HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/01/10 Item 14CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item N~o. 14
i~~o-8v
o For meeting of -3~ ~S f-'~~--,.
Resolution / 9v2~ Appropriating $11.5x647 From
ITEM TITLE General Fund to Transit Service Fund and
Appropriating LTF Overpayment for FY1978-79 And
Authorizing Refund ,
Development Services Administrator ,~j l~J
SUBMITTED BY ~~ 1
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES x NO
The Finance Department and the Transit Coordinator have
recently completed the attached financial summary for Chula
Vista Transit operations for FY1.978-79. The- summary
combines both City and Aztec Bus Lines expenses for FY197~3
79 operation of CVT. The Financial, Summary, with the aid of
the attached maximum LTF claim calculation and the
calculation of City required subsidy for FY 1978-79, points
out the following four major financial conclusions.
1. Total CVT expenses were $754,745 and total revenues
received were $1,057,903.
?_. City subsidy required is $.175,547 ($.115,547 over the
$60,000 previously budgeted) .
3. The City received $757,000 from the LTF. It was
eligible for only $463x842; thus resulting in excess
revenues of $303.158.
4. Aztec received an allowable profit of $73,574 or about
13~ on its FY1978 79 CVT contract of $63.4,764.
__
r
JAB:nr/DP-006 (continued on supplemental page)
f VIITTITT(+
C/\ fi ! D 1 I J
Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Notification List
FY1978-79 CVT Financial Summary + 2 other Financial
Other Exhibits ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Required City subsidy for FY1978-79 CVT operations is $176,647 due to
the LTF 50% limitation requirement. $60,000 was previously budgeted.
Thus an additional General Fund appropriation of $116,647 is required.
An appropriation of $303x158 of excess LTF monies received during
FY1978-79 from the unappropriated Transit Services Fund also is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve resolution appropriating $116,647 from City General Funds to
the Transit Service Fund and appropriating LTF overpayment for FY1978-79
and authorizing refund of $303,158 to City's LTF reserve account.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION
~~ ~~
~¢~ ~_
Dated /02_.7 __.
/ ~,-
b,~ the City C~,:zr,~~~:1 bi
Chula Vista, Califc~ nia
., a - ~4
3 (Rev. 5/77)
Agenda Item No. 14.
For Meeting of 12/18/79
Supplemental Page Two
The City's local share of financing CVT has been
approximately $30,000 over the past few years. Council
approved a City subsidy of $Gi0,000 for CVT operations during
FY1978 79 budget sessions in May, 1978, based on staff's
expected impact of the LTF 50~ _limitation requirement. The
actual City subsidy required has been computed to be
$115,547 over the $fi0,000 that Council originally budgeted.
The following events/facts occurred since the May, 1978
budget session when Counc it approved the $ i0 , 000 subsidy to
transit f_or FY1978--79:
1. The Council approved in mid~1978 the staff
recommendation not to apply for and accept Federal
capital grant funds for bus purchase and related
transit equipment. This action thus negated the
purchase of_ capital equipment which, due to the LTF 50~
limitation requirement, woulc9 have increased the amount
of eligible capital expenses and decreased the City
subsidy by $35,000.
2. Council approved an interim City/Aztec agreement in
,7une, 1978 for the first three months of FY1978--79
until a final agreement could be worked out with Aztec.
The interim agreement was at $1.15/mile and the final
24 month agreement Council approved in September, 1978
was at 51.35/mile. This was $.20/mile over staff°s
original FY1978~79 estimate for CVT operations which
formed the basis of our transit subsidy estimate. This
resulted in additional unanticipated FY1979 CVT
operating expenses of. about 5100,000 which had the
effect of increasing the original budgeted 50,000 City
subsidy fig ure by an additional $50,000.
3. The impact of the City being in its fifth year of
operating new services (primarily out at Southwestern
College) had the effect of reducing the amount of
eligible operating expenses exempted. This impact was
significantly underestimated by staff. LTF funded the
entire amount o.f_ new services for the prior four years.
However, the Transportation Development Act states that
the amount of new services exemption allowable be
limited to 75~ in the fifth year, thus increasing the
City's transit share by an additional $30,000,
~ ~, z i
.r•-
Agenda Item No. 14
For P~eeting of 12/18/79
Supplemental Page Three
Transit staff originally estirnated CV'I' operating and capital_
expenses to be about $950,000 for FY1978--79, However, since
it was decided not to pursue Federal transit funding, the
City neither purchased any transit related equipment nor
initiated construction of a transit maintenance facility or
a transit center. These items were originally scheduled to
be purchased or undertaken in FY19~8--79.
