The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-1006 Study Session PACKET CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, October 6, 1998, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Novi �Bo�►; caws �ei� 11 e , , s, 4owrr (,ate veoQ, i) 1. 'r- Discussion of Fire Station Planning Effort. 5> d�-I w u csd o•k_ I'A&fats.ac mss✓ a (��a/;h v� sLL� a�a�S VOr e15e (ti, y o� s at �xn 5 �zre s-�AOK-S anr2 UAUC nL. s re A-e—Sc . Agenda\1998\Study Sessions\1998\SSOct6 � . FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT HISTORY Date Project Phase 1983-1985 DISCUSSIONS BEGAN REGARDING THE NUMBER, LOCATION OF FIRE STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE NEED FOR NEW FACILITIES. FEASIBILITY DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR GARFIELD & EAST MAIN SITE MARCH 1993 CONVENED CITIZEN COMMITTEE AND SELECTED URBAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES AS CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE A FIRE STATION LOCATION STUDY JULY 1993 FIRE STATION LOCATION & RESPONSE STANDARDS STUDY RELEASED Findings: Retain existing fire station sites. Time Stds: 3 mins to 97%population 4 mins to 3% population APRIL 1995 GARFIELD SITE DETERMINED INADEQUATE AND RELEASED TO PARKS SEPTEMBER 1995 FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMPLETED BY TED MALARZ, ARCHITECT JULY 1996 INVESTIGATED ELK'S LODGE PROPERTY AS FUTURE SITE OCTOBER 1996 INVESTIGATED THE SAFEWAY& POST OFFICE SITES JANUARY 1998 CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHES FIRE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT AS A COUNCIL GOAL FOR THE 1998-99 FY. JULY 1998 UPDATE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY BY TED MALARZ, ARCHITECT SEPTEMBER 1998 REVIEW OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY BY PECK, SMILEY, ETTLIN ARCHITECTS FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT HISTORY Date Proiect Phase 1983-1985 DISCUSSIONS BEGAN REGARDING THE NUMBER, LOCATION OF FIRE STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE NEED FOR NEW FACILITIES. FEASIBILITY DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR GARFIELD & EAST MAIN SITE MARCH 1993 CONVENED CITIZEN COMMITTEE AND SELECTED URBAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES AS CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE A FIRE STATION LOCATION STUDY JULY 1993 FIRE STATION LOCATION& RESPONSE STANDARDS STUDY RELEASED Findings: Retain existing fire station sites. Time Stds: 3 mins to 97% population 4 mins to 3% population APRIL 1995 GARFIELD SITE DETERMINED INADEQUATE AND RELEASED TO PARKS SEPTEMBER 1995 FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMPLETED BY TED MALARZ, ARCHITECT JULY 1996 INVESTIGATED ELK'S LODGE PROPERTY AS FUTURE SITE OCTOBER 1996 INVESTIGATED THE SAFEWAY & POST OFFICE SITES JANUARY 1998 CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHES FIRE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT AS A COUNCIL GOAL FOR THE 1998-99 FY. JULY 1998 UPDATE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY BY TED MALARZ, ARCHITECT SEPTEMBER 1998 REVIEW OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS STUDY BY PECK, SMILEY, ETTLIN ARCHITECTS CITY OF ASHLAND f A o.{�Gsy `o Administration REGO t� MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 1998 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Scoles,Assistant City Administrato RE: Implementation Measures for Ad Hoc LI /0m ittee Recommendations Note: This is for the Council Study Session on October 7, 1998 At the Council meeting on September 1, 1998, the Council moved to direct Staff to prepare a policy document to implement the LID Committee's recommendation. The Council further moved to have Staff bring back information identifying a funding source for the full amount of the City's participation in LIDS over the next 20 year period. Subsequent to the action taken by the Council, a Study Session was scheduled for October 7, 1998, to allow for additional discussion of the LID Committee report. Attached is a document which outlines the Committee's recommendations and required Council actions to implement them. This document should be used to focus the discussion at the study session. The anticipated action at the study session is to develop consensus as to the appropriate approach to take regarding the implementation of the LID Committee's recommendations. Staff will be available to review the recommendations at the study session and will develop the required resolutions and ordinances for consideration at a later meeting. Potential Implementation Measures for Ad Hoc LID Committee Recommendations (Council Study Session 10-7-98) Committee Background Information/ Required Council Recommendation Implementation Measures Action That the City participate in Develop process where City participates i Approve"LID Resolution" the costs