07/20/2004 - City Council Finance CommitteeAGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY
JULY 20, 2004
5:00 P.M.
EAGAN CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A & 2B
I. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED 2005 FIRE DEPARTMENT
RELIEF ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT
III. REVIEW FLOW RIDER PROPOSAL FOR CASCADE BAY
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
city of eagan
MEMO
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAYOR GEAGAN AND
COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JULY 169 2004
SUBJECT: FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
JULY 20 AT 5:00 P.M.
The purpose of the meeting is to finalize the discussion on the proposed 2005 Fire Department
Relief Association Agreement so the Relief Association Representatives can make a presentation to
the full City Council. This item will be scheduled either as a part of the August 10 or August 24
Special City Council Workshops.
The City Council had an opportunity to review a video presentation on a Flow Rider attraction to be
added to Cascade Bay. Staff has met and discussed several options for enhancing Cascade Bay as
well as a financial overview of the funding considerations for the Flow Rider Project.
For information on the Fire Relief item, refer to pagese through; for a memo addressing
the Flow Rider proposal, refer to pages D through
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
mis
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: City Administrator Hedges
FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
DATE: July 15, 2004
SUBJECT: Fire Relief Association Pension
By way of summary please find attached the following information regarding the
Eagan Fire Relief Association pension agreement:
1. On page ' is a copy of the original notice form the Fire Relief
Association regarding the expiration of the agreement between the City
and the Relief Association.
2. On pages -(R-- and -I-- is copy of a memo previously sent to the City
Council summarizing the background regarding the 1997 change in the
type of plan, the agreement period, and minimal cost details.
3. On page P is a copy of Relief Association's requests for
consideration regarding a new pension agreement.
4. On page A— is a copy of a spreadsheet I have put together that
summarizes costs over the period of the last agreement and projects the
costs of the new request over the proposed three year period.
One of the primary challenges in analyzing the pension increase request is the
impact of the State Premium Tax dollars forwarded to the City to assist in
providing pension funding for volunteer firefighters. There is no question that the
total amount from the State is to be forwarded as a pension payment to the
firefighters. The follow up questions are how much the City should contribute
over and above the State payment and who retains the risk or reward of
increases or decreases in the amount of the State payment. The way Eagan's
agreement has been structured, the City benefits from increases because a total
amount is guaranteed to go the firefighters. For the same reason the City also
assumes all of the risk in reductions or elimination of the State's contribution.
Also, if the State's Premium Tax amount increases, the current arrangement
tends to result in large catch up contribution increase requests from the
firefighters because the direct cost to the City is reduced, assuming the
guaranteed contribution amount doesn't increase as fast as the premium tax.
N
I believe that it would be helpful to receive direction from the Finance Committee
in the following areas. In each of the areas I am highlighting observations that I
believe illustrate the public policy questions:
1. Length of Agreement
Expiring agreement was for 8 years (1997-2004)
4 �`•' Request is for 3 years (2005-2007)
• The longer agreement is beneficial in the fact that the negotiations
are not required as often resulting in stability and predictability.
• A longer agreement tends to lock in and exaggerate the results of
changes in circumstances that may then require or generate
expectations for large adjustments. For example, large changes in
the State premium tax payment.
• This is reflected in the fact that the City's 2004 obligation is
estimated to be approximately $85,000 compared to approximately
$174,000 in 1997. The requested firefighter change from 2004 to
2005 is an 18% increase compared to the 8 years of a 4% annual
increase before and in the 2 years after.
• A longer agreement may tend to distance the firefighters' pension
plan from the elected officials and, due to timing, some City
Councilmembers may not have policy impact on firefighter
pensions in their entire time of elected service.
2. Catch Up Adjustment
cJ� • The requested increase between the expiring agreement (2004) to
the first year of the new agreement (2005) is approximately 18%.
The request appears to be driven by the assumption that the City's
�a total contribution to the pension should not go down. That
assumption begs a larger resource allocation question across not
only the Fire Department budget but across the City's total budget.
3. Annual Rate of Increase
Both the expiring agreement and the proposed agreement use a
4% annual increase to the total amount provided per firefighter per
year. (Except for the 2005 adjustment discussed above.)
