Loading...
08-03-1991 - Public Information & Discussion Meeting '" . '-" ...., CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER PUBLIC INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 1991 MINUTES Mayor Wessler called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Community Center. She announced that there would be a special meeting after this to take action on matters related to CIP funding, matters of financing and collection procedures, and revenues pledged to the State as security for the loan of State Revolving Funds. ROLL CALL Mayor Tanya Wessler Councilman Kirk Jones Councilperson Louise Martin Councilperson NoraJane Gillespie Councilman Michael Hays Interim City Attorney Nikki Clayton Acting City Manager Fred Munoz City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Dan Allen, Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc., the Cityls consulting engineers, reviewed the presentation made at the July 15 and July 29, 1991, meetings. He distributed copies of the presentation with changes crossed out to remove the reclaimed water system from the assessment. (See attached) He stated the reclaimed water system of 2.2 million was going to be funded by user fees and assessment but about a week ago Council voted to fund the entire reclaimed system from user fees and that doubled the debt service required. He reviewed the concept of the assessment method versus the current method, impact fee funds. Councilperson Gi llespie asked if the $714 per ERU includes pumping, transmi ss ion, and plant. Mr. Allen agreed. Councilperson Gillespie said the present charge is $1,153 per ERU and the difference is the share of the plant. Mr. Allen clarified the base price per equivalent lot is $1,143. Councilperson Gillespie asked about the $714 and Mr. Allen explained they're not related, $714 only addresses the wastewater treatment plant and pump station cost as a comparison to impact fees. Councilperson Gillespie asked if they're still charging the $35. Mr. Allen replied yes. Warren Fisher, 1720 Juniper, complimented the Mayor and Council and anyone that has anything to do with this CIP as they did a tremendous job. He stated he has no problem with fairness and that naturally there will be some inequities. He asked if he can transfer the remaining balance of his assessment to the new owner if he later sells his property. Mayor Wessler replied it's a possibility. Councilperson Gillespie noted that's one of the things they wanted to decide. Mr. Fisher asked if they should establish it as a fact. Ms. Clayton explained the final assessment resolution will be considered and it can be done in two ways. She added if a bank is involved theylll want to use proceeds to payoff the 1 ien but it can be a matter of negotiation and Counci 1 can provide the apportionment as to subdividing of lots or sale of the lot. She said they may allow for both the subdivision or sale of the lot providing for it to continue as opposed to being paid off, but it's a matter of financing. Mr. Fisher stated held talked with a banker who'd never heard the question raised and he said it's a bottom line item and doesn't see anything different from a tax situation. He noted the seller will raise the price if they can't do it and the buyer will be reluctant to pay it up front so to keep it simple they should provide to have it go to the buyer. Ms. Clayton stated it could be a matter between the private parties and a bank may dictate that it be paid from proceeds of the sale. Bill Smith, 2629 Victory Palm, stated he assumes some will want to pay the impact fee prior to installation but will there be a lien against the property for those that choose to go the 20 years. Mayor Wessler replied yes. Mr. Smith asked if there will be a charge to register each lien and for someone to prepare the liens and where that money comes from. Ms. Clayton explained the initial and final assessment rolls will be constituting a lien against the property and there will not be a chargeable lien until there's an element of