Thus the City's claim for LTF monies submitted in April.
1878 requested more money ($757,000) than was actually
allowable ($43,84?_) under current Transportation
Development Act laws. This necessitates the City refunding
$303,158 back through CPO into its LTF reserve account held
by the County Auditor.
~q zr
~~~
EXHIBIT D
: u~i~ r
.,^R ;:/ ° ~`L w~~.r;,~r. !71c ll ,+vy,)~: trir r~~;7~/ r
. ..y~~....isa+i~r
u ~ ~ ',k~ -
yk ~ ~r :r
..j' r at tr l,H:e .t . .iL ~~~"'^ ( •.. ,{t~ r .I (• {~' ! f~ "tffli
~ ..L tI Sill°i{2 i1{1 '. ~, i;5 Nr+j'
~:~f1~ ~.~10
,
~
,,,
..L.~
:'? _. ti,._~'~9, ° ~~ ~I
,
, ~ "~,~~- '`"~ °µ!~ ~~
r ~T'-'
~i.1 "- "`~ "
~ Pte' ~!~
a
_
_
~
.
. ~
~-v
-
; 7
~
,
+
`
'a'
Ra°a..r.~,gr.-'~
'
~
~
~ "
4
a
~
~
ti .:: l -
.....-.
sri. .
-
- . rT
sar
~+.
,
b ~r.
--
.
'-:: '.'c'•_OPNIEP~T SERVICES CALIFO:INIA
December 19, 1979
File No. DS-006
Tom Larwin
Metropolitan Transit Development Board
620 "C" Street
Fourth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
REQUESTED FIVE YEAR CVT FINANCIAL/OPERATING PLAN FOR FY1981-85
Jack Bloom, the Transit Coordinator, has prepared most of the
information in this communication. At the outset, I would. like
to indicate that this is staff level work, from one staff to
another. There are many items involved in Mr. Bloom's work
which is of a policy nature and which more properly should be
reviewed by the City Council or the SCOOT Board, as appropriate.
Furtrtermore, due to the very short lead time (about-two weeks)
which was provided for this task, very little of the work has
been subject to my review, which I believe is important, nor
have the calculations been subject to checking. In proceeding
with this document, therefore, I would like you to recognize the
tentative nature of the information included herein.
PRODUCTIVITY MEASURE
A re-evaluation of CVT's farebox revenue/operating cost at this
time indicates that the farebox recovery rate is not anticipated
to increase any more than the 20o farebox recovery rate in FY1981
through FY1985 as previously submitted to you in our five-year
plan (given frozen service levels) on November 13, 1979.
SERVICE IMPROVEMENT RECODIMENDATIONS
The projected CVT service improvements for FY1981-85 are sununarized
below:
Fiscal Year 1981
1. Commencing in FY81, 14 CVT buses will be rehabilitated at a
cost of $17,500 each or a total cost of $245,000. This cost
will be spread out over the next two year period for an annual
cost of about $122,000.
Z"6 Eou:~h .! venue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 5]5-5~2~
Tom T~arwin -2- December 19, 1979
2. Restructure Route 3 to pick up the eastern loop past the
college presently served by Route 4. Route 3 will remain in
service Monday through Friday on one hour headways. This
change will result in additional revenue miles of 4,700 to
Route 3.
3. Restructure Route 4 to bypass the eastern loop past the college
and reduce headway to 30 minutes, Monday through Friday. The
present Route 4 is on a tight schedule because of the increased
volume of traffic especially on Telegraph Canyon Road. It is
anticipated that these actions will increase both transit
dependent as well as discretionary riders on one of CVT's major
routes (it transports about 8300 people/month). This change
will generate an additional 61,600 revenue miles. Thus Route
4 will travel a total of 149,300 revenue miles in FY 1981.
New CVT system total for FY81 is 569,000 revenue miles.
Fiscal Year 1982
1. Commencing in FY1981, 14 CVT buses will be rehabilitated at a
cost of $17,500 each or a total cost of $245,000. This cost
will be spread out over a consecutive two year period for an
annual cost of about $122,000.
2. Reduce headways on Route 5 from one hour to 30 minutes, Monday
through Friday. This new schedule will result in 72,200
revenue miles added to Route 5 for a total of 159,451 miles/year.
