2009 DEC 8 - CC PACKET SPCAGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City - related business that is within the
jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the
Meeting. The time limit for comments is five (5) minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence and the
organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday December 8, 2009 - 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only - 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on
behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to
addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250. While all
comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The
Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
1.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS -
i. Consideration and possible action to direct staff to draft the necessary documents to
place a ballot measure on the April 13, 2010 election for purposes of increasing the
City's business license taxes (Chapter 4 of the El Segundo Municipal Code). If the
Council directs that staff prepare the appropriate ballot measure documents, the
documents will be placed before the Council at its December 15, 2009 Regular Council
Meeting for potential final action.
Recommendation — (1) Consideration and possible action to direct staff to draft the necessary
documents to place a ballot measure on the April 13, 2010 election for purposes of increasing
the City's business license taxes (Chapter 4 of the El Segundo Municipal Code); (2)
Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ADJOURNMENT:
POSTED: p
DATE: a '/ 7 -� 1
TIME:`? p�-
NAME:
2.
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 8, 2009
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to direct staff to draft the
necessary documents to place a ballot measure on the April 13, 2010 election for purposes of
increasing the City's business license taxes (Chapter 4 of the El Segundo Municipal Code). If
the Council directs that staff prepare the appropriate ballot measure documents, the documents
will be placed before the Council at its December 15, 2009 Regular Council Meeting for
potential final action.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Consideration and possible action to direct staff to draft the necessary documents to
place a ballot measure on the April 13, 2010 election for purposes of increasing the
City's business license taxes (Chapter 4 of the El Segundo Municipal Code).
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Staff Report and PowerPoint presentation from the December 1, 2009 Regular Council
Meeting and Five -Year Forecast and Assumptions.
FISCAL IMPACT: Projected revenue increase not included in FY 2009 -2010 adopted budget.
The estimated increase in this revenue source would not be realized until FY 2010 -2011.
Amount Budgeted: $N /A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Mark Hensley, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the December 1, 2009, Council Meeting, the Council considered but did not approve placing a
measure on the April 2010 election to raise the City's business license taxes. The Mayor and
Mayor Pro -Tem requested that staff schedule a Special Council Meeting so that Council can
further discuss possible options for placing a ballot measure for the April election.
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: December 1, 2009
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to (1) place an initiative on the ballot for the previously
called April 13, 2010 municipal election to amend the City's utility user tax ( "UUT ")
regulations (El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") Chapter 3 -7) to update the language
in regulations with regard to maintaining the City's revenues from the UUT tax based
upon technological changes in communications methods; and (2) place an initiative on
the ballot for the previously called April 13, 2010 municipal election to amend the City's
business license tax regulations to (i) increase the tax amount annually based upon the
ten -year average of percentage increase in public safety costs incurred by cities in
California (ESMC Title 4), and (ii) reduce from a 50% credit to a 25% credit, over a three
year period, the amount that businesses can reduce their annual business license tax based
upon the annual sales /use tax they generate for the City. (Fiscal Impact: Projected
approximate 6% per year increase to the City's business license tax for which the City
collects an estimated $9,000,000 annually.)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Adopt Resolution placing an initiative on the ballot amending utility user tax
regulations;
2. Adopt Resolution placing an initiative on the ballot amending business license tax
regulations;
3. Consider Adopting a Resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial
analysis for the two ballot initiatives; and,
4. Determine whether the Council will appoint itself or members thereof to draft the
arguments and rebuttal arguments in favor of the tax measures.
5. Alternatively discuss and take other action relation to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Resolutions; proposed draft initiatives for utility users tax amendments and business
license tax amendments.
Business License Indexing Special Meeting Presentation on November 12, 2009.
FISCAL IMPACT: Projected revenue increase not included in FY 2009 -2010 adopted budget.
The estimated increase in this revenue source would not be realized until FY 2010 -2011.