associated with at set percentages for specific street [ outlining City participation local street improvements. : improvement components -60%of in the percentages sidewalk construction, 75%of storm drain recommended. improvements, 20%of street surface improvements, and 50%of Engineering and Administration costs. Average City participation in overall street improvement [ would be approximately 40%. .......................................................9....................................................................................... ......................................................... OA That the assessment The LID Ordinance currently is silent on Approve"LID Resolution" method for local street any preferred method,just stating "The outlining the use of a improvements be based Council shall determine the amount of the "potential unit" method for on a"potential unit" ' estimated assessment to be charged against local street LID's. method rather than each lot within a local improvement district "frontage foot." according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to the lot from the improvement, and shall spread the estimated assessments accordingly." This language should remain to allow the Council flexibility for LID's other than local streets, and a separate resolution should be adopted clearly articulating the Council's policy that a unit approach be used in local street LID's. ...............................................................................................................................................:.................................................. ....... O That the total number of : It should be recognized in the process that Include methodology for "potential units"within a some properties within a local determining "potential local improvement district improvement district will have the : units" in "LID Resolution" be determined based on opportunity for further development, and adopted by Council. underlying zoning. the potential number of future lots should be determined when preparing `• assessments. .......................................................:.......................................................................................:.................................................. ....... The maximum The $4,000 cap would be initially. Adopt"LID Resolution" assessment for individual established as part of the"LID setting$4,000 cap and units should be $4,000, Resolution", and would include provisions defining "development excluding City ': for annual adjustments based on the ENR property". participation'. .No to allow for inflation. "Development maximum or participation property',would also.be clarified. 'Initially, by the City should.be this is property that requires the necessary. allowed for"development street improvement for further partitioning property"or city-owned € or subdivision. This would also include parcels. deferred street improvements that were part of previous subdivision approvals (similar to Waterline Road issue). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......... Committee Background Information/ Required Council Action Recommendation Implementation Measures .......................................................:.......................................................................................1.................................................. ......... Large existing parcels Recognizing that existing large parcels Revise LID Ordinance with potential for further may have high assessments based on (AMC 13.20)to allow for D development would only future development potential, the process deferment on potential lots. be assessed for the would be designed to only require : Interest would accrue on existing unit, and payment of the assessment on the deferred assessments. assessments for potential existing lot, with further assessments lots would be deferred. deferred until the property owner takes action to create the new parcels. This deferred assessment would be recorded as a potential lien on the property. .......................................................;.......................................................................................;.................................................. ....... Require full payment of On deferred assessments for potential ` Revise LID Ordinance LID assessments at the lots, after the new lots are created, the (AMC 13.20)to require full time of sale of the lots. deferred assessment would be due in full I payments at the time of lot at the time of the first sale. If a street sale after new lot creation. r„ improvement had been completed, the : Establish notification I(/ actual cost would used. If the street process with City Recorder design had been completed for to allow tracking of improvements not done, the cost would be ' deferred assessments. the estimated cost plus 