While it may be an appropriate number, 4% is higher than any
other employment agreements have been in recent years. A
number of cities tie the annual firefighter pension increase
percentage to other labor agreement settlements. That is also a
reasonable approach but does add additional uncertainty due to
the timing of settlements, etc.
3
4. Administrative Costs
The expiring agreement separates administrative costs from the
pension amount and also provides a 4% annual increase in the
City's payment.
That mechanism provides less incentive for the firefighters to
control the administrative costs as expenditures there have little
Xa impact on the amount of money going into actual pension
accounts. An alternative method, again more common in other
cities, would provide for one lump sum City contribution thereby
allowing the firefighters to benefit or lose from their administrative
cost decisions.
5. ther
This agreement is consistent with previous agreements in that the
pension amounts are being considered independently from any
Fire Department operational issues. No relationship is explored
between recruiting and retaining volunteers through paying
-8 *,pensions versus paying more for on-going part-time services.
Please let me know, if you would like anything else.
Dire t r kof IAdm_Services VanOverbeke
Eagan Fire Department Relief Association
DATE: December 22, 2003
TO: Mayor Geagan,
City Administrator Hedges
Council Members Carlson, Fields, Maguire, Tilley
FROM: Relief Association Pension Committee -
Norm Svien, Gary Erickson, Mark Sportelli, Pat Diloia, Tim Denman
RE: Relief Association Pension Agreement with the City of Eagan
Our current pension agreement will expire on December 31, 2004. With that in mind,
we thought we would start meeting and wanted to let the City Council and staff know.
The Committee held their first meeting on Thursday, December 11, 2003, to discuss
and start determining the direction that we would like to go. At this time, we have five
members on the Committee - one representing each fire station.
Assuming that budgets are due around June, 2004, we thought it was appropriate to
begin this process. This would allow for the Council and staff to be able to set up
meetings together as needed and help us determine a timetable for all of us.
If you have any questions, please contact any one of the Committee members. We are
looking forward to meeting with all of you.
Respectfully submitted
Mark Sportelli /
Committee Chair
jr-
3795 Pilot Knob Road • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • (651) 675-5916
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: City Administrator Hedges
FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
DATE: January 2, 2004
SUBJECT: Fire Relief Association Pension Agreement
At you request I am writing this memo to provide background information
regarding the City's pension agreement with the Eagan Fire Department Relief
Association. The terms of the agreement are contained in the Association's
Bylaws. The most recent copy of the Bylaws that I have on file is dated
December 3, 1997.
During 1997 after extensive review and negotiations the City and the Association
agreed to change from a "defined benefit" to a "defined contribution" plan that for
all practical purposes was effective January 1, 1997. The negotiations were also
somewhat more complicated by the desire for a pension increase along with the
proposed change in plan type. The difference in plan types is as the name
indicates. A "defined benefit" plan means that a retired firefighter receives a
predetermined lump -sum or monthly amount upon meeting retirement eligibility
requirements. The amount to be received as a pension is subject to negotiations
and rather significant State oversight. Annual funding requirements are based
on actuarial studies built on a series of assumptions regarding mortality, rates of
return, and other pertinent factors. Pension increases are typically retroactive to
all years of service for al I- active firefighters;_ consequently. large unfunded
liabilities can be easily created as a result of negotiating pension increases.
Those real or potential unfunded liabilities account for at least some of the
State's interest and resulting restrictions on defined benefit plans. From a
firefighter perspective, there is a trade off between certainty as to the amount of
the retirement benefit versus no upside gain during times of good investment
earnings.
A "defined contribution" plan means that a negotiated amount is paid annually
into individual firefighter accounts and the eventual retirement benefit is
determined through the size of the deposits and the rate of return on the
investments, net of administrative costs not directly funded by the City. There is
considerably less State oversight on defined contribution plans and no unfunded
liabilities are created, since total plan contributions are financed on a current
basis. Because of their similarities to other private pension plans, there is more
federal oversight on the defined contribution pension plans. Again, from a
6
firefighter perspective, a defined contribution plan creates less certainty as to a
pension level, but it allows the firefighters to choose a risk tolerance level in
investments and therefore potentially earn a higher rate of return and pension
than in a defined benefit plan.
