Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-2012 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the February 16, 2012 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Discussion Regarding FY13 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Requests • Review Project Rankings • Discuss Average Allocation Worksheet 6. Adjournment MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie, David Purdy OTHERS PRESENT: Kristie Doser, Jeff Vanatter, Roger Lusala, Patte Henderson, Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback, Kari Wilkin, Barbara Bailey, Tashundra Marshall, Mary Palmberg, Heather Harney, Jane Drapeaux, Larry Chandler, Ron Berg, John Shaw, Bruce Teague, Tom Gilsenan, Brian Loring, Roger Goedken, Mark Patton, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 19, 2011 MINUTES: Bacon Curry moved to approve the minutes. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: None. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 2of11 NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chappell stated that they need a chair and asked for nominations. Zimmerman Smith nominated Andy Chappell. Bacon Curry seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0-1 (Clamon absent, Chappell abstaining). Chappell stated that they need a vice chair and asked for nominations. Zimmerman Smith nominated Jarrod Gatlin. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0-1 (Clamon absent, Gatlin abstaining) PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR FY13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDGB) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING Chappell stated that the purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to ask applicants any questions or concerns they have about that project. He passed out a summary of what's been requested and noted that the HOME minimum allocation is $424,477 and the total amount available is estimated at $1,204,851, which is just under 2 million less than the amount of the applications under consideration. He noted that the $1,204,851 figure includes some recaptured funds and asked staff if that had happened yet. Hightshoe explained that the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC) was allocated $395,000 in a CDBG special allocation round. She said NCJC was going to buy a property in Pepperwood Plaza, but that the purchase wasn't able to proceed as the seller decided not to sell the property at this time. Hightshoe explained that because NCJC wasn't able to find an alternative location, those funds will be reallocated in this funding round. She said it will greatly increase the amount of money available to allocate, but staff will review the projections of program income and hopefully have HUD's final allocations by the March 22 meeting. She said that if other projects are not able to proceed, those funds will be reallocated. She reminded the Commission that they do not have to spend all the money that is available. Hightshoe reminded commission members that the $424,477 figure (minimum HOME award) is part of the $1,204,851, not in addition to that amount. Hightshoe said that staff reports were mailed out to Commission members and each agency, which included concerns that staff had with the applications. She said it is not necessary for the Commission to address those concerns, but if they wish to, representatives of the applying agencies are in attendance to answer questions. Hightshoe told the Commission that in the last two days, staff and some of the HCDC members have been making site visits. She said that photos will be available at the Commission's March meeting. Chappell said the first project was the Community Mental Health Center. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 3 of 11 Drum asked Shaw if they had looked for other funds. Shaw stated the center does multiple fund raisers, such as the trivia night events, but stated they have not done one specifically for this project. Zimmerman Smith asked if he foresaw any problems with the renovations having to be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Shaw said he is confident that nothing in the plan will be contrary to the historic preservation requirements. Chappell asked if any capital campaigns had been done. Shaw stated that in the past two and a half years, the Center has not done a capital campaign. He added that investing in restoring structures that have found a viable adaptive reuse is crucial to keeping those structures in town, and the project in question is exactly the kind of investment that will allow these structures to continue. Chappell noted that the next project is the Crisis Center renovation of the neighboring building. Bacon Curry asked to be updated on the status of the acquisition of the property. Reedus said they had a meeting this morning with the county board of supervisors and there is a work session scheduled for next Wednesday morning. She said there was much support from the board, with three of the five members solidly behind the project and willing to discuss some purchase options. Zimmerman Smith asked if staff foresaw a problem having several agencies in the building with documenting the low -moderate income benefit. Hightshoe noted that agencies must document the LMI benefit the year they are funded or until project close-out if it extends past the one year. Some projects will have multi -year