default and that follows several safeguards in the ordinance but there will be no charge. Mr. Smith stated there will be no official notice until they default. Ms. Clayton indicated no. -. '-" ..."", Tony Rua, 2824 Juniper, asked if the $605 for abandoning is separate from the assessment. Mayor Wessler replied yes. Mr. Rua asked if they need a permit if they do it themselves. Mayor Wessler replied normally you will but that will probably be a Council decision whether to waive the permit fee. Mr. Rua asked if they can pay the City to do the job. Mayor Wessler replied she doesn't think the City will be doing it, the people have to contract it themselves. Jay Moynahan, Miami, asked the usage percentage of Florida Shores that has sewers now. Mr. Allen replied approximately 7%. Mr. Moynahan asked if 2-1/4 MGD is going to service the entire City. Mr. Allen explained it will service basically the existing customers which includes those in Florida Shores that are now on sewers and the Florida Shores component assessment district not connected is approximately 1.2 MGD with growth outside Florida Shores at .48 MGD. Mr. Moynahan asked if that will be the necessary capacity if the entire City were built out. Mr. Allen replied no, that's a 10-year projection. Councilperson Gillespie stated it's a 20-year projection on the sewer plant. Mr. Allen stated the ultimate build out is 3.6 million. Mr. Allen and Mr. Moynahan discussed build out times and projected density with some information taken from the City's land use plan. Mr. Moynahan asked if the estimates are relative to the number of feet of pipe used. Mr. Allen replied yes. Mr. Moynahan asked if there's been any bidding. Mr. Allen replied no. Mr. Moynahan stated he thinks Council intends to pass this assessment ordinance on Tuesday. He asked if the numbers are $1 million lower, will the assessments be lowered and credit given for anything paid. Councilperson Gillespie replied yes. Mr. Moynahan asked the interest rate. Mr. Allen replied today it would be 4.2% and they intend to sign the agreement as soon as possible and 4-1/2% is the anticipated amount and 1% to cover the County's administrative costs to bill the assessments. Ms. Clayton noted 197 provides for the fee to the tax collector. There was discussion regarding the assessment collection method to be determined. Ms. Clayton explained they hope to execute the agreement by the end of September and they will have the final numbers and interest rates and the bidding is ready. Mr. Allen explained the bidding of the program will be phased and the treatment plant will be one and the collection system will be bid in 4 phases and they'll have firm numbers in September on the treatment plant and one-fourth of the collection system. Mr. Moynahan asked about the other phases of the collection system. Mr. Allen replied they'll be bid 3 to 6 months later and it varies on how th i ngs go. He exp 1 a i ned they intend to bid in phases incase there IS something unusual and they'd prefer to have more local firms bidding to see more competition. Mr. Moynahan asked if there will be future public hearings on how these bidding results go. Councilperson Gillespie replied it's always public. Mr. Moynahan asked if it will include the breakdown of how it will impact the assessment. Ms. Clayton stated the intent is to have a clear idea of most of the numbers by the end of September and they'll have a not to exceed number at that time and benefits to each property owner will be calculated and credited on an ongoing basis. She added if unforeseen circumstances occur there's always a provision that the assessments could be underestimated but there will be public hearings on the award of the bids and each property owner will get their notice in the form of credit slips. Mr. Moynahan asked who determi ned the number of equ i va 1 ent lots for the wastewater treatment and collection system. Mr. Munoz replied they got the Volusia County tax roll and sent this to a person to go through it and identify the Florida