Amount Budgeted: $N /A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Deborah Cullen, Finance Directo
Mark Hensley, City Attor
Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
General Municipal Election
The City's general municipal election will be held on April 13, 2010. Based upon past direction
from Council, staff is proposing that the Council place two ballot measures on the election for
consideration for the electorate: (1) an amendment to the City's UUT regulations for purposes of
ensuring that the City continues to capture the tax revenues from commercial communications
based upon the changes in communication technologies; and (2) an increase in the City's
business license tax amounts. Both of these taxes are and will remain general taxes (meaning
they will be deposited into the City's general fund and can be used for any lawful local
government purpose) and require approval by a majority of the electorate.
Utility Users Tax
The City's existing utility user tax ( "UUT "), which covers telephone, electricity, water and gas
services, was adopted in 1998 and modified by election in 1996. The existing telephone UUT,
applicable only to commercial and industrial service users, generates approximately $530,000
annually.' A large portion of this revenue is at risk due to outdated language in the telephone tax
and changes in federal law.
Since 1988, communication services changed dramatically. Telecommunications are no longer
limited to standard "land line" telephone services. Cellular /wireless telephone calls, which are
even among the simpler forms of communication today, now represent a greater portion of the
telephone tax revenue than traditional land lines. Another newer technology, Voice Over Internet
Protocol, is telephone service that is administered over an Internet line, not a telephone line and
is fast becoming one of the most popular means of providing home and office telephone service.
Moreover, the telephone companies' billing practices have changed over time and often
traditional telephone services are bundled together with other communication services for a flat
rate, resulting in additional complications in applying the existing UUT ordinance to modern
services.
The City's existing UUT regulations contain outdated definitions of communications services.
The Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Sacramento, Palo Alto and the County of Los Angeles
have litigated over the application and validity of these types of outdated definitions. Voter
approval of the proposed modern communication services tax ordinance would eliminate some
of the concerns being litigated by other cities.
The proposed ordinance would update the existing ordinance to apply the telephone tax to all
types of communication services, unless precluded by federal statute. Currently, a federal statute
precludes local taxation of Internet services and broadband services providing access to the
' In fiscal year 2005 -2006, $530,948 of the General Fund revenue was generated from the telephone tax specifically,
and in fiscal year 2006 -2007, the tax generated $535,601. The 2008 -2009 budget estimated that $536,269 was
generated from the tax in 2007 -2008.
Internet. The proposed ordinance would not apply to digital downloads such as music, games
and ringtones.
The proposed ordinance would continue to only apply to commercial and industrial users and is
proposed to remain at 2 %. However, the Council could set a different proposed tax rate (higher
or lower) to submit to the voters in April. In an attempt to keep the changes in the ordinance
revenue - neutral, some cities have chosen to reduce the tax rate by 0.5% or 1 %. The voters in
cities such as Hermosa Beach, Malibu, Los Angeles and Huntington Park approved modern
communication services ordinances subject to a reduced tax rate. While the voters approved
these measures, it is important to note that a reduction in tax rate can be misunderstood by voters
because it may not result in an actual reduction in the actual amount of taxes paid. Pasadena,
Daly City, and Emeryville were able to obtain voter approval for their new UUT ordinances
without reducing the tax rate, resulting in increased revenues.
California cities have placed similar modern communication services ordinances on the ballot of
their general municipal elections, and most of them to date (more than 50) were ultimately
approved by the voters (approximately ten ordinances did not receive the required votes). Several
more cities such as Palm Springs, Pomona and Cupertino have placed similar ordinances on the
November 3, 2009 ballot.
Business License Tax
During the City Council's budget workshops, the Council indicated a willingness to place a
measure on the ballot that would increase the City's business license taxes. The business license
taxes have not increased since 1993 and accordingly as a percentage of the budget revenues and
in terms of real dollars (when adjusted for inflation), the amount of business license taxes
collected by the City continues to decline. In fiscal year 1992 -1993 Business License Tax
covered almost 45% of the General Fund costs and 92% of the Public Safety costs. These ratio's
have declined to 15% and 27% respectively (see page 7 of the attached presentation).
Based upon the above information, at its September 1, 2009 Council Meeting, the Council
directed staff to prepare specific options for Council to consider with regard to increasing the
City's business license taxes. Accordingly, staff in consultation with Muni - Financial Services
developed a number of alternatives for Council to consider at a Special Council Meeting that was
held on November 12, 2009 (attached is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that was
presented to the Council at the meeting).
