HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-2017 WSMayor
COLUMBIA Donna Schmitt
CHCouncilmembers
HEIGHTS Robert A. Williams
John Murzyn, Jr.
City of Columbia Heights Connieeuesgens
h Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 -3878 (763) 706 -3600 TDD (763) 706 -3692 Nick Nanag y
590 40t
City Manager
Visit our website at: www.columbiaheightsmn.gov Walter R. Fehst
Meeting of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Purpose of Meeting:
NOTICE OF
WORK SESSION
Columbia Heights City Council
June 5, 2017
7:00 PM (Following the EDA Meeting)
City Hall- Conference Room No. 1
Worksession
• Public Art Standards and Guidelines Discussion
• City Logos and Taglines Usage Guidelines Discussion
• Review proposed change to late fee for delinquent utility charges
• Discussion of Refuse Rates — Disposal and tipping fees
• Circle Terrace Park Building bids
• 1087 Polk Circle Storm Water Overflow
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or
employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are
available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk at 763 - 706 -3611 to
make arrangements. (TDD /763- 706 -3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only.)
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
AGENDA SECTION
WORK SESSION
ITEM NO.
WS1
MEETING DATE
JUNE 5, 2017
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM:
Public Art Standards and Guidelines
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL:
BY /DATE: Joe Hogeboom, 05/15/2017
BY /DATE:
BACKGROUND:
In late 2016, the City received a request by a local artist to commission several pieces of public art along
Central Avenue. At the time, the City Council endorsed the project (which involved the submittal of a grant
application to the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization), but directed staff to create a set of
guidelines to help guide and direct requests for public art in the future.
The attached proposed guidelines were authored and reviewed by the Communications Committee, which is
comprised of staff representatives from all of the various City divisions, as well as the City Planner who is
managing the public art project along Central Avenue. The City Attorney has also reviewed the proposed
language and has endorsed it for approval.
CONCLUSION /NEXT STEPS
Staff would like to bring the document before the City Council for formal consideration, and seeks any
feedback that Council Members may have regarding the proposed language.
ATTACHMENT
1. Public Art Standards and Guidelines (1 page)
Public Art Standards and Guidelines
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
Public Art Standards/ Guidelines
1. Does the site provide an opportunity to make an engaging or bold artistic statement?
2. Does the project provide an opportunity to draw any artist with engaging work?
3. Does the project provide an opportunity for a unique public artwork?
4. Does the site, surrounding area or project provide an opportunity to reflect on Columbia
Heights and its characteristics?
5. Are there opportunities within the project to integrate artwork into the design or
function of structures?
6. Will the site be visible to and attract visitors and residents?
7. Is the site located in one of the City's commercial corridors, or other prominent
location?
8. Is the proposed site and artwork location safe?
9. Does the site provide an opportunity for people to gather and come together?
10. Can the artwork be maintained within standard City maintenance procedures and
cycles?
11. Can funds be leveraged for the creation of the artwork through grant, private
partnership or donation?
12. Is the artwork culturally sensitive, and non - offensive to the community?
13. Does the project convey a positive image of the City of Columbia Heights?
14. Does the project provide an opportunity to include local artist(s)?
15. Is there a community involvement component in either the design or physical
implementation of the project?
16. Does the project provide an opportunity to involve local students?
17. Has the project, based on the guidelines listed above, received approval by the City
Council?
3
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
AGENDA SECTION
WORK SESSION
ITEM NO.
WS2
MEETING DATE
JUNE 5, 2017
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM:
City Logo and Tagline Usage Guidelines
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL:
BY /DATE: Joe Hogeboom, 05/15/2017
BY /DATE:
BACKGROUND:
It had been recommended by the City Attorney that a set of guidelines be established that guide both internal
and external usage of the City's official logos and taglines. The attached proposed guidelines were authored
and reviewed by the Communications Committee, which is comprised of staff representatives from all of the
various City divisions.
Occasionally, the City receives requests from outside entities regarding the usage of our City logo. Having
guidelines in place helps to direct and protect the usage of the brand. The City's logos and taglines received
trademark protection in 2016, granting the City authority over the usage of the material.
The language for the proposed guidelines was based upon similar language used in other cities that have
established brands, including the cities of Minneapolis and Denver, CO. The City Attorney has reviewed the
proposed language and has endorsed it for approval.
CONCLUSION /NEXT STEPS
Staff would like to bring the document before the City Council for formal consideration, and seeks any
feedback that Council Members may have regarding the proposed language.
