Loading...
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 - --