In short, there were a number of options that were analyzed and presented for Council
consideration at the Special Meeting. The options included annual fixed percentage rate
increases, increases based upon the Consumer Price Index and increases based upon percentage
increases in public safety costs to local agencies (either on a county -wide or state -wide basis).
Additionally, the Council was presented with the option of reducing the credit that businesses
currently receive against their annual business tax liability based upon the amount of sales /use
tax they generate for the City.
r1 -1 /,
JJU
At the conclusion of the Special Meeting, the Council directed that the proposed ballot measure
be drafted to include an index to increase the City's business license taxes based upon annual
public safety cost increases. Additionally, staff was directed to prepare language that would
reduce the sales /use tax credit received by business from its current 50% cap to: 40% starting
January 1, 2010; 30% starting January 1, 2011; and 25% starting January 1, 2012 remaining at
25% thereafter.
Public Safety Index
The majority of the City's budget expenses (60% currently) are driven by police and fire costs.
It is anticipated that this will continue to be true into the future. Over the past 10 years, the
City's police and fire expenditures have increased on average by 6.4% per year. Over this same
time period, the local Consumer Price Index increased an average of 2.56% per year, while the
"public safety index" (on a state -wide basis) has increased an average of 5.9% per year.
Based upon concerns that public safety costs would continue to increase at twice the rate of the
Consumer Price Index, staff in consultation with Muni - Financial Services developed the
proposed "public safety index." While to staff's knowledge this index has not been utilized by
any other governmental agency in California, it more accurately reflects the percentage of annual
budget expenditure increases that are being incurred by the City and, accordingly, provides a
better mechanism for helping the City to balance its budget.
When the public safety index was discussed with Council at the November 12 Special Council
Meeting, staff was focusing more on the potential of using a Los Angeles County -based public
safety index. This index has averaged an annual percentage increase of approximately 6.2% over
the past 10 years. While a Los Angeles County public safety index would more accurately
reflect the costs being incurred by the City, the staff is recommending that Council use a public
safety index based upon the annual average increase in public safety costs incurred by all cities
in the state because this information is more readily available to the City and the public. In
reviewing the availability of the County versus the statewide information regarding public safety
costs, it has been determined that the State Controller's Office publishes an annual report that
makes the state -wide information available annually each spring. Conversely, the County public
safety costs are not consistently available with regard to when the Controller's Office will
publish the information, and it is a much more involved process for the City and the public to
extrapolate such information from the report.
The ballot measure, if passed by a majority of the electorate, would result in the City increasing
its business license taxes commencing on January 1, 2011 for the 2011 calendar year. The
increase would be based upon averaging the last ten years of available statewide public safety
increases for California cities and adding this ten -year average percentage increase to the City's
current tax rates. Based upon the information the City has received, the latest data that will be
available before January 1, 2011 will be the statewide public safety costs for fiscal year
2007/2008. Thus, the initial ten -year increase will be based upon the average of the eleven fiscal
years of public safety costs (comparing the percentage of change from each successive fiscal
year to the prior fiscal year and then dividing the total percentage increases by ten) for the period
commencing with the 1997/1998 fiscal year and ending with the 2007/2008 fiscal year. Once
this factor is calculated, the new fee will be calculated by using a cumulative factor rounded to
the nearest penny to ensure that all fees are increased at an equitable amount each year. See
below for an example of this rounding methodology.
Sales Tax Credit
The City's current business license tax regulations allow businesses to offset their business
license taxes by utilizing a credit that is based upon the amount of sales /use tax the City receives
from sales /use tax revenues generated by businesses. Currently, a business can use up to 50% of
the sales /use tax the City receives from the business as a credit against the amount of the
business license tax it owes the City. For example, if a business generates $50,000 of sales /use
tax for the City, it is entitled to apply 50% or $25,000 as a credit toward its BLT. If the
businesses BLT liability totaled $25,000 or less, the business's actual business license tax owed
to the City would be zero.