3. Reduce headways on Route 6 from 20 minutes to 10 minutes,
Monday through Friday, with a net result of 19,000 additional
revenue miles to Route 6 for a total of 43,235 miles/year.
New CVT system total for FY82 is 660,000 revenue miles.
Fiscal Year 1983
1. Reduce headways on Route 2 from one hour to 30 minutes, Monday
through Friday. This change will add 44,600 revenue miles to
Route 2 for a total of 113,807 miles/year.
2. Add Saturday service to Route 3, 7 a.m.-6 p.m. This will add
11,000 revenue miles to Route 3 for a total of 69,000 miles/year.
3. Add Sunday service to Route 4, 8 a.m.-6 p.m. which will add
9,100 additional revenue miles to Route 4 for a total of 158,000
miles/year.
New CVT system total for FY83 is 724,700 revenue miles.
Fiscal Year 1984
1. Reduce headways on Route 3 from one hour to 30 minutes, Monday
through Friday. This change will add 60,800 revenue miles to
Z/ Route 3 for a total of 130,000 miles/year.
New CVT system total for FY84 would be 785,500-revenue miles.
Tom Larwin -3- December~l9, 1979
Fiscal Year 1985
No CVT service improvements are scheduled.
CVT
SERVICE/COST PROJECTIONS
- FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85
SERVICE LEVEL
plus Fleet
Number of Spare Buses
Revenue Miles (000)
Contract Cost/Revenue
Mile (1)
13 16 17 19 19
4 5 5 6 6
569.0 660.0 725.0 786.0 786.0
1.94 2.13 2.18 2.47 2.79
Contract Cost (000) $1,103.9 $1,402.4 $1,580.5 $1,941.4 $2,193.0
Maintenance & Support 95.8 107.3 120.1 134.6 150.7
(000) (2)
Operating Cost (000) 1,199..2 1.,509.7 1.,700.6 2,076.0 2,343.7
Capital Cost (000)(3) 390.0(5)- 20.0 20.0 20.0 2,880.0
TOTAL COST $1,589.7 $1,529.7 .$1,720.6 $2,096.0 $5,223.7
_COSTS VS AVAILABLE
REVENUES
Operating Cost (With 51,199.7 $1,509.7 $1,700.6 $2,076.0 $2,343.7
Service Improvements)
Operating Cost (With (4) 930.6 1,016.5 1,107.3 1,208.5 1,321.6
No Service Improve-
ment s )
Cost of Service $ 269.1 $ 493.2 $ 593.3 $ 867.5 $1,022.1
Improvements
125.0 $ 154.0 $ 191.0
Projected Unallocated $ 344.0 $ (34.0) $
TDA Funds
Surplus/Deficit $ 74.9 $ (527.2) $ (468.3) $ (713.5) $ (831.1)
(1) Based on annual inflation rates of 7~, 25~, 14~ for WearsinfFY81 &n82
all other CVT expenses, respectively plus $.23/mile/y
for bus rehabilitation costs.
(2) Projected City costs have been inflated 12o per year. 1979) and revised
(3) Projections taken from CVT 5-year Plan Update.(of July
as of 12/10/79.
(4) Revised from previous reported figures, as of 12/20/79.
/~ ( (5) $130,000 from FY 1980 LTF Reserves and $260,000 from FY8I.TDA allocation.
(~ _.
