HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05a] 16th Avenue Improvements1-"S�
C[W OF Nt Joshril
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Council Agenda Item _5(a)
February 4, 2010
Engineer Reports —16`h Avenue Improvements
City Attorney
BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council on January 21, 2010 motioned to conduct a public
hearing to consider the improvements to 16th Avenue SE. The improvement would consist of a reclaim,
pave and drainage. As you may recall, this option will, in areas, increase the road height approximately
eight inches.
At this same meeting the Council questioned the financing of the project and how the value of
improvements will be supported.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Some Cities are preparing an assessment benefit analysis to help
determine if the assessment is generally supported. The assessment does not evaluate each household
rather the general area.
We will be gathering price quotes from companies who have assisted Cities in this process and forward
that to the Council on February 4, 2010. If the Council wishes to move forward they should authorize
the expenditure for the service.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Sample of Assessment Analysis — Bjornson
St. Cloud Appraisal
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the City Attorney to engage an appraisal agency to prepare
an assessment analysis for the 16th Avenue SE improvement project.
IllBjornson Appraisal Services I I
October 18, 2009
M. Barry Darval
Attorney at Law
Plaza One —1305 S. 1st Street
RE: Spicer assessments Lake Street South
Dear Mr Darval,
As requested I have analyzed the properties on the proposed assessment roles for the County
Road 10 (Lake Avenue) project through Spicer. The purpose was to determine if the
proposed assessments are supported by their contribution to fair market value.
125 properties were presented as the assessment role. Only 1 property is unable to support
the proposed assessment burden.
The properties broke down as follows:
44 had proposed assessments of less than I % of market value
52 had proposed assessments between 1% - 5%
21 between 5% - 10%
6 between 10% - 20%
1 at 21%
1 at 106%
My market study revealed a maximum contribution of $0.12/SF to raw land for platting and
$1.57 /SF for installation of infrastructure similar to that proposed for this project. $1.57 /SF
is the carrying capacity of each identified tract on the proposed assessment role for the
restoration of all infrastructure improvements. That is $16,900 /fully developed lot of 10,000
SF that would have a typical sales price of $24,900. This is about 68% of an improved lots
estimated fair market value in today's market.
All building improvements, residential or commercial, would be dependent on the
infrastructure for value so the carrying capacity would increase to include a large percentage
of the building improvements contribution.
Certified General Real Property Appraiser
License #4001473
1601 College Park Circle Willmar, MN 56201 320 - 235 -2741 jbbson ®me.com
IllBjornson Appraisal Services I I
It is assumed assessments have been proposed for each of the tracts based on a methodology
that equitably shares the burden based on each individual properties front footage or flat
charge for each of the items included in the project cost estimates. If all properties were
identical they would all have the same burden. The differences in the percentage of market
value each of the properties is asked to bear results from not only their unique physical
characteristics but also their estimated fair market value.
We see a large spread in the percent of market value because of the unique value of each
individual property. Generally as the property value increases the percent of contribution
for infrastructure to market value falls.
For instance, on this project, a vacant lot fully developed might see a contribution for the
infrastructure of 20% or more of fair market value but a fully improved lot next door may
show a contribution of less than I% for the same assessment determined for each by the
same methodology.
Lot sales:
Date of Sale
Location
Price
Size SF
/SF
March 13, 2009
Lakewood Willmar
$44,000
16,560
$2.56
March 6, 2008
Oslo Heights Willmar
$33,000*
13,448
$2.45
Sept. 16, 2009
Trentwood
$27,500
11,052
$2.49
* $28,000 cash and $5,015 in assumed outstanding infrastructure assessments
Development land sales and listings:
Listing adjacent to City of Spicer along CR #10 in project area
53 acres asking $6,000 /acre $0.14 /SF
Listing in City of Willmar on Civic Center Drive near Trentwood
55 acres asking $7,500 /acre $0.18 /SF
Sold adjacent to city of Willmar on North side near Oslo Heights 2/5/04
80 acres $4,000 /acre $0.10 /SF
Value /SF
Less 25%
Less Land
Less
Available for
Developed
Developers
Cost
Platting
Infrastructure
Lot
profit
Per SF
And Legal
Investment/SF of
bareland
$2.49
$0.62
$0.18
$.12
1 $1.57
Certified General Real Property Appraiser
License #4001473
1601 College Park Circle Willmar, MN 56201 320 - 235 -2741 jbbson ®me.com
St. Cloud Appraisal, Inc.f
R L A I E S 7 it T E A P P A A 1 5 A L S
300 East St, Germain Street • Suite 260 • St. Cloud, Iv1N 56304
Phone: (3201 253 -4488 • Fax: (320) 253 -8124
February 2, 2006
Mr. Brandon Matheson, PE
P.O. Box 1717
St. Cloud, MN 56302 -1717
Re: Clearwater Assessment Benefit Analysis
Dear Mr. Matheson:
As you requested in your letter of December 8, 2005, 1 have investigated the real
estate sales market in an effort to identify and quantify the value of benefits to
property located within the proposed project area in the Northeast portion of
Clearwater. That area will be subjected to street reconstruction and the residents will
be assessed for a portion of the improvements.