City staff is recommending that the 50% credit amount be reduced down to 25% over a three -
year period as set forth above. This credit was created to encourage businesses to self - accrue
sales /use tax directly to the City. Over the last 10 years the City has not realized significant
increases from this program, and in analyzing the data even at 25% credit most businesses
already benefiting from this credit will still receive substantial savings on their Business License
Tax.
Over the past 10 years Business License Tax revenues have covered an average of 47% of public
safety costs but is currently at only 27 %. The decline of this ratio puts an additional burden on
other General Fund revenues and /or results in reduced services provided to residents. Indexing
and implementing a phased sales /use tax credit will enable this tax revenue to maintain the
historical coverage of public safety costs and not rely on other tax sources to cover the
deterioration of this ratio. Page 11 of the attached presentation shows the deterioration of the
coverage of the Business License Tax revenues to the Public Safety costs
Staff also recommends changes to ESMC § 4 -2 -4 relating to the tax rate dollar amounts. These
changes reflect the actual tax amounts after the tax reductions authorized by ESMC § 4 -2 -3.
This is more of a practical change, rather than substantive, to help efficiently implement the tax
rate calculations. There is no actual change to the tax rate; the dollar amount simply reflects
what the City already charges based upon existing regulation.
JJ2
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
License Rate
License
License
License
License
FY 2010-
Rate FY
Rate FY
Rate FY
Rate FY
Base
Fee
Descriptions
2011
2011 -2012
2012 -2013
2013 -2014
2014 -2015
$0.12
all square
footage(Warehouse)
0.1271
0.1342
0.1412
0.1483
0.1554
each sq.ft. over
5,000 (General
$0.21
Business
0.2224
0.2348
0.2472
0.2596
0.2720
$0.09
each sq.ft. over
5,000 Commercial
0.0953
0.1006
0.1059
0.1112
0.1166
$0.02
per barrel Oil
0.0212
0.0224
0.0235
0.0247
0.0259
Sales Tax Credit
The City's current business license tax regulations allow businesses to offset their business
license taxes by utilizing a credit that is based upon the amount of sales /use tax the City receives
from sales /use tax revenues generated by businesses. Currently, a business can use up to 50% of
the sales /use tax the City receives from the business as a credit against the amount of the
business license tax it owes the City. For example, if a business generates $50,000 of sales /use
tax for the City, it is entitled to apply 50% or $25,000 as a credit toward its BLT. If the
businesses BLT liability totaled $25,000 or less, the business's actual business license tax owed
to the City would be zero.
City staff is recommending that the 50% credit amount be reduced down to 25% over a three -
year period as set forth above. This credit was created to encourage businesses to self - accrue
sales /use tax directly to the City. Over the last 10 years the City has not realized significant
increases from this program, and in analyzing the data even at 25% credit most businesses
already benefiting from this credit will still receive substantial savings on their Business License
Tax.
Over the past 10 years Business License Tax revenues have covered an average of 47% of public
safety costs but is currently at only 27 %. The decline of this ratio puts an additional burden on
other General Fund revenues and /or results in reduced services provided to residents. Indexing
and implementing a phased sales /use tax credit will enable this tax revenue to maintain the
historical coverage of public safety costs and not rely on other tax sources to cover the
deterioration of this ratio. Page 11 of the attached presentation shows the deterioration of the
coverage of the Business License Tax revenues to the Public Safety costs
Staff also recommends changes to ESMC § 4 -2 -4 relating to the tax rate dollar amounts. These
changes reflect the actual tax amounts after the tax reductions authorized by ESMC § 4 -2 -3.
This is more of a practical change, rather than substantive, to help efficiently implement the tax
rate calculations. There is no actual change to the tax rate; the dollar amount simply reflects
what the City already charges based upon existing regulation.
JJ2
General Ballot Measure Information
Impartial Analysis
The Council may, but is not required to, direct the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of
the measure. The analysis must show both the effect of the measure on existing law and its
operation. The analysis cannot exceed 500 words and must precede the arguments for and against
the measure on the sample ballot.