10%. Where no preliminary design had been completed, the cost would be the maximum cap of $4,000, adjust annually for inflation. .......................................................:....................................................................................... .................................................. ....... Revise "pre-signed" Allow for option of pay-off of agreements, Revise LID Ordinance agreement process, i maintaining property"in favor"status for (AMC 13.20)to change allowing for option for LID formation. Allow remonstrances even agreements to"deferred 0 early pay-off, and if paid off. Maintain option of using transportation requiring full pay-off when agreements rather than full improvements i improvement agreements", agreement required for i for smaller developments (partitions, require payment at time of new development. accessory units). Require the full first sale after signing of payment of the assessment($4,000 or agreement. Also allow for engineer's estimate + 10%) at the time of i remonstrances after pay- [ first property sale after the agreement was i off. signed. .......................................................:.......................................................................................;.................................................. ....... Maintain neighborhood The affected properties within a potential Adopt"LID Resolution" involvement in local street improvement district should be involved °. explicitly stating that a _ improvement process. : with all phases of the LID process, neighborhood planning including initial street design, cost process will be used with allocations, and ultimate-construction. It the formation of local should also be recognized that minimum improvement districts. street standards will be maintained (full paving, sidewalks, st drain but that modifications whe p e ill be accommodated.. ....... ............................ .................................... .......................................... FINANCING : Several different financing sources have Required Action: been identified for implementation of this : Continue researching program. These range from utilizing local funding options. Prepare resources (Street Department) for some [ long-term financial plan to street improvements, to preparing a long- address needs for next 10- range plan for air quality improvements 20 years. Program can be that would increase eligibility for CMAQ jump started by infusion of funding. Portions of the Sidewalk LID existing funding for the first i funding would be eligible for use, as well year or two. as a smaller percentage of Transportation € € SDC money, if the Council so chooses. [ Short term dollars can be made available from existing funds to begin the process while the Council continues researching other funding options. Ad Hoc LID Committee Recommendations: City Participation in Future LIDS (City Council Study Session 10-7-98) +.G t'roposed to MN -%fiVTWl.. Street ............. .............. U5 00 IWO O .100 .5i 10 1 k 0-1 60% 15% 9% 75% 20% 15% g�gg? 55% 11% .$v 20% Aid 50% 100/0 5% W4 .......... 40% ............. ........ 20% Street Surface H. 60% 60% Sidewalks Drains Sidewalks r500/6 Engineering and Administration] Ci(� Q O\- l . C3�� 2. �Onsydera[ion of L.L.D. Committe�Report. City Administ rator M e Freeman explametl point, staff is looking for Council to accept or make changes to the Committee's recommendations to lead to an eventual ordinance change. Councilor Wheeldon noted Steve Morjig's comments on funds, and discussed the nuances of finances, limits, and interfund borrowing. Emphasized the need for neighborhood participation, coordinated with the efforts of Public Works and Community Development to ensure that streets are of a quality to satisfy both the citizens and the City. Noted that this will require improvements in the overall process. Councilor Laws explained that aspects of the process involving neighborhood participation could not be addressed at the committee level, and it was the assumption of the committee that staff would develop administrative procedures to improve the process based on the Council's direction. Councilor Hagen questioned whether improvements involving just sidewalk improvements would be covered at 60% by the City. Council agreed that this would be the case, subject to the availability of funds. Also noted that the Committee's developing a proposal and expecting that the Council would adopt it as submitted, without any changes, is distressing. Mayor Shaw explained that in the committee process, the committee makes a recommendation to the Council and to the community at large. This recommendation is looked at, and considered along with community input to yield a decision by the Council. Emphasized that final decisions are not made by committees, and that decisions are not reached prior to public