Your objective in retaining my services is to quantify value benefits due re- building city
streets, adding curbs, gutters and storm drains to most of the project area and
replacing some sidewalk areas. The purpose of this analysis is to assist you in
determining the feasible levy which may be applied to the benefited properties.
The effective date of my analysis is January 20, 2006, which is the date I met with you
to discuss the projected improvements and viewed the subject neighborhood. The
specific problem to be considered is " What is the dollar benefit indicated by the
market due to the presence of modern bituminous streets, curbs, gutters and storm
drains ? ". The results of this brief analysis will be used to apply an assessment rate
against the affected parcels in a defensible manner, for potential use in assessment
appeals.
The area included in the study and analysis includes the northeastern portion of
Clearwater City (Wright County) located north of Minnesota Highway #24, east of
Stearns County Highway #75, south of the Clearwater River and west of the Mississippi
River. Portions of the area are referred to as "Old Town ".
During the process of completing this project I searched sale files within the St. Cloud
Multiple Listing Service, the Wright County, Crow Wing County, Stearns, Benton and
Sherburne County Assessor's offices, as well as the library maintained within our
office. My goal was to isolate value attributable to site amenities such as curb and
gutter, storm drains and bituminous streets using matched pairs of sale properties.
In other words, i searched for sales of similar properties with and without these
amenities to isolate the additional price, if any, paid for property with the amenity.
As an example, I uncovered sales of lots fronting streets which are not asphalt
surfaced and have gravel surfacing only. Secondly, I locate sales of similar lots which
have bituminous surfacing. All other things being equal, the difference in the sale
prices are very likely attributable to the presence of bituminous or the lack of
bituminous surfacing. The same analysis was attempted when measuring value added
due to the presence of storm drains, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
As one may suspect, compelling evidence measuring these amenities is difficult to find
and quantify. Differences between sale properties in items such as date of sale, parcel
size, location, shape, topography, access and other characteristics must be considered
and adjusted prior to isolating the value added for a particular amenity.
Depending upon the location and potential use of a lot, the amenity may add more or
less to the value of a property. If the area studied includes lots in a rural setting and
other lots in the neighborhood do not have curb and gutter, the market may not pay
for curb and gutter. In a city - setting, residents expect amenities such as street lights,
sidewalks, asphalt streets, storm drains, curbs and gutters. it they did not desire the
amenities typically found in a city, people will shun the city and move into the country,
where these amenities are usually not present.
In this analysis I have estimated the dollar per front foot increase attributable to
amenities based upon market extraction, supplemented by my observations of the
market during the past thirty years.
The conclusions and discussion of the evidence are contained on the pages which
follow.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you in this matter.
____sincerely Y urs,
i Am , MAI, CAE
Associate Appraiser
MN Certified General Appraiser #4000495
Expires August 31, 2007
AMENITIES EXISTING PRIOR TO THE PROJECT
As of the date of my initial inspection the neighborhood was snow and ice- covered. I
relied upon an interview with Brandon Matheson and Maynard Klever on January 20,
2006 to ascertain the existing amenities and the condition of streets, sidewalks and
drainage. Secondly, I visited the neighborhood and drove on the streets during the
afternoon of January 20, 2006 in an effort to observe amenities, slopes, types and
intensity of use, etc. I returned to examine the streets and individual sales examples
on January 301 and 31'1, 2006.
As a supplemental aid, I reviewed the Report of Geotechnica! Explorations presented by
ITT Technologies to the City of Clearwater on January 16, 2006. This document
measures the thickness of existing bituminous streets as well as inventorying the
underlying base for the streets. Near the rear of this report I have included a copy of
the map showing the location of soil borings. The map is marked with my notations
on asphalt thickness and the composition and depth of the underlying base.