For Eagan, financing the pension obligation has traditionally been through a
combination of the State's premium tax collected for that purpose and forwarded
to the Relief through the City and a City tax levy. The City tax levy makes up the
difference between the total funding obligation and the premium tax contribution
from the State. That difference is the amount that is budgeted each year in the
Fire Department operating budget for the Relief Association pension payment.
Since it is only a pass through, the premium tax is not budgeted as either a
revenue or an expense of the City.
The City's first negotiated defined contribution pension agreement for individual
firefighter contributions was set at $3,385 per full year of service for 1997 and
increases by 4% per year over the eight year term of the agreement. The final
year covered in the existing agreement is 2004 and the contribution rate for
2004 is $4,454.44 per firefighter for a full year of service. In addition the City
agreed to pay a flat amount of $18,500 for administrative costs in 1998 and that
amount has also been increased by 4% per year to $23,408.40 for 2004. Due to
a number of transitional factors, the City agreed to pay the total administrative
costs for 1997, the first year covered by the new agreement.
I believe this is the background information that you requested and should be
helpful in bringing everyone up to date. There is certainly a great deal more
information about how this agreement was reached, and about how each of
these plan types actually works and one could also list numerous advantages
and disadvantages of each. In the event you would like more information or
more extensive detail, please let me know.
. W
Directo f Administrative Services VanOverbeke
Cc: Chief Financial Officer Pepper
1 _
/ice _ ■ �
Eagan Fire Department Relief Association
Date: April 15, 2004
To: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
From: Mark Sportelli, Eagan Fire Department Relief Association, Pension Chair
Subject: . 2005 Pension Agreement
As of January 1, 2005 continue the fire fighter pension plan with these requests from our
committee which include:
3 year agreement effective January 1, 2005.
Increase yearly city contribution to $5,254.00 per fire fighter with continual
4% increase per year thereafter and with state 'aid flowing through to offset the
city's liability.
➢ Continue current administration expenses at the same 4% increase per year in
addition to plan contribution.
Your assistance with this matter is extremely important as we continue our partnership
with the City of Eagan. Please call at your earliest convince to schedule a meeting.
X-72
Mark Sportelli
952.210.8344
msportelli@comcast.net
MS/mas
CC: Bob Kirha, Fire Chief of Eagan Fire Department
3795 Pilot Knob Road • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • (651) 675-5916
'' L 00 r r r (O O O 00
O N .4; L? 0? t` '14: ti N N N
= LO I` O O LO 0 LO O
CD N 1- LOM 00 t N O
CZ .�.r O 4% I- M O r M N 1`
S`� O co M M d et d eF d
C6
N
•C L
0) N O d' M
' N L r Lo 0 �t M c0 m N
C Q U a o M CV (t7 M rO r
O ch r 0 0 0 r- r r
•c
u Z
c
c
C E S et c1 N 0? d; r (O M
_ O N M O O M O W M ti
S U L r N N N N N M M
— IJ
d rnONrnrrntt
r- O O O O u7 N
�r RS
M M O O M LO N
M M 00 M 00 O d d
ti � h u) d• d• eo ao
U r r r r r r
69
1`- O O O 00 00 00 O
0) 0 0 (D W ce) O 'I
c3 L N r 0 0 0 O N 00 CO
LL �- N N ti 0 N O 000 N� 't
•� 0)
LL. CV 00 a1 O O r N Ci) -
6E UE M r r N N N N N
Q �
U
ti O O N r M r d'
r O r 00 N LQ L N
N'r�(OaCD00r-d
LO It M N M M LO M
p O M't O N 0 O r
U U O Ln rn r) r- 00 c r
d M LO Cl) N r (D (D
r r r r r r
E�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 r- 4
'E �11-M 00 M M M u') M
a0 M M O r•� No M
~ 0�0 O MC\l
ti 0) O N r M r O
oo N N LQ O
»-
Flu Lrir-�,MOrn0)(ON
CLu)
r -
M
O O N (O I- I- O co
0- O Nt (D 0) M r I it
=s �O Ln O r 6 6 0 4
C cd GD N O O � r o0 u7
Q (M M M M M d d ch
01
9
F-
E
7
E
C: a
0) N
E U
0) �
0) �
L �
ai N
N p
N c>s
C � O
0)
O N
c c6
m CL .0
O N LO
E C
QM
0
a) N
ca
+C O ra)
cz 0) M
>,
C:
p V) 4-
(� L O
C 0) L
a) C 0)
iZ •- .!CD
L C
O
C
O
U (D E
0) N ca
L CO 0
C 0)
O
N C Ca
ON
cu c 0)
N N 0
O 00
U 0 N
N 000 M
LO ti 0)
LO U') LO
LO ti
M LO N
LO M N
r r r
N 00 0)
7 M LQ
co O
0) r M
M lqt d'
O It N
O O N
O N N
CO N O
r -- O
N It (D
r r r
ti LO N
4 00 r
M co co
N N N
00
N 4q N
O O o ti It
Lam.• r- 00 (D
I-- 0o O
L r r r
O r r r
lF-•
4=
p
0) i- 0) �-
E 0) --tco
c rn 06 r -
M M M 'd'
O
0
N
O N M r
rtL 00 (0. m
to U') LO O
E N N
O ti t ` ti
V) 00 O N
Q d' 0 Lo
LIt--OomoO No,t fNMCOI,-
0 0 0 O O O O O O �.�. p 0 0 0
Q m m m m o 0 0 0 0 1-000
i r r r N N N N N 0. N N N
7
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: CHERRYL MESKO, PARKS AND RECREATION
ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR
GENE VANOVERBEKE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: JULY 8, 2004
SUBJECT: FLOWRIDER — CASCADE BAY
BACKGROUND
Prior to entering Cascade Bay's sixth season of operation in 2004 staff began looking at
enhancement opportunities for the water park in an attempt to maintain its high visibility
and popularity in the metro area. The City Council also asked staff to investigate ways to
engage and retain more of the teen population. Several options researched appeared to be
geared more toward the preschool —12 year olds, which is currently the largest age group
served. Finding options for older youth to keep them coming back was certainly a
challenge. Some of the enhancements investigated included:
• New sand play interactive toys (preschool/early elementary)
• Tumble buckets for the Lazy River (all ages)
• Splash pad for the Lazy River island (preschool -12)
• Rock climbing wall (8+)
• F1owRider (8+ but can be used by all ages)
After an extensive review of options available, and given the constraints of the site for
future expansion, some type of compact amenity was considered. The FlowRider or
"wave in a box" concept appeared to meet the space needs as well as respond to the
Council's direction to capture and engage the older youth population.
NEEDIDEMAND
As Cascade Bay has evolved it is apparent that the water park is viewed as a place for
``younger kids". Adding programming specific to an older youth population has resulted
WE
in some increased participation however it has not sparked the level of interest and
sustained attendance desired. As the water park ages, visitors will want to see what
changes or attractions they can look forward to. When season passes are sold each year
prior to the opening of Cascade Bay one of the most frequently asked questions is,
"What's new at the park this year?" To remain competitive and fresh, consideration
needs to be given to both short and long-term plans for enhancements.
DAILY FEE/SEASON PASS
To include an amenity like the FlowRider, consideration should be given to what the
daily admission rates might be. There are several options:
Include the use in the daily admission/season pass fee. Some considerations may
be:
o Increase fee $.50 - $1 for daily admissions over 42" in height.
o Do not increase daily admissions under 42" in height.
o Increase season pass fees $1-2/person over 43" in height.
o Do not increase season pass fees for persons under 42" in height.
Establish a separate daily fee for the FlowRider only.
o Challenges would be keeping track of guests who are only there for the
FlowRider as well as making daily admission guests purchase a second
admission.
Since Cascade Bay opened in 1999 there have been minimal fee increases:
$.25/daily admission in 2002 ($7.50 to $7.75)
$.25/daily admission in 2003 ($7.75 to $8.00)
$2.00/person for season passes in 2003 ($51/43/27 to $53/45/29)
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS ,
Enclosed on pages through is a memo from Director of Administrative
Services VanOverbeke providing a financial overview of the funding considerations for
this project.
