspen
Land Use Code Chapter 25.18. A fee of $2.88 per square foot of total impervious azea is
assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet of impervious
Page 1 of 4
azea. The purpose of the fee was to provide funding necessary to construct, maintain and
improve the City's stormwater facilities. The fee has been assessed to development and
redevelopment projects since November 2007. Revenues from the fee that have been collected
from November 2007 to July 2009 equal $947,243.23.
In the Council meeting in June, there was discussion of the equity in applying the fee to existing
and undisturbed impervious azeas at the time of an addition to the property. For example, if an
existing 1000 sq ft home (footprint) added a 500 sq ft impervious driveway, the system
development fee assessed for the property would be $2.88 x 1500 sq ft = $4,320.00. The
question of concern was the appropriateness of applying the fee to the existing impervious azea
(in the example above, the 1000 sq ft).
In the August 17, 2009 Council Work Session, staff presented the current financial situation of
the stormwater program. While the tax is generating the expected revenue of approximately
$800,000 annually, the fee is only estimated to generate $430,000 in 2009, approximately 66%
short of the original total. This shortfall is attributed to the economic slowdown. Assuming a
conservative 4% increase in construction annually, this results in a revenue shortage of $7
million over 15 years. Staff proposed a reduced budget for flood control capital projects by $7
million.
DISCUSSION:
1. There is a perception that the SDF is inequitable because it applies retroactively to
existing impervious area. To remedy this, the SDF could be changed to only account for
new developed impervious areas. If the SDF is applied only to new developed impervious
area the estimated revenue generated would be $180,000 per year, which is 42% of its
current level and 14% of its expected level. This amounts to lost revenue of about
$250,000 from this year's budget.
2. The current stormwater program plan to fund capital improvements is lower than the
originally recommended program in the Stormwater Business Plan.
• The original SDF was supposed to generate $19 million over 15 years (or $1.27
million annually). The original dedicated property tax was supposed to generate
$12-13 million over IS yeazs (or $860,000 on average annually)
• The SDF at the current rate will generate $7.43 million over 15 yeazs (or
$572,000 on average annually) and the tax will generate an estimated $13.8
million over I S years or (1.06 million on average annually).
• The SDF is greatly impacted given the current economy. In 2008 it generated
approximately $560,000 and through July of 2009 it has generated only $260,000.
• The property tax at 0.65 mils has been voluntarily TABOR-limited reducing its
annual revenue by an estimated average of $240,000 below what could be legally
collected.
3. As an interim measure the following steps could be taken -though it would keep the
program at its current low level of capital improvements to coincide with an amount of
anticipated revenue.
• Change the SDF to new impervious area only.
Page 2 of 4
- At this rate of revenue, and to meet the goals of the stormwater program,
the stormwater capital plan would need to be extended from 15 yeazs to 20
yeazs.
Release the dedicated tax from its voluntary TABOR limitation as an offsetting
measure.
- This would offset the change to the SDF, generate $240,000 per yeaz and
allow for approximately the same budget as presented on August 17,
completing the capital projects proposed in 15 yeazs.
4. Because the interim solution keeps the program at its current low level of revenue, long-
term options should be considered to put the program on a stable, adequate and equitable
funding foundation. To do this we should investigate replacement or supplementary forms
of funding such as an in-lieu of detention fees or special assessment districts, with the goal
of shifring a representative portion of the capital cost to existing properties who currently
contribute to the problems.
A report further explaining the current financial situation, the SDF, and suggestions for direction
is included as Attachment E.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: If the SDF is modified to apply only to new impervious
area, the expected revenues would be $180,000. This would equate to a $250,000 drop from
2009 levels and $1.09 million drop from the 2007 estimated annual average. This will result in
extending the time period in which capital projects associated with the stormwater program will
be implemented.
If the TABOR limit is released from the stormwater tax, an increase of $240,000 of the 2009
levels is expected, bringing the revenue generated from the tax back to 2007 expectations of
$860,000 annual average. This will result in balancing the funding decrease resulting from a
change in the SDF application.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects
planned to upgrade the capacity of the stormwater system, development and redevelopment
projects will be required to detain stormwater runoff on their sites, releasing it at a rate that the
current stormwater system can handle without flooding downstream properties. The typical
location for on-site detention in the downtown azea is underground and requires pumping which
uses significant amounts of energy.
If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to improve the quality of runoff
discharged into the Roaring Fork River sediment loads from the City will be about 2,480 tons per
year. This is about 16.5 times the natural load of about 150 tons of sediment per yeaz. At this
rate the Roaring Fork River will likely remain categorized as "severely degraded" and will likely
continue to experience changes in river bed, river flow, and river temperature; decreases in
riparian habitat and species; and decreases in trout populations.
ACTION: Staff recommends that Council:
Change the SDF to apply to new impervious area only.
Page 3 of 4
•
2. Release the dedicated tax from its voluntary TABOR limitation as an offsetting
measure.
3. Investigate replacement or supplementary forms of funding the capital program to
shift a representative portion of the capital cost to existing properties who currently
contribute to the problems.
Attachments•
A -Memo to Council regarding establishment of stormwater system development fee.
B -Ordinance establishing stormwater system development fee.
C -Sample ballot language for property tax for stormwater.
D -Resolution supporting property tax ballot measure.
E - Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
CITY MANAGER
Page 4 of 4
~a~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
Mayor and Council
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
Phil Overeynder, Director of Public Works
Paul Menter, Finance Dtrector
DATE OF MEMO: May 14, 2007
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2007 Council Meeting
RE: Stormwater Development Fees
SUMMARY: Staff is recommending proceeding with the adoption of an ordinance for the
implementation of the System Development Fee included in the 5tormwater Utility Business Plan for
sites that disturb 500 squaze feet or greater. The fee is similar to the City of Aspen's existing water
system "tap" fee, in that it constitutes a capital facilities change for the City's stormwater utility system.
Since it is a fee and not a tax, Council has the authority to approve its implementation by ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The System Development Fee had its first reading on May 14, 2007. (Refer to
Attachment 2) Since that time staff has modified the definition section of the ordinance for
development and redevelopment. The area of disturbance for development and redevelopment was
increased from 200 square feet to 500 square feet. (Refer to Attachment 1)
DISCUSSION: After the first reading of the System Development Fee, Staff internal discussions
regarding the definition section of the System Development Fee.
Because the City has never charged a system development fee for its stormwater system, the fee
proposed is to be chazged against the total impervious area, and not just the' increased impervious azea
resulting from the current development application. Staffrecommended this approach because the
recommended capital program is designed to support both existing as well as increased impervious
areas and as noted above, no previous system development fees have been collected in the City far
stotmwater services.
Since the System Development Fee is calculated on the entire impervious area of the site not just the
change in impervious area staffwas concerned that the project size threshold for requiring the System
Development fee was too low and that small projects, with very little impact on the overatl
development of the site would be required to pay the System Development Fee for the entire site. As a
result Staff is proposing in increase the threshold for development and redevelopment from 200 squaze
feet of disturbance to 500 square feet of disturbance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Example fees are shown below:
hn 'ous Area S S em Develo ment Fee
Sin a famil 2,500 $7,200
Commercial 10,000 $28,800
Commercial 90,000 $259,000
At an annual developmendredevelopment rate of 4% of the City's impervious area, this revenue
stream, with subsequent periodic adjustments for inflation, will be sufficient to pay for the
recommended storm system improvements over a 15 yeaz period.
Total estimated revenue collections over the noted 15 yeaz planning period are $19 million.
ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPLICATIONS: The fee will provide funding for construction of stormwater
facilities, which will improve the City's ability to manage storm runoffintc the Roaring Fork River,
reducing sediment and pollutant runoff, and generally benefiting the ecology of the river, primarily
with in the City of Aspen, but also downstream from the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending proceeding with the adoption of an ordinance for the
implementation of the System Development Fee included in the Stormwater Utility Business Plan.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternative funding options include: monthly service fee and combination
monthly service fees and property tax and are further described on pages 1-10 of Attachment A of
Attachment 2. The alternatives all assume voter approval of a new property tax or Council/voter
approval of the creation of a new stormwater utility operation. All the alternatives include a System
Development Fee. If a System Development Fee is not used to supplement the alternatives each
alternative would require higher fees or taxes in order to maintain the same level of planned
improvements.
CTI'Y MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment 1- Stormwater Development Fee Ordinance
Attachment 2 -May 8, 2007 Staff Memo with Attachments
Ai4~+ a ;
ATTACHMENT 1
,ate
oRDINANCE No. a d
Series of 2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO AMEND CHAPTER 25.18 OF TITLE 25 OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE ADDTI'ION OF A NEW STORMWATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT FEE
WHEREAS, the City's Stortnwater Management Plan identifies deficiencies in the
condition and capacity of its existing drainage system, and
WE~REAS, it is in the City's interest to protect its infrastructure, the environment, and the
ecology of the Roaring Fork River from the effects of stormwater nmoff; and
WHEREAS, a stormwater system development fee will generate an estimated $19 million
over fifteen years for use in improving the City's existing drainage system related to
development and redevelopment of property within the boundaries of the City of Aspen,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE LT ORDAINED BX THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT
Section 1.