Based upon my interviews and observations, the following conditions were observed or
noted:
Bituminous surfacing in the subject neighborhood is aging and was installed
during 1978, meaning that it has an approximate age of 28 years. Asphalt has
a useful life of twenty five to thirty years if it is maintained, seal coated, swept,
cracked, etc. My tour of city streets revealed several areas of rough asphalt,
cracks, depressions and so forth, indicating a surface which is near the end of
its physical life or which was not placed upon a compactable aggregate base.
• No concrete curbing was observed, but it may have been obscured by snow
cover. Sidewalks are reported to exist only on the west side of Main Street from
Ash Street north to Oak Street, and on one side of Spring Street from Oak to
Linn Street. These walks were partially snow - covered but appear to be uneven,
cracked and pitted. The sidewalks are nearly thirty years old.
• Storm drains do not cover the subject area, but appear to be limited to a small
area at Ash and Main Street, at the northern end of Main Street and Oak Street,
and from Lime Street west on Pine and Ash to County Road #75. Some portions
of the subject neighborhood have hilly terrain but no concrete curbs or storm
drains to direct runoff.
Approximately two- thirds of the streets in the project area lack an aggregate
base under the asphalt. Review of soil borings reveals asphalt thickness as
narrow as 1 1/2", with most of the asphalt streets being placed on poorly
graded sand or silt. Walnut Street has a consistent asphalt surface of 3 %z" with
an aggregate base which is 5" thick.
• As a general observation, the city streets and amenities are near the end of their
physical lives and do not resemble modern landscapes for a residential
neighborhood. The surfaced portions of the streets vary in width throughout
the neighborhood. Some of the streets are 22' wide while others are 34' wide.
Main Street from Oak Street to the north is 45.8 feet wide.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SUBJECT AREA
• All streets in the project will have concrete vertical curbs and gutter pans
installed.
• Existing concrete walks will be demolished and replaced
• Storm drains will be installed in the project area to include a sedimentation
pond.
• Ash and Main Streets will be improved with an 8" aggregate road base and 4" of
asphalt pavement.
► Pine Street from CSAH 75 to Lime will be improved with an 8" aggregate road
base and 4" of asphalt pavement.
• Other streets in the project will have a 6" aggregate road base and 3" of asphalt
pavement.
• Existing roads will see a general widening of the surfaced areas. The feasibility
report indicates that 22' and 34' wide existing road surfaces will be increased to
30' and 36' widths with the exception of Bluff from Ash to Elm, which will be 26'
wide. Existing streets will be milled where possible and reconstructed but most
streets will be graded and reconstructed to current engineering standards.
• For the most part, existing sanitary sewer and water lines will not be
significantly changed. Some lines will be insulated and the location and
condition of sewer and water stubs will be examined.
i;
THE ASSESSMENT BENEFIT MEASUREMENT PROCESS
In Minnesota the levy for a special assessment may not exceed the value added
to the property as a result of the improvements creating the assessment.
As a result of this circumstance, it is often the practice of municipalities to
undertake an "assessment benefit analysis ". The analysis is usually performed by an
appraiser or other individual who is qualified to measure the increase in value from a
benefit such as street improvements or the installation of city water and sewer.
The process of completing a benefit analysis is not an appraisal in the
conventional definition of the term, but is really a valuation consulting assignment.
Many of the steps included when one completes an appraisal are also followed when a
valuation consulting assignment is undertaken. The main difference is that a benefit
or value -added conclusion is directed at an unidentified "subject" property or area of
the city rather than a single property at a specific address.
In this instance, my task is to measure the market benefit (in the northeastern
quarter of Clearwater) which would occur if the proposed improvements were in place.
It is not my objective to "find a number" in the market to justify any proposed
assessment rate. I simply analyze the market to uncover the apparent dollar benefit
which market participants recognize for street improvement and storm drain
amenities.
Ideally, ,the appraiser would find one or more sales in the local market of lots
which already have the proposed benefits in place. Secondly, one or more sales of lots
which lack the benefit would be examined. Any differences between the two sets of
sales for items such as date of sale, quality, location, amenities, etc, would be adjusted
for by the appraiser. Lastly, the adjusted prices would be compared to measure any
dollar benefit resulting from the presence of the amenities which are proposed for the
project area.
I have completed studies of this nature on several occasions during the past
fifteen years but typically the study centers around the benefits for water and sewer
services versus private utilities. Finding compelling evidence to measure value for
asphalt surfacing, curbs and storm drains is much more difficult and requires more
judgment on the part of the appraiser.
