SR-410-001 (34)
ae/Rrt )-c
AUG 1 9 1916
I
C/ED:EDD:ERF:PW
council Meeting: 8/19/86
Santa Monica, California
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Adoption of Third Street Mall and Downtown Assessment
District and Maintenance Fee and the Approval of
Necessary Documents to Issue certificates of
Participation to Finance Recommended Public
Improvements
INTRODUCTION
This report requests that the City Council hold a public hearing
on the proposed Third Street Mall and Downtown Assessment
District and Maintenance Fee and, following such hearing, confirm
the proposed assessment and fee.
In addition, the report
recommends that the City Council take all necessary steps to
approve the attached documents confirming the issuance of
Certificates of Participation to finance proposed public
improvements to the Third Street Mall and immediate Downtown
area.
BACKGROUND
On August 12th, the City council adopted the Third Street Mall
Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.
These
actions culminated a two year planning effort to establish a
comprehensive program for the revitalization of the Third Street
Mall and immediate Downtown area.
The Mall Specific Plan
provides property development and design standards, an operations
- 1 -
de-1m ?-c
AUG J 9 J9n
and maintenance program, recommendations for phasing public and
private improvements, and a financing program to initiate the
Plan's immediate implementation.
To date the City Council has taken various steps to implement the
financing program. On July 8th, the city Council adopted
Procedural Ordinance No. 1377 (CCS) establishing the process by
which the City may create assessment districts and the method of
levying and collecting assessments. By separate action, the city
Council has authorized the procurement of bond counsel and
~necessary financial consultant services to prepare the assessment
district and financing program.
On July 22nd, the Council adopted Resolution No. 7255 (CCS)
declaring its intent to establish an assessment district to
finance the recommended public improvements and to establish an
annual operation and maintenance fee. The proposed assessment
district would place a lien against each parcel of real property
in the area and require each property owner to pay a semi-annual
assessment to the City to finance the cost of physical
improvements. Area businesses would be required to pay a fee for
the anticipated annual costs associated with the operation and
maintenance of the area in an annual amount not to exceed five
(5) times their City Business License Tax or $15,000, whichever
is less.
since the Council's last meeting in July, City staff has held a
series of meetings with property and business owners, the Third
street Development Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, and the
- 2 -
respective property and merchant associations to discuss the
financing program, the assessment district, maintenance fee and
adoption process, as well as to answer individual and group
inquiries relative to the proposed levy.
A public meeting was
also sponsored by the Third street Development Corporation, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the Merchant and Property Owners'
Associations on August 5th a~ the East Wing of the Santa Monica
civic Auditorium to provide i~formation and address questions by
the public and local users of the Mall.
~Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1377 (CCS) , legal notices of the
August 19th public hearing by the City Council were published in
the Evening Outlook on July 25th and 31st and again on August 4th
and 11th.
A legal notice and informational packet was also
mailed to all property owners and businesses within the district
on July 25th.
similar legal notices were physically posted in
various locations throughout the district on that date. Each of
these notices included the date of the public hearing and where
to request additional information.
During this period, City staff has also worked with bond counsel
and financial consultants to prepare all necessary documents by
which to proceed with the issuance of tax exempt securities to
finance the proposed public improvement program. These documents
are attached for review and consideration by the Council and are
discussed in greater detail in the subsequent sections of this
report.
- 3 -
FINANCING PROGRAM
There are two major program components for financing the
recommended public improvements to the Third street Mall. These
are: (1) the cost of the physical improvements to be charged
against property owners through the assessment district and, (2)
the operation and maintenance fee to be charged against
businesses. In each case, there will need to be an additional
amount contributed by the City toward each of these costs.
