Loading...
2004-649-Minutes for Meeting March 24,2004 Recorded 4/2/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS �J 20044 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/01/1004 03;31;39 PM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII it III 2004-640 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Tom De Wolf and Dennis R. Luke. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Les Stiles, Larry Blanton, Ruth Jenkin, Mike Johnston, Michael Takagi and several other members of the Sheriff's Office; Roger Kryzanek, Mental Health Department; Damian Syrnyk, Catharine White and Community Development; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin, Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle, and Jason Carr of Z-21 TV; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. However, citizen Jo -Ann Ray submitted documents for the Commissioners to review. (A copy of these documents is attached as Exhibit A.) 2. Before the Board was the Presentation of a Medal of Honor to Deputy Michael Takagi for his Lifesaving Actions during the Davis Lake Fire. Sheriff Stiles said that this is one of the few times this award has been given. He then read a statement detailing the actions of Deputy Takagi that merit his receiving the award. (A copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit B.) (There was hearty applause from the audience) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 1 of 9 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Chemical Dependency Organizational Contracts between Deschutes County and Pfeifer & Associates (Document No. 2004-096), Central Oregon Extended Unit for Recovery (Document No. 2004-106), Serenity Lane (Document No. 2004- 107), and BestCare Treatment Services (Document No. 2004-108). Roger Kryzanek gave an overview of the agreements. He said that even though the effective date was October 2003, new Legal Counsel needed to become familiar with the master contract and also made significant changes to the agreements to ensure consistency. DEWOLF: Move approval of these four agreements; and, subject to legal review, the other two CDO agreements that are not yet signed by the providers. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. At this time Commissioner Mike Daly received a call that his mother, who has been serious ill, had passed away, and he left the meeting. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 2004-006, Regarding Changing a Garage Setback in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of the item and the documents that had previously been provided to the Commissioners. Acting Chair Luke then opened the public hearing. Brian Bergler of Pahlisch Homes testified that he supports this ordinance. He added that they are out for bid now for infrastructure work, with building expected to begin in September, and dwellings to be available soon thereafter. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke then closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: Move first and second reading by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 2 of 9 Pages VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. Acting Chair Luke then conducted the first and second readings, by title only. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a Verification of a Nonconforming Use (Applicant/Property Owner. HufnagelMirschberg). CATHARINE WHITE: This is a request for an appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial for a non- conforming use for a second home built on a piece of property. As a follow-up to Monday, what I can tell you about the second home is what is in the record. What is in the record is that we know the house was not a mobile home. We know that a building permit was issued for a portable home. We know County inspections were done in terms of the foundation, plumbing, electrical and sewer, to make sure that everything was connected properly. All of these t things are consistent with a modular prefabricated home, which is a home that is built off-site and brought to the site and placed on a concrete foundation. This is what the evidence in the record leads us to believe. I did talk with the building inspector, but the information he provided me is not a part of the record that was heard by the Hearings Officer so, on advice of Legal Counsel, I'm not able go into that. LUKE: Did it have an insulation inspection? WHITE: I'm not sure what an insulation inspection looks like. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 3 of 9 Pages DEWOLF: It's a separate inspection, and would be checked on the inspection form. That's a key point. If this was a pure stick -built home, you would have to have it. If it came in as a manufactured home of some type, the insulation would be in place and you wouldn't have that part of the inspection. CRAGHEAD: I would also like to remind the Commissioners that there are a couple of different issues in deciding a non -conforming use. One is, was it legally established. Then you have to decide the nature and extent of what was legally established. So you may have a decision that a stick -built home was legally established, but may not be established for anything more than a farm worker house. DEWOLF: Maybe it doesn't matter, but what I want to know is, if in fact this is not a mobile home that was brought in on wheels, and if we are torn as to whether it was a manufactured off-site, brought in home, which would be more temporary than a permanently built, stick frame traditional home. The difference is, if by implication if the County went out and performed all of these inspections on it on a traditionally stick built home, is there some implication that we agreed that it was acceptable. CRAGHEAD: Your decision then would have to be, do you want to hear more evidence that you think the Hearings Officer did not consider. DEWOLF: If our belief is that this is a manufactured home, that fits in with the original criteria, which has its own implications. LUKE: The question is, was this an established home that they can take down and put up another home in place. That's what they want to do. They want to take this home out and establish one as a permanent residence. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 4 of 9 Pages 3'' I•p My understanding is that if it is a legal non -conforming use, then it can be modified and expanded so long as there is no greater adverse impact to the neighborhood. That would be the next step. DEWOLF: Let me take this down two tracks. One is, if it is a traditionally constructed frame home and we inappropriately allowed this to be built when the condition was that it be more temporary in nature. What I'm gathering here is that if we were to deny this, they would have potential recourse there through Circuit Court or what have you on that issue. And that's separate from what we are considering today. CRAGHEAD: That's an avenue they may want to consider. But I believe that the applicant has tied them together, believing that because of the fact the County may have made an error and established it as a legal non -conforming use. They could choose Circuit Court if they want to. DEWOLF: The second thing, is there a different avenue for the applicant to try to achieve this goal? In other words, another land use process that is more appropriate, rather than trying to make a non -conforming use where not allowed. CRAGHEAD: I don't believe so. There would no second dwelling allowed on this property normally. DEWOLF: Or get the zone changed. How far away are they from being able to do that? CRAGHEAD: It would mean taking an exception to the zoning. I don't know. WHITE: If it were a zone change, it would probably go to MUA-10 or RR -10, and you can still only have one dwelling. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 5 of 9 Pages LUKE: To me, if we were to hear this and found for the applicant, it would be setting precedent that says to people that they can do things on their property that is illegal, and if you get away with it for a certain length of time we're going to say it is okay. Under the law, if it had been there for twenty years, we wouldn't have been able to touch it. CRAGBEAD: It is entirely possible because of twenty-year limitation in State statute for non- conforming uses. DEWOLF: That's the problem that I have. Logically, it tells me that they are 600 to 700 feet from the city limits, and potentially could be brought into the city soon if the UGB is expanded. Everything changes and it comes under a whole different set of land use regulations. I mean, you look 600 feet away and you have neighborhoods there on small lots. Logically, I don't have a problem with this. But our role is to interpret and uphold the law as we see the law. It's my concern, too, the kind of precedence that we set if we go about trying to shoehorn things in that don't follow the law. And, from what I read here, this doesn't. DEWOLF: I move that we do not hear this appeal. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Revised Deschutes County Audit Committee Formation Documents. Mike Maier stated that Internal Auditor David Givans previously presented a draft document to the Board; the changes would incorporate more citizen members and remove some staff members from the Committee. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 6 of 9 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $52,755.72 (two weeks). DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $691.73 (two weeks). DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $3,301,389.56 (two weeks). DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 7 of 9 Pages 10. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 126, a Revocable License between Deschutes County and the Humane Society of Central Oregon. Laurie Craghead stated that the Humane Society of Central Oregon wants to break ground on its new facility as soon as possible. However, the transfer of the property has not been completed because of the partition application that is pending at the City of Bend. HSCO has asked that a license agreement with the County be approved so they can begin work on the property. The document, which holds HSCO responsible for what occurs on the property, has been completed by Legal Counsel and is ready for the Board to consider. DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Acting Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, Acting Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m. DATED this 24th Day of March 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary chael M.