Chapter 25.18 of Title 25 of the Aspens Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
5ec.25.18.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Title certain words or phrases are defined as follows:
(a) Development. The proposed development creates at least 500 square feet of
new impervious area.
(b) Redevelopment. The proposed development disturbs at ]east 500 square feet of
the existing impervious area.
:., ,
Sec. 25.18.020 Stormwater System Development Fee.
(a) A Stonnwater System Development Fee shall be assessed againstshall be
properties at the time of development or redevelopment of the property.
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 $2.88 per square foot of
total impervious area
(b) The calculation for the credit to be given for property on which the stru ~tudrefsr
are substantially remodeled or rebuilt shall take into account the amount actually p
stormwater system development fees in the records as maintained by the city.
Sectlon 2:
This thdinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Sectlon 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not alFect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof
Section 4: ~ the
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held o Colorado. ~y of
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
r ~~n~~~ C
-------------------------
~ SAMPLE BALLOT FOR COORDINATED ELECTION ~
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ~
tt~ NOVEMBER 6, 2007
Vos Caudill, Clerk and Recorder
1nty. Colorado
TRUCTIONS TO VOTER: To vote for your choice, completely fill in the Oval to t
tear, deface, or wrongly mark this ballot, return it and request a replacement.
VOTE LIKE THIS: •
~ ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1
~ School Board Director -District B
4 Year Term
(Vote for One)
~ ~ Brad Zeigel
~ ~ Debbie Stone Bruell
~ School Board Director -District C
4 Year Term
~ (Vote for One)
~ ~ Bruce Wampler
~ ~ Bill Lamont
~ School Board Director -District D
4 Year Term
~ (Vote for One)
~ ~ Myles Rovig
tt~
Ittt~
tt~
Its
tt~
t~
ttttt~
ttttt~
tt~
~t t r yr r+arcn
"Ballot issues referred by the general assembly or any political
subdivision are listed by letter, and ballot issues initiated by the
people are listed numerically. A'yes' vote on any ballol issue is
a vote in favor of changing current law or existing
circumstances, and a'no' vote on any ballol issue is a vote
against changing current law or existing circumstances"
Referendum 2A
SHALL CITY OF ASPEN SALES TAXES
BE INCREASED BY A NEW D.15% SALES
TAX BECOMING EFFECTIVE UPON
EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT 0.25%
SALES TAX TO INCREASE REVENUES
BY AN ESTIMATED $870,989 FOR THE
FIRST FISCAL YEAR (2010) AND SHALL '
ANEW 2.1% CITY OF ASPEN USE TAX
ON CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING
MATERIALS BE APPROVED TO
INCREASE REVENUES AN ESTIMATED
$1,722,000 FOR THE FIRST FISCAL
YEAR (2008) AND FOR CITY TRANSIT
SERVICES AND PEDESTRIAN
AMENITIES
SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE
INCREASED BY AN ESTIMATED $1,722,000
FOR THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR (2008) AND BY
SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE GENERATED
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY A NEW 2.1
USE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION AND
BUILDING MATERIALS; PROVIDED THAT THE
FIRST ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000) OF EACH BUILDING PERMIT
VALUATION SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM USE
TAX; AND SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE
INCREASED BY AN ESTIMATED $870,989
FOR THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR (2010) AND BY
SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE GENERATED
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY A NEW 0.15%
SALES TAX BECOMING EFFECTIVE UPON
EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT 0.25%
SALES TAX; AND PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT THE REVENUES DERIVED FROM
SUCH SALES AND USE TAXES SHALL BE
USED TO PAY THE COST OF OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, CAPITAL REPLACEMENT,
AND IMPROVEMENTS OF CITY TRANSIT
SERVICE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES;
AND, PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE FULL
AMOUNT OF REVENUES DERIVED FROM
THE SALES AND USE TAXES MAY BE
RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY THE CITY
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE
OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION, INCLUDING
THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X,
SECTION 20, OF THE COLORADO
A BLUE OR
26
n IMPOSED AT A RATE OF UP
0.65 MILLS BE APPROVED TO
REA5E REVENUES BY UP TO
0.000 ANNUALLY {FOR
A RATE OF UP Tc
iE PURPOSE OF
TH E
EARNINGS
~ YES
~ NO
ttttt~
tt~
tt~
Ittt~
tt~
~
_ CONSTITUTION?
~ YES
~ NO ~
~
~
tt~
Ittt~
~
~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ t ~ I ~ t ~ ~ ~ t ~
Card 1
t ~ t ~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~
----------------------------------
~ Referendum 2C Referendum 2E ~
~ AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ASPEN HOME ~
SHALL CITY OF ASPEN DEBT BE RULE CHARTER TO ALLOW
~ I NCREASED BY UP TO 55,500,000, WITH I NSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING
A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF pROCEDURE3 AND COUNCIL ~
~ Ef 0,780,000 BY THE ISSUANCE OF MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED BY
~ GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FORA MAJORITY VOTE ~
NEW HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY ON
~
~ CASTLE CREEK Shall Oroinance No. 38, Series of 2007, be
approved to amend Section 2.7 of the City of _
~ SHALL CITY OF ASPEN DEBT BE Aspen Homa Rule Charter to require City
~ I NCREASED BY UP TO $5,500,000, WITH A Council to adopt and Implement Instant run-off
voting procedures for the election of Mayor antl ~
~ MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF
$10,780,000 BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
t members of Council; and to amantl Section 3.2
o require members of Councl to be elected by ~
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF majority vote? ~
CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPINGANEW
HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY ON CASTLE
O VES ~
~ CREEK, WHICH DEBT SHALL BE PAYABLE
FROM (1) ELECTRIC UTILITY FEES AND (2) ONO ~
_ TO THE EXTENT THE CITY COUNCIL
DETERMINES THAT THE REVENUES ~
PROJECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FROM SUCH
ELECTRIC UTILITY FEES WILL BE ~
INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF,
PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH ~
DEBT AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH
~
THE COVENANTS OF THE ORDINANCE OR
OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH ~
DEBT IN ANY YEAR, FROM THE TAXES
DESCRIBED BELOW; SHALL CITY TAXES BE ~
INCREASED eY UP TO $359,128 ANNUALLY
IN ANY YEAR BY THE LEVY OF AD VALOREM ~
PROPERTY TAXES, WITHOUT LIMITATION
AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT OR ANY OTHER ~
CONDITION, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF,
~
PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH
DEBT AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH ~
THE COVENANTS OF THE ORDINANCE OR
OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH ~
DEBT IF AND TO THE EXTENT THE CITY
COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT THE ~
REVENUES PROJECTED TO BE AVAILABLE
FROM SUCH ELECTRIC UTILITY FEES WILL ~
NOT BE SUFFICIENT THEREFOR; SHALL
~
SUCH DEBT MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO
REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT ~
PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND
SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH ~
PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN
SUCH MANNER AND WITH SUCH TERMS, ~
NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE
CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND ~
SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT, RETAIN AN D EXPEND ALL OF ~
[fHE REVENUES OF SUCH TAXES, THE ~
PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS AND THE
EARNINGS THEREON] IN 2007 AND EACH ~
SUBSEQUENT YEAR, NOTMTHSTANDING
~ THE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION
' ~
20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
~ (TABOR), SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO ~
REVISED STATUTES, OR ANY OTHER LAW7
~ OYES ~
-ONO ~
Referendum 2D ~
~ AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGE OF USE
IN OPEN SPACE FOR HYDROELECTRIC ~
~ PLANT
~
~
Shall the City of Aspen be authorized to Uange ~
~ the use of approximatey 27,500 square feel of
~ City owned properly acquired for open space
' ~
s Street
purposes located adjacent to the City
~ Department Shop on Power Plant Road beneath ~
the Castle Creek entlge for the purpose of
~
~ constructing a new Castle Creek Hydroelectric
Power Plant; provided that City Council replaces ~
~ the property with other open space property of
equivalent or greater value as of the date of the ~
~ change in use?