Ballot Arguments
The following persons may write an argument, not exceeding 300 words, for or against the measure:
1. The City Council;
2. Councilmembers authorized by the City Council;
3. Voters eligible to vote on the measure (i.e., a registered voter in the city);
4. A bona fide citizens' association; or
5. Any combination of voters and associations.
An argument cannot be accepted unless it is accompanied by the name(s) of the person(s)
submitting it. If an organization submits an argument, it must include the organization's name and
the name of at least one principal officer. Only the first five signatures appearing with an argument
will be printed on the sample ballot.
The city clerk must select a reasonable deadline for submitting arguments, taking into account that
voters must be allowed to examine the elections material for at least 10 calendar days before
printing.
One argument for the measure and one argument against the measure must be printed on the sample
ballot. If there is more than one argument submitted, the city clerk must select from among them.
The city clerk must give preference and priority to arguments in the following order:
1. The City Council, or Councilmembers authorized by the Council.
2. A bona fide association of citizens.
3. Individual voters eligible to vote on the measure.
The Elections Code allows the City Council to draft ballot arguments as a body or to appoint one
or more of its members to draft a ballot argument. If the City Council wishes to authorize one of
its members to draft an argument, it may do so by minute order. Please note that public
resources, including staff time, cannot be used in opposing or supporting any initiative or
r>
03"j,
referendum once a petition qualifies for the ballot .2 Accordingly, the City Council cannot
designate a staff member to prepare ballot arguments.
z Government Code ( "GC ") § 54964(a); Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4"' 1, reh'g. den.; Stanson v. Mott
(1976) 17 CAM 206, 213; League of Women Voters v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529, rev. den.
J � r�
r�
36``1
0
CD CD
o
C
�CD
CD
< --w o
CD �z
C
m
CD
cD
m
.0
O
3
C—%:
m m
CD CD
o
C
�CD
CD
< --w o
CD �z
C
m
CD
cD
m
I CD
O CD . -.1 0 3 3
CD
0
0
3
x -0 G)
Cl, o CD
CD CD CD
U
z
.0
O
Q �-
n
m m
I CD
O CD . -.1 0 3 3
CD
0
0
3
x -0 G)
Cl, o CD
CD CD CD
U
z
r-+
x
p
CD
G)
p
2)
CD
C-0
CD
CL
CD
N) N)
CD
C.
U)
Q
0
0
�
—
-n
PL)
"a
-n
:03
CD
x
CD
<
(n
CD
CD
CD
W
m
m
CD C:
U)
(nn :'
cD
c�
o
_r
0
CD
CD
c
x
Gd
�40
rri
r
n
r�
�40
m
z
d
m
�c
z
c�
-lo
Q.
CD
CD
CL
CD
x
cD
<
Q
Gd
�40
rri
r
n
r�
�40
m
z
d
m
�c
z
c�
-lo
El
0
CD U.
cn �
CD N
� 3
CD
X -GS
2. 00
r+' O
`< O
O
0
O
CD
CL
O
O
3
CD
m'
CD
71
N O
3
O. 0
in
CD
X
CD
Q
-4.
O
TI
000
I
C(D
O
CCDD
W
r
O (^�,
r(n
C
CD
x
CD
CD
n
0
O
O
O
X0
O
O
a
N
cn
cr
:■
CD
Cn
(.Q
CD %
rt
CD
O
O
0
r
L/1
r
n
z
r�
z
d
z
'7
. . . o�
Li m N -v vo n
(D U) �-
X� W \ ~ ~
CD � � cn � CD � O
:0 Q- O
QL -o :37 �_ m
� � �_ cD n
CD CA
cD n CD :0
Ui � �' � CAD `C
O X CD
°
CD CD
o X --I CD <
n7 0
0 CD
O CD
O� < O
`C (.% <
w cD G) t�
Wm �
L CD
-n W CD
AD � -n CCD
C D t 1
CL
QL U)
n r-+
O °
U)
U)
Ul
i
m
w
v
C-)
C
CD
CD
W
W
N.
CD
co
0'
D
CD
Cl)
Q
0
Q
CD
co
w�
r
0
0
CD
0
o
o<
O
c
Q.