TIMELINE
If the Council chooses to have the FlowRider operational for Cascade Bay's 2005 season
it will be the only one of its kind in the state. Interest is growing rapidly and it is expected
that some private hotels will be looking at having this attraction operational as early as
fall of 2005. To accomplish an opening in 2005 the following general timeline is critical:
• July 2004 Site feasibility study
• August Council authorize preparation of plans & specs and bidding
site work
• September 7 City Council awards bid for site work.
• Mid Sept -October Site work
• October 15 City Council authorizes purchase of FlowRider for delivery
March 21, 2005
• March 21 -April 20 Installation
April 20 — May 27 Landscaping and "dressing up"
May, 2005 Training on operation and maintenance
June 1, 2005 Ready to open
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
1. Does this type of enhancement meet the City Council's vision for the long-term
viability of Cascade Bay?
2. Would this enhancement "add to" or "detract from" or is it "compatible" with the
City Council's existing mission/vision for Cascade Bay?
This addition at an estimated cost of $1,000,000 is approximately 14% of the
original cost of the facility of roughly $7,200,000; is that a reasonable
reinvestment? A similar type of issue was addressed when the Lazy River was
added at the time of original construction and the decision was made to build both
features.
What consideration should be given to the $1,000,000 of original capital financing
with the balloon payment put in place at the time of the original construction?
5. How important is it to stay ahead of the curve so to speak with Cascade Bay as
this F1owRider concept is rolled out across the country and in Minnesota?
6. Assuming a desire to construct the additional feature, is the proposed timeline
acceptable?
7. Again, assuming a desire to construct the additional feature, what is the
appropriate rate setting and collection mechanism?
CONCLUSION
We believe that this information provides the necessary background material to allow
consideration by the City Council and will provide them an opportunity to give additional
direction on whether or not staff should proceed with this effort as well as to provide
general direction on how the project should be undertaken, if the decision is to proceed.
Please let us know, if you would like any additional information or if you would like to
further discuss any of the material.
Cherryl Mesko, Parks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator
Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative cervices
i(�
FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
DATE: June 14, 2004
SUBJECT: Cascade Bay Financials Re: FlowRider
At your request, I have reviewed various financial information regarding the potential
installation of a new FlowRider component at Cascade Bay. Per the information I have
received from Cascade Bay Manager Hunter, the current estimated installation cost is
$1,000,000 and based on a number of assumptions there is a projected annual
operating profit of approximately $70,700 attributed to the added feature. I have done
nothing to substantiate either of those projections. Detailed feasibility studies would be
required to provide comfort that these projections are realistic.
The following is pertinent financial information for Cascade Bay per the 12-31-03
audited financial report and other City records:
1. There is a cash balance of $889,104 in the Cascade Bay Fund with $304,162 of
that set aside in the Capital Renewal and Replacement Account leaving an
undesignated amount of $584,942. From a working capital perspective, if one
subtracts the current liabilities of $109,417, there is total available cash of
$779,687 or net cash of $475,525 after subtracting the Renewal and
Replacement Account.
2. There is a long-term financing liability of $2,565,000. A principal amount of
$1,565,000 is scheduled to be paid off with annual debt service payments of
approximately $160,000 including both principal and interest with the last
payments in the fall of 2018. The balance of the principal amount of $1,000,000
was set up for a balloon payment after 20 years, subject to the availability of
cash reserves. Amortization of that $1,000,000 would require an annual set
aside of approximately $85,000 dollars at an interest rate of 5.6% to have the
necessary funds including interest available after 20 years.
3. Given the City's policy of funding a Renewal and Replacement Account while not
fully funding depreciation, Cascade Bay has operated comfortably in the black
each year except for the year one start up. Attached is a summary table
showing revenues, expenses, and reconciling items to tie information to the net
income (loss) reported in the audited financial reports. From a somewhat
simplistic cash prospective, the five year cumulative total of revenues over
expenses shown on that page is $547,894.
0
The following FlowRider operational information was presented by Cascade Bay
Manager Hunter:
1. Based on an 82 day season, an incremental increase in operating costs, a daily
admissions fee increase of $1.00 per admission and an increase of $1 to $2 to
season passes, $80,000 of revenue and $23,678 of expenses are estimated
and would result in an annual operating profit of $56,322.