OYES ~
~ ONO ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e. ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cardl
J
RESOLUTION #
(Series of 2006)
v~~.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN
SUPPORT OF THE 2006 PITKIN COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS °CiTY
PROPERTY TAX FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM', WHICH
AUTHORIZES TO LEVY A NE1N-0.65 MILL PROPERTY TAX FOR THE CITY'S
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the Roaring Fark River is severey degraded through the City with
increasing levels of sediment discharge and other pollutants. Stormwater runoff has
been identified as the number one source of river pollution by the Roaring Fork
Conservancy; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to protect private property, f thle Roarin
and safety, the City's inftasWcture, the environment, and the ecology 9
Fork River from the effects of stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen's Stormwater Management Plan has identified
ways to reduce the amount of storm water runoff going directly into the river from the
current 88% level to.37% preventing 1,426 tons of sediment from.reaching the river
each year, and
WHEREAS, reducing sediment will improve water quality, fish habitat, and river
health throughout Aspen and for miles downstream; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the Stormwater Management plan is estimated to be $12
million over 15 year, and
WHEREAS, a new mill levy of 0.65 mill property tax will generate an estimated
$12 million over fifteen years for use in maintaining, improving, and extending the City's
existing drainage system; and
WHEREAS, the new property tax is not a huge financial burden to the citizens of
Aspen. Atypical single family home in the West.i;nd will pay approximately $10 more
per month and an affordable housing unit wiEl pay approximately $1 more per month in
property taxes; and
WHEREAS, the various projects identified in the Stormwater Management Plan
will mitigate the adverse water quality impacts from the City on the Roaring Forts River;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL supports
the ballot question known as "City Properly Tax for Storm Water Management System"
that authorizes Council to levy a new 0.65 milt property tax to reduce the adverse water
quality impacts from the City on the Roaring Fork River and improve fish habitat and
~utFA
river healtli. The Aspen Cit~r Council urges the electors of the City of Aspen to support
said proposed referendum and to vote "Yes' on its passage.
Dated:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly. appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of ,
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held September 25, 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
NFT~ICNNKwF ~
amec~
Stormwater System Development Fee
Evaluation
September 1St, 2009
~__
3
Tf~re Cr~~v aF A~;i~~ti
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
Introduction
This Report
This report addresses the following three questions:
1. What is the current situation in terms of program budget and funding?
This report finds: 2. How much revenue does Aspen need to support stormwater?
• The current 3. Is the current System Development Fee structured in the most appropriate way
stormwaterprogram for Aspen?
is underfunded.
• The current SDF is Brief Summary of the Situation
perceived as In February, 2007 Aspen completed a detailed Stormwater Utility Business Plan.' It was
inequitable. supplemented in April. 2 The plan contains detailed analysis of the City's stormwater
• The current SDF can needs and issues, citizen input, an assessment of program costs and funding options.
be transformed to
charge only new The cit res onded b Initiatin a two- ron ed fundin a roach: a S stem
y p y g p g g pp y
impervr'ousness in a Development Fee (SDF) and a dedicated property tax.
revenue neutral way
by increasing As originally envisioned the combination of the two was to generate about $2.1 M
dedicated tax annually -this was seen at that time as the needs of the program. About $1.3M was
collections fo the full capital construction and $800,000 was in recurring expenses.
0.65 mils.
. This is an interim The System Development Fee
measure until the Adopted by ordinance in May 2007, the SDF charges $2.88 per square foot of total site
program need is
refined and other impervious area triggered by development and redevelopment exceeding 500 square
viable funding feet of impervious area. Originally, the system development fee was slated to generate
options have been $19M over 15 years {$1.27M/yr in 2006 dollars). The actual 2009 projected revenue
analyzed. from the fee is only $430,000, or 34% of the originally projected total. This shortfall is
primarily attributed to the economic slowdown, though estimates had to be made based
on incomplete data and significant unknowns.
The Dedicated Tax
In November 2007 voters approved a dedicated property tax of 0.65 mills independent of
TABOR. This funding is to support the rest of Aspen's stormwater program -the
recurring costs plus debt service. The tax was targeted to generate $860,000/yr on
average for the recurring program and debt service. The 2009 estimated revenue from
the property tax is $814,000 - on target.
Current Analysis
The structure of the System Development Fee, although recommended at the time of the
Business Plan development by citizens and political leadership alike, is in question.
There are two concerns.
The first is that the SDF may appear to be inequitable in that it charges parcels for their
total impervious area rather than only the additional amount in the redevelopment, and is
applied at the onset of construction of additional impervious area. This retroactive
approach is unusual and is not strictly in accord with Colorado legislation (though the
legislation may not apply to home rule cities).
In addition there is an ongoing shortfall in capital project funding from the SDF currently
recognized by both the community and political leadership.3
~ City of Aspen, Stormwater Utility Business Plan, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., February, 2007
s City of Aspen, Supplemental Report, Stormwater Utility Business Plan, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., April, 2007
a Aspen Post Independent, 19 August, 2009, Aspen Daily News, 19 August, 2009.
Page 1 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
This report provides a brief analysis and suggestions only -directions for further
investigation. An appropriate due diligence process and thorough analysis and of the
Stormwater program and the adequacy/acceptability of funding structure changes would
be warranted prior to adjustment of the current tax and charges or activation of any
additional funding sources. Though an interim step may be warranted.
1. Current Stormwater Budget and Funding
What is the current situation in terms of budget and funding?
Program Budget
The Stormwater special revenue fund (Fund 160) works to prevent reduce and mitigate
the impacts of development on the Roaring Fork River. The fund provides funding to
address Stormwater runoff issues through land use planning, hydrologic and hydraulic
engineering, construction of Stormwater management areas (such as wetlands),
inspections, creation and enforcement of regulations, sediment removal, water quality
monitoring and educational and outreach programs.
The 2009 budget total for the fund is about $1.2M as shown in Table 1. This budget
number may be insufficient to meet growing Stormwater program needs for capital
construction, permit compliance, and system maintenance and restoration.
Conversations with local staff indicate that a more appropriate number may be in the
$1.7-2.1 M range annually.
The 2009 Stormwater program budget indicates the following categories of expenditure
and as shown in Figure 1:4
Table 1.2009 Budget
Payroll $364,910
Maintenance $ 28,250
Professional Services $ 82,830
Materials & Supplies $ 44,140
Overhead $ 63,060
Tax Collection Fees $ 16,280
Capital $604,000
Total $1,203,470
Q.hcr
I2Yo
ro[I
.~
O:erhEad iu,amcenanc_
5°!0 '~'
Figure 1.2009 Expenditures
`City of Aspen 2009 Operating and Capital Budget
Page 2 of 9
'City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
The forecasted budget for the stormwater fund (Special Revenue Fund 160) is shown in
Table 2 for a five year period. Lines 2 and 3 reflect the two funding sources each
growing between 3 and 4% annually. Debt service (funded from the tax and fee) grows
in year 2014 based on a matching $3.2M in bond revenue/construction cost for the Rio
Grande design project let in 2013 but not included in this Table.
Table 2. Five-Year Projection 2010-2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1 Beginnin Balance $1,625,000 $2,039 000 51,865 000 2,216,000 $2,iz4,000
2 Stormwater Property Tax $857,000 $883,000 5912,000 $946,000 5981,000
g System Development Fee $447,000 $465,000 $484,000 $503,000 $523,000
q Interest Income $45,000 $57,000 $52,000 $62,000 559,000
5 Subtotal, CurrentRevenue.• $1,350,000 $1,406 000 $1,448,000 $1,513,000 $1,708,000
6 TntalAvailable Funds $2,975,000 $3,444,000 $3,313,000 $3,726,000 $3,832,000
7 Operatln ense 5637,000 $655,040 $673,000 $692,000 $712,000
8 Ca !tal enditures: $290,000 $915,000 5405,000 $890,000 $740,000
9 Debt Service $9,000 $9,000 $20,000 $20,000 5281,000
10 Subtotal, Current Expenditures: 936,000 $1,579,000 $1,098,000 $1,602 000 $1,733 000
11 Change In fund Balance 414,000 -$174,000 $350,000 - 91,000 -$26,000
12 Ending Fund t3alance $2,039,000 ?'±,o•~:, : ~ `'.C~,tJ00 X2,124,000 $2,093,000
Funding
In 2005 the City of Aspen undertook a study of stormwater management needs and
funding options. Funding alternatives were identified and discussed by an advisory
committee, which made recommendations to the administration and City Council. A
detailed Stormwater Business Plan report and supplement were developed, as
previously stated.
In November, 2007 Aspen's voters approved a special ad-valorem property tax mill levy
Aspen currently employs of up to 0.65 mills for the specific purpose of increasing revenues to fund the City s
two funding sources for
stormwater. a system stormwater management system, and by such amounts raised annually thereafter by an
development charge and ad-valorem property tax mill levy imposed at a rate of up to 0.65 mills independent of
a dedicated property tax TABOR limitation.
The stated purpose of the tax is to fund "the costs of capital improvements to, and
operation and maintenance of, an expanded storm water management system." The
ballot measure enabled the City to collect, retain and expend all of the revenues of such
taxes and earning thereon in 2008 and each subsequent year notwithstanding the
limitations of the TABOR or any other law.5 The current property tax levy is estimated to
generate $814,000 in 2009.6 This revenue stream is anticipated to grow by 3-4%
annually.
In addition to the property tax, aone-time stormwater development fee was instituted by
the City Council in 2007. The stormwater development fee was set at $2.88 per square
foot of impervious area on properties being developed or redeveloped with 500 or more
additional square feet of impervious coverage. The stormwater development fee is
5 November 6, 2007 stormwater property tax ballot measure approved by City of Aspen voters.
e City of Aspen 2009 Operating and Capital Budget
Page 3 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
The current stormwater
program is limited by the
inability of the funding
methods to generate
sufficient revenue to
meet the program needs
identified in a past
Business Plan.
applicable to the entire impervious area of properties being redeveloped if they add 500
or more square feet of impervious coverage.
