HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20120731 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Council
FROM: Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton
THRU: Assistant City Manager Randy Ready
DATE OF MEMO: 16 July 2012
RE: Recommendations to City Council regarding Wheeler subsidy reduction
The summary memo following the June 5,2012, meeting with City Council is attached at the end of this document
for reference purposes.
SUMMARY: As per City Council's direction at the end of the June 5, 2012, work session, Wheeler staff reviewed
and reformatted the presentation sheets for possible rental and usage charge rates for user groups accessing the
theatre and box offices services available through the Wheeler Opera House. These revised sheets are presented
here in advance of the scheduled July 31, 2012, follow-up work session for further discussion and possible
implementation.
BACKGROUND: A full review, discussion, and implementation of changes as directed by City Council of the
Wheeler's programs and subsidy levels was established as a top ten goal for the 2011—2012 year. Wheeler staff
worked throughout the remainder of 2011 and into 2012 on a comprehensive document on the Wheeler's
programming history and past Council direction. This was presented and discussed in work session on February
28, 2012. A follow-on work session took place on June 5, where five of the seven recommendations from Wheeler
board and staff were accepted. Discussion took place regarding the cafeteria-plan presentation of possible new
rental/usage rates and increases; however, Council found the format and information submitted to be confusing
and requested Wheeler staff and board to return at a later meeting with a clearer presentation of these rates and
increases. Council also asked for a better definition of the"cost of a ticket."
DISCUSSION: The rates and increases are presented in what Wheeler staff and board feel is a thorough and logical
manner for Council's review and consideration. Unlike the earlier spreadsheets, specific recommendations are
suggested and may be the source of further conversation with Council during the work session. Additionally,
Wheeler staff has prepared a sheet that details all of the expenses that go into the cost of preparing and executing
a sale, using a slightly-modified version of the City Finance-prepared spreadsheet used in 2011 in the Pricing
Committee exercise, and a further modification at the suggestion of Councilman Derek Johnson.
RECOMMENDATION/COMMENT: Wheeler board and staff recommend that City Council carefully consider the full
impact of these possible new fess and increases,and give staff its direction for adoption and implementation.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
1
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE SUBSIDY STUDY QUESTIONS
AND WHEELER BOARD OF DIRECTORS'RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
1. Rental rates for users of the Wheeler have been maintained at a very conservative level for
many years, in order to attract and maintain for-profit and not-for-profit events at the facility.
Even with attendance and box-office receipts now rising, many users find their cost of
presenting at the venue challenging. Shall the rental structure and/or rates for the Wheeler be
adjusted in order to better limit the subsidy required to serve as a publicly-available rental
venue?
The Wheeler board of directors' recommendation to Council is that the Wheeler proceed
cautiously with rate increases, as detailed in Attachment A, while remaining sensitive to the
ability of its not-for-profit user groups and others to afford use of the venue. The Wheeler
board's recommendation to Council is to not create an overly complex menu of venue rental
rates based on time of year,day part,or other distinction,as the Wheeler has previously had
such a menu and found it detrimental to providing the best service for its customers.
Discussion: Prior to 2006, the rental rate structure for user groups of the Wheeler was not only
overly complicated and very difficult to discern, it was also built upside-down in its ability to
fairly approximate the cost of doing business at the venue. By example, the daily rental rate
was extremely high, while the hourly fee for stagehands was deeply discounted, inadvertently
encouraging rentors to use Wheeler human resources inefficiently and to no one's benefit. This
was corrected in 2006 with a rental fee that approximated the cost of utilities and certain other
soft costs on a pro-rated daily basis, while increasing the stagehand and other costs to more
accurately reflect rates that the Wheeler was paying.
The recession inhibited the Wheeler's ability to raise rates during the 2008 — 2011 period, as
user groups were already struggling to pay production costs in the face of diminished ticket
sales. Wheeler board and staff feel that the local economy is now at a sufficient recovery point
that certain rates can bear being increased in order to better support the Wheeler's actual cost
of services. However, caution is urged as many of the Wheeler's user groups have yet to
experience the benefit of an improving economy and may not be able to easily support more
than modest incremental increases. Rates are subject to review annually and will be measured
against actual operating expenses for further adjustment.
Attachment A reviews the entire range of possible new fees and areas where fees could be
increased. A column is color-coded to designate the Wheeler board and staff's
recommendations.
2
2. The Wheeler's Aspen Show Tickets box office operation is a major and affordable ticket services
resource for the Roaring Fork Valley's many event-producing entities; however, the staffing
investment is significant and even at current rates often challenges users to make their events
financially successful. Shall the Wheeler rates for box office services be adjusted in order to
reduce the subsidy required to serve as a ticketing resource for Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Valley?
The Wheeler board of directors' recommendation to Council is that the Wheeler proceed
cautiously with rate increases, as detailed in Attachment B, remaining sensitive to both the
ability of the rentor to absorb into its show production expenses, and the capacity of the
public to accept as a reasonable pass-through of the cost of doing business.
Discussion: Aspen Show Tickets has grown to be a $1.9 million business, with year-round
activity. Outside (non-Wheeler) sales have far outstripped sales for events at the Wheeler,
which is more a reflection of growth in sales clients than it is activity at the home venue.
Because outside sales demand more investment in Wheeler staff time and other resources than
events that take place in the historic venue,a review of the fee structure is in order, particularly
as the soft costs necessary in order to make this program successful have not been fully
incorporated into its numbers. Still, Wheeler staff and board urge caution in raising rates or
creating new fees, as absorption of a large increase in the total cost of doing sales through
Aspen Show Tickets may become cost prohibitive and drive clients towards other providers.
Of particular concern to Wheeler box office staff is the consideration of any per-ticket fee, as
this will increase the price of tickets to the consumer. Given the high amount of film events as
well as low-cost outside events that the Wheeler's Aspen Show Tickets processes, there is
unease about how clients will be able to adapt to this mandatory pricing imposition, and fear
that Aspen Show Tickets may experience negative client attrition because of it. By comparison,
the Vilar Center in Beaver Creek has per-ticket fees of $2.00 for window sales and $4.00 for
online sales, but charges only a $1.00 order processing fee. Belly Up Aspen has a variable per-
ticket fee structure; a quick inspection of their website showed fees of between $3.50 and
$22.25 per ticket, depending on the face value of the ticket. Nationally, there has been no
consensus on this issue even as per-ticket fees have become an accepted norm of doing
business in most places, leaving it difficult to find a path to what might be an "acceptable"entry
point for the Wheeler. Wheeler staff expects that there would be considerable blowback from
the public at the introduction of a per-ticket fee or fees, and asks Council to take this into
consideration when weighing the benefits of this potential sources of revenue.
Attachment B reviews the entire range of possible new fees and areas where fees could be
increased. A column is color-coded to designate the Wheeler board and staff's
recommendations.
3
Aspen City Council Work Session
Summary
MEETING DATE: Tuesday,5 June 2012
AGENDA TOPIC: Wheeler Programs and Subsidy Information-Follow-Up
PRESENTED BY: Gram Slaton,Wheeler Executive Director
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: All(Frisch,Ireland,Johnson,Skadron,Torre)
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the meeting was a follow-up to the February 28, 2012, meeting where the twelve various
programs of the Wheeler Opera House and their revenues and expenses,and attendant subsidies,were
discussed. This follow-up meeting was scheduled to bring the Wheeler board's recommendations to City
Council for its approval or further direction. Five of the seven recommendations were greeted favorably;
two were sent back to Wheeler staff for better clarification at a further follow-up meeting.
POLICY DIRECTION:
1. To what degree shall the Wheeler continue to strategically invest in arts events? Council
reaffirmed that it was supportive of the Wheeler's general programming direction and wished
for staff to take all necessary measures to best ensure that any and all gaps between revenues
and expenses continue to improve, including setting goals and achieving them.
2. What direction shall City Council give Wheeler staff in terms of programming mix? Council
accepted the Wheeler board of directors' recommendation that the Wheeler maintains its
current programming mix, with an emphasis on live events and significant film events. Wheeler
staff informed Council that, due to a high portion of rental dates already accepted for the 2012-
2013 winter season, Wheeler-sponsored bookings would be reduced.
3. Shall the Wheeler begin to strategically solicit outside funding sources? Council reaffirmed that
it was supportive of the Wheeler pursuing all outside funding sources, so long as this did not
require creating a dedicated fundraising person on staff. Wheeler staff noted that it had
received and used $35,000 of such underwriting support for its March 2012 7908 Aspen
Songwriters Festival.
4. Shall programs that offer no ability to reasonably recover their operating costs continue as part
of the Wheeler's programming profile?Council accepted the Wheeler board of directors'
recommendation that that the Community Events program be continued using its present
qualifying criteria for inclusion in the program, and that Community Events initiated by outside
parties be charged a flat$100 usage fee in order to offset some of the in-house costs of event
production. Wheeler-initiated Community Events would continue to be funded entirely
4
through Wheeler programming. Further,the Wheeler will continue to honor the existing
contract with the Wheeler Film Society through its third year(expiring June 2013), and then
solicit through a Request For Proposals the service contract for exhibiting film.
5. Shall the rental structure and/or rates for the Wheeler be adjusted? Council asked Wheeler staff
to do further work on this item in terms of possible rate adjustments, in order to better
understand the impact on the operating budget versus impact on user groups.
6. Shall Concessions prices be adjusted? Council accepted the Wheeler board of directors'
recommendation that the Wheeler reviews bar pricing in the downtown core, and create drink
and-food options that better reflects the average cost of such services while also being attentive
to affordability for all Aspenites, and to implement any and all price changes at the earliest
opportunity. Wheeler staff additionally informed Council that steps had already been taken to
mediate the cost of Concessions operations through the use of full-time staff for Wheeler Film
Society movies and other low-impact events.
