HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/09/09 - Agenda Packet - Special �1�(=: 1-1 UCAM0NGA
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, September 9, 2013 � 2:00 p.m.
City Hall � Tri-Communities Room
10500 Civic Center Drive * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
A. CALL TO ORDER:
Al. Pledge of Allegiance
A2. Roll Call: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tern Spagnolo
Council Members Alexander, Steinorth and Williams
B. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item
listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not
previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter
for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or
less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals
desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Mayor and not to
the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and
decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker,
making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of
the meeting.
C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:
P1 Cl. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra L. McNay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September
5, 2013, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
1
STAFF REPORT
ADMINISTRdTIVE SERVICES GROUP
RANCHO
Date: September 9, 2013 CUCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
John R. Gillison, City Manager
From: Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director
Ingrid Bruce, Special Districts Manager,
Subject: OPTIONS CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICTS
RECOMMENDATION
City residents have long valued the quality of Rancho Cucamonga's parks, green spaces, and
facilities; these improvements are locally funded solely by the landscape assessment districts. At
this time, because assessment rates have not changed since 1985 and 1993, several of the large
districts on the City's west side are in financial distress, needing either revised assessment rates
approved by the property owners, or further and more substantial reductions in services. These
include PD 85 (Red Hill and Heritage Parks), LIVID 1 (west-side parks), and SLID 2 (local street
lighting), among others. Deficits currently total $1.2 million annually in these districts at the present
"B" service level; if service is brought back to "A" level, the budget gap is $3.3 million.
It is recommended that to protect and maintain the quality of the community, the City Council
consider replacing the west side landscaping and street light districts with 8 new community districts
that include parks, landscaping, and street lighting that would provide service at the "A" level. Single
family assessments in the new districts would vary, but would equal roughly a $100 per year
increase for most property owners over what they are currently paying. Each of these 8
replacement districts would require property owner approval under Proposition 218.
The proposed expenditure budgets and rates in these new districts are summarized on the
following chart:
Total Annual General Benefit Special Benefit Estimated Annual
Cost of (can't be funded (funded by Levy for a typical
District Maintenance b assessments assessments SFR parcel
Bear Gulch Park $273,480 $18,323 $255,157 $103.84
Beryl Park 874,330 35,498 838,832 217.28
Gentry 149,850 28,696 121,154 36.18
Heritage Park 1,401,110 1 112,649 1,288,461 250.88
Hermosa and 853,860 90,595 763,265 131.88
Church Park
Lions and Red Hill 1,758,770 238,665 1,520,105 135.80
Park
Old Town and 469,740 31,379 438,361 120.34
Golden Oak Park
South Rancho 1,057,070 204,437 852,633 67.14
Total $7,238,210 $814,522 $6,423,688
(1) Levy example is for a SFR parcel within Zone 1 of each applicable district. The SFR parcels within Zone 2 of each
applicable District have a proposed reduced assessment rate.
2
September 9, 2013
Page 2
Staff recommends that before any decision is made to move ahead with this concept and Prop 218
votes, the City Council approve a community engagement process over the next 60-90 days to
determine whether or not property owners would support replacing the current West-side districts
with eight new community districts, and adjusting assessment rates to bring maintenance to the "A"
level. The cost for the public engagement work and survey is estimated at $100,000; the FY 13/14
budget includes $30.000 that is available for this effort. It is recommended that the Council
appropriate an additional $70,000 from the General Fund for this public engagement project.