Development fee receipts in 2008 (for an 18-month period following adoption of the fee)
were forecast to be $1,000,000 in 2008 and estimated at $600,000 in 2009 because of
the slowing pace of development. However, only $700K was collected in 2008 and
recent estimates put the 2009 revenues at about $430,000, requiring a significantly
reduced capital construction program ($12M over 15-years instead of the original $19M).
Revenues for 2009 are shown in Figure 2.
__. Intzrzst Incomz
~evzlopment Fees :_ .. ._ - -- 245
423; ,•,l
;;:
•'` i'=1~, Fraperr; Tax-
Storm•.raur
Sb45
Figure 2. 2009 Revenues
2. Stormwater Program Needs
How much revenue does Aspen need to support sformwater?
Past Projections
The Supplement to the Business Plan developed in 2007 estimated both operating and
capital construction needs.
The capital planning and construction program was divided into three areas (2006
dollars) as shown in Table 3.
While some of the estimates are based on significant preliminary engineering others are
broader. Notably, the master planning costs are designed to shed light on the actual
need and to investigate how to integrate flood control and water quality enhancements
into all projects, as appropriate.
This total was to be a 15 year program or $1,280,000 annually.
Table 3. 15 Year Capital Projection
Program Component Estimated Total
Flood Control Management $9,600,000
Water Quality Management $8,923,000
~ City of Aspen 2009 Operating and Capital Budget
Page 4 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
A projection of
storrnwater program
needs completed in
2007 estimated that the
capita! construction
program need was
$1.28M annually.
Capital Master Planning $670,000
TOTAL $19,193,000
The recurring costs of the program (2006 dollars) were similarly estimated as shown in
Table 4.
Table 4. Recurring Program Cost Projections
The same 2007 analysis
projected a recurring
need of about $860, 000
annually.
Program Component Estimated Total
Routine Maintenance $455,300
Remedial Repair &
Replacement $183,000
Plans Review, Inspection &
Enforcement $136,500
Water Quality Monitoring,
Studies and Education $60,000
General Administration $25,000
TOTALS $859,800
These numbers reflect the best information in 2006. No significant changes to estimates
have occurred since that time.
The recurring cost numbers will show an increase as new construction builds high
maintenance water quality treatment devices. This was estimated to be about $350,000
at about ten years out. This is not included in the analysis at this time.
Upper anc! Lower Bounds
Because all of these are in 2006 dollars we must increase them by 12.6% reflecting four
years of compounded 3% cost increase to make them comparable to the existing budget
numbers which are in 2010 dollars and might be considered to represent a lower
boundary to the program -though adjustments can be made to the existing program as
well.
We then have an envelope of stormwater program cost as indicated by the existing
budget (lower limit) and the projected need (upper limit in 2010 dollars). The lower limit
capital costs are an average of the current budget projection through 2022 in today's
dollars.
Table 5. Stormwater Program Cost Range
Lower Bound Upper Bound
(Business Plan
(2009 budget) Su lement
Recurring Costs+ $596,000 $990,000
Page 5 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
Capital Costs $604,000 $1,440,000
TOTAL About $1.2M About $2.4M
Difference $1,200,000
Includes debt service.
This tells us that at a minimum our program revenue (less interest income) must be in
the $1.2M range and at a maximum in the $2.4M range.
An estimate of unmet
needs probably ranges Detailed reanalysis of the true costs and projections is beyond the scope of this study.
from $500,000 to We recommend a revisit of both the recurring costs and the capital program. The
$700,000. masterplanning should be done in any case to define real capital needs in light of the
current water quality realities.
Current revenue is $1.3M. Based on Table 5 there may be a maximum funding shortfall
of about $1.1 M for the upper bound program. In reality the number is probably in the
$500,000 to $700,000 range as the economy increases and fees pickup and as a tighter
program need estimate is developed.
Program Pacing and Adjustment
Another way of bridging the gap is by looking at the current stormwater program to
determine if there are areas where suitable pacing of the capital program could reduce
costs in the short term.
The capital program in planning has been cut from a 15-year $19M program to a $12M
program. With no adjustment and current projections using a modified SDF and
unrestricted dedicated property tax funding the program can last until 2016 before the
fund balance goes to zero. By delaying capital projects by an average of six months the
current revenue stream could sustain the stormwater program throughout the planning
period.
3. System Development Fee Assessment
Is the current System Development Fee structured
in the most appropriate way for Aspen?
Key Issues with fihe Fee
The key issue seems to be the provision that the fee be calculated based on the entire
impervious coverage of the properties subject to redevelopment or added development if
the additional impervious area exceeds 500 square feet, which can result in a very high
The current SDF has charge if the property has substantial pre-existing impervious area.
two significant issues:
an inequity perception For example, a property with about 7,000 square feet of impervious area wishing to add
and insufficient revenue a fifty foot (50') by ten foot (10') driveway is subject to a one-time stormwater
capacity to meet needs. development fee of about $21,600.
Basis for an SDF
A system development charge is one variation on standard capital recovery charges.
Capital recovery charges are an equalization device, intended to attain reasonable
equity in the apportionment of infrastructure costs over the life cycle of capital assets
A capital recovery component is usually derivative element of a more comprehensive
Page6of9
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
rate methodology (such as is used for water, wastewater or stormwater user fees), and
is applied to recover or meet capital costs associated with providing or maintaining
adequate service capacity over time.
The capital recovery charge may reflect prior investment in systems that were designed
and built with excess service capacity in anticipation of growth or planned improvements
that must be funded, which means that the existing value of installed assets and the
estimated value of future improvements must at least be reasonably estimated.
There are a variety of ways of calculating capital recovery charges though all tend to be
either prospective or retrospective (explained below), including: growth-related cost
allocation method; marginal-incremental cost approach; system buy-in methodology;
value of service methodology; and variants that incorporate two or more of the above.
City Councils generally have substantial latitude in structuring service fee rates
(including capital recovery components) to meet the needs and practices of their
individual communities as long as the charges resulting from the rate structure is fair and
reasonable. In the case of a capital recovery charge the rate must be related to the
capital costs of service caused by the new development.
The current SDf is The purpose of the existing System Development Fee was to fund the CIP portions of
based on an assumption the Aspen program of $19.2M over 15 years, or $1,279,533/year. The current
of 4% of the impervious impervious area of the City was estimated to be 11,100,000 sq ft based on sampling and
area being replaced extrapolation. It was then assumed that parcels containing an average of four percent of
annually. this impervious area would develop/redevelop per year based on historic rates of 3% to
5% per year. Then: $1,279,533/(4% x 11,100,000 sq ft) _ $2.881sq ft
An analysis of the fees that have been paid shows the following approximate statistics:
• total fees = $809,590 in 19 months
• average fee = $23,812
• median fee = $19,116
• total impervious area - 281,108 sq ft
• average impervious area - 8,209 sq ft
• median impervious area - 6,638 sq ft
• total new impervious area - 120,745 sq ft (42% of the total)
• average new impervious area - 3,698 sq ft
• median new impervious area -1,729 sq ft
Other SDF Options
Fee Reconfiguration Analysis
If the fees generated on total imperviousness are $430,000 per year, then the fees
The SDF could be
converted to a new generated on just the new areas would be about 42% of that or $181,000 (a difference in
development fee but the range of $250,000). This would be the lost revenue annually if this simple change
would generate only were made.
42 % of the current fee.
Incidentally, there is also an easy way this lost revenue can be made up. The current
dedicated property tax is voluntarily TABOR limited in its application. An assessment of
the increases in revenue if this voluntary restriction was taken away and the full 0.65 mil
rate was levied shows that the increases would offset the decreases in revenue from the
' change in SDF application to only new impervious areas.
The average difference is a decrease in revenue of $12,000 annually. That is,
application of the full 0.65 mills without TABOR limitation is estimated to make up for
about $240,000 of the $250,000 annual decrease in revenue from applying the SDF to
Page 7 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
only increases in impervious areas.