Shores parcels. Mr. Moynahan asked if it's the plat maps. Mr. Munoz said they totaled up the equivalent lots and it will be about 15,000 equivalent lots in Florida Shores, but some are sewered. Mr. Moynahan said he thought it was closer to 16,000. Mr. Munoz noted some are already sewered and the number is 14,955. Mr. Moynahan asked about the equivalent parcels for the wastewater treatment assessment. Mr. Munoz replied someone can own 2 equivalent lots and another 4 equivalent lots on another tax bill and if they were contiguous they'd count them as one equivalent parcel. He explained they bill one pro rata share of the wastewater treatment plant capacity and in the future when the owner subdivided to other building lots, held have to pay capacity for the sewer for the other building lots he establishes. Mr. Moynahan asked how that will be determined. Mr. Munoz replied it's a $1,425 impact fee. Mr. Moynahan asked if a new buyer wou 1 d have the opt i on to pay the $1,425 or the assessment. Mr. Munoz replied not the way it is now and any future connections would be $1,425 which is similar to anyone in other parts of the City would pay in impact fees now. 2 Council Public Information Meeting August 3, 1991 I, ...... ...." Jav Movnahan (Continued) Mayor Wessler asked if someone who has 6 lots now and is thinking about subdividing in the future could pay the $350 now. Mr. Munoz noted they've received one inquiry already and it would be Council's decision. Ms. Clayton stated they need to look at it in the light of a subdivision. Mr. Moynahan asked if the $714 under the assessment method versus current method is an annual amount or one time. Mr. Munoz replied one time. Giai Benninaton, 121 Virginia Street, stated assessments should be collected in house because the County's going to charge a 1% fee and we collected the road assessments in house and didn1t have any problems with it. She noted that would solve the problem of hardship cases if they honestly cannot pay and meet criteria Council would set and you don't go ahead with foreclosure procedures and can put the lien in the house when it1s sold. Ms. Clayton stated if they provide for hardship cases they have to provide the same whether collected through the City or County and they'll have to have a basis where the hardship will be paid by the City out of some fund set aside and that would prevent foreclosure. She explained they cannot provide inconsistent treatment in the collection of the assessment but can provide for recourse outside the assessment procedure. Mrs. Benn i ngton asked if recourse cou 1 d be a 1 i en aga i nst the property when the property changes hands. Ms. Clayton replied if it's going to be a hardship, there will be a way that the hardship will be paid out of a special fund and the person won't go into foreclosure in terms of the tax roll. She pointed out they cannot give free service and it will have to be established that anyone can argue it's preferential treatment to one property owner over another. Mrs. Bennington said the City will get their money no matter what on a hardship case. Ms. Clayton stated hardship cases will have some way to have payment whether through the City or County. Mrs. Bennington stated on the projected cost they have a loan reserve of 15% of the payment set as ide every year and drawing interest. Council person Gillespie agreed. Mrs. Bennington asked if it1s accumulated. Councilperson Gillespie replied no. Mrs. Bennington asked if they can use the interest and shift it to operating expenses. Council person Gillespie replied Mr. Ferland addressed it in the February briefing and he has it used for something. Ms. Clayton noted there may be a sinking fund requirement similar to a bond requirement and it IS 1 ike a security to the State. Mr. Terry Wadsworth, Director of Utilities, stated the rate study was done and a certain portion when it reaches a certain funding level can be used like impact fees that are classified as capital in nature. Mrs. Bennington asked if every year they