Tom Larwin -4- December 19, 1979
CAPITAL COSTS
Capital improvement costs over the next five year period are
broken down as follows (in 000's):
FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85
Maintenance Facility $330
Buses $2,800
Fareboxes, Radios, etc. $ 30 50
Bus Stop Improvements $ 30 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 30
Fiscal Year Totals $390~5~ $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $2,880
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
~~u-~/
w ~ ~/
64ILLIAM J. ROBENS
Development Services Administrator
GR:nr
cc: Jack A. Bloom
9~ 2~
W N F-•' ''T1 W N 1~ '~7
1
.+ IBC ~~
CO p~ ~
N I--+
. rtwxl xl ~a rtroro o ~ rt~~~ ago ~~u z nx
n o O o n a O o cD rp ro n\ m ~ m m o r• cD C m
r• G C1+ r• LL G CL G• r- N >v n ~ cn £ n m H G'
b ~ rt
'G
a,r•~rtG
~~
~ p,C
rD rt
x
rt
~ ~
U1 !-•• (D n 1L rt O fD n
~ ~
~ (n G' E r• rt n U1 rt ISl Z7
~
~ m C r• m ~ o a n m G m C G G w
G In ~- o~ rn C7 N• G ~C (D n n~ O m 1~
a rt x G r• x C 1-' 3 n cn 't7 rt C rt o r•
O cu rn tD 1v G M O ~3 r- O a O G cD cn G m rt c
~ N r'S W r G ri SL ~.1. ~ .-, rr, ri rt i"! p. lD ri SU i
~• o a. rt o sz tr n. ~ n m rt m n rD rt I
a -- ~ E rt~ ~ E G ~' su ~ o a r• tr' C r• I
"C ~ ~ n N Sv m rt 'C g O ~J ~C r• x1 0 ~
1 to F-+ ~C r• N~ to r• I W a G O O o G
'=7 UI h7 ~. O UI UI O 'TJ GL 1-~ G G 'i1 (D G ~
n w~ cn N ~ n a a o rt o rt o
r• C1, O O - I--~ ~ O r• r• G• M m G a o rh
Q+ fl+ G G r• G f1~ rt O n rt n ~
"C ct O G `C O rt GL W .p I
O rt
Q n
G ~
O . (
D p
i rt O O
w ~ u, ~ o co I
,
r r 1-' ~ ~ I...~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W W W ~ W W
N N F-'. F-' I-~ N
~ ~ x ~
.A 00 ~] U'i
Ui
F/ ~
l1~ ~ ~A .A Q~
l0 W l0 N
.P N W J
F-' I-~ N
f-' O O .A
J F•' 01 N
J O 00 In
w r N I-~ F-+
W 10 N l0 N N
l0 N N O I-+ N
In O O 0~
.P W W N
F~ lft N N
N .P O 00
N N N N F-'
~D U1 N lJl O N
N Q~ N OJ 00 N
W ~ O 07
y G z~
7 cn
!D
~ Z
~<
± ~.
.~
7 [D
t _
~~ H
)~
s
(OD
L (1
~ m
S ~
> r-
fi ~
y
s
S
r
3 ~-• ~
D ? fD
3 'p Oi
t ~ Z
D (D
1 1
3 ~
v O .~. p
~ C
-~ (D fD t-r
1 N fD
s ~ D
J. ~ ~~~
r ~ ~p
D fD C O
n ~ O+O
C -+•~
fD
~~Dr.
D ~ fD ~ O
S N < ~ O
n to fD C O
c~ ~ c~
~c-•
1 fD
-~w oa
~ Ct~ ~
n -+• (D ~
t ~ 'S C
lL1 1 Ai
J
~ T ~
D 6i ~
Z C
D (D C
~ CL
D
T
y
Z
'~ cn a
z ~ ~
D (~ 7
Z tt C
• •a
~ O
o A
z c~ ~
D S ~
cD C
~. -~ a
~ J
:C
D ^
_~ ~-ice
~' ~ O
'.. p.•.
T
i~
Z
~G
C.a
lI7
N
O
m
0
("1
C
N
a
C
r•
m
rt
w
H
rj
sv
N
r•
rt
T
O
Z
N
Z
C~~
lD
~.
H
d
D~
Q U.
a, x-
~ •-s
CD .~.
<•r
d
fD f')•
(~ c-r
m
~ o~
o' ~
o
n
N
J
J
0
U
N
m
N
~~
N
m
~~
m
G7
m
N
BC •~ •J .;
i I
~ IW
• ~ W
~' h7 x1 ~ ~ 6~ ct ~i rt N ;U ',Ll
~ o m o a o a n~ o ro
NsJ a z/ a ro a r•NG n.
ro ro ~ ro
O ro G G~ N O
ro
n W -p a n'
x m~ ~ n
x
• n, ro w n o rfi ro
n ~ O 'c w P., ~ -- n Su
c n ~'
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a ~~
m c a ~ x a ~
0 _ ~''
o i ~ ~c ~•r
•oo
G G ro r• G,rrC G
n rn ~ v r• n
1 (D ~
rt r0 O ~ 1'1•
O O
~ ~
-~ ~.., 1,., r+
~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ !b !b
~ W W W
~ tb ~ v
to ~ to o0
N N
' N .A ~] r'
W O W W
Ut W ~I OD
r' r+
~ ~ ~ ~
.P J ~I t0
W O O O
W U'1 F-' N
O N p1 ,p
~ W o ~
o ao rn o
~ 61 N pp
~I ~ 01 O
r' CO N O
N .P F--' F~
U1 Cn W p1
J ~l W pJ
~0 O 0~ O
~~ ~~
0 .D
n -S
'~ <
Z ~•
~ ~
-,.