Jointly, these program components allow the City to proceed at
this time with the issuance of certificates of participation to
finance the recommended public improvements, pursuant to the
adopted Third street Mall Specific Plan.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
On July 15th, the City Council adopted the attached Third street
Mall and Downtown Assessment District Report by Katz, Hollis,
Coren & Associates, Inc. which provided a general description and
specifications of the work to be undertaken and improvements to
be made in the district; an estimate of the cost of the
improvements: a map indicating the boundaries and zones within
the district and, by reference, each parcel within the district;
and the proposed assessment for the cost and expense of the
proposed improvements. The report also specified the method for
the assignment of the levy and the method of collection.
Under the proposed assessment district, the existing Downtown
Parking and Business Improvement District, which was established
- 4 -
in 1965 to finance parking improvements, would be eliminated and
the City would defease the existing bonds (outstanding principal
amount: $3.0 million). The defeasance of the existing bonds will
be accomplished though a general fund appropriation at this time,
which will be partially offset by a subsequent action to appro-
priate redevelopment funds for this purpose. All funds for this
purpose have been previously reserved for the Mall.
A new district would be created with geographic boundaries coter-
minous with the previous district. The public improvements
~recommended in the Mall Specific Plan would be financed through a
new annual levy to be charged each parcel based on the gross
floor area of existing improvements and the degree of benefit
assigned to that parcel from the improvements to be made. The
new assessments would not be collected from area property owners
until approximately one year after the adoption of the new dis-
trict by Council.
The Katz, Hollis report establishes three (3) zones for allocat-
ing costs and benefits within the new district. The assigned
levy is based on the annual cost associated with the financing of
the improvements benefiting that zone. As is the case in the
existing district, all parking improvements are assumed to bene-
fit all parcels in the district equally, therefore their cost has
been equally assigned to all parcels in the new district. The
same has been assumed for all traffic and circulation improve-
ments to be constructed in the district. Individual common area
and associated pUblic improvements costs have been been assigned
- 5 -
to those zones that will actually have these improvements con-
structed in their area. Figure 1. graphically depicts the bound-
aries of each zone and Figure 2. presents the cumulative costs
for each major component in each zone.
rhe proposed assessment district provides a credit for those par-
cels which provide for their own parking and for religious and
educational institutions that do not use their facilities on a
\
I full-time or peak period basis. An annual credit against the
!
parking component of the total levy is provided in direct propor-
.tion ~o the amount of code parking provided either on site or
within 300 feet of the site.
Any property owned or held in
trust by a non-profit corporation or entity and used exclusively
for religious purposes and/or the care of children shall be given
an annual credit equal to 6/7ths (85.71%) of their total annual
assessment.
As of June 30, 1986, any new development that provides for a net
increase in square footage and parking demand will be required to
pay an additional annual assessment equal to $1.50 per net in-
crease in gross square footage.
This amount will be used to
finance additional parking and related improvements with the goal
of maintaining adequate parking facilities to accommodate antici-
pated future growth in the area.
~Based on the Council's request of July 15th to review the amount
f\ of the proposed levy for residential units, it is staff's recom-
-
~
mendation that an additional credit for residential square
--- ----
~e be added to the Katz, HOllis, Coren & Associates Repo~t
- 6 -
~
of JUJ:Y--1:QJ____l-_~_~_~__~~.1is _~~.~-~cation is based on the off-peak
nature of residential parking, and would read as follows:
"3. A credit shall be allowed annually to any owner within
the district against the parking, the common area, alley
and sidewalk imptiovements,' and the additional levy as
follows: \
A. The credit may be claimed by any owner within
the district for any parcel in the district
provided the owner develops or maintains
residential units on-site;
B. The amount of the total square footage that is
in residential use shall be eligible to
receive a credit based on the following:
i. 50% against the parking component;
ii. 100% against the common area, alley
and sidewalk improvements; and
iii. 50% against the additional levy."
Under this credit, residential square footage in all zones would
pay a maximum of $.17 per square foot per year rather than $.33
to $1. 07.
The corresponding assessment for new residential
square footage would be $ . 7 5 rather than $1. 50 .
This reduced
rate will also serve as an incentive for the development of new
residential space, which was an interest expressed by Council.
