HomeMy WebLinkAbout1D, Eureka Contract Payment Terms Discussion
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 18, 2009
Agenda Item 1.D
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: James Lehnhoff,
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Eureka Contract Payment Terms Discussion
Action Reauest
Provide direction on continuing discussions with Eureka Recycling regarding the payment terms.
Update
At their March 30, 2009, meeting, the City Council provided staff with guidance to continue
negotiating with Eureka regarding the disagreement in the payment terms of the contract. The
memo from the March 30, 2009, meeting is attached to provide the background to this issue
(Attachment A). The consensus of the Council was that the City does not agree with Eureka's
interpretation of the processing costs in the payment terms portion of the contract. The
negotiating guidelines from the Council directed staff to prepare a counterproposal that kept
paper in the recycling mix and kept a portion of revenue share. The City has not paid the
processing costs claimed by Eureka, though the City has continued to pay the base monthly cost.
A counterproposal was sent to Eureka on April 6, 2009, that requested the removal of Section 25:
Lack of Adequate Market Demand from the contract, reduced the City's revenue share to 25
percent from 50 percent, and specifically allowed Eureka to use surplus revenue from one
recycling material to cover the processing costs of another material if overall processing costs
exceeded overall revenue (e.g. revenue from aluminum could be used to cover the processing
costs from paper). Section 25 is the portion of the contract that describes a process of removing
a material from the recycling mix if it is no longer economically feasible to collect, process, and
market.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 18, 2009
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information \2009\05-18-09 Worksession\Packet Information \051809 - CC Report-
Eureka Contract Discussion.doc
Page 10f3
Staff met with Eureka on May 4, 2009, where they recapped the downturn in the recycling
market and restated their position on the processing costs. Eureka did not accept the City's
counterproposal, and they withdrew the offer described in their March 23, 2009, letter. That
previous proposal from Eureka had offered to remove the processing fees if the City gave up all
rights to future revenue; however, the letter required the City to recognize that Eureka was
entitled to the processing fees. At this meeting, Eureka stated that they would pursue Section 25
of the contract if the processing fees go unpaid because paper has become unfeasible to collect
under the City's interpretation of the contract.
If Eureka were to pursue Section 25, they would need to provide a formal 30 day notice to the
City. During that 30 day period, the City and Eureka would need to negotiate a contract
amendment that eliminates a material, likely paper, from the recycling mix. If a contract
amendment is not negotiated within the 30 daY'period, the City becomes responsible for paying
the disposal costs incurred by Eureka. Should paper be removed from the recycling mix, the
contract amendment would need to address who is responsible for informing and educating
residents. At our May 4 meeting, both sides agreed that removing paper from the recycling mix
remains an undesirable outcome.
Options
In continuing conversations with Eureka, they have indicated a willingness to discuss
restructuring the processing fees. Based on Eureka's interpretation, the City is required to pay
$75/ton for paper and $150/ton for aluminum regardless of revenue. There may be a middle
ground on these processing fees where the City agrees to pay a portion of future processing fees
to keep paper in the recycling mix. Staff has not formally begun these negotiations since it was
outside the guidelines provided by Council on March 30.
At this juncture, the options are as follows:
1. Pay the processing fees claimed by Eureka to ensure that paper remains in the recycling
mIX;
2. Authorize staff to negotiate a restructuring of the processing fees to determine if there is a
middle ground that will keep paper in the recycling mix;
3. Maintain that the City is not responsible for the processing fees. This stance could lead
to two outcomes:
a. Eureka begins the process of removing paper from the recycling mix (Section 25
of the Contract);
b. Eureka could request arbitration proceedings to resolve the dispute. The
judgment of the arbitrator would be final (Section 42 of the Contract).
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 18, 2009
\ \Ahdocs 1 \ah \AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2009\051809 - CC Report - Eureka Contract Discussion. doc
Page 2 of3
Recvclin2: Bud2:et Impact
From January to March, the processing fees have added up to just over $4,400, which is
approximately 19 percent more than budgeted for that time period. At the current rate, the
processing fees would be approximately $1 7,600 by the end of this year. This total is highly
dependant upon market conditions.
As noted in the March 30, 2009, memorandum, Eureka "waived" the December processing fees.