3
~ ~ ~
fD ~ fD
~~ w
(•} J
d. 1
f ~ 3 ~
a+ o ~• o
~ J
/ (D (D (~'
1 N !D
3 ~ A o
~. fD ~ O
'D f~D C O
vl ~ w
C j
(D
Q 'C ~7 .'. .-.
'D w (D ~ O
'~$ N G ~ O
Jf to fD C O
r~ ~ w .r
~c-+
1 ~
nw ob
o~~~
;~ -~. ro ~
~ ~ Z z=
cG 1 w
0
~ ~
G
~ ~
• w
o~ c
N r•
O cn
~ a
H
rt
N
N
W
ft
~ ~
~ ~
Z ~
f0 C/1
< D
r.
n ~
fD ~
A
-+• Z
~ N
C/f
m
a
...
m
n
2
z
H ~
C7 m
oy N
~--t~
'o w ~ .-,
G ~ ~ O
(D C O
~ w O
J ~
n cn a
z o ~
~ ~ ~
_2 ~ c
. a
~-+• o --•
:~ O D
Z c-r ~
'D ~" ~
G (D C
.r. "S w
C'h "+
fD
~ ~O
~. ~ O
,;
{
.J Q LI-
a w c
~ r+ ~
.~ cn ~.
N
o ~+
J•
.J ~}
L
~ O•
n ~
~ 11' 1
1, ~ .,i .
___~.,~ -t~ t ~ _ ~ i
,~-EtalZr Chula Vista Transit ~";z C.-:;i: rl; 1`~d 12/20/79 ~.(-;_', r~F,( ~y J.
\ ( T ;r ~`Q~ ---~-~;,~-Ear -- -S,~ ;eor r =-}f~ `~e~ar
~' ~Y .~ ~ I FY ~~ FY ,~ ~ I FY 9 `~
-_
~vc~ ~r s
~~zv~cc
- -
~
-
--
-
- -- _
-
_
(,~ II nn
\1~:~~1rf1PS ~~71~~1~I;1" C~(-l'iL'r'(fI~Qi1S~
~
i
Q u ~-zS
13 _ ___
~
16 ~
17
_ Rail ~~~y Cam ~ _
I- I
_. -
.~v_e~ue ('~e;,~Frs_-1Q041 ' 512 ' 673 i 797
TCIQ( ~~1«~-:'~r~1'c (000) ~ 701 _ __~ - 934_ ~ 1122
~~ V? ttc~~ ,~{ i ~ S -----
-- 569 _
- i
660
~ -_-__
~
725 ,
_~I~c~ I +~ (000)
581 __
__
`
6'~4
~ _
----
743
_- _
--
-
-
pGccz:~~er ~~eS (1) _;
._ 240_0 302_U
i ;
3400
_
T~~ ' ~~~,t''~1 I:~~i ~-•~(if (3) -_
_. 887 _
--
I 1210
-- -
- --
'
, 1340
_~~TR- ~~cf i~~;~ ~ - ~ -
--- ~ ---
-
-----7 ---- •----- ~ ----
_j 19
__
943
1347
1-_ 786
806 i
415.0
1470
I 75
Investment Earnings ~_ _- -15 _ ~ _~ 16 ~ 17 > 5 ' _ 19
Advertising Revenue __ i - 8 , 10 ~ 11 13
--- --i- -~ - .-- - -~ - - _-
Bloom
ji:. YC~r
~~ '
19 ~
970
13 8 6 _`
786
468.U
1559
100
--- 21 -- -. --
__ 15--- -
TD~Q~. per ~'r,' ~ECC1tC~f.t ca~~' ~ ~4~' 1200 I _1537 11708 I 1992.0 2163
1 ~~ `j ~I
_I:-CSC-;_ '~.Pr~ L'Y~~_~: X~c,'~;i~r (lTe,.S_!--~2-90~ i ~~a*7 I X700 1 2076.0 I 2343 ` _
fcn'..~ ,,t f.. Ir~l ie~ its- -
; ~
/
'
` ~ i
~ - ~'
.1 J ~ ~ ~
L, T c
(-~ i T A
~~
~ EST ~ ~ .