This difference cou/d be Table 6 illustrates this cash flow for a five year period (Table 2 revised with lower SDF
y 6ftmg
r revenues and no TABOR restriction). There is very little difference in the Line 5 Current
voluntary
TA80R Revenue from year to year. It should be noted that this is a temporary solution in
restrictions on the that the capital expenditures are still lower than previously identified as the need.
dedicated property tax
collection. Table 6. Table 2 with Reduced SDF and no TABOR Restriction
Adjusting the current
SDF and relaxing
TABOR restrictions
would solve the
immediate problem of
the perceived inequity
the fee. But fhis is a
temporary solution and
does not increase the
total program capacity.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1 8e innin Balance $1,625,000 $2,053,000 $1,874,000 $2,139,000 $1,938,000
2 Stormwa~r Property Tax $1,131,000 $1,147,000 $1,107,000 $1,130,000 $1,205,000
3 System Development Fee $188,000 $195,000 $203,000 $211,000 $220,000
d Interest Income $45,000 $57,000 $52,000 $60,000 $54,000
5 52atrtotat, L~rentReverxae: $1,364,000 $1,400,000 $1,363,000 $1,401,000 $1,623,000
G IatafAvailableFUnds $2,989,000 $3,453,000 $3,237,000 $3,540,000 $3,561,000
7 erat~ Fx ease $637,000 $655,000 $673,000 $692,000 $712,000
8 C' itafEx enditu-es; $290,000 $915,000 $405,000 $890,000 $740,000
9 DebtService $9,000 $9,000 $20,000 $20,000 $281,000
'10 .52.abtotal, CLa~rerrfEx er1ditt.ares; $936,000 $1,579,000 $1,098,000 $1,602,000 $1,733,000
'11 Chan e in fund Balance $428,000 -$179,000 $265,000 -$201,000 -$110,000
12 Endin Fund Balance $2,053,000 $1,87<?,ou~J ~J~O
In-lieu of Construction Fees
An in-lieu of fee allows new development to shift its responsibility for stormwater impact
accommodation to the City in exchange for a fee related to the cost the individual
developer might have incurred had they done the impact reduction themselves. This
allows an alternative consideration of the size of the fee -matching it to the cost the
developer himself might incur if they had to construct significant detention.
Requirements for on-site stormwater quantity and quality treatment and control when
property development occurs have become awidely-adopted regulatory practice in the
past thirty years. Aspen itself has just completed a stormwater design manual with new
requirements.
The objective of on-site controls is to mitigate the hydrologic and water quality changes
that occur when natural land surfaces are replaced with impervious coverages such as
Changing the SDF to an pavement and rooftops. In simple terms, storing (detaining) stormwater on a site and
in lieu fee is an option
but would require more releasing at a lower peak rate over an extended time period allows a downstream
study and data drainage system to be of smaller size to attain a given storm return interval service level,
preparation. and thus less costly. Treating stormwater to remove harmful pollutants on site provides
pollutant removal closer to the source, allowing the city to install smaller treatment
systems and reduces the burden of acquiring large tracts of land for stormwater
treatment near the river.
Controlling runoff to optimize infrastructure investment often requires the installation of
regional systems to reduce peak runoff flows, even when on-site detention is required.
Because the scale of regional facilities is often more efficient than a multitude of on-site
systems, and because regional public systems are more reliably maintained than private
Page 8 of 9
City of Aspen, Colorado
Stormwater System Development Fee Evaluation
on-site systems, some communities have instituted fees in lieu of requiring construction
of on-site systems on each development project.
In some cases the in-lieu fees are optional at the developer's discretion. In others, they
are mandatory. In-lieu fees are structured to apportion the cost of regional facilities
equitably among all properties that would develop in the future and impose service
demands on the facility. However, this approach does nothing to mitigate the runoff from
the installed base of previously developed properties, properties that are not
redeveloping, that are typically present in urban areas.
A potential problem arises, however, with the timing of fee collection and actual
construction of the regional facility. The developer shifts his or her responsibility and
concomitant risk to the City in return for the fee. Thus, the regional facility must often be
built years before enough fees have been collected to pay for it. This means that the
cost of building the regional facility often must be front-ended by the local jurisdiction. In-
lieu of construction fees paid later is essentially a recovery of the financial participation
of the subject properties that were developed later.
The existence of a fee in lieu of mandatory on-site detention may also require that
periodic stormwater service fees and/or capital recovery fees be adjusted to ensure that
developers are not double-dipped by multiple fees over time.
Unlike SDFs the in lieu of fee can be related to the cost the developer would have
incurred for placing structures on their site rather than the simple incremental cost of
capital construction to accommodate increased flows. This is especially true where the
fee is voluntary. With the high cost of land in Aspen such a shifting of responsibility
downstream and on to more efficient treatment may be seen as preferable to on-site
treatment.
Page 9 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manger
DATE OF MEMO: August 28, 2009
MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009
RE: 2009 Budget Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to update the City Council on financial status of the 2009
budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council had requested that they be periodically
updated as to the financial status of the city as we progressed through the year.
BACKGROUND: The deep recession that began in late 2007 is having a deep and pervasive
impact on the local economy. Revenues from most sources aze down from previous years and
construction and tourism is significantly affected.
DISCUSSION: Sales tax collecfions continue to be weaker than projected at the beginning of
the year. Although July is not closed yet, it appears that it will be down about 17% from 2008.
Year to date sales tax collections aze down 18% from last year. For the month of July,
accommodation sales were off much more than anticipated, down by 28%. This of course
ripples through all other businesses. The current projection for sales tax is to be down 17% form
2008.
Lodging taxes aze down 27% year to date. Lodging taxes fund transportation and marketing.
Staff is already working with City Council on changes to bring transportation costs back into
line.
Real estate transfer taxes continue to be off of prior year collections. In 2008 Housing RETT
collected was $5,700,000 for the yeaz. Current estimate for 2009 is to collect about 5,000,000.
This is down from the peak in 2006 when $11,090,000 was collected.
Building fees also continue to be well off prior year's collections. Current projections aze for
about $1,500,000 in planning and building .inspection fees. In the yeazs 2005-2007 the City
averaged $3,147,000 a year in building and planning fees.
Lower building activity also has affected use tax collections. Only $720,000 is projected for
2009. This was budgeted for 987,000 in 2009 and is used to fund transit services.
Page 1 of 2
In summary the recession continues to be deeper and more widespread than anticipated one year
ago when 2009 budgets were originally developed and slightly worse than anticipated in the
recast budget which was down in February of this year.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is currently in the
process of evaluating current revenues in the context of the 2010 budget development.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Tax charts
Building and Planning fee history
Page 2 of 2
~ O
~ ~
Q c
CZ_ ~.
C ~
N
J d ~
W ~p
a ~
M }
~ J
~ ~
C
d
O.
N
Q
w
u
N
C
O
Y
~ O
Cp {A
c Q1
N
O
u
u
Q
N
3
Gr
A
d O
u
H
N
Y o
M
+~ Cl
yo1
3 N
d ~
-~
H
d
'L o
d M
O
d
O
d ~
Q.
H
~,
d
V
y m
c
d
C7
H
L
R
m
C ~
L OO
7 ~
f0
N
d
N
Y
~ O
0 ~
M
N
O
U
U
Q
3
O
v
~ O
- ~
00
C
~ O a°
O U tD
N a ~
.?
a
W
LL N
0
d O
U
N
N
i+ t0
t9
m
~ n
L ri
3 N
f6
N
d
00
C
t
N Q ~
.3
W
t
°E
N
C O
t ~
O
U
N
d ~
~ ~
H ~
~ \ .y
d!
OA Q1
C ~
~ ~
.
-C ~
O N a
v d ~
a ~ ~
H
(6 Lf1
'
u
m
~
V
H
C
VI
a ~,
~ a o\° \ o o ° \ o o \ o ~ o O
r _ O u7 N W N ~ .--I d: 61 .-I M rl V) G
e ~ N~ l0 W O O Ol M ei O Dl O O
d
d ~
OD ~
~~ a o 0 0 0 c c e 0 0 0 c 0 0
S L N ~~i N N V~ 00 O M~ h~ a~-1 ri
U O
.i
a
m °N° ~ ~ m ~ ~ N n ~ ^ m O ~ ~
i/f ~ r-I O Ql p~ Lf1 N M N r n Q7 M
V1 lD I~ V1 ^ ~ Ql Vl IJ7 ~ O ~
~ tD O Ql 1~ r-j V M 00 01 N W O ~ M
O N N rl M N ~--I H O M O 00 M M
~ n ~ e^-I N ~ N yn, N ~ N e-i l0
~ th t/} V? V} ih ~ lA V} ~ iA ~ t/} ~
}
C
t
N ` Y
C O
O m U ~ - '~ in
i-+
O O a ~ p ~ ~. v, ~
4! O +' ~ ++ ~ 7 C .U ~ ~= N t9
a+ U N D O ~. O a N v ?~. ~ y C r+
U Q~ N U LL ~ J U VI ~ U~ L ~
0
e-1
O
W ~'
.a M
o `'~
O
LL
~ ~
Q7 0
y~j ~^ e N o ~ o m o ~ o 0 o O
O _ ~ .--1 ~ ~--I lD C1' N 00
Y N N~~ O eM-I N~ Lf1 .--1 O t0 O O
\° ~
0
d f..
00 ~
t p N ~~-I v N M ~ ~ ~ M ~ I~ ~ ~ rl
8° a` .~
• a--I e-i ~ l~ M ~ O M
~J d' N ~ ~ 'cf ~ ~ 00 M ~t d' M l~ ~ ~ ~
~ Ol ^ ^ i11 ~ Q7 ~p ~ tl1 ~ ~ r 01 ~ N
a ~
~ H `~ M Q1 M ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ tD a--1 ~ M O
y O ~ ~ t/? ~ ~ +./? ~ ~ i/} i/~ ilk ~ ~1? ~
1]0
C
t
v~ +-'
O i O
O O •O IN- ~ ~ ~ c
~p a q`p D ~' ~' m
~' E ~ W ~ a~ v' .