None of the additional processing fees have been paid. The standard monthly per household cost
has been paid since it is not at issue.
Recommendation
In order to help keep paper in the recycling mix, staff recommends moving forward with
negotiations on restructuring the processing fees. It should be noted that restructuring the
processing fees will likely lead to increased recycling costs for the City. Until negotiations
begin, it is difficult to calculate a budget impact. Staff will also review the account balance and
other income for the recycling enterprise fund. Any contract amendments would require Council
approval and budget impacts would be provided.
A quick comparison of Eureka's contracts with Maplewood, Roseville, Lauderdale, and Saint
Louis Park has been attached (Attachment C).. The contract language is different for each City.
According to Eureka, the monthly costs and processing fees are different between each City
because of when the contract was negotiated, routes, days of collection, population, the materials
used for revenue share, and other variables. Staff wants to learn more about these variables, and
the contract differences imply that there should be room to negotiate on the costs. Eureka is
having similar discussions with their other contract cities.
Attachment
A. March 30, 2009, Memo to the City Council
B. Pages 7, 8, 12, and 18 of the Contract Agreement between the City of Arden Hills and
Eureka Recycling for Recycling Services
C. Eureka Contract Comparison
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 18, 2009
\ \Ahdocs1\ah\AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage \2009\ 051809 - CC Report - Eureka Contract Discussion.doc
Page 3 of3
Attachment A
March 30,2009, Memo to the
City Council
May 18, 2009, City Council Meeting
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 30, 2009
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: James Lehnhoff,
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Eureka Contract Payment Terms Discussion
Action ReQuest
Review the recycling contract with Eureka and provide direction to staff on a proper course of
action regarding the payment terms.
Back2:round
In January 2008, the City signed a new contract with Eureka Recycling to provide residential
curbside recycling services from March 1, 2008, to March 1, 2011. The previous contract with
Waste Management expired at the end of February 2008. The contract with Eureka provides
residential curbside recycling services to all single family homes (Hunter's Park condos,
Parkshore apartments, Cottage Villas, and Arden Manor contract separately for recycling
services). The program is funded through an annual fee included with the property tax statement
and supplemented by the SCORE grant from Ramsey-County.
The contract includes provisions for a monthly fee per household and for revenue share. A
recent and steep drop in market prices for recyclable materials has brought to light a difference
between Eureka and the City on the payment terms in the contract.
Payment Terms
Section 6 of the Eureka Contract describes the payment terms (page 7 of Attachment A). The
payment terms are subdivided into two parts: 6.1 Compensation to Contractor and 6.2 Materials
Sales Revenue Share. The first line of section 6.1 states the "City Agrees to pay Contractor
$2.95 per residential dwelling unit per month in 2008 for weekly curbside collection, processing
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meetingfor March 30,2009
\\Ahdocsl\ah\AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2009\033009 - CC Report - Eureka Contract Discussion.doc
Page 1 of 4
and marketing ofrecyclables." Based on 2,560 households, the total cost was $86,518 for the
first full year of service. Section 6.1 of the contract also includes a provision to adjust the per
household service fee each year in accordance with the consumer price index for the Upper
Midwest as determined by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. The monthly fee is
adjusted on the anniversary of the contract. Starting on March 1, 2009, the monthly per
household cost increased by 3.8 percent to $3.06. This monthly cost per household and the
annual increase was anticipated in the 2009 recycling budget.
Section 6.2 describes the revenue share portion of the contract (page 7 of Attachment A). Under
section 6.2.1, All Paper Grades, the contract states, "The Contractor shall pay the City 50% of
this [Official Board Markets] index for all grades of paper collected after a processing fee of$75
per ton." Similarly, under section 6.2.2 regarding aluminum, the contract states," The Contractor
shall pay the City 50% of this [American Metal Market] aluminum index after a processing fee
of$150 per ton." The OBM and AMM are common sources for obtaining market prices for
recycling materials. Staff s and the City Attorney's reading of section 6.2.1 of the contract is
that when there is revenue to share, Eureka retains a $75 per ton processing fee for paper and a
$150 per ton processing fee for aluminum. The remaining revenue is split in half between
Eureka and the City. If there is not sufficient revenue to cover the processing fee, the City would
not receive any revenue share. In other words, paper must be more than $75 per ton and
aluminum more than $150 per ton before there is revenue to share.