ATTACHMENT
1. City Logo and Tagline Usage Guidelines (2 pages)
City Logo and Tagline Usage Guidelines
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
City Logo and Tagline Usage Guidelines
1. The City's official logos and taglines are trademark protected, and may only be used by
the City of Columbia Heights, the Economic Development Authority of Columbia
Heights, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Columbia Heights and any
outside agency conducting official work on behalf of or in partnership with, and
approved by, the City of Columbia Heights. All other usage must be approved by the City
Council.
2. Usage of the City's official logos and taglines shall conform to the formatting guidelines
established in the Official City Logos, Brand and Style Guide, adopted by the City Council
in April, 2015. The logos and taglines shall not be altered or changed in any way.
3. Usage of the City's official logos and taglines shall be limited to other governmental
agencies or non - profit groups that partner with the City on official events and /or
promotional activities.
4. Entities wishing to use the City's official logos and taglines must not detract from the
positive image of the City of Columbia Heights.
5. Visual integrity of the City's official logos and taglines must be maintained at all times.
Only files and formats of the logos and taglines that are generated and provided by the
City of Columbia Heights may be used.
6. The City Council may restrict use of the City's official logos and taglines at anytime and
for any reason.
7. Within the City's internal and external communications, approved taglines can be
utilized. The following applications are appropriate for tagline usage:
a. Rediscover the Heights
• City promotional material
• Economic development material
• Advertising and marketing
b. All - America City
• City promotional material
• Advertising and marketing material
• General City government communications
5
c. City of Peace
• City promotional material
• Specific reference to the "Clock Tower of Peace"
• Various specific promotional events, such as the Mayor's Prayer
Breakfast and the City of Peace Awards
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
AGENDA SECTION
WORK SESSION
ITEM NO.
WS4
MEETING DATE
JUNE 5, 2017
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM:
REFUSE AND RECYCLING DISPOSAL ISSUES
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL:
BY /DATE: Kevin Hansen / June 1, 2017
BY /DATE:
BACKGROUND: The City of Columbia Heights has operated our refuse and recycling collection as an organized
collector for over 30 years. For the initial 20 years, the same hauler (last known as Allied) provided our service.
When their contract was ending in 2009, the City utilized an RFP process to obtain the best prices for service
possible. In 2010, Veolia (now known as Advanced Disposal) began servicing the City. The City of Columbia
Heights disposes of 7,000 tons per year on an average basis. Prior to our new contract we did not track where
refuse was disposed of, it was left up to the hauler. With the new contract, in an effort to control costs, the
City chose to pay for disposal by weight as a separate line item.
A resource recovery facility has operated in the county since 1990. This facility creates electricity by burning
trash. Initially called RRT, the facility was sold in 2010 to the electrical provider Great River Energy or GRE. For
a number of years, the County had subsidized the cost of operating the RRT to remain competitive with landfill
disposal costs. With the sale to GRE, the County subsidy was transitioned out.
Below is a summary of the disposal costs through our current contractor along with the total annual trash
brought to the GRE:
2010: $52 /ton with subsidy =same as transfer station. 91% was disposed at GRE.
2011: $54 /ton with subsidy =same as transfer station. 81% was disposed at GRE.
2012: $54 /ton with subsidy =same as transfer station. 78% was disposed at GRE.
In the years preceding 2013, the majority of trash went to GRE. Only the bulk, dumpster, and end of day trash
went to the transfer station. Since then the disposal costs have skyrocketed:
• January 2013: $54 =same as transfer station
• July 2013: $56 for regular trash, $67 for bulk; transfer station $54
• 64% of the trash was disposed at GRE in 2013.
• January 2014: $58 for regular trash, $68 for bulk; transfer station $56
• July 2014: $60 for regular trash, $71 for bulk; transfer station $56
• 49% of the trash was disposed at GRE in 2014.
• January 2015: $62 for regular trash, $73 for bulk; transfer station $60
• July 2015: $64 for regular trash, $75 for bulk; transfer station $62
• 27% of the trash was disposed at GRE in 2015. If 100 %, would have cost the refuse fund over $14,000
in extra tipping fees.
• 2016: $75 for regular trash, $110 for bulk; transfer station $64
• 25% of the trash was disposed at GRE in 2016.
rJ
of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
• If 100%x, would have cost the refuse fund over $60,000 in extra tipping fees.