MAINTENANCE FEE
At its July 15 meeting, the city council also adopted a resolu-
tion declaring the City's intention to adopt an ordinance to levy
a fee for the operation, maintenance and replacement of improve-
ments in the district.
The proposed maintenance fee would be
levied against all businesses in the district and would be equal
to five (5) times the City's Business License Tax as established
by Article VI of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The fee would
- 7 -
Cld4
k
be collected in the same manner and subject to the same penalties
as the Business License Tax. The city Council by resolution
would be able to adjust the annual amount of the fee, not to
exceed five (5) times the Business License Tax or $15,000,
whichever is less, and to the extent that revenues from the fee
do not exceed the cost of the operation, maintenance and repair
of the improvements.
Currently the City spends approximately $670,000 per year for the
district's common area and parking structure maintenance, opera-
.tion and security costs. This amount is estimated to increase to
$800,000 per year in 1986 dollars once the pUblic improvements
are constructed.
TABLE 1 on page 9 provides an estimate of the amount to be paid
by each major business category for the proposed maintenance fee
based on the Citywide Business License Tax and the last full year
(FY 1984-85) for which gross sales receipts are available for
businesses in the district. In total, it is estimated that ap-
proximately $600,000 will be collected annually. In terms of
impact on the existing businesses, 82% of the total businesses
would pay an increase of less than $25 per month over what they
paid in 1984-85. Only 6% of businesses would realize an increase
of over $200 per month.
- 8 -
H
~
~
l:Q
Fl:
E-l
~
Pol
~
E-l
t1.l
t1.l
r>::l
Z
H
t1.l
::J
l:Q
~
l:Q
~
t1.l
Fl:
r>::l
~
t>
Z
H
r>::l
r.:l
~
t1.l
Z
o
H
E-l
~
r.:l
Pol
o
r.:l
t>
Z
Fl:
Z
r.:l
E-l
Z
H
~
~
o
E-l
Z
::J
o
~
4-1 s:: 0\01
o cO .
..c:0
+l+ll=l
()
roQ)O
~~O
l=lON I
H~~=!*=
.
4-1 g 0\01
00
o
+'N
()~
~6 I
!=It{')=!*=
H~
.
~ g 0\01
0\
+l'<;J'
()~
rol
~~~I
H~
4-1 s:: 0\0 I
o ro
..c:.
+l+l0
() l=l
ro UJ
~UJt{')
~~~~I
UJ
(l)
UJ
r-lUJ
ro Q)
+lS::
O-..-j
E-t UJ
~
a:l
UJ~
UJ l-l
(l) 0
-~ OJ
UJ+J
~ rd
a:lO
0\0 0\0
C"'l CO N I I ~
rl
~~~ I II~
0\0 0\0
O\COC"'l~'<:!'O\
rl
0\ N '<:!' rl Nlco
rlrlrl '<:!'
0\0 0\0
~rlN -:l'C"'l
~ N N I NI~
0\0 0\0
NC"'lC"'l'<:!'NN
CO CO r--O"I 0\ CO
0\ N 0\ t{') 0\1"<f
~Nr--rl"<fC"'l
rlrl "<f
rl
\D CO CO ~ C"'l1C"'l
O"<fOrlt{')t{')
Nrlrl
Q)
r-lrl
ro ro
s:: Ul
o OJ
-..-j rl
Q) Ul 0
riOUl..c: rl
-..-j -..-j OJ :?; l-l rd
ro:>4-I'-....Q)+J
+J l-l 0 t1'..c: 0
OJ OJ l-l<H+lE-t
P:;UlP.~O
- 9 -
o
l=l
'-....
o
o
N
~
s::
cO
..c:
+J
(l)
~
o
l=l
4-1
o
Q)
tIl
cO
Q)
~
()
s::
...-j
s::
cO
:>1
cO
~
"0
ri
~
o
:=:
..c:
()
...-j
..c:
:=:
UJ
Q)
UJ
Ul
Q)
s::
...-j
Ul
~
.Q
Q)
Ul
o
.e
+J
~
o
lH
+J
()
cO
~
l=l
-..-j
riUJ
ro :=:
-..-j 0
()rl
S::ri
cO 0
S::4-I
...-j
4-ItIl
CU
Q)
.eUJ
E-t-..-j
o
l=l
Q)
tIl
ro
Q)
~
()
s::
H
Q)
OJ
Ii..