Map of Eight Proposed New Community Districts to Replace PD 85, et al
Proposed New Community Districts
J ± ii_ LLi>1 HEITAGE PARKLNID 1 W
� Y I 7i Albert
4v
Banyan:: 1
\ BERYL PARK LAW %'`-47r7- 21u
ISIn SA L �. 16, Pq
\ H iRMOSA'\ IAND OR I IGNGN PARK
Behr Line Rd r•\. LMD ■ op-:nmc Hu
EFATV
II
1d 'LIONS AND
I REDML L PARK LMD OM
Forme SO I 11111 IMIllp M F ooted&
TAM gend
1 ! Rear Gukn Perk Zorn
Armes R 'Arrow RI
—O BEAR L ICN— ! Gentry Palk zone
PARK IIAD
GmVI•Lanasaape Zone
SOUTH RANCHO LIAO !
en 5[ Merin.CowarmltyPark Zane
_ %,, I GENTRY LYD •� ! Hermosa and Church Park Zone
a OLD TOWN AND
rS 2 •\JGOLDEN OAK'S — -- - lams and Red N1,Perk Zone
gGtr, PARK LMD "' OK Town and Golden Oak Park Zone
Soum Rancno Park Zone
MP St Ell 1,t �.City Boundary
9
E E E Y - K
E a E T 3 A
- �i_--4 k
BACKGROUND
The formation of landscape maintenance districts (LMDs) was an integral part of the City's early
years of development following incorporation. The purpose of LMDs was to act as an alternative to
HOA's and enhance property values through the installation and ongoing maintenance of parks,
landscaping, and other improvements in the common areas surrounding residential and commercial
development. This would in turn enhance the character and quality of the neighborhoods. The
LMDs finance that maintenance through property owner assessments, which means that the costs
are borne by the property owners who benefit from the improvements rather than the City's General
3
September 9, 2013
Page 3
Fund.
Since 1996, several of the City's LMDs, as well as street lighting districts (SLDs), have faced fiscal
challenges as a result of the passage of Proposition 218. Prior to the passage of that measure, the
City was able to adjust rates modestly each year if costs rose. The passage of Prop 218 meant that
rates could only be adjusted upon approval of the property owners in that district. As a result,
assessment rates in these older districts remained flat, while costs have slowly increased over time,
especially for water and electricity. While measures have been taken to manage and control costs,
the structural budget deficits that result from increasing costs and flat revenue must ultimately be
addressed, either with significant reductions in maintenance expenditures, or with property owner
approval of adjusted assessment rates.
The City has made significant progress since 2009 in addressing these fiscal challenges in some of .
the City's largest assessment districts. It was recognized that these problems did not appear
quickly, and they would not be solved quickly. They needed to be addressed systematically over
several years' time. In three of the City's larger districts, LMD 2 (Victoria Neighborhood), LMD 4R
(Terra Vista), and LMD 6R (Caryn Community) property owners have approved rate adjustments
and seen service levels brought back to the "A" level. The property owners in LMD 8 (South
Etiwanda) did not approve a rate increase, and so service levels were dropped significantly and
landscaping removed in order to balance the budget in this very small district.
In the FY 13/14 City Council goals, the Council identified the need to address the long-term fiscal
sustainability of the City's special districts. To that end, following the June resolution to the
challenges in LMD 2, staff has been analyzing the remaining pre-Prop 218 districts to determine
which districts have the most pressing financial challenges. Adding complexity to this effort is the
ever-evolving legal framework within which assessment districts must be formed and managed.
Staff is now recommending that the Council look to address the structural deficits in several of the
districts that serve the large western areas of the City that were developed around the time of
incorporation. This area can be generally defined as the western and southern parts of the City.
This large L-shaped area is served by a number of our largest and most financially challenged
districts, as well as being home to two of our most popular parks, Red Hill and Heritage.
After substantial time, analysis and work with assessment engineers and attorneys, it is proposed to
consider replacing several of the current districts with eight (8) new community districts that would
include both landscaping and lighting services for their localized areas. These new districts would
provide adequate funding to protect and maintain the parks, green spaces, and street lighting that
are important to community safety and quality. As we did in LMD 2, the City would first seek to
share information and hold a dialogue about this concept with the property owners over the next
several months, to provide and receive input from them regarding their questions, concerns and
preferences. This input process will be followed with a survey to determine if property owners
would support these new districts. If support seems strong, the City Council could proceed with
Prop 218 ballot processes in those districts that appear viable. In those that do not, the current
districts would remain in place in those areas, and staff would prepare detailed plans to reduce
maintenance levels and eliminate improvements in those areas in order to live within available
resources.