7. Shall the Wheeler rates for box office services be adjusted?Council asked Wheeler staff to do
further work on this item in terms of possible rate adjustments, in order to better understand
the impact on the operating budget versus impact on user groups. Further, Council asked
Wheeler staff to redetermine the box office costs as a cost per ticket, in order to establish a
baseline for the cost of doing business.
Estimated Date for Follow-Up with City Council:
Wheeler staff and board desire to return to Council in early summer for final discussion and direction.
Council Member Comments:
5
E n
t v ,s.
6 o -
3 0 _=', c E \
7.
` a c o i J o - _o v r v o : ° , _ii f u � o 't O�. ° v - - « N- , c- o LL we m
E 3 E n a- EE 2 `o E m = v o
_— c 3 4- m i ' . o _
-
a m - o w o' . c -
v E a a o .a n ° F E , - E 3 a- « y -
E El - ` ° a c
- E m G
s m x ,* a w 5 E a' a LL ° 3 z - 3
z v
" z v " a 3
2 ' c o
' 5 U U 0 0
UVUU U o 7 U 7 ° ° ° ° U V'. E w 3 u
u"
m _ -
a 8 mE
ti « w w w w w w w E c
II
E 3 '^ w w w w w w N
El
z z z z
- v o
N E
o` o
H E g m n ° n o ri
' I !!
w w w w w
O
li
v O d O v O d
-iig
° 8 8 88 ° 88°8 8 0 0 0 0 '^ '^ " w ww ww w w w w w w w a"' ww� ° _ w o`n 0 ;
rk
C O Q
0 _ v c °Z ° o a r - r=
Z v a N , - _ 3 r ._ E
OO 3 0° 3 E a° r _9-..i- - 3 q 3 ° ` E
_`o _ � .o_' _ E ., ar = t v _ v h s -o E E v m
S ' ° - 3 E °c .°° E 3 c 3 ^� 3 _� 7 = 2 0
O p o Q “ R. 2 o E m o - o E _ ° w Q E .3 ,. - Sc E E "
- c >o a'o c v - w - a
v o 0 o 2 .82'.. 2" o 00 v ° >Q m 1° o « y4-
tg
`w A
E- " o ` " ` a - - - v d ° C EO " O w s „ -- E v O LL ° O °> t — E E -- = a Et-E1 0 v v o o .67- =',,--E ° ` N _ " _ V _ E = 2 = 5 0 vv m o - q o 10 A «v o a c v ` ` °a ° ° ° ' ° r r c u ,v « -
v � o ¢ a v z8 ° v z ° c 3 2 N- 85 m a m v 3 3 3 LL a s u F
z «
:Z° z
a n ji
U.
a ° o c F W
` u d — m W 8 ,_ N 9 1 o m 2 C - ' LL
Z 8 14” _' Z>
d O — — Z u Z - m m a a i a.a .a
° z r L g i g ¢ z s x O u o v «L_ o o � _ ,4,.. m - _ o o s u ? o a ° c. o 15 -522 00 u° a ° v _
yu
3 1 5583 V u R m m m m 3 3 8 8 N 07 ,,
E -- 1,;
- ; E -
3 3 a 3 v 3 q
A r r - 3 v E'« —
O
r i 3 3 c - - E c o c
«
°
« %a v E v _,
r t 3 E mo ` °a 3 E ` IA
L 2 3 - " °
o
4i'.'2« o w c « __ - c z o Y i E - " _
z a o l E - t 03 « ° ° E a
-
w E o 4-0.'a - E y ` 1*,
j n w o c ° - _ ° - ° ti N «
W = a o - E
E c i v E v c E o
L L „ V v 3 0 - s a
a s
351 t n o w v q o w
z o m c - m E % Y v > r N E E 3 m` _ o v , = _ 5ii Vilig ,v, .c
0
11
A
E ,n 8 t8 t3 e'7 ° o o (7 o
0
Q ° \ °°
C
3
T“ n
V
0 0 o m m o'0 o
° °o °0 0 0
e e
i m E r w 4 « «
2A:i g2
°c o; =
d - E
N «
z
a
z
z °
0
0
P o
< • -
- m o
if - c v
a -
- p v Y a n v n z
u 19 o e - m E ° c E :V B E _ c E
o z 5. c c n E c i > c r
O = ,, ; c ' cE ° 3 E c v E
2 58
w v E 111:3 _ o u o s v ° E c
ti ¢Y
2 L _ 'o `y ,O - ° E .c' m E - - o _ v `o a -o _
W ° V ° v G 0 3 y c D y o w _ ' D Ot..
Q v v k $ 6 v ° n E u i ° a .E v v
< .« 2 S - �« E W O E l O W v .8":_ 3; 13.P ..., O V ,g y
F a > Q ~ o A .... - m Q Q a F t H Y E n n u v� D. 2 0 c a
W
Y
U
F o 8
0 E u` u` .-
'n '�` 0 o ._. 'E A " a °
Z E - a a+ _ E E `o` o
W 0 C r z
a a
o o ti
0
z 5. _
Ln
_Q o a `e '
LE LE
,_ v zv z e
' o mo Y E o_
x io F p -a z u LL
Aspen Show Tickets-Wheeler Box Office
Revenues
Past Year(2011)
Fees $ # Revenue
Box Office Royalties (5%and 6%) $116,720
Credit Card Fees (avg)/shows $67 265 $17,755
Ticket Sellers (FP& NFP) $30 80 $2,400
Box Office Set Up Fees $25 10 $250
Per-Order Processing Fees $4 11,133 $44,532
Promotional Code Scripting n/a
Pricing Template Creation n/a
Client Database Entry n/a
Total Revenues $181,660
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 8.0% $28,320
IT Overhead $68,790 25.0% $17,200
Payroll $274,584 100.0% $274,580
Hours 8,855
Operating $39,619 100.0%
$39,620
Capital Items $8,000
Total Cost $367,720
Subsidy
Current
Total$ WITH CAPITAL ($186,060)
#Tickets Per Year 107,865
Per Ticket
($1.72)
Recovery 49%
Cost/Hour $41.53
Total$ WITHOUT CAPITAL ($178,060)
#Tickets Per Year 107,865
Per Ticket ($1.65)
Recovery
51%
Cost/Hour
$40.62
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Ticketing System Software (initial) $80,000 10 $8,000
Ticketing System Upgrades $0
$8,000
Based on $1.9 million in total ticket sales for 2011 (final figure), and $1.95 million plus full collecti
Box Office Royalties increase for 2012 reflects Wheeler getting full value of fee as client show res
Ticketing System Upgrade amount of$30,000 includes approx$20,000 for involuntary expense a:
•
4
Current(2012) Proposed (:
$ # Growth Revenue $ #
19.9% $140,000
$70 280 5.7% $19,600 $72 300
$30 85 6.3% $2,550 $30 90
$25 80 700.0% $2,000 $25 100
$4 12,000 7.8% $48,000 $5 12,500
n/a $12.50 24
n/a $25 12
n/a $90 4
Average Growth/(Reduction): 16.8% $212,150 Average Growth/(Reduction):
0`
Current Current
$/# % Growth Expense $/##
$365,995 8.0% 1.3% $29,280 $378,439 8.0%
$71,129 25.0% 1.3% $17,780 $73,547 25.0%
$257,462 100.0% -6.2% $257,460 $239,924 100.0%
8,280
9,379
$40,609 100.0% 2.5% $40,610 $41,624 100.0%
$18,000
Average Growth/(Reduction): -1.2% $363,130 Average Growth/(Reduction):
Current
($150,980)
2.0% 110,000
($1.37)
58%
$43.86
($132,980)
110,000
($1.21)
61%
$41.68
.1111111,111111111.1.111111111111., ]SL
Cost Useful Life Annual Cost Useful Life
$80,000 10 $8,000 $80,000 10
$30,000 3 $10,000 $30,000 3
$18,000
ions for 2012.
ults improve.
ssociated with becoming compliant with new ADA regulations.
•
•
2013)
Growth Revenue
7.1% $150,000
10.20% $21,600
5.88% $2,700
25.00% $2,500
30.21% $62,500
100.00% $300
100.00% $300
100.00% $360
13.3% $240,260
Growth Expense
1.3% $30,280
1.3% $18,390
-7.3% $239,920
2.5% $41,620
$18,000
-4.1% $348,210
Current
($107,950)
4.5% 115,000
($0.94)
69%
$37.13
($89,950)
115,000
($0.78)
73%
$35.21
Annual
$8,000
$10,000
$18,000
Notes
Growth between 2011 and 2012 reflects ability to charge full royalty amount as user groups
recover from recession; growth between 2012 and 2013 reflects anticipated growth in rental
days with no change to rate anticipated.
Growth between years anticipates more sales at higher ticket prices.
Revenue growth from introduction of fee to all applicable users and rate increase.
2011 year introduced this fee; some contracts for 2012 were already written. 2013 reflects
application of fee to all rental contracts.
Jump in revenue between 2011 and 2012 reflects 20% increase in fee, from $4 to $5.
New fee introduced in 2013.
New fee introduced in 2013.
New fee introduced in 2013.
Based on historical data from 2011 Pricing Committee exercise.
Based on historical data from 2011 Pricing Committee exercise.
Improvement reflects transition from four FTE employees to three over the course of the 2012
year.
Change between 2012 and 2013 reflects more use of hourly (nonsalaried) personnel
Based on historical data from 2011 Pricing Committee exercise.
New ticketing system purchased in 2010; full price prorated over ten years.
Regular upgrade plus required upgrading for ADA compliance in 2012.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: June 29th,2012
MEETING DATE: July 10th, 2012
RE: Direction to staff to issue bonds for new money and refunding.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the
actions necessary to issue $5,070,000 in new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bonds to finance
capital improvements and also to issue $4,815,000 in bonds to partially, advance refund
outstanding 2005 Parks, Recreation and Open Space bonds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council, as part of the approved 2012 budget gave
preliminary go ahead for the issuance of approximately 4 million dollars in new bonds in order to
finance a list of capital improvements proposed as part of that budget. Additionally, the parks
department will discuss a new parks development project with an estimated cost of$1,000,000.