O ~ O w C Off i L (O ~ ~i 41
d O +~+ i +~.+ a 7 C .u ~ d ~' N f0
O a v ~ +~ O
v a ~ ~; ~ ' LL J l7 v0i , C7 ~ ~ ~"'
.~
a `
O` L
M
d O a
= J N
d
O a° o~ `1
7 ~ .a rl
~ O O ~
LL
X
C
.~
.a
O
J
~ ~
~ ~ o
Z d N
J
~ v1 ~
J C ~
W ~
a °'
Q
w
O
u
X t
~ a
d ~ V
10 ~ ~
H Y C
;e '"
o a
H
i
c
~~
~ O
c E e
,o o ~
o°' ai
7
O ~
ri F
X C
A
~ a
w O ~ e
10 ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~ y N C
a c c n
V1 N ~
m
u
~ e°
~ ~
Oo ~
t ~
a
u
.c
m ~ t
m'a`w
tC C •~-~
I!1 Q N
a o
0 c
x
x ~
,~ o
~o
m
0° ~ m
oar:
N
7
" F
c
G
~ d o
O~J V ~„~
A
a .ti
Y h N
IO
a
.. d
A 7
F ~
d ~ o
h N O
C '"~
N Y
o a
Fx
H ~ u
v
v mL of
~ ~ ` o
o\° ~ C ~"~
a ¢ 3
o ~
x
G/
-
~
~
~ m
\
° O
°
c
~
°\
°\
~
o ~
o
X
~
ri
o 0 v
i
00 ~
~ x
c ~ 0
CC
~ i
r.i +
ri
o
ai "'
r 0
o
ei
~ ~ N ci rl ~"~ ~ G H ~ N ~--I a i
C o
~
X
~
~
0~0
N
~ r-i
ci ~
N
N
00
O O
M J
O
a~
~
H
'a
ai
Q1
O
u1
~ ~
~
~
n
tD
H y ~ M 01 p fY'I ~
~ ~ ~ ,
41 M
u") lD
n 00
00 pl
Lfi L!'1 M
p
F~
} -
V ~
N m~
r-I ~ N
~--I N
{~j} ~r1
tD ~
C -
(~j m
i~I~ ~
il? o
i/~ rn n
t/} ~ o
ri
i/1~
t!? tJ} i!~ iR C
~ v
~
v ~
~
~_ ~
t
U t
U
v
u ~
~
~
~
~ ~
c C
O
to rv ~ ~'.'~ O Q Q a~
~ ~ O
(n N O
V1 In ~ O ~ C
~ C X 2 0 C
v C
v X 2 0
a a v a ~ ~ a
O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o2S oZS ~ oZS o2S
Y o o
~ Y Y Y ~ o
~
a m a Q X o
d ~
~ a Q X
d d
X
X
~
R
~ ~
~
fC f6 f"_ ~ ~ X
~ X
~ ~ N ~
F- F- vi ~n C
t!1
of
4/
N
'~
Vf
N
N
N _
'~
41
O. ~
ca ~
ra f0
~n
0 fD
cn
0 '~
O
J ~
d
!~ N
ce
(J1 Q1
ca
l11 ~
cn
0
~ (6
v~
0
~ 'a
O
H o 0
Lf1
Ln o
~ f0 H o
~ o
~
ll1
Lf1 o
~ ~
~ O ~fl N ~ O O ~ O t.f) N ~ 0 0
H e-I O O O ~ F I-- ri 0 0 0 ~ H
x
~"
N
d
f0
} H ~
Z N N
C N
G ~ J
J Q
W N "'~
~ a
a ~,,,
0
u
a
~~ e o 0 0~ o
~ ~ N O ~ 00 O
~~
N M~ N tf1 Ol N O N
N N O M h O~ h OO .-I h~
M 00 ~
lD O M O CO M O 00 h
N
~ ~ i11
00 ~I
O -I e
-i LI1 O O ~
~ O 00 c
~ CO N 00 N O N M O tD O N
~ Ol
O
N .--i N ct ~t t.f) ~O h 00 Q1
? V? t/~ to iJ}
+
~ a1 01 a~.,~
i? V?
v~
H t/? N V}
.
> V ~
d ~
O
O ~
O
N G1 N ~ ~\ 0 0 0 0
'
d
O OC
47 ~
~i h .--I a' ~ O ~/
~ h
ri N N v v v ~
~ f9
~
3
O d ~
Cl ~
~ H
N rl ri M 00
~
~
o~A G1
~ ~
~ tD O O N o0 'd; h ~ O~
00 O o0' ~
i h `~ ~: h O N
op ,~ r-i
~ 3 ~ C M u
a--I O ~
dam' M ~
N O
M ~ M
M
p m ar ~ I
O
O
e-I c-1 r-I y/} t/1 il} ~"~ '~"~ i!'F d
'
l/? t/1 ~
L o
L
~a o ~
~' L
~
f 6 eo
~
~
~
~
v
~
io ~
0
o
0 0~° o~° \ o~° o~°
3 3 3 _
y0i ~L .-I 111 N N e-i rl M
O O O Q ~
GJ
.Q d
.B 4J
.Q
O
N ~ Ql h h l11 .--~ V1
M N m ~n m rn N
o
° w+ is
~ O h m h ~n N m N
f ~ ~O O ~t N'
M ~ d u M c
O 00 O u1 N M 01
v ~ Q N N ~ 00 N Ql 00
'O .--I N M M ~ ~ ~
7
m V? t/} to V? t/} t/> i!?
a
L
~ a
L
ca a
L
co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oo ~ o .~ ~ rn oo rn ~
0 0 0
h m o
d ~ a a m m M ~o h ~n rn ~-+ v ~ 00 0
O a
i
O O o
O .a O ~--I ri h ~ 00 Oi N ~O'
O'~ 00 h .-~ to O~ Q1 00 [Y1 O1 CO
00 h '-I
C C C N O
m p r-I ~ Q1 N O O 01 l0 O ~ 01
~ ? > ~ N m m ~t u'~ ~ ~o h o0 c0 rn
s
~ a~
~ m
~
o O O
c
c
~
~ ~
fC ~
o 0
\
\
y L
fL L
(o ~ CC
V 'L O O O O
O
~ e-i ~ ~"~ v1 ~ 00
} Y ~
~
V ~
D
O
N
y~
f0
M 01 l~D O 00 l0 ~
1~ e-I 00 t0 h L!1 M
~
O
r DO ~A ri 00
~
a
00
Q -I .--I M p h
O W ~
N O ~ ~ ~ `""~ ~
'p ~t M h 01
~ i!> i!} i/} ~ ~ i/? ih
,.,~~°ooo~oooo°
01 Ql Ql M ~--I M Lf1 M rl lD N N .--I
M ~--~ CO N N h h
~ Ol Q1 00 l~ h M ~ N ~ l~ tG ~
m O O N~ M n 0 01 ~ M M~
ih V} i/? ~ {./} [/? {~ t!} ~!} iJ? ~./) ill}
~~ ~ L A N ~. bA Q V O GJ
o °LL'gQ~~~QNOzo
Ql
O
O
N
O
O
N
h
O
O
N
O
O
N
0
0
N
O
0
N
m
O
0
N
O O O O O O O O L}
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
pp h l0 IIl ~ M N ~--~
i.!} to ih V? V1 t/} iJ'} t/1
a
U
C~~ o 0 0 ~ o
~ Q1 l!'1 dl 00 CO l0 I~
~
L .--I N N N N N N
'.
N tD t0 ~
M ~D M 00 lD N t0 ~--~ O N N M
i O O 00
~1
-I N i~
l
r
'
N 61 ~
D
p u'1 01 O ~n O~ N I~ ~ ~
-i r-i
-i
a
r
~ ~I M N 00 00 N ~ O lD O M V1 ei
O
0 0~~ t0 M Vl Il1 O O O N
O
N ~ t~ t0 t0 I~ W 01
N i/} V} iR y/? L? i!F iJ} V}
~ ~ tf1 i/}
01
O a
O
v~
a u
N C
o~ 0 0 0 0 0
~ fE
~
~
~
~
~
-i
C a
-i M M .