.~ ,~~r~~ s~f C~,} iii (!1u'~~ds ~ ! ~ j - - --_
r-
TOA-Capifal~;';1~,n~-{i i 390(2)
~ ~20
~ 20
~ 20 ~
288o L~,.-
!t~~~.-.~~n~ ir~3 i I I ~ - -_-_~
i - --- ~----- ,- --- ...____ - _ _ ;,
--- ,- _ I
~ _ ~ .. w
-
_ _-
' ~ ~
'L~fa( C~~a~ccf ~uy,ds ~ 390 I 20 20 _20.0 2880.0
PS ~ ~ Q CY, L'gl~l,l~~ 1 390 20.0 ~ .20.OV j 20.0 2880.0
~a ~rul l~nc~ ~ur lut - ~
I i I
(1) 20a of total operating cost
(7.) SCOOT Capital LTF Monies
(3)
~. , .
.~
~• ~~
County porti-on of
estimated to be Pa
Vista is 98 o.
~ ~
. '
' .~ ,i`l.
SCOOT costs financed by LTF monies
of total operating costs and Chula ~
r
I __
'l
c0
.~
~ o
ro ~
~ O
i
o ~,
~, o
.r.,
~ V p ~
? O
U ~
y ~
~' x
Q U
ro
-r'.r~rn
r
~ ~~
C/1 •~ N
U 9
y ~
O y `~
:9
G. G. ~
CD
OTC 'L
d
zZ
~O
w~
n Q
C~:
--~ 0
z ~
o Z'
Q ~
~..• U
~w
°O
~~
z~
z
~ ~
N
M ~
~_ ~~.~-- _u, _---._..
i
~
w `''~ ~a
r
a b ~ > +~
N
~ ~ N
~
~
~ U
~ ~ ~
."'. ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ >, >+ w its
~
i
~~ a o x r+ •.~ ~ o ~,,, w w [
~.
a
~
' ro +~ a~
O ro E ~ H ~ ~ ~ i
,
V w
i O a 0 0 UO O~
'~ ~ a 0 O
H o 0 O O
0 0
~ •~ •.~ o ~
U w ~ ~ ,c p o 0 0 0
~, rG ro W .~ O Sl U
~ 0 0 o
O
O
~ ~
.b u ~ n ro 'd •,~ o ro
O O O H +~ ~ U
+~ ~ v M M
~ ~ v> M N
~ ~
~,., a a ~ cn w .
~ ~~
x x
Q
x
~ d
a~ x
}
M
x
~
x x
~ >cxx xx
~
rl O ri N
O~ O OJ O O
V
C N [~ O 61
N V' ~ O
~ O
N
in 'J rl rl N ~ ~ rl
O
O
~ V
~ ~
.. .+
N 7 N
U N N
«.
9 r
~ L O'~ O~ CO - N O N
a' ~ N M r-1 l~ f~ ~ '•^
~
~ ~ ri O lfl ~
r-1 ~-~ N N
«+
c7 LL ~~ ~~
to O N t~
O M M O
O O
N
~ ~ M M
C
F., _.._
aseyd w a ~ H a-~ H ,
Z
._ _
0
z ,~
I ~c o
~
~
o
~
N
d '«. O O
Z r1
N
J v ~ O
a
~~E
-
"~ _
Q J O ~
V
y O O
~
Y.
~ J
U p ,~
a H
Q
~
n /uiloud ~
~- _
~ t!1
r1 _ ro ~
.~ O
U
~ ~ ~ O
~
.
-.
W N ~
o ~
~
~ w
a o
U H
~ m ~
a
o ~ ~
ro ~ o ~
~ O ~
~ N N
N
ro ro O
~ w a ~
w
H
a
H
S
U
x
O
O
d'
N
O
O
d'
N
. ~y
w
a
H
O
U
x
O
O
O
. C
O
O
C'
a
~ ~'
a .~
o ~ ~ b
ro ~ N
N O ~ fn 0.ro'~ ~ N
N ~ U r
O ~ ro m O ~ ~
a1cz~ N OZ~A
a °~' ~' ~
~ O ~ ~ ~, O RC N
O
~ ~+ `-' O ~ ~ N ro
Ul ro •~ ~ •'~ O X
row ~~ ~~xa~
a w O
tf1 FC '~ ~ N •rl ro O
~2w~' caw ro
~ ~ ~ I
s