The analysis below provides more details as to the fiscal challenges in these specific districts, and
the reasons behind the recommended approach. Staff is well aware that both the financial realities
and the proposed solutions are very significant changes, and will require a great deal of effort and
communication with residents and businesses in order to build a consensus as to the best
outcomes. The community values its premier status, and our parks, trails, and green spaces are
4
September 9, 2013
Page 4
much of what makes this City a desirable place to live and raise a family. As was seen in the
planned communities to the east, when offered the opportunity, property owners have generally
chosen to adjust their assessments modestly to protect and maintain their quality community
amenities.
Current Analysis
The following is a summary of the current assessment districts that would be phased out if this plan
is pursued and approved by property owners.
PD (Park District) 85 — PD 85 represents the most immediate financial challenge. This district was
originally established to fund the construction of Red Hill and Heritage Parks, funding both debt
service on the original bonds as well as ongoing maintenance of the parks. This district contains
approximately 28,000 parcels and encompasses all of the City, except everything east of the Deer
Creek Channel and the Victoria, Caryn, and Terra Vista planned communities.
The PD 85 bonds were paid off in 2005, and the assessments were reduced at that time from $52
to $31 per single family or multi-family units. Rates for commercial and industrial properties vary.
Other than the rate reduction in 2005, rates have not changed since they were originally established
in 1985, which was 28 years ago.
Red Hill and Heritage are two of the City's premier parks, covering a total of 82 acres and providing
a large variety of amenities and recreational opportunities for the community. Maintenance services
are currently at the "B" level, as staff has sought to manage costs in these large and busy parks.
Maintenance levels have been reduced, capital improvements and repairs have been deferred,
recycled water has been implemented at Red Hill Park, and turf areas under trees have been
replaced with mulch, all in an effort to reduce expenditures. The condition of the parks is certainly
showing the adverse impacts of this deferred and reduced maintenance.
The district's structural budget deficit is projected to total $520,000 this fiscal year, or roughly 30%
of the total $1.7 million expenditure budget. Reserves in PD 85 have been declining rapidly as a
result of this situation; while the District had $2.5 million in reserves in 2008, remaining reserves are
projected to be approximately $500,000 by the end of this fiscal year. It should be noted that if
services were restored to "A" level without an increase in assessment rates, this deficit would be
even greater.
LMD 1 — LMD 1 has nearly the same boundary as PD 85, assessing 18,000 parcels and
encompassing nearly all of the area that is not located within the City's planned communities. Not
all parcels within this boundary are currently annexed into this district or contiguous, making it
unlike the City's other LMDs, which typically include all parcels within their boundaries. The
excluded parcels were residential parcels that developed prior to the City's incorporation.
LMD 1 provides for the maintenance of 10 parks, as well as community trails, parkways, trails, and
medians in this area. The parks in this district are Bear Gulch, East and West Beryl, Old Town,
Church Street, Golden Oaks, Hermosa, and Lions parks.
The assessment rates of $92.21 per single family and $46.11 per multi-family unit have stayed the
same since 1993. Service is at the "B" level and maintenance services have been reduced in order
to reduce the budget deficit. The district's structural budget deficit is projected to total $220,000 this
year, or roughly 15% of the total $1.4 million expenditure budget. Reserves are nearly exhausted,
with $215,000 projected to remain in reserves as of the end of this fiscal year.
LMD 3b — LMD 3b is another large district that nearly mirrors the boundaries of PD 85 and LMD 1,
but encompasses approximately 1,100 commercial and industrial parcels within this large boundary.