make the payment and our capital goes down does the 15% go down also or will it stay. Council person Gillespie replied it stays until the end. Ms. Clayton stated if the annual payment is reduced then it is. Mrs. Bennington stated regarding the assessment method versus current method, the current method is used with impact fees to wastewater and effluent and pump stations and connection fees to $1,575 and future people that build in Florida Shores will pay $1,575. Mr. Allen clarified that's only if you subdivide. Councilperson Gillespie said no, if someone sells the lots. Mr. Allen explained if they divide the lots and put a home on it, yes, but if it's an empty parcel now and you go to develop it, then it's no. He added if you subdivide the lot and now it's a single parcel, that1s $350, and if you divide it and build, then it's $1,575. Mrs. Bennington stated any vacant lot will be $350 or $714. Mr. Allen agreed. Mrs. Bennington stated a buildable lot is usually 40 by 125 and if it's vacant all you'll pay is the front footage line since you don't have the connection. Mr. Munoz noted you also pay the $350 which pays for one connection to the sewer plant so when you develop those lots you won't have to pay the $1,575 because you already bought a connection. He added if you have 6 lots, you still only have one connection. Norman Roberts, 423 North Riverside Drive, asked if he owns 3 lots on a block separated by someone else's ownership, will he pay $350 for each building site. Councilperson Gillespie agreed. Mr. Roberts asked why should he be penalized because he doesn't own them all together. Mr. Munoz explained they'll decide the issue of whether you can purchase now an up front connection for all those other parcels. Mayor Wessler noted those decisions will be made in the meeting following this discussion. Mr. Roberts stated his parcels are combined and he'd like to pay $350 for each 80 feet. He asked Council to be fair. Ms. Clayton stated he's anticipated an opportunity for savings but what happens if he's granted the $350 and divides his 6 lots to 3 lots and each buildable lot is assessed for its collection component which will be about $2,000. Mr. Roberts stated he'd pay front footage and $350 but he doesn1t want to be hit with $1,425 later on. 3 Council Public Information Meeting August 3, 1991 ~ "-" ...", Norman Roberts (Continued) Ms. Clayton asked if helll subdivide them. Mr. Roberts replied if need be and he can break them down so he doesn't get hit with an impact. Ms. Clayton said the ability to track and record keeping is why she asked and she's not sure how helll keep records. She said she talked to the engineers about this and she thinks it's a good idea but the question is whether subdividing to eliminate a buildable lot would be required because in the future engineering may indicate you need to change your lot configuration for the house and she's trying to think it through from today to tomorrow I s problems. There was brief discussion regarding prior comments on this issue. Ms. Clayton pointed out they have to have a property description to do an assessment so it will have to be broken down into some format to send a bill. Councilperson Gillespie noted if someone has 4 lots and built the house in the middle 2, they could never develop the other lots but if they have 3 and 2 and can develop the 2, thatls where the problem is and originally they'd said the owner could sign a letter that they would not develop. Ms. Clayton stated they can still do that but they changed it so if you have 6 lots and one house you don't file an affidavit because in the future you will pay the impact fee and at the moment you only pay the impact fee for the house that exists. Councilperson Gillespie said some people have signed over their homes to their children with life time use and the property will be sold because it was deeded to the children and they won't get more money unless the heirs at the time of passing decide to sell. Ms. Clayton noted that's a matter between the heirs and