UJ
s::
o
-..-j
+l
ro
~
OJ
o
Q)
o
J:::
cO
s::
Q)
+l
s::
-..-j
CU
~
4-1
o
+J
s::
~
o
l=l
rc:t:
s::
CU
.eo
+10
o
Q)rl
~m-
o
~
o
rlO
t{')o
COrl
m-m-
rl 01
at{')
"<fCO
m-m-
001
00
N<;;J'
m-m-
UJ
UJ
OJ
4-IJ:::
O-..-j
Ul
0\0 ~
a:l
UJ~
Ul ~
Q) 0
-~ Q)
Ul+l
~ cu
a:lO
rl I I Irl
I NNj<;;J'
N C"'l <;;J'IO\
C"'l r-- r--I~
~ N C"'llrl
MMC"'l
rl
ro
s::
o
UJ-..-j
Q) UJ
ri()UJri
-..-j -..-j OJ cu
ro:>4-I+I
+ll-lOO
Q)Q)~E-t
P:;UlP<
The City Council requested staff to consider alterations of the
maintenance fee to ensure reasonable equity throughout the dis-
trict for different types of uses. Staff was asked to consider
whether retail uses should be charged at a higher rate than other
business license holders, and, along the same lines, if ground
floor uses should be charged more than upper floor uses.
In examining the relative contributions of retail uses versus
other professional and service uses, it was determined that
retail businesses will pay a higher proportion of the fees than
their' proportion of building square footage . Relative to the
total amount to paid by each business type, approximately 64.4%
of the total estimated annual revenue of $600,000 would be paid
by retail merchants. Professionals would provide approximately
29.8% of that total. The remainder would be paid by the balance
of other businesses in the district. This is especially impor-
tant when according to the Third Street Mall Specific Plan, only
40% of the total existing square footage in the district is in
retail use. Thus, retail uses will in fact be carrying the
majority of the maintenance fee burden.
On the issue of ground floor versus upper floor charges, the Mall
Specific Plan (MSP) encourages the use of rear ground floor space
for offices and eliminates the current restriction of this space
to retail uses. The MSP also permits all ground floor uses on
the upper floors. Thus, floor levels would not appear to be a
'valid way of distinguishing uses more potentially "visitor inten-
sive" (i.e. receiving more business benefit from the improvements
- 10 -
in the district) from those less so. Also, medical office use,
which is considered highly visitor intensive, is conditionally
permitted on all levels in the MSP. Therefore, modifications to
the fee structure based on floor level are not recommended.
It should be noted that at the recommended level of maintenance
fee, total revenues will not meet all costs. At this time it is
estimated that the City's General Fund will need to absorb the
deficit between the maintenance fee collected and the costs of
operations and maintenance on an ongoing annual basis until such
~time ~s gross sales receipts for the district have sufficiently
increased such that the maintenance fee revenues equal expendi-
tures. Thereafter, the multiple for calculating the maintenance
fee may be lowered; that is, the five (5) times the Business
License Tax coefficient can be reduced to reflect the total
amount then needed to cover the cost of operations and
maintenance.
staff believes that these fees are reasonable and should be im-
plemented immediately, especially given the level of priority
that is placed by area users on the need for adequate maintenance
and security. However, should the city council wish to phase in
the fee to soften its impact on businesses, it is recommended
that collections in the first year be set at 75% of the fee,
rising to 100% in the second year. This would require that the
General Fund increase its commitment to meeting the anticipated
shortfall by an additional $150,000.