The Council reaffirmed the plan on a Parks, Recreation and Open Space presentation at their
facility open house when the capital projects were reviewed again with the City Council.
BACKGROUND: In 2001 the City electorate authorized the issuance of up to $38,000,000 in
bonds for various projects. To date $25,680,000 has already been issued. Authority to issue
$12,320,000 in Bonds remains. As part of the development of the asset management plan for
2012—2022 a list of capital projects were deemed important to undertake as soon as possible and
staff was directed to finance the cost of these projects through the issuance of bonds. These
projects were as follows:
$1,225,000 Wagner Park 2013
$ 750,000 Galena Plaza Landscape Project
$ 750,000 City share of Droste
$ 225,000 Golf Course Pond 2012
$ 220,000 Bob Helm Bridge 2012
$ 100,000 Rio Grande Park Restroom 2012 -2013 (2 year project)
$ 500,000 Rio Grande Park 2012 -2013 (2 year project)
$ 225,000 Rio Grande Irrigation and Pump System
Page 1 of 3
Additionally, The parks department will discuss a parks development project that was n of in the
Asset management plant that will cost approximately$1,000,000.
DISCUSSION: The total financing shown above totals $4,995,000. Closing costs will bring the
size of the issue to $5,089,000. The all in true interest cost of this issue is estimated to be 3.19%
if sold today. The proposed debt service structure for the bonds is a little unique as the bonds are
issued as interest only until 2026. This allows the City to take advantage of extremely low
interest rates for a longer period of time and still maintains a level debt service schedule. The
overall Parks debt service schedule is level because other parks bonds will be paid off in 2026
when the 2012 bonds will be scheduled for repayment. If Council gives the go ahead, staff will
begin preparation of the disclosure documents and prepare for a sale in August and closing in
September.
In addition to issuing bonds to finance these projects, staff has been analyzing the possibility of
doing a partial advance refunding (refinance) of the 2005B Parks and recreation bonds. Interest
rates have dropped so low and we are now close enough to the call date that the bonds can be
refunded in two tranches and save the City money. The City would issue $4,815,000 is bonds as
part of this overall debt package to refund a portion of the outstanding 2005 bonds. The
estimated savings on the first refunding tranche is $280,000.
In 2013 the City would issue another 10 million to refund most of the remainder of the 2005
bonds if interest rates remain low enough to make the refunding financially viable. The reason
this is split in two tranches is that there are IRS regulations that give tax advantages to small
issuers of tax free debt. As long as our total issuances are less than $10,000,000 million annually
we will maintain that tax advantaged status.
The estimated true interest cost for the bonds to conduct the refunding is 2.89%. The actual
interest rates for both of these issues will change based on market conditions on the date of the
sale.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impacts of the new money bond issue is
debt service costs in the amount of$156,000 annually until 2026 when the annual debt service
costs will increase to approximately $815,000 per year until 2032. The financial impacts of the
first refunding tranche are a $280,000 savings over the remaining life of the outstanding 2005
Parks and Recreation Bonds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the issuance of Bonds to both
refund outstanding 2005 bonds and to raise $5,089,000 in new money for the proposed projects.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to not issue bonds and to spread completion of the
projects over many years and pay for them out of current revenues each year.
PROPOSED MOTION: Staff is directed to proceed with the refunding and the new money
issuance.
Page 2 of 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Financial structure of the proposed isses.
Page 3 of 3
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Sales Tax
Revenue
Refunding Sales Tax
Bonds,Series Revenue Bonds,
Sources: 2012 Series 2012 Total
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 4,815,000.00 5,070,000.00 9,885,000.00
Premium 94,218.45 27,119.40 121,337.85
Original Issue Discount -8,163.55 -8,163.55
4,909,218.45 5,088,955.85 9,998,174.30
Other Sources of Funds:
Bond Payment Due 11/1/12 106,706.25 106,706.25
5,015,924.70 5,088,955.85 10,104,880.55
Sales Tax
Revenue
Refunding Sales Tax
Bonds,Series Revenue Bonds,
Uses: 2012 Series 2012 Total
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Construction Fund 4,995,000.00 4,995,000.00
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit 0.41 0.41
SLGS Purchases 4,927,644.00 4,927,644.00
4,927,644.41 4,927,644.41
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 29,226.10 30,773.90 60,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 31,297.50 32,955.00 64,252.50
Reserve Fund Surety 24,075.00 25,350.00 49,425.00
84,598.60 89,078.90 173,677.50
Other Uses of Funds:
Additional Proceeds 3,681.69 4,876.95 8,558.64
5,015,924.70 5,088,955.85 10,104,880.55
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 1
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Annual
Period
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
05/01/2013 177,150.00 177,150.00
11/01/2013 85,000 2.000% 132,862.50 217,862.50 395,012.50
05/01/2014 132,012.50 132,012.50
11/01/2014 105,000 2.000% 132,012.50 237,012.50 369,025.00
05/01/2015 130,962.50 130,962.50
11/01/2015 105,000 2.000% 130,962.50 235,962.50 366,925.00
05/01/2016 129,912.50 129,912.50
11/01/2016 105,000 2.000% 129,912.50 234,912.50 364,825.00
05/01/2017 128,862.50 128,862.50
11/01/2017 110,000 2.000% 128,862.50 238,862.50 367,725.00
05/01/2018 127,762.50 127,762.50
11/01/2018 110,000 2.000% 127,762.50 237,762.50 365,525.00
05/01/2019 126,662.50 126,662.50
11/01/2019 785,000 2.000% 126,662.50 911,662.50 1,038,325.00
05/01/2020 118,812.50 118,812.50
11/01/2020 1,450,000 2.250% 118,812.50 1,568,812.50 1,687,625.00
05/01/2021 102,500.00 102,500.00
11/01/2021 1,485,000 2.500% 102,500.00 1,587,500.00 1,690,000.00
05/01/2022 83,937.50 83,937.50
11/01/2022 475,000 2.500% 83,937.50 558,937.50 642,875.00
05/01/2023
78,000.00 78,000.00
78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000.00
11/01/2024 4
11/01/2023 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2024 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000.00
05/01/2025 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2025
78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000.00
05/01/2026 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2026 660,000 3.000% 78,000.00 738,000.00 816,000.00
05/01/2027 68,100.00 68,100.00
11/01/2027 680,000 3.000% 68,100.00 748,100.00 816,200.00
05/01/2028 57,900.00 57,900.00
11/01/2028 700,000 3.000% 57,900.00 757,900.00 815,800.00
05/01/2029 47,400.00 47,400.00
11/01/2029 725,000 3.000% 47,400.00 772,400.00 819,800.00
05/01/2030 36,525.00 36,525.00
11/01/2030 745,000 3.000% 36,525.00 781,525.00 818,050.00
05/01/2031 25,350.00 25,350.00
11/01/2031 770,000 3.250% 25,350.00 795,350.00 820,700.00
05/01/2032 12,837.50 12,837.50
11/01/2032 790,000 3.250% 12,837.50 802,837.50 815,675.00
9,885,000 3,593,087.50 13,478,087.50 13,478,087.50
Page 2
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND PRICING
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Maturity Yield to Call
Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Maturity Date Ca Premium
(-Discount)
t)
Serial Bonds:
11/01/2013 85,000 2.000% 0.600% 101.624
11/01/2014 105,000 2.000% 0.700% 102.790 1,380.40
11/01/2015 105,000 2.000% 0.880% 103.489 2,929.50
11/01/2016 105,000 2.000% 1.000% 104.070 3,663.45
11/01/2017 110,000 2.000% 1.260% 103.689 4,273.50
11/01/2018 110,000 2.000% 1.530% 102.754 4,057.90
11/01/2019 785,000 2.000% 1.760% 101.608 3,029.40
11/01/2020 1,450,000 2.250% 2.020% 101.722 12,622.80
11/01/2021 1,485,000 2.500% 2.230% 102.225 24,969.00
11/01/2022 475,000 2.500% 2.400% 100.895 33,251.25
11/01/2026 660,000 3.000% 2.890% 100.967 C 2.916% 12/01/2022 100.000 6,382.20
11/01/2027 680,000 3.000% 2.920% 100.701 C 2.942% 12/01/2022 100.000 4,766.80
11/01/2028 700,000 3.000% 2.970% 100.260 C 2.979% 12/01/2022 100.000 4,820.00
11/01/2029 725,000 3.000% 3.020% 99.731 1,820.00
11/01/2030 745,000 3.000% 3.060% 99.166 -1,950.25
-6,213.30
11/01/2031 770,000 3.250% 3.110% 101.217 C 3.165% 12/01/2022 100.000 9,370.90
11/01/2032 790,000 3.250% 3.180% 100.605 C 3.209% 12/01/2022 100.000
4,779.50
9,885,000
113,174.30
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
First Coupon 05/01/2013
Par Amount 9,885,000.00
Premium 113,174.30
Production 9,998,174.30 101.144909%
Underwriter's Discount -64,252.50 -0.650000%
Purchase Price 9,933,921.80 100.494909%
Accrued Interest
Net Proceeds 9,933,921.80
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 3
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Last Maturity 11/01/2032
Arbitrage Yield 2.769418%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2.831303%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.854265%
All-In TIC 2.889570%
Average Coupon 2.853865%
Average Life(years) 12.737
Duration of Issue(years) 10.607
Par Amount 9,885,000.00
Bond Proceeds 9,998,174.30
Total Interest 3,593,087.50
Net Interest 3,544,165.70