compliance periods following close-out depending on the amount of funds allocated to that project. After project close out, but during the compliance period, agencies don't have to continue documenting LMI benefit for CDBG public facility projects. They do still have to continue providing the services or activities required in the agreement. Reedus stated most of the agencies already track client income and shouldn't be a problem. Zimmerman Smith said it was her understanding that the Crisis Center would be renting space to its partner agencies and asked if the rent they will be paying is in addition to their budgets. Reedus said that in the past week they had discussed that doing a combined capital campaign with all the agencies is a better option because of the positive feedback they have gotten from all areas of the community. She explained that in the initial figures they gave to the agencies for their monthly rental, it would be an increase but the directors of the four agencies identified ways to recapture some of that money. Reedus said a successful capital campaign would reduce a private loan and lower the rental costs to the other agencies. She said that the key idea of acquiring this building is to pool the resources of the four agencies and reduce administrative overhead and costs. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the DVIP Shelter. Drum said that he had toured the facility today and he was struck by this facility in particular because the kitchen is an area where all the women in the shelter cook meals for their children and the shelter views this as an opportunity for the women to connect with their children and with other mothers. He said this is a wonderful chance for these families to re-establish connections that they may have lost with others. He stated that this is a really good use of funds. Drum said he thinks it is very important for Commission members to go on these tours so they can see the staff and the clients they are serving. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 4 of 11 The Commission accepted some layouts and bids from Doser pertaining to the DVIP project. Gatlin asked if the project was broken up into segments so that if the Commission were only able to partially fund the project it could be prioritized into which piece would have the highest priority. He also asked about the costs of potentially just doing the floors versus the entire project. Doser explained that the kitchen bid doesn't include the kitchen flooring. She said the rest of the flooring bid is for the main floor and the bedrooms area. She stated that the absolute priority is the kitchen, as it has not been updated since it was built in 1993, and things are starting to fall apart. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Extend the Dream and PATV. Bacon Curry said she thought that the accessibility improvements were funded when Extend the Dream moved into the building. Gilsenan stated they were funded, but the former Director started some of the improvements before they could and as a result the funds were withdrawn. Hart said she wanted to know about the first couple questions that staff had brought up, which are the capital reserve budgets and what other entities have been approached for funding. Goding replied that this year PATV was able to set aside $6,000 for capital improvements and that's entered into the budget. He said that they have not sought other funding sources at this time. Gilsenan said they have received a $5,000 grant, which was the impetus for getting them started and doing this work in the way they would like it done and they expect to raise $3,000 - $6,000 more in fundraisers they have planned for the spring and summer. Gatlin asked how good the costs estimates were. Gilsenan said that they have three estimates for each of the phases. Hart asked where the patio was supposed to be built. Gilsenan explained that it would be on the right side of the building with an overhang above the parking below. Hightshoe explained that the adaptive audio and video technology they applied for is technically a public service so it's not eligible under the public facility category and that part of their budget would not be able to be funded with CDBG funds. Chappell asked how they planned to document the low -moderate income benefit. Goding said he expected that PATV would use the surveys Extend the Dream uses. He said they do that continually through self -reporting to find out who they are serving and which of their services they are using. Hightshoe explained that anything that would directly benefit Extend the Dream would be eligible and that what directly benefits PATV would be limited to accessibility improvements due to the difficulty in documenting the low -moderate income benefit. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Broadway Townhome Playground Renovation for HACAP. Bacon Curry said she had seen some weathered mulch at MECCA and asked if they had looked into that instead of wood chips. Drapeaux affirmed that they had. She said that the mulch is less expensive than the chips at MECCA, but you have to replace it more often. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 5 of 11 Chappell asked if it was similar to the surface at the Pedestrian Mall in downtown. Drapeaux said it was a bit thicker. Chappell asked if there was a warranty built in. Drapeaux said there was, but that they had installed those foam surfaces at other facilities at HACAP and haven't had a problem. Chappell asked what kind of equipment they planned to install. Drapeaux said that there is a playground expert employed at HACAP who will assist in the design. She said when they bid a project they work with playground companies who are skilled at choosing age -appropriate, safe equipment. Bacon Curry said that it appeared that 100% of the clients served by this playground would be Iowa City residents and asked where the tenants lived before entering HACAPs units. Drapeaux stated that they lived in Johnson County when they entered the program. Drum asked how many children lived there. Drapeaux replied that approximately 60 children lived at the Broadway Townhomes. Zimmerman Smith asked if they have a replacement budget. Drapeaux affirmed that they did. Drum and Zimmerman Smith agreed that this is a project that is needed. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program. Drum asked if this was the same project that they had applied for last year. Lusala affirmed that it was and that due to funding they are completing the project in phases. Drum asked what they would do with partial funding this time. Lusala said they would upgrade the electrical and heating as their first priority as needed before they can drywall and complete the project. Chappell stated that the next applicant was MECCA Residential and Transitional Housing Renovation. Zimmerman Smith asked why the security cameras were last on the list of priorities. Berg responded upon review, it would be their first priority. Drum said that less than half of MECCA clients are from Iowa City and asked if they had approached other agencies for funding. Berg said they complete several grant applications each year for funding for services, but hadn't approached anyone for facility needs as few sources will pay for this type of activity. Chappell asked if they had done a capital campaign. Berg said they had not. He said their strategic plan includes an assessment of all their facilities, and that will probably lead to a capital campaign. He explained that the projects in this request would not be affected by any capital campaign funding. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Dragoo asked if they had a capital reserve budget. Loring replied that they do and use it when necessary. The costs of these items are above and beyond their regular maintenance items. Zimmerman Smith asked if the remodeling of the Broadway Center would substitute for the property at Pepperwood. Loring replied that they are trying to open up some space that would allow different staffing patterns that would make a more efficient use of staff. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 6 of 11 Dragoo asked which components would have priority if they received partial funding. Loring said they were listed in priority order and that they would really like to get the basement done. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Charm Homes LLC. Bacon Curry asked if there was a location for the project. Teague said that they are continually looking at various houses. Dragoo asked what partial funding would mean for them. Teague stated that it would mean they would be unable to purchase the two homes within their planned timeframe of next fall and spring. They would do one house if partially funded. Zimmerman Smith asked if they had experience with these types of projects. Teague replied that they have. One of their homes is operating and is full with residents who need 24-hour care. They also own another property and they are working on getting it Medicaid qualified and completing what rehabilitation needs to be done. Chappell asked how they proposed paying back the loan. Teague said they are proposing a deferred payment for 10 years and then $1,000 per month for 10 years and then a balloon payment at the end of those 20 years. Hightshoe explained that this is the payment plan Teague had worked out with Long based on a revised proforma. It's a plan that would support enough revenue to cover debt service and operating expenses. Chappell said he noted that some of the property locations Teague had been looking at were in the Lincoln and Longfellow areas of Iowa City. Teague explained that there are no location restrictions as the tenants are persons with disabilities or the elderly. Chappell asked what their prospects were of finding affordable properties. As sites can be anywhere in the City, he said there were quite a few possibilities. Gatlin asked where the properties are located that have already opened. Teague replied that one is on Lakeside Drive and the other is at 619 Kirkwood Ave. Bacon Curry asked if he was confident about private financing for these homes. Teague replied that he is confident. Chappell stated that the next applicant was CJ's Construction Hightshoe explained that the applicants could not attend the meeting and requested that staff forward any question to them. Hightshoe informed members that they were denied State HOME funds as they were not able to attend a mandatory state training. The applicant budgeted for these funds incorrectly under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit line item - it should read State HOME funds. Chappell asked if they had control of a site yet and if existing zoning laws would allow for this kind of use. Hightshoe said that according to City Planner Sarah Walz, this does meet the existing zoning requirements and rezoning is not necessary, although a Special Exception may be required. Chappell requested that staff inquire if they have an accepted purchase offer. Hightshoe will follow up with the applicant. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 7 of 11 Bacon Curry asked what was the $450,000 they were allocated the last time they applied. Hightshoe said they had applied for the Single Family New Construction program and did not get awarded funds. These are federal CDBG funds, but not part of our CDBG annual entitlement program. Chappell asked if their developer fee will have to be adjusted down. Hightshoe said that would only apply if they were allocated state HOME funds as you can't exceed 10% for this type of project. Staff would recommend, if funded, to be consistent with the State program and lower the developer fee. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the HACAP Broadway Townhome Renovation Project. Hart asked if they foresee any relocation issues during the renovation. Drapeaux said the majority of the work will be exterior and for the rewiring, they will do a unit at a time so people won't have to be relocated. Chappell said that the application states that the building condition has been deteriorating since they acquired it in 1996 and asked if there is a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again. Drapeaux explained that is simply normal wear and tear and it's time to replace the roof and windows, among other things, and make them more energy efficient. Hightshoe said she reviewed their proforma including replacement reserves. She said in her review, she increased the reserves based on the State's criteria for non LIHTC projects. She said there are mechanisms to ensure funds are placed into maintenance and reserves over the life of a project. Revenues were based on $441/mo., when the fair market rent for a three bedroom unit is $1,087. Based on this average rent, there are no funds available for repayment if adequate funds for reserves are included in the expenses. She recommended a conditional occupancy loan based on annual review of tenant rents received and documentation of funds placed into a reserve fund or used for repair/replacement. Repayment may be possible in certain years where the revenues exceed what is anticipated in this application, while adequately budgeting for reserves. Gatlin asked if there are priorities for the exterior work. Drapeaux said that the roof is their #1 priority. Hightshoe said that the last time they assisted these units was in 1996 with CDBG funds and a general obligation loan that they are still repaying. She said this project is both HOME and CDBG eligible. Chappell asked if the City funded HACAP units recently. Drapeaux stated that prior year funding went for the acquisition of additional transitional housing units, not to rehabilitate existing units. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the Housing Fellowship - CHDO and Affordable Rental Housing Project. Chappell asked how they were going to obtain the property. Bailey stated they have a purchase offer contingent upon these funds. Chappell asked what the timeframe was. Baily stated they would purchase in July 2012. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 8 of 11 Chappell asked if the state HOME fund application had been submitted. Bailey said it had. Chappell asked if they still viewed this as an all or nothing in terms of funding. Baily was under the impression that this was the case. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. Bacon Curry asked how their projects break down in terms of school attendance areas and if they build other places (than the Whispering Meadows subdivision and surrounding area). Patton explained that in the past three or four years there haven't been many other places, but that they do have a house scheduled to be built at Douglass Court and they are remodeling a house on Prairie du Chien because it's where they can find affordable lots and these lots/houses don't have strict covenants. Many subdivisions have covenants that require the house to be a certain size, 2-3 garages and/or other amenities. Patton stated that due to their modest homes, they have to locate lots that don't have these requirements. He said his perception is that in the places that they have built in the past three or four years, crime is down and the houses built have stabilized the neighborhood. Patton said that he doesn't think that the CITY STEPs low priority level for owner occupied housing — production of new units should apply to their homes as they provide homeownership opportunities for families under 50% of median income at a level more affordable than most rental units. This is possible since Habitat finances the loan with 0% interest. Chappell asked if they were going to be able to do all three homes along with projects already in the works. Patton said he doesn't worry about it and that on these projects they will be having veterans working on them. Bacon Curry asked if they have locations picked out for the rehabs. Patton stated not yet, but believes they will find the homes that they need. The last few years there have been more homes at the price level they need. Drum asked if Habitat deals with the lead rules. Patton said they had three trained people