CD
CD
O
n
--
C
C
CD
CD
W
CD
N.
co
CCU
CD
Q
Cl)
Q
00
Cf)
CD
0
CD
n
O
c
Q.
o
O
'
3
O
CD
CD
0 0
w 3 _
.% C
0 (n O
M.
` i
r.+..
P+
m
00
-v o
.N.. r-
0
G)
CD
00
c�
CD
G)
CD
I
Cl .
0
?�+ r n
n w
CD
CD � CD
c: 3.
CD
(D
V O
M
i
CD
CD
N.
co
CCU
CD
Q
0
CD
n
O
O
Q.
w
-+,
CD
CD
L/1
r
n
m
z
m
z
d
m
�c
z
c�
O
O
O O
'T.99
2J
99
S
19
9P?
J
op
\ I
99p
V
�
19
9AJ
99
S
19
9S,
r
T'99
rt
6
999
�1
99>
19
9)
N
;199
8
J9
N
c
9�
e
O
T'99
O
9
'r9
9�
m
r•i
�O
rt
Q?
�1
1�T
�•
l V
�
O
cn
W
n �
/l
V
O
v S
r
?
�S1
(D
q7Q
' ^
V
1100
�S
1�b
S?
�6
"On
',�1
%j
1�
2
1-100
�.9
1100,
0110
d
i
�c o
c c c o o O o
n -�
mnN
1
W
_?Iq
It
�n-
v
op
\ I
V
�
O
cn
O
cn
r
rt
N
W
r
N
c
.
e
O
O
O
cu
Q
O
m
r•i
cn
rt
�•
l V
�
O
cn
/l
V
O
(D
' ^
V
_?Iq
TI W
ti O
O
00 1
0
-.-
FD'
r �.
O
m�
CD
CD O
CAD
�. X
=.
CD
w
CD(n
Cn CD
.U)
�w
G) (n
D�
CD
CD
A
U)
i
CO
))) 0
0
(n
r -+
Y
CD
0
l<
U)
r'>
X
CD
�
c�
=3
CD
0
m
m
CL
CD
5-:�
O
(.
cn
02
:'
CL
CD
�
x
n
C:
X
O N.
(DO
07
07 0
(D o��y
�7
O�--F CD
O O
r.F Cn V,
O O
O
-p O
i Y w
7
^
0
C7
r-r
O
cr
n
aff
4J
tt
H
�71
cf)
cf)
r
n
m
z
rTl
z
d
m
z
c�
7�
X
CO
:7
(n
CD
0
CL
CD
5-:�
CD
CD
(D
o
CD
CD
D'
CCDD
A?
O
CD
0
CD
C.
X
W
--%
--%
O
CD
CD
C7C:
C:
CD
����
/�w.
Y/
V
V
T
3
cr.
0-0
CD
CD
a
O
.
S
( n
Y /
1
CD
r-+
0
CO
<
=Y'
o
r-
Y
CD
O
C7
r-r
O
cr
n
aff
4J
tt
H
�71
cf)
cf)
r
n
m
z
rTl
z
d
m
z
c�
7�
I r r r N N N N N W W W
l0 r W In V 10 r W In
Y O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
CL
X N •
O •
tr
p O
00 z G
Ol N
cu
°
U
Z
+
C Q
o u
N {�
O ( ,
x
O l ` I /'�
r ` `/
3c :� ai
n NJ q N
r N
CD
Ln
N
O \CL
°1 r
x '}
v /4}
T
CL
y O }
t N
1 O •
N
O
7 u'
a W
W n rD V�
ID
CL cn o
Y \ D
J�
N N
N O
M �
r J
+
cnN
N O
C o
a C L � /�
X N V I
n O
� r
N O �\
lu
(D V/
i N
y O
x /1
=r 7 N
v O
r
N J
a
N
O
r
N
O
r
a 00
v
U,
N
� O
C 00
(1 N
� o
a LD
v
7
CL
aj 7 7
5 77A,
O
O
O
j.9EP
F-, N N
Cn O In O In
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
o 0 0 0 0
O
m
IQ,
V -1
rD
aim
c
1
9
9�9
CL
0
co
19
c
rD
N
9c?