5
September 9, 2013
Page 5
This district funds the maintenance of 557,000 square feet of landscaped medians and hardscape
in these areas as well as the entry monuments along 4`h Street.
The assessment rate of $352.80 per acre has been in place since 1993. The district's structural
budget deficit is projected to total $148,000 this year, or roughly 13% of the total $1.1 million
expenditure budget. Remaining reserves are projected to total $440,000 as of the end of this fiscal
year.
SLD (Street Lighting District) 2 — SLD 2 is the next large district that again shares nearly the
same boundaries as the districts listed above, covering the areas of the City that are generally west
of Haven Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard. This district funds the maintenance of the
streetlights and traffic signals on the local streets found within these areas, with 8,700 parcels
included in the district. The assessment rate of $39.97 per single-family or multi-family unit has
remained the same since 1993.
This district currently provides only enough revenue to fund 50% of its expenditures, making it the
district with the largest structural budget deficit. As an interim measure, $320,000 per year in
expenses are being charged directly to Gas Tax Funds, which is a permissible use of these funds.
As was discussed with the City Council in a study session in early 2012, staff does not recommend
the ongoing subsidy of street lighting districts with Gas Tax, as this reduces the funds available for
pavement repair and replacement.
SLD 6 — SLD 6 is another district with largely similar boundaries as those above, but maintains the
streetlights and traffic signals serving the commercial and industrial areas. Approximately 1,000
commercial/industrial parcels within this large boundary are included in SLD 6. The assessment
rate of $51.40 per acre has been in place since 1993. Relative to the other districts discussed thus
far, the budget for SLID 6 is more modest, totally $118,000 annually, and the district does not have a
structural deficit. However, given its overlapping boundaries with other districts serving commercial
and industrial properties, it is recommended that this district also be replaced with the new districts
to streamline district administration and provide a simplified assessment structure for the affected
property owners.
LIVID 3A/LMD 5 - In addition to the large districts listed above that have nearly the same
boundaries, there are two small LMDs that staff would recommend phasing out as a clean-up
matter during this process. LIVID 3A maintains the parkway in front of an industrial complex on
Hyssop, just south of 6`h Street and east of the 1-15 freeway; it contains only 9 parcels and has a
budget of $40,270 annually. LIVID 5 maintains a small tot lot in a 44-parcel residential development
near Hermosa and 26`h Street, with a budget of $5,330 annually. These very small districts can be
dissolved into the new 8 districts as part of this initiative, if it is approved.
The total deficit shared by the districts above, at current "B: service levels, totals $1.2 million for FY
13/14. If services were restored to the "A" level in all the deficit-position districts, the deficit would
total $3.3 million.
Proposed Neighborhood Districts
As previously noted, the large, nearly citywide districts were originally established prior to
Proposition 218 and in a different era with regard to assessment district law. Going forward, new
and revised districts must meet different standards with regard to how the benefits provided by the
"improvements", meaning the parks, street lights, etc., must be quantified and then separated in
terms of special benefit to various parcels, and general benefit to the public as a whole. This is a
key concept, because Article XIIID of the California Constitution allows the City to recover from
assessments only the proportionate share of the costs of the improvements that provide the special
6
September 9, 2013
Page 6
benefits. General benefits cannot be funded by the assessments; they must be paid for by other
sources. As was learned in the LIVID 2 experience, new districts will no longer fund 100% of the
improvements within their boundaries; there will always be some sort of general benefit component,
typically funded by the General Fund, fees, or other sources. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a new,
citywide assessment district would pass legal muster.
The proposed new West-side district plan would establish eight new community districts to replace
the districts listed above. The boundaries have been developed so as to minimize the amount of
general benefit created in each district; this has generally been done by locating the districts around
the parks that are served by these communities, looking to the City's General Plan for guidance as
to optimal distances to parks and park amenities. To determine these district boundaries and their
proposed assessment rates, Public Works Services staff worked to develop budgets for each of
these new districts, assuming that services were to be restored to the "A" level, including modest
contributions to district reserves.