- 11 -
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
Under the proposed financing program, approximately $13.0 million
in Certificates of Participation will be sold to private inves-
tors in order to finance the construction of the recommended
public improvements program. The value of the certificates of
Participation will be evidenced by a new lease by the City and
the Parking Authority for the long-term leasing by the City of
Downtown Parking structures Nos. 1 and 3 (located between Santa
Monica and Wilshire along Fourth street). These structures have
been estimated to have a fair market value greater than the
amount of the Certificates and would be released as collateral
from the existing 1966 master lease the City holds with the Park-
ing Authority for the six structures in the district. The exist-
ing master lease for the remaining structures would be modified
to reflect these changes and the need to maintain prior terms and
conditions of the lease.
Proceeds of the sale of Certificates will be used to fund the
$6,071,368 common area and related circulation improvements and
the $4,155,000 of the first phase parking improvements which
include the construction of 300 new spaces. TABLE 2 below
provides the estimated Sources and Uses of the approximate $13.0
million of Certificates of Participation to be sold.
- 12 -
TABLE 2
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
THIRD STREET MALL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Estimated Sources & Uses
Sources:
Total Sources
$12,965,000
73,738
$13,038,738
Certificate Proceeds
Accrued Interest
Uses:
Total Uses
$10,226,368
1,139,019
970,767
324,125
304,721
73,738
$13,038,738
Construction Costs
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Capitalized Interest
Underwriters Discount
Costs of Issuance
Deferred Interest
The total amount of the issuance size is somewhat smaller than
the prior $13.2 million amount that has been used in all of the
City'S estimates to date. These numbers reflect the prevailing
interest rate (7.9%) as of the writing of this report.
Throughout the term of this effort, interest rates have continued
to increase although well within the maximum interest rate cap
(8.774%) which has been used to calculate the maximum annual
assessments for each parcel in the proposed district.
Overall fluctuations in interest rates are expected to continue.
It is anticipated that the range in fluctuations may increase as
the September 1st date for enactment of the congressional Tax
'Bill draws near and a greater number of offerings are brought to
- 13 -
market within this period. This may increase the overall rate of
interest for such offerings.
Prior to final action on this matter by Council on August 19th,
City staff will present an addendum to this report in order to
apprise Council of the latest information relative to the bond
market and to the City's proposed issuance. This addendum will
provide Council with a staff assessment of these conditions and
an overall recommendation.
In order to proceed at this time however, it is necessary for the
City Council and the Parking Authority to correspondingly approve
1.
documents which are noted and briefly summar~~,
<;LP- (]I . {"q-1-OJ 't16!1t ~~::~W- '
APprova:~~: . ~ tr
~esolution confirming the proposed assessment,
ordering the improvements to be made, and the
County Assessor to collect the levy;
A Lease and option to Purchase Agreement
between the city, as lesse and the Parking
Authority, as lessor pertaining to Parking
structures Nos. 1 and 3;
the attached
below:
City Council
2.
3.
A Trust Agreement by and among the City,
Parking Authority and First Interstate Bank of
California, as Trustee providing for the
execution and delivery of the certificates of
Participation and procedures for establishing
the various funds for deposit and payment of
monies;
4.
An Assignment Agreement whereby the Parking
Authority assigns its right to receive lease
payments under the proposed Lease to the
Trustee;
5
An Amended and Restated Lease Agreement
between the City and the Parking Authority
mOdifying the existing master lease for the
remaining Downtown Parking structures; and
- 14 -
6.
A Resolution approving the issuance of
Certificates of Participation, execution of
the above referenced agreements, and
authorizing actions as to the other related
matters.
Parking Authority Approvals:
1.
A Lease and Option to Purchase Agreemnent by
the City as lessee and the Parking Authority
as lessor pertaining to Parking structures
Nos. 1 and 3;
2.