A study was completed on sales in Clearwater which occurred within the past
year or so. Although the market evidence is not overwhelming, sufficient sales activity
was discovered and analyzed to allow me to arrive at a conclusion of dollar benefit to
lots within the project area. I am confident that my conclusion of benefits is
reasonable and that the evidence supports the conclusion.
A summary of the data and rationale used to arrive at my conclusion is
presented on the following pages. In my search for sales I examined several dozen
transactions but isolated the evidence to those transactions which were of assistance
in measuring the benefit.
0
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The transactions which are summarized on the following grid represent vacant
lot sales in Clearwater City. The lots in this grid included water, sewer, concrete curb
and gutter and modern asphalt- surfaced streets along the lot front. I will examine the
lots as a population or sample group and convert the sales to a front foot and per
square foot price. The two units of comparison are examined to determine which unit
is used by the local market.
SALES WITH CURB, GUTTER, BITUMINOUS, WATER & SEWER
SALE
DATE
` SOLD
CURRENT ' CURRENT
SQ. FT. $ F. F. $
ADJUSTMENTS
Adjusted Adjusted
Square Front Foot
Foot Price Price
C
8/05
$4.66
$686
1 -10% view amenity
$4.19
$617
D
3/05
$2.33
$549
1 +10% large size
$2.56
$604
E
S/05
$4.79
$757
-15% trees & view
$4.07
$643
F
5/05
$3.87
$570
none
$3.87
I $570
G
5/05
$4.23
5733
-10 %view amenity
$3.81
i $660
9/05
`. $5.60
$719
-15% small size
$4.76
! $611
I K
I 3/05 $5.93
$972 -15%, shape, trees
$5.04
' $826
The obvious outlier is Sale K, which is a cul -de -sac lot which has a very small
amount of frontage.
Statistically, the "improved" adjusted lots illustrate the following:
' Indicator I Price per s uare foot Price per front foot
Mean Adjusted Price $4.04 _ I $647
I Median Adjusted Price i $4.07 $617
1 Mean Adjusted Price T— $3.87 T $614
1 without outlier _
Median Adjusted Price $3.97 $614
without outlier I
I correlated at a price per front foot value for lots with water, sewer, storm
drain, curb, gutter and bituminous streets of .1615.
Next, I will chart the sales of vacant lots which have only water and sewer
amenities and frontage on a street with poor quality bituminous which is at or near the
end of its physical life.
7
SALES WITHOUT CURB GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS
SALE ; DATE
SOLD
CURRENT CURRENT
SQ. FT. $ F. F.
ADJUSTMENTS
Adjusted
Square
Adjusted
Front Foot
_
Foot Price
i Price
A 8/05
$5.84 " $667
-13 % size, +5%
S5.37 ^!T
$614
topograph
f
B i 8/04
$5.93 $677
-14% size, +2%
55.21
i $596
_
topography_
H ! 5/05
$4.37
$700
-10% trees
S3.93 !
$595
J 1 3/0_5
-1;
$5.51
$658
- 15% excellent trees
$4.68 i $559
L 12-/04
$6.33
$806
-5 %trees
_
Sfi.01 �� $416
Average or mean lot price: $5.04 sq. ft. or $556 per front foot.
Median lot price: $5.21 sq. ft. or $559 per front foot.
The price of the lots with only water and sewer amenities and depleted asphalt
were correlated at $557 per front foot. This indicates that there is a $58 per front foot
or 10.4% benefit for the proposed street improvements.
FULLY SERVICED LOTS CORRELATED VALUE: $615 PER FRONT FOOT
"TYPICAL LOT" 60 FRONT FEET X $615 = $36,900
LOTS WITHOUT CURB, GUTTER, STORM AND
BITUMINOUS: $557 PER FRONT FOOT
"TYPICAL LOT" 60 FRONT FEET X $S57 = $33,420
BENEFIT ESTIMATE, STREET IMPROVEMENTS: $3,480
ON A PER FRONT FOOT BASIS: $ 58
8
•V
%
62
ODth 1
St E
h95th St E
too WE LMTEN W `Ith St
Il,
St
�24
,psi Clearwater 7
• � �r 7�5
179
Sikt Uie
•
*dove
camby
VE
8
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, - BENEFITS
In the research process for this assignment I reviewed sales in other locals in an
effort to find benefit evidence through analogy. For instance, if one finds sales of lots
with and without bituminous in one subdivision which is located in a distant
community, it is possible to move that information as a percentage to other markets as
a measure of benefit.