The proposed expenditure budgets and rates in these new districts are summarized on the
following chart:
Total Annual General Benefit Special Benefit Estimated Annual
Cost of (can't be funded (funded by Levy fora typical
District Maintenance b assessments) assessments SFR arcel�
Bear Gulch Park $273,480 $18,323 $255,157 $103.84
Beryl Park 874,330 35,498 838,832 217.28
Gentry 149,850 28,696 121,154 36.18
Heritage Park 1,401,110 1 112,649 1,288,461 250.88
Hermosa and 853,860 90,595 763,265 131.88
Church Park
Lions and Red Hill 1,758,770 238,665 1,520,105 135.80
Park
Old Town and 469,740 31,379 438,361 120.34
Golden Oak Park
South Rancho 1,057,070 204,437 852,633 67.14
Total $7,238,210 $814,522 $6,423,688
(2) Levy example is for a SFR parcel within Zone 1 of each applicable district. The SFR parcels within Zone 2 of each
applicable District have a proposed reduced assessment rate.
The increased costs to property owners would vary across each of these districts if they were
approved, depending upon each specific parcel. In 6 of the 8 new districts, virtually all property
owners are paying into one or more of the existing districts that would be replaced. The exceptions
are in the South Rancho (81% already in a district) and Gentry (67% already in a district). While
there is a great deal. of variation between specific parcels, for most residents rates would be
increased by approximately $100 per year as compared to what they are currently paying, with
increases higher in the new Heritage Park district. It important to note that overall rates will be
much lower than are currently found in the planned communities, where single family rates in the
LMDs range from $290 — $460 per home per year, not including their SLD assessments, which are
additional amounts.
Each of these new districts will be subject to its own Proposition 218 ballot process for property
owner approval before it could be established. Property owners would have the opportunity to cast
ballots that are weighted in dollars based on their relative proportion of the overall assessments to
be imposed. If a majority of the ballot weight cast is in favor of the new assessment, the City
7
September 9, 2013
Page 7
Council can create the new district; if a majority protest exists, the new district is not formed.
If this plan is implemented, as the new districts are approved, the new districts replace the
underlying old districts within the "footprint" of the new district boundaries. Property owners are no
longer assessed the prior rates and are instead assessed the new community district rate for their
property. If all eight districts are ultimately approved, the underlying districts would be completely
dissolved. If not, the remaining portions of those underlying districts would remain in place where
the property owners have not approved new districts. If that were to occur, staff would proceed to
implement service reductions needed to achieve balanced budgets in those remaining areas. That
would likely mean very significant impacts in the parks, medians, and street lighting budgets.
Alternatives
Given the legal framework in which assessment districts must be formulated and managed, the
City's options for different assessment district structures are largely limited. Staff did explore the
option of creating a new Community Facilities District (CFD), which could be formed pursuant to the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. CFDs are legally distinct from assessment districts
and provide more flexibility with regard to how rates are structured; they also do not require that
general and special benefits be determined. So, it would be legally possible to form a single large
CFD rather than the 8 community assessment districts, and generate the needed revenues.
In the CFD scenario, the single family rate would be approximately $115 — $130 per year per single
family home. There would also be no general benefit contribution required by the General Fund,
which is an additional benefit to the City's budget. However, approval of a CFD requires a 2/3 vote
of registered voters in a special election. It is staff's opinion that a CFD measure is unlikely to reach
the 2/3 vote threshold required for passage. For that reason, we do not recommend pursuing the
CFD option.
At this time, the remaining and perhaps least desirable alternative would be to reduce maintenance
further to achieve a balanced budget in each of the current districts. With deficits ranging from 15 —
50% even at current, reduced service levels, this would be a tremendous challenge and inevitably
result in very detrimental impacts to the conditions of the parks, trails, and even street lighting
systems. Rather than focus on those potential negative outcomes, it is recommended that the City
first engage with the community to discuss the positive opportunities that exist in creating new
community districts, focusing on the need to protect and maintain the community's quality of life and
preserving public safety.