-I e
M
ca ~-
'
v
+ a
a ~
7 a
3 y ~ t Lf1 tD O Ln M 00 O^ N N O O
I~ N
C a ~ Vl M .~ lfl
~ O C cr'1 O1 U't O Cf t0 ~ M N N O'i O
H O
~
~
N
~
~
M
~ L J}i
iF +
i)~
? ~~t
i)+
N
i
!?+
~
N
~ 4
~ f
6 !}t
/}t
f1
~
y,
~ a
~
O
O m ~
u
~ aa+ Q
~n ~ a
~ O ~ J
~
~ i ~ a -
,
Y
N
~ (6
y +'
N
~
~ o
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ L
~
X ~ f0
3 I~ N Lf1 ~ ~ L% 00
~ ~
~ O O O Q~ t
00
C a Gl d Q~ F-
~ ~ .O O a
r 00
~ O
N ~
~
~
Q J O
z N ri O1 tf1 LfI f~ 00
~ ~ N ~' M lfl ~f l0 O
~
' ~
O
~ O
O N o e
~ ~
I~ 1 Ol 00
~ Ql I~ r-1 V1 X1
+' +' ~
N °v °
''' ~ v " oM ~ v ~ u~i ~
v Q ~ a~i
W C ~ ~ vT v? t!? V? ih t/> vT >
a a ~ O0
N
o c
Q
a
a
a
~ O 0
.~ u1 Vl u1 O tf1 u"1 ~f1 u'1 ~ ~ Lf1 p
N
N n n u
O H N ~ O
N n
01 a N f~ I~ tf1 I~
I~ Q~ u1 ~ 01 ~ Q~ O co 0o u'f ~ a
a
3 a
3 a
3 O
O 7 Qj ~ O lD e-i ~ I~ .-~ N M~ M _O
V C C C N ~ M Q1 l0 00 O I~ n n N u1 ~ O V
[a .--1 N Ct ~ ~ ul tD I~ O W 00
v~.,~+.ntn~n~~<n~~~~ ~
a a a
~ ~ ~ v
Y a
O ~ ~
H H
r
~
a L
e6 L
ca
L } ~ a
~
V u
~ ~ o \\~ o c 0
~
~
N
M
a
+
L `"'~ ~~
N
N
a >
01
O
O
N N Q1 00 ~p O N ri
N rl a1
61 00 M
W
7
~
I
1 ~
t7 0
a+ v M cn oo ~ ri o ui
Q
~v~v^it^i>
i~v
~
~
{
~, u") O O u1 V1 O O O O O O N
a N ul O I~ N U1 O tll 1!1 Lf1 O
7 n N CD pp ~ ~ ~ .--~ n O ~ ~
O Q~ Lf) V1 l71 1.f1 N M m .--I e-1 O O
d .M-I rN-1 r~-I N rl n~ a1 N M N~
i/} V} V? ~•/? L? ih al} il} {!? i/? l/T ~
N
C ~~ f0 Q f0 C ~~ Q- ~ O a
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
n
O
O
N
lD
O
O
N
L!1
O
O
N
V
O
O
N
m
0
0
N
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O ~
O O O O O O O O O O
O 01 00 I~ t0 to ~ M N •--I
~ to v1~ to t/> t~ iA ~ ~ in
v
_
~ o 0 0 0
~
• 00 N N N ~ ~
i e-I N N N N N
~ .__.
n
Q1
`-'
° ~ ~ ~ rn °1
M .
-i o
o o
o o ~
CO n U'f Ll1 00 t!1 O
O
1~
~--~
N
' o
0
00
~
I ~ M e--I 11] V1 X11 O'
~ O
-I ~--~ I~
0 01
1~ ~f1
M
T
O t11 O 00 M c-i O
ri o0 00 ri ~ Ol tD r
N 0
I~ O N O
N t0/l e-i N fYl In M ~' ~J1 ~ lD lD I~
~ i!} i/} V} ih ih V? t!} ih V?~ ih i/~
GJ y
3 9
C 01
v
O
N
a ~ c
~ o ~ 0 0 0 0
~
~
•L oo~NMOo
ri N N N v (v1
O ~ .__.
dJ ~
~
~ H
~ ~ fY6 M 00 M Lf1 O M 00 M c-I N d' Ol
~ y dJ
~ ~ 00 N n O N M N
~ N 00 O N n lI1 00
Ql Ol
lD O
~ ~
~--I O1
~
~
+' '6
~ ~ Vl CO t~ ~ O 01 ~ ai
O .--i
Ol -ti
O N
f~ tD'
I~
C 3
m ~3, O
~ ci M d' 00 u1 1~ 00
Ol Ol Q1 M N ~ ~O
h ~D
ih ~
t!} M
iJ~ N
i!? I~
to
f0 ~ ~ CJ
a iJ? if? ih to U? iJ~ i
VI
L Q N
L
f6 p co
N >' i ~'
47
~~pp
p\
l0 H
~ 0~J
~ ~
~ _
~ ~p
~ ~ ~ c o
u tD N rl .~ O N
~• O O O a
?
~
7 ~ ~ p
O
V
C1 O
N
Q C O ~ ~ 01 Q1 ri N V1
N o y
f0 tm ~ N Ql 00 I~
d z N N N ~ ~
~
0
0 Q ct n O
~
iy O > > t~ r-I' N N N M
a O
i i i ~ S O O N 00 00 O l0 lD n 0
O
a to ca to +~
N ~ rn M N m r~ ~n
N N ci 'ch ~ N ~o
~ O
~ rn
M rn
~' o
W
H N of 01 ~
lD tr) M' D1 O l0 O ~--~
' ~ ~ r
f
C N O O ri Lf1 lD O Ct Lf1
~ r-I cf
~ ~
O N
M 1
L
.--1
fl.
y O ~ G m ~ ~ c-I ~ I~ ri I M
Q N
~ Gl
.J l
~ ~} e-I N N N M M C7 ~ ul Sri l0
i!} t/D V} {/} iI} {/} V} iJ~ {f} i/? t/?
O O: OC O:
u o O ~
a,
m 0
o o h o o
O L
~ ~
~ ~' •L l0 N O ~ 00 ~
~
i
}
} Q f4
3 Q>
p
V O
N
f~ .-i M O lD N
~ ~ M lD Ql N c-I M
O l71 Ol I~ l,p Ol Q1
++
00 t!
'O Q ~ Ql ~f Q1 N 00
n tD n N N M
3 i!} iR ~ ih i!} tf}
}, 1~ 1~ lD O N lD O N l0 O ~--~ M
4l ~ cr M Ol e-I ~ 00 O ~ Ql O O
e-I ri al 00 M O f~ N O 00 e-I M
'O a0 a0 00 n ~ •-I ~rf ~ r-i r~ ~ ri
3 0 0 M O V M~ ~f1 M O I~ M
m~~ n M N d' l0 Lfl ~ M N 00
C ~ ~ cv ^• ra c ? ~ Q- ~ o aUi
O -~i LaL ~ Q~ .~ -~i Q (n ~ z ~
Ol
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
to
O
O
N
0
O
N
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O th
O O O O O O O O
O ~ O ~ O ~ O +~J1
~ M M N' N c-I e-I
i1? ih il? ih ih ih V}
x
Vf
C
~ ~ ~
~ ~ O
Q d N
C y N
J W (7
IC
a ~
ao
c
.N
3
O
a~
U
fC0 N ~O\l i°\„~ o o ~ ~ o
L ~ M ~,,,~ lf1 a-i Lr7 00 lD
f6
~~
O1
00 °
° 0 ~ rn m oN i ~ ~ 0
~
u
i
N N o
0
lD CO N 01 O
01 i
N O'f n M
~ OI
~ m O ~-I 0 l
~
0
~ ~ 00 cr
o o~ lD
0 N
1n ~
o a
n 0
m Q
M M
m M M
.-1 n
y N ,V r-j e-{ N N M M M ~ ct In tf1
O y if"F il} t/} i!} iJ"F i!F iJ} 1!} t!T i!} {/}
3 ~
C
~
9 ~
O
O
~
N ~ N = o o ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
V ~ ~ N M M 00 l0 M M E
l ~ ~ .--I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~
3 0 ?