2. An additional annual operating profit of $1,476 could be generated through the
sale of Flowboard lessons.
3. Finally, private rentals could generate a profit of $12,950 annually.
4. It is expected the following items may also increase revenues, however they
have not been included in the estimated total annual operating profit of
approximately $70,700 outlined above:
• An increase in daily attendance and in the sale of season passes.
• An increase in concession sales.
• An extended season.
• Revenues from Flowboarding competitions.
• Potential merchandise sales.
By way of conclusion, I offer the following observations for discussion:
1. The conclusion of the new feature making significant profit is based strictly on
an incremental add on feature with all other fixed costs attributed entirely to the
existing facility. Aaron's estimated hourly cost of running the new feature is the
range of $30 per hour and is very low compared to current hourly operating
costs of $1,300, 2003 actual, and $1,467, 2004 budget for the existing facility.
2. With the results of the facility being so weather dependent past financial
performance may not be a good indicator of future success and one should
certainly expect years that are not as successful as others.
3. A significant amount of the current cash on hand, net of current liabilities, could
be used to finance some of the capital costs of adding this significant feature. If
any of the Renewal and Replacement Account cash is used, future operations
would need to replenish the account. For the most part the equipment
replacement is far enough out to allow borrowing some of the cash in the short-
term. This process in effect would be a second borrowing component of the
overall financing package for facility enhancement.
4. Current Cascade Bay operations could support some additional debt service
that would be necessary to retire at least some of the capital costs related to
adding this feature. Additional Cascade Bay debt would probably require some
sort of relatively formal internal borrowing with a defined repayment schedule.
As a point of reference, at an interest rate of 4.0% each $100,000 borrowed
over a 20 year period would require an annual debt service payment of
approximately $7,600.
5. The FlowRider profit estimates noted above do not include the cost of funding a
Renewal and Replacement Account related to a FlowRider. Depending on the
exact nature of the infrastructure and other equipment, funding that account
may or may not be a relevant additional cost.
6. As a matter of public policy, the $1,000,000 advance from the Community
Investment Fund with the indefinite 20 year balloon payment should probably be
addressed as consideration is given to additional financing for a new facility
component. Currently, in a general sort of way operating cash reserves are first
directed toward the future balloon payment. From an operational standpoint
there appears to be a trade off between completely servicing that debt and
enhancing the facility. Attempting to do both may put significant additional
pressure on rates which will potentially affect attendance and revenues.
7. 1 do not know whether or not insurance would be a special consideration for this
type of operation. Nothing has been added to the projected operating costs to
reflect any special insurance requirements.
It would probably be appropriate to meet with Aaron and whoever to discuss this
information and the process by which it will be further presented to the City Council for
their consideration. Please let me know, if you would like anything else at this time.
Direllltf Administrative Services VanOverbeke
cc: Chief Financial Officer Pepper
Cascade Bay Manager Hunter
Administrative Assistant Mesko
/ (p
(D OO NCO
M OOOLf)
0 0 (`") (D
(O ti to V'
rnmn��-
64
00 1-0000 D)OI
N000 V'
(O V'OMm
(D n M
64 64
no0o
OO0OnOD
(h OOd)Lf)
O0 LD OL()
CO
Ln (D M (0
0). 164
rnoo IN
0OO MCD
(CL 000) C) Lr) 00
Mm
I- U (D M
64 164
(floornin
n O O N M
d C OCL IMS
So Lo
LO00 O�
M �
e
d
aE) c
d
E
� w
N w
U❑ co
c e v
o c a) o OL
u' h a, r m
E •V N
e T D. .a.) J
Ca a) ro
•o0 E
of Q.'d 2 C
u m •l7 'Q .II �+
d
�I-QQU')Z
LO v
N m
N
V
e
m
m
7
eF
4
�
�
d• w
7
o Q
N
W
00000000
0
0
O
000000
000000
0 0
O o
O
0
O
0
LO (D N O It 0 0
+-� O N 0 n 0 'VV'' (D
(O
co OD 0 00 (D O
(D (O
O
(D
fh(ON(MI-:Lna
(�DCY)
'd
LI)I�•,o�M�
m
64 (H
(H
64 4i}
64
-64
64
O
N V.