- Daly, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Commission Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Documents submitted by citizen Jo -Ann Ray regarding the proposed tire pyrolysis project (8 pages) Exhibit B: Copy of Medal of Honor Certificate awarded to Deputy Michael Takagi (1 page) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Page 9 of 9 Pages COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK 24 March 2004 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Commissioners: The Community Action Network has decided to postpone the date of our invitational speakers' seminar the Knott Landfill Pyrolysis project to allow invited parties to respond and prepare. We will be sending you e-mail and written invitations as soon as the location is secured. The format of this gathering will provide both sides of this most important issue, and give ample time for comments and questions. In addition, agencies and individuals who have not had a forum for their input will be given an opportunity to present their concerns and/or position on the matter. The Community Action Network will continue to provide the Board of Commission pertinent information at meetings and by e-mail. Thank you. Jo -Ann B. Ray ExhibitIq Page / of Knott Landfill Concerns We are extremely concerned about the health and welfare of the students at High Desert Middle School. With more tires (and we've seen how well you can follow health guidelines with regard to ricking tires, building 50' fire roads, covering them with tarps) the possibility of mosquitoes is a real one, couple that with the bird population (West Nile Virus is incubated in birds) and you have a real danger of a West Nile outbreak. That is horrendous with the students on the field across the street. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that West Nile is 40% fatal to horses. Years from now if our children become ill, who will be responsible to pay for their needs? Erin Brockovich is currently testifying that students at Beverly Hills High School have 20 to 30 times the number of cancer than the general population, as they prepare a lawsuit against the school. They have been exposed to an operating oil well next to their playing fields. What guarantees can you give us that our children will not develop serious illnesses because they exercised on the High Desert Middle School playing field across the street from your "Demonstration Project"? Will we see results of a consultation with OSHA on procedures and process? IRR will be long gone if contamination results in illness for any employees of the Landfill, Disposal Truck Drivers, IRR employees or resident users of the Landfill, OR the 800 students and numerous staff at High Desert Middle School become ill or die as a result of undisclosed contamination by "char" or pyrolytic oil, not to mention hazardous cleaning materials such as toluene or benzene, which are listed in your 1996/1997 manuals for the BEVEN TP 2000. How does the "char" get from the retort into the bags? How is the "char" going to be prevented from flying out of the building? How are you going to clean the inside of the building when the experiment is over or fails? Who pays? You are proposing a chemical manufacturing plant be built on our Landfill. You aren't a "recycling" operation, as nothing in your process can currently be recycled. All "char" is slated for the Landfill, and the pyrolytic oil (which IS NOT the same as home heating oil, but has three times the sulfur content and is not refined enough for house heating purposes) will be hauled off by the company that currently takes waste oil from the Landfill. All potential income producing streams are to be given away or buried in the Knott Landfill. Why are the MSDS sheets not filed with the Deschutes County Fire Marshall (Gary Marshall)? All toxic/hazardous materials must be listed, both consumable and by- products. I would like to hear from the Fire Marshall about the hazards to life and the environment. Who is providing your 1,000-2500 gallon oil tank, and has it been approved by the Fire Marshall? Exhibit A Page A of S Where will the rest of the oil be stored? If you pyrolyze 300 tires per day, you will produce 750 gallons of oil per day. Your tank will be overflowing in two days! Please explain the process of reducing the oil. How will the oil be transferred from the retort to tank to truck? What kind of contract has been signed with what trucking company? And are they licensed to transport flammable material? What route will they take? Since this system was never housed in a building, have you applied for a permit for the structure from the Fire Department? Planning Commission? Is the machinery itself certified by all necessary agencies and departments for operation in the US? Oregon? As part of maintenance, you will have to clean the scrubbers. How is this done? Where do the contaminants go? What kind of solvents will be used for this cleaning? Why is an environmental impact study by the EPA not required? Since IRR,LLC does not plan to recycle any of the by-products during this test year, how does Deschutes County benefit from your GRAND DEMONSTRATION project? We now haul our tires to Crook County (none end up in our Landfills) how does turning them into two unmarketable and very toxic materials (and unprofitable scrap steel at $5/ton) benefit the taxpayer? More goes into the landfill at what we think will be a greater cost! If this is such a great process, why, in the 20 or more years since its first appearance and 75 or more "demonstration projects" in the U.S. alone, is there not ONE commercially viable plant operating anywhere in the world today? An example, verified by the DEQ in Oregon, having the same by-products (oil, "char" and steel), operated in Multnomah County from '92-'94. Although it used a "gasification" process, and chipped tires, the end products were the same as pyrolysis. When the site was abandoned by the RMAC International company, they left a $1,300,000 clean-up for the DEQ and the County... and that didn't even clean up the soil; it just removed the tires, tire chips, "char" and oil left behind. The site is unusable today... We read about another plant in VA, but that turned out to have gone bankrupt and was dismantled over 14 years ago. This was verified by VA DEQ, by a Mr. Lassiter, who is Ms. Guililand's counterpart in that state. IRR's claim that the "Belgian" process of