hearings. Councilor Hagen suggested that the rest of the community has not had adequate time to understand the implications of these recommendations, and emphasized that they will affect the levels of service received from the City. Councilor Laws, as chairman of the committee, stated that the committee did not say it expected no changes to its recommendations, but rather individual committee members made this request to the Council through the public hearing. Emphasized that this situation was due to the disparity in opinions present within the committee. Explained that despite strong feelings for their individual positions, members were able to compromise in order to make possible reforms in the LID process. Reiterated,that a lot of hard work was involved in reaching a consensus, and that all members gave ground from their original positions in order that the committee could reach a consensus that all could sign off on. Noted that this issue has been around for years, and that there will never be an all-inclusive solution. However, the wide range of views present on the committee were able to reach a consensus, and it is now up to the Council to reach a decision. Emphasized that if a Councilor disagrees with the report, he or she should vote accordingly. Stated that the time has come to deal with this issue, and that it will require addressing'financial components as well. Concluded that the LID situation can be worked out through this process. Councilor DeBoer recognized that the current LID situation does not work, and urged verbatim passage of the committee's report as a working document. Stated that there will be changes.down the road. Emphasized that he is committed to alternative transportation. .Urged passage of the recommendations and use of available funds. Future improvements will be guided by funding.. Mayor Shaw stated that the LID issue is acrimonious and most divisive. Emphasized that the common perception of the process is that citizens pay to support development. Expressed her hope that the recommendations will solve some of these issues. Recognized that the potential for diversion of funds away from other options is a concern and will need to be looked at. Also recognized that staff spends a huge amount of time dealing with issues of the current LID process, A decision tonight could free up staff and council to deal with other issues. Suggested that any document adopted should not be considered to be a working document, as any "wiggle room" will come back before the Council. Emphasized that a consistent policy is needed, and-that changes should be made to the current policy and then kept to put the issue to bed once and for all. City Council Meeting 09-01-98 8 Councilor Hauck noted that being able to prepay an assessment and retaining the right to remonstrate is a problem. Stated that someone who had already paid their portion of an improvement project should not be able to stop the project at a later date. Stated that they would still have the opportunity to speak out during the public process. Also suggested that financial planning should be addressed, and that there will be trade-off's in the details and priorities. Will need to decide where money is to come from and what will be put off to allow these projects to continue. If this is not to be the case, other options will need to be identified. Councilor Hagen noted that bikepath improvements have taken decades, and funds came from ISTEA and CMAQ. The City did not pay for these projects, though some funds came from sidewalks. Emphasized that the Central Ashland Bikepath (CAB) will be a critical improvement for the City, and that the fewer people driving the better. Recognized that the City's fare reduction program with RVTD is good, but improvements could be made in the City's transit system. Councilor Wheeldon noted that she was a committee member and had dissented. Stated that her concerns were with the cap. Emphasized that there could be a $1.7 million increase in the City share due to the caps. Feels that this should be funded through a bond issue for the amount and time frame necessary. Suggested that the council take the time to look at this issue, keeping in mind that sidewalks and arterial streets need funding as well. Feels that the transportation utility fee is suited to use on alternative transportation programs or safety projects, but a big ticket plan of this nature is more on the level of a system plan. Expressed her hope that the committee's report can be seen as an agenda from which to move forward. Mayor Shaw stated that she hopes this will not increase the transportation utility fee. Explained that any increase in this fee should go towards an RVTD voucher system for citizens. Councilor DeBoer noted that the cap is presented in a misleading manner in the staff report. Explained that the committee had dealt with the cap