• To date in 2017: $75 for regular trash, $110 For bulk; transfer station $64
• 25% of the trash was disposed at GRE so far in 2017. If 100% through April, would have cost the refuse
fund over $20,000 in extra tipping fees.
TAKING 100% OF OUR TRASH TO GRE RESULTS IN OVER $70,000 ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COST (OVER
LANDFILL DISPOSAL) AND WILL PROBABLY INCREASE IN THE FUTURE.
OTHER NOTES:
• The City of Columbia Heights current contract with our hauler spells out a least cost option:
f. The Contractor assumes responsibility for collection and delivery of items not acceptable to disposal and recyclable
processing facilities.
g. The City and the Contractor shall meet once per quarter to discuss disposal facility options. The Contractor shall present
disposal options that have competitive prices and will lower the costs of disposal to the City.
The County as a whole only sends 30% of the trash collected to GRE.
MN Statute 115A.94 provides that public trash from organized collection entities must go to resource
recovery (i.e. GRE and other facilities). City staff had been interpreting that to apply to all
governmental generated trash such as buildings, parks, and recreation. Furthermore, under MN
115A.94, in the County where a resource recovery is located, the requirements for organized collection
are further defined by the County Solid Waste Management Ordinance or Plan. The County Solid
Management Plan requires organized cities to deliver 100% of Municipal Solid Waste or MSW to GRE.
For many years, it did not matter because the County subsidized the cost at GRE to make it equal the
common rates for transfer stations (landfilling).
The plan also states organized trash is supposed to go to incineration plants if there is capacity, but
that is actually the same rule for all haulers. (see item #5 on page 44, attached) We view this as highly
unequitable as the County does not have a system to equally distribute the tons required at GRE across
the county. Haulers can't wait until a truck is full to decide where to take the trash i.e. GRE vs. transfer
station.
The City Attorney has recently discussed and exchanged information with the County Attorney on the
interpretation of what constitutes 'MSW.' The result of those discussions will be incorporated into our
upcoming RFP for hauler services which will include a requirement of 100% of our trash going to the
GRE.
As we remain in our current contract, it is staff's recommendation to continue our current disposal sources
and close out this contract as we have been operating. In our RFP which is currently being written, we will
include the statutory language in that so beginning in 2018, our MSW goes to the GRE.
t'IN STATUTE 115A.94 ORGANIZED COLLECTION.
Subd. 3.General provisions.
(d) Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal ser —ice may include a
requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste, e: >cept (1) recyclable materials
and (2) materials that are processed at a resource reco- °eryi facility at the capacity in
operation at the time that the requirement is imposed, be deli -rered to a waste facility
identified by the local government unit. In a district or county where a resource
recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section 115A.86, organized
collection must conform to the requirements of the designation ordinance.
ATTACHMENT(S): Pages 22 and 44 of the Anoka County Solid Waste Plan 8
GRE is responsible for contracting with A aste haulers for delivery of waste for processing. Anoka
County has agreed to pay GRF a hauler rebate for each ton of Anoka County waste delivered to the
facility up to 155,000 tons per year.
Figure IE -11. GrR.E Processing Agreement Rebate Schedule
-- 2012 2013 2014 2015
Licensed hauler rebate paid by county $ I4 $10 $6 _ 4
Figure 111 -12. Anoka Count} Y5`v'r' Delivered for Processing and Unprocessed Waste Landfilled
reported in tons
250,000
200,000
150,000
1 00,000
50,000
0
22
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
is Unprocessed Waste Landfilled rt DOivued for.i'roeessing
Vj
Part Six; Processing
Processing of MSW rather than landfilling is mandated by Minn. Stat. §473.848 because it
recovers and conserves valuable resources, protects the environment and reduces dependence
on landfills. To date, processing has been available primarily for MSW, however, the county
will consider opportunities to process other materials as technology becomes available.
The county will look to the private sector to develop new processing technologies and if
needed increase the processing capacity available to generators.
Processing Objectives
The following chart summarizes the Anoka County achievement for 2010 in comparison to
the State Policy Plan objectives through 2030.
M, wagetnemt Method
Anoka
Chanty
Actual.
State Policy Plan Objectives
For MSW Generated in the Region*
2010
2015
2020
� 2025
� 2030 1
Processing
Actual and Minimum Objectives in Tons
41%
32 -34%
32 -33%
30 -31%
28 -24%
136,232
155,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
*The system objectives are intended to fully utilize existing permitted and installed Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
resource recovery capacity. if the system objectives are met for the upper end of the waste management hierarchy
and existing resource recovery capacity is maximized, it will not be necessary to build new resource recovery
facilities because of the associated increases in source reduction, recycling and organics recovery objectives.