Bond Years from Dated Date 125,902,500.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 125,902,500.00
Total Debt Service 13,478,087.50
Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,690,000.00
Average Annual Debt Service 668,334.92
Underwriter's Fees(per$1000)
Average Takedown 6.500000
Other Fee
Total Underwriter's Discount 6.500000
Bid Price
100.494909
Par Average Average PV of 1 bp
Bond Component
Value Price Coupon Life change
Serial Bonds 9,885,000.00 101.145 2.854% 12.737 8,693.95
9,885,000.00 12.737 8,693.95
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 9,885,000.00 9,885,000.00 9,885,000.00
+Accrued Interest 113,174.30 113,174.30
+Premium(Discount) 113,174.30
-Underwriter's Discount -64,252.50 -64,252.50
-Cost of Issuance Expense -60,000.00
-Other Amounts
-49,425.00 -49,425.00 -49,425.00
Target Value
9,884,496.80 9,824,496.80 9,948,749.30
Target Date 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 09/01/2012
Yield
2.831303% 2.889570% 2.769418%
Page 4
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
N ICOLAUS
AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Sales Tax
Revenue Sales Tax
Refunding Revenue Series 2005 Series 2009
Period Bonds,Series Bonds, Unrefunded Refunding Refunding Aggregate
Ending 2012 Series 2012
Bonds Bonds Bonds Debt Service
11/01/2012 359,493.75 1,011,693.75 711,218.75 2,082,406.25
11/01/2013 213,012.50 182,000 615,237.50 1,179,587.50 819,287.50 3,009,125.00
11/01/2014 213,025.00 156,000 611,637.50 1,179,387.50 816,787.50 2,976,837.50
11/01/2015 210,925.00 156,000 607,937.50 1,181,643.76 821,387.50 2,977,893.76
11/01/2016 208,825.00 156,000 604,187.50 1,177,250.00 823,087.50 2,969,350.00
11/01/2017 211,725.00 156,000 600,187.50 1,180,225.00 821,087.50 2,969,225.00
11/01/2018 209,525.00 156,000 596,187.50 1,178,225.00 821,975.00 2,961,912.50
11/01/2019 882,325.00 156,000 492,187.50 651,000.00 815,525.00 2,997,037.50
11/01/2020 1,531,625.00 156,000 492,187.50
11/01/2021 1,534,000.00 156,000 492,187.50 821,800.00 2,998,587.50
11/01/2022 486,875.00 156,000 2,057,187.50 816,400.00 2,998,587.50
11/01/2023 156,000 2,880,025.00 2,700,062.50
11/01/2024 156,000 2,880,350.00 3,036,025.00
11/01/2025 156,000 2,883,850.00 3,036,350.00
11/01/2026 816,000 3,039,850.00
11/01/2027 816,200 816,000.00
11/01/2028 815,800 816,200.00
11/01/2029 819,800 815,800.00
11/01/2030 818,050 819,800.00
11/01/2031 820,700 818,050.00
11/01/2032 815,675 820,700.00
815,675.00
5,701,862.50 7,776,225 16,172,843.75 8,739,012.51 8,088,556.25 46,478,500.01
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 5
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Sources:
Bond Proceeds: 4,815,000.00
Par Amount 94,218.45
Premium
4,909,218.45
Other Sources of Funds: 106,706.25
Bond Payment Due 11/1/12
5,015,924.70
Uses:
Refunding Escrow Deposits: 0.41
Cash Deposit 4,927,644.00
SLGS Purchases 4,927,644.41
Delivery Date Expenses: 29,226.10
Cost of Issuance 2299,226.10
Underwriter's Discount 34,297.50
Reserve Fund Surety 84,598.60
Other Uses of Funds: 3,681.69
Additional Proceeds
5,015,924.70
Page 6
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Period
Annual
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
05/01/2013 73,150.00 73,150.00
11/01/2013 85,000 2.000% 54,862.50 139,862.50 213,012.50
05/01/2014 54,012.50 54,012.50
11/01/2014 105,000 2.000% 54,012.50 159,012.50 213,025.00
05/01/2015 52,962.50 52,962.50
11/01/2015 105,000 2.000% 52,962.50 157,962.50 210,925.00
05/01/2016 51,912.50 51,912.50
11/01/2016 105,000 2.000% 51,912.50 156,912.50 208,825.00
05/01/2017 50,862.50 50,862.50
11/01/2017 110,000 2.000% 50,862.50 160,862.50 211,725.00
05/01/2018 49,762.50 49,762.50
11/01/2018 110,000 2.000% 49,762.50 159,762.50 209,525.00
05/01/2019 48,662.50 48,662.50
11/01/2019 785,000 2.000% 48,662.50 833,662.50 882,325.00
05/01/2020 40,812.50 40,812.50
11/01/2020 1,450,000 2.250% 40,812.50 1,490,812.50 1,531,625.00
05/01/2021 24,500.00 24,500.00
11/01/2021 1,485,000 2.500% 24,500.00 1,509,500.00 1,534,000.00
05/01/2022 5,937.50 5,937.50
11/01/2022 475,000 2.500% 5,937.50 480,937.50 486,875.00
4,815,000 886,862.50 5,701,862.50 5,701,862.50
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 7
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND PRICING
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Premium
Maturity Price (-Discount)
Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield
Serial Bonds:
11/01/2013 85,000 2.000% 0.600% 101.624 1,380.40
11/01/2014 105,000 2.000% 0.700% 102.790 2,929.50
11/01/2015 105,000 2.000% 0.880% 103.489 3,663.45
11/01/2016 105,000 2.000% 1.000% 104.070 4,057.90
11/01/2017 110,000 2.000% 1.260% 103.689 3,029.40
11/01/2018 110,000 2.000% 1.530% 102.754
11/01/2019 785,000 2.000% 1.760% 101.608 12,622.80
11/01/2020 1,450,000 2.250% 2.020% 101.722 24,969.00
11/01/2021 1,485,000 2.500% 2.230% 102.225 33,041.25
11/01/2022 475,000 2.500% 2.400% 100.895 4,251.25
4,815,000 94,218.45
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
First Coupon 05/01/2013
Par Amount 4,815,000.00
Premium 94,218.45
Production 4,909,218.45 101.956769%
Underwriter's Discount -31,297.50 -0.650000%
Purchase Price 4,877,920.95 101.306769%
Accrued Interest
Net Proceeds 4,877,920.95
Page 8
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
SAVINGS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Prior Prior Prior Refunding Present Value to 09/01/2012
Date Debt Service Receipts Net Cash Flow Debt Service Savings Savings @ 2.7694184%
09/01/2012 106,706.25 -106,706.25 -106,706.25
11/01/2012 106,706.25 106,218.22
106,706.25 106,706.25 106,218.22
05/01/2013 106,706.25 106,706.25 73,150.00 33,556.25
11/01/2013 106,706.25 106,706.25 139,862.50 -33,156.25 400.00 -32,109.21
05/01/2014 106,706.25 106,706.25 54,012.50 52,693.75
11/01/2014 106,706.25 106,706.25 159,012.50 -52,306.25 387.50 -49,280.25
05/01/2015 106,706.25 106,706.25 52,962.50 53,743.75
11/01/2015 106,706.25 106,706.25 157,962.50 -51,256.25 2,487.50 -46,980.89
05/01/2016 106,706.25 106,706.25 51,912.50 54,793.75
11/01/2016 106,706.25 106,706.25 156,912.50 -50,206.25 4,587.50 -44,770.02
05/01/2017 106,706.25 106,706.25 50,862.50 55,843.75
11/01/2017 106,706.25 49,116.98
106,706.25 160,862.50 -54,156.25 1,687.50 -46,982.18
05/01/2018 106,706.25 106,706.25 49,762.50 56,943.75
11/01/2018 106,706.25 44,779.19
106,706.25 159,762.50 -53,056.25 3,887.50 -44,779.19
05/01/2019 106,706.25 106,706.25 48,662.50 58,043.75
11/01/2019 776,706.25 776,706.25 833,662.50 -56,956.25 1,087.50 -46,766.64
05/01/2020 91,631.25 91,631.25 40,812.50 50,818.75
11/01/2020 1,441,631.25 1,441,631.25 1,490,812.50 -49,181.25 1,637.50 -39,287.05
05/01/2021 57,881.25 57,881.25 24,500.00 33,381.25
11/01/2021 1,477,881.25 1,477,881.25 1,509,500.00 -31,618.75 1,762.50 -24,5772.51
05/01/2022 20,606.25 20,606.25 5,937.50 14,668.75
11/01/2022 805,606.25 11,244.12
805,606.25 480,937.50 324,668.75 339,337.50 2455,471.16
6,165,831.25 106,706.25 6,059,125.00 5,701,862.50 357,262.50 357,262.50 277,079.98
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 277,079.98
Plus:Refunding funds on hand 3,681.69
Net PV Savings 280,761.67
1u116,2012 1:13 pm
Page 9
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
SUMMARY OF REFUNDING RESULTS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Arbitrage yield 2.769418%
Escrow yield 0.304579%
Bond Par Amount 4,815,000.00
True Interest Cost 2.203827%
Net Interest Cost 2.216892%
Average Coupon 2.318443%
Average Life
7.944
Par amount of refunded bonds 4,225,000.00
Average coupon of refunded bonds 5.077355%
Average life of refunded bonds 8.716
PV of prior debt to 09/01/2012 @ 2.769418% 5,044,584.35
Net PV Savings 280,761.67
Percentage savings of refunded bonds 6.645247%
Percentage savings of refunding bonds 5.830980%
Page 10
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
N ICOLAUS
SUMMARY OF BONDS REFUNDED
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Maturity Interest Par Call Call
Bond Date Rate Amount Date
Price
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 2005B,2005:
SERIALS 11/01/2019 4.500% 670,000.00 11/01/2015 100.000
11/01/2020 5.000% 1,350,000.00 11/01/2015 100.000
11/01/2021 5.250% 1,420,000.00 11/01/2015 100.000
11/01/2022 5.250% 785,000.00 11/01/2015 100.000
4,225,000.00
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 11
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
PRIOR BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Annual
Period
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
11/01/2012
106,706.25 106,706.25 106,706.25
05/01/2013 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2013
106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
05/01/2014 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2014
106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
05/01/2015 106,706.25 106,706.25
106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
11/01/2015
05/01/2016 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2016 106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
05/01/2017 106,706.25 106,706.25
106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
11/01/2017
05/01/2018 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2018 106,706.25 106,706.25 213,412.50
05/01/2019 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2019 670,000 4.500% 106,706.25 776,706.25 883,412.50
05/01/2020 91,631.25 91,631.25
11/01/2020 1,350,000 5.000% 91,631.25 1,441,631.25 1,533,262.50
05/01/2021 57,881.25 57,881.25
11/01/2021 1,420,000 5.250% 57,881.25 1,477,881.25 1,535,762.50