For example, if the market price for paper was $100 per ton, a $75 per ton processing fee would
be charged and the remaining $25 per ton would be split between the City and Eureka.
However, ifprices were $50 per ton for paper, the City would not receive any revenue share
because the $75 per ton paper processing fee would not be covered. The City was aware that
revenue sharing was not a guarantee and some months. may not have any revenue share if prices
fell below the processing fee. It was staff s understan.ding and it was presented to the Council in
December 2007 that some months may not have any revenue share but the monthly price would
not increase.
In the proposal submitted by Eureka in 2007, they anticipated a revenue share of 70 cents per
household per month based on collection rates and market prices in 2007. However, in October
2008, the market price for recyclables dropped precipitously. The City collected approximately
$16,800 in revenue share between March and October. Based on Eureka's calculations, the City
has not received any revenue share since November. According to Eureka, a recovery in the
recycling market is not anticipated this year.
Prior to receiving the invoice for January recycling services, Eureka informed the City of an
error on the December invoice. By December 2008, the price for paper had dropped to $30/ton.
Consequently, the City did not receive any revenue share for paper materials. The City would
have received a rebate of $510 for aluminum; however, that was retained to cover their
processing costs for paper. The error, according to Eureka, is that the City should have been
charged for the remaining "processing fee gap" for paper materials. Since prices had fallen to
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meetingfor March 30,2009
\\Ahdocsl\ah\AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2009\033009 - CC Report': Eureka Contract Discussion.doc
Page 2 of 4
$30 per ton, Eureka claims the City is now responsible for the $45 per ton gap to cover the $75
per ton processing fee. Since the revenue from aluminum would not be sufficient to cover the
gap, the City would have owed an additional $2,407.35 in December 2008. Eureka waived the
December processing fee due to their error on the invoice.
In January, the additional processing fee would have added $1,599 to the invoice and in February
the processing fee would have added $1,508. Since Eureka has provided the required recycling
services, the undisputed per household fee has been paid, which is $7,552. These additional
processing fees have not been paid.
Recvclin2: Bud2:et Impact
The budgeted cost of the 2009 recycling program is $118,677, which includes the curbside
recycling program, two community cleanup events, and administrative expenses. This budget is
funded by the annual recycling fee, the SCORE Grant, and any revenue share. For 2009, the
annual fee is $32 per participating household, the SCORE grant is $19,866, and the estimated
revenue share was $20,530. The total budgeted revenue was $119,404. Due to the declining
recycling market, the revenue share will be short in 2009. However, in anticipation of a possible
decline, the recycling reserves can compensate for the loss of revenue share.
The recycling budget is a self-funding enterprise fund. The budget did not anticipate additional
processing costs in 2009. If this processing fee'were to continue through the end of2009, the
budget could potentially be short by $20,000 to $25,000 depending on the recycling market.
This translates to a cost per household of$3.57-$3.91 from the budgeted $3.06.
Options
Upon reviewing the contract, staff and the City Attorney do not agree with Eureka's
interpretation of the contract. As noted in the report, staffhas not authorized payment of the
"processing fee gap" requested by Eureka, and we do not recommend paying the "processing fee
gap" on previous or future invoices. Using Eureka's reading of the contract, much of the risk
and unpredictabi1ity is placed on the City. The City chose Eureka despite the lower monthly
price from three of the four competing proposals. The risk to the City was the potential for no
revenue share in any given month, which would require the City to pay the full monthly fee.
If the City does not pay the processing fee that Eureka contends is part of the contract, they did
indicate during our meeting on March 13 that they would need to pursue section 25 of the
contract that allows them to declare a material economically unfeasible to collect (see page 8 of
Attachment 1 for more detail on this process). If they pursue this portion of the contract,
residents would no longer be able to recycle paper and it would be left behind in the bins. It
would be possible to reintroduce paper recycling if the market improved in the future; however,
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meetingfor March 30,2009
\ \Ahdocsl\ah\AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2009\033009 - CC Report - Eureka Contract Discussion. doc
Page 3 of 4
public education and communication may be extremely difficult after more than a decade of
education on the importance of recycling paper. Eureka would be responsible for the educational
materials, but the City would undoubtedly receive concerns from residents. While this would
preserve the revenue share from aluminum, the long-term impacts may not outweigh the loss of
paper recycling for residents.