9
119,
V 1
r
r)
rD
9Q
x`9,
19
96,
199
G9
D
199
�
n
=*
V
9&
19
9
X99
D
1.99
rD
Ln
9,
°o
M
11 J
r
r;
001
J
�
rD
LA
4
O�
t>
�M j
a'
Iq
OQ
D
_
n
'-r
Iq
Q
OS
z -
w
D
06
c
cr
�00
n'
nom',
60�
5 77A,
r�
� F�7 % ,��
cn
p
�
O0
-i
0
z
O
��
�C:
m
mc�
D
D
Z
0 Co
m
.� O
r
r
m
r�
a
�oAi m
D
r
m
<
-0
m
U
D
G
C
N
i
r
z
m
z
z
mmM
m
�� 2
C
m
v_
z
��M
N
cn CL
Z
C
'�
r
(n O
OMm
is
O
N
m
O Oc
-j
c -v•'
0
U)
00
1
i
00
ao
LT, Lnn
mQ
W
N
V -
N
W
C1 N
a g
N
OOD
co N O
D O
_
i
V
N
(D
CO
O
O W
0 o
j W
00
ao
Ul
rn
�
m �
m
ga'
m
�
-4�m�
O
c°'o
)
O N
a 0
N
w
D
1 a)
N
N
N
N
�
OD
-4
N
Ui
O
(O
O U1
0 0
1
w
O 0
�1
Ul
V
m N
N
-�
V CJi
m N
m,
(J1
Ci N
a 0
i
CVD
N
N
n 0
N
JI,
O
W
N
W
9D
O OOD
'� W
QD
O
Qp
OD
O P.
ffl
00
s
J
00
J
N
mw
N
V(
Mw
r"
o
o
c�N
�
09
N
ag
N
—
a�
N
v
v
j N
{{9
00
1
W
00
..
O)
O
M
m�
N
OD M
imp
OD
0
ao
w
°Nai
N
�
c
OWD Ln
-Ni cn
O
O
0
1
O W
-n22
/
/\
gmm
X22
\ §j
\[/
0)d
Z {\
wm�
§ §q
)�2
X
a- mmz
]k\EE§
)mb0Em
w�00
d0�33o
m -0 zC/)=z
mmQcn oz
\m /�kn
mgwE�o
2f7;aC
Z$�Ed�
/oz,z
c,ne
mgq-9
izw§
2�Im
0§ -o
o _0 z_
§k\\
Xmm
[ -§
6)m
0
k�
k
■
m) §k
$G214
mm
�
�
/ /2m
� §$@
mmQ
��mz
§k�
\\(n
m)j
X%
Km
§)
,¢m
c %�� % §��■
)�) /\ \\ \z
22$m@mim
,2wK >)&20
® ®�o
d9?? § \\ ■
§m%Q$$§KW
zc.nm;omoo�
00mcci
' %Mezoem
e mT===�
2 }%G�eef1l
2)kj \kk2
§)f 00
0
cne *
�2G)$ 2
G0S§ CA
G)
Q
Q
@ > ®cc$2m§z
m §®§02M9mo2
c bz�
§ /c22m¥mz §r
2 2�§2 § #j § 2
q_ § z
§ 0 z
aim cn
0
\
TTm@TzT
» »Moa °a
D,3 **�D
Ak2 %k °k
- -k < - \-
§ §e� §j§
§§
-
§ �dm)
o (D
� �(D
4 a (D Cn
E /�\a
\<
0CDa) 0 ]
\ N CD
G4t�/
\ %§ )�
\ \§ \ \\
0CD \a§
\CDp C\
//® N
° n
C :?
\ \2 \)k
0 c, c 2 6
»Nf \k\
//\ 7�-n
§ §6 2k\
Gee
a2% 472
¥ ¥n ¥N6
#a
\ \§ \ �
G° §
\ § \ § \
%
�
\
#
�
�
0
�
�
0
§
,n n
m�
m-n
;a m
Mr
nZ
»a
(A O
�
CO)
CO)
c
■
�
0
z
CO)
2
�
�
x
§
c
0
x
§
\