05/01/2022 20,606.25 20,606.25
11/01/2022 785,000 5.250% 20,606.25 805,606.25 826,212.50
4,225,000 1,940,831.25 6,165,831.25 6,165,831.25
Page 12
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
N 1COLAUS
ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Period Principal
Ending Interest Redeemed Total
11/01/2012 106,706.25 106,706.25
05/01/2013 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2013 106,706.25 106,706.25
05/01/2014 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2014 106,706.25 106,706.25
05/01/2015 106,706.25 106,706.25
11/01/2015 106,706.25 4,225,000.00 4,331,706.25
746,943.75 4,225,000.00 4,971,943.75
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 13
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
UNREFUNDED BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Annual
Period
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
11/01/2012 100,000 3.750% 259,493.75 359,493.75 359,493.75
05/01/2013 257,618.75 257,618.75
11/01/2013 100,000 3.600% 257,618.75 357,618.75 615,237.50
05/01/2014 255,818.75 255,818.75
11/01/2014 100,000 3.700% 255,818.75 355,818.75 611,637.50
05/01/2015 253,968.75 253,968.75
11/01/2015 100,000 3.750% 253,968.75 353,968.75 607,937.50
05/01/2016 252,093.75 252,093.75
11/01/2016 100,000 4.000% 252,093.75 352,093.75 604,187.50
05/01/2017 250,093.75 250,093.75
11/01/2017 100,000 4.000% 250,093.75 350,093.75 600,187.50
05/01/2018 248,093.75 248,093.75
11/01/2018 100,000 4.000% 248,093.75 348,093.75 596,187.50
05/01/2019 246,093.75 246,093.75
246,093.75 246,093.75 492,187.50
11/01/2019
05/01/2020 246,093.75 246,093.75
11/01/2020 246,093.75 246,093.75 492,187.50
05/01/2021
246,093.75 246,093.75
11/01/2021
246,093.75 246,093.75 492,187.50
05/01/2022 246,093.75 246,093.75
11/01/2022 1,565,000 5.250% 246,093.75 1,811,093.75 2,057,187.50
05/01/2023 205,012.50 205,012.50
11/01/2023 2,470,000 5.250% 205,012.50 2,675,012.50 2,880,025.00
05/01/2024 140,175.00 140,175.00
11/01/2024 2,600,000 5.250% 140,175.00 2,740,175.00 2,880,350.00
05/01/2025 71,925.00 71,925.00
11/01/2025 2,740,000 5.250% 71,925.00 2,811,925.00 2,883,850.00
10,075,000 6,097,843.75 16,172,843.75 16,172,843.75
Page 14
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Last Maturity 11/01/2022
Arbitrage Yield 2.769418%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2.203827%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.216892%
All In TIC
2.287726%
Average Coupon 2.318443%
Average Life(years) 7.944
Duration of Issue(years)
7.282
Par Amount 4,815,000.00
Bond Proceeds 4,909,218.45
Total Interest 886,862.50
Net Interest 823,941.55
Bond Years from Dated Date 38,252,500.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 38,252,500.00
Total Debt Service 5,701,862.50
Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,534,000.00
Average Annual Debt Service 560,838.93
Underwriter's Fees(per$1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 6.500000
Total Underwriter's Discount 6.500000
Bid Price 101.306769
Par Average Average PV of 1 bp
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life
change
Serial Bonds 4,815,000.00 101.957 2.318% 7.944
3,527.00
4,815,000.00 7.944 3,527.00
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 4,815,000.00 4,815,000.00
+Accrued Interest 4,815,000.00
+Premium(Discount) 94,218.45 94,218.45
-Underwriter's Discount 94,218.45
-31,297.50 -31,297.50
-Cost of Issuance Expense -29,226.10
-Other Amounts -24,075.00 -24,075.00
-24,075.00
Target Value 4,853,845.95
4,824,619.85 4,885,143.45
Target Date 09/01/2012
Yield 2.203827% 09/01/2012
2.287726% 2.769 18%
2.769418/o
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 15
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Sources:
Bond Proceeds: 5,070,000.00
Par Amount 0,000.00
Original Issue Discount 27,119.40
Premium
5,088,955.85
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits: 4,995,000.00
Project Construction Fund
Delivery Date Expenses: 30,773.90
Cost of Issuance 32,955.00
Underwriter's Discount 25,350.00
Reserve Fund Surety 89,078.90
Other Uses of Funds: q 876.95
Additional Proceeds
5,088,955.85
Page 16
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Period Annual
Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Service
05/01/2013 104,000.00 104,000.00
11/01/2013 78,000.00 78,000.00 182,000
05/01/2014 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2014
05/01/2015 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2015 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2016 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2016 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2017 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2017 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2018 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2018 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2019 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2019 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2020 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2020 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2021 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2021 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2022 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2022 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2023 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2023 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2024 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2024 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2025 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2025 78,000.00 78,000.00 156,000
05/01/2026 78,000.00 78,000.00
11/01/2026 660,000 3.000% 78,000.00 738,000.00 816,000
05/01/2027 68,100.00 68,100.00
11/01/2027 680,000 3.000% 68,100.00 748,100.00 816,200
05/01/2028 57,900.00 57,900.00
11/01/2028 700,000 3.000% 57,900.00 757,900.00 815,800
05/01/2029 47,400.00 47,400.00
11/01/2029 725,000 3.000% 47,400.00 772,400.00 819,800
05/01/2030 36,525.00 36,525.00
11/01/2030 745,000 3.000% 36,525.00 781,525.00 818,050
05/01/2031 25,350.00 25,350.00
11/01/2031 770,000 3.250% 25,350.00 795,350.00 820,700
05/01/2032 12,837.50 12,837.50
11/01/2032 790,000 3.250% 12,837.50 802,837.50 815,675
5,070,000 2,706,225.00 7,776,225.00 7,776,225
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
Page 17
STI FEL
NICOLAUS
BOND PRICING
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 2012
Yield to Call Call Premium
Maturity
Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Maturity Date Price (-Discount
Serial Bonds:
11/01/2026 660,000 3.000% 2.890% 100.967 C 2.916% 12/01/2022 100.000 6,382.20
11/01/2027 680,000 3.000% 2.920% 100.701 C 2.942% 12/01/2022 100.000 4,766.80
11/01/2028 700,000 3.000% 2.970% 100.260 C 2.979% 12/01/2022 100.000 1820.000
11/01/2029 725,000 3.000% 3.020% 99.731 -6,213.30
11/01/2030 745,000 3.000% 3.060% 99.166
11/01/2031 770,000 3.250% 3.110% 101.217 C 3.165% 12/01/2022 100.000 9,370.90
11/01/2032 790,000 3.250% 3.180% 100.605 C 3.209% 12/01/2022 100.000 4,779.50
18,955.85
5,070,000
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
First Coupon 05/01/2013
Par Amount 5,070,000.00
Premium 18,955.85
Production 5,088,955.85 100.373883%
Underwriter's Discount -32,955.00 -0.650000%
Purchase Price 5,056,000.85 99.723883%
Accrued Interest
Net Proceeds 5,056,000.85
Page 18
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm
STIFEL
N ICOLAUS
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
City of Aspen
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 2012
Dated Date 09/01/2012
Delivery Date 09/01/2012
Last Maturity 11/01/2032
Arbitrage Yield 2.769418%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 3.143155%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3.132429%
All-In TIC 3.189405%
Average Coupon 3.087536%
Average Life(years) 17.288
Duration of Issue(years) 13.485
Par Amount 5,070,000.00
Bond Proceeds 5,088,955.85
Total Interest 2,706,225.00
Net Interest 2,720,224.15
Bond Years from Dated Date 87,650,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 87,650,000.00
Total Debt Service 7,776,225.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 820,700.00
Average Annual Debt Service 385,597.93
Underwriter's Fees(per$1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 6.500000
Total Underwriter's Discount 6.500000
Bid Price 99.723883
Par Average Average PV of 1 bp
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life change
Serial Bonds 5,070,000.00 100.374 3.088% 17.288 5,166.95
5,070,000.00 17.288 5,166.95
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 5,070,000.00 5,070,000.00 5,070,000.00
+Accrued Interest
+Premium(Discount) 18,955.85 18,955.85 18,955.85
-Underwriter's Discount -32,955.00 -32,955.00
-Cost of Issuance Expense -30,773.90
-Other Amounts -25,350.00 -25,350.00 -25,350.00
Target Value 5,030,650.85 4,999,876.95 5,063,605.85
Target Date 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 09/01/2012
Yield 3.143155% 3.189405% 2.769418%
Jul 16,2012 1:13 pm Page 19
STIFEL
NICOLAUS
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: July 24, 2012
MEETING DATE: July 31, 2012
RE: North Mill Street Corridor: Preferred Alternative
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding pedestrian, bicyclist, traffic safety, and Rio
Grande Park interface design alternatives for the North Mill Street corridor. Staff recommends
proceeding to final design and pursuing construction on Zone 3 adjacent to Rio Grande Park.
BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen contracted with JR Engineering and DHM to provide traffic
engineering services and a complete streets planning effort for the North Mill Street corridor and
surrounding neighborhood. The design team inventoried existing facilities, surveyed the corridor, and
solicited input from the citizens in order to produce increasingly refined design alternatives.
IThis project has utilized professional engineering and landscape architecture services to develop and
determine the feasibility and implementation of pedestrian crossings, streetscape improvements,
bicycle lanes and traffic calming into the Mill Street Corridor. Once base data was obtained staff
worked with our consultant team to draft three alternative designs for the corridor. These alternatives
represented the ideals of the project's initial goals. Each design provided a differing compromise
between infrastructure expense and impact to the traveling public. Staff solicited feedback on these
three alternatives during numerous public events and through a third party run website.
Staffs public outreach has included:
• 2 project Open Houses, occurring March 7th 5-7pm in Council Chambers and May 23`d
5-7pm in Sister Cities
• Attending and presenting design alternatives at the ACRA luncheon on April 5th
• Online feedback using Open City Hall run by a third party administrator Peak
Democracy
• Attending the Transportation Open House June 26th and Bike to Work Day June 27th to
display project information and receive feedback
• Sharing the Preferred Design alternative with the Parks and Open Space Board during
their July 12th meeting
e
DISCUSSION:
Within the context of this project the City has found opportunities to:
• Improve the City's pedestrian system by providing traffic calming.
• Design improved pedestrian crossing infrastructure within corridor.
• Integrate a bicycle lane into existing Right of Way, while increasing cyclist mobility for
all users and continuing to grow Aspen as a bicycle friendly community.
• Provide a positive pedestrian, bicyclist, and traffic interface along the corridor.
• Update and enhance pedestrian and cyclist connections to surrounding neighborhoods,
and trail systems.
The design team identified 4 zones of distinct character along the corridor; as summarized below and
in Attachment "A". The unique nature of Mill Street required design solutions tailored to fit the
changing context of the corridor. Each zone was matched with a design solution that addressed the
specific needs of the area while creating a uniform and logical treatment for the entire corridor.
Attachment "A" depicts each zone and the proposed treatments for each section.
Zone 1 Main Street to Bleeker Street
Opportunities and Constraints: Urban Context, steep street grade, vehicular turning movements,
numerous pedestrian crossings, interaction with a high volume state highway, transit stop, attached
sidewalk.
Public Feedback: Create usable bicycle interface with Main Street, provide a better pedestrian
crossing at Bleeker Street, add more green space, preserve the library drop-off, and incorporate bike
lanes into existing roadway
Design Considerations: This segment is constrained by the existing building faces, creating width of
73'-6"building-to building. Additionally an area on the east side of the corridor is constrained by a 4'-
wide raised planter.
Removing one of the turn lanes will not impact the level of service of the Main Street intersection.
This lane removal frees up space for bike lanes and pedestrian/streetscape enhancement. The Typical
Preferred section is altered to include wider attached sidewalks and provides an opportunity to include
bands of porous paving/street trees in areas adjacent to the curb while keeping a clear sidewalk zone
along the buildings.
Estimated Financial Implications of Preferred Alternative (Zone 1): $213,000
Zone 2 Bleeker Street to Rio Grande Place
Opportunities and Constraints: Urban/Suburban context, steep street grade, interface with City
parking lots/structure, Rio Grande Place turning movements, attached sidewalk
Public Feedback: Provide a better pedestrian crossing at Bleeker Street, slow vehicular speeds on the
hill, reduce vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian interactions, and incorporate bike lanes into existing roadway
Design Considerations: This segment is also constrained by existing buildings, building access, and
structured planters; resulting in a width, at its most constrained of 68'-2". The Typical Preferred
section is altered to accommodate the traffic and bike lanes, keeping the sidewalk attached on the west
side of the street. On the east side of the street there is room for a planter strip/bioswale; this condition
becomes more flexible north of the bank building, adjacent to the City parking lot.
Estimated Financial Implications of Preferred Alternative (Zone 2): $160,000
Zone 3 Rio Grande Place to Puppy Smith Street
Opportunities and Constraints: Park/Commercial context, mid-block transit stop, mid-block
crossing, Rio Grande Park interface, attached sidewalks
Public Feedback: Incorporate better way-finding signage into the Park/corridor, move crosswalk to
provide a more logical interface with Clarks Market/Bus Stop, create a bus pullout, slow vehicular
speed, create pedestrian awareness at midblock crossing, and incorporate bike lanes into existing
roadway.
Design Considerations: This segment includes the greatest variability in the existing asphalt width,
but also has the best opportunities for realizing the full Typical Preferred cross-section. Ultimately, the
total width of the street section will be adjusted to respond to existing vegetation, building access
points, bicycle lanes and other priorities.
The interface with Rio Grande Park is another obvious consideration. Engineering and Park's
Department staff have coordinated efforts to address the unique challenges of a Roadway/Park
interface. A large attached sidewalk maintains preferred pathways to the midblock crossing, bus stop
and park. Proposed Stormwater features create both a visual attraction as well as a utilitarian feature of
the Park. Dwell space and interactive signage will encourage users to enjoy this great public space.
Attachment `B" depicts this space in a three dimensional rendering.
Estimated Financial Implications of Preferred Alternative (Zone 3): $321,000
Zone 4: Puppy Smith Street to Gibson Avenue
Opportunities and Constraints: Commercial and residential context, connections to trail system,
vehicular turning movements, interface with River, complex topography
Public Feedback: Improve pedestrian crossings on Puppy Smith, increase pedestrian connectivity on
Mill and Puppy Smith, incorporate better way-finding signage into the corridor, slow vehicular speeds
and incorporate bike lanes into existing roadway
Design Considerations: This segment also has a great degree of variability in the asphalt width. By
reducing the overall asphalt width and adjusting the Typical Preferred section to two traffic lanes we
are able to implement bicycle lanes, bioswales/street tree plantings, as well as buffering the west
sidewalk from the SCI west parking lots. The total width of the street section will be adjusted to
respond topographical features on the eastern side of the corridor.
Estimated Financial Implications of Preferred Alternative (Zone 4): $191,000
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Due to the unique nature of the corridor, specific safety concerns,
and coordination with adjacent projects, staff feels that a strategic, phased implementation schedule
will provide the most benefit to the public.
• Fall 2012-2013 Implementation of Zone 3 -- Rio Grande Place to Puppy Smith Road. This
schedule corresponds to the City's Parks Departments scheduled phase II upgrades to Rio
Grande Park. Zone 3 also includes a misaligned midblock crossing, bus stop and large
pedestrian, traffic and cyclist volumes. City Staff received the highest amount of public
comment regarding this zone.
• 2013-2014 Implementation of Zone 1 -- Main Street to Bleeker Street. This schedule
corresponds to CDOT's scheduled replacement of Mill/Main Street traffic signals and the
potential Library/Galena Plaza project. Recommended treatments would be coordinated with
the CDOT replacement of the Main Street traffic signal poles and other adjacent projects. The
potential for signal optimization that addresses multimodal traffic needs has been discussed as
part of the upgrades.
• 2015 Implementation of Zones 2 and 4—Bleeker Street to Rio Grande Place and Puppy
Smith Road to Gibson Avenue. Zones 2 and 4 address important connectivity issues associated
with Mill Street corridor. These zones currently have been phased for implementation last due
to staff's priority of safety before connectivity; however these two zones are critical to the
overall success of this effort.
It should be noted that a phased implementation, while beneficial, will not produce a fully connected or
uniform corridor until all four zones are completed.
Funding Allocated
Mill Street Project (Acct# 000.15.94077) $335,000.00
Current Expenditures
Mill Street Complete Streets
(Survey, Planning, Design, Public Process and Project Management) $114,960.00
Funding Available (2012) $220,040.00
Proposed Expenditures
Zone 1 —(proposed 2013-2014) $213,000.00
Zone 2 - (proposed 2015) $160,000.00
Zone 3 —(proposed 2012-2013) $321,000.00
Zone 4 - (proposed 2015) $191,000.00
Total Proposed Expenditures 2012-2015 $885,000.00
Additional Funding required to complete Preferred Option (2013-2015) $664,960.00
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: North Mill Street Preferred Alternative
Attachment B: Three Dimensional Rendering of Rio Grande Park/Mill Street Interface
, I.
r......_„...._.,,..".„...,...„ . ,
. . ,1.....,,..
A ....:0„, ,. ...
, . ...
. ....... .. _
._ • •
40. •
tf r ,,. ,�o�
i
I,
ig
•
DII
( 4 ,
k
•.. ,r,. ' I 1, Q. , 1 y,. I.r rN I IIC"I"VI :
1•h
3003 Ntltld ).y
� f�, 30NVtl00ttl -
r,y y �. IME ..
H1Vd NIN63O3d 3nIM.0:
—r " '
' .
- �
g
-iiimmilL
M N
W _ LIJ ,,,■ _ _W
Zz nva 9tlns`
.- O - :'I', - 1 - 0 0
N YrM3139 _ N NNM3UI9
N 1
W z N
_ ¢'T. . Q p ii t0 W W 7 Vf ~ W W
w JZ yaW a ¢ w _QQZF-v+ pY LU
V Q i LL m ea
z ¢0-Q W W W J
Q¢ f¢ kn H Z , S p x
l7J
L _ 1•r
et wp021.- ?5Q W
h z ¢ a
¢ OQ I- W pQ01- Q l-
aa.a1¢- vv. Nap aLwi1 �3 v. °¢ Ln /Z!
i i'
•
_ --_ ,- .- w 4 ,,o‘ ' . 0 444) .
z
.. Z O p -' _ O Ir.s.r 0
Z
_ ¢ U W ¢ Q Z Z J >
J Y J Z W U' W •• W 1 W O J LLLL =t", ..I.,• .
l7 . Ln O c
J VI ¢ Z V Z p `L 1- x m lJ J - ,.