~
j H
d'
++ L
~
00 O ~--I
~--~
Lf1
O
O
n
u'1
N
1.n o0
~, d O
~' ~
~ 41 N~
m o0 O N
~ M
01 o0
~ ~
tD ~
o n
N O
n N e-i
c0 In
s
y ~
O ~ ,
= Q1 u'f O ~O o0 N '-i 01 n o0 c-i Ol
C m N ~ ~ ID l11 cr ct 111 ~ N ~ t~11 ~ 111
~
C
C a~J+ Q iPF 'l/1 i!)• {/1~ Vl <J1 tf? [/T i/} 'Vl• - t/}
<I
IA Q _V1
L
~
O L
~
i+
r6 (Q
~ Y
f>3
fC (Oj
~
~ o ~
o
~
~
O
o
3 3 3 ~ '~ r ~nr1 N ~ ~ m ~ rn
0 0 o a ~
~
~ ~ ~ O
O
N pl Q1 V1 u1 O 00 O
, ~ M m oo ~ ~ 00 oa n
e e a ~ 3 ~ 00 Q1 ~ M l0 Q1 Q1
~ \ \ a I
+ n~ n N O O n
a
7 .~ a-i e-i N N N M M
i
~
i
~
i
~ 0
~
,.,
0
ooo
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
00
~ ~ ~ c a~ ooo o o
' 0 0
' 0 0
' 0
O 00
O O
3 7 3 N ~ O
O~~ O
N O
0 O
0 O
0 O
00 O
~O X 0 0
O
C C C ~ Q1 ~ O lD O 111 O H
J > > m ~~
i!)• V? c-I r-I N M M ~ ~ Lf1 111 CO
~ ~ ~
s a, a,
~' v o
o ~
O o
O _
f ~
V
6 =
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
r+ ~"'~ ~ r ~ n ri ~ Q1 O N M lD
~ ~ ~ Q ~ n~ M N N ~ v M
~ } ~
C
U O
N
M lD O 111 O 111 00 N
f0 u1 00 tr1 111 e•-I N O 00
~ + ~'' ~ M n N ~ 00 O l0
~ a ~ M M tl'f ~
n M M
~, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X 0 0 0 O' O O O O' O O O O
3 N er 00 OO 00 O O 00 00 DO ~O O
CD ~' 111 ~ V et lD l0 ~ ~ ~ M l0
iJ} i/? V} tl) V? iJ) i/? tl? V? +./} {/y to
C ~~ ~ L A d >. tyD p, V O N
Q. ~ O 7
O
f`
Q1 ~
N ~
c
M
~ ~/f
C
C
C
c
N
o
r
O
t0 ~
~
111 ~
l~
'~
~
1
~
O I
I
LR 1
f\
ih
0
M
ei
Q1
W
M
to
N
tD
M
O
M
N
D
v
n
V
V
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
Lf1 Lfl )f1 Lfl 111 ~'1 ~ Lf1 i.!? {J}
0o ri ~ ui v M ni r+
in v~ tr} vs in try v~1~ v>
X
A
d
C
L
d
M
Y
~ ~
~ W O
Z d N
~ ~ ~
W 3 =
a = Q
eo
d
a
d
41
4J
s
3
a,
u
0 0 \ o 0 0 0 0 0
~ I~ O N
•L r ~ ~--I lD N Lf) lD v
M M N f~ lD Q1 00 Q1 01
l0 O O M tl1 t0 ~ ~D N O I~ O
O n 00v ~ o ~ m ~t ~
' oo M o rn
O0 I~
-I O ~D ul O ~ N O
f O
f O ~
t0 I~
~ r
p
N co n
-1 111 ~
tD 00
O1 M
r+ t
1
M I.
1
o r o
uj N ,
~ ~ ~, .--I M
~--I .--I e-I N N N N M
7 ~
C
~ 01
O
O d1
N
O
~ 4) ~
~ n n N Ql ~ '7 ~ t~
N ++ i n i--I ~ e-I v M v e-I
7 ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ H
41
~
r L
~
l0 ~ O M
O
Q1
111
Q1
M
01
ri O
41 .-i tD O u'1 N O o0 ~--~ W I~ n M
> ~ I~ ~ N M ~ l0 O n lD ~ ~ ~"~
~ ~ i-i CO' t0 O 00 ~ 6~ N 00 Ol O d'
p 3
m
a0+ O
~ N In Ql M
N M N N ~
N 00
N ~
M ~
~--~ .--I
N dl
N
' r-I .-i
~--~ M
C ~ Q i/? V? i/} i,/T iI"F [/? Vl i/~ ilk L!
f (J} V?
y
L Q N
L
~ Q
L ~ ~
~+
(fl (6
~ i+
CO V
(~ R
~ ~ O O
~
O
O
O
41 3 ~a- N Lf~'1 N ~M-I ~ ~ ~ 00
Q
,!? 41 41 ~
f0 ~ ~ Q
O
N N ~ 00 O ~--~
V ~ ~ l11 l0 CO lD M N
I
~
~ ~n ~ ~ .~ M rn o0 00
~ o ~ O
ar M Ql N
n
•
-~ 00 `^ m a o .r-i
m ~ o m ~ o1DO o
'O
7 M CO dl e--I
i/? i/? ~/? e-I c-I r-I N
m i/? iI? ih V} ih
i i i ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~p ~p ~4 ~, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1 d 0 0 0 pp O O O N ~ l0 O O
O O~~ lD l0 O ~ M N rl l0 O
l
'
7
0 3 O
0 N 7 N~^ M
O 01
N N
lD cr
Q1 O
N t0
cf N
I~ r
~
Q1 N
1
4 d 1
4 m N u'f I~
41 41 41 iJ? t/> V1 i/} ih i/? V? ih t!}
~ ~ ~
s ~, a
0 0 0 ~
~
H
H v
~~
a o 0 o
a
o
~
a
' ~~M~ O ~ ^ M
~ a
~
} } >
c
u o
N
f~ r-I I~ 00 e-i d' N a-i
N f0 lf') r-I ~ Q1 N 00 l0 01
~ 7
~ M lD N 00 N V1 DO Q?
I
+' M Ql rl CD lD 00 a--I u"1
°° ¢ m ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~
~ ~~~rr~ ~~ M
~~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 ~D N N N O O N N N Ch O
~ lD r-I Ql Ql D1 ~ ~ Ql Ol d1 d' ~
3 N Ql 1f1 Lf1 lf1 N N ul tl'1 Lf1 Q1 N
CG N N N N N M M N N N r-1 M
L
0 ~ ~~ Q fC 0 ~ O ~ U O 4)
-i ti ~ Q ~ ,~ --~ Q to ~ Z 0
61
O
O
N
O
O
N
n
O
O
N
O
O
N
u"I
O
O
N
0
0
N
M
O
O
N
O O O O O i1?
O O O ~ 00
~ ~ M N ~--~
{~} {/} {/} if} ~./}
c
d
Q
N
r_
U
r
d
fl.
d
.r
C
d
a
d
41
~_
~C
C~
CC
G
V
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
0
C
O
W
.~
a
E
0
v
0
l~''6
7
a
~a
c
to
N
7
C
N
3
R
C
N
~_
87
C
.C
lC
a
c
A
a~
c
=a
._
m
d
C
O
V
~I
<~
Hi
o
0 OO
M DD ~ ~
~ r
~ ~ M ~
N ~ ~
~ ~
o
O ~ o p OO °
~ ~ O Cn
O O ~ CA ~ ~
N N
G ~ ~
N ~ N ~ ~
r ~
EA b4
O 00 °
° 00 W
°
M I~
i!7 M ~ CO
~ CO
~
~
r ~
~ O M
C
C ~ N O M
N N M ~ ~
~ N
~ ~
o d o
~ °
.- o
m ~ ~ ~ ~
~ CO M i~ ONO
O
N
r (h
~""
~
~
N
dg 6F3
o
o M O °
°
~ N ~ C00 ~ ~
_
~~
N° CO ~
~ o
o a
o o
O
N r N ('7 N
~ N
~ N
fR EA
iD ° N ~ o
(O
M N ~ ~ N ~
O
N
C ~ M ~
N ~- N M
r O
r
~ ~
~ p ~ ~ ~ c
o rn v rn aNO m
~ r N
N Cfl C7
r ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
M
~'
~
~ ~ C
~ O
7 N .~ ~ R
~ 3 C1 3 3
3 ~ ~ ~.. r r
t ~ d C ~
+r is ~
~+
m H
~ c ~ ~ a
~ ~
~
~ R
o
° Y
E
`
m
a
V!
C
O
V
d
~O
a`
m
rn
m
C
O
d
H
tl!
d
7
C
0
rn
0
0
N
N
N
0
0
a
N
O
Vl
d
c
d
d
LL
cd
C
t0
Q.
41
0
Q ~
N
Q Q
w O
O ~
~, >
U ~
.~
O
V
t9
(J
M~
W
T
N
N
7
Q
L
O
7
O
t
H
N
Z
c
0
m
a
N
C
C
t0
N
d
N
U
d
N
C
eC
J
C
tC
w
.~
d
z
E
V
F'
N N N ~N-- ~f ~ ODD ~ ~ ~ 0~O
W
O
N
t!j
(M
~
ONp to
~
c- W
N
~... O
N
N O
N
O [t
~t
N M
~
O
T
O
N f` ~ ~
~ ~
r ~ ti
~- O
M N
.-- N
M ~
'~
~
O
O
N (p
M ~
N O
O ~
~ ~
O ~-
~ O
00
N M
00
~- ti
M
N O
~
N
r
O
N ~ j ~ ti M
~ ~ (D
.-- ~
N st
O o~0
N Q1
r
r
~
O
N
~n
N
~
OO
I~
(D
rn
~
O ~
N O
d0 O
M O
O N
f"1
N ~ ~ ~ ~ O
rT~
,~
~
d
a
m
a
m
a
U'
a
m
Q
m
a
C7
a
W
a
d
a
J
a
To
~
O
O ~ ~ ti N
6~ ~-- CO ~ ~
N
N O M cp M N
O M M O N
t0
N r V CD ~ N
O ~ V ~ ~ O
M
N
N ~ M ~
[l M N
o ~ ~ rn ~ ~
N r ~ ~ M N
O M ~ N ~ N
N ti M 'ct N ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C
O ~ .V .C ~
'C ~ ca .a y
m
C m W ~ d
N
C
O ~ ~ O
N ~
O 00 Cp
N M N N ~p
1D
N ~ M ~ O
O ~t ~ ~
N Oa
M ~ ~
N CO
O ~ N O
N -.
H
H "'' V Q
10 C ~~ v-
N
V ~ o o
> ~Vl ~ ~
O
0>
j U = C H
~ m
C
10
J