who have gone through classes for that, but admitted that he didn't want to buy a really old house because that can be a nightmare with lead issues. Hightshoe explained that if they spend more than $24,999 on rehabilitation of a home then lead abatement applies. All homes built before 1978 are subject to lead provisions and testing depending on what is done. Chappell stated that the next applicant is City of Iowa City Housing Rehab. Chappell asked about the $20,000 for project delivery. Vanatter explained that those are administrative costs and that it applies to the whole program, not per home. He said applicants aren't allowed to ask for a split between CDBG and HOME funds but the reason he included that was because with the CDBG program they can be more flexible with emergency repairs and exterior repairs, whereas with HOME funding they are limited to comprehensive repairs. They are hoping to do a larger number of projects than estimated in the application. Zimmerman Smith asked how people qualify for this program. Vanatter said they apply through an existing housing rehab program that has a two-year waiting list, even though they haven't advertised the program in five years. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 9 of 11 Drum asked if it was true that this program would not exist without the funding being considered by the Commission. Vanatter said this program was different than the existing program in that these funds are targeted to homeowners in identified neighborhoods and instead of the homeowner paying 100% of the loan back in either monthly installments or upon closing, they will forgive a certain percentage over a 5 or 10 year period based on the funding source and amount allocated to that home. Hightshoe explained that City Council sets aside 13% of the CDBG and HOME entitlement for rehab. She said that in prior years, the rehab program was receiving $400-500,000. Due to ongoing cuts in these two federal programs, the rehab set aside is down to about $200,000. She said that when you factor in staff costs (manage the program, oversee lead regulations, etc.), far fewer projects can be done. She said there is the regular program that people apply for and then this program will be in addition to that and it's targeting neighborhoods with better financial terms, so a part of the loan will be forgiven as opposed to the homeowner having to pay back everything. Vanatter said that if it was funded and there was a lot of interest, it was their hope that they could target other areas. He added that they used to see $100,000 to $200,000 in program income annually through rehab but that they don't see that anymore. He said the year to date program income is currently at $12,000. Hightshoe explained that many rehab. projects are done and the rehab. loan is repaid when the homeowner sells their home (moves out, passes away) or refinances. This repayment is considered program income and goes back in the rehab. program in addition to the yearly entitlement funds. When the economy is not as strong, fewer households move or refinance their homes. In addition to having less entitlement funds, we have less program income coming back to be used for additional rehab. projects. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Successful Living. Chappell asked if this was the same application as last year because it's not on the current application form. Goedkin was not aware that he submitted the application on the wrong form. Chappell said he would like to see an updated application, as the new form is different than the old one that was used. Drum asked how many residents they currently had. Goedken replied that they had 18 with the potential for 20. Chappell asked what they would do with partial funding. Goedken stated that would depend on the funding level. He said that their roof had been leaking for a couple years and needed replaced but that if funding level isn't up to at least $35,000 they couldn't do that. He said the HVAC system needed work but wasn't sure what they could do on that with partial funding. He said the roof and HVAC remain their top two priorities and that residents have had to move out of the house for periods of time when the HVAC wasn't working. Hightshoe said the ranking forms and proposed allocations are due back to staff on February 24 and a master spreadsheet with everyone's totals will be in the March 61h packet. She reminded the Commission that due to spring break, they will not be meeting the 3`d Thursday in March, but rather on March 81h and March 22th at Emma Harvat Hall. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 10 of 11 Hightshoe said the Commission made a funding recommendation for the Aid to Agencies Joint Funding Process. MPOJC is handling these funds until June 30. After that the Community Development department is anticipated to administer these funds. She said there was some confusion about applying this year. She said there were three agencies that only get funded through Iowa City. These agencies apply through the joint funding process but only ask for Iowa City funds. She said these agencies weren't notified by the United Way or by MPOJC of the funding process/deadline, so they didn't apply. Hightshoe said she informed those three agencies that since HCDC has already allocated the funds, they can make direct requests to City Council to consider those requests. She