L Q ra a j 0 w OJ wa W p Z I- W W O N Q W -
X6 O 1- W Y a 4'1 U y. rL p a ¢ p p a IIII.L11'
W 2 z U a a z n' F a O l7 a w 0 w J K ¢
H l7 O Z Z > >_ a O¢ > a Z z a ¢ Z Z __
••• a LL I- Z Q vi O I- Z LL d N Z Q Vt Z -'.
• • IY 3 O U W ¢ Q ~ 13 N Z v, a z Q ¢ N w ¢ L.¢ (- - ^,0 vi
.31` Lrt'...r H Q Z W d 2 Q zQ W 0 z m O 3 al
W Q u W 0 W m Q O W
.. , _ �l�w� z J Z Z '.g.' p ¢ ¢ a f° ¢ r l7 J ¢ U `L •_, U w Z Z> W Y�
C a u W F- I— ¢ Q 1- Q Z Q p H a 2 a > F ii p aL > F¢ J¢ > I- ut ,, U F Ln V vL Z Ln W w 3 U O w ¢ Q O W 1N3W39tltllN3 3]Vd}131NI 3943)Itltld O W W Z W w w w W p v N Q W v f ut
-.LULU ¢ w O - .. ¢p ¢1•- 7 Q p p 1- Ln p J O O a p O Z O p a ¢
O - -W W J W W Z Z W W ¢ - K W J W F O m
v vt Fp p e.s a a t3 m w W CI. v V m ¢ vt —
W J V
cc
_ Ic a p
/ii
@, a
:1 2
W
CC Lu
. .001111111.111111 gift I.._
m a t m jam- u, TL III
1- x z - vl
Ln O ¢ • a Y. - ,1 -. 14- )r I1 -- n . -
w z W a .c1 .•%, :i11 v_ �, T �- '! ,t._F- 1 • 1`•eg
e? • . ..role. r'... -; - ' ' �., .t !: )1, r•
6 it 1. •
W
+,
0,)
E
,,..
c...) _ ,-,.
ct
,)
.....
..e. z.., - :
.__,
, ,
•
•. — .. ,_
. _. __ . ..
. . . ..
. . _ . .. • . . ,
,,,--, ,
Y
' C
G
i 0
0•j./
4
F
/
.,fir `' o
Y- 114:7, i =
. . \
/ 40r,,, : . . , 411 ).',, —"$,,. st
w .. . / ct
%-" IP OP: '.-,- , 4, \` = LL (..�4 Q
o
. .t... .40, +06, a, r.', co
R,,, -
a
=
l_ .. / 1 ' ^CLS z•
?rill*,
U _.I M•• I
.........\lib
al* �i �° .
U = U
0
°' °ova
U
•
•t .i• •• '•
. ,
. Z,■ , R.. t ./......
, --,.. .. ,...
, , ,'itt_••' .•,.**,,•,•., .., ,
('' . i. it
..4.--)
11 16111111/Am cl
, .. us
"MN:
I) •
. .
s. •' , .
.:'0.1,.. co):
,.. ,
iCC:
_
V-- • • ::- 1,ridia
ct ,.. .,.
. ... ,.,.. :,
......„
._„,...
1 ._ . _. .
..;_...)
.47
,_ _....,
...._ , .. a
. . ,,,,. , . , . ... . :_ .
.„ .
...,, ,
,, ,. .• . ..... ..
_
.r!,-'L c•
. ....,--
•
' ' •.,,, ,,,. ::,t,, .-.-"...77".',',.::\•• .,:•....iii - ''
-• •
\ ,
,,
441111 . i -T*,r.
00.10F • ..-...„.,,
.111 A11. •
,....0. 0004C.',;;P:1411*,Z4,4: ;1.■'- 1•• ',' .-: '•••!: IT
_ ...-,..-.. . ... ._.,:‘, ....,,! .,.,,,41.7..i,.., ,,x.i.• .
. .. ,..1r.'‘.;\ .:'..,•1,,I;ir.,...^. nr ...go,'4.4.:-,t,. ,,,„1.-j .
44.
..,:,.....-_,4.....,„ ., ,..,.., ,,4-••' - -;•,■,,i...r:
. ._
-•-ow
•
. ,
)
. ..,
- ....., ••'4"'_.Sui . •.- • ' fri,
•,-•
. •
. ....,, ., • ' .'"11111111* -4--)
.4 ...
it...300.1..".
-• ' t' _ . •.... . ,..1, ,..•,,-, .'1.. '.' i V •.'$ . V%$ , ' °Ct •$, r • $•$. ‘•
e'.; 4:l, ' '4•. $ * ;. '..'''''.4:''..' :'' .•' ••••1":.•••••'-'. il■ %oil. '-'' ''',#'.r ; ' • '' • 1• '' . .
0 i ,.• ..41, r 1 ,•, _ -,. ,.. i tytr, r-..4‘..,•--s,,.,,.-,...:'.,. ,• .,4'.,• ' `.4 f -• ;" - .
- - ,... • - •,t .1., ;..',.:...:t•41 ',...'-.-••,.. '''•••• '1'-- '' • ''''' '
,e
. ..
-,, •• • • . . ..-••., -.•. .• •1.4%.,'0, , ,...„.t , ,, ,•-•••-,„
,.
, ••..
• , 1.1 ••
''-. yl- ,-.:","-f: • .• • ,.,, • .- - •. . " - • ' ' ."•.. 0'. ... `•,y. -
'15446" '4i..4 . , , ,.. '•. ' N.,
-4--).,,,,•-0:"-'•-••-:••'• -• - • ' ----
,, -. ,.,...-.,• ,,fr, ',. ,. ,•,-,>,.•; A ''.11. '''.••, ' )ti.34 • • . - ,t;ii•. ..• . ...,.
cn
i'4, ,
-2. . ...
•- k ' 1..7t, • '
.
... '2-.7: ' ' ''-ir 7 •"...;:1'. ' .• ' '...' . , ..___
1" •
., .-.
' .' ..):,‘'. i i
•• -..-1, itit', •••• ,..- 1
,.. i -.,....., . -
- • , . .., . \ '.%.'-,. • :, `, , •1 ..
I •
.- '. " itAll 4 ,,,-,.. ..•.; -
.1. ‘ . • ' is
\ / • \ I •••i■•••'
'.., • i , .
. ' • l. • • '- '
I 1 ) / N.
,.,
, ..... , • ,.. '-qe .,..,., . . , .
(1),.
. .
..,...... ...p. /- , , • i ..,.
,. . „„... . -i, , 4-) .r i• - ,... .
,.,,I• ;? ,,' -.• '
L4. , -;• -•7 .4.--,:, . -1.,,n,. 4 •• ;'
It • ,, i 1'7, CA • ,• . .
-*
•. . . 17- Ns ,' \
. ,. . 4f ' , ' 1■4
•,• '., , ,
''4' • . :41-bi.S.A.- -:41, ..-9. .' .1.'fte...1: ---'",•, . . - .s-tfe .7 / 1■•••■■1
.;.., •ljtcf?'•3't,nilL;Abld . A
i
,',.'',A:1\,e.,. 1 .'7.7,A.. Ill'; ' ',4•■•A - .4;V:,'?"4" "1.--, ": ''.. ' : 4 1 .1. '" .,,. " ,•••■ , \ .
!,..
... -0-^7 ,•. -!. " .7Y • 'lg. .t-fr,7, - 4* ---• •-- r• 'AI •-°,4:,, ..„„ „,..k.,.,••' .
'''',..;4"i.. - I r.`
- • • ' ' ^ . . .
- ...ie.: -,...,III. . .410 r -0,,, -'"! ifik li-,-,--..,•,,t. -44r41-1. • ;•• . ...-1
.,...• ;.,A,:,;: .„; ,,,,i;. „... . st'A ..,." .. . i,+, '• , y''
' ...;,- 4-e., .., f,•,,, _: - .
.'t - .:*, • - ... . "' ,....-'' ' -.;11-4,-•I'.1...r_ 0.-••4- 11... -41 _-. .'4.3- 41; j'',- 1.* . 'i' ,,,,...':li . .'s, 4.:-'-'-.
;• - -'.%t." --,ir .4 •• 'x.- ---4. ,i-gi,lt... ;# ,,,, .‘re...s1 , I ,: t : - ,r, let -
-- , .L ';*..* • . r ,,,,--44 : t, ., ; cn ,
-,..t.:,' -A• '` •‘"-' • ,., ' ,,,''':,,1 3:4`..-",,. ..,, • . 4;4 •.V4 • .;4;''....•- -..:All'. ..' - '„:' -'. 0
• -''.,),wt..• '' .'.. '• • =or. ,4 j4.•4•-• ■ '`,.. "o AS '. •14., '..- ......„Pt 'itF../,■14. 41: ... ' ' '•''' .
‘ • . .4.'"-•r 1.'-•-■fr''."', '•'..2'' 'P,eu•••••!‘••"1 . ■ •-•*1'.''....%•••frl.alef o., :• , ..,
. 47 r:14
•' ,O 4 1-4•.. •• - • - '-;;••1 let)7. • --' • ' l
-0•,..1..,
•• . , ) p-i'ct
-1 .44. • 4 -,, -;-r .‘• -..44
f..;. . : 1, ..:Art-r-li, ..4.,...- , ., . .:, )...„,, ....,...1......r,.... . . , . 1
-. •• 1..0.".., "-•• • , ow. • . .:... . , •,,,,:‘,1,t-.1i-,-. ',.. 4 I -k•• .. - ., Ilit ...•;
4,
%
' . "4' '''.','"lat ' , •=''' ... .. ..1...:1, •• ; : • ..0, •
.. = //. i•lkitee,,,.:,,•, i 4'=?1,4 ..',.:'. 1 .,,'"4}.4"*AV- 4;1■161%,14-4' ' . '.,- --'1' '7 . 7c . '.:,
. ., p
111 -4- 1:: ' ':'' .1: ' „. • 'N- -aCCI
- ,,i4a• .-1'. •14::1,.'''',314115:' , ,.,..'3'.,.4 ....V,'-'••''''* r.)....:.e_<;,.- ,,i -
it
....