Recommendation
As was done in LIVID 2, staff is recommending that the City engage in a very focused and extensive
community engagement effort before the City Council determines whether or not to pursue any
Prop 218 elections for these new districts. We anticipate working with the many stakeholder groups
that would be impacted, including sports groups, equestrian groups, the business community, and
others that have vested interests in the West-side parks, lighting, and other amenities. It is
anticipated that this engagement project will use many of the same methodologies that were used
in LIVID 2, including mailers, meetings at stakeholder groups, and opportunities for residents to
provide their feedback. In the end, this will allow property owners to make a fully informed decision
regarding the options available. City staff would once again work with a firm that would help conduct
this process with City staff.
It is anticipated that this community engagement effort would take place over the next 60-90 days.
At the end of that time, a statistically valid survey would be conducted of property owner views
regarding the implementation of maintenance reductions as compared to the establishment of the
8
September 9, 2013
Page 8
eight new districts and associated new assessment rates.
The results of this survey would be presented to the City Council in late 2013 for review and
discussion regarding next steps. If the community expresses support for the proposed new districts
and rates, the City could initiate the Prop 218 processes in the spring of 2014 to consider rate
adjustments for FY 14/15. If not, service reductions will proceed, with the knowledge that the
community made an informed, educated, and reasoned decision before these cuts were
implemented.
The cost for the public engagement work and survey is estimated at $100,000; the FY 13/14 budget
includes $30,000 that is available for this effort. It is recommended that the Council appropriate an
additional $70,000 from the General Fund for this public engagement project.
Attachments
Maps of existing LMDs and SLDs
Detailed map of Proposed Districts
$
CL .�
LO lz
_ �
�
-t .
.0 ❑> co
Qft / Z o
/
W
\ AV aw0 _.j a6ax o
1 . . . . � Lu � 6
� L
i e
�
I a
\ \
| !V ae] 3
Rv ePuumG AV ePeemG
!g wa lg eg
...................
lv,esawooa n lesagoow
t'
�
AV ue$m n AV oa$mA
AV uan H
AV uan H
AV esOWJGH n esowJ aH
AV pl`qlqojV AV Re$gav
AVUecllaH \ AVUeuIleH
m =
AV Pie a@/
Gum@ue0
5§GC55
AV a 2 g
3 e a g 3
3 G 5
/ \ I i § ;
FOE
« G #SaAee
v
J
L` > W U o
U' �•y
LU
ny�Layo J
.0
............
of
cp i
c _
N _
CO o
ii Q
1
y � ^d lse3 in
a
jny epuem113 ny epueM113
J
ny Jalsayooa
ny Jalsayooy
1
ny ua�gl!W r............' ^y ua�!II!W
ny uaneH
ny uaneH
ny esowJaH ny esowJ@H
^H ple4!yojd AV ple9!yojV
ny uewllaH ny uewllaH
� L
L
ny pjeRau!n
1S uellaweo
LSE E E���E3
a 7 €
v ifiE F
C !
J _ § C L:
N L O o0i)3d� �( 1
-o U) m° o Q Iiy{Fp Eiiiaf�
x m LL s> F E
a�` �es'��s1il•..