said the Council can tweak the recommendation, send it back to HCDC or approve as is. She said the agencies are Youth Consortium (County), the Red Cross and Mayors Youth. More details will follow based on the Feb. 21 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Drum moved to adjourn. Zimmerman Smith seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. z O U) U) O U H z w 2 IL O J W w z D N Oo U c,4 z a� o z<� v�Q�w Ow< 2 Il CL x x LLI x x x x x N O O> x x o x x x x x xNr W O N O 't O Cl) O m O N O m O It O N O N N N N N N N CV N H J a LU J J W 2 V > (=j z s= W z -J w a J W Z O a O O O U z a W z Q = a = V Q � = H cn W z m U U o o (D m N w Y x O z CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2012 TO: Housing and Community Development Commission FROM: Community Development Staff RE: HCDC Meeting on March 8, 2012 Thank you for the many hours of time and energy that you have put into the allocation process up to this point. Below is a brief description of the March 8th agenda items. At the upcoming meeting you will be discussing the FY13 applications, funding amounts and the rankings. At this time, HUD has not approved final allocations for entitlement communities, thus we will continue to anticipate the funding as stated previously in regards to our annual entitlement funding. This meeting is desined to help you finalize the ranking sheets and adjust your funding amounts. At the March 22 meeting, HCDC will finalize their FY13 CDBG/HOME budget recommendation to submit to City Council. The application for CHDO operating expenses is a HOME eligible project only. The application from Successful Living is a CDBG eligible only project. All other housing applications are both CDBG and HOME eligible. Of the total available, $424,477 must be allocated or reserved for HOME eligible housing activities. Based on your preliminary funding allocations, this requirement should not be a problem. Included in this packet are your preliminary rankings and allocations. Please review your scores and allocations. If you notice any errors, please contact Tracy Hightshoe so we can make corrections before the meeting. After the March 8th meeting, please submit your revised scores and/or allocations to staff if you make any changes. The revised spreadsheets will be ready for your review for the March 22"d meeting. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact Tracy Hightshoe or Steve Long at 356-5230. Please remember that both meetings (March 8 & 22) will be at City Hall, Emma Harvat Hall at 6:30 PM. 1� W W V 1 Y O� VFW Y /O/ li za W �0 Q Z�r�^ FBI JLU Ii IL M rl LL o 0 J V N i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2=_ O 00 d' M CO N, Ln N N N .-1 1' lqj- N -I M M +-I M M N .-i M d' co O GO N N w O tD O N N �--� 01 N CO N Ln ct 00 CO n O M T T t0 d' N� ItN M O M Ln O w N N N N N Ln to lD N M O M M N M tD tD tD tD n tD lD It tp O N M t0 N +-i N� M O N N N Ln X M ITtD M n tD n tD Ln Ln M M OO N ,I- Ln lD O O N M N O Ln O Ln x tD 4 Ln M r-i M M tD .-I M -,I- to CO N U) t0 M M tD 0 d r- N M Ct Ln O r� CO LL LL Li LL LL LL Li LL MaD_aaaaa N .-i M to -1 O M *-i Ln r, M N O N CO N .-i N M M'T N to to to M M M M M N moo O tD .-i CO M N N N '�J- N M N M M N O N Ln It N V - I N M N ,-1 Ln O M 00 N N N N N N N M M M N lD It M +-- t0 LD M M M It Ln tD n t0 N M O M N M 1p Ql M -I d Ln Ln It Ln 1p [T I-i O CO n M't co O I co 0 n r" It O Ln M O N O IT r� It rI OI t0 Ln M It M M M Ln O N r-I N Ln M ,-I N O O ID M O c 0 CL 0 d U � � o N w � n N tC 0 ` G w o N 0- L O W K a Z U= 0 U 2 W F- LU W 2 U) Y O Z _Z O 0 Q Z U U- O J W J E Q _ ,w M V W Q W U Q M } r U- Q C_Z G J W a a x c 45 0 0 A w I— I- z w LL w O w w IL 0_ z wO �a W U Q 0 a 0 w V) z D O w0 Q w Y z O O O Ln LO O O 1:10 'A��O � 0 0� � �N � � N M } 4A O O O O O O M O 0 M 0 0 o�O��ov+0Nn NO . ttr �r N -U t a1. i& O 000 0110 0 O O O C) WD O O O O O 0O0tf}00yf}N N r, In 0 Ln .� Hi V� l jo, ,V� j, tPr O 0 0 0 0 0�0�00��� 0 Ln 00 0 o�00N 0 N O O } yf} O t{} r4 CD 0 0 N v N 4A 000 O 0 0 00 O In0 MO O N p"0��p 0 �.0 N 0 0 0 00O C:) 0 ri -� 0 ��0 �0� n V O N N M O fPr 1fT �, iA �� R-o L O O O O O \ 0 O r" vo 00 r, 't Cl) r\�Oti�Od'� Ln m, V O M N O co V co r, t r, kD M Ln +Pr Vfr tPr t{T W V)- tPr -bF} 0% 0 0 0 o M o QO 0 00 00�C: C:rvIDOOO p o -0 CD w o 0 op'oo 00 N N M M p ��.ip, N 4A 7 N M R Ln LD f- O CA 2 M 2 M M= S 2 2 ., 0 ,U U � � Q 7 C m V t 0- c C L C C m p C 0 E a0 txi LU 0 1 a p a; L� v m C O ; .c C x Ji d v CO 1- y U3. = u LL yi E; o C c' W- C)�p x N 'le �a --IU V �h-FHt�xr% v rI O O 0 � O LI) C 00' 000 14 NOvr�Aft s,�O O N � ta N M M CD 00 OO 0'D�0n0� O 11 " �tr 'i' LPIto v, v� tp N tR rl p O o OOO Olt O M O O O N N O 0 0Lr) 0 l0 0- ri �q O O O kD .-r 't N Ln 0000 NN N 00 0 (N 0) � R:� 0 +tr ter tsr yr to w tR ri 4A 0 %D ri Ln 00 Lrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L tPr tPr M 0 kD w ttr 'iy# w M N fR rl O OOO O .-� N Ln 0 0Ln C �D -000�0N O N k& `st ifr fR rl 4A O D N Ln 0 0 N koLn U) Op �0om�w�l� C M Cn N AA, Afr d � rl 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 N M N O M Ln N .-+ x Ln x lD t . N r-I N 00 Ct O O 01 t M 01 D1 lD r'L M Ln OON�CO NI n 'L 'L i 'U, V, „ ,d} iR tR tft 'q O C% r, oo(Dr,'D�° op to Lnc1OoLr r,vM�j N ti O p N M (n Cn p w 00 A&sv�v M M rl fl 4& 4411- Ln T Il of LL LL LL LL U- LL LL U- m a_ CL 0- CL IL a_ a_ R � o 7 M V) t m 6. C C o QI �M a a C � 0 � - v u G y C UM y oc 0 G7 W a+ r �t) aZA a E u c EU Ty p W O Z U x O E2: W