Processing Policies
44
1, Processing of MSW is preferred to landfilling. MSW generated in the county, that is
not reused, recycled or composted, will be processed to the extent that processing
capacity is available,
2. Waste -to- energy facilities and landfill methane recovery are renewable energy sources.
3. To maximize resource conservation, landfill abatement and facility efficiency, waste
delivered to a processing facility should, to the extent feasible, be suited to the facility's
technology.
4. The region will maximize the use and capacity of existing processing facilities.
5. Public entities, including but not limited to state, regional, county, and local
governments, and school districts, will incorporate processing requirements for MSW
into their service agreements with MSW haulers to the extent that processing capacity
is available per Minn. Stat, §§ 115A.46 and 11 SA.471.
W61
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
AGENDA SECTION
WORK SESSION
ITEM NO.
WS5
MEETING DATE
JUNE 5, 2017
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM:
ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE CIRCLE TERRACE PARK BUILDING, CITY PROJECT
1609
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL:
BY /DATE: Kevin Hansen /June 1, 2017
BY /DATE:
BACKGROUND: In 2016 new equipment was approved that included a sport court, swing set, a small playset with
slides, engineered wood fiber surfacing, concrete walks, matching benches and trash can, and a basketball hoop for
the sport court, all installed by staff.
At their regular meeting on February 13th, the City Council approved the final plans and authorized public bidding
for the Circle Terrace Park building. The bidding documents included the original plan elements of the preliminary
building plans.
Funding for the project shall come from a CDBG grant ($236,771) and the Park Development Fund ($38,750).
Interior furnishing and treatments shall be provided by the Police Forfeiture Fund.
ANALYSIS /CONCLUSIONS: Nine bids were received and publicly read aloud at the May 17, 2017 bid opening.
The apparent low bid was submitted by Cobra Construction in the amount of $418,527.00. Approximately
$5,773.00 separated the next bidder from the low bidder on the base bid. The overall project cost for the building
is approximately 35% higher than the Engineer's Estimate.
Alternate bids were received for:
1) Solid Surfacing for the interior countertops
2) Replacing base bid roofing material of standing seam metal roof with architectural shingles.
Accepting the bid alternates results in a bid amount of $375,839.
Immediately after the bids were received, the architect contacted the prime bidders to analyze why there was such
a differential from the architects estimate. Their written summary is attached. Much of it had to do with building
trades being extremely busy and general building prices being significantly up.
In two prior similar situations, the City has chosen to reject bids and rebid at a later date to obtain favorable bids. If
the City wants to construct this building, that is not a viable option due to the funding source. The grant the City
obtained is Federal funds. The City contacted Anoka County, who administers the CDBG Program, and was
informed that final application for funding reimbursement must be made prior to December 315' of this year, or we
will lose the funds. At a separate meeting with Anoka County, the City Manager and Community Development
Director were informed that additional funding may be available through the County. Staff is currently assembling
information to submit to the County for the shortfall. If additional funding is not provided, the City may want to
consider other funding sources to build the building. The other alternative is to abandon the project.
ATTACHMENT(S): Minutes of bid opening.
ISG Report
IE
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Minutes of Bid Opening on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 2:00 p.m.
Circle Terrace Park Community Room and Shelter
City Project 1609
Pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Circle Terrace Park Community Room and
Shelter, City Project 1609, an administrative meeting was held on May 17, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
for the purpose of bid opening.
Attending the meeting was:
Simon lyawe, lyawe & Associates
Dawn Wilkins, Morcon Construction
Joe Wagner, ISG, Inc.
Terry Stangl, Versacon, Inc.
Loren Green, Ebert, Inc.
Rhonda Centers, Cobra Construction
Nanci L. Virgin, The Heating Guy
Kari Canill- O'Brien, Derau Construction
Kevin Greeninger, TMG Construction
Doug Evans, JB Vang
Ryan Beyer, Dering Pierson Group
Dan Kolpin, JS Cates Construction
Kevin Hansen, City Engineer
Sue Schmidtbauer, Public Works Secretary
Bids were opened and read aloud as follows:
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Schmidtbauer
Public Works Secretary
12
Base Bid with
Bidder
Base Bid
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 1 and 2
Cobra Construction
418,527.00
2,000.00
(44,688.00)
375,839.00
JB Vang
424,300.00
2,000.00
(15,000.00)
411,300.00
Derau Construction
479,200.00
2,500.00
(34,000.00)
447,700.00
TMG Construction
467,500.00
2,150.00
(18,000.00)
451,650.00
Dering Pierson Group
474,585.00
2,700.00
(15,000.00)
462,285.00
Versacon, Inc.