milling the "char" isn't operating in Norway or Finland (since IRR can't get its position quite together), but is going to be presented in Europe later this month, according to its inventor, Mr. Fader. It may be years away from being built, and "demonstrated" successfully in Europe, before it can be imported to the U. S. And I don't think Bend is the place for that demonstration either. Exhibit Page �� of How will your employees be outfitted? Will they have to wear respirators? Safety clothing? How will they clean up when they are finished working? Because we haven't seen a cost analysis of the plant, reasonably written safety, maintenance or process manuals (and we'll have to sign a secrecy agreement if we are one of the chosen to see them), we cannot endorse this project. We won't subject our children to something we can't verify. IRR has never shown that they have built or operated a successful pyrolytic tire plant. How do we know you have the scientific or engineering background to handle the inevitable upsets and breakdowns that are historically problems with pyrolytic tire plants? Why is the assumption that there will be no dioxins or PCBs a reasonable one? Oxygen can be present in the tires, can leach into the system from a variety of openings for probes and hoses, thermocouples etc. All it needs is chlorine to produce high levels of dioxin and PCBs. Since there will be no testing for either, why is it reasonable to assume they won't be produced?" We witnessed the illegal stockpiling of tires (12,000) when the allowed amount was 2000. The petition for more tires includes being responsible to rick the tires, build fire lanes and protect against water standing in the tires (which would provide a ripe breeding ground for mosquitoes, and with West Nile Virus on its way to the Northwest, especially in the ranch area around the Landfill, horses will be at risk, not to mention the 800 students at the High Desert Middle School! With the birds that gather at the landfill it makes the risk of West Nile that much Greater!) None of these precautions was taken during the 6 months of non-compliance on the number of tires at the landfill. The only conclusion we can draw from all of this is that this is possibly the worst idea this County has ever seriously considered. Jo -Ann B. Ray Community Action Network http://www.bendcan.com j oannray(ir),b e ndnet. com Exhibit Page __ - of 8 Michael Blumenthal, March 3, 2004 Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 The simple fact is that no scrap tires are being pyrolyzed in the United States on a production basis. There have indeed been several sites where people are testing or developing their technologies. And there are research sites, primarily at universities, where tire rubber is being pyrolyzed. But none of these add up to any significant or indeed recordable volume, and none of the sites are being operated on a production basis. In Pennsylvania the former de Beers facility in Wind Gap, PA did operate at one time, but has been essentially shut down for several years. In the meantime, it has been bought and sold several times by various promoters who appeared to believe that there was a viable market in selling pyrolysis operations. Understand that is selling pyrolysis operations, not in pyrolyzing tires. I understand that the most recent attempt to restart it was halted when a workman was killed in an explosion. It is likely true that the ultimate success of any pyrolysis operation is not in the process of pyrolyzing tires; rather it is in the ability to market the end products, the gaseous and liquid fractions and the solid carbonaceous char. It is a simple matter of due diligence to ask any marketer of pyrolysis technology where he sells his by-products; ask to see the contracts he has and visit the customers he has for the oil fraction and the char fraction. Do not rely on simple statements that these products "can be sold to ..."; ask for the proof. The lure of the pyrolysis option has been around for several years, at least since the oil shocks of the early 1970's. Indeed, two tire companies undertook extensive research on pyrolysis and came away both having extended the range of knowledge about the process and having reached conclusions that pyrolysis held little prospect for being a significant technology for managing scrap tires. One should also recall that pyrolysis as a technology has been tested with several other organic materials. I believe that there was a major government funded demonstration project to pyrolyze municipal solid waste ["garbage"]. When that project was a complete failure, the issue was not heard from again as a strategy to deal with MSW. In the plastics field, the American Plastic Council conducted extensive testing of pyrolysis of plastics, only to conclude that it was not economically feasible to use pyrolysis to manage scrap plastics. Only with tires do we see the fairly regular infatuation with pyrolysis. About every 5 years, a new group of "developers" appears on the scene promoting pyrolysis technology, some of it new, some of it from the last go -round. If one of these promoters succeeds is bringing his risky scheme to fruition, and demonstrates an economically sound end use or uses for the byproducts, and within an economic structure that can be competitive with existing scrap tire options, then more power to him. If there comes a time when this happens, and scrap tires are being pyrolyzed on a production basis, we will report the data. Exhibit A Page -5- of Other issues to address: What are the economics of your situation? Taking in 50,000 tires a year will yield slightly less than $50,000 in revenue; what are