U 2a£eaid§ T€�
Q nd UpuUnnilg
ci
+t7'
n• .� U ® O
d
El
W � E
Q
V
M
J d
iCl doss
nd .zajsay3oNd
AV U331!11!IN
m
W
O o J o
V
> W 0 J
W "
AV kJ@qO
r............ a
' � c
W
m o 0
m
Q 1 ii Q
R AV ise3 in
Q L_
a IAV epueM113 AV epuemil3
J
:19 MaaJo ea
AV Jalsayoob ' AV Jalsayooa
1
AV uaM!II!W ,.............. AV ua>I!IIIPV
AV uaneH AV uaneH
AV esowJaH AV esowJaH
AV ple4lUoJV AV ple4!4oJV
AV uewllaH AV uewllaH
� L
L �
AV pJeAauln
1S uellaweo 33 3
;x
a x; i Ir _
U) C m w GAME)
L = L IfE=f j€3
L 3
€F{i
s i
m ° AN 7 ,
CO x {biseg ;1
LL ftyy
a C 4:1i1. €fsF
°s
Di
LO
w
LL
'L N
® O
i rt^ � o
AVUSOUUOH
•�I rLa.� { � i 9 �.. _ O
1
Q
V
a
J
r lit
N
y.. a
Cj —
_ > ,,W^^ U cn
LU
AV lwayZ) J ;
;:
C �............
m
o
�w li Q
J
AV lse3 i5
� 1 v
inV epuem113 AV epueM!13
i
i
il8 maaj� e4
AV Jai sayaoa ' AV Jalsayooa
1
AV uaN!II!yY r............• AV ua>I!II!W
AV uaneH
ny uaneH
AV esowJaH AV esowJaH
AV pleq!4ojV AV pleq!4ojV
AV uewllaH in AV uewllaH
L
L 7
AV pjeAauln
1g uellawe0
lit 31
jE�,�a E1
� 1 I
AV anoJ`J
N O Q .1 p2�.1�
Nm li � i� it
}{Ett {j Et S
m
's
NA pi •�
azi;N1f,l€1
cc
w
v
'i
y
E
J �
J+
V Z w•
= Q ''WE^B U co
c V !'•U
O ti U.
ny �a4o J ~ � �
............
(Q 1 m
• c
m �
�vJ , m LL Q
J j ^V lse3 in
� 1 v
jnV epUM.13 AV epuem113
I
CO)
AV Jalsayooy '
ny Jalsayooa
t.
ny ua�pl!W r I............' AV uaA!II!W
AV uaneH
ny uaneH
AV esowJGH
ny esowJaH
^V ple4!4ojV ^V ple4!4ojV
AV uewllaH AV uewllaH
� L
L �
AV pie Iau!�
16 ue!laweo
ail
E
AV anOJE)
JAI
O
0
E
y m
¢SS;l•3 Jill
� dta.EEiF!!!ll,tt!
r
P16
cn s
i-, Q ? y
-4-+ "1 c o y
CO N N c d
. ,
O. N 0 m
m c m ., O o
• . ., a m N c° N
.. .. 1 i
° r = ° a i-+ ` m E U U
z< -
a °
co I N
O
E
\ `1 7 d OQN - L m
m C
j 1��� v �
c m i = o n
o
O
U J m
I 1. N D L°
_O
W l w C
z j 11,141—
i^V lse3
W Ay epuv,p 1 -- I -
O I
0 i z
AyialsOUOO7.i I --- -- Sl�� rV klsauoo-i
I
\)----..-------**---------a.W-uaWNN14- I � qr U III1W=
1
I 7
1 \\\\ N
1I
ny uaneF{ , * `I Y -
V uaAll-
I < a
a
AV eSOwJaH 1 ■ 1_ iZ a 7 f- - - - AV eS0 Ui t..
X =
v
iJ J 2
AV plegiyaiv i--- —g Il
4 < z Z 2 J ^C Pleq!4oA1
0 K
O0a
ny ueu.11al-1 1 W m 0 X o' O I'�,i�Tv uew Hai.cn
1 Zx l7� �" m
z w as AV PJeAawn
I io.
---J \ N 'N � —
..J— 'L nV 9n010
i
,�1.;'
u Q h ill!•4,ii
- - -,- - - Ili1°:li;•I,
& T ''i!�';,Iiii
N m i€,I�+ID'
, r
1 4010'9"
:4f,1«icll