issue, but the report from staff is misleading. Also noted that while he is happy with the report, he views all documents as "working documents". Emphasized that if handled properly, those who pre-pay will not remonstrate. Stated that paving costs the citizens, and the City should bear its share. Agreed with Councilor Hagen on the importance of alternative transportation, and urged passage of this report to improve the handling of the next LID project, as well as the six that are currently underway. Discussion of the proposed$4,000 cap, inflation, and the cost of funding a big ticket plan of this nature. Councilor Laws suggested looking at transportation issues as a whole. Emphasized that all issues being discussed - including alternative transportation and environmental concerns - are all addressed by paving. Will need to fund projects year to year, as funding is available in the budget. Stated that dealing with the LID issue will alleviate much distress. Suggests approving the policy, with any changes, and working out the financial side. Councilor Wheeldon suggested that the report is a series of recommendations, and not a policy. Feels that a policy needs to be built around it, to lock the City in and to clean up some of the details. Stated that recommendations can be accepted, then a policy formatted and funding found. Discussion of funding used on Central Ashland Bikepath (CAB) and whether these funds were merely.".pass- through" dollars from ISTEA and CMAQ. Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to extend the meeting to I0:30. Voice vote: All AYES Motion passed. MOTION: Councilors Wheeldon/Hauck m/s to accept the L.I:D. Committee Report, to form an L.I.D. policy using the L.I.D. Committee Report,,and to ask staff to bring back information.identifying a funding source for the full amount of the City's participation in local improvement projects over a twenty year period . DISCUSSION: Councilor Hagen questioned whether the City's 40% participation in improvements under the plan is more than the City can afford. Discussed taking inflation into account in the plan:. Councilor 9 City Council Meeting 09-01-98 . Laws noted concerns with the funding mechanism, as needs will change. Discussion of amending the motion to adopt the procedure in the report and seek further funding information from staff over time. Suggested that this is a system plan and emphasized the need to find funding. City Administrator Mike Freeman asked to clarify the motion. Noted his concerns over the possibility of funding a plan twenty years out. Explained that uncertainties, such as those brought about by the passage of Ballot Measure 5, make this very difficult. Stated that some LIDS may not be built and that the need for funding will be dependent on the timing of individual projects. These will need to be funded as they arise. Feels that the motion is too specific, and such specificity for a twenty year plan would require significant assumptions that are difficult to make in light of the uncertainties involved. Mayor Shaw stressed the need to identify where funding will be found, and urged that implementation of the recommendations not detract from other Council goals. Councilor Laws stated that the City would need to plan on the $200,000 per year cost identified in the staff report, over a period of time. Councilor Hagen suggested discussing a fair percentage for City participation. Councilor DeBoer stated that staff is involved as part of the committee proposal, and that funding could be found through the budget process. Suggested amending the motion. MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor DeBoer moved to amend the motion, removing the requirement that staff bring back information identifying a funding source. Motion died for lack of a second. DISCUSSION: Discussed what form a financing plan would be brought forth in, and noted the need to rind $4 million over twenty years. Councilor Hauck clarified that Councilor Wheeldon wanted an ordinance implementing the committee recommendations. Councilor Laws identified issues that had come forth so fare as 1)Where will funding be found? 2)What parts of the committee's recommendations will be adopted? Suggested that Councilors go back through the committee report individually, and bring back their comments and suggestions to a later meeting. Discussed what was needed to reach an agreement. Councilor Wheeldon explained that she would like the Council to work on developing a City policy based on the committee recommendations. City Administrator Mike Freeman suggested reopening discussion at a study` looking at financing options and drafting an ordinance at a later date. Council stated that this was agreeable, and opted to vote on the motion before them. ROLL CALL VOTE (ORIGINAL MOTION): Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, and Laws, YES. DeBoer, NO. Motion passed 4-1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section One of Ordinance 2582 to Extend the Franchise Term for Ashland Sanitary Service to the Year 2018." Councilors Hagen/DeBoer m/s to adopt Ordinance#2829. Roll call vote: Hagen, Wheeldon, DeBoer, Laws, and Hauck, YES. Motion passed. 2. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 9.20.030.A of the Ashland Municipal Code to Permit Meat to be Packaged in Styrofoam." Councilors Hagen/Hauck m/s to adopt Ordinance #2828. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, DeBoer, Laws, Hauck, and Hagen, YES. Motion passed. City Council Meeting 09-01-98 to 12A, - 0 9 g g g g - � `� � a p s � os os ss s s sit 8 .9 s � z z z z z o ° o 0 o soa o0 0 0 V y 000 N ai O N 00 N ad N Y1 h b O v1 0 00 P S O •0I1 N 6 OMO 6 Om0 Om0 N N N S •'O/1 .M.• r N r •0� V r h vQl aD b V01 b N r N ^ •� M I� � M � O N N 16 M N ••rr�� Q N •� N P r m N M h M b P •D b v vl a h m r h P N M O m P - m - O •A m 0 u 0 m T bTT VYy�1� O N�pp p N m r va m P •yy2 �R�pp Q m m t� V; P m Q 00 •pp-• gy�pp �•�p2p �O�pp P N .+ of Q P 1� m M m b P E N `0rA N N N 1A � M N N N H N H V1 1A N N N N N N H H y N w N N N N N H K H N H y N "I N H - O Y " r O L • d h yy N N m M O O V1 = N Vl M M m N M Vl Vl P ^ Vl M M m P M m N Q m O VI b O m O M O M N pp b 0 0 I� M p F O m m 1yyy� M M M Q Ili c P Q b yy �y Np m N P - ppm vl Q c V N IbA w N N N NIA H y H (9 H K H H Vf H N IM9 H H H N K N M H H H y Vl y W H H H H M H N y Q 12 -uQ ryry S N . .m M b Vf�.I^ � b S S�N wmi N r ro�N ib •N•1 1wM1�Pnin PAM fy� d mm0p§tMtppin Opp M n M1'M N <xQ�S�OI£ro� bN�Pgm.. rm �::-'w hr Q mryry yN�ry� !` N tV 'M v1 P O h:; N m 00.0 O n N OEM IOaID OIyO •rM� bra O';.bNry M N (V yyM NO M O pq� V• M .�' • N.y M M y N M N M w N M yIH�N H M H,H H� � H HEN HaH H NAyaH ��H Vl£H�N�N'N 1t�'�O ya p N O P N a0 a0 N � M N P N N r ry�N N m r N b Vl r d m N m ��pp M ap m t� b Vl m ��pp�m .M.r a0 O D y Q O Vl m m m b hp P m m w N M d N P M r m Vl C O N v m vl M b d N N aw N H H N N H N H N H H H H N H N H N N ed'1 H - H N H H 0^ - 'm W O Q m N R N N b m Q N P m M b W b Q P Q O Q M m d r O 1� a° m m b O A b.pp f` P Vl - A�bpp Ab�pp A b�pp f` M aD P Vl M ,b,pp Q yy yy S y H N N N N H H H H H N H N H w N H N N U u Q P b O m O P P O r P < r h N N d V < N n O h r N 0 O < N P O O a V P •Qn P T M O R N Q N _ _• b •C N N M a° N N N N Q y p p p '� r H v01 H V01 N v01 O S vl h vOf h_ h N N H N_ N V01 P 1� V01 H r N •O/1 � S �/) N N O N H O N O H O N H y0 r 1A m M e N} NQ M r yj M Yl yr N 11 M M b r M 1z b Ih Ny W t� N Q nQ R �O yN N N V `0 H y N w N N N w w y H H N H H H N H w N H H H H H N MN H rN N N H N N V w h O S a0 S h S S S O cp O 8 vOi •0n el 0 0 N h S O vOi vOi S P S S h h S vOi S O S S S O O, S N •".. mq P a° M N N O Q N N P P N P •h h NVOI P °• Oa b P P m h Q V1 t� N m P N M b b O ri - - m N a hy e�i O oo b hy •A vyyl O N eMe� by d P O y�pl .. 1' r_ 00 Q O �r h O by O n MMp Bo H H N fA N r H N N - w H iVA1 W U r LLJ u a u c y c • r N C N C ry N N h �j 3rJ' V N N r O 000 0 h } o a � rj Y h O O T O vl O O S O � O O �1 vt w R S S S m vl O vl �l vl S M S S vl of O vl O S O O vl S m E-• C LL P � �O N m M Q Q M vl M M Q N �O M M M N r M Q I� �° M Q m t� � d Q �G M Q ^ N Q N ^^ N GU -' ti 'J u c CL3] y H b y " b � y N � y u v g � � g y ° a a •C v ; 'n ggu 'CC v C y In ° 5yy "� c E N u = H Y m a n u o o u 5 S 6 o u '� u u Q e N 6a66mmu W ..a .a .a � � f � ZOn. aaaaao. o: rnwmF333i1. a C7m3a cn E a aaaaaaa asa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa C) 2eo p a b � m 0 - P d P - Vl b 1� 0 - N M Q O O r ry „ n F. - � O N N N M m 0 N M m N N N N M M M M M M M M d d Q Q F _ a A X D - O • 0 3� O m nc� nnnn mmmwmwwwwwww p6.� ti �y N D R I `m N N O — O u O U O P A u 0 0 0 N W J iS tJ � 0 �n A 6 O O 0 0 0 $O a Y N EL P- e m e 36 N '� iC iC iC iC n N J N N W N N W O U OO N N 00 00 00 N J O N P OJ O V �O N rO N N r0 N N .O W N J W b ^ , 00 O O P O W O N O N O 00 P N O O O O N OD P O O O O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M d yy y b N U J N P J P A O U b U A J — N J J N J O OH W N O fJ J 4 w N N r0 rG U a A N 00 N J W A Oi N CO N W A (� O O U N P O a N O O Oo N A 0 0 0 0 — u N H N N H H H H N N N N N Oi O O. A A O W P N O W O W N —IJ U — 00 L A — J J O — W N A OO O OO N W 00 N N N Oa P O O H 00 N 00 N 00 J 00 O O O Oo N A m .`l H N H H N N H W N - O U O A q w Oe y@ pxy� H �N HfVfrN N {/� �N¢Wp N'N,Wyp M `} ,�x'°I J � N W 4OC�pA O N N �1 j��N'�pV ONO O. JPqq pA W bpNp J Y i.5��(j� N 00N LW W u NJ WlAFNJJlyy O'W10. M,P M'O�N ep1 ti+ FidS.T Oo A W O O°00',N 00� Oz.p P OyOe OO�N V.ADi)D'N J � 3ip R4�uh'e$ W DD — N u N OO.. W U A Oo N N Oo J N N U N A N U O. � A b H W iw in —L W 00 bin J la J b C.IJ�p G� p \ W P J O O W tNn W O N T O N W u a � A 07 W r'r w � A V U p J Oo . O . . .. . . N . 0 . . V O 6 Dp W W P N P N � H J W W A 00 V G A iAn = � N °o .p0u u �w 'b' $ �. -wea °N `NOO � s s s ss sss OO w � - 3 i