the annualized costs to build/operate this facility? What will the company receive in revenue for the by-products less the costs of shipping? How much does virgin and off -spec carbon black sell for? What is their price? Community Action Network http://www.bendcan.com Exhibit Page (p of March 22, 2004 The fact this company does not have contracts for the by-products should be the central reason that their request for a permit be denied. The denial is not a function of the fact that this is a pyrolysis facility. It is a function of the fact that they do not have markets for their end products. It is also common for regulating agencies to deny permits for tire processing operations, any tire processing operation, until/unless they have contracts for the processed tires they take in. The rationale is that without these markets/contracts, tires will come into the facility but will have no where to go. The facility would take in tires until they reached their permitted limit, then would have to stop taking in tires or close (violation of the permit conditions). History has indicated that such a scenario usually ends up with an abandoned scrap tire pile. Consequently, regulators must be shown that the tires that come in will indeed go out as a finished product. Further to this point, if the company is stating that they will land dispose the carbon char, the entire reason for this operation to be in existence must be questioned. The major problem with this technology has been the inability to be operated on an economically viable manner. In general, any scrap tire processing operation would be paid to take in whole scrap tires (a tip fee). The tip fee is typically used to cover the costs of handling/processing the tire into whatever by- product stream for which the facility is designed. Real economic viability is a function of the companies ability to sell the products they make. For any operation to be successful these materials must be sold for a price that will cover the companies costs to produce/handle/transport the products in question. In other words, make a profit. If this proposed operation is stating that they will be land disposing a significant percentage of their by-product stream, then the remaining materials must be sold at an even higher amount, or the facility would probably operate at a loss. Selling your materials where you sustain a loss on all materials sold is not the description of a company that will be long in business. I must also question the statement about landfilling the carbon char based on their statement that this material is pure carbon. If it is that pure, why landfill it? But the statement that this material is pure carbon is misleading. The carbon char generated from a pyrolytic operation is certainly high in carbon, and it is certainly black. But by definition it is not carbon black (as defined by ASTM). There is typically a considerable amount of ash in this char, as well as any/all solids that were used in the manufacturing of the tires that were pyrolyzed. Have there been pyrolytic operations permitted/operated in the United States. Yes, there have been several. However, none were operated on a commercially viable basis and all closed in a matter of months. In Oregon scrap tires are used a fuel (tire -derived fuel) in a cement kiln. Ground rubber (finely processed particles of rubber) are used by several companies to manufacture new products. Finally, tires are shredded and used in civil engineering applications (tires used in lieu of conventional construction materials --sand, dust, etc.). In the case of Bend, Oregon, I would suggest civil engineering applications (tires shreds used in landfill construction) as a reasonable/viable use of the tires available in your area. Exhibit Page —7 of )f Your question concerning the temperature at which tires burn; tires will burn at 1202 F (mostly smoke) and will auto -ignite at 1800 F. Once a tire catches fire, they are very difficult to extinguish. Burying the tire with dirt might extinguish a single tire. If there is a pile of tires, covering them with dirt would create a pyrolytic condition where an oil -like material would ultimately ooze from the pile. This is a most undesirable condition. In conclusion let me state that a pyrolytic operation, like any proposed scrap tire operation, must demonstrate the ability to sell the by-products they produce in a manner that will ensure their economic viability. If this can not be demonstrated, all permits should be denied until such a time when they can do so. There have been too many examples where a company's good intention has left a community an abandoned pile of scrap tires. Michael Blumenthal Senior Technical Director Rubber Manufacturers Association Exhibit__ Page _ of r'Nt CO = N CO d L += Q W d D W C!) �J ��a,o3 CnLU W 5 E ai O6w LU 0 o= = O ca i N •� ~ U O } O E E O co Co W W W = 0 C, y J � D Z Q L aa) 0) -0 Lo ZLU = 0-0 = cc -a ._. O J ca o C L H F d 3 Z,J 3 3= o L O� V LLJ W Cn �" o -� Z � C= J W W C. a> > y W L Q = I— 2 = *, o c=a ', = g U 66 z F— oc ea CL .W -a m � z ccopW yLU 0cOviLE cc 0'�Q N LO > r > O � �: 66 �Q.oEm�a0.0 N JOG CL d s ZO ti CO LU - :C is > ;, o q z �. •a o 3 W v �O J �' L �— �� OZ W. oU,00�Q �W W co 'C C �_�. om=cv2 OOH O = V tO, = m ea •Q• 'a Q LL N ZL6 �':' oWv, ====L� Wz C' J O >0 eft W1iZ WW OJ Cc 3 C LU �QO c o��o ANO m U z o o v~ W W W Q Za =oa=Hc.' MLL. Co -a L •— U V~ W W W y= .L Q. cal Z 1w 0 (� m JZ L >, Lu CL W O Q d cc a� o Q �% 'Q = w Q0 EL+-. L.F mW = ca d O C� r, U _� a pmts CO) m (n F=•- ti z� y Z 2 E y •- ZE LU = O� ai°'c0ssd Off= �+ 2 as as F- C/A N U� �� i, _ QOM Q W :> cCc CL s y_ s Z O� dLai�ii n u i S L6 W Exhibit 6 Page —L of I