I reviewed sales in a rural plat south of Brainerd, adjacent to Crow Wing Park.
The plat of Fox Run consists of 2.5 acre lots which are level, rectangular and have been
planted with small Norway Pines on the lot boundaries. The street within this plat is
gravel surfaced only.
North of Fox Run and across the County Road there are two new subdivisions,
each of which has similar topography, shape, location and trees as the Fox Run Plat.
All three plats are improved with underground telephone and electricity. The northern
two subdivisions (Logger's Run and Red River Trail) have streets which are asphalt
surfaced and are one year old. No curbs or gutters are included in these plats and all
have private wells and septic systems.
I completed a matched pair analysis on the sales with asphalt streets versus the
sales without asphalt. The results of this analysis lead me to conclude that asphalt
streets increase the value of residential land by 4.4 %.
Moving that relationship to the situation at Clearwater, the contributory value of
asphalt onlx on this project is estimated to be $1,470 or $24.50 per front foot. This is
about 42% of the total estimated benefit to lots in the Clearwater project.
I understand that all of the streets in the project area currently have asphalt
streets to one degree or another. Most of the streets are in poor condition and need
repair or replacement. According to the soil boring data (see street diagram with
green notations near the rear of this report) the thickness of the asphalt is
substandard. Most of the road bases consist of silty sand or poorly graded sand.
Lastly, the road surfaces are at or near the end of their physical or economic lives.
One could argue that there is value in having an asphalt street in front of a
home even if the asphalt is in poor condition. Consider, as I must, the viewpoint of a
prospective purchaser. Observing an asphalt street in front of the home, my thoughts
turn to the likelihood that if I purchase this house I will be facing replacement of the
street and special assessments, in addition to inconvenience during the term of
construction. In other words, depleted asphalt is more likely a deterrent to value and
marketing rather than being viewed as an asset.
10
CERTIFICATION
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
• The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
• The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial,
and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,
• I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of
this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
• I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to
the parties involved with this assignment.
• My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or
reporting predetermined results.
• My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the
development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that
favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of
a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to
the intended use of this appraisal.
• My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the Appraisal Institute's Code of Professional Ethics
and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
• I have made a personal inspection of the area that is the subject of this report.
• No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this
report, with the exception of the City Engineer, who provided maps, project
feasibility documents and a copy of the Geotechnical Explorations in the project
neighborhood.
• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute
relating to review by its duly authorized representatives,
• The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education
for its designated members. I am considered to have my continuing education
completed under this program.
Dated February 2. 2006
MiYce o I CAE
Associdte Appraiser
Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000495
Expires August 31, 2007
y
:, � a
j
of Minnesota, Inc.
Mr. Terry Wotzka, PE, SEH
1200 25`h Avenue South
PO Box 1717
St. Cloud, MN 56302 -1717
September 5, 2008
Dear Mr. Wotzka:
Enclosed is the Municipal Utilities Feasibility Analysis you requested.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this report. Please do not hesitate to
call me at 320/258 -3710, should you have questions about the report or how it
was prepared.
Sincerely,
Suzanne L.orette
MN 4002467
1656 Highway 23 East St. Cloud, Minnesota 56304 OFFICE 13201 258 -3710 FAX 13201 258 -3707 www.procisionappralsals.com
ftsiee of Access Information Systems, Inc.
4
C
V
d
ca
2 c (1) rn
U O :5 CR
M ca LO
N `.-
V cM a > O- N N O r m
F..o Lcli
C.�
N \ N
to CU N "a OL N cu C cu
O C_ O o)
' :3 N
CU
O tv O
3 0 Q O N
(DEc
0O � cj U
; iC
� a c '3 +
O O O 'a E
O
E0•� t0• -O._
A0 0
0•a+� N
Q)
0.
>
O O ,(A a) 3 fa
a
m
cC_ E0°
m ca o 4- a)
ca " .D
L � CO a)
+: O� OrM
O O
UJ 00 > Q
m
co O :3 m
a) w Lii E
>+ O y 64 C
�Z' C- a) O a)
mtoU" -'c
O)L caOO a)
�� N
cy- • 4-• •-
O.� O a) O'a
ca a) v
N Q ~
N C. N _ Q
to Z7 ca cu
3 ).9 =
CD 3 C
c1i+O-0 Ot ()
U) ca E C.