In Eureka's March 23, 2009, letter to the City, they proposed a contract amendment to change
the revenue share formula (Attachment B). The revised formula essentially eliminates their
processing fee but also eliminates the City's ability to collect revenue share in the future. Based
on Eureka's reading of the contract, this option removes the unpredictability and risk from the
recycling budget and program. It is true that this option would add predictability to the budget
and cap expenses at the agreed upon monthly fee. The City has 23 months remaining on this
contract. Due to market conditions, it is quite possible that revenue share for paper will not
return in 2009 and aluminum will continue to trend downward. Paper has not contributed to
revenue share since November, and aluminum has dropped from a contribution of$479 in
November to $266 in February (which was applied by Eureka to the costs of processing paper).
At those prices, the revenue share contribution per household would have ranged from ten to 20
cents. While staff and the City Attorney continue to disagree with Eureka's reading of the
contract, this may be the most viable option to continue the full recycling service that residents
are accustomed to and to minimize budget impacts.
If the City and Eureka cannot come to a negotiated conclusion on this issue, Eureka would have
the option of using arbitration.
Staff contacted the four other suburban cities that contract with Eureka: Roseville, Lauderdale,
Maplewood, and St. Louis Park. Each city has a different contract with Eureka. Roseville's
\
contract addresses processing fees in a different manner and this is not an issue in Roseville.
Lauderdale's contract does not include processing fees. St. Louis Park is in a substantially
similar situation to Arden Hills, and they have not yet reached a resolution with Eureka.
Maplewood's contract payment terms is structured quite differently than Arden Hills and is not a
comparable situation.
The City Attorney will be in attendance to help answer legal questions about the contract.
A.
. s and Eureka Recycling for Recycling
B.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meetingfor March 30,2009
\\Ahdocsl\ah\AHdata\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2009\033009 - CC Report - Eureka Contract Discussion. doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment B
Pages 7, 8, 12, and 18 of the
Contract Agreement between the
City of Arden Hills and
Eureka Recycling for
Recycling Services
May 18, 2009, City Council Meeting
As of 01/07/08
paper fiber products, including: newspapers, boxboard, magazines, pop/beer boxes, mixed
mail, catalogs, phone books, Kraft bags and corrugated cardboard.
In addition, residents may place clean, reusable textiles out separately in plastic bags as
outlined in Section 34 of this Agreement. Under this udual stream plus" system design,
processing shall also be by the categories as collected: paper separated from containers
separated from textiles.
The Contractor shall not make any changes to the dual stream collection or processing
systems without written approval of the City.
@ Payment Terms
The Contractor will invoice the City of Arden Hills on a monthly basis and the City will pay the
contractor no later than net 30 days of receipt of the invoice. The billing system will include
the following elements:
6.1 Compensation to Contractor:
City agrees to pay Contractor $2.95 per residential dwelling unit per month in 2008 for weekl-y
curbside collection, processing and marketing of recyclables. For 2008 the City certifies that
there are 2,560 curbside units that will receive service. The City will notify the Contractor by
Feb. 1 of each year what the certified number of curbside units will be for the subsequent
year.
The City agrees that prices for service will increase each year the Consumer Price Index for
the Upper Midwest as determined by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. The City will
notify the Contractor by the last week of December what the compensation rate will be for the
subsequent calendar year.
6.2 Materials Sales Revenue Share
A composite credit for the following material sates revenue share:
6.2.1 All Paper Grades
Paper prices shall be based on the Official Board Markets (OBM) "Yellow Sheet," Chicago
region for Old Newspapers (GNP) # 8, high side of range. The Contractor shall pay the City
500/0 of this OBM index for all grades of paper collected after a processing fee of $75 per ton.
6.2.2 Aluminum
Aluminum prices shall be based on the American Metal Market (AMM), Aluminum (1st issue
of the month), high side nonferrous scrap prices: scrap metals, domestic aluminum
producers, buying prices for processed used aluminum cans in carload lots, f.o.b~ shipping
point, used beverage can scrap. The Contractor shall pay the City 500/0 of this AMM
aluminum index after a processing fee of $150 per ton.