. ,,, ,
- ,. . .i 1 ,..- ..- '4'-f*."- •"''';'. -I•ke.,..":.5'"'-'''''•';''I.• .. II r r'r• .-.-... , •I, . \i/
- * - .' 46:•••••.,Of,,,.:.•'I t-A ..il .. ..,
- •;4- 4 L '•;"'1 •:- ' ' ''' • " ' ' . -11.111 .
1 •'
-.,- .. 0..••• *. „IN •. J "
-.. , „..
JI: " '1'' . .-.-,..- • ' .-,:i., '
.... - .4%. -4,-•?1. (...--.4,1. :,* = .;i ? .; ••••• . .4 -.•„..4.,..;• . '1... i •, ' /,.1 0
:,,,,c, ,.. Qtif-,.- ; • .. .'f.,:..,,. ..: .,-, • .. : ,?' ... .---ey , ,.., . ... .. lb , , "... • v•7.t,,, • ...
• ,
•", • 4e,.... • ,
, . ■• '', • p•••• ,■ ' . • , . ,
X ''). CA
. ,,., TP% - .' \ 1 1
e.. /..1",, ,4.,*?;. . .. . .,.tilf. ,.., ..:. ....,,- _ ,,,....j... ..4.17:12, .Aii,,,." ',.,".. i foz,.,, 4 4.. .. 4 ,.. , $
/ .$ ,..4 Or;
) ° •
,
.!...,.,‘4...
. 4 ::., i •
' I. ' ' . .`':.$ , '' .f •, '.0.,..j. . *. 201,.`,;`, .!.. ',t - --'•
;
I . •'‘, e-
, . ,,,,,r., 1.',,,..) •7...,,,,/, . .,..,, ,• .,,„„, ,,,,,........„,,,r 11r, 1
.,. ,.,
%
. •.... ,- 1`,.1.,,-,. ' .,. /1\
- • 1*. 'irl.-:' .;"-.1■ d'-• ili t-r.-- 4 . ' . -iX,- • A
1•"-..' •' 'ot. •
Illit. .?- ''''':-; - s • -•• ''- '.•- .' ;• I.\ ••••-.- . ,--e.--- :-.,.. 1 ...,-..isi„.. ,,- .. . .. ,, . ,... .
. . ,. _ . •
,..,.. .
-.',..litr- . '-''-' ' - At''‘'-.• ' Pr±, '••-7.•4 ' .''. illirt•tki t • •t .•••41 •.\,;,A, .4,...• .1 ••• ••'-'-••'...' I•' • •' ."t‘' I" " . ,- •.•
;•• '\') '‘ ):- ' ' ''
''.., 171°''''',/ • - ' '• • --
-,',4 '.'.. V i ,. /.,.. ) •, . • . •IQ- .. ...--rm.(.''''" ,I ".'" . • -..? ' .h4-•,, .'.4.:-,-it ,. ..-{ N.::,---t1/4-. I is '1 -
i4:•:qv., ,. :. ••.ite„,Ti....,..4c,. •...- .4-..., •• , r- P", , „ ....,,,
.1 ;....s. ' .4,.$.-... ,t. - '
..•. •''•' •.r ' . r .. ,...
. , • • Ak ,, _ ,.. . A .• NV; -1'.-•‘14Wr • ' ".
\ri,, -.row , .., L
,k ' -.. ' .'. / •
•..• ;,....„A-. ..; . '1...,414,,, . -. ', - '..,,...- .,- . . . 1.•,,,'• y e.... i ..... •- -,.:.;tc, - '': ' " '■ , ,".
._ ,'• ,„Villi$.,:t..,,, ' , " .4.. 7.• -.., .• t,...,•-••,••• ; ..,:'
4 .. .t... ...,.. !-•.5- . • .j.• 0,-..... . -.":''r-•;••:',.1" .- "''" A- '-A:'• _.,
)\
\(
, . • - ..;,. ,4C*;:i'rit':",•-qk: 7.'•"4.4,f., .'.. '-'•'•`e:,e'319'"A. '''' --,'''' . ' 1 A l.
..tI• , ' 1, :. AtAkrotlin ...*•° .1!1:144`.:'..•,.'• .'' .1. • . .., . ■.
.1. ,,\,
... . . .•..., . .4. ... .. ,.. .....7-x• . . .. - .. . .. )r '
'•t•:... .r.7. '-e - .• et„,..;,....,01,-., 41, ...-, ---;.;:,11:,.• -/... ..? ,...,. ,,,,
,e; . ..• ., .) ,• ,..1..s, ----- .
. ., -
- -.. .•,
-4., ' ii 1, ' , ' • '.),‘ y \ )1 -
... ...„. - .. . .
...,., . _ „,,,, ,,..4 ., . . .. ._ . •
. .„. f , . y• , ,•
gt- --zi;,.z' V . . .,.. . .
,, t 4- . ,.-.-.....',.,* ..,,.,• , .-- '401,34,,, ...44,41....• -..,, ..,t- ...• a, „. , \
.'• 1.4' V \ ' X ( \ I
r.:1 - , 40•Attrib• t ' .-s- - ' ' ti, •,,ft'7'■• . i- o • ' '
' . • ,a,N, • .. i• • •''' •, 7.• n: *,111, , • -
..10 -• $ y.
• „
tl. - .." ......4!... - .".f: '•:,•' •ilise,,,-,Ai,01.; .rt. ..).5.-#...-'._••,`• / . t.
,
•. .....4,',.. ,,,,,,1,,.. . .0:I, 1,.."" „ow. ! - f-'.
, "Mft...-Ao.•.).... e.."' N.L. .' ' - ,,..
1 )' f
. ° •''.. ..s.. . 1 .v,j,, , ....„,
' 11114Pk,•.-4, "' '. ' 41'.....514:'''■1 ''4.11i.All' -#010,4„:- •i' ''' Allk- -
41,, • - . ' 'A• ••---71r- • ' .,-..-6,,. . . t-,... ,\ V , \ V \
.• if' :'.;,',..' • ' / ' i
, .*4...,_ door • -• • , -ii. . : • .". -.• i v / V I \, ' \
. •• - 14:f
•••• °• ...... - ..7k•.8C :',..%.: ,' • ' . ;- t•. . • ' . "' .4 ' ki,, ,..'• :'\ , A
- '''-';"i•'- ,.....: ..t.' " / ::4-i.,,,,,,,...
...• .f• '-*r. ' ,• .t. -.''''-'‘,''''iteit"-,,,;i.:...=';'...,Ve..,':..1 .v.-7.:: ' .. 7''''.1P'. . .. r ' N „ . • - `,•4* .7"-:'1164,4*''''''',.1 \ Y ) Y
r,.4.ap.w.„
,.,,, . •. • , ,.
• ....,.:-,. .4 .
stk.-... . . 1. ..,,‘.., . , .-<,•,.. . X. /, i v /■
- , ..,.i?,,,,4., ,., -.• -... .,L,-,:-. •,,4,,,,-, . • ...). •
A. ,. .
.I. 4; . • : ,„,.... , .:),,,S.4„. „.1' ri r•r,V ,1. ' .''•,.;,'> .41.•1;•.7.t...'. 1.•'.,.•, .4- • "••.41 ..t.,...ir A. X
‘..1 1. re •%4,, , t .
, „. 4 ,,• \1%,1*".,.:(14N '', ■.' ..,4 .,..1 ' - .
,• _ .. . ..,,„. ,
, .
-- - - •• '
I., •4 • . , . .. . it, e.... ' • - ...A . ' i.3..;' 'A':,.s,', ,...,' ;, , • •-. . ....-
.4,,, .,. . • . ., „i. . •,-...",,,,,,,7" • , v;'s ' ,.'. --. % . ,
.
1 t ' ' • ' ' • r ... •t,:1■4' 4 • '4,...,1 ti . ':°14 ' e•,i3.*-• -..• .
' A
0 '
4. ,.. 55 , -1. 41.'• ... , •.,.,1„t.',- . -...:p•.,,, .......• 4. .* L ,
p -, 0, • -. ''',AI-i'.' .. 4 - N '14. ' •
' ' '!'(,,•' . L * - , ,1111.1,
• r ' .' \-4-' '• 4 .‘ `' .4t, Otr.."d".,-'..* `‘ --* )sr °, . . 1 :.
. RA.,,,• . 4-,
. '. 4 ° j • '' '•,.„ , • •I' • - ,■-. ./.‘'.+&'•:.,.. 1. • "
' . .. , -1 •,.1 . , . ;.; s.• .• • • .,0......,. •'•'L-10. -' 4. • :.‘ "
p ` Ati• • • NP ' 'i.••.• . ' 4 ..1','• .1.., C",I. .• •'4 • ' ...•
.
,,,,, ,, 4 ,,,) nt. :;A. , •
,
1°4 • • ' .iitVoi- ; , ,;17 41;'r -4.•, . .•*1 ' t A .. ,.
t,
;. ,. . .
,. .
v R. I.„-..• .4, . .;i P ;.•:.._ -' .?.. . .
' ,..-... ,
• -,1-'AP r ,; • `,.,,, .4 i.: l'i '•.7:. , , •'-' ' •'- -..,_., .. ..
- .
to- fr• r $ , : . ..••• ?if-- . , 4.4 . ..• .. :, 1
... , . • _