��
cu 4 O O O�
O 3 -' \ �' R
� C •, N :3
0OC��ca
.Qum =�
E cl) E c
O f0 p .x
n cr m
L C
a) i .V Q CL
N
v N O O N
m a�
o a
+ 'o
-� C N �
Vl
6A, "6 O {_
ca 0 W p Q Q p
ce) U O
C) 'N 'C Q. v
>, w E 0
RS O O �- O.
O o a)
2�
CL
0ca
Ec °ca +r N
O.. O
L
'0 M Grk
f0/1 3 N O
m cr c O 'v
L (D •N 'U M
j C. > w C.
N N ro ro
N369 ANN
n •4) 0 a•a)) Lo
v:3
Y a cAd
M =-
�CL >,aj c
o _" N ca
fQ —
N m c6
C.
a�... . V
O a) 0 0-0 c
�:5.?6mmE
— co 'a rn w
m C O .CL 00 O
OE a)
�.°cmrow'rw
ca =NC3N>
L RJ
L
4- C.
0 0 N\ p N G) O
L c0 ca �-
00 N p- -0
JOR
cat'�0 oo L
CO ca C) N m
v� c .;
OC (n
oo ,v)
(Q _
0
O
a�i c�a
3 )
,.- -a
C E
La
L A+ �
r W
•L TF
� �+ L U
N a)
cno+.m
-� 0
C
fn
(A f6 N w
a)
E C.
c
O
ca C.
�ocZ
O.0
0c
o
E E
.r o C. N
= .« .
Q �Q
L O
0
wo
7N M�
�-Q
CN
C
+
O a) C
.N .Q N O
>
'a
N (C
E
E
.0 C_ o
0 0 0 5
0 0
�n
o c
k
t- ma c
c
0 E
N3vm
=4
a`�i
( ca
M NL N
�ca>
ca aN
C U `• d
•
(a :jr
:3 c
,(i L (6
cE
O N C N
E O .G
Q) ca L
>, N
s
�till,c
y
a) M N
O L
E
o). (D'- 0
(D LC)
b
63
•�
ca O C O
N N t
ro
Q.
L
m o l-
" 'V Q
cu �'++
Cp
' O N�
O
+mC
.C-O
(DN
V
NE
y
(D
N N
u. M
C N o
i v
.0
CN
o
V)
>
fn N w ca
o a� cri
-) w C_ �t
m 0 °
Q >' W 0
3
N "- "O E
eA
tl!
co E >
_ 0 CD
.O
>+ eQ Y
U O eII
o
NN.—
N
U M m
Q.o cc
N
CO o 3 E
r
V O O m
'f
ate+
r N C
4- "
m eU
V
• V
cc O
,7
co
M
2
Oil M.0
0
4'
to 0
to
O
C4
U C:)
> e6 •ate+
f6 U 3
w
'
•A
a2O
�mCA��
v
N
�N0
�3oom
't
�
0
Eca
8 o —
c'� 'N>
O
H
ea
5
Q
cu a U
s
c+�
°��' a
ca
N 0
o� es�
Q
��
o�o�cNE
3 rn O CO
N
'c
m
L-
4) QO
.
0 O —
Qs-a ac
E
LDco
N~ M N
ca O r y
C CS O? CO
� p O b4 �
O
.fl44
y
�O - y
a p C
N N .v1 �O C
d
t p
CL N4OLo h
O
U1
Li 6 a Q. N
C� N O
d
O
N a io N
N
-r °o
Y Ef3 U
m
m
=
O N
4-
ca
` N O ca
0 Or
.O
= r ea . = :a
a O � M
�
r�
' N
O CO •�
L
N
U L
O co
N .Q-
a O
ca O cn
NLoa.0-
3+
eef
_ U
4-
O C �--
3
3
N� �O
-a C14
O (1) co
cC
4- •— o E
N o•�•N4_
C�Qr
O = L-
N C 64
X
c6 >%
W 2 E
X
ev
elf
C
N (D
E
E
ca O •�
`�' .0 en
=
C
�0• - +>
3ara� -��
eu
O
0 0 cu (D
O Co 4-
N (D 0
0
�
N
(D
v
�°,
oU'3O�
c�rnN�0i>
o0��,NO
c
v
c
Cc Q.
cc .a? -0 -
rn rn m co
c
O o
=
eo o
p o
*kti:�•C—aj �Z
Eao
Eel;
o��o Q
m o ca m
ia.cc���
d�
euN
co
car- ..: c4
CO 00 V) + ca
v) N- to E ° E
t
H I
s
F-