474,000.00
2,359.00
N/A
476,359.00
Ebert Construction
497,300.00
2,100.00
(12,500.00)
486,900.00
Morcon Construction
521,200.00
4,000.00
(15,000.00)
510,200.00
lyawe & Associates
790,000.00
2,500.00
(40,000.00)
752,500.00
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Schmidtbauer
Public Works Secretary
12
May 25, 2017
Kevin Hansen
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
City of Columbia Heights
637 38th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Bid Result Summary for Circle Terrace Park Community Room and Shelter
Kevin,
The following letter provides a summary of the design and bidding process for the Circle Terrance Park Community
Room and Shelter project in Columbia Heights. This includes a summary of the design and cost estimate process, bids
received, as well as our recommendation for moving forward. We understand that the project will be predominately
funded through a grant from Anoka County and remaining within preferred budget is essential.
Summary of Design Process
ISG met with City staff to discuss the scope of the project, including anticipated budget and funding. Based on these
discussions, ISG prepared a schematic design and the associated Opinion of Probable Cost. The estimate exceeded the
City's anticipated budget, and ISG continued to work with City staff to adjust design elements in an effort to reduce
overall costs. Based on the revised schematic design the Opinion of Probable Cost totaled $283,710.
In addition to ISG's estimators, we also utilized several resources to determine the proposed probable costs including
RS Means Cost Data and construction costs from previous projects with a similar scope of work. ISG also reached out
to several industry experts for feedback on the anticipated cost based on the proposed design. At that time, the
estimate was in -line with the resources and feedback from industry experts.
Upon final approval of the revised design and associated probable cost, ISG completed the design process and uploaded
bidding documents to QuestCDN. Bidding documents were also provided to select general contractors that had previous
experience performing similar types of work who we believed would be a good fit for the project.
Summary of Bids Received
Nine general contractor bids were received with base bids ranging from $418,527 to $790,000, which exceeded the
City's preferred budget of $265,000. Based on the bids received, costs for concrete, masonry, finishes, as well as
plumbing and electrical exceeded the opinion of probable cost.
We are aware that the industry is at its peak both for this construction season and historically as compared to recent
years. Many general contractors have also already contracted their work for the season thus limiting potential bidders.
ISG believes that the timing of the bid coupled with the industry peak resulted in increased costs.
Recommendation
Based on the bid proposals received and further conversations with you in the past few days, we recommend that the
City and ISG work with the apparent low bidder to discuss potential options to further explore additional cost - saving
measures and possibly adjust minor design elements.
Feel welcome to contact me if you have any questions or if there is any additional information we can provided. We
look forward to continuing our partnership with the City of Columbia Heights.
Sincerely,
JV"
Joe Wagner, CD
Project Manager + Construction Administrator
Architecture Group
CH COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
AGENDA SECTION
WORK SESSION
ITEM NO.
WS6
MEETING DATE
JUNE 5, 2017
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM:
MINOR STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1087 POLK CIRCLE
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL:
BY /DATE: Kevin Hansen /June 1, 2017
BY /DATE:
BACKGROUND: In the late 1980's, a joint storm sewer project was completed with the City of Fridley. The project
provided new storm sewer piping along the municipal boundary with Fridley from the La Casita parking lot to
several hundred feet east to serve residential lots in both communities. Over the years, several storm pipe
additions tying into this pipe have occurred. The area between the La Casita Parking lot and 1087 Polk Circle has a
30 foot easement and is a relatively flat, low area. (Reference attached existing conditions map.)
ANALYSIS /CONCLUSIONS: This low area in the easement between La Casita and 1087 Polk Circle has repeatedly
surcharged, overtopped and flooded during significant storm events. While it was never intended to flood, the
property owner has indicated that surface water has approached 20 feet of the home.
With the platting of the three parcels and the addition of Planet Fitness, a small portion of this overflow area will
now become a parking lot. Planet Fitness has met or exceeded City and MWMO standards. In addition, due to the
history of surface flooding, staff required all of the storm water from Planet Fitness be directed out to existing
piping on 51St Court.