A Trust Agreement by and among the City,
Parking Authority and First Interstate Bank of
California, as Trustee providing for the
execution and delivery of the certificates of
Participation and procedures for establishing
the various funds for deposit and payment of
monies;
3 .
An Assignment Agreement whereby the Parking
Authority assigns its right to receive lease
payments under the proposed Lease to the
Trustee;
4.
An Escrow Agreement approving the defeasance
of the 1966 Parking Authority Lease Revenue
Bonds;
S-.
An Amended and Restated Lease Agreement
between the City, as lessee and the Parking
Authori ty, as lessor mOdifying the existing
master lease for the Downtown Parking
structures; and
6.
Resolution
certificates
the above
authorizing
matters.
approving the issuance of
of Participation, e~ecution of
referenced agreements, and
actions as to other related
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are currently available in the General Fund Balance from
which to defease the outstanding principal balance of the
existing 1966 Parking Authority Lease Revenue Bonds. Upon sale,
and the receipt of the proceeds from sale of the certificates of
Participation, appropriations will need to be authorized for
- IS -
capital account numbers 01-720-263-000-920 for $4,155,000 to
finance
parking
improvements
and
01-720-263-000-921
for
$6,071,368
to
finance
the
common
area
and
circulation
improvements. In order to defease the existing bonds, $2,204,151
must be appropriated in account number 01-720-263-000-914, which
when added to the existing 1966 Bonds reserve of $483,825 will
yield the amount required to be set aside now to defease the full
$3.0 million outstanding debt. In a subsequent staff report, the
Redevelopment Agency will be asked to appropriate $1,497,000 in
redevelopment funds to partially offset this expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's recommendation that the City Council:
\.1.
Adopt the attached resolution confirming the Assessment
as modified in this report, ordering the proposed im-
provements to be made; and designating the County Tax
Collector to collect and receive the levy;
2.
Introduce the attached operation and Maintenance Fee Or-
dinance for first reading by the City Council; and
3 .
Adopt the attached resolution providing for the issuance
of certificates of Participation, the execution of the
Lease Agreement, Trust Agreement and Contract of Pur-
chase, and the authorization to prepare Official state-
ment and other matters related thereto.
4.
Appropriate $2,204,151 to account number 01-720-263-914.
Ybfo~ ~fYUJVd/~~ ~.#l~ .
() ~~.f<i /ii:<- /$fZ- JIolltJ ~ <i-~
4plt IV-', {hA;W ~ fr1ai( 'V. ~ ~if,
1Aof-nd - ~ cxUZd- r~ ~~
~u>>- -r:n#f '
- 16 -
It is staff's recommendation that the Parking Authority:
1. Adopt the attached resolution providing the issuance of
Certificates of Participation, execution of the Lease
Agreement, Assignment Agreement, Trust Agreement, Con-
tract of Purchase and Escrow Agreement, and authorization
of other matters related thereto.
Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director
Community and Economic Development Department
Ernesto R. Flores, Manager
Economic Development Division
Linda Moxon, Deputy city Attorney
Attachments: 1. Resolution (City Council)
2. Resolution (City Council)
3. Resolution (Parking Authority)
4. Attached Agreements
copsr
- 17 -
I I /' ('. ''')
'0"'18
30Yld YO/NOW V lNVS
f--
-
"."
II'
-2-
-
V
N
r---
. .
I:
I:
Ii
,
II
I
!
.
I
I
I: _
.:
-
1M'18
:~;
-
,.,#
.. .
~-
-
V
N
-- ___AYM_.
------___1 .
'~f::~:~:~~;~;~:~t:;{ f:~:;:~:~:~~:~:t~:~~:~. .;:~~~;;~:~;:;:~:f 1 ~;~~:~:j:~:~:r:j:~:~:~:;:;
C\I
w
IZ
i2
...