the people with the life estate and the property owner will get the bill. Mayor Wessler suggested Mr. Roberts put 2 lots in one name and then 2 lots in another. Alice Murphy stated 20% of the indebtedness is going to non-construction costs. She said she doesn't know where the basis is for hardships as they're saying those that can pay will pay more but the money will have to come from the people so unless they have a vote on it, it looks like taxation without representation. She said taxes will go up because of this program so will they be able to see that's a hardship case and they can ask for relief. Ms. Clayton explained a hardship is with income levels and family size and it won't be just a request not to pay it. Ms. Murphy asked if this will help with the real estate taxes and CIP because they have a hardship paying their taxes also. She added the County will take advantage of it and increase theirs. Mr. Munoz explained that according to the tax assessor's information they sent us property values that were on the rolls last year that went up approximately 3.79 so if we maintain the current millage rate without an increase of 3.79 the City will get the same amount of money with no increase due to inflation. He reviewed the millage rate setting procedure and said the only increased revenue would be new construction and annexation. Ms. Murphy asked if the appraisal goes from $4,000 to $16,000, won't the taxes go up. Mr. Munoz replied the taxable value will go up. Ms. Murphy stated that person will have to pay more taxes. Ms. Clayton explained if assessment goes up, the millage has to come down to produce the same number of dollars and then you advertise if you Ire going to increase taxes. Jav Movnahan asked Ms. Murphy if a realtor told her a $4,000 lot would go to $16,000. Ms. Murphy said the realtors were saying that in the papers. Mr. Moynahan stated he hopes she doesn't believe it. Ms. Murphy referred to lots in Bradenton. Mr. Moynahan asked if Council is under the impression the sewer improvements will raise their property values anything more than a nominal amount because he views it as a considerable negative on the lots he owns. He said the assessments are about 60-70% of what they're worth today and based on the rate of sales in Florida Shores, that's just "pie in the sky". Mayor Wessler agreed that 4 to 16 is pie in the sky. Ms. Murphy stated they didn't sell them because of the uncertainties of this program. Mr. Moynahan stated he hopes the realtors are correct and that appraisals will go up. Mayor Wessler stated lots with sewer will be much more than $4,000. Mr. Moynahan stated Florida Shores has the best lot value in Florida and he doesn't question that sewers are a tangible assessment but you can still pull a septic tank permit so what's the benefit of sewers. He added they donlt need sewers except for the health situation and the City has to put it in. He said it's not benefitting especially Florida Shores and it should be apportioned accordingly. Councilman Hays asked how banks will pay assessments on repossessed property in Florida Shores. Ms. Clayton repl ied they'll pay in the same way as any property owner pays their taxes. Councilperson Gillespie said they'll pay until 4 Council Public Information Meeting August 3, 1991 ~ .."", .. .. they sell the property. Councilman Hays said the impression was given the banks wou 1 dn I t pay assessment unt il the property I s so 1 d. Ms. Clayton exp 1 a i ned they'll have the same choice of prepayment or payment on an annual basis. Councilman Hays asked about the 6" water lines versus the 211 lines and if the additional cost to cover this was $3 million. Mr. Allen indicated he was not familiar with that subject. Mayor Wessler stated Ron Ferland told her it was $3 to $4 million. Mr. Allen agreed that's a reasonable number. Councilperson Gillespie asked if there's a response from Don Berryhill regarding upsizing of the line on the effluent. Mr. Allen replied the verbal response was negative but they're waiting for an