To improve and adequately protect the property at 1087 Polk Circle, staff is proposing some minor storm sewer
improvements along with regrading to create an overflow area as shown on the proposed condition map. A 10 -inch
storm pipe and modified catch basin (one of the basins that was added later) will be removed, a new manhole will
be placed with piping redirecting flow further downstream of the existing storm pipe. An overflow area will be
graded creating 1.5x the storage volume of what had existed. A vertical pipe will be placed to allow drainage from
the overflow area, but will limit the surcharge backflow into this area.
Staff has been in contact with the owner of 1087 Polk Circle and he is agreeable to re- grading the rear of his
property to provide an overflow area during significant storm events.
Additionally, the cost of the improvements will be shared with the City of Fridley under the existing storm sewer
cost share agreement from when this system was originally put in.
The estimated costs for the project are as follows:
Storm piping = $7,700
Manhole = $3,200
Tree removals, grading and restoration = $31,000
The City storm sewer fund would pay for our share (65 %) at a 65 -35 split with the City of Fridley.
ATTACHMENT(S): Existing conditions map
Proposed site map
14
z
6mp. -Iij I ... Id -10Z /l 19
�w
ss
E a -
w Q
N� t-u
W a° o
a
0
0
I
I—,
> U
I r
Q
LL
0 Q
4>
tj
f ti
b W ~
N
W � L7
o S to
I
I—,
ZOZ
Z Q
I r
Q
J
N
LD
w
�
�o
x
I a
IW/77WKN W 6 �NZW
awm
2
Z L) ¢
Z1!�
z
n
0!
a1S
O
7
o
I
J
Q
m —�
i'
0
o L-n
mi
�o
Q
Q
Z
O
u
N
L
J �
s
w '
a �
w
•
Z
a �
I—,
ZOZ
Z Q
0
W
N
LD
w
�
Slab �rv��m
o°CdziotZ{��O
�f0
'�'oa
Z
IW/77WKN W 6 �NZW
I a
2
Z L) ¢
Z1!�
m w
Q¢°
IvZ
a
2m O�LaGw
n
2az
i'
0
o L-n
mi
�o
Q
Q
Z
O
u
N
L
J �
s
w '
a �
w
•
Z
a �
�o
U w O
oLL
W N
Z
0 O
ao
oz
zo
d U
N -tea
pFo
2�
r�r�r
cc
W
iss=
m
oSo�7
it
E E „
v
°oo
I-
=fro
I
Ia
bmp ssaullj lauold LIOZ /L /9 - --
s
0
W
N
LD
O
>
>
W
J O
I a
u
u o
> ° z
C, o
a W
Of
�
Z O
O ¢ Z
`� j u Ci
7
W
az LLF
N U O
u
J
j
Q Q
r
ryv 0p CI ¢
L
d
I
N
u o,
�
w wk tL1
Um'vJ' N
O
\
Z w H = K
7°
C W z�
Z
QCt
f J
]
w� NOZ
L7 :. U
o
O
F,
MiF+rnO�
`—
O LL O 10 c0
in
M
�� 7:
r-
Vi0 �CY)M
O
�u
W
W > > O
O
.O
O
g+ Z z>
Q N Z
N
LO
n
Q
H
OO
r!-
�o
U w O
oLL
W N
Z
0 O
ao
oz
zo
d U
N -tea
pFo
2�
r�r�r
cc
W
iss=
m
oSo�7
it
E E „
v
°oo
I-
=fro
I
Ia
bmp ssaullj lauold LIOZ /L /9 - --
s
0
W
N
LD
O
>
>
W
J O
I a
u
u o
> ° z
C, o
a W
Of
�
Z O
O ¢ Z
`� j u Ci
7
W
az LLF
N U O
u
J
• •
Q Q
.>
ryv 0p CI ¢
L
d
I
N
u o,
�
w wk tL1
Um'vJ' N
O
Z w H = K
7°
C W z�
Z
QCt
f J
]
w� NOZ
L7 :. U
p,W°,O
z
�o
U w O
oLL
W N
Z
0 O
ao
oz
zo
d U
N -tea
pFo
2�
r�r�r
cc
W
iss=
m
oSo�7
it
E E „
v
°oo
I-
=fro
I
Ia
bmp ssaullj lauold LIOZ /L /9 - --