The Contractor shall provide copies of the referenced OBM market index and AMM market
index with each monthly statement. The Contractor shall provide a detailed explanation of
how the material splits are calculated to derive the paper and aluminum tonnage estimates.
7
As of 01/07/08
The City or the Contractor may propo'se other revenue sharing commodities and
corresponding proposed pricing formulae, at any time during the duration of the contract.
The parties shall enter into negotiations in good faith and any new revenue sharing
agreement shall be reduced to writing in the form of an amendment to the contract.
6.3 Other
Any other mutually agreed upon charges or credits.
7. RFP and Contractor's Proposal
The contents of the City's RFP (as of Sept. 24, 2007) and the Contractor's proposal are part
of the contractual obligations and are incorporated by reference into this contract. If any
provision of the contract is in conflict with the referenced RFP or proposal, the contract shall
take precedent.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COLLECTIONS
The following general requirements are pertinent to all recycling collections (Le., both
curbside recycling collection and multi-family recycling collection services). However, the City
acknowledges that collection service frequencies and other factors will vary between
residential and multi family collection programs.
8. Missed collections
The Contractor shall have a duty to pick up missed recycling collections. The Contractor
agrees to pick up all missed collections on the same day the Contractor receives notice of a
missed collection, provided notice is received by the Contractor before 11 :00 a.m. on a
business day. With respect to all notices of a missed colleetio.n received after 11 :00 a.m. on
a business day, the Contractor agrees to pick up that missed collection before 6:00 p.m. on
the following business day.
9. Severe weather
The Contractor may postpone recycling collections due to severe weather at the sole
discretion of the Contractor. "Severe Weather" shall include, but shall not be limited to those
cases. in which the temperature at 6:00 a.m. is minus twenty (-20) degrees Fahrenheit or
colder. If collections are so postponed, the Contractor shall notify the City. Upon
postponement, collection will be made on a day agreed upon between the Contractor and the
City.
10. Collection hours and days
The City requires all such collections to begin no sooner than 7 a.m. and shall be complete
by 6 p.m. Collection of recyclable materials from households north of 1-694 will take place
every Wednesday and households south of 1-694 will take place every Tuesday. During pre-
selected holiday weeks, collection days will take place one day later. The .Contractor may
request one time City authorization of exceptions to these time and day restrictions (e.g.,
pursuant to the "Severe Weather" section 9 above). The Contractor must request such
exception prior to the. requested collection event and specify the date, time and reason for the
exception.
8
As of 01/07/08
the composition, including number of samples, dates weighed, and City route(s) used for
sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of each such analysis.
24. Estimating process residuals
The Contractor shall provide the City a written description of the means to estimate process
residuals derived from the City's recyclables. This written description shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the City. This written description shall be updated by the Contractor
immediately after any significant changes to the processing facilities used by the Contractor.
The Contractor shall record the weight and generator for all materials entering the processing
facility on a daily, monthly and annual basis. These records shall be made available to the
City upon request. .
The Contractor shall report total weight of material disposed as shipped out to a mixed
municipal solid waste facility compared to the total material shipped out each month form its
processing facUity.
~ Lack of adequate market demand
~e event that the market for a particular recyclable ceases to exist, or becomes
economically depressed that it becomes economically unfeasible to continue collection,
processing and marketing of that particular recyclable, the City and the Contractor will both
agree in writing that it is no longer appropriate to collect such item before collection ceases.
The Contractor shan give the City as much notice as po~sible about the indications of such
market condition changes. The Contractor may then initiate the formal process by sending a
letter to the City notifying the City that the recyclable item should be discontinued from
collection. Upon receipt of the Contractor's notice, the City shalf have 30 days to review and
negotiate a contract amendment relating to disposal of such a recyclable commodity that
does not have adequate market demand.