00 pN 00 N --
— 00 O d
0 Lf)
O "T
V'
M
fl
N
(O`)
n
(D O d' 00 0 (M.
Lf) co
'd( d( O N (V
O
n
00 (D
N
(D
MO
(D
o
('7 O
p 00 N N
N N
N
00(D Nr�
00
00
N _
Q
69}
64
-
(H
EA
MMOMON 1-00
O �I-
0N0 N (D N 00
O
O 00
00
d' O •d'
N(D0
Lf)
0
00
I'- I'- (() 00 V' N
(O O
(DM(Dn
O M I� h
o IM�-r'�
N o0 (f)
M
(17
t��
NV'00N lnO
M o VM•
LND 0000
(�D (D
NO0
O
M
a n�N`-
N
,� O
n
O
c -
Z
uj,
_
En
64
64 64
64
64
64
W
a
00ON(DN 1-0
N 0)
oN MN n
n�} 'd•'V' O
On
00)
D)O
nn
(D
V'
n
0D
'a ❑
o)LnN00 d;N
(D 00
(Od'N0) N
N
ON
N
nM
(O 00
V'
I�
M
0
e m
P r d O M l!) In O
(O (O
M LA Lf) I�
O
��
NLl)
00
M
LL. N
❑
p Yu OO�N N
N
Cl) N
�0�� 000
�
r
�
'a =
Q
U3
�
64
Ffi 64
64
64
69
a) I--
0
0000
dN' n mN
h�hLO� (oD
0((DD
Vim-
o
W ❑
Z
DO ('7N
O
d
o
>,
.CQ
p an d co a) N 00 O
CD,�n0
o0 � 00
N V
n ti O Ln
nrn(D
Lo
LD
(D
00
n
o c� n .- (v
Ln LO
0)
0 LU
N Q
LL N
v Z
V) 64
64
64 64
64
64
cfT
�g W
�a
Q W
Lf)00 pp0 O 1-D)
N
O
0(DOco M
ONI It � 00
oM
000
N
O
00
000
(D
OMO V r V N
<: V
CO
NCO
>
coLn
O�W�
LlL
M0)M
d'
C" n 0)
CD
Z
�T (9
10
c
�
o
(D aNi
aei
An
o
i°
d
CO
E
N
CO w
a)
N
v)
Oro
o
m N
d
o
m
e
e
e >,
i
O
N i CL
ro 0
y 0)
N N a
C
Ln yy C U W
(D N
❑ N
Q
C to Y m
>✓7
O
N m t O
d)
sT 11
D
N
ed
CD
EK
U
z
otj
N 0) m .N m
0) E m 'l1- U C
a)
`.
C
a.
U) 7 0) od 7
to co O L2
�O.
'•�-�
O
N
�' O
0
CL
O
m
O
a)
RCL 00))-0
LLl
0) >` � () N U N O
®
N G
N 'NC N�
N.
C C D
C
m
m M o o m a� o 0
❑UUU��Uh
0
Z
:t 2 0
O Chh
K m ro o m m o
waaUcoUh
m o
wh
o �.r ro
Z h0❑
o
h
0
h
/ (p
(D OO NCO
M OOOLf)
0 0 (`") (D
(O ti to V'
rnmn��-
64
00 1-0000 D)OI
N000 V'
(O V'OMm
(D n M
64 64
no0o
OO0OnOD
(h OOd)Lf)
O0 LD OL()
CO
Ln (D M (0
0). 164
rnoo IN
0OO MCD
(CL 000) C) Lr) 00
Mm
I- U (D M
64 164
(floornin
n O O N M
d C OCL IMS
So Lo
LO00 O�
M �
e
d
aE) c
d
E
� w
N w
U❑ co
c e v
o c a) o OL
u' h a, r m
E •V N
e T D. .a.) J
Ca a) ro
•o0 E
of Q.'d 2 C
u m •l7 'Q .II �+
d
�I-QQU')Z