official response. Council person Gillespie stated Ron Ferland mentioned 9 pumping stations the other night and the sheets say 11, so where are the other two. Mr. Wadsworth reviewed the locations. Councilperson Gillespie stated in the effluent plan there was a lift station East on the Turgot property and how will that cost be picked up. Mr. Allen explained that was an overall plan and not just Florida Shores and that was for other areas of the City. He added they're trying to anticipate serving the rest of the City. Councilperson Gillespie asked the grade of PVC they're referring to on reclaimed water. Mr. Allen said if it's 4" or higher line itls DR 18 pipe and 3" size is DR 21 which is ASDM standard. Councilperson Gillespie asked how they got the $1,425 figure on impact fees. Mr. Allen explained it's based on the cost of the 3 components of the impact fees, the wastewater treatment plant, and transmission and effluent and pumping. Councilperson Gillespie said Mr. Ferland told her that was a share of the plant. Mayor Wessler stated it is. Councilperson Gillespie said it's the lines. Mr. Wadsworth explained itls transmission and not connection. Councilperson Gillespie said $150 is our fee to check the lines. Mr. Wadsworth explained it's the physical connection to the system. Councilperson Gillespie stated it was suggested they should have raised the connector line to be ready for paving at a later date or they'll be digging up paved streets. Mr. Allen said for those sewer lines less than 8" deep they won't put laterals in where there's not a house now and they set up the contract and it's set up as a deductible and if costs come in high they can remove that but it's a decision they can make later. Mayor Wessler asked if they can leave it in there. Mr. Allen replied yes. Councilman Jones asked if the 15% loan reserve was $92,000 as was quoted or $71,000. Mr. Allen replied $71,900 is correct. Meeting closed at 3:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lura Sue Koser , ~~ COUNCILMAN y ATTEST: .Li~.. CITY CLERK / A~iS I( day of , 199..L... ~~\~~~~V MAYOR 5 Council Public Information Meeting August 3, 1991 ,- .. 4 [ITY OF ED6EWATER WASTEWATER [APIT AL IMPROVEMENTS PR06RAM Prepared for: CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA ........ ---.. WASTEWATER CIP PROJECTS I. WASTEWATER COLLECTION o 337,000 L.F. - 8" Collection Lines 1000 Manholes o 11 Pump Stations (9 new stations, 2 upgraded stations) o 31,900 L.F. of 4" - 20" force mains II. WWTP UPGRADE AND EXPANSION o Expansion from 1.0 MGD to 2.25 MGD o Upgrade from Secondary to Advanced Treatment III. RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES o 137,380 L.F. of 3" to 16" Transmission and Distribution Piping throughout Florida Shores 70,830' - 3" 31,780' - 6" 29,040' - 8" 1,340' - 12" 4,390' - 16" 8/,,\00 0:> Handout DOC '-" ..""" PURPOSE OF PROJECTS 1. Eliminate public health hazards caused by septic tank use with poor soil conditions. 2. Upgrade treatment to advanced level to mi tigate impact to Indian River and allow for reclaimed water use. o' Protection to Class II - Shellfish harvesting waters o Provide 10% wastewater effluent disposal by reclaimed water use, as required by City's CUP. o Meet the recent legislative requirements for discharge to Indian River. 3. Provide additional treatment capacity to serve Florida Shores and anticipated growth. 1.12 MGD 0.65 MGD 0.48 MGD 2.25 MGD Florida Shores at Build-out Existing Customer Flow Growth outside Florida Shores 8/',10002 II;mdoul DOC '-'" Component 1. Construction Cost Estimate 2. Administrative Allowance (0.5% of Const. Cost) 3. Design Allowance 4. Const. Management & Resident Inspector 5. Project Performance Certification 6. SRF Audit 7. Loan Reserve (15% of Annual Payment) 8. Capitalized Interest 9. FDER Administrative Fee (3-1/2% of 1992 SRF Loan Amount) TOTAL PROJECT COST 8 HOO 0:2 Handout DOC PROJECT COSTS Collection System ..... Wastewater Treatment Plant $13,562,350 $7,648,854 67,812 471,600 242,000 25,000 25,000 194,946 2,126,993 (3 years) 377,020 38,244 461,000 296,220 30,000 25,000 71,933 535,736 (2 years) $17,092,721 $9,106,987 Reclaimed Water System $1,651,640 8,258 189,410 41,472 20,000 26,101 284,783 (3 years) 66,877 $2,288,541 W' "wII ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS I. COLLECTION SYSTEM 100% Special Assessment $17,092,721 = $1,143/EQ Lot 14,955 EQ. Lots @ L = 5.5% 20 Year Repayment 4% Discount for Early Tax Payment Annual Payment = $99.71/Year/EQ. Lot 8 HOO 02 Ilandout.DOC '-' ~ IT W.W.T.P. TOTAL COST IMPACT FEES ON HAND $ 9,106,987 (886,000) PROJECT COST TO BE FUNDED BY SRF $ 8,220,987 50% FUNDED BY USER FEES $ 4,110,493 50% ALLOCATED TO FlA. SHORES $ 4,110,493 GRANT ($ 2,000,000) $ 2,110,493 + 6028 EQ. PARCELS $ 316,146/(R DEBT SERVICE j $ 350jEQ. PARCELS 57% CAPACI1Y - EXISTING 43% CAPACI1Y - FUTIURE o i=5.5% 20 YEAR REPAYMENT 4% EARLY TAX PAYMENT DISCOUNT ANNUAL COST $ 30.53jYR.jEQ. PARCELS .... .... I.Ll ~ ~ G: ~ u '-' ......" ill RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM TOTAL COST $ 2,288,541 $ 176,016~YR -$ OO,OOO{ R DEBT SERVICE 50% FUNDED Y SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 1,144,271 100% 50" FUNDED BY USER FEES $ 1,144,271 $ 2,288,541 I @ i=5.5% 20 YEAR 4% EAR DISCO T NUAL COST 16.57/YR./ EQ. ... ... LLl 8 LLl ~ ~ ~ ....., ....." Special Impact Fee User Fee Assessment & Grant Pro;ect Component . Funded Funded Funded Wastewater Collection 17,092,721 System WWTP 4,110,494 2,110,493 2,886,000 Reclaimed Water 2,288,541 System 1,144.270 1,144,270 Total $6,399,035 $19,203,214 $2,886,000 $5,254,764 $20,347,484 8 (.100 02 Ii andoul DOC '-' ..." ASSESSMENT METHOD VS. CURRENT METHOD IMPACT FEES FUND: Wastewater Treatment o Effluent Disposal (i.e., Reclaimed Water) o Pump Station/Transmission A. Current Method Current Wastewater Impact Fee Connection Fee o Collection Only from Developed Parcels Payment in Full Required at Time of Connection B. Special Assessment Method Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Pump Station/Transmission TOTAL o Collection from Developed and Undeveloped Parcels o Payment Can be Made over Time at z 5.5% Interest 8/40002 Handout DOC $ l,425/ERU l50/ERU $ l,575/ERU $ 350/ERU 190/ERU 364/ERU $7l4/ERU $904/ERU 8 /AOO 0:> Handout DQC '-' """" COST IMPACT TO USERS IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT " . . 'w' ..." 0 ~ LD ~ C\1. C\1. ~ ~ ~ (0 0) C\1 CO (Y') ~ LD CO CO 0 (Y') r- C\1. (0 0 ~ rIl ~ C\1 ~~ (0 r- 0) 0 C\1. rz:I ~ ~ E-<rIl C\1. (Y') ~ (0 r- ~ CO 0) Orll < E-<< 0. C\1. ~ ~ ffl ffl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >-E-< LD LD I.{) LD LD =az , , . . . ~ E-<rz:I C\1. C\1 C\1 C\1 C\1 rz:I ~~ ~ ::So. 0 rz. U ~ Z ::> ~ (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') 0 LD LD I.{) LD LD u ~ E-< rIl ~ ~z . . - , A ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 :::> (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') ~ 0 ~~ ~ U P:z;:l ..-.. ~ (') ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ rz:I ::s LD LD I.{) I.{) LD t'Il Q rIl ~ ~~ (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') U'J. E 0 :J fil E-<rIl N Ol'/) E-<< " ~ Q A ::s II ~E-t 0 - P:z;:l C\1. (Y') ~ LD (0 ~ . p~ rz:I ~ EoI >-E-< (0 0) C\1. LD eo 0. ~ CD EoI .Pr1 =aZ . . E-< ~ ... ~~ (0 ~ (Y') ~ (j) Z ~ E-t . rz:I ~ CD ~ fill 0< ~ C\1. (Y') ~ ~ ::::!l fIJ ::20. rIl . ~ rIl ~ IZIfIJ rz:I 0 0 . II rIl P:z;:l 'C ... EoI OfIJ C\1. (Y') ~ LD (0 ~ ~ EoI . . ~ ~ CO LD C\1. ~ 0 EoI ~= ..-.. II II E-< . . . N II E-t II em ....:lZ (j) OJ eo eo eo ..:I ... <rz:I C ..:I EoI em E-tfIJ ~~ OJ OJ OJ OJ (j) Pr1 0 ~ ::::!l ~~ ~ C\1. (Y') ~ LD' ~ 0 III CIJ~ rz:I l(') . E-< ~ III . rIl l(') CD EoI O~ >- " O. EoI rIl ~ g~ Z ~ E-< a:! III II 0 CD OJ C\1. LD eo rIl E::: rz:I rz:I .. E-t~ ::::!l CO C\1. l:'- ~ L[) ~ "III EoI Q u rIl rz:I ~CD gC ~ ~~ C\1. ~ LD r- eo E-< ~ .. E-<rIl C\1. (Y') ~ LD CD 2S ~ ~ II !I. r:aPr1 0 Orll U E-<< ~ e .. ..-.. ... ~~ ..... EoI - E-t! ..:I OCIJ l(') CD 0 C\l rIl ~ rz.t'Il>< C\1. C') ~ LD CD rz:I 0..:1 II . a:~ OE-<O E-< III ~g.::!. 0 E-t ~ At~ Z I I I . I .