After this 30 day period, the City shall pay the costs of all disposal of any item collected that
is deemed not recyclable by Contractor and the City due to lack of adequate market demand
until the City has approved that collection be discontinued for those materials. After the City
agrees to discontinue collection of those materials, the Contractor is responsible for the costs
of all disposal of any item collected that is deemed not recyclable by Contractor and the City
due to lack of adequate market demand. The City and Contractor shall specify a date in this
written contract amendment to cease collection of the recyclable item in question. The
Contractor shall at aU times be under a duty to minimize recyclables ending up in landfill or
disposal at other facilities receiving mixed munici.pal solid waste. If disposal of any recyclable
commodity becomes necessary, upon receiving written permission from the City, the
Contractor shall dispose of the recyclable materials at a facility specified in writing by the City
or an alternative agreed upon by the City and the Contractor.
26. Vehicle requirements
Each collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following:
· The Contractor's vehicles shall be marked with the name and telephone number of
the Contractor prominently displayed on both sides of the truck. The lettering must .
be at least 3 inches in height.
12
As of 01/07/08
@ Dispute resolution and arbitration procedures
The parties agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement or
the breach thereof, shall be settled, at the option of the Contractor by arbitration in
accordance with the Rules of the American Association of Arbitration and judgment upon the
award by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court with jurisdiction thereof.
43. General compliance
The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and
regulations governing funds provided under this contract.
The Contractor pays its employees a prevailing wage based on the recycling industry in. the
state of Minnesota and Hennepin County. The Contractor does not use temporary labor
arrangements to avoid paying a living wage. All of our employees, permanent and temporary,
receive a paycheck that meets or exceeds living wage standards_ Additionally, the contractor
provides health insurance for all fulltime employees and a pro rata share for employees
working more than 20 hours but less than 40 hours a week_
44. I'ndependent contractor
Nothing contained in this agreement is intended to, or shall be construed in any manner, as
creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties. The
Contractor shall at all times remain an independent Contractor with respect to the services to
be performed under this Contract. Any and all employees of Contractor or other persons
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Contractor under this
Contract shall be considered employees or sub-contractors of the Contractor only and not of
the City; and any and all claims that might arise, including Worker's Compensation claims
under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota or any other state, on behalf
of said employees or other persons while so engaged in any of the work or services provided
to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of Contractor..
45. Hold harmless
The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and
employees, from any liabilities, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses, including
attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Contractor, its
employees, its agents, or employees of subcontractors, in the performance of the services
provided by this contract, any resulting environmental liability that is a result of this contract or
by reason of the failure of the Contractor to fully perform, in any respect, any of its obligations
under this contract. If a Contractor is a self-insured agency of the State of Minnesota, the
terms and conditions of Minnesota Statute 3.732 at seq. shall apply with respect to liability
bonding, insurance and liability limits. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466
shall apply to other political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota.
46. Accounting standards
The Contractor agrees to maintain the necessary source documentation and enforce
sufficient internal controls as dictated by generally accepted accounting practices to properly
account for expenses incurred under this contract.
18
Attachment C
Eureka Contract Comparison
May 18, 2009, City Council Meeting
oJ( _5 E
c 0 ~
o c
o CI)__
.!a g E
L. .. ~
cao..-
c. c(
E
o
o
...
(.)
ca
L.
...
C CI)
o:C
o -;
ns 0
J2 C
C 0
::J -;
(.) ->
-e e
00..
c
o
(.)
w
a;
CI)
.....
o
-C
C
ns
o
c 0
o.!!
t-C)
..
CI)
Q.(.)
0;:;
..... 0
o ns
0-
00..
0> 0>0 0> 0>
C CLOCC
a a . a a
CC~CC
~
0>0>000>
CCLOOC
a a NO ac
cCl'-oo
~~
00>000
OCLOOO
ogNoo
LO 1'-000>
~ ~~EA-
~
00>000
..OCOOO
Cl)a.O a'"
Q.I'-c~gg
ns~ ~~~
0..
cn acnacn
~z~z~
::J:
::J:
~
o
o
o
~
.c
.....
c
o
:IE
CDOOO>C
o~('I)l'-a
MNNNac
~~~~~ ~
~~
:c
.~
-0
~
c
o
o
.r::.
o
co
~ Q)
L... .....
co J2
a.. Q)
~~ cn-gg>
i: ~ Jg .~ a 6,
L... . - ...J 3: c:
CO>O>>+J~~
CI)"'C co..
-C :::J cn .- co Q)
.. co a co -.:::::: .r::.1-
c(...JO::C/).c:::::~