.w
Z
2
C\I
UJ
z
2
Ii
I
I
"J^"
1
~-
-~
nt~:}:~~;}} · k:;:;;::;:;::;;:;;;::::=::S ~::;:;;;:::::::::}::::! :::::::::;::;:i:::::;::;::
r:::::;::::::::::;:::::: .t~:::=:r::~;(}::: ?:tttt::::;: !It\:~::~::::;::~:::::
i;~t;~;;;::}~::::{; ! (:}r~{;;:::::::; .. _ ~:::;:;.:::::;:;::;:;:::: Ik.:.:.;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
I ·
.::::~:~
~BB-B
~-=;0~;i'l; ...1............. ~.......... it............
. . ;::::::::::::::::::::::.::: ..:::::::::::::::::~:::::,:. It:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.: :1':::::::::::::::::;:::::::
.--------.
Ii _O^'S _ _ _ _
; Iii 1Ii1:i r--lq
~~ r-t :.-.. 1:-- h I ~ t--..-l. "-
"
0<I'nI01O:)
-
.
.. !
...
! :~: >
.. c
-
.
.
"urn;
~:
': ..
-
: ::c:
--
,
YtOOl1lI'I
--
. . ~.:.:...;..;.:..
~ -
I:::::::
~ I: '" a
..! ;..;.J fJ
~:::::::;
----
~....... .".
I: : : ; : : : 4~
r----
I ~
_"1M'
! I
z
:
v
o
~ ..-
~~ w
a:
=>
I- (!)
ILl
ILl -
U. U.
0
~ ~~
(1)0
~
0
-
a:
~
CJ)
-
0
I-
Z
W
~
CJ)
en 0
W Z
CJ) <
en en
UJ
<{ Z
-J
Z -J
S UJ
U
0 a: en
<0-
I- 0-<
Z -J~
<
S :::>en
00:
0 >0
0 >- -en
Ow
0: ~en
OwO en
Zo:Z 0<
<(w=> z>-
zl-
enO a:Z
-.J~en UJ::>
-.J::>o: uo
zu
<(20 00
~~o: ul-
I- Ow en 0:
....Jw
wOI- <u.
....JX I-W
Wenw UJa:
a: I cen
f- a:z
en.,.. I 00
Ll.U)
I I "Z
0<( UJw
a: .. I b:E
-e" zc
I
f-
f!f!J~n}l%i(]:;,
j:
~~
N
~
~
::>
(.!)
H
fz..
c
~
o
~
c:
~
o
o
-0
c:
(\S
-
~
::E
~
<D
cD
s....
~
(I)
"0
s....
.....
.c:
1-
~
U
.....
s....
~
U)
.....
Q
~
c:
(J.)
8
U)
<D
(I)
(I)
<
Nr-
~ LUr-
... Zo
Cl 0"':
~ N~
a L
~
>
0
...
Co
a
-
~:
,.
r
t
~
~:
>.
:':
<
-
~ ~
".04 =
(t2 0
>ON
..cl>o
~.c
"-
o
...
(t2
o
U
'C
~
...
ClS
e
,.
~;
~-
.,
~.
~:
>
,.
;.,
i
<
;::
>
r
(~
..
...
(t2
~
-"
Cf')M
LUv
z~
06
N~
-
In
\JJ(.O
:z~
0-=
N~
----
-..
N,...
LUr-
ZO
o~
N~
(l")M
LUv
z~
06
N~
---
D
. ......
. .....
~.!1
Q)Cl
""Q)
-<a~
-;ClQ)~
..". 0 >~
,c:;Soo
8 a....
88
-
'::":"I~
':':'. 'or'
~':< ('(')
~I;
~ :~~~: Q)
~ 's.~. a
I ~%~ ~
.!1 ,~'..' 0
Cl ~~..:.
II
0. .~::~
8 :~~
..... ',...~..
..........
~'~
== ~~~:
< ;~~.:
~~~~
.,':,;.
.::::::: ~~:~
II!! ~
~
~
n~
II-
~
~
<